The potential role of mindfulness in protecting against sexual insecurities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has identified the detrimental effects of sexual insecurities on various sexual outcomes. However, few studies have investigated factors that may protect against the development and maintenance of these insecurities. Mindfulness has shown promise in promoting sexual well-being in several recent investigations, and may play a role in protecting against sexual insecurities and enhancing sexual satisfaction. Therefore, the goal of this investigation was to determine whether mindfulness was related to reduced sexual insecurities and whether mindfulness mediated the relationship between sexual insecurities and sexual satisfaction. An online survey measuring sexual insecurities, sexual satisfaction and mindfulness was administered to female (n=687) and male (n=334) undergraduate students. Multiple regression analyses revealed that higher levels of mindfulness were associated with fewer sexual insecurities and greater sexual satisfaction in men and women. A series of bootstrap multiple mediation analyses indicated that mindfulness partially mediated the relationship between sexual insecurities and several aspects of sexual satisfaction. These research findings suggest that mindfulness may promote sexual satisfaction and mitigate sexual insecurities in men and women. Investigating the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions in the reduction of sexual insecurities represents a promising area of future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".