Journal Article

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

Gordon, Amie M., Overall, Nickola C., Clarke, Jennifer, Gable, Shelly L., Rholes, William S., Gosnell, Courtney L., Wolf, Scott, Eastwick, Paul W., Fraley, R. Chris, Bar-Kalifa, Eran, Estrada, Marie-Joelle, Maxwell, Jessica A., Debrot, Anik, Rodriguez, Lindsey M., Visserman, Mariko L., Pshedetzky-Shochat, Rony, Ramsdell, Erin L., Hofmann, Wilhelm, Ogolsky, Brian G., Muise, Amy, Horn, Andrea B., Sened, Haran, Lazarus, Gal, Rhoades, Galena K., Oldham, C. Rebecca, Simpson, Jeffry A., Stanley, Scott M., Kumashiro, Madoka, Saxbe, Darby, Cobb, Rebecca J., Powers, Sally I., Rafaeli, Eshkol, Girme, Yuthika U., Jamieson, Jeremy P., Maniaci, Michael R., Machia, Laura V., Gadassi-Polack, Reuma, Reifman, Alan, Davis, Jody, Mizrahi, Moran, Impett, Emily A., Reblin, Maija, Harasymchuk, Cheryl, Surra, Cathy, Reicherts, Michael, Carmichael, Cheryl L., Luchies, Laura B., Arriaga, Ximena B., Peters, Brett J., Vicary, Amanda M., de Jong, David C., Larson, Grace, Eller, Jami, Chen, Serena, Pietromonaco, Paula R., Kuile, Hagar Ter, Coolsen, Michael K., Allison, Colleen J., Slotter, Erica B., Prok, Thery, Stocker, Shevaun, Mac

2020

Overview

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 individualdifference 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 relationshipspecific 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.

• Publisher: National Academy of Sciences
• Subject: Emotions / Family Characteristics / Female / Humans / Interpersonal Relations / Learning algorithms / Longitudinal Studies / Machine Learning / Male / Psychological and Cognitive Sciences / Quality / Self Report / Social Sciences / Variance