Positive and negative sexual cognitions: Subjective experience and relationships to sexual adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some individuals appraise their sexual cognitions negatively and/or experience negative affect in association with their sexual cognitions. However, sex researchers have tended to subsume different types of sexual cognitions under the term sexual fantasy and have assumed that these cognitions are positively experienced. The purpose of this study was to clarify past research on sexual‐cognitions by exploring the distinction between sexual cognitions that are perceived as positive by individuals and those that are perceived as negative. Two‐hundred and ninety‐two (148 women and 144 men) heterosexual undergraduate students completed a 56‐item positive and negative sexual cognition checklist along with measures of sexual adjustment. Results revealed that compared to negative sexual cognitions, positive sexual cognitions were associated with more positive affect, less negative affect, more frequent subjective general physiological and sexual arousal, and less frequent self‐reported upset stomach. In addition, positively experienced sexual cognitions were experienced as more deliberate and less intrusive, and were associated with less frequent attempts to control the thought, than were negative sexual cognitions. Further, while a higher frequency of positive sexual cognitions was related to better sexual adjustment for men and women, the frequency of negative sexual cognitions was not related to sexual maladjustment. Indeed, overall the results suggest that negative sexual cognitions have little to do with sexual adjustment. Together, these findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between positive and negative sexual cognitions in 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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".