Beyond the Bedroom: How Resilience and Thought Control Influence Sexual Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the predictive relationships between resilience, thought control, and sexual satisfaction among adults in romantic relationships. Utilizing a cross-sectional design, data were collected from 450 participants through validated scales measuring sexual satisfaction (Index of Sexual Satisfaction), resilience (Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale), and thought control (Thought Control Questionnaire). Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted using SPSS-27 to examine the predictive value of resilience and thought control on sexual satisfaction. The regression analysis revealed that both resilience (β = 0.29, p < 0.01) and thought control (β = 0.30, p < 0.01) significantly predicted sexual satisfaction, accounting for 49% of the variance in sexual satisfaction scores. The findings suggest a substantial relationship between these psychological constructs and sexual satisfaction. The study underscores the importance of resilience and thought control as significant predictors of sexual satisfaction. These findings highlight the need for incorporating psychological resilience and cognitive strategies into interventions aimed at enhancing sexual well-being in intimate relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".