ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2022
Relationship Match: the neural underpinnings of social feedback in romantic couples.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Romantic love involves an evaluative process in which couples weigh similarities and differences that facilitates pair bonding. We investigated neural attentive processes (P3) during evaluative relationship feedback within existing romantic couples using the Relationship Match Game. This paradigm included participant-driven expectations about relationship matching and relationship feedback from an expert panel of fictive peers and their romantic partner. In total, 49 couples participated who had dated less than one year. Participants showed significantly larger P3s in anticipation of feedback when they expected a mismatch, especially when supported by panel feedback. P3 amplitudes were also greater when participants received feedback from their partner congruent with their own assessment of compatibility. This was moderated by relational ambiguity, or one's preference to keep the relationship's status vague. We discuss how insecurity about the relationship is costly in terms of attentional resources contributing to over-alertness to cues of relationship evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.