How individuals perceive their partner’s relationship behaviors when worrying about finances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What role do financial worries play in close relationship functioning? In this research, we examine how financial worry – negative thoughts and feelings about finances – is associated with perceived relationship behaviors. Participants recalled how their partner acted during a recent disagreement (Study 1, N = 97 couples) or recalled the frequency of positive and negative behaviors enacted by their partner during the previous week (Study 2, N = 99 couples). Feeling more worried about finances was associated with recalling less supportive behavior from one’s partner at the disagreement (Study 1) and with perceiving more negative behaviors from one’s partner in the last week (Study 2). Truth and Bias Model analyses suggest that part of this link may be attributed to biased perceptions, as the link between financial worry and perceiving more negative behaviors persisted even after controlling for participants’ own reported behaviors (i.e., accounting for similarity) and for their partner’s own reported behaviors (i.e., accounting for accurate perceptions). In sum, financial worry is linked to how partners notice and interpret a loved one’s actions within their relationship.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".