Can Shifting Beliefs About Planned Sex Lead to Engaging in More Frequent Sex and Higher Desire and Satisfaction? An Experimental Study of Parents with Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although people idealize spontaneous sex, planned sex is associated with lower satisfaction only when valued less. This research tested how manipulating planned-sex beliefs and intentions affects sexual frequency, desire, distress, and satisfaction among parents of young children, who are more vulnerable to lower sexual and relationship satisfaction. Following a Pilot Study testing the manipulation (N = 215), participants in the Main Study (N = 514) were assigned to either the experimental group (n = 310) that read about the benefits of planned sex and were encouraged to plan sex or the control group (n = 204) whose existing beliefs and routines were affirmed. Two weeks later, the experimental group reported more frequent planned sex and more frequent sex overall and greater desire as compared to the control group. For the control group, perceiving a recent sexual experience as more planned was linked to lower sexual satisfaction and greater distress, whereas the experimental group was buffered against these effects. Moreover, the experimental group reported higher relationship satisfaction when sex was perceived as planned, unlike the control group. Shifting people’s planned-sex beliefs and intentions encourages more frequent sex, enhances desire, and impacts sexual and relationship satisfaction and distress when partners plan sex.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".