Oversexualization among emerging adults: Preliminary associations with romantic attachment and intimacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined romantic attachment and intimacy as correlates of oversexualized behaviours and attitudes among emerging adults. A sample of 587 participants (494 women, 93 men) aged between 18 and 29 completed a series of online questionnaires assessing oversexualization, romantic attachment, and intimacy. Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to explore the associations between these variables and examine the moderating role of sex. Results revealed that attachment-related anxiety was associated with overinvestment in sexual appearance, sexual objectification, and performance-based sexuality. This last association was stronger for men than for women. Attachment-related avoidance was associated with seduction and lower meaningfulness of sexuality. In addition, while sexualized language was related to a better perception of emotional, social, sexual, and recreational intimacy, meaningfulness of sexuality was positively related to all dimensions of intimacy. Conversely, sexual objectification was related to lower recreational intimacy, seductive attitude was related to lower emotional intimacy, and overinvestment in one’s sexualized appearance was related to lower sexual intimacy. For men only, overinvestment in sexualized appearance was also related to higher perceived social intimacy Theoretical and clinical implications of these results 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".