MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trait Self‐Esteem Moderates the Effect of Initiator Status on Emotional and Cognitive Responses to Romantic Relationship Dissolution

2010· article· en· W1502484302 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine L. Waller, Tara K. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologySelf-esteemTraitRomanceCognitionDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We hypothesized that the effect of initiator status on post breakup distress would vary as a function of trait self-esteem, such that individuals with low self-esteem would experience more distress after being rejected by their partners, whereas, among individuals with high self-esteem, initiator status would not predict distress. We used a prospective design in which university students (N=66) were assessed for emotional responses following the dissolution of their real-life romantic relationships, as well as a laboratory design in which students (N=190) imagined breaking up with their partners. As predicted, participants with lower trait self-esteem exhibited greater distress after experiencing or imagining a romantic rejection than after ending or imagining themselves ending their relationships. Conversely, distress experienced by those with high trait self-esteem did not differ as a function of who ended the relationship. Implications for understanding self-esteem processes and the effects of romantic rejection are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PersonalitySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207