When Love and Money Collide: The Role of Financially Focused Self‐Concept in Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This research examined whether people's own and their partner's financially focused self‐concept are associated with relationship satisfaction in a sample of UK couples ( N = 388 participants). Results showed that financial harmony in a romantic relationship is influenced not only by an individual's own financial focus but also by their partner's financial focus. Contrary to expectations, however, the degree to which financial resources were integrated (i.e., pooled) between partners did not moderate this link. Exploratory analyses tested financial stress, financial harmony, and financial infidelity as possible mediators of the link between people's own and their partner's financially focused self‐concept and relationship outcomes. When perceiving the partner as overly focused on financial success, they were more likely to endorse financial infidelity and reported lower financial harmony, which in turn was associated with poorer relationship outcomes. Indeed, the perception of excessive financial focus appeared to be more detrimental to the relationship than the partner's actual financial focus. These findings highlight the importance of assessing the financial attitudes of both partners as well as their perception of each other's financial attitudes in shaping romantic relationship outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".