On the directive function of episodic memories in people's lives: A look at romantic relationships.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We argue that episodic memories have an active and directive function with respect to a number of relational outcomes. In line with self-determination theory, it is expected that the satisfaction of 3 needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) in couple-related memories facilitates the quality of romantic relationships and their development. Results of 4 studies support this contention. Study 1 showed that need satisfaction in couple-related memories was associated with relationship quality, even after controlling for other important relational constructs. Study 2 underscored the context-dependent aspect of the directive function of episodic memories. Need satisfaction in couple-related memories was found to be associated with partner relationship quality but not with friendship quality, whereas need satisfaction in friend-related memories was associated with friendship quality but not with partner relationship quality. Study 3 showed that couple-related memories contributed independently to each partner's perceptions of relationship quality, that is, both the rememberer and the partner. Study 4 showed the long-term directive function of episodic memories. Need satisfaction in couple-related memories positively and negatively predicted increases in relationship quality and the likelihood of a breakup over a 1-year period, respectively. This directive function of memories was examined along with the self function of memories (self-enhancement, self-protection) and shown to be complementary. We also examined the stability of need satisfaction in couple-related memories over time and investigated this stability as a function of whether the partners had broken up or not over the year. Overall, the findings suggest that episodic memories play an important role in romantic 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".