My willpower belief and yours: Investigating dyadic associations between willpower beliefs, social support, and relationship satisfaction in couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A limited willpower belief describes the belief that one's willpower is depletable and that mental exertion results in a diminished self-control capacity. Limited willpower beliefs have been associated with detrimental personal outcomes (such as poorer goal progress) and may even be related to a lower quality of one's romantic relationship. With dyadic survey data from 745 couples across 14 days, we investigated how willpower beliefs of both partners were associated with their provision and receipt of social support, as well as their relationship satisfaction. We also examined whether partners with more similar willpower beliefs tended to have higher relationship satisfaction. A limited willpower belief was indeed associated with less provision of both instrumental and emotional support, according to both partners' perspectives, and was also associated with a lower likelihood of receiving instrumental support. A limited willpower belief negatively correlated with one's own relationship satisfaction, but partner effects were not significant. While couples' willpower beliefs were more similar to each other than would be expected by chance, degree of similarity in willpower beliefs was not related to relationship satisfaction. Future research should examine the mechanisms via which willpower beliefs are involved in romantic relationships, potentially through impacting the exchange of support.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".