The role of sexual passion in romantic relationship functioning: A dyadic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dualistic model of sexual passion defines sexual passion as a strong motivational drive to engage in various types of partnered and non-partnered sexual activities and distinguishes two types of sexual passion that lead to distinct consequences, obsessive sexual passion (OSP) and harmonious sexual passion (HSP). The purpose of the present research was to examine the associations between these two types of sexual passion and relationship functioning in partners of romantic relationships using dyadic analyses. Heterosexual participants (132 couples; n = 264) completed an online survey which included three indicators of relationship functioning: relationship quality, sexual satisfaction, and level of conflict. An actor-partner interdependence model analysis (APIM) revealed that, for both men and women, HSP was positively associated with relationship functioning, whereas OSP was negatively associated with it. In addition, results unveiled significant partner effects, such that both men’s and women’s HSP were associated with their partners’ perceptions of relationship functioning, but not for OSP. Finally, there were a significant moderation between men’s HSP and women’s OSP on women’s relationship functioning, suggesting that men’s HSP can buffer the negative effect of women’s OSP. The present results provide evidence that sexual passion can either facilitate or hinder relationship functioning through multiple personal and dyadic pathways.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".