MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410306768 · doi:10.1177/01461672251331699

Why Do You Want a Romantic Relationship? Individual Differences in Motives for Romantic Relationship Pursuit

2025· article· en· W4410306768 on OpenAlexafffund
Geoff MacDonald, Serena Thapar, William S. Ryan, Joanne M. Chung, Elaine Hoan, Yoobin Park

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRomancePsychologyAutonomyVariety (cybernetics)Goal pursuitSocial psychologySelf-determination theoryScale (ratio)Developmental psychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relationship science currently lacks a theoretical approach to capture the variety of motivations potentially underlying the pursuit of romantic relationships. We introduce the Autonomous Motivation for Romantic Pursuit Scale (AMRPS) which conceptualizes and measures motivations ranging in levels of autonomy (from a motivation to intrinsic motivation), based on self-determination theory (SDT). In Study 1 ( N = 1,280), we show how the motivations assessed using AMRPS relate to existing constructs implicated in romantic pursuit (e.g. fear of being single, commitment readiness), thereby organizing them into a coherent theoretical framework. In Study 2 ( N = 3,186), we validate this approach using longitudinal data, showing singles who are higher in autonomous motivation for relationship pursuit are more likely to be partnered six months later. These studies demonstrate the usefulness of SDT for consolidating into one theoretical and measurement framework the variety of motivations (including an absence of motivation) for pursuing romantic 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Social Psychology BulletinSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207