Gender differences—or the lack thereof—in the prediction of relationship dissolution among unmarried mixed-gender couples from the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines gender differences in the degree to which men’s and women’s views of their relationship predict eventual dissolution among mixed-gender couples. We analyzed data from a national sample of 314 unmarried mixed-gender couples from the United States that were surveyed across four years to test gender differences in associations between baseline levels of perceived likelihood of breaking up, relationship satisfaction, commitment, and love and relationship dissolution across one, two, three, and four years. Probit regression models revealed women’s greater perceived likelihood of breakup was a stronger predictor of relationship dissolution two years later than their male partner’s reports, but men’s and women’s perceived likelihood of breakup did not differ in the strength of predicting dissolution across one-, three-, and four-year follow-up. Women’s low commitment emerged as a significantly stronger predictor of relationship dissolution across two, three, and four years than their male partner’s commitment (but not at one year). Women’s and men’s relationship satisfaction and love did not differ in predicting dissolution across all time intervals; those less satisfied with their relationship and with less love for their partner were more likely to dissolve their relationship. Although commitment may be an area where women’s reports take primacy in predicting future breakup among adult unmarried mixed-gender couples, the results add to a growing body of literature finding that women’s and men’s views of their partnership are similarly diagnostic of future relationship outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".