Measuring up: The unique emotional and regulatory outcomes of different perceived partner-ideal discrepancies in romantic relationships.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guided by the ideal standards model (Simpson, Fletcher, & Campbell, 2001), the present research investigated the emotional and regulatory consequences of different forms of perceived partner discrepancies in a relationship context. Studies 1 (dating sample) and 2 (married sample) demonstrated that perceiving one's partner to be the source of a partner discrepancy (i.e., a PD-partner) was associated with dejection emotions, whereas perceiving oneself to be the source of the partner discrepancy (i.e., a PD-self) was associated with agitation emotions. Study 3 provided experimental support for the findings of Studies 1 and 2 by demonstrating that participants primed with either a PD-partner or a PD-self exhibited facilitated responses to dejection and agitation emotions, respectively. Studies 4 and 5 provided experimental support for the prediction that a PD-partner also results in a promotion focus regulatory style, whereas a PD-self results in a prevention focus regulatory style. The importance of understanding the emotional and regulatory ramifications of evaluation outcomes within a romantic relationship context is 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".