Comparing Responses to Sexual Rejection and Sexual and Relationship Well-Being in Couples Coping with Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder and Community Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four distinct partner responses to sexual rejection – sexual advances that are declined by a partner – have been identified. This study assessed the frequency of these responses between and within North American couples coping with Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (SIAD) and community couples and – in line with the Interpersonal Emotion Regulation Model – compared the associations between responses to sexual rejection and sexual and relationship well-being across the two samples. Individuals with SIAD and their partners (n = 241) and community couples (n = 105) completed online measures of sexual rejection responses, sexual satisfaction, sexual desire, sexual distress, sexual frequency, and relationship satisfaction. Results showed that after accounting for sexual rejection frequency, individuals with SIAD and their partners reported greater resentful and insecure partner responses to sexual rejection than individuals in the community sample, and individuals with SIAD perceived less understanding responses than their own partners reported. For both groups, more understanding and less resentful and insecure responses were associated with greater sexual and relationship well-being. Clinicians might encourage couples to reflect on their rejection responses and to shift to more helpful ways of responding to sexual rejection.
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 | 0.018 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".