An Examination of Third-Party Disapproval in Intercultural Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intercultural couples tend to experience a unique set of challenges associated with them, such as disapproval from close social networks. This disapproval has been associated with decreased commitment and uncertainty within couples, leading to issues of trust between partners. The influence of third-party disapproval, however, affects a romantic couple differently depending on the source of the disapproval. Few studies have examined and compared the individual influences of family and friend disapproval on romantic relationships, and even less have researched these effects on intercultural dating couples. We used archival data from 63 heterosexual couples to examine the separate influences of family and friend disapproval on romantic investment while controlling for trust, which is a key factor in successful romantic relationships. As predicted, the results of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) analyses demonstrated that family and friend disapproval negatively affected one’s investment. Mediation analyses revealed that trust only mediated the relationship between friend disapproval and relationship investment, and not family disapproval. Limitations and future implications are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".