It’s Just a Little Crush: Attraction to an Alternative and Romantic Relationship Quality, Breakups and Infidelity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the course of an intimate relationship, individuals will frequently encounter potential alternative partners and may in fact develop romantic or sexual attraction to them. It is unclear when a more distal attraction to a potential alternative (a "crush") is associated with impaired relationship quality to one's primary relationship. A growing body of work indicates that crushes are common among those in established, ostensibly monogamous relationships. Yet such attractions likely constitute a starting point for establishing new relationships, including through infidelity. This study was designed to help clarify whether and how extradyadic attraction is linked to compromised relationship quality for a primary relationship, infidelity, and breakup. Participants were 542 adults (22-35 years) in exclusive intimate relationships of at least three months' duration who reported an attraction toward a potential alternative. They were recruited online from crowdsourcing websites and social media to complete two surveys, four months apart. Path analyses indicated that greater attraction intensity was linked to lower relationship quality in one's primary relationship. Overall, few participants became romantically or sexually involved with their crush over the course of the study. However, lower relationship quality was linked to desire to engage in infidelity and primary relationship breakup four months later. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for other researchers examining maintenance of intimate relationships, educators who teach about attraction processes, as well as counselors supporting couples in distress.
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 | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".