MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246968977 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/bdcga

But What’s Your Partner up to? Associations between Relationship Quality and Pornography Use Depend on Contextual Patterns of Use within the Couple

2021· preprint· en· W4246968977 on OpenAlexaff
Taylor Kohut, Kiersten Dobson, Rhonda Nicole Balzarini, Ronald D. Rogge, Amanda Michelle Maddox Shaw, James K. McNulty, Michelle Russell, William Fisher, Lorne Campbell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPornographySimilarity (geometry)PsychologySocial psychologyExplanatory powerDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is commonly assumed that pornography use harms relationships. In the current research, we contribute to a small but growing body of work that challenges this assumption by examining an alternative explanatory mechanism for the associations between pornography use and relationship dysfunction. In contrast to dominant exposure-based explanations in this field, we argue instead that the apparent negative “impact” of pornography use on relationship quality may be the product of partner similarity or differences in pornography use behavior. Independent of any direct causal effect of sexual media, we would expect that negative relationship functioning should be more prominent among couples who are dissimilar in their pornography use, because dissimilarity in this behavior suggests broader dissimilarity in sexual interests, preferences, and values. To this end, we sought to test whether dyadic patterns of pornography use, and related attributes, were associated with sexual and relationship satisfaction in two cross-sectional (N = 407; n1 = 200; n3 = 207) and two longitudinal (N2 = 77; N4 = 529) samples of heterosexual couples. Across studies, results indicated that shared pornography use and partner similarity in solitary pornography use relative to dissimilarity in solitary pornography use were both associated with better sexual satisfaction and to a lesser extent, relationship satisfaction. Further consideration of potential explanatory mechanisms for these associations established comparable patterns of results for similarity-dissimilarity in attitudes towards pornography, erotophobia-erotophilia, sexual preferences, and sex drive. Importantly, only similarity-dissimilarity in sex drive statistically accounted for the effects of similarity-dissimilarity in solitary pornography use. These findings demonstrate that links between pornography use and relationship health are partially a function of different dyadic patterns of pornography use within couples, a pattern of results that is difficult to account for with traditional exposure-based theories of the impact of pornography.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.329
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.107 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207