Passion for an activity and quality of interpersonal relationships: The mediating role of emotions.
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
Our purpose in this research was to investigate the role of passion (Vallerand et al., 2003) for a given activity in the quality of interpersonal relationships experienced within the context of that activity in 4 studies. Study 1 demonstrated that a harmonious passion was positively associated with the quality of interpersonal relationships within the context of the passionate activity, whereas an obsessive passion was unrelated to it. Furthermore, in line with the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), results also showed that positive emotions experienced at work fully mediated the relation between harmonious passion and quality of interpersonal relationships. Obsessive passion was not associated with positive emotions. Study 2 replicated the results from Study 1 while controlling for trait extraversion. Also, in Study 2, we examined the negative mediating role of negative emotions between obsessive passion and quality of interpersonal relationships. Finally, Studies 3 and 4 replicated the results of Study 2 with prospective designs and with objective ratings of interpersonal relationships quality. Implications for the dualistic model of passion and the broaden-and-build theory 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 | 0.003 | 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 it