The relevance of attachment orientation and sexual excitation and inhibition to our understanding of sexual desire and sexual arousal

The relevance of attachment orientation and sexual excitation and inhibition to our understanding of sexual desire and sexual arousal | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The relevance of attachment orientation and sexual excitation and inhibition to our understanding of sexual desire and sexual arousal Jacques van Lankveld, Marieke Dewitte, Erick Janssen, Peter Verboon This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6594023/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study explored the role of sexual excitation and inhibition and attachment orientation in sexual desire and arousal. We investigated whether attachment orientation moderated the associations between sexual excitation and inhibition and sexual desire and arousal. A convenience sample of 358 participants (242 women and 116 men; mean age: 37.6, SD: 12.0) completed online questionnaires including the Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales–Short Form, the Experiences in Close Relationships scale, the Female Sexual Function Index (women only), and the International Index of Erectile Function (men only). Associations were tested using multiple linear regression analysis. Sexual excitation/inhibition and attachment anxiety independently predicted part of the variance in sexual desire and arousal. Relationship duration negatively predicted level of sexual desire, while male gender positively predicted level of sexual arousal. The associations between sexual excitation/inhibition and sexual desire and arousal were not moderated by attachment orientation. Further research into the interaction of sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness and adult attachment orientation as determinants of sexual desire and arousal seems warranted. Health sciences/Risk factors Health sciences/Signs and symptoms sexual excitation proneness sexual inhibition proneness attachment orientation sexual desire sexual arousal Introduction Recent theoretical and empirical work explaining variability in sexual functioning in women and men features dispositional differences among individuals that might increase one’s vulnerability to sexual dysfunction, such as stronger inhibition proneness [ 1 – 6 ]. Other theories that are relevant to our understanding of sexual functioning emphasize the role of one’s history of relational experiences, including those shaping adult attachment orientation [ 7 – 9 ]. Several other recent models of sexual response and function attribute important roles to combinations of individual and relational variables [ 10 , 11 ]. A better understanding of the relevance of such dispositional factors and their interaction for sexual desire and arousal could help improve the treatment of sexual dysfunctions. The present study focused on the role of individual differences in sexual excitation and inhibition and attachment orientation in the prediction of sexual desire and arousal. Because some aspects of sexual function, including the prevalence of problems with low sexual desire [ 12 ], are known to differ between men and women and to change over the course of long-term relationships [ 13 ], we also examined the possible prediction by gender and relationship duration. We will first describe our conceptual framework and review the assumptions and existing empirical support for each of these factors. The propensities for sexual excitation and sexual inhibition and their association with sexual desire and arousal The dual control model of sexual response [DCM, 4, 14, 15] postulates that sexual arousal and related processes depend on the relative strength of sexual excitatory and inhibitory processes. The existence of an excitatory mechanism appears straightforward. Sexual excitation activates sexual arousal and fuels sexual desire in response to adequate sexual stimulation. The opposing mechanism of sexual inhibition is proposed to serve several adaptive functions in human sexuality, including putting a brake on sexual behavior in contexts that may involve a threat to the individual, be it physical, emotional, or interpersonal. Individual levels of sexual excitation and inhibition proneness are believed to constitute traits that are relatively stable over time [ 16 ]. The assumptions based on the DCM have received considerable support so far. Sexual excitation and inhibition have been found to, either separately or in combination, predict a substantial part of the variability in sexual desire and arousal [e.g., 17, 18]. Nolet, Rouleau [ 19 ] and Winters, Christoff and Gorzalka [ 20 ] found that sexually healthy men with higher levels of sexual excitation proneness exhibit stronger genital responses [ 21 , 22 ]. Men with lower levels of sexual inhibition due to the threat of negative consequences of sexual activity, showed stronger genital responses to threatening sexual stimuli [ 21 ]. Based on these findings, we hypothesized in the present study that (H1) sexual excitation proneness is independently and positively associated with sexual desire and sexual arousal, and that (H2) sexual inhibition proneness, related to the threat of sexual performance failure, is independently and negatively associated with sexual desire and sexual arousal. Attachment and sexual desire and arousal Attachment orientation influences sexual responding by shaping the cognitive, emotional and behavioral processes underlying sexual desire and arousal. Although attachment orientation has also been considered a stable characteristic of individuals [ 23 ], more recent research suggests that it is a dynamical construct that can vary over time and across different relationships [ 24 ]. Adult attachment theory postulates that securely attached individuals experience sexuality with self-confidence and trust, both individually and within a partner context [ 8 , 25 , 26 ]. They engage in sexual activities without having to satisfy attachment-related needs. In contrast, sexuality