Personality and Well-Being Across and Within Relationship Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trends of increasing singlehood call for understanding of well-being correlates across and within relationship status. While personality is a major predictor of well-being, descriptive trait profiles of singles have not been developed. In the present research ( N = 1,811; 53% men; M age = 29), single and partnered individuals completed measures of personality and well-being, including life, relationship status, and sexual satisfaction. Results revealed effects whereby single individuals were lower in extraversion and conscientiousness but higher in neuroticism. Additional facet analyses showed that singles were lower across all extraversion facets, but specifically lower in productiveness (conscientiousness facet) and higher in depression (neuroticism facet). Largely, personality was associated with well-being similarly for single and partnered people. Furthermore, relationship status accounted for variance in well-being above and beyond personality traits. Our results suggest individual differences in personality could play an important role in understanding well-being’s link with relationship status.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".