MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387974292 · doi:10.5964/ps.11869

Sexual Satisfaction Predicts Future Changes in Relationship Satisfaction and Sexual Frequency: New Insights From Within-Person Associations Over Time

2023· article· en· W4387974292 on OpenAlexaff
Haeyoung Gideon Park, Nathan D. Leonhardt, Matthew D. Johnson, Amy Muise, Dean M. Busby, Veronica Hanna‐Walker, Jeremy B. Yorgason, Erin K. Holmes, Emily A. Impett

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersBrigham Young University
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerable research demonstrates a positive association between sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction, but longitudinal evidence on the direction of this link remains inconclusive. To address this research gap, the present research provided a stringent test of the within-person associations between sexual and relationship satisfaction over time by analyzing 4-year longitudinal data from a nationally representative sample of newlywed couples in the United States (N = 2,104). The results indicated that within-person changes in sexual satisfaction predicted future changes in relationship satisfaction, whereas changes in relationship satisfaction did not predict future changes in sexual satisfaction. These results remained consistent when accounting for changes in couples’ sexual frequency, which showed significant associations with sexual satisfaction but non-significant associations with relationship satisfaction over time. All associations were consistent across gender. Overall, the current findings inform theory and practice on the roles of sexual dynamics in shaping overall perceptions of intimate relationships.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality ScienceSame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207