is often more problematic in insecurely attached persons (i.e., individuals with stronger attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, or a combination of both). More anxiously attached individuals experience a strong need to feel loved and protected, and they may use sex as a means of securing intimacy with their partner. This may cause worry and anxiety during sexual interactions, rendering sex stressful and unsatisfying [ 8 ]. More avoidantly attached individuals, on the other hand, primarily rely on themselves when attempting to cope with threatening situations. They are inclined to avoid too much closeness with others, including their romantic partners. Attachment theory postulates that insecure attachment strategies are activated mainly in distressing contexts, including relationship conflict and intimacy concerns. More anxiously attached individuals will respond with hyperactivating strategies, including hypervigilance, negative/threatening interpretations of social interactions, and a strong desire for the enduring availability of an attachment figure. In contrast, more avoidant individuals tend to use deactivating strategies, by protecting their autonomy and their sense of control over the interaction and maintaining emotional distance from their partner [ 8 , 25 , 26 ]. Based on attachment theory, Birnbaum and colleagues postulated specific patterns of sexual hyperactivation and deactivation [ 27 ]. Empirical research has revealed relevant associations between adult attachment orientations and sexual functioning [see for a review: 28]. Higher level of attachment avoidance was found to be associated with lower levels of sexual arousal, orgasm and sexual satisfaction in general population samples [ 29 , 30 ]. Negative associations were also found between attachment anxiety and orgasmic function. In student populations, both attachment anxiety and avoidance were negatively associated with sexual desire [ 31 ], and with general sexual functioning [ 32 ]. Gender differences were also found in student populations [ 33 ]. In this study, attachment avoidance among women predicted impairments in all aspects of sexual functioning. Attachment anxiety predicted lower levels of sexual arousal, satisfaction, and lower ability to achieve orgasm. A different pattern was found among men, showing that attachment anxiety negatively predicted multiple aspects of sexual functioning, whereas attachment avoidance did not predict lower but rather higher levels of sexual desire and arousal. In this study in a convenience sample from the community, we hypothesized that (H3) attachment anxiety is negatively associated with sexual desire and sexual arousal, and that (H4) attachment avoidance is negatively associated with sexual desire and arousal. Possible moderation of the association between sexual excitation and inhibition and sexual desire and arousal by attachment orientation Most research so far has focused on bivariate associations between attachment orientation or sexual excitation and inhibition proneness on the one hand, and sexual desire and arousal on the other hand. To our knowledge, no studies have examined their interrelationships using a multivariate approach. Combining these factors might improve the prediction of sexual functioning. As described above, both sexual excitation/inhibition, as an individual trait variable, and attachment orientation, as a relationship-oriented variable, have been found to be important predictors of sexual desire and arousal. Toates’ [ 34 ] integrative theoretical framework of sexual motivation, arousal, and sexual behavior proposes that sexual excitation and inhibition proneness play a role at the early, automatic level, whereas attachment exerts its influence at the later, deliberate, and conscious level of cognitive processing. To our knowledge, the associations between sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and attachment orientation have only been investigated in a single study. Pozza, Casale [ 35 ] compared patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder with a healthy control group. Attachment avoidance, characterized by stronger self-confidence and lower need for approval, was associated with lower level of sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance consequences. Attachment was not related to sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance failure. The combined impact of sexual excitation/inhibition and attachment orientation on sexual functioning was not investigated in this study. It is conceivable that, as attachment orientation and the propensities for sexual excitation and inhibition are interrelated, they might also interact in their associations with sexual outcomes [e.g., 36]. Compared to more securely attached individuals, individuals with greater attachment anxiety and avoidance both aim to avoid negative outcomes, but they tend do this in different ways. The hyperactivation versus deactivation strategies of anxious and avoidant individuals [see 37], respectively, that are elicited under higher stress levels, might thus amplify or dampen the effects of sexual excitation and inhibition proneness on sexual desire and arousal [ 14 ]. Similar to these activation-deactivation tendencies, the approach-distancing tendencies inherent in insecure attachment could enhance or weaken the effects of sexual arousal and inhibition on sexual desire and arousal. Attachment avoidance was found to be associated with self-reported distancing behavior in a student sample [ 38 ], whereas attachment anxiety was inconsistently related both to avoiding distance and to failure to enhance closeness, resulting in erratic interpersonal behaviors. It is not yet clear whether attachment orientation is better approached as a moderator of the interaction between sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and sexual desire and arousal or as a mediating factor. Based on the commonly voiced view that attachment stems from childhood experience [ 8 , 25 ], it could be argued that one's