Further Validation of the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted two studies to further test the validity of the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction for long-term opposite-sex relationships (IEMSS; Lawrance & Byers, 1995 Lawrance, K. and Byers, E. S. 1995. Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction. Personal Relationships., 2: 267–285. [CSA][CROSSREF][Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Study 1 examined, in a sample of 79 individuals, the extent to which the history of sexual exchanges is associated with sexual satisfaction as well as whether changes in sexual rewards and costs are associated with change in sexual satisfaction. Using a sample of 104 couples, Study 2 examined whether partner rewards and costs add to individuals' own sexual satisfaction over and above own sexual rewards and costs for men or women. The results provided further evidence for the validity of the IEMSS, including support for the propositions that in long-term relationships: (a) sexual satisfaction is influenced by the history of sexual rewards and costs rather than by rewards and costs at a particular point in time; (b) decreases in sexual satisfaction are associated with sexual exchanges becoming less favorable; and (c) satisfaction is influenced by dyadic factors for both men and women.
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 | 0.032 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".