In Sync? Assessing Partners' Similarities in Comfort With Physical Affection–Sharing as a Predictor of Relationship Well‐Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Physical affection‐sharing (e.g., holding hands) is associated with better relational well‐being. But does similarity/dissimilarity in couple members' comfort with affection‐sharing also predict relationship well‐being? The current study utilized data collected from an online self‐report survey at both the individual ( n = 1832) and dyadic ( n = 86 couples) level, to assess whether partners' mean comfort with affection‐sharing, as well as their perceived/actual similarity, predicted relationship well‐being, and whether any associations varied by context (public vs. private) and/or relationship type (same‐sex vs. mixed‐sex). Considering these contextual variables may be important, as those in same‐sex relationships are less comfortable with public affection‐sharing due to ongoing stigma. Higher mean comfort with affection‐sharing was generally associated with better relationship well‐being, more strongly so in private than in public. Perceived dissimilarities in couple members' comfort with affection sharing were consistently associated with worse well‐being at the bivariate level. Results were less consistent when considering actual similarity/dissimilarity and when controlling for mean comfort levels. There were minor variations in the patterns for those in same‐sex and mixed‐sex relationships; overall, though, results were much more similar than different across relationship types.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".