early attachment orientation leads to a certain proclivity towards sexual arousal in adolescence and adulthood, suggesting a mediating role of attachment orientation. On the other hand, sexual excitation and inhibition proneness are considered stable traits [ 16 ] that serve as more distal factors, while attachment orientation is seen as a more variable factor [ 24 ] that might serve as a proximal determinant, moderating the association of sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and sexual desire and arousal. More specifically, attachment avoidance - because of its deactivating function in emotion regulation - can be assumed to weaken the positive association of sexual excitation with sexual desire. In addition, the tendency of more avoidantly attached individuals to prefer interpersonal distance when feeling distressed, may amplify the negative associations of sexual inhibition proneness with sexual arousal. In case of attachment anxiety, predictions regarding the link with sexual inhibition proneness may be less straightforward. People with stronger attachment anxiety might get stuck in an approach-avoidance conflict when confronted with threat of sexual performance failure, resulting in stronger fluctuating levels of sexual functioning, depending on the relative strength of attachment anxiety and sexual inhibition in a particular situation. Alternatively, the general arousal provoked by attachment anxiety might add up to the sexual arousal facilitated by sexual excitation proneness [ 8 ]. In the absence of empirical evidence for either of these possibilities, the current study exploratively investigated the moderating role of attachment anxiety on the association between sexual excitation and inhibition and sexual desire and arousal. We used cross-sectional self-report data to test a moderation model of the association between sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness, attachment anxiety, and sexual desire and arousal. To replicate previously observed associations between sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and attachment anxiety and avoidance, we hypothesized that (H5) sexual excitation proneness is independently and negatively associated with attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, and that (H6) sexual inhibition proneness is independently and positively associated with attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Furthermore, attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance will differentially moderate the associations between sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness on the one hand, and sexual desire and sexual arousal on the other hand. Specifically, we hypothesized that (H7) the positive association between sexual excitation proneness and sexual desire and arousal will decrease at higher levels of attachment avoidance, and that (H8) the negative association between sexual inhibition proneness and sexual desire and sexual arousal will increase at higher levels of attachment avoidance. The moderation effects of attachment anxiety on the associations between sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness and sexual desire and arousal were investigated exploratively. Although they do not occupy a central position in the conceptual framework of the present study, age and relationship duration have generally shown a negative association with sexual desire and arousal [ 39 ]. In the present study, the associations of age and relationship duration with sexual desire and arousal were included as covariates in the analyses only if found significant after preliminary testing. Gender differences in the associations of sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and attachment orientations with sexual desire and sexual arousal were investigated exploratively. Method Participants Undergraduate students of the [blinded for review] performed the recruitment for the study as part of their course requirements. They invited individuals in their personal circles of acquaintance. Due to the distance-teaching nature of the university, this recruitment procedure ensured a wide geographical distribution of participants and diversity in terms of age, level of education, and work status. Participants were stimulated to invite individuals in their own circle of acquaintances to also participate (snowball method). Interested individuals were eligible when they were 18 years of age or older, self-identified as heterosexual, were sufficiently proficient reading Dutch to answer the study questions, were in a sexual relationship, and had recently been sexually active with their partner. The latter criterion was assessed post hoc, when participants indicated while completing the sexual functioning questionnaires whether or not they had been sexually active in the past four weeks. Data of 358 participants who met the inclusion criteria were used in the analyses. Gender was reported using one question (“How do you describe yourself?”) with three response options: man, woman, other. Self-reported gender of participants was: man N = 116 (mean age: 39.3; SD: 12.0; range: 19–68) and woman N = 242 (mean age: 37.6; SD: 11.7; range: 18–67). None of the participants reported other gender. Mean relationship duration was 11.4 (± 10.9) year, and 47.8% had children. Education level among women was: lower secondary education 8.7%; higher secondary 12.4%; lower professional 16.6%; higher professional 34.4%; university education 27.8%. Education level among men was: lower secondary education 6.9%; higher secondary 13.8%; lower professional 17.2%; higher professional 30.2%; university education 31.9%. Nationalities were: Dutch 88%, UK < 1%, German 1%, Belgian 8%, other 2%. Religious affiliations were: None 64%, Christian 36%, Muslim < 1%. Procedure Participants received an invitation by email in which the purpose of the study and the procedures for participation were explained. Participation was voluntary and was not rewarded in monetary or other ways. Individuals who responded and indicated