"It suggests that the person we choose is not nearly as important as the relationship we build."
The
most powerful predictors of relationship quality are the
characteristics of the relationship itself — the life dynamic you build
with your person. This is according to an analysis of 11,196 couples
gleaned from 43 studies.
At the outset of relationships,
relationship-related characteristics are likely to account for about 45
percent of the differences in relationship satisfaction. Actor reported
traits (or your own personality)can account for 19 percent of differences.
By
contrast, a partner's personality may only account for about 5 percent
of that relationship satisfaction. Over time, the estimates become
smaller, but the hierarchy remains the same: relationship
characteristics trumping individual ones. Samantha Joel, the study's first author and the director of the Relationships Decision Lab at Western University, says that her study crystallizes one thing:
"Really, it suggests that the person we choose is not nearly as important as the relationship we build," she tells Inverse.
The study was published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
How
you perceive your partner's personality is less important than the
nature of your relationship and your own personality (the lens through
which you view your relationship). Maskot/Getty Images
What makes relationships successful –
This study breaks down all the individual ingredients that go into
romantic relationships (or as many that can be captured through asking
people questions about their dating lives). They fell into two
categories: individual characteristics of each partner and relationship
characteristics.
Individual characteristics included attributes
like income, satisfaction with life, age, or empathy, amongst many
others. Relationship characteristics included things like perceived
partner satisfaction, affection, power dynamics, or sexual satisfaction.
In every relationship, both of these categories will intermix, but not all traits will have equal sway.
The
study pooled data from 43 separate studies and 11,196 couples who were
interviewed at least twice (the interval between interviews ranged from
two months to four years, depending on the study). Those interviews
showed which attributes within each category were most tightly tied to
relationship quality.
"The shared norms, the in-jokes, the shared experiences – is so much more than the separate individuals who make up that relationship."
The top five individual variables that explained differences in relationship satisfaction were:
Life satisfaction
Negative affect (feeling distressed or irritable)
Depression or feelings of hopelessness
Attachment anxiety (in a phrase: "I worry a lot about my relationships")
Attachment avoidance (preferring to not become too attached)
The five most powerful relationship-based variables that explained differences in satisfaction were:
Perceived partner commitment (in a phrase: "my partner wants this relationship to last forever")
Appreciation (feeling lucky to have your partner)
Sexual satisfaction
Perceived partner satisfaction (how happy you think the relationship makes your partner)
Conflict
Those
individual characteristics are important as they impact how you
approach the relationship in the first place, Joel explains. But they
still paled in comparison to the nature of the relationship itself.
"The
dynamic that you build with someone — the shared norms, the in-jokes,
the shared experiences — is so much more than the separate individuals
who make up that relationship," Joel says. Using science for relationship advice –
This study comes about 20 years after relationship science became a
"mature discipline," the study team writes. Joel adds that the field has
seen a surge in both popularity and scientific efforts.
"Our conferences have record numbers of attendees, and our journals have record numbers of submissions," she says.
This
study exists to pool all that information into one place and see what
conclusions might be drawn. It's not all about gleaning science-backed
dating advice — but when asked to provide it, Joel is game.
"It
really seems that having a great relationship is less about finding the
perfect partner or changing your current partner, and more about
building that relationship itself – setting up the conditions that will
allow the relationship to flourish," she says.
Abstract: Given
the powerful implications of relationship quality for health and
well-being, a central mission of relationship science is explain- ing
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.
SURVEILLANCE IN OUR SCHOOLS Newswise —
ClassDojo is one of the most popular education apps in the world. Its
company estimates it is used by millions of teachers and children across
180 countries. Beneath its friendly exterior lie disturbing
implications, say researchers.
“Happier Classrooms: the
simple way to build an amazing classroom community.” So reads the
message greeting visitors to ClassDojo’s website. The app is free for
teachers and is widely embraced as an innovative means of encouraging
positive behaviour in students and building harmonious school
environments.
Its interface is colourful and inviting. Each child
in a class or school is assigned an avatar: a smiling, cartoonish
monster that represents them in the app. Based on a student’s behaviour
in different areas, the teacher can assign – with a Pavlovian ding or
harsh buzz – positive, neutral or negative Dojo points to their avatar.
