Expanding the Analysis of Psychosocial Factors of Sexual Desire in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature lacks studies of the male sex drive. Most existing studies have focused on hypoactive sexual desire disorder in coupled heterosexual men, highlighting some of the main related biological, psychological, and social factors. AIM: To evaluate the role of selected psychological and social variables affecting male sexual desire such as quality of life, sexual function, distress, satisfaction, psychological symptoms, emotions, alexithymia, couple adjustment, sexism, cognitive schemas activated in a sexual context, sexual dysfunctional beliefs, and different classes of cognitions triggered during sexual activity about failure anticipation, erection concerns, age- and body-related thoughts, erotic fantasies, and negative attitudes toward sexuality. METHODS: A wide self-administered survey used snowball sampling to reach 298 heterosexual Italian men (age = 32.66 ± 11.52 years) from the general population. OUTCOMES: 13 questionnaires exploring psychological and social elements involved in sexual response were administrated: International Index of Erectile Function, Short Form 36 for Quality of Life, Beck Depression Inventory-II, Symptom Check List-90-Revised, Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Premature Ejaculation Severity Index, Sexual Distress Scale, Sexual Satisfaction Scale, Dyadic Adjustment Scale, Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, Sexual Modes Questionnaire, Sexual Dysfunctional Belief Questionnaire, and Questionnaire of Cognitive Schema Activation in Sexual Context. RESULTS: Results showed lack of erotic thoughts (β = -0.328), fear (β = -0.259) and desire to have a baby (β = -0.259) as the main predictors of the level of sexual desire in this group. Energy-fatigue, depression, premature ejaculation severity, sexual distress, compatibility, subjective sexual response, and sexual conservatism had a weaker effect on sexual desire. Sexual functioning (13.80%), emotional response (12.70%), dysfunctional sexual beliefs (12.10%), and negative automatic thoughts (12.00%) had more variable effects on sexual drive. CLINICAL TRANSLATION: Analyzed variables could represent important factors that should be considered in the assessment of desire concerns and discussed in therapy. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The strength of this study is the analysis of novel psychological and social factors on male sexual desire. Recruitment and sample size do not allow generalization of the results, but some crucial points for future research and clinical practice are discussed. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed that male sexual desire could be affected by many psychological and social elements. Other factors remain to be explored, in their direct and interactive effects, aiming to better explain male sexual desire functioning. Nimbi FM, Tripodi F, Rossi R, Simonelli C. Expanding the Analysis of Psychosocial Factors of Sexual Desire in Men. J Sex Med 2018;15:230-244.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".