Flourishing Together: The Longitudinal Effect of Goal Coordination on Goal Progress and Life Satisfaction in Romantic Relationships
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal pursuit shapes people' everyday experiences and is deeply embedded within close relationships. Several studies have shown that goal support from romantic partners facilitates goal progress, and individual goal progress contributes to wellbeing. However, few pieces of research have examined the whole process, how efficient goal coordination in a romantic relationship contributes to life satisfaction through goal progress. In these studies, short time frames were used and only one aspect of goal coordination was examined. To generate more complex, long-term understanding we collected data from 148 married or cohabitating Hungarian heterosexual couples (mean age 39.71 ± 10.40 and 38.57 ± 10.00 years for men and women, respectively) in a two-wave longitudinal study with a year-long time window. Both partners individually completed an adapted version of the Personal Project Assessment and evaluated four chosen projects associated with project coordination (emotional support, communication, and cooperation) at baseline, and project attainment (progress, success, satisfaction) in the follow up. Life satisfaction was assessed during both waves. Results from the actor-partner interdependence mediation modeling revealed complete mediation, where project coordination increased project attainment one year later, and consequently associated with higher life satisfaction for both partners. The direct effect between project coordination and life satisfaction remained nonsignificant. This association indicates that for long-term life satisfaction, it is crucial to experience better goal outcomes as the result of the couple's collaborative effort.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it