Spicing up the relationship? The effects of relational boredom on shared activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to examine how people respond to relational boredom in the context of growth-enhancing (i.e., novel) and security-restorative (i.e., familiar) shared activities. In Study 1, people’s prescriptive and descriptive beliefs for responding to relational boredom were assessed. Next, we developed a prime of relational boredom (Study 2a) and examined its effects on behavioral intentions for shared activities (Studies 2b and 3) as well as qualities of a planned date (Study 3). In Study 1, people thought they should engage in more growth-enhancing novel activities when bored (but not more security-restorative ones). However, for likely ratings (Study 1) and behavioral intentions (Studies 2b and 3), there were inconsistent findings for the idea that boredom prompts novel shared activities. Instead, in the context of relational boredom, people consistently displayed a pattern of being less likely to engage in security-restorative familiar shared activities.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".