The role of sexual communication patterns in the longitudinal associations between romantic attachment and sexual satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-sectional associations between greater attachment insecurities (i.e., anxiety and avoidance) and lower sexual satisfaction are well documented. However, little is known about these associations over time and their explanatory mechanisms. One such potential mechanism is sexual communication, given that attachment insecurities can complicate discussing sexual matters and that positive sexual communication is a pathway toward greater sexual satisfaction. The current study examined whether negative (e.g., blame, avoidance) or collaborative (e.g., problem-solving, sharing feelings) sexual communication patterns (SCP) explained the longitudinal associations between attachment insecurities and sexual satisfaction, using cross-lagged mediation panel analyses. A sample of 441 community adults involved in a romantic relationship completed online questionnaires assessing attachment, SCP and sexual satisfaction at three time points over one year. Results yielded two direct associations showing that individuals with greater attachment avoidance at baseline used more negative SCP six months later and that greater use of collaborative SCP predicted greater sexual satisfaction six months later. One significant indirect association from greater attachment anxiety to lower sexual satisfaction via lower collaborative SCP was also found. These longitudinal findings extend the understanding of mechanisms linking attachment and sexual satisfaction and underline the relevance of targeting how partners communicate about their sexuality in order to improve their sexual satisfaction over time.
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".