Self-expansion perceptions and behaviors uniquely contribute to relationship quality over time.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-expansion refers to the process of broadening the self via engaging in novel activities, gaining new skills, and acquiring new perspectives and is proposed to be driven in large part by one's close relationships. Self-expansion experiences include perceptions of potential (i.e., beliefs about how self-expanding a relationship could be in the future), perceptions of current experiences (i.e., beliefs about how self-expanding a relationship is present), and enacted behaviors (i.e., engagement in novel, interesting activities). In two preregistered dyadic daily experience studies, we examined whether self-expansion potential is an antecedent to behavioral self-expansion and current perceptions, and how these distinct self-expansion components uniquely and synergistically predict relationship satisfaction and commitment daily and over time. Results revealed that self-expansion potential prospectively predicted both behavioral self-expansion and daily perceptions of current self-expansion. Self-expansion potential, current perceptions, and behaviors separately predicted greater relationship satisfaction and commitment daily. Self-expansion potential-but not behaviors or current perceptions-also positively predicted satisfaction and commitment 2 months later. Implications regarding the power of potential in relationships are discussed, including the need for future research to consider this important facet of self-expansion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".