Passion, Intimacy, and Commitment in Casual Sexual Relationships in a Canadian Sample of Emerging Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on casual sexual relationships (CSRs) among emerging adults is prevalent, yet our empirical and theoretical knowledge of relationship processes involved in these relationships is limited. The present study's objective was to compare four CSR partner types (acquaintance, friend, non-dating partner, ex-romantic partner) on passion, intimacy, and commitment, the components of Sternberg's triangular theory of love. A total of 441 Canadians aged 18-25 years who were not in a romantic relationship, and who reported having had more than one sexual contact with their last CSR partner, completed an online survey. Across all partner types, passion was highest, followed by intimacy and commitment. Levels of passion, intimacy, and commitment generally increased with partner familiarity. However, CSR partner type differences on the three components were partially explained by CSR components (i.e., frequency of sexual activity, frequency of social activity, whether partners saw each other with the main goal of having sex, sexual exclusivity agreement, and hopes about the relationship). Results are consistent with CSRs' emphasis on sexuality, and, to a lesser extent, emotions. However, they challenge the mainstream and scientific conflation of CSRs with an absence of emotional bond, commitment, or love.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".