Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The unique contributions of motivations to maintain a relationship and motivations toward relational activities to relationship well-being

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

People experience autonomy when they perceive their behaviour to be volitional rather than driven by external controls. Previous research has studied autonomy in relationships at a general level, focusing on people’s motivations to maintain their romantic relationships, as measured by the Couple Motivation Questionnaire (CMQ; Blais et al., J Personal Soc Psychol 59:1021–1031, 1990). To supplement the CMQ, we developed the Motivations for Relational Activities (MRA) scale, which assesses the extent to which people feel autonomous and controlled in a variety of specific relational activities. The purpose of this study is to examine the unique contributions of general motivations to maintain a relationship (CMQ) and motivations toward specific relational activities (MRA) in the prediction of relationship well-being. Results showed that the MRA and CMQ both independently and significantly contributed to the prediction of relationship well-being (i.e., commitment, intimacy, satisfaction, and vitality within the relationship) and were differentiated by their associations to dimensions of personality and attachment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Amotivation toward relational activities is excluded from the MRA since it uniquely reflects disengagement from behaviour, whereas the other regulatory styles involve intentional and regulated behaviour. We also excluded integrated regulation toward relational activities from the MRA because we judged that integration might not be adequately assessed through self-report measures since the construct would require individuals to consider how specific relational activity motivations fit within their larger self-system, including aspects of themselves in domains other than relationships. Notably, the MRA measures motivations to engage in relational activities but does not measure motivations to not engage in those activities. It is possible for someone to have autonomous or controlled reasons to not engage in a particular behaviour. However, we chose to assess only reasons to engage in activities to make the MRA comparable to the CMQ in orientation.

  2. The exception to this pattern was autonomous activity motivation toward sexual intimacy, which was less clearly associated with autonomous motivation toward the other activities. However, when we tested the SEM models presented later in the paper and allowed autonomous motivation for sexual intimacy to contribute uniquely to relationship well-being outcomes rather than load on the autonomous motivation latent factor, the model fit was poor. Thus, in the final analyses, it was included as an indicator of the autonomous motivation latent factor along with the other activity scales.

  3. We also modeled the MRA as a one-factor model in which autonomous activity motivation scores and controlled activity motivation scores were indicators of a single latent factor. This factor would represent “relative autonomy” if the autonomous activity motivation scores loaded positively and the controlled activity motivation scores loaded negatively. When we tested this model in AMOS, the autonomous activity motivation scores loaded positively but the controlled activity motivation scores loaded poorly on the factor. Further, the model fit was very poor (CMIN = 3,247.91, df = 456 CMIN/df = 7.12, CFI = .47, RMSEA = .132), suggesting that a one-factor model of the MRA is inappropriate.

  4. That said, we observed considerable regularity across relational activity scales in terms of each scale’s factor structure and covariance with the other activity scales. This regularity reflects the robustness of the constructs of autonomous and controlled activity motivation, and likely overshadows issues of item comparability.

References

  • Andersen, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behaviour (pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). AMOS (Version 16.0; computer software). Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation.

  • Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1993). Gift giving as agapic love: An alternative to the exchange paradigm based on dating experiences. The Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 393–417. doi:10.1086/209357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birchler, G. R., & Webb, L. J. (1977). Discriminating interaction behaviour in happy and unhappy marriages. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 494–495. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.45.3.494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Toward a motivational model of couple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1021–1031. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cupach, W. R., & Comstock, J. (1990). Satisfaction with sexual communication in marriage: Links to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 179–186. doi:10.1177/0265407590072002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). On the benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 313–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the worse it gets. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Contributions of social psychology (pp. 59–85). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmers, M. E., & Dindia, K. (1995). The effect of relational stage and intimacy on touch: An extension of Guerrero and Andersen. Personal Relationships, 2, 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2003). Motivations for caregiving in adult intimate relationships: Influences on caregiving behavior and relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 950–968.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finkenauer, C., & Hazam, H. (2000). Disclosure and secrecy in marriage: Do both contribute to marital satisfaction? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 245–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1991). The waxing and waning of relational intimacy: Touch as a function of relational stage, gender, and touch avoidance. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kontula, O. (1997). Correlates of increased sexual satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 399–419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrick, S. S. (1981). Self-disclosure and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1150–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmel, B. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2002). The meaning of autonomy: On and beyond the interpersonal circumplex. Journal of Personality, 70, 277–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgins, H., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M.-H., & Yu, S. (2000). Gifts in a romantic relationship: A survival analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasser, T. (2002). Sketches for a self-determination theory of values. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 123–140). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kernis, M. H., & Paradise, A. W. (2002). Distinguishing between secure and fragile forms of high self-esteem. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 339–360). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knee, C. R., Lonsbary, C., Canevello, A., & Patrick, H. (2005). Self-determination and conflict in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 997–1009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., Vietor, N. A., Nanayakkara, A., & Neighbors, C. (2002). Self-determination as growth motivation in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 609–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Guardia, J. G., & Patrick, H. (2008). Self-determination theory as a fundamental theory of close relationships. Canadian Psychology, 49, 201–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonoaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238–1251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2, 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meeks, B. S., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication, love, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 755–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, M. S., Bissell, K., Rohrbaugh, M. J., & Shoham, V. (1999, June). A state-relationship questionnaire measuring situational variation in couples’ satisfaction and distress. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Society, Denver, CO.

  • Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In S. Fiske (Ed.), Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (pp. 141–166). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

  • Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475–486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kietcott-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488–531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wills, T. A., Weiss, R. L., & Patterson, G. R. (1974). A behavioral analysis of the determinants of marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 802–811.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W., Waterloo, ON, Canada, N2L 3G1

    Graham S. Gaine & Jennifer G. La Guardia

Authors
  1. Graham S. Gaine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer G. La Guardia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Graham S. Gaine.

Appendix: Motivations for relational activities

Appendix: Motivations for relational activities

Sexual intimacy (14 items)

Why do you engage in sexual activity (petting, oral sex, or intercourse) with your partner?

Intrinsic:

  1. 1.

    Because I expect it to be interesting and exciting.

  2. 2.

    Because I get pleasure from sharing a special and intimate experience with my partner.

  3. 3.

    Because I find it very arousing and enjoyable to give my partner physical pleasure.

Identified:

  1. 1.

    Because I value sexual activity as a part of a full life.

  2. 2.

    Because sexual activity is an important part of my relationship.

  3. 3.

    Because it allows us to grow closer and more intimate.

Introjected:

  1. 1.

    Because sexual activity makes me feel better about myself.

  2. 2.

    Because that is what couples are supposed to do.

  3. 3.

    Because I’d feel anxious or guilty if I denied my partner of sexual activity.

  4. 4.

    Because my partner wants it, and it’s my role to satisfy my partner’s sexual needs.

External:

  1. 1.

    Because my partner gets moody and irritable if I deny him/her of sexual activity.

  2. 2.

    Because I fear my partner may become discontented with our relationship if I don’t fulfill his/her sexual needs.

  3. 3.

    Because my partner is in a better mood and is nicer to me after we engage in sexual activity.

  4. 4.

    Because my partner will do things for me that he/she wouldn’t do if I didn’t engage in sexual activity with him/her.

Physical intimacy (14 items)

Why do you engage in physical intimacy (i.e., hug, kiss, cuddle) with your partner?

Intrinsic:

  1. 1.

    Because I enjoy being in contact with him/her.

  2. 2.

    Because I love the way I feel when I am in contact with him/her.

  3. 3.

    Because I am very attracted to my partner and desire to be in physical contact with him/her.

Identified:

  1. 1.

    Because it increases the intimacy and closeness in our relationship.

  2. 2.

    Because physical intimacy helps us stay connected and fosters emotional closeness between us.

  3. 3.

    Because I believe it is a healthy aspect of a good relationship.

  4. 4.

    Because it symbolizes our togetherness, which is something I value and strive for in our relationship.

Introjected:

  1. 1.

    Because romantic couples are supposed to show their affection for one another through physical intimacy.

  2. 2.

    Because I want others to know that we are a happy and intimate couple.

  3. 3.

    Because I feel anxious about our relationship unless there is a show of physical affection between us.

  4. 4.

    Because it pleases my partner, and I need to please him/her to feel important and wanted.

External:

  1. 1.

    Because my partner insists that we be physically affectionate.

  2. 2.

    Because my partner seems cold and rejecting if I don’t give him/her physical affection.

  3. 3.

    Because my partner wants to be touched. So I do it to avoid a hassle from him/her.

Self-disclosure of feelings (13 items)

Why do you share your feelings with your partner?

Intrinsic:

  1. 1.

