How couples think about money: Types of money motives and relationship satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two studies examined how financial values held by romantic partners were linked with relationship satisfaction. Across a sample of married individuals (N = 628), and a dyadic sample (N = 236), results suggest that holding or perceiving a romantic partner to hold integrated money motives—wanting to earn money to feel pride, establish one's worth, facilitate freedom, and enrich leisure activities—was linked with better relationship satisfaction. Holding or perceiving a romantic partner to hold nonintegrated money motives—wanting to earn money to enable impulse spending, to feel better than others, and to overcome self‐doubt—was linked with worse relationship satisfaction. In both samples, perceived similarity in money motives between the self and the partner was also linked to higher relationship satisfaction. Study 2 further showed that actual similarity between partners in nonintegrated money motives was also linked to better relationship satisfaction, suggesting that even nonintegrated money motives might benefit relationships, as long as both partners share these motives. Overall, these studies suggest that while holding similar financial values as your partner is linked with better relationships, some financial values are more conducive to relationship satisfaction than others.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".