Cited by 68Attachment and Relationship DynamicsPersonality Traits and PsychologyMarriage and Sexual Relationships

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

When “we” changes “me”: The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes

Open access
McIntyre, Kevin P., Mattingly, Brent A., Lewandowski, Gary W.·2015·Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Abstract

Individuals in close relationships may perceive changes to their self-concepts as a result of being with their partners. According to the two-dimensional model of relational self-change, these changes occur across two dimensions, namely direction, which reflects whether the self-concept has gained or lost content, and valence, which reflects whether the self-concept content is positive or negative. These two dimensions combine to create four distinct self-change processes, whereby individuals gain positive traits (self-expansion), gain negative traits (self-adulteration), lose positive traits (self-contraction), and lose negative traits (self-pruning). Study 1 used a longitudinal design and revealed that changes in each of the four self-processes were associated with subsequent relationship satisfaction and commitment. To further investigate the association of self-change with relationship quality, Study 2 found that processes associated with self-concept improvement (i.e., self-expansion and self-pruning) were positively associated with relationship maintenance behaviors and motivations (e.g., accommodation, forgiveness, and willingness to sacrifice), whereas processes associated with self-concept degradation (i.e., self-contraction and self-adulteration) were negatively associated with these outcomes and positively associated with behaviors that may harm the relationship (e.g., dissolution considerations, attention to alternatives, and seeking revenge).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0265407514553334

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Agnew C. R., 2014, Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior
  2. Agnew C. R., 2004, Handbook of closeness and intimacy, 103
  3. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0005 · DOI
  5. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1102 · DOI
  6. Arriaga X. B., 2004, Components of commitment in relational and organizational contexts
  7. 10.1111/1467-6494.00178 · DOI
  8. 10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.293 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/1475-6811.00016 · DOI
  10. Finkel E. J., 2009, Self-regulation: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes, 319
  11. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956 · DOI
  12. 10.1177/0265407510373258 · DOI
  13. 10.1037/11059-000 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/0092-6566(90)90019-3 · DOI
  15. 10.1177/02654075030204003 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x · DOI
  17. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00120.x · DOI
  18. 10.1080/17439760601069234 · DOI
  19. 10.1037/a0017838 · DOI
  20. 10.1080/15298868.2012.718863 · DOI
  21. 10.1080/17439760.2012.746999 · DOI
  22. 10.1111/spc3.12080 · DOI
  23. 10.1177/1948550613503886 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/pere.12025 · DOI
  25. 10.1080/01973533.2013.856788 · DOI
  26. 10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.758 · DOI
  27. 10.1006/jesp.1999.1417 · DOI
  28. 10.1177/0146167204271597 · DOI
  29. 10.1177/02654075030201002 · DOI
  30. 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1177/026540759301000205 · DOI
  32. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01657.x · DOI
  33. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x · DOI
  34. 10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.007 · DOI
  36. 10.1177/0146167209352250 · DOI
  37. 10.1080/15298868.2011.649860 · DOI
  38. 10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373 · DOI
  39. 10.1177/0146167209337543 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W.
Affiliations
  • Trinity University (US)
  • Ursinus College (US)
  • Monmouth University (US)
Corresponding author
McIntyre, Kevin P.
Venue
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Published
2014-10-10
Volume
32
Issue
7
Pages
857-878
ISSN
  • 0265-4075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3608
OpenAlex
W2039198216
Cited by
68
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - Trinity University (Trinity University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Sexual Relationships
Keywords
self-concept, self-expansion, self-contraction, self-pruning, two-dimensional model, relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, relationship maintenance, accommodation, forgiveness, revenge, close relationships

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review