A review of experimental research on anxiety and sexual arousal: Implications for the treatment of sexual dysfunction using cognitive behavioral therapy
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
Clinical models of sexual response link anxiety to the etiology of sexual dysfunction. Furthermore, some cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) for sexual dysfunction have included strategies targeting anxiety reduction. This review examines the experimental literature on the effects of manipulating aspects of the anxiety response (e.g., anxious sensations, thoughts, attentional focus) on genital and self-reported sexual arousal. An additional aim was to use this literature to elucidate potential mechanisms that may be useful for CBT for sexual dysfunction. Our review suggested that anxiety sometimes facilitates, inhibits, or has no effect on sexual arousal. These findings suggest that caution is warranted incorporating anxiety-focused interventions in the treatment of sexual dysfunctions. Importantly, little experimental research has utilized precise manipulations of anxiety (e.g., manipulating fear of penetration) that are related to current CBT interventions. To better understand the relationship between anxiety and sexual dysfunction, future research should explore the question of why and how anxiety exerts a variable effect on sexual arousal rather than simply if anxiety exerts an effect on sexual arousal. Importantly, experimental research examining individual differences in beliefs about anxiety and sex may be helpful in answering this important question and help advance and improve CBT interventions for sexual dysfunctions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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