their interest and willingness to participate received a digital login code and a URL linking to an online survey, after providing online informed consent. They were asked to complete the survey within two weeks. The study proposal was approved by the local IRB of the [blinded for review], ID: U2012/07084/NJA. Instruments The online survey assessed demographic information (age, gender, sexual orientation, partnered status, duration of relationship, education level), sexual desire and sexual arousal, sexual excitation/inhibition proneness, and attachment orientation. To assess sexual desire and arousal we used the Female Sexual Function Index [FSFI; 40] in women, and the International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF; 41] in men. Although both instruments have been criticized on various grounds [ 42 , 43 ], particularly for their unsuitability for use with individuals who are not currently sexually active, it was decided to use them nevertheless as several studies relevant to the key variables included in the current study used them, and this would allow us to evaluate our findings against this background. Female Sexual Function Index [FSFI; 40, 44]. The FSFI was used to assess sexual desire and arousal in women. It is a 19-item self-report questionnaire that is organized in six subscales measuring sexual desire, sexual arousal, vaginal lubrication, orgasm, sexual satisfaction, and pain during sex. The items regarding sexual desire are answered using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5; items belonging to the remaining subscales are answered using Likert-type scales ranging from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating absence of sexual activity during the reference period. Example items wordings are “Over the past 4 weeks, how often did you feel sexual desire or interest?” and “Over the past 4 weeks, how would you rate your level of sexual arousal (“turn on”) during sexual activity or intercourse?” For the present study, the subscales of sexual desire and sexual arousal were selected. Higher FSFI scores represent higher levels of sexual functioning. The Dutch translation of the FSFI was found to have sound psychometric characteristics properties, showing good internal consistency of the subscales (Cronbach’s α’s ranging from 0.72 to 0.98) and test-retest reliability (with correlations ranging from 0.71 to 0.90) [ 44 ]. The internal consistency in the present sample was found to range from good to excellent with Cronbach’s α of subscales ranging from .84 (sexual desire) to .96 (arousal). International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF; 41]. A Dutch translation of the IIEF was used to assess sexual desire and arousal in men [ 45 ]. It is a 15-item self-report questionnaire that is organized in six subscales measuring erectile function, orgasmic function, sexual desire, satisfaction with intercourse, and overall sexual satisfaction. Four items belonging to different subscales are answered using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5; the other items are answered using Likert-type scales ranging from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating absence of sexual activity or intercourse during the reference period. Example items wordings are “Over the past 4 weeks, how often have you felt sexual desire?” and “Over the past 4 weeks, how often were you able to get an erection during sexual activity?” For the present purpose the subscale scores of sexual desire and erectile function were selected. Higher IIEF scores represent higher levels of sexual desire and arousal. The IIEF was found to have acceptable psychometric characteristics properties, showing satisfactory to excellent internal consistency of the subscales in several studies with Cronbach’s α’s ranging from 0.73 to 0.99 across studies, and satisfactory test-retest reliability with correlations ranging from 0.71 to 0.84 [ 41 , 46 ]. The internal consistency in the present sample was found to range from good to excellent with Cronbach’s α of subscales ranging from .78 (sexual desire) to .94 (erectile function). Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales – Short Form [SIS/SES-SF; 47] To measure sexual inhibition and excitation in both men and women, we used the SIS/SES-SF. This is an abbreviated version using 14 items selected from the original 45-item SIS/SES Scales measuring propensity for sexual excitation and sexual inhibition [ 21 , 48 ]. The selected items of the SIS/SES-SF represent the three-factor structure of the SIS/SES Scales equally well for women and men. We used the Dutch item translations using gender-neutral item wordings. Example item wordings are “When a sexually attractive stranger accidentally touches me, I easily become aroused”, and “I cannot get aroused unless I focus exclusively on sexual stimulation” Two subscales, SES (sexual excitation proneness; range: 6–24), and SIS1 (sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance failure; range: 4–16), were used. All subscales were shown to have acceptable internal consistency and adequate discriminant and convergent validity. The internal consistency in previous research in a US sample was acceptable with Cronbach’s α’s for men (SES α = .75, and SIS1 α = .66) and women (SES α = .61, and SIS1 α = .61) [ 49 ]. Confirmatory factor analysis in a Dutch sample current sample replicated the expected three-factor structure of the SIS/SES-SF (Fit measures: CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, RSMEA = 0.06 and SRMR = 0.08) [ 50 ]. Higher scores indicate higher sexual excitation or inhibition proneness. In the present study, the reliability was found satisfactory, with Cronbach’s α = .70 for SIS1 and α = .81 for SES. Experiences in Close Relationships [ECR; 51, 52] . The validated Dutch translation of the ECR was employed to measure attachment anxiety and avoidance in both men and women [ 52 ]. This self-report questionnaire contains 36 propositions, for each of which participants indicate their level of endorsement