Loneliness is associated with the subjective evaluation of but not daily dynamics in partner relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loneliness describes a perceived deficiency in quantitative or qualitative aspects of individuals’ social relationships. Whereas the health-related consequences of loneliness are well-documented, surprisingly little is known about its interpersonal features and its consequences for relationship outcomes. In the present study, we investigated the association between loneliness and relationship experiences in partner relationships with a sample of 937 individuals from 480 mixed-sex couples. By employing actor-partner interdependence models and dyadic cross-lagged moderated multilevel models, we found higher loneliness to be robustly related to (a) lower relationship satisfaction for both oneself and the partner, (b) more self-reported, but not partner-reported conflicts, (c) lower average levels of one’s own, but not the partner’s closeness, and (d) less own self-disclosure. In contrast, loneliness was not associated with (a) sexual contact frequency, (b) average levels of physical affection, or (c) the daily dynamics between closeness and self-disclosure/physical affection. Thus, the results of the present study indicated that loneliness is primarily associated with the perception of the partner relationship but not its rather objective features or daily dynamics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".