Connecting through touch: Attitudes toward touch in pregnancy are associated with couples’ sexual and affectionate behaviors across the transition to parenthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Touch is a universal nonverbal action often used by romantic partners to demonstrate affection and care for each other. Attitudes toward touch might be particularly relevant across periods of relational strain—such as the transition to parenthood—when couples face many novel stressors and shifting priorities which can interfere with their sexual and affectionate experiences. New parent couples ( N = 203) completed self-report measures online across six time-points (two prenatal). We tested whether couples’ attitudes toward touch (touch aversion, touch for affection, touch for emotion regulation) at baseline (20 weeks mid-pregnancy) predicted their frequency of sexual and affectionate behaviors from mid-pregnancy through 12-month postpartum. Both partners’ more positive attitudes toward touch (i.e., for affection and emotion regulation) and lower aversive attitudes toward touch, as measured in mid-pregnancy, predicted couples’ higher frequency and variety of sexual and affectionate behaviors at 3-month postpartum. Touch attitudes generally did not predict the degree of change in the frequency or variety of sexual or affectionate behaviors, with one exception: non-birthing parents’ more positive attitudes toward touch for emotion regulation in mid-pregnancy predicted a slower decline in couples’ affectionate behaviors across pregnancy. Findings underscore a link between new parents’ attitudes toward touch and their subsequent sexual and affectionate behaviors, particularly in the early postpartum period. New parents need to navigate novel sexual changes and a nonverbal strategy such as touch might be useful to promote intimacy and care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".