Are pornography use motivations related to behaviors toward the romantic partner? A dyadic daily diary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals in couple relationships often use pornography. Previous findings are inconsistent regarding how pornography use may affect couples and tend to focus on overall use and broad retrospective indicators of relationship functioning (e.g., relationship satisfaction). No research has considered the motivations behind pornography use and how they relate to daily dynamics between partners. Yet, the approach-avoidance sexual motivation theory suggests that approach motivations to engage in a sexual activity (e.g., for sexual pleasure) are associated with positive relational outcomes whereas avoidance motivations (e.g., to avoid a conflict) are related to negative relational outcomes. This study bridges these gaps by examining the associations between pornography use motivations and daily positive (e.g., listening to the partner) and negative (e.g., getting angry at the partner) behaviors among couples using a dyadic daily diary design. A convenience sample of 327 couples (50.6% women; M age = 31.5) completed daily self-report measures over 35 days. Multilevel actor-partner interdependence models showed that on days when a person used pornography for stress reduction, they reported fewer positive behaviors toward their partner. Similarly, on days when a person used pornography for emotional distraction, they reported fewer positive behaviors and greater negative behaviors toward their partner. On days when a person used pornography for partner-related motivation, they reported greater positive behaviors toward their partner, and on days when a person used pornography for sexual pleasure, they reported fewer negative behaviors toward the partner. For most motivations, on days when a person used pornography, their partner reported fewer positive behaviors toward them that day. Our results are in line with the approach-avoidance sexual motivation theory and support the need to consider motivations underlying pornography use for a better understanding of its associations with same-day couple dynamics.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".