Could Partner Responsiveness be Involved in the Unforgiveness Process Following a Relational Transgression?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unforgiveness is a potential response following a relational transgression in couple relationships, manifesting in cognitive-evaluative, emotional-ruminative, and offender reconstrual dimensions. The type and degree of unforgiveness experienced after a relational transgression could be influenced by interpersonal variables such as perceived partner responsiveness. However, the link between perceived partner responsiveness and unforgiveness has not been examined. This study aimed to investigate this link to better understand the factors that might hinder unforgiveness after relational transgressions. It was hypothesized that perceived partner responsiveness would be negatively associated with unforgiveness. Data were collected from 275 couples in which partners reported having experienced a relational transgression, using self-report questionnaires. Data analyses revealed a significant negative association between perceived partner responsiveness and all dimensions of unforgiveness. Conversely, a positive association was found between perceived partner insensitivity and all dimensions of unforgiveness. These findings might offer practical insights for therapeutic interventions with couples navigating relational transgressions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".