Sexual satisfaction of older adults: testing the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction in the ageing population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Having a satisfying sex life is important to older adults. Thus, this study aimed to provide information about the sexual satisfaction of older adults in a relationship, using the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction (IEMSS) as a theoretical framework. Participants were 187 sexually active individuals (98 men and 89 women) in a romantic relationship (age 65–75 years). They were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical-Turk, and completed the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire and two open-ended questions asking what they enjoyed most and least about their sexual relationship. On average, participants were highly sexually satisfied. In keeping with the IEMSS, greater sexual satisfaction was predicted by a more favourable balance of sexual rewards to costs, greater equality of sexual costs and higher satisfaction with the non-sexual aspects of the relationship. Four themes emerged regarding what participants liked most and least about their sexual relationship: emotional aspects of the relationship, physical aspects of the relationship, dyadic aspects of the relationship and age-related aspects of being sexual. None of the four themes were specific to men or women, although some gender/sex differences were found. The results paint a positive picture of the sexual relationships of older adults and support the utility of the IEMSS as a framework to understand sexual satisfaction in older adults.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".