Communication and Self-Expansion: Perceptions of Changes in the Self Due to a Close Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building from Aron and Aron’s (2000) Self-Expansion Model, this study was designed to explore the ways that communication in close relationships forms the self. Ninety-two participants (males = 23, females = 68, mean age = 22.2 years) completed a semi-structured, retrospective questionnaire on the ways that a close friendship or romantic relationship had changed who they were as a person. Data were inductively analyzed to describe both the content of the self that changed and the relational processes that led to change. The content of perceived changes in the self was perceived primarily in new ways of relating (52.3%) and changes in self-understanding (29.7%). This self-expansion was generally positive (65% of changes), while 20.1% of growth in the self was simultaneously positive and negative. Three relational processes were perceived to shape the self: 1) communicative events; 2) the discovery of partner differences and similarities; and 3) diffuse qualities of an ongoing relationship. The findings highlight the role of communication in self-expansion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".