Understanding extradyadic sex and its underlying motives through a dualistic model of sexual passion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extradyadic sex in monogamous romantic relationships represents a violation of trust that has been associated with adverse personal and relationship outcomes. Although relational factors related to extradyadic sex have been extensively studied, few individual sexual factors have been identified, and these factors have remained one-dimensional. The present research proposes that sexual passion, as defined by the dualistic model of sexual passion, can help better understand extradyadic sex and its underlying motives by distinguishing two types of sexual passion. Study 1 (631 students, mean age = 24.92 years) showed that obsessive sexual passion (OSP), but not harmonious sexual passion (HSP), was related to past extradyadic sex, conflict between sexuality and the maintenance of long-term romantic relationships, and ego-invested motives for engaging in extradyadic sex. Study 2 (84 students, mean age = 28.49 years) used a longitudinal design and showed that OSP, but not HSP, predicted prospective extradyadic sex. In addition, results revealed that men with an OSP reported engaging in extradyadic sex more often and with more partners than other individuals. These studies underline the importance of using a two-dimensional approach to understand how sexual passion relates to extradyadic sex.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".