The Association between Sexual Costs and Sexual Satisfaction in Women: An Exploration of the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has suggested that female sexual functioning may be strongly tied to sexual satisfaction In some cases and weakly tied in others. The.Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction (IEMSS) constitutes a validated theoretical framework within which to explore this complex association. The aim of the current study was to explore whether sexual functioning represents an Important sexual cost that is closely linked to sexual satisfaction, and for whom. Data from 200 female undergraduates were analyzed to determine if sexuai functioning accounted for the association between sexuai costs and sexual satisfaction In women and whether this indirect effect was dependent on adult attachment anxiety. We found a significant simpie indirect effect wherein sexuai functioning accounted for the association between sexuai costs and sexuai satisfaction for the sampie as a whoie. However, attachment anxiety moderated this indirect effect; sexual functioning accounted for the association between sexual costs and satisfaction for women reporting low ievels of attachment anxiety, but not for women reporting high leveis of attachment anxiety. These findings suggest that, depending on individual attachment orientation, difficulties with sexual functioning may or may not represent key sexuai costs that are associated with levels of sexual satisfaction. Theoretical and practicai implications are discussed. Acknowledgement: This pubiication was supported by Grant Number ROl HD51676 from the Nationai Institute for Chiid Heaith and Human Deveiopment to Cindy M. Meston.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".