Reciprocal Effects of Marital Idealization and Marital Satisfaction Between Long-Wed Spouses Over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".