Making (Enough for) Love: The Association of Income and Relationship Readiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective To examine the relation of unpartnered individuals' financial situation to satisfaction with singlehood, desire for a relationship, and likelihood of partnering. Is higher income related to happier singlehood and/or a stronger draw towards romantic relationships? Background The link between income and romantic relationships has so far been examined mainly in the context of existing relationships, with higher income related to lower conflict levels and more likelihood of transition to marriage. The present research extends this work to focus on currently single individuals and their satisfaction with singlehood as well as desire for (and likelihood of transitioning into) a relationship. Method The link between singles' self‐reported income and their satisfaction with their single relationship status, desire to begin a relationship, perceived relationship readiness, as well as odds of starting a relationship was examined across two longitudinal studies ( N Study1 = 638; N Study2 = 4179). Results Higher income was unrelated to satisfaction with singlehood but correlated with more desire for a relationship, higher relationship readiness, and longitudinally predicted a greater likelihood of actually starting a relationship. No significant gender differences emerged for the link between income and relationship attitudes in either study. Conclusion The financial well‐being of young adults is linked with romantic desire, perceived readiness for relationships, and actual transitioning into intimate partnerships.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".