Growing Together Through Our Cultural Differences: Self-Expansion in Intercultural Romantic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intercultural romantic relationships are increasingly common and although the obstacles such couples face are well documented, the factors that facilitate their success are less studied. Although cultural differences may present challenges, they also offer opportunities for self-expansion—personal growth via new perspectives, knowledge, and identities. In three studies using cross-sectional, dyadic, longitudinal, and experimental methods ( N Total = 896), self-expansion was associated with relationship quality and identity outcomes (i.e., identity integration, cultural self-awareness). Self-expanding through a partner’s culture (i.e., cultural self-expansion) was uniquely related to identity outcomes, beyond self-expanding more generally ( relational self-expansion). Furthermore, actively sharing cultures and discussing their differences were linked to greater cultural and relational self-expansion, which in turn differentially predicted partners’ relationship quality and cultural identities. These studies provide a first look at the role of self-expansion in intercultural relationships, demonstrating that the way couples negotiate their cultures is linked to both relational and personal outcomes.
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".