Maltreatment in Childhood and Perceived Partner Responsiveness in Adult Romantic Relationships: A Dyadic Daily Diary and Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the associations between childhood maltreatment (CM) and the mean-level of perceived partner responsiveness (PPR; the extent to which individuals feel cared for, understood, and validated by their partner) over 35 days, the day-to-day variability in PPR, and the initial levels and trajectories of PPR over 1 year in community couples. Both members of 228 couples completed a self-reported measure of CM and provided daily reports of PPR over 35 days and retrospective reports of PPR at three time points over 1 year. A person's greater CM was related to a lower mean level of PPR over 35 days and to a lower initial level of their own PPR. A person's sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect had an effect over and above other forms of CM in these associations. A person's greater CM was also related to higher day-to-day variability in their own and their partner's PPR, and a person's greater emotional neglect was associated with a sharper decrease over time in their own PPR. These findings provide a more fine-grained understanding of how CM may affect the perceptions of being cared about, accepted, and validated by a partner on a daily basis and over time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".