Integrating the attachment, caregiving, and sexual systems into the understanding of sexual satisfaction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
link between the caregiving and sexual systems. In an attempt to complement current research, this study was designed to provide a better understanding of sexual satisfaction by exploring the interplay of these three systems. Specifically, we examined a model in which the dimensions of romantic attachment and caregiving predicted reasons for engaging in sexual intercourse that served a caregiving function and, ultimately were related to sexual satisfaction in a sample of 152 adults who were cohabiting with a romantic partner. Path analyses revealed that individuals low in attachment-related avoidance scored higher on caregiving proximity and sensitivity, which in turn were associated with having sex to express valuing one’s partner, and higher sexual satisfaction. Individuals who score higher on attachment anxiety simultaneously reported lower caregiving sensitivity, which was negatively associated with having sex to express valuing one’s partner and reported having sex to express this same value. Attachment anxiety was also associated with scores on the measure of exerting too much control while providing care. This was in turn associated with using sexuality to enhance one’s sense of power. Our model explained 16% of the variance in sexual satisfaction. Findings are discussed in light of attachment theory and implications for couple therapy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".