on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (very much disagree) to 7 (very much agree). Example item wordings are “I rather not show my deepest feelings to a partner”, and “I worry about being alone”. The internal consistency was found satisfactory with Cronbach’s α’s varying from .88 to .94 for the avoidance subscale, and from .86 to .91 for the anxiety subscale in Dutch and US samples [ 52 ]. In the present sample, the internal consistency was found to be excellent for both attachment avoidance (Cronbach’s α = .90.) and attachment anxiety (α = .89). In the psychometric study of Conradi, Gerlsma [ 52 ] the correlation between the anxiety and avoidance subscales scores in Dutch student samples converged with a US student sample, but the correlations in a Dutch population sample were higher. The correlation in the present study is comparable to those in this population sample. The subscale means in the present sample are higher than in the population sample. Higher scores indicate higher attachment anxiety and avoidance. Statistical Analysis Power analysis [ 53 ] yielded a required number of participants of 208 for multiple linear regression analysis with 17 predictors (2-tailed, effect size f 2 = 0.15, α = .05, power = 0.80). Descriptive statistics and correlations of the relevant variables were computed on the raw scores of these variables using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 27 [ 54 ] We followed Cohen's [ 55 ] guidelines of Pearson's r = .10, .30, and .50, to interpret observed effect sizes of correlations as, respectively, small, medium, or large. For testing the hypotheses two models were formulated to investigate, respectively, the prediction of levels of sexual desire and sexual arousal, including the two-way interactions of predictors from DCM and attachment theory, and the three-way interactions of these predictors with gender. Multiple linear regression analysis (MLRA) was applied to test both models. The distribution of the variables was visually inspected. The analysis was based on complete cases; missing values were not imputed. VIF scores were calculated for each predictor variable to test for multicollinearity. For the FSFI and IIEF standardized subscale scores were calculated to directly compare data of women and men. Although their items have different wordings, we treated these variables as if they were measuring the same constructs. All other predictor variables in the regression model were centered before entering them in the analysis. P-values for the predictor variables in each model were corrected for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure [ 56 ]. A general significance threshold of p = .05 was used. Results Descriptives. The distributions of sexual desire and sexual arousal, split by gender, are shown in Table 1 . The scores on both variables were normally distributed, but some participants had very low scores. Sexual desire and arousal were significantly positively correlated ( r = .61, p < .001), as shown in Table 2 . As expected, SES correlated positively with sexual desire and arousal (H1), while SIS1 correlated negatively with sexual desire and arousal (H2). Sexual excitation proneness correlated negatively with attachment avoidance ( r = − .13, p < .05), whereas the association with attachment anxiety was not significant, partially supporting and refuting the predictions in H5. Contrary to our prediction, sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance failure correlated negatively with attachment avoidance ( r = − .11, p < .05), refuting H6. Sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance consequences did not correlate with insecure attachment orientation, also refuting H6. Both attachment anxiety and avoidance were not correlated with sexual desire and sexual arousal, refuting H3 and H4. Table 1 Demographics and Descriptives of Key Study Variables Women (N = 242) M (SD) / % Men (N = 116) M (SD) / % p Age 37.6 (11.7) 39.3 (12.0) n.s. Relationship Length 12.2 (11.0) 9.8 (10.4) < .05 Highest Education Level n.s. Lower secondary 8.7 6.9 Higher secondary 12.4 13.8 Lower professional 17.2 17.2 Higher professional 34.3 30.2 University 27.8 31.9 SES 2.6 (0.6) 2.2 (0.6) < .001 SIS1 2.5 (0.6) 2.9 (0.6) < .001 Attachment Anxiety 2.4 (0.9) 2.5 (0.0) n.s. Attachment Avoidance 3.0 (1.1) 2.7 (1.1) < .02 Sexual Desire 3.6 (1.0) 7.7 (1.4) Sexual Arousal 4.9 (1.0) 28.3 (2.7) Table 2 Correlation Coefficients of Study Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 2. Relationship Duration .66 *** 3. Sexual Desire − .18 *** − .36 * 4. Sexual Arousal − .15 ** − .22 *** .61 *** 5. SES − .01 − .07 .31 *** .16 ** 6. SIS1 .19 *** .20 *** − .41 *** − .42 *** − .12 * 7. ECR- Attachment Anxiety − .00 .01 − .09 .05 − .07 .10 8. ECR- Attachment Avoidance .02 − .01 .02 .06 − .13* − .11* − .06 Notes: SES = Sexual Excitation Proneness; SIS1 = Sexual Inhibition Proneness due to the threat of performance failure; SIS2 = Sexual Inhibition Proneness due to the threat of performance consequences. * p ≤ .05; b p ≤ .01; c p ≤ .001 (all 2-tailed) Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here Predicting Sexual Desire and Arousal None of the three-way interactions were found to be significant. Therefore, the following results are based on two-way interaction models. Sexual Desire. The VIF scores in this regression model for the predictor variables, respectively SES, SIS1, attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, gender, age, and relationship duration are: 1.9, 2.1, 2.2, 2, 1.3, 2, 2, indicating absence of multicollinearity. A significant regression model was found ( R 2 = .408), see Table 3 . Sexual desire was positively predicted by sexual excitation proneness ( B = 0.21, t = 2.53, p < .05) and negatively by inhibition proneness related to threat of performance failure ( B = -0.47, t = -5.65, p < .001), supporting H1 and H2. Both attachment anxiety and avoidance did not predict sexual desire, refuting H3 and H4. Gender was a significant predictor of sexual desire ( B = 0.63, t = 6.32, p < .001), with