"Let's Have a Date Night!": The Role of Approach Relationship Goals in Self-Expanding Relationship Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the present research was to examine how approach relationship goals shape shared activity planning and engagement.I predicted that people higher in approach relationship goals will be more likely to plan and engage in self-expanding (i.e., novel, exciting, and creative) shared partner activities.In a two-part study, one hundred and thirty-five primarily dating student participants first planned a date to engage in with their partner, and were instructed to engage in the date during the next six days.One week later, participants completed a follow-up questionnaire about the enacted date.People higher in approach relationship goals engaged in shared partner activities that were significantly more self-expanding (i.e., creative and exciting), and desired to participate in these activities more frequently in their relationship.Thus, people higher in approach goals are more dedicated and committed to the dates they plan and engage in, believe their partner will be interested in the date they plan, and have a greater desire to participate in future self-expanding dates.These findings suggest that people higher in approach relationship goals are more adept at planning growth-enhancing time with their partners over the course of their romantic relationships.Neither Creative nor Not Creative Extremely Creative 1 2 3 4 5 How often have you planned dates for you and your partner in the past week?How often has your partner planned dates for the two of you in the past week?How often have you planned dates for you and your partner in the past month?How often has your partner planned dates for the two of you in the past month?Not at All Moderately Very Much
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".