    Because I find it exciting to explore my innermost feelings with my partner.

  2. 2.

    Because it feels good to talk about my feelings with my partner.

  3. 3.

    Because I find it interesting to talk about my feelings with my partner.

Identified:

  1. 1.

    Because it is important to me that I can share my feelings with my partner.

  2. 2.

    Because I value being open about my feelings in my relationship.

  3. 3.

    Because being in-tune with each other’s feelings helps our relationship stay on track.

Introjected:

  1. 1.

    Because when my partner shares his/her feelings, I feel obligated to share some of mine.

  2. 2.

    Because that’s what my partner expects me to do.

  3. 3.

    Because people are supposed to share their feelings in relationships.

External:

  1. 1.

    Because my partner nags me until I tell him/her what I’m feeling.

  2. 2.

    Because my partner shows that he/she approves of me when I share my feelings.

  3. 3.

    Because my partner treats me better when I’ve expressed my feelings.

  4. 4.

    Because my partner withdraws and becomes cold with me if I don’t share my feelings with him/her.

Self-disclosure of thoughts (13 items)

Why do you share your thoughts and concerns with your partner?

Intrinsic:

  1. 1.

    Because I get excited to tell my partner my thoughts.

  2. 2.

    Because it is interesting and thought-provoking to talk about my ideas with my partner.

  3. 3.

    Because I enjoy sharing deep and meaningful conversations with my partner.

Identified:

  1. 1.

    Because I value openness in our relationship.

  2. 2.

    Because I want my partner to know and understand me.

  3. 3.

    Because I value what I learn about myself when I discuss my thoughts with my partner.

  4. 4.

    Because talking to my partner gives me a new perspective on my problems and helps me deal with them.

Introjected:

  1. 1.

    Because I sometimes feel guilty if I keep my thoughts private.

  2. 2.

    Because I worry my partner will think I’m dumb or boring if I don’t share my thoughts.

  3. 3.

    Because when my partner shares his/her thoughts, I feel like I have to share mine.

External:

  1. 1.

    Because my partner won’t stop asking me questions unless I tell him/her what I’m thinking.

  2. 2.

    Because my partner is friendlier and nicer when I tell him/her what I’m thinking.

  3. 3.

    Because my partner demands that I be open about what I’m thinking, and he/she will get angry and resentful if I don’t go along.

Social support (13 items)

Why do you listen to your partner’s problems?

Intrinsic:

  1. 1.

    Because I am interested in whatever my partner is going through.

  2. 2.

    Because I enjoy the process of listening to and learning about my partner.

  3. 3.

    Because I am curious to know what my partner is feeling and thinking.

Identified:

  1. 1.

    Because I want my partner to be able to count on me when he/she is having problems.

  2. 2.

    Because I feel we become closer when I understand what my partner is going through.

  3. 3.

    Because it is important to me that my partner feels supported.

Introjected:

  1. 1.

    Because it is my responsibility to be there for my partner, and I’d feel bad if I wasn’t there for him/her.

  2. 2.

    Because I’d feel guilty if I wasn’t there for my partner when he/she is feeling down.

  3. 3.

    Because I need to do it to feel like I am a dependable partner.

  4. 4.

    Because I have to do it to be a good partner.

External:

  1. 1.

    Because my partner will get angry and resentful if I don’t make time to listen to his/her problems and concerns.

  2. 2.

    Because if I just listen, my partner will stop bringing me down.

  3. 3.

    Because I expect that things will get worse between us if I don’t make him/her feel better.

Instrumental support of partner’s problems (12 items)

Why do you try to help your partner solve his/her problems?

Intrinsic:

  1. 1.

    Because I find it exciting and challenging to help my partner solve his/her problems.

  2. 2.

    Because I enjoy the challenge of helping my partner work through his/her tough issues.

  3. 3.

    Because I can’t help but get caught-up in the thrill of tackling my partner’s problems.

Identified:

  1. 1.

    Because I believe my partner’s challenges are mine too.

  2. 2.

    Because it is important for us to tackle problems together.

  3. 3.

    Because I find it very satisfying to help my partner overcome a difficultly.

Introjected:

  1. 1.

    Because I’d feel like a bad person if I didn’t try to help my partner solve his/her problems.

  2. 2.

    Because I worry that I will look like a neglectful partner if I don’t help my partner solve his/her problems.

  3. 3.

