The Dyadic Interplay Between Relationship Satisfaction, Perceived Positive and Negative Social Control, and a Reduction of Sedentary Behavior Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both the close relationship processes and health model and the dyadic health influence model posit that beliefs about the relationship (e.g., relationship satisfaction) and influence strategies (e.g., social control) serve as mediators of health behavior change. The evidence for such mediation is limited. PURPOSE: This study investigated two competing hypotheses that arise from these models: (1) perceived use of positive and negative social control (attempts to influence the partner's behaviors) predict sedentary behavior (SB) indirectly, via relationship satisfaction; or (2) relationship satisfaction predicts SB indirectly, via positive and negative social control. METHODS: Data from 320 dyads (target persons and their partners, aged 18-90 years), were analyzed using mediation models. SB time was measured with GT3X-BT accelerometers at Time 1 (T1; baseline) and Time 3 (T3; 8 months following baseline). Relationship satisfaction and social control were assessed at T1 and Time 2 (T2; 2 months following baseline). RESULTS: Higher T1 relationship satisfaction among target persons predicted target persons' reporting of higher T2 negative control from partners, which in turn predicted lower T3 SB time among target persons. Lower T1 relationship satisfaction among partners predicted target persons' reporting of higher T2 perceived negative control from partners, which predicted lower T3 SB time among target persons. On average, both members of the dyad reported moderate-to-high relationship satisfaction and low-to-moderate negative control. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to very low levels of negative control, its low-to-moderate levels may be related to beneficial behavioral effects (lower SB time) among target persons reporting moderate-to-high relationship satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".