Why are we together? A dyadic longitudinal investigation of relationship motivation, goal progress, and adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This investigation used self-determination theory to study goal striving in the context of romantic relationships. The study explored how dyadic partners' relationship motivation impacted goal progress, personal well-being, and relationship satisfaction. In addition, the mediating role of relationship goal progress was explored. METHOD: In a prospective longitudinal study, 153 heterosexual couples rated their own relationship motivation and each reported a relationship goal and a self-oriented goal. Goal progress was assessed approximately 1 year later. In addition, well-being and relationship satisfaction were assessed at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: Actor-partner interdependence models revealed that actor's autonomous relationship motivation was positively associated with relationship and self-oriented goal progress. Actor's autonomous relationship motivation, as well as both actor and partner relationship goal progress, were associated with increases in actor's subjective well-being (SWB) and relationship satisfaction. Relationship goal progress mediated the association between actor's autonomous relationship motivation and SWB, as well as relationship satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these findings contribute to research on relationship motivation and goal striving in dyadic partners, by suggesting that motivational regulations impact goal regulation in romantic relationships and associated well-being outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".