It’s the motive that counts: Perceived sacrifice motives and gratitude in romantic relationships.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gratitude is robustly linked to many positive outcomes for individuals and relationships (e.g., greater life and relationship satisfaction). However, little is known about how romantic partners come to feel grateful for each other's pro-relational acts, such as when a partner makes a sacrifice. The present research examines how perceptions of partner sacrifice motives evoke gratitude. We distinguish between partner, relationship, and self-focused motives, and how they are guided by approach or avoidance orientations. We expected that perceiving a partner to sacrifice for partner-focused approach motives (i.e., to promote the partner's well-being) should evoke gratitude, as this type of motive may signal a genuine departure from self-interest. Moreover, we expected these motives to provoke greater perceptions of partner responsiveness, which should partially explain why they elicit gratitude. In contrast, perceiving a partner to sacrifice for relationship-focused motives (e.g., to promote the well-being of the relationship), or self-focused motives (e.g., to feel good about oneself), should not evoke gratitude-irrespective of an approach or avoidance orientation-as these motives may, to some extent, be perceived as tainted by self-interest. Two studies of romantic couples (N = 413), using diary methods (Studies 1 and 2) and having couples converse about a major sacrifice in the laboratory (Study 2), consistently showed that perceived partner-focused approach motives promote gratitude and that this association is partly mediated by perceived partner responsiveness. In contrast, relationship and self-focused motives (approach and avoidance oriented) were not associated with gratitude. Implications regarding perceiving and displaying sacrifice motives are discussed. (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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".