Broadening your horizon one day at a time: Relationship goals and exciting activities as daily antecedents of relational self-expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-expansion in intimate relationships (i.e., broadening one’s perspective through engaging in novel, exciting activities with a partner) has been associated with relationship benefits. The goal of this study was to propose a motivational model of self-expansion to understand what prompts people to engage in self-expanding activities in their relationship on a daily basis. We hypothesized that when people report stronger daily approach relationship goals (i.e., goals focused on pursuing growth, intimacy, and rewards), they would report a greater likelihood of engaging in novel, exciting activities that enhance self-expansion and ultimately promote greater satisfaction in romantic relationships. To test our model, we recruited 122 couples for a 3-week daily diary study. In support of our hypotheses, on days when people (or their partners) reported higher than their usual approach relationship goals, they reported higher relational self-expansion, which was due, in part, to a greater likelihood of engaging in novel, exciting activities with the partner. In turn, higher relational self-expansion was associated with higher daily relationship satisfaction. Our findings have implications for understanding what promotes relationship growth on a day-to-day basis and the outcomes of daily approach-oriented relationship goals.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".