men reporting higher level of sexual desire, compared to women. Finally, relationship duration negatively predicted sexual desire ( B = -0.02, t = -4.69, p < .001); longer duration came with lower sexual desire. Sexual Arousal. The VIF scores in this regression model for the predictor variables, respectively SES, SIS1, attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, gender, age, and relationship duration are: 1.9, 2.1, 2.2, 2, 1.3, 2, 2, indicating absence of multicollinearity. A significant regression model was found ( R 2 = .317). Contrary to the prediction in H1, sexual excitation proneness did not predict sexual arousal. As predicted in H2, sexual inhibition proneness related to the threat of sexual performance failure was a significant negative predictor of sexual arousal ( B = -0.42, t = -5.48, p < .001). As predicted in H3, attachment anxiety ( B = -0.21, t = -4.04, p < .001) negatively predicted sexual arousal. Contrary to the prediction in H4, however, attachment avoidance did not predict sexual arousal. Gender was also a significant predictor of sexual arousal ( B = 0.49, t = 5.32, p < .001), with men reporting higher level of sexual arousal, compared to women. Age and relationship duration did not predict sexual arousal. Attachment anxiety did not moderate the associations between sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and sexual desire and arousal (all p s > .05). Insert Table 3 about here Table 3 Regression Model Predicting Sexual Desire and Sexual Arousal 95% Confidence Interval Predictor B SE t p(B-H corrected) Lower Upper Predicting Sexual Desire Intercept 3.159 0.148 21.323 0.000 2.868 3.450 SES 0.207 0.082 2.530 0.044 0.046 0.367 SIS1 -0.473 0.084 -5.652 0.000 -0.638 -0.308 Attachment Anxiety -0.061 0.056 -1.087 0.412 -0.172 0.049 Attachment Avoidance 0.087 0.049 1.795 0.184 -0.008 0.183 Gender (male) 0.634 0.100 6.324 0.000 0.437 0.831 Age 0.005 0.005 1.120 0.412 -0.004 0.014 Relationship Duration -0.023 0.005 -4.686 0.000 -0.032 -0.013 SES * Attachment Anxiety 0.074 0.069 1.070 0.412 -0.062 0.210 SES * Attachment Avoidance -0.086 0.060 -1.442 0.322 -0.203 0.031 SIS1 * Attachment Anxiety 0.019 0.074 0.253 0.838 -0.126 0.163 SIS1 * Attachment Avoidance -0.067 0.065 -1.033 0.412 -0.195 0.061 SES * Gender (male) 0.081 0.150 0.540 0.737 -0.214 0.376 SIS1 * Gender (male) 0.321 0.148 2.173 0.091 0.030 0.612 Attachment Anxiety * Gender (male) -0.040 0.098 -0.409 0.788 -0.233 0.153 Attachment Avoidance * Gender (male) 0.019 0.092 0.204 0.838 -0.163 0.200 Predicting Sexual Arousal Intercept 4.275 0.135 31.605 0.000 4.009 4.541 SES 0.068 0.075 0.909 0.777 -0.079 0.214 SIS1 -0.419 0.076 -5.481 0.000 -0.569 -0.268 Attachment Anxiety -0.207 0.051 -4.039 0.000 -0.308 -0.106 Attachment Avoidance -0.031 0.044 -0.710 0.777 -0.119 0.056 Gender (male) 0.487 0.092 5.321 0.000 0.307 0.667 Age -0.001 0.004 -0.157 0.938 -0.009 0.007 Relationship Duration -0.008 0.004 -1.890 0.179 -0.017 0.000 SES * Attachment Anxiety 0.041 0.063 0.645 0.777 -0.083 0.165 SES * Attachment Avoidance -0.031 0.054 -0.569 0.777 -0.138 0.076 SIS1 * Attachment Anxiety -0.025 0.067 -0.374 0.849 -0.157 0.107 SIS1 * Attachment Avoidance -0.020 0.059 -0.338 0.849 -0.137 0.097 SES * Gender (male) -0.089 0.137 -0.653 0.777 -0.359 0.180 SIS1 * Gender (male) 0.193 0.135 1.432 0.383 -0.072 0.459 Attachment Anxiety * Gender (male) 0.197 0.090 2.199 0.107 0.021 0.373 Attachment Avoidance * Gender (male) 0.001 0.084 0.013 0.989 -0.165 0.167 p(B-H corrected): p-values were corrected for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure (2000) Discussion In this study we investigated a multifactorial model of sexual desire and arousal using predictors from two distinct conceptual frameworks, respectively, sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness from the DCM [ 4 ], and attachment anxiety and avoidance from the adult attachment theory [ 8 , 25 , 26 ]. The correlation pattern of excitation and inhibition propensities with insecure attachment orientations partly supported our hypotheses. The negative correlations of attachment avoidance with sexual excitation proneness and with sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance failure were found as hypothesized. Unexpectedly, however, sexual excitation proneness and sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance failure were not correlated with attachment anxiety. The observed pattern of associations of factors from the DCM with sexual desire and arousal partly supported our hypotheses. Sexual excitation proneness positively predicted sexual desire, but did not predict sexual arousal. Sexual inhibition due to fear of performance failure (SIS1) negatively predicted sexual desire and sexual arousal. These findings are in line with previous research [ 17 ], although Quinta Gomes, Janssen [ 18 ] found that sexual inhibition proneness predicted sexual desire and arousal only in men. The correlational outcomes did not support our predictions regarding the associations of insecure attachment with sexual desire and arousal. Neither attachment anxiety nor attachment avoidance were bivariately correlated with sexual desire and arousal. In previous studies in non-clinical samples contradictory results were found: whereas some found negative correlations of attachment avoidance with sexual arousal [ 29 ] and orgasm [ 30 ] in women, another study failed to find bivariate associations of attachment anxiety and avoidance with sexual desire [ 57 ]. As predicted, however, attachment anxiety was found a negative predictor of sexual arousal. The discrepancies between the outcomes of correlation and regression analysis might be speculatively explained by the presence of substantial shared variance between the predictor variables. The predictive value in this study of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance for sexual desire and arousal was only revealed in a multivariate approach controlling for the shared variance between the predictors. Further research is required to clarify the implications of this