Validation of the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction With Women in a Same-Sex Relationship
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the validity of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction for sexual-minority women (SMW) with a range of sexual identities (lesbian, bisexual, queer, unlabeled, questioning). Participants, 898 (192 who were dating, 439 who were cohabitating) SMW in a romantic relationship of at least 3 months, completed an online survey that included the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire. The results provide support for the validity of the model for SMW in that all the model components (relationship satisfaction, balance of sexual rewards and costs, balance of relative sexual rewards and costs, equality of rewards, equality of costs) were significantly associated with sexual satisfaction. All of the components, except equality of sexual costs, contributed uniquely to the prediction of sexual satisfaction. Neither relationship stage (dating vs. cohabiting) nor sexual identity (lesbian vs. other sexual-minority identity) moderated these associations. Women daters reported a significantly higher level of sexual rewards, sexual costs, and sexual satisfaction than did women cohabiters. The interpersonal exchange model may be used by clinicians as a framework for exploring experiences of low sexual satisfaction with a couple. The results also add to an emerging positive picture of the sexual relationships of SMW at both stages; this information can be used to counter negative stereotypes. Online supplemental files are available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684316679655 .
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it