It’s a matter of time: The effect of depletion on communal action in romantic relationships is moderated by relationship length.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have only begun to turn their attention to the role of self-control in communal action (rather than communal restraint) in relationships. Conflicting results from early studies indicate that the association between self-control and communal action may be quite complex, and potentially moderated by many variables. Here we investigate how relationship length may moderate the extent to which communal actions require self-control resources. In 5 studies, we investigated the role of self-control resources in implementing (Studies 1 and 2) and in choosing (Studies 3-5) communal actions for a romantic partner, as a function of the length of time partners had been together. The data supported the hypothesis that as relationships mature over time, communal actions may require less self-control to implement and may become a decisional default. These findings suggest that communal actions may be a more deliberative response in newer romantic relationships but a more reflexive response in more established relationships.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".