This
gamifies behaviour for students and helps teachers to keep extensive
data on each of them. The app has expanded to become, in many places, a
school-wide social media and content sharing network. Users can sign up
as school leaders, teachers, parents, or students.
In a new paper,
education researchers from the University of South Australia (UniSA)
say that while the technology may be innovative, ClassDojo encourages an
archaic approach to school discipline and neglects a genuinely
educational approach to developing behaviour.
Further, they express concern that the app conditions children to accept rising levels of surveillance and control.
“Class
Dojo can be understood as yet another data-gathering surveillance
technology that is contributing to a culture of surveillance that has
become normalised in schools”, said Jamie Manolev, a doctoral candidate
at UniSA and the study’s lead author.
One of the biggest problems,
he said, is that the app focuses on controlling students rather than
helping them to build a deeper understanding about the why and how of
behaviours in a social setting.
ClassDojo uses Dojo points to
deliver a system of rewards and punishments based on a group of
pre-selected behaviours. The ClassDojo company even recommends that
teachers attach real world prizes to Dojo points. While rewards and
punishments can be effective in the short-term, Manolev said research
shows they can undermine children’s intrinsic motivation for positive
behaviours.
Further, said Mr Manolev, Dojo point scores reduce
students’ behaviour to a number, creating an illusion of simplicity that
does not help teachers understand the factors driving positive or
destructive behaviours. Instead, it creates “a behaviour economy in
which individuals appear as balance sheets of behaviour.”
Each
child’s total Dojo points – whether in the green or the red – are
visible to them, and can be put on display. This too can serve as a
means of control.
“Capable of being broadcast on large classroom
screens to the entire class, visible to anybody who enters, a numbered
ranking of students according to their behaviour fills the screen and
invites a comparison of students, said Mr Manolev.
“The audit-like
nature of this approach promotes competition between students in race
to the top of the rankings while creating a hierarchy that may influence
the way in which students understand themselves.”
Mr Manolev said
the app conditions students to accept “being watched” on an everyday
basis. “The surveillance mechanisms embedded within ClassDojo extend
beyond the walls of the classroom”, he said.
“Through its
digitised communication network ClassDojo provides teachers with the
ability to deliver a child’s behaviour data directly to parents, in real
time, along with continual access to constantly updated behaviour
profiles in the form of student reports.”
“This feature effectively subjects students to a weekly report card of their behaviour delivered directly to a parent’s inbox.”
“If
teachers modify their practice to implement ClassDojo according to
company recommendations, students will be subject to an intensification
of surveillance at school that encroaches into their homes, extending
school-based disciplinary regimes further in the lives of young people.”
As
an alternative to the approach to discipline encouraged by ClassDojo,
the authors argue for a more educational approach to discipline. “Such
an approach would be underpinned by the values of respect, caring, and
dignity, promoting practices that exhibit and develop such qualities in
students.”
“It
would recognise the complexities of behaviour and consider the role of
not only internal, but also external influences on behaviour such as
curriculum, pedagogy, relationships, and student experiences.
“It
would shift away from controlling discipline practices to practices that
engage students with learning, and incorporate student voice.”
Mr
Manolev points to the detrimental aspects of subjecting students to
high levels of surveillance, such as reducing risk taking, creativity,
and trust, while simultaneously increasing anxiety.
Comparison can
also be drawn between ClassDojo and China’s Social Credit System which
works much like a financial credit rating but based on behaviour. Both
systems rely on surveillance, rewards and punishments as behaviour
reinforcements, converting behaviour data into a score, and using those
scores to govern individuals and shape their behaviour.
Apps
have introduced to our lives the potential for limitless new
connections. It was inevitable that one would be created to help us
sever them.
Break-Up Boss proposes a “new app-roach to break-ups” – a kinder,
more proactive path through heartbreak than the traditional trifecta of
tears, television and time.
There’s still wallowing. It’s just guided wallowing, with a “feel
wheel” breaking down your current mood (“WTF just happened”; “I hate
them”; “It’s really over”) into short, bloggish posts, equal parts
instruction and motivation
.
Another feature mimics a blank iMessage window. “There’s no way we’re
letting you send a text to your ex. But a fake one so you can get all
your rage/upset/misery out? You bet.”
