Relationship satisfaction and commitment in the transition to parenthood: A couple‐centered approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To provide a more comprehensive understanding of couple relationship satisfaction, commitment, and the dynamic between the two over the transition to parenthood. Background The transition to parenthood is an ideal time to concurrently study relationship satisfaction and commitment, as this period is filled with familial transitions such as less couple time, more domestic labor, and the formation of parent–child relationships. These familial transitions require significant investments that may constrain people from leaving relationships, potentially leading to diverging relationship satisfaction and commitment trajectories. Method We conducted dyadic latent class growth analyses (DLCGA), assessing variability in relationship satisfaction and commitment trajectories across six time‐points (two prenatal) for 203 couples expecting their first child, through 12 months postpartum. Results We identified four couple classes for relationship satisfaction and three couple classes for relationship commitment. There were 46% of couples who retained high satisfaction and commitment and another 35% of couples who retained moderately high satisfaction and high commitment. Couples reporting lower attachment avoidance, higher relational self‐expansion, and higher perceived partner commitment during pregnancy were more likely to be in classes that maintained high relationship satisfaction and commitment during the transition. Conclusion Our results contrast the prevailing narrative about relational declines during the transition to parenthood. Many couples retain high satisfaction and commitment into the first year of parenthood, with declines driven primarily by a minority of couples. Couples' commitment was particularly likely to be high and stable throughout the transition.
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".