Exploring the Associations of Personality and Sexual Health Using the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the relationships between sexual health indicators (i.e., sexual satisfaction, distress, and function) and the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, a promising dimensional framework for assessing personality pathology. A sample of 489 participants seeking help in private practice clinics completed self-report measures of sexual satisfaction, distress, and function, as well as dyadic adjustment, psychological distress, romantic attachment, personality impairment, and pathological personality facets. Results first showed that participants reaching the cutoffs for a personality disorder had significantly higher sexual distress and lower sexual function compared to participants without a personality disorder. Second, path analyses controlling for psychological distress, dyadic adjustment, and romantic attachment revealed that, for women, the Criterion B Intimacy Avoidance facet was consistently linked with higher sexual distress and lower sexual satisfaction and function. For men, result patterns were more complex, linking Criterion B Separation Insecurity with high sexual distress, and Separation Insecurity and Intimacy Avoidance facets with low sexual function. In addition, Criterion B Irresponsibility, Rigid Perfectionism, as well as Criterion A Intimacy impairment were linked with higher sexual satisfaction. These findings improve our understanding of the links between personality and sexual health and provide support for considering personality difficulties in sexual health interventions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".