Daily and longitudinal associations between relationship catastrophizing and sexual well-being in the postpartum period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New parent couples report heightened relationship conflicts and challenges; how romantic partners regulate their emotions in response can have key implications for their sexual relationship. One way people might respond to these emotional challenges is through relationship catastrophizing, which refers to magnifying negative cognitions, ruminating on relationship problems, and adopting a helpless orientation toward coping with these problems. Relationship catastrophizing may orient new parents’ attention toward challenges in their relationship, such as sexual difficulties, with negative implications for sexual well-being. The current study examined how relationship catastrophizing relates to one’s own and a partner’s sexual well-being. Birthing parents and their partners completed a novel measure of relationship catastrophizing and measures of sexual well-being at 3 and 9 months postpartum ( n = 184 couples) and brief versions of these measures for 21 days between 3 and 4 months postpartum ( n = 229 couples). On days when birthing parents employed greater relationship catastrophizing, they also reported greater sexual distress and both partners reported lower sexual satisfaction and desire. Partners’ daily relationship catastrophizing was associated with their own lower sexual satisfaction and desire, and both partners’ greater sexual distress. Longitudinal analyses, however, provided minimal evidence that the costs of relationship catastrophizing persist over time when accounting for other stressors (e.g., depressive symptoms, stress, fatigue) characteristic of the postpartum period. Findings support the potential for relationship catastrophizing as a novel target for psychoeducation and interventions aimed at promoting the day-to-day sexual well-being of new parents.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".