4 research outputs found
Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies
Given the powerful implications of relationship quality for health and well-being, a central mission of relationship science is explaining why some romantic relationships thrive more than others. This large-scale project used machine learning (i.e., Random Forests) to 1) quantify the extent to which relationship quality is predictable and 2) identify which constructs reliably predict relationship quality. Across 43 dyadic longitudinal datasets from 29 laboratories, the top relationship-specific predictors of relationship quality were perceived-partner commitment, appreciation, sexual satisfaction, perceived-partner satisfaction, and conflict. The top individual-difference predictors were life satisfaction, negative affect, depression, attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety. Overall, relationship-specific variables predicted up to 45% of variance at baseline, and up to 18% of variance at the end of each study. Individual differences also performed well (21% and 12%, respectively). Actor-reported variables (i.e., own relationship-specific and individual-difference variables) predicted two to four times more variance than partner-reported variables (i.e., the partner’s ratings on those variables). Importantly, individual differences and partner reports had no predictive effects beyond actor-reported relationship-specific variables alone. These findings imply that the sum of all individual differences and partner experiences exert their influence on relationship quality via a person’s own relationship-specific experiences, and effects due to moderation by individual differences and moderation by partner-reports may be quite small. Finally, relationship-quality change (i.e., increases or decreases in relationship quality over the course of a study) was largely unpredictable from any combination of self-report variables. This collective effort should guide future models of relationships
Self-other overlap: A unique predictor of willingness to work with people with disability as part of one's career.
BackgroundPeople with disability (PWD) often rely on others, both for direct support and for the creation of enabling environments to meet their needs. This need makes it crucial for professionals to be willing to work with PWD, and for people to pursue careers that focus on supporting PWD.ObjectivesTo explore self-other overlap as a unique predictor of willingness to work with PWD as part of one's career, using three studies.MethodsStudies 1 and 2 used cross-sectional surveys of college undergraduates to explore: 1. whether an association between self-other overlap and willingness to work with PWD exists, and 2. whether self-other overlap is a unique predictor, controlling for attitudes and empathy. Study 3 investigated whether self-other overlap is associated with the groups with whom the students indicated they want (and do not want) to work as part of their career.ResultsAcross the three studies, self-other overlap was uniquely associated with students' willingness to work with PWD as part of one's profession, even when controlling for attitudes and empathy.ConclusionsSelf-other overlap may be an important additional factor to take into consideration when developing interventions targeted toward promoting working with PWD
Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies
Given the powerful implications of relationship quality for health and well-being, a central mission of relationship science is explaining why some romantic relationships thrive more than others. This large-scale project used machine learning (i.e., Random Forests) to 1) quantify the extent to which relationship quality is predictable and 2) identify which constructs reliably predict relationship quality. Across 43 dyadic longitudinal datasets from 29 laboratories, the top relationship-specific predictors of relationship quality were perceived-partner commitment, appreciation, sexual satisfaction, perceived-partner satisfaction, and conflict. The top individual-difference predictors were life satisfaction, negative affect, depression, attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety. Overall, relationship-specific variables predicted up to 45% of variance at baseline, and up to 18% of variance at the end of each study. Individual differences also performed well (21% and 12%, respectively). Actor-reported variables (i.e., own relationship-specific and individual-difference variables) predicted two to four times more variance than partner-reported variables (i.e., the partner's ratings on those variables). Importantly, individual differences and partner reports had no predictive effects beyond actor-reported relationship-specific variables alone. These findings imply that the sum of all individual differences and partner experiences exert their influence on relationship quality via a person's own relationship-specific experiences, and effects due to moderation by individual differences and moderation by partner-reports may be quite small. Finally, relationship-quality change (i.e., increases or decreases in relationship quality over the course of a study) was largely unpredictable from any combination of self-report variables. This collective effort should guide future models of relationships