    Because I feel valuable when I help my partner work through his/her issues.

External:

  1. 1.

    Because my partner can’t cope with his/her problems without me.

  2. 2.

    Because if I help my partner get over his/her problems, we can get back to having fun and enjoying ourselves.

  3. 3.

    Because I have to help my partner for him/her to help me with my problems.

Instrumental support to make partner’s life less stressful (12 items)

Why do you invest time and effort in trying to do things that make your partner’s life easier or less stressful?

Intrinsic:

  1. 1.

    Because I get a lot of pleasure out of making things easier for my partner.

  2. 2.

    Because it excites me to make my partner feel good.

  3. 3.

    Because I enjoy taking care of my partner.

Identified:

  1. 1.

    Because I value a giving relationship.

  2. 2.

    Because I believe we need to work together and be unselfish for our relationship to stay strong.

  3. 3.

    Because I want to see my partner prosper and be content. So, I’ll do whatever I can to assist him/her in that.

Introjected:

  1. 1.

    Because I feel that helping my partner out is a way to fulfill my role in my relationship.

  2. 2.

    Because taking care of your partner is what it means to be in a romantic relationship.

  3. 3.

    Because I get anxious if I don’t feel like I’m useful in my partner’s life.

External:

  1. 1.

    Because I fear my partner will become unhappy with our relationship if I don’t do things for him/her.

  2. 2.

    Because then we avoid arguing about who should do what.

  3. 3.

    Because my partner is easier to live with if he/she gets what he/she wants.

Niceties (14 items)

Why do you do special things for your partner (e.g., give gifts, call him/her, take him/her out)?

Intrinsic:

  1. 1.

    Because I get really excited at the anticipation of knowing my partner will enjoy what I’ve done or plan to do.

  2. 2.

    Because I enjoy the process of planning something that will bring my partner pleasure.

  3. 3.

    Because it delights me to see my partner happy.

Identified:

  1. 1.

    Because I want to show my partner how much I love and cherish him/her.

  2. 2.

    Because I want to express my gratitude for everything my partner does for me.

  3. 3.

    Because my partner deserves to be cared for and attended to.

Introjected:

  1. 1.

    Because I know it is the nice thing to do.

  2. 2.

    Because being in a romantic relationship means you’ve got to do things like that for your partner.

  3. 3.

    Because doing such things makes me feel like a good person and a good partner.

  4. 4.

    Because my partner sometimes expects that I do special things for him/her, and I’d feel guilty or anxious if I didn’t follow through.

External:

  1. 1.

    Because I expect my partner will reciprocate and do special things for me.

  2. 2.

    Because it is a way to keep my partner interested and contented in our relationship.

  3. 3.

    Because things like that put my partner in a good mood and he/she treats me better.

  4. 4.

    Because my partner seems distant and unpleasant if I don’t do special things for him/her.

Support for partner’s life goals (13 items)

Why do you do things to support your partner’s life aspirations and goals (e.g., education, career, hobbies, family, lifestyle)?

Intrinsic:

  1. 1.

    Because I find it exciting to talk with my partner about his/her dreams and to help make them a reality.

  2. 2.

    Because I enjoy the process of helping my partner stay motivated and overcoming obstacles to his/her goals.

  3. 3.

    Because helping my partner successfully pursue his/her goals is a very challenging and interesting task.

Identified:

  1. 1.

    Because I value the opportunity to contribute to something that is very meaningful in my partner’s life.

  2. 2.

    Because my partner’s goals are very important to me, and I want to be a part of achieving those goals.

  3. 3.

    Because I want to see my partner reach his/her potential or what he/she wants to be.

Introjected:

  1. 1.

    Because my partner might fail without my support, and I would feel guilty if I let that happen.

  2. 2.

    Because my partner’s achievements will reflect good things about me.

  3. 3.

    Because my partner’s achievements will make me look good to others as well.

  4. 4.

    Because helping my partner pursue his/her goals makes me feel useful.

External:

  1. 1.

    Because my partner will be easier to live with when he/she achieves his/her goals.

  2. 2.

    Because there are personal benefits to having a successful partner.

  3. 3.

    Because supporting him/her is an investment in my future too, since a successful partner makes life easier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gaine, G.S., La Guardia, J.G. The unique contributions of motivations to maintain a relationship and motivations toward relational activities to relationship well-being. Motiv Emot 33, 184–202 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9120-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9120-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation