When power shapes interpersonal behavior: Low relationship power predicts men’s aggressive responses to low situational power.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When does power in intimate relationships shape important interpersonal behaviors, such as psychological aggression? Five studies tested whether possessing low relationship power was associated with aggressive responses, but (a) only within power-relevant relationship interactions when situational power was low, and (b) only by men because masculinity (but not femininity) involves the possession and demonstration of power. In Studies 1 and 2, men lower in relationship power exhibited greater aggressive communication during couples' observed conflict discussions, but only when they experienced low situational power because they were unable to influence their partner. In Study 3, men lower in relationship power reported greater daily aggressive responses toward their partner, but only on days when they experienced low situational power because they were either (a) unable to influence their partner or (b) dependent on their partner for support. In Study 4, men who possessed lower relationship power exhibited greater aggressive responses during couples' support-relevant discussions, but only when they had low situational power because they needed high levels of support. Study 5 provided evidence for the theoretical mechanism underlying men's aggressive responses to low relationship power. Men who possessed lower relationship power felt less manly on days they faced low situational power because their partner was unwilling to change to resolve relationship problems, which in turn predicted greater aggressive behavior toward their partner. These results demonstrate that fully understanding when and why power is associated with interpersonal behavior requires differentiating between relationship and situational power. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".