Associations between sense of purpose and romantic relationship quality in adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current studies investigated the extent that sense of purpose is associated with desirable relationship variables, such as relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, perceived quality of alternatives, and investment size. Data were collected from two online surveys of 1,001 and 1,594 participants in relationships (Study 1: M = 46.68, SD = 15.77, range = 18–86; Study 2: M = 52.52, SD = 16.05, range = 18–91). Study 1 found that sense of purpose was positively associated with relationship satisfaction, commitment, and negatively associated with the perception that one’s partner was preferable to alternatives. When controlling for affective well-being and the Big Five personality traits, sense of purpose was still associated with relationship commitment and the perception that one’s partner was preferable to alternatives. Study 2 found that sense of purpose was positively associated with relationship satisfaction, commitment, and investment size (which was exclusively assessed in Study 2), but it was not significantly associated with perceived quality of alternatives. These associations held when controlling for affective well-being and the Big Five personality traits. Across both studies, age did not consistently moderate the associations between sense of purpose and relationship satisfaction, commitment, and perceived quality of alternatives. These studies suggest that sense of purpose and aspects of relationship quality are positively associated across adulthood. Findings are discussed with respect to how purpose may be considered in future close relationship research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".