Literature DB >> 32719123

Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies.

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


  19 in total

1.  Most people are not WEIRD.

Authors:  Joseph Henrich; Steven J Heine; Ara Norenzayan
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 2.  The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: a review of theory, method, and research.

Authors:  B R Karney; T N Bradbury
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 17.737

Review 3.  Marital quality and health: a meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Theodore F Robles; Richard B Slatcher; Joseph M Trombello; Meghan M McGinn
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 17.737

Review 4.  Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning.

Authors:  Tal Yarkoni; Jacob Westfall
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-08-25

5.  The greening of relationship science.

Authors:  E Berscheid
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  1999-04

6.  Trust, variability in relationship evaluations, and relationship processes.

Authors:  Lorne Campbell; Jeffry A Simpson; Jennifer G Boldry; Harris Rubin
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2010-07

7.  Patterns of Change in Marital Satisfaction Over the Newlywed Years.

Authors:  Justin A Lavner; Thomas N Bradbury
Journal:  J Marriage Fam       Date:  2010-10-01

8.  Interpersonal mechanisms linking close relationships to health.

Authors:  Paula R Pietromonaco; Nancy L Collins
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2017-09

9.  Similarity in relationships as niche construction: Choice, stability, and influence within dyads in a free choice environment.

Authors:  Angela J Bahns; Christian S Crandall; Omri Gillath; Kristopher J Preacher
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2016-02-01

10.  Measuring the predictability of life outcomes with a scientific mass collaboration.

Authors:  Matthew J Salganik; Ian Lundberg; Alexander T Kindel; Caitlin E Ahearn; Khaled Al-Ghoneim; Abdullah Almaatouq; Drew M Altschul; Jennie E Brand; Nicole Bohme Carnegie; Ryan James Compton; Debanjan Datta; Thomas Davidson; Anna Filippova; Connor Gilroy; Brian J Goode; Eaman Jahani; Ridhi Kashyap; Antje Kirchner; Stephen McKay; Allison C Morgan; Alex Pentland; Kivan Polimis; Louis Raes; Daniel E Rigobon; Claudia V Roberts; Diana M Stanescu; Yoshihiko Suhara; Adaner Usmani; Erik H Wang; Muna Adem; Abdulla Alhajri; Bedoor AlShebli; Redwane Amin; Ryan B Amos; Lisa P Argyle; Livia Baer-Bositis; Moritz Büchi; Bo-Ryehn Chung; William Eggert; Gregory Faletto; Zhilin Fan; Jeremy Freese; Tejomay Gadgil; Josh Gagné; Yue Gao; Andrew Halpern-Manners; Sonia P Hashim; Sonia Hausen; Guanhua He; Kimberly Higuera; Bernie Hogan; Ilana M Horwitz; Lisa M Hummel; Naman Jain; Kun Jin; David Jurgens; Patrick Kaminski; Areg Karapetyan; E H Kim; Ben Leizman; Naijia Liu; Malte Möser; Andrew E Mack; Mayank Mahajan; Noah Mandell; Helge Marahrens; Diana Mercado-Garcia; Viola Mocz; Katariina Mueller-Gastell; Ahmed Musse; Qiankun Niu; William Nowak; Hamidreza Omidvar; Andrew Or; Karen Ouyang; Katy M Pinto; Ethan Porter; Kristin E Porter; Crystal Qian; Tamkinat Rauf; Anahit Sargsyan; Thomas Schaffner; Landon Schnabel; Bryan Schonfeld; Ben Sender; Jonathan D Tang; Emma Tsurkov; Austin van Loon; Onur Varol; Xiafei Wang; Zhi Wang; Julia Wang; Flora Wang; Samantha Weissman; Kirstie Whitaker; Maria K Wolters; Wei Lee Woon; James Wu; Catherine Wu; Kengran Yang; Jingwen Yin; Bingyu Zhao; Chenyun Zhu; Jeanne Brooks-Gunn; Barbara E Engelhardt; Moritz Hardt; Dean Knox; Karen Levy; Arvind Narayanan; Brandon M Stewart; Duncan J Watts; Sara McLanahan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  14 in total

1.  Language left behind on social media exposes the emotional and cognitive costs of a romantic breakup.

Authors:  Sarah Seraj; Kate G Blackburn; James W Pennebaker
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Depressive Symptoms, External Stress, and Marital Adjustment: The Buffering Effect of Partner's Responsive Behavior.

Authors:  Paula R Pietromonaco; Nickola C Overall; Sally I Powers
Journal:  Soc Psychol Personal Sci       Date:  2021-03-25

3.  Women and Men are the Barometers of Relationships: Testing the Predictive Power of Women's and Men's Relationship Satisfaction.

Authors:  Matthew D Johnson; Justin A Lavner; Amy Muise; Marcus Mund; Franz J Neyer; Yoobin Park; Cheryl Harasymchuk; Emily A Impett
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 12.779

4.  Longitudinal Associations of Global and Daily Support with Marital Status.

Authors:  Sarah T Giff; David D Disabato; Keith D Renshaw; Sarah B Campbell
Journal:  Am J Fam Ther       Date:  2021-04-22

5.  Will you be happy for me? Associations between self-reported, perceived, and observed responses to positive events and sexual well-being in cohabiting couples.

Authors:  Myriam Bosisio; Natalie O Rosen; Justin Dubé; Marie-Pier Vaillancourt-Morel; Marie-Ève Daspe; Sophie Bergeron
Journal:  J Soc Pers Relat       Date:  2022-03-28

6.  How both partners' individual differences, stress, and behavior predict change in relationship satisfaction: Extending the VSA model.

Authors:  James K McNulty; Andrea L Meltzer; Lisa A Neff; Benjamin R Karney
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Disentangling Trait-Like Between-Individual vs. State-Like Within-Individual Effects in Studying the Mechanisms of Change in CBT.

Authors:  Sigal Zilcha-Mano; Christian A Webb
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 4.157

8.  Hand-in-hand in the golden years: Cognitive interdependence, partner involvement in retirement planning, and the transition into retirement.

Authors:  Veronica M Lamarche; Jonathan J Rolison
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-29       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Chronic Vulvovaginal Pain in Patients of Color: Benefits of Partner Supportiveness in Relation to Sexual Dissatisfaction and Distress.

Authors:  Margaret Bennett-Brown; Olivia R Adams; Jessica T Campbell; Zoe Moscovici; Amanda N Gesselman
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-03-27       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  A Dyadic Perspective of Felt Security: Does Partners' Security Buffer the Effects of Actors' Insecurity on Daily Commitment?

Authors:  Eri Sasaki; Nickola Overall
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.