MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044216884 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1917036117

Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies

2020· article· en· W3044216884 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha Joel, Paul W. Eastwick, Colleen J. Allison, Ximena B. Arriaga, Zachary G. Baker, Eran Bar‐Kalifa, Sophie Bergeron, Gurit E. Birnbaum, Rebecca L. Brock, Claudia Chloe Brumbaugh, Cheryl L. Carmichael, Serena Chen, Jennifer Clarke, Rebecca J. Cobb, Michael K. Coolsen, Jody L. Davis, David C. de Jong, Anik Debrot, Eva C. DeHaas, Jaye L. Derrick, Jami Eller, Marie-Jöelle Estrada, Ruddy Faure, Eli J. Finkel, R. Chris Fraley, Shelly L. Gable, Reuma Gadassi Polack, Yuthika U. Girme, Amie M. Gordon, Courtney L. Gosnell, Matthew D. Hammond, Peggy A. Hannon, Cheryl Harasymchuk, Wilhelm Hofmann, Andrea B. Horn, Emily A. Impett, Jeremy P. Jamieson, Dacher Keltner, James J. Kim, Jeffrey L. Kirchner, Esther S. Kluwer, Madoka Kumashiro, Grace Larson, Gal Lazarus, Jill M. Logan, Laura B. Luchies, Geoff MacDonald, Laura V. Machia, Michael R. Maniaci, Jessica A. Maxwell, Moran Mizrahi, Amy Muise, Sylvia Niehuis, Brian G. Ogolsky, C. Rebecca Oldham, Nickola C. Overall, Meinrad Perrez, Brett J. Peters, Paula R. Pietromonaco, Sally I. Powers, Thery Prok, Rony Pshedetzky‐Shochat, Eshkol Rafaeli, Erin L. Ramsdell, Maija Reblin, Michaël Reicherts, Alan Reifman, Harry T. Reis, Galena K. Rhoades, W. Steven Rholes, Francesca Righetti, Lindsey M. Rodriguez, Ronald D. Rogge, Natalie O. Rosen, Darby Saxbe, Haran Sened, Jeffry A. Simpson, Erica B. Slotter, Scott M. Stanley, Shevaun L. Stocker, Cathy Surra, Hagar ter Kuile, Allison A. Vaughn, Amanda M. Vicary, Mariko L. Visserman, Scott T. Wolf

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoCarleton UniversityUniversité de MontréalSimon Fraser UniversityWestern University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Mental HealthSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Cancer InstituteGovernment of Canada
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Longitudinal studyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the powerful implications of relationship quality for health and well-being, a central mission of relationship science is explaining why some romantic relationships thrive more than others. This large-scale project used machine learning (i.e., Random Forests) to 1) quantify the extent to which relationship quality is predictable and 2) identify which constructs reliably predict relationship quality. Across 43 dyadic longitudinal datasets from 29 laboratories, the top relationship-specific predictors of relationship quality were perceived-partner commitment, appreciation, sexual satisfaction, perceived-partner satisfaction, and conflict. The top individual-difference predictors were life satisfaction, negative affect, depression, attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety. Overall, relationship-specific variables predicted up to 45% of variance at baseline, and up to 18% of variance at the end of each study. Individual differences also performed well (21% and 12%, respectively). Actor-reported variables (i.e., own relationship-specific and individual-difference variables) predicted two to four times more variance than partner-reported variables (i.e., the partner's ratings on those variables). Importantly, individual differences and partner reports had no predictive effects beyond actor-reported relationship-specific variables alone. These findings imply that the sum of all individual differences and partner experiences exert their influence on relationship quality via a person's own relationship-specific experiences, and effects due to moderation by individual differences and moderation by partner-reports may be quite small. Finally, relationship-quality change (i.e., increases or decreases in relationship quality over the course of a study) was largely unpredictable from any combination of self-report variables. This collective effort should guide future models of relationships.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations301
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207