Satisfaction with partner’s appearance, body criticism, and relationship quality in heterosexual couples: A dyadic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical appearance and attraction are key factors shaping dynamics and perceptions in romantic relationships, contributing to satisfaction and overall relationship quality. This study aimed to investigate the associations between appearance-related factors and relationship quality in heterosexual couples using the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM). Specifically, we examined how each partner's perceptions of body criticism from the other, satisfaction with the partner's appearance, perceived partner satisfaction with one's appearance, and relationship quality are interrelated. A dyadic model was tested to include both intrapersonal (actor-to-actor) and interpersonal (actor-to-partner) associations. The sample consisted of 167 heterosexual adult couples from Quebec, Canada. The findings revealed small to moderate similarity within couples regarding satisfaction with their partner's appearance, perceived partner satisfaction with their own appearance, and perceived body criticism. Actors' satisfaction with their partner's appearance was associated both directly and indirectly (through perceived partner satisfaction with one's appearance) with their own relationship quality. Interestingly, women's satisfaction with their partner's appearance was directly associated with their partner's relationship quality, a pattern not observed in men. Additionally, individuals who reported higher levels of body criticism from their partner perceived lower partner satisfaction with their appearance, which was linked to poorer relationship quality. Overall, these results underscore the complex interplay between appearance-related perceptions and mutual satisfaction in fostering relationship quality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".