Self-determined relationship motives, commitment motivated cognition, and relationship maintenance processes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this program of research was to explore commitment-motivated relationship maintenance processes and the motivational bases of commitment to romantic relationships. In regards to the former, I was primarily concerned with demonstrating that commitment impacts not only behavioural and cognitive relationship maintenance responses, but that it also affects basic perceptual processes in relationships. In regards to the latter, I was particularly interested in utilizing self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) to distinguish between intrinsic and identified relationship motives by demonstrating that identified motives form the basis of commitment to romantic relationships and therefore promote relationship maintenance responses. Study 1 examined benign appraisals of partner transgressions as a commitment motivated relationship maintenance response. It also examined whether these appraisals mediate the established relationship between commitment and the relationship maintenance response termed accommodation. Commitment was associated with the discrepancy between participant severity ratings and that of objective raters for a reported partner transgression. Commitment predicted these benign appraisals more for objectively less severe transgressions. Although the commitment-accommodation association was replicated, benign appraisals did not mediate this relationship. Study 2 examined the potential explanatory power of applying self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) to the context of romantic relationships. A large scale web survey and 6 month follow-up distinguished between intrinsic, identified, and introjected motives for being in a romantic relationship by determining their unique associations with relevant relationship characteristics, relationship maintenance responses (RMRs), and persistence. The results confirmed a crucial distinction between intrinsic and identified motives in that associations between intrinsic motives and RMRs were fully mediated by satisfaction but not commitment, whereas identified motives were not mediated by satisfaction and instead partially mediated by commitment. By contrast, introjected motives were negatively related to RMRs. However, both identified and introjected motives predicted persistence whereas intrinsic motives did not. Study 3 used an experience-sampling diary methodology to examine the impact of positive and negative relationship events on the well-being and relationship maintenance responses of individuals with intrinsic and identified motives. It was found that identified individuals exhibited positive relationship illusions and were buffered from the impact of negative events whereas intrinsically motivated individuals were not. Study 4 provided experimental evidence for the associations between the relationship motives and relationship maintaining cognitions and behaviours demonstrated in studies 2-3. This study showed that priming individuals with an identified motivation for being in their romantic relationship leads to greater self-partner integration (relative to individuals primed with intrinsic motives) and greater willingness to accommodate and sacrifice (as compared to those primed with introjected motives). In sum, the present studies have important implications for our ability to accurately predict relationship well-being, willingness to engage in relationship maintenance responses, and relationship persistence, as a function of both commitment and the relationship motives that form a basis for relationship commitment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».