Cultural Influences on Sexuality: Examining Sexual Destiny and Sexual Growth Beliefs in Iran and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines cross-cultural differences in implicit sexual beliefs—specifically, sexual destiny and sexual growth beliefs—among Iranian and Canadian adults in romantic relationships. It also investigates how these beliefs relate to sexual, relational, and psychological well-being. Using a preregistered, cross-sectional design, 450 Iranians and 390 Canadians completed measures assessing implicit sexual beliefs, sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, life satisfaction, sexual incompatibility, religiosity, cultural identification, depressive symptoms, sexual anxiety, and independent/interdependent self-construals. Iranians reported higher levels of both sexual destiny and, unexpectedly, sexual growth beliefs compared to Canadians. While religiosity and cultural identification did not consistently predict belief endorsement, older Iranians endorsed stronger sexual destiny beliefs. Among individuals who perceived sexual incompatibility, higher sexual destiny beliefs were linked to lower sexual, relationship, and life satisfaction. In contrast, sexual growth beliefs predicted greater sexual desire and relationship satisfaction regardless of incompatibility. Culture and sexual compatibility moderated some of these associations. Additionally, higher sexual growth beliefs were significantly associated with lower sexual anxiety. These findings highlight both cultural differences and similarities in implicit sexual beliefs and underscore their implications for well-being, emphasizing the importance of culturally sensitive approaches to sexuality research and clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".