Consequences of interpersonal spin on couple-relevant goal progress and relationship satisfaction in romantic relationships.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large fluctuations in a person's interpersonal behavior across situations and over time are thought to be associated with poor personal and interpersonal outcomes. This study examined 2 outcomes, relationship satisfaction and goal progress, that could be associated with individual differences in dispersion of interpersonal behavior (interpersonal spin) in romantic relationships. Need satisfaction and perceived autonomy support for goal pursuit from the partner were examined as mediator variables. Spin was measured using an event-contingent recording (ECR) methodology with a sample of 93 cohabiting couples who reported their interpersonal behavior in interactions with each other during a 20-day period. Relationship satisfaction and goal completion were measured at the end of the ECR procedure (T2) and approximately 7 months after the ECR (T3). Need satisfaction and perceived autonomy support were measured at T2. In both genders, higher spin was associated with lower T2 relationship satisfaction. There was also a decline in relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3 among men with high spin partners. In both genders, higher spin was associated with lower need satisfaction, and lower need satisfaction was associated with a decline in relationship satisfaction from T2 to T3. In both genders, higher spin was associated with lower perceived autonomy support, and lower support was associated with decreased progress in goal completion from T2 to T3. The effects of spin were independent of the effects of mean levels of behavior. These findings extend the understanding of the detrimental consequences of dispersion in interpersonal behavior to the disruption of the person's romantic relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".