| Literature DB >> 32719123 |
Samantha Joel1, Paul W Eastwick2, Colleen J Allison3, Ximena B Arriaga4, Zachary G Baker5, Eran Bar-Kalifa6, Sophie Bergeron7, Gurit E Birnbaum8, Rebecca L Brock9, Claudia C Brumbaugh10, Cheryl L Carmichael11, Serena Chen12, Jennifer Clarke13, Rebecca J Cobb14, Michael K Coolsen15, Jody Davis16, David C de Jong17, Anik Debrot18, Eva C DeHaas3, Jaye L Derrick5, Jami Eller19, Marie-Joelle Estrada20, Ruddy Faure21, Eli J Finkel22, R Chris Fraley23, Shelly L Gable24, Reuma Gadassi-Polack25, Yuthika U Girme3, Amie M Gordon26, Courtney L Gosnell27, Matthew D Hammond28, Peggy A Hannon29, Cheryl Harasymchuk30, Wilhelm Hofmann31, Andrea B Horn32, Emily A Impett33, Jeremy P Jamieson20, Dacher Keltner11, James J Kim34, Jeffrey L Kirchner35, Esther S Kluwer36,37, Madoka Kumashiro38, Grace Larson39, Gal Lazarus40, Jill M Logan3, Laura B Luchies41, Geoff MacDonald34, Laura V Machia42, Michael R Maniaci43, Jessica A Maxwell44, Moran Mizrahi45, Amy Muise46, Sylvia Niehuis14, Brian G Ogolsky47, C Rebecca Oldham14, Nickola C Overall44, Meinrad Perrez48, Brett J Peters49, Paula R Pietromonaco50, Sally I Powers50, Thery Prok24, Rony Pshedetzky-Shochat40, Eshkol Rafaeli40,51, Erin L Ramsdell9, Maija Reblin52, Michael Reicherts48, Alan Reifman14, Harry T Reis20, Galena K Rhoades53, William S Rholes54, Francesca Righetti21, Lindsey M Rodriguez55, Ron Rogge20, Natalie O Rosen56, Darby Saxbe57, Haran Sened40, Jeffry A Simpson19, Erica B Slotter58, Scott M Stanley53, Shevaun Stocker59, Cathy Surra60, Hagar Ter Kuile36, Allison A Vaughn61, Amanda M Vicary62, Mariko L Visserman34,46, Scott Wolf35.
Abstract
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.Entities:
Keywords: Random Forests; ensemble methods; machine learning; relationship quality; romantic relationships
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32719123 PMCID: PMC7431040 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1917036117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205