MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109207871 · doi:10.1111/pere.12357

How partner‐satisfying decisions benefit relationships: An experience sampling study

2020· article· en· W3109207871 on OpenAlexaff
Johanna Peetz, Marina Milyavskaya, Lara K. Kammrath

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonal Relationships · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFeelingExperience sampling methodSocial psychologyAffect (linguistics)Quality (philosophy)Decision qualityOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sometimes, individuals must choose between acting in a way that satisfies their own desire or acting in a way that satisfies their partner's desire. What are the consequences of choosing one over the other for individuals' well‐being and relationship? Using experience sampling data (934 reports by 106 participants) that assessed daily decision conflicts in relationships, we examined consequences of partner‐satisfying decisions. A higher proportion of partner‐satisfying decisions predicted more perceived needs fulfillment and marginally higher perceived relationship quality over the course of a week. Additionally, immediately after the partner‐satisfying decision, participants reported feeling closer to their partner, and reported more positive and less negative affect, even when controlling for the quality of the relationship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.646
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.145 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonal RelationshipsSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207