Sexual passion in couple relationships: Emerging patterns from dyadic response surface analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The objective of this study was to explore the interrelationship between one partner's inhibited sexual passion (ISP) and the other partner's obsessive sexual passion (OSP) and how these two types of extrinsically motivated passion were associated with sexual satisfaction. Background Previous research has shown that ISP and OSP are common in many couple relationships and are associated with lower levels of sexual outcomes than harmonious sexual passion, a balanced intrinsically motivated passion. However, it is not known how these two types of passion interact and are associated with sexual satisfaction. Methods By combining two convenience dyadic samples, we were able to evaluate the interrelationship between these passion styles with 713 mixed‐sex couples. Sexual passion and satisfaction were measured using established instruments and the data were analyzed using dyadic response surface analysis. Results Results indicated that when men considered their sexual passion style to be OSP and their partner's to be ISP this was associated with significantly lower levels of sexual satisfaction for both partners. In contrast, higher levels of OSP in women, as rated by either partner, were associated with higher levels of sexual satisfaction, especially when coupled with lower levels of ISP in men. Conclusion Overall, ISP had a strong negative effect on sexual satisfaction for both partners, while the influence of OSP was most clear when considered simultaneously with levels of ISP as it was different for males and females. The results illustrate the benefit of evaluating couple sexual passions simultaneously and interactively for both partners to understand their associations with sexual outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".