finding. Contrary to what was hypothesized, we found no support for moderating effects of insecure attachment orientation on the associations of sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness with sexual desire and arousal. Sexual excitation and inhibition propensity and attachment orientations have been proposed to interact in the modulation of sexual arousal and behavior [ 34 ], albeit at different levels of cognitive processing. In the present non-experimental study design using retrospective self-report variables, no evidence of interactions between the key factors was found. A speculative explanation of not finding the interaction between sexual excitation and inhibition propensities and attachment orientations, might be that the interaction is mainly operational under momentaneous threats to the individual’s sexual functioning that are strong enough to activate the individual’s emotional self-regulation strategies associated with attachment anxiety and avoidance [ 58 ]. Future experimental research, in which threat is manipulated, might test this speculation. In addition, the present study was conducted in a nonclinical sample, and further research in samples including individuals with sexual dysfunction might reveal stronger associations. Notwithstanding the finding in the current study that they were not interrelated in their effects on sexual desire and arousal, measures from both theoretical perspectives were found to be independent predictors of sexual desire and arousal. The current findings can be taken to support the recommendation to address both factors as part of the assessment in clinical sexology. The general nature of the study sample, that did not necessarily include women and men with sexual difficulties meeting clinical criteria, even though sexual desire and arousal scores contained some extremely low scores, may have limited the odds of revealing interactions between sexual excitation/inhibition and attachment orientation with a discontinuous nature. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that a model that assumes strong interactions between these variables is characteristic of the general population. Strengths and limitations This is the first study, to our knowledge, in which the associations of the dual control model and the attachment theory were jointly and multivariately investigated in relation to sexual desire and arousal. Although several associations between the study concepts were established, the cross-sectional design of this study does not allow to draw conclusions about causality. The use of retrospective self-report measures of sexual desire and arousal, limits the interpretations of the present finding. The subscales used in this study to measure female (FSFI) and male (IIEF) sexual arousal are not identical, as the FSFI subscale focuses on subjective sexual arousal, whereas the IIEF subscale focuses on erectile function. However, alternative measures measuring sexual arousal for women and men that use identical conceptualizations, are internationally validated and widely used in sex research, are not readily available. Future research should preferentially use momentaneous measures of both subjective and genital sexual desire and arousal in an experimental study design, that would, moreover, allow for manipulation of potentially relevant contextual factors, including imminent threats to sexual function. The convenience sample in the present study introduced a limitation to the generalizability of the findings and future studies could also include clinical samples. Conclusions We conclude from this cross-sectional study that sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and attachment anxiety and avoidance are relevant predictors of sexual desire and arousal. However, based on the present data, sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and attachment anxiety and avoidance do not seem to interact strongly. In clinical diagnostics, assessment of both factors nevertheless seems relevant. Declarations Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare no competing interests. References Nobre PJ. Psychological determinants of erectile dysfunction: Testing a cognitive-emotional model. J Sex Med. 2010;7(4 Pt 1):1429-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01656.x Fisher WA, Byrne D, White LA, Kelley K. Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality. J Sex Res. 1988;25(1):123-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551448 McCabe MP, Cobain MJ. The impact of individual and relationship factors on sexual dysfunction among males and females. Sex Mar Ther. 1998;13(2):131-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674659808406554 Bancroft J, Janssen E. The dual control model of male sexual response: A theoretical approach to centrally mediated erectile dysfunction. Neurosc Biobehav Rev. 2000;24(5):571-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(00)00024-5 van Lankveld J, Odekerken I, Kok-Verhoeven L, van Hooren S, de Vries P, van den Hout A, Verboon P. Implicit and explicit associations with erotic stimuli in sexually functional and dysfunctional men. J Sex Med. 2015;12(8):1791-804. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12930 Nobre PJ, Pinto-Gouveia J. Dysfunctional sexual beliefs as vulnerability factors for sexual dysfunction. J Sex Res. 2006;43(1):68-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552300 Muise A, Impett EA, Desmarais S. Getting it on versus getting it over with: Sexual motivation, desire, and satisfaction in intimate bonds. