Shifting expectations of partners' responsiveness changes outcomes of conflict discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Expecting responsiveness from a partner may increase the chance of successful conflict resolution through a self‐fulfilling prophecy. Such expectations derive in part from people's history of receiving responsiveness and from their belief that their partner values them (S. L. Murray, J. G. Holmes, & N. L. Collins, 2006). This belief can be fostered by having individuals reframe a partner's compliment in an abstract way (D. C. Marigold, J. G. Holmes, & M. Ross, 2007). In this study, 96 dating couples were randomly assigned to complete a compliment reframing intervention (or not) prior to discussing a conflict. Without intervention, couples who typically had a lot of conflict reported less positive expectations of their partner for the upcoming discussion and subsequently worse outcomes than low‐conflict couples; these differences were eliminated in the compliment reframing condition. This research demonstrates the importance of perceived value and expectations of responsiveness in shaping the outcomes of conflict discussions, suggesting additional points of intervention beyond communication skills for high‐conflict couples.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".