“Don’t Get Above Yourself ”: Heterosexual Cross-Class Couples Are Viewed Less Favorably
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined perceptions of cross-class heterosexual couples, that is, couples where couple members differ in social class. Informed by social dominance theory, system justification theory, and equity theory, we predicted that (a) cross- (vs. same-) class couples would be perceived more negatively, (b) cross-class couples with the woman (vs. the man) in the higher class position would be evaluated more negatively, and (c) same-class low-low (vs. high-high) couples would be evaluated more negatively. We examined perceptions of cross-income, cross-education, and cross-occupation status relationships. We found support for our predicted patterns, with some exceptions. In general, high-high class couples were preferred. In three of four studies, a higher-class woman paired with a lower-class man was evaluated most negatively of all couples. Recognition of this prejudice may explain challenges faced by certain couples and couple members; as such, implications for clinicians and counselors are discussed. Further, our research generates directions for future research. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684319878459
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".