MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214570991 · doi:10.1177/00914150221077953

Reciprocal Effects of Marital Idealization and Marital Satisfaction Between Long-Wed Spouses Over Time

2022· article· en· W4214570991 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ariel Pollock Star, Ella Cohn‐Schwartz, Norm O’Rourke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Aging and Human Development · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of AgingSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIdealizationSpousePsychologyInterpersonal communicationInterpersonal relationshipSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMarital TherapyClinical psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marital idealization is defined as an interpersonal mode of self-deception whereby husbands and wives convey an exceedingly positive portrayal of their spouse and relationship (e.g., “My spouse has never made me angry”). For the Marriage and Health Study, we obtained responses from 119 long-wed couples at baseline, 1- and 2-years later ( M = 34 years married). We first computed and compared contemporaneous actor-partner interdependence models (APIMs) suggesting that marital satisfaction predicts marital idealization within and between spouses; the reverse APIM was not supported (i.e., marital idealization did not predict marital satisfaction). Yet our analyses suggest the question should be answered with longitudinal data. When reported contemporaneously, husbands’ marital satisfaction predicts marital idealization by their wives. The same cross-over effect is observed for wives—but not concomitantly, only in future. That is, marital satisfaction and idealization reported by wives predicts marital idealization reported by their husbands 2-years later.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Aging and Human DevelopmentSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207