Relationship quality in midlife: A comparison of dating, <scp>living apart together</scp>, cohabitation, and marriage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study compared the relationship quality of U.S. midlife adults in dating, living apart together (LAT) relationships, cohabitation, and marriage. Background: Unmarried partnerships are gaining ground in midlife but how these partnerships compare to each other and to marriage is unclear. From an incomplete institutionalization perspective, those in unmarried relationships, especially LAT relationships but also cohabitations, face challenges due to unclear relationship norms and expectations which may eventuate in poorer relationship quality than that of the married. Alternatively, cohabitation and, by extension, LAT relationships, offer flexibility and autonomy and thus may function as an alternative to marriage marked by comparable relationship quality. Method: Data were drawn from the 2013 Families and Relationships Survey, a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults. The analytic sample was composed of adults aged 50-65 in a partnership (N=2,166). Multivariable models compared the associations between relationship type (dating, LAT, cohabiting, and married) and relationship quality (happiness, support, commitment, disagreement, and instability). Results: The incomplete institutionalization perspective was supported for LATs, who tended to report poorer relationship quality than marrieds. For cohabitors, this perspective received mixed support. Although cohabitors reported less happiness and commitment than marrieds, which aligned with the incomplete institutionalization perspective, the groups did not differ on relationship support, disagreement, or instability, supporting the cohabitation as an alternative to marriage perspective. Dating, LAT and cohabiting relationships were remarkably alike. Conclusion: This study has implications for understanding the shifting landscape of relationships in midlife which in turn may shape individual health and well-being.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".