Barriers to Participating in Self-Expanding Relationship Activities and the Role of Growth and Destiny Beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New and exciting activities with a partner have been linked to a variety of benefits for intimate relationships; however, less is known about what hinders these activities. The goal of the present research was to examine the barriers that people face when planning shared new and exciting (i.e., self-expanding) relationship activities with their intimate partner and whether some people have traits (i.e., destiny and growth beliefs) that promote persistence in the face of these barriers. Across two studies, participants in intimate relationships reflected on barriers associated with participating in self-expanding activities that they planned with their partner in the past and identified the frequency of these barriers in the past six months (Study 1), and then rated the extent to which barriers interfered with their ability to carry out the activities (Study 1 and 2). In Study 2, participants completed measures of destiny and growth beliefs, and identified their level of enjoyment and desire to participate in similar self-expanding activities in the future. In both studies, we found that participants rated finances, limited resources, and obligations as barriers that interfered the most with activities. Our findings suggest that barriers were more likely to interfere with activities for people higher in destiny beliefs (vs. growth beliefs). Growth beliefs were significantly associated with greater enjoyment from self-expanding activities and a greater likelihood of participating in similar activities in the future (vs. destiny beliefs). Our findings have implications for understanding barriers that couples face when engaging in self-expanding activities in their intimate relationships.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".