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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".