The Development of Willingness to Sacrifice and Unmitigated Communion in Intimate Partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study examined developmental trajectories of willingness to sacrifice and unmitigated communion, or putting a partner's needs above one's own to the exclusion of the self. Background: Willingness to sacrifice and unmitigated communion have proven important for personal and relationship well‐being, but no prior research has sought to understand their developmental trajectories or the factors that motivate growth in each. We draw from a relational developmental systems perspective to explore these questions. Method: Latent growth curve analyses of German Family Panel data from 3,405 focal participants and their partners surveyed across seven years were used to answer the research questions. Results: Findings revealed each construct followed a declining curvilinear pattern with much variability underlying average trajectories. Women, those with more prior partnerships, and those in longer‐term relationships were less willing to sacrifice and had lower unmitigated communion at baseline. Participants were more willing to sacrifice when participants were more committed and more insecure in their partner's love. Unmitigated communion was higher when they were more committed, when they and their partners were happier with the union, and when household income was lower. Conclusion: Willingness to sacrifice and unmitigated communion develop in response to sociodemographics, personal history, and both partners' relationship cognitions.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".