Socioeconomic inequality undermines relationship quality in romantic relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research tests how socioeconomic inequality (within romantic relationships) predicts relationship quality and observable expressions of emotion—examining longitudinal self-report and behavioral data from both partners of romantic couples. In Part 1, we examined the romantic partners’ self-reports of relationship quality at baseline and after three and a half months. In keeping with prior research on how power inequality undermines relationship satisfaction, couples defined by greater socioeconomic inequality showed a decline in relationship quality over time. In Part 2, we examined observer ratings of emotional expressions in the romantic partners’ conversations in the laboratory. Here, we found greater expression of negative emotion in the conversations of couples defined by greater inequality. Importantly, it was inequality itself—rather than whether one has higher or lower socioeconomic status than the partner—that significantly predicted changes in relationship quality and observable expressions of negative emotion. These findings have implications for how deepening economic inequality may manifest in the weakening of intimate bonds—the quality of which is central to the well-being of individuals and broader society.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".