Daily Experiences and Relationship Well‐Being: The Paradoxical Effects of Relationship Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Even couples in healthy romantic relationships experience conflict at times. We examine whether relationship identification (the extent to which the relationship is incorporated into the self) predicts immediate reactivity to partner transgressions and also promotes global resilience over time. METHOD: Sixty-three couples participated in a 2-week event-contingent diary study. RESULTS: On a daily basis, experiencing more partner transgressions than usual predicted decreases in relationship well-being and increases in negative affect. This within-person association was stronger for those high in relationship identification. However, after 2 weeks, changes in global relationship evaluations of low identifiers, but not of high identifiers, were contingent on the accumulation of partner transgressions and the degree of negative affect in response to these daily transgressions. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that internalizing a relationship into the self does not blind intimates to immediate negative events but rather provides a basis for their global relationship evaluations that is not contingent on recent events.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".