Under Pressure: Men’s and Women’s Sexual Performance Anxiety in the Sexual Interactions of Adult Couples
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research on sexual performance anxiety has focused on men's experiences and links to erectile functioning and premature ejaculation, with little research attention given to women's experiences or to relationship dynamics. At times, sexual performance anxiety has been examined in the context of dysfunction, but rarely as a focus in its own right. Study 1 asked 51 participants reporting sexual performance anxiety to describe the cognitive and affective components of their experiences, coping strategies, and perceived impact on their relationship using open-ended responses from online surveys. Through directed content analysis, Study 1 revealed that men and women experience a range of cognitive and affective processes with predominant feelings of inadequacy, and overall promoting more approach coping strategies. Study 2 used quantitative surveys to examine whether sexual performance anxiety was associated with higher sexual distress and lower sexual and relationship satisfaction in a sample of 228 community-based couples. Guided by the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model, multilevel modeling analyses indicated that higher sexual performance anxiety was linked to higher sexual distress and lower sexual and relationship satisfaction in both individuals and their partners. This work advances knowledge of sexual performance anxiety to women's experiences, not just men's, and to couples' experiences. Effective treatment for those suffering from this anxiety may incorporate education around sexual beliefs and expectations.
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.
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 it