Buffering the Sting of Sexual Rejection to Promote Relationship Connection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiencing rejection from a romantic partner can be painful, and sexual rejection may have a lasting impact on satisfaction. However, some ways of communicating sexual rejection may elicit more constructive responses from the rejected partner, fostering continued connection in the face of rejection. Across three studies—a cross-sectional study of individuals in romantic relationships (Study 1; N = 315) and two dyadic daily diary studies (Studies 2–3; total N = 219 couples contributing 9,287 daily reports)—we tested whether specific ways of communicating sexual rejection are associated with the rejected partner’s emotional and behavioral responses. Across studies, perceived hostile rejection (e.g. the partner displayed criticism) was associated with more negative responses (i.e. resentment) from the rejected partner. In contrast, perceived reassuring rejection (e.g. the partner expressed warmth or future interest in sex) elicited more positive responses to rejection (i.e. understanding) and maintained the rejected partner’s sexual desire. The findings extend relationship theories to understand sexual conflict, and provide a framework of specific, observable behaviors that researchers and clinicians can incorporate to help couples navigate the challenges of sexual rejection.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".