Mindfulness, cognitive distraction, and sexual well-being in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mindfulness involves intentional, non-judgmental and accepting awareness of the present moment. People differ in terms of their level of dispositional mindfulness and can also engage in formal training to cultivate greater mindfulness. Despite a recent proliferation in research on mindfulness and its association with numerous aspects of psychological well-being, researchers have only recently investigated mindfulness in relation to sexual well-being. Existing research has primarily focused on small clinical samples and formal mindfulness intervention and the mechanisms by which mindfulness relates to sexual well-being are poorly understood. In the current study, mindfulness and sexual satisfaction were measured in an online sample of adult women (n=355) who were in relationships. Cognitive distraction during sexual activity was examined as a potential mediator as cognitive distraction has been associated with sexual well-being in women and mindfulness is associated with lower levels of rumination. Women who reported higher levels of mindfulness reported experiencing significantly less frequent cognitive distraction during partnered sexual activity and significantly higher levels of sexual satisfaction. Mindfulness was associated with all measured aspects of cognitive distraction (i.e., cognitive distraction due to appearance concerns, performance concerns, and everyday distractors). Bootstrapping mediational analysis revealed a significant indirect effect; that is, cognitive distraction mediated the association between mindfulness and sexual satisfaction. Mindfulness interventions may be particularly beneficial for women who experience frequent cognitive distraction during sexual activity. Additional clinical implications and potential directions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".