Passion for an activity and quality of interpersonal relationships: The mediating role of emotions.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".