Knowing What You Want: The Role of Relationship Clarity in Single Young Adults' Loneliness and Well‐Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The goal of the current study was to explore the role of relationship clarity—the extent to which someone understands what they want in a relationship—in single young adults' dating experiences. We hypothesized that for single individuals who are actively dating, lacking clearly defined dating goals may lead to greater loneliness and, in turn, account for decreased life satisfaction. We first validated the Relationship Clarity Scale (RCS) using data from both Studies 1 and 2 ( N = 375). Across two studies, we then examined single young adults' dating experiences and reports of relationship clarity cross‐sectionally (Study 1: N = 191) and longitudinally (Study 2: N = 184). Findings revealed that for single young adults who were actively dating, lower relationship clarity (i.e., not knowing what one is looking for in a romantic relationship) predicted increased loneliness over time, and this loneliness accounted for decreased life satisfaction. These findings offer insight into how the clarity of romantic goals during early dating stages may be important for single people's well‐being and, ultimately, for life satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".