MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113684812 · doi:10.1111/pere.12365

Associations between satisfaction with one's own and partner's body and relationship outcomes

2020· article· en· W3113684812 on OpenAlexaff
Marilou Côté, Marie‐Pier Vaillancourt‐Morel, Stéphane Sabourin, Catherine Bégin

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonal Relationships · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPath analysis (statistics)Sexual relationshipRomanceSocial psychologyAssociation (psychology)Partner effectsLower bodyPositive relationshipDevelopmental psychologyHuman sexualityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Body dissatisfaction has been consistently associated with sexual and relationship dissatisfaction; however, much less is known about the association between satisfaction with the partner's body and relationship outcomes. Our aim was to examine the mediating role of sexual satisfaction in the associations between one's satisfaction with one's own and partner's body and relationship satisfaction. Two hundred and thirty‐one cohabiting heterosexual couples completed questionnaires online. The results of path analyses within an actor–partner interdependence model revealed that, for women, there was a significant negative indirect effect of body dissatisfaction on their own relationship satisfaction through their sexual satisfaction. For men, dissatisfaction with their partner's body was negatively related to their own relationship satisfaction with no significant indirect effect through sexual satisfaction. The present study extends previous research using dyadic analyses to test an integrative model that includes satisfaction with one's own and one's partner's body, which relates to sexual and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples. By broadening our understanding of body image issues within romantic relationships according to gender, we deepen our knowledge of personal 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonal RelationshipsSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207