Partner (in)congruence in gender role attitudes and relationship satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The societal shift toward greater gender equality has led to increased variability in people's gender role attitudes, or the belief that men and women should occupy distinct family roles (i.e. men as breadwinners and women as homemakers). Existing evidence on the association between gender role attitudes and relationship well-being remains inconclusive with mixed findings, likely because past research has not adequately considered the direction and degree of (in)congruencies between partners within the relationship. Using longitudinal samples of 1,327 couples from the United States and 5,856 couples from Germany tracked over 2 and 13 years, respectively, we employed dyadic response surface analysis to examine how different patterns of partner (in)congruencies in gender role attitudes predict relationship well-being in mixed-gender relationships. The results showed that, for US men and German men and women, the direction of incongruence between partners' gender role attitudes mattered: relationship satisfaction was higher when men adopted more egalitarian attitudes than women (or conversely, when women adopted more traditional attitudes than men) compared with the reverse. Relationship satisfaction was also higher when both partners showed congruence in extreme gender role attitudes (either strongly traditional or egalitarian) than when either partner endorsed more neutral attitudes. US women reported higher relationship satisfaction only when either partner endorsed more egalitarian attitudes. Although past research emphasizes the benefits of partner similarity for relationship well-being, our findings highlight the importance of both similarity and complementarity in gender role attitudes, potentially subject to cultural and contextual factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".