Why do you have sex and does it make you feel better? Integrating attachment theory, sexual motives, and sexual well-being in long-term couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attachment theory postulates that three behavioral systems are central to optimal couple functioning: attachment, caregiving, and sex. However, few studies have examined the concurrent contribution of these systems to understand sexual well-being. This daily diary study examined the intermediary role of attachment- and caregiving-related sexual motives in the associations linking attachment insecurities and positive and negative emotions during sexual activity in 149 long-term mixed-gender/sex couples. Multilevel analyses revealed that individuals higher in attachment avoidance endorsed less caregiving sexual motives, which was associated with their own more negative emotional experience during sexual activity. Individuals higher in attachment anxiety endorsed more attachment sexual motives, which was associated with their own and their partner's more negative emotional experience during sex. However, individuals higher in attachment anxiety also concurrently endorsed more caregiving sexual motives, which predicted their own and their partner's more positive emotional experience during sex. Overall, the findings support the associations between the attachment, caregiving, and sexual behavioral systems and suggest that engaging in sex as a way to care for one's partner might foster sexual well-being in long-term couples.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".