Humour Use Between Spouses and Positive and Negative Interpersonal Behaviours During Conflict
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research investigated the relation between the use of positive, negative and instrumental humour in the context of romantic relationships and relational well-being as assessed by positive and negative patterns of conflict resolution behaviour. A sample of 116 heterosexual married couples completed scales of relational humour use as well as conflict resolution behaviour. Behaviour of couples while attempting to resolve a relationship based conflict was also coded by independent raters. Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) analyses showed patterns of actor and partner effects for each type of humour use. Specifically, positive humour use of both partners predicted more positive conflict resolution, whereas negative humour use of both partners predicted less positive conflict resolution. Additionally, instrumental humour use of both partners seemed to predict greater apathy during conflict resolution. Implications for considering couple humor use, assessed for both partners of the dyad, for understanding relational well-being 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it