Conditional regard, stress, and dyadic adjustment in primiparous couples: A dyadic analysis perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many couples transitioning into parenthood are at risk for dyadic adjustment declines. It is therefore important to explore key, theory-driven deterrents of enduring relationships during this period, as well as potential underlying mechanisms. This study examined the relationship between perceived conditional negative regard (i.e. a behavior that thwarts basic psychological needs; T1), stress (T1), and dyadic adjustment (T2) during the transition to parenthood. Primiparous couples ( N = 144) were recruited to fill out an online questionnaire when their babies were 6-months (T1) and 12-months (T2). Path analysis with an Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model was conducted. Results show that for each partner (actor effects), stress (T1) mediated the link between perceived conditional negative regard (T1), and later dyadic adjustment (T2). For the partner effects, while stress (T1) did not play a mediating role between these variables, other partner effects were found. Each primiparous parent’s perceived conditional negative regard (T1) was associated with the other parent’s later dyadic adjustment (T2). However, when examining longitudinal changes in stress and dyadic adjustment over time (T2, controlling for respective T1), no significant associations were found. Overall, the findings shed light on the dyadic associations of conditional negative regard, and the mechanisms through which it is negatively tied with dyadic adjustment during the transition to parenthood.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".