Multidimensional Perfectionism and Sexual Difficulties Among Adult Couples: A Dyadic Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multidimensional model of perfectionism includes three dimensions: Self-oriented perfectionism (SOP), other-oriented perfectionism (OOP), and socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP). Although previous research has identified significant cross-sectional associations between perfectionism and sexual function, these studies predominantly focused on women without examining the links between the different dimensions of perfectionism and various indicators of sexual difficulties among both members of a couple. This study aimed to address this gap by examining the dyadic associations between perfectionism dimensions, sexual function, partner-focused sexual desire, and sexual distress, both cross-sectionally (T1) and longitudinally (T2) over one year. The secondary aim of the study was to explore the moderating role of gender on these associations. A sample of 308 cohabiting adult couples completed online questionnaires assessing participants' three dimensions of perfectionism, partner-focused sexual desire, sexual function and sexual distress. Path analyses using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) revealed that SOP was positively associated with individuals' own partner-focused sexual desire at T1 and T2. In contrast, SPP was negatively associated with individuals' own sexual function at T1 and positively associated with their own sexual distress at T1 and T2. A moderation analysis revealed that men's SPP was related to their partner's higher sexual distress at T1. The results underscore the importance of considering perfectionism dimensions in clinical assessments and interventions for couples experiencing sexual difficulties and problematic perfectionist behaviors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".