Do Demand-Withdrawal Communication Patterns During Sexual Conflict Predict Couples’ Relationship Satisfaction, Sexual Satisfaction, and Sexual Distress? An Observational and Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual conflict is common, yet it is one of the most challenging topics for couples because it provokes more negative emotions relative to other conflicts. Such challenges might prompt couples to rely on less adaptive sexual communication styles. Communication patterns during sexual conflict – such as demand-withdrawal – have received little attention, and studies that do exist relied on self-report measures. Demand-withdrawal communication refers to when one partner exerts pressure to talk about a problem while the other withdraws, and is associated with poorer psychological and relationship well-being. In an observational dyadic study, we examined associations between demand-withdrawal patterns during a sexual conflict and sexual and relationship outcomes concurrently and over time. Couples (N = 151, Mage = 31.92, SDage = 9.07) in long-term relationships completed measures of relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and sexual distress at baseline (T1) and 12 months later (T2). One week after T1, they engaged in an in-lab discussion of an important sexual conflict, coded by trained observers for degree of demand-withdrawal. Individuals in a couple who were observed to display higher demand-withdrawal reported lower relationship and sexual satisfaction and higher sexual distress at T1, as well as lower relationship satisfaction at T2. Effects were not moderated by gender. Findings demonstrate the relevance of demand-withdrawal patterns during sexual conflict.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".