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2013;39(10):1320-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490963 Dewitte M. Different perspectives on the sex-attachment link: Towards an emotion-motivational account. J Sex Res. 2012;49(2-3):105-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.576351 Stefanou C, McCabe MP. Adult attachment and sexual functioning: A review of past research. J Sex Med. 2012;9(10):2499-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02843.x Carvalho J, Nobre P. Biopsychosocial determinants of men's sexual desire: Testing an integrative model. J Sex Med. 2011;8(3):754-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02156.x Basson R. Biopsychosocial models of women's sexual response: Applications to management of 'desire disorders'. Sex Rel Ther. 2003;18(1):107-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1468199031000061308 Dennerstein L, Guthrie JR, Hayes RD, DeRogatis LR, Lehert P. Sexual function, dysfunction, and sexual distress in a prospective, population-based sample of mid-aged, Australian-born women. J Sex Med. 2008;5(10):2291-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00936.x Kingsberg SA. The impact of aging on sexual function in women and their partners. Arch Sex Behav. 2002;31(5):431-7. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019844209233 Bancroft J, Graham CA, Janssen E, Sanders SA. The dual control model: Current status and future directions. J Sex Res. 2009;46(2-3):121-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902747222 Janssen E, Bancroft J. The dual control model of sexual response: A scoping review, 2009–2022. J Sex Res. 2023;60(7):948068. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2219247 Velten J, Zahler L, Scholten S, Margraf J. Temporal stability of sexual excitation and sexual inhibition in women. Arch Sex Behav. 2019;48(3):881-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1323-3 Bloemendaal LB, Laan ET. The psychometric properties of the Sexual Excitation/Sexual Inhibition Inventory for Women (SESII-W) within a Dutch population. J Sex Res. 2015;52(1):69-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.826166 Quinta Gomes AL, Janssen E, Santos-Iglesias P, Pinto-Gouveia J, Fonseca LM, Nobre PJ. Validation of the Sexual Inhibition and Sexual Excitation Scales (SIS/SES) in Portugal: Assessing gender differences and predictors of sexual functioning. Arch Sex Behav. 2018;47:1721-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1137-8 Nolet K, Rouleau J-L, Benbouriche M, Carrier Emond F, Renaud P. How ego depletion affects sexual self-regulation: Is it more than resource depletion? J Sex Res. 2016;53(8):994-1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1096887 Winters J, Christoff K, Gorzalka BB. Conscious regulation of sexual arousal in men. J Sex Res. 2009;46(4):330-43. https://doi.org/ Janssen E, Vorst H, Finn P, Bancroft J. The Sexual Inhibition (SIS) and Sexual Excitation (SES) Scales: II. Predicting psychophysiological response pattens. J Sex Res. 2002;39(2):127-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552131 van Lankveld J, Janssen E. Cognitieve theorieën in seksuologisch onderzoek en praktijk. Tijdschr Seksuol. 2020;44(4):170-80. https://doi.org/ Fraley RC. Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2002;6(2):123-51. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_03 Fraley RC, Vicary AM, Brumbaugh CC, Roisman GI. Patterns of stability in adult attachment: An empirical test of two models of continuity and change. J Person Soc Psychol. 2011;101(5):974-92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024150 Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 2007. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Bar-On N, Ein-Dor T. The pushes and pulls of close relationships: Attachment insecurities and relational ambivalence J Person Soc Psychol. 2010;98(3):450-68. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017366 Birnbaum GE, Mikulincer M, Szepsenwol O, Shaver PR, Mizrahi M. When sex goes wrong: A behavioral systems perspective on individual differences in sexual attitudes, motives, feelings, and behaviors. J Person Soc Psychol. 2014;106(5):822. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036021 Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment orientations and emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2019;25:6-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.006 Burri A, Schweitzer R, O'Brien J. Correlates of female sexual functioning: Adult attachment and differentiation of self. J Sex Med. 2014;11(9):2188-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12561 Cohen DL, Belsky J. Avoidant romantic attachment and female orgasm: Testing an emotion-regulation hypothesis. Attachm Hum Dev. 2008;10(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730701868555 Birnbaum GE, Reis HT. When does responsiveness pique sexual interest? Attachment and sexual desire in initial acquaintanceships. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012;38(7):946-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212441028 Dang SS, Northey L, Dunkley CR, Rigby RA, Gorzalka BB. Sexual anxiety and sexual beliefs as mediators of the association between attachment orientation with sexual functioning and distress in university men and women. Can J Hum Sex. 2018;27(1):21-32. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2017-0025 Dunkley CR, Dang SS, Chang S, C. H., Gorzalka BB. Sexual functioning in young women and men: Role of attachment orientation. J Sex Mar Ther. 2016;42(5):413-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2015.1061075 Toates F. An integrative theoretical framework for understanding sexual motivation, arousal, and behavior. J Sex Res. 2009;46(2-3):168-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902747768 Pozza A, Casale S, Marazziti D, Albert U, Mucci F, Berti E, et al. Attachment styles and propensity for sexual response in adult obsessive-compulsive disorder. Sex Rel Ther. 2023;38(4):696-714. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2021.1900805 Dewitte M. Adult attachment and attentional inhibition of interpersonal stimuli. Cogn Emot. 2011;25(4):612-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.508683 Mizrahi M, Hirschberger G, Mikulincer M, Szepsenwol O, Birnbaum GE. Reassuring sex: Can sexual desire and intimacy reduce relationship‐specific attachment insecurities? Eur J Soc Psychol. 2016;46(4):467-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2184 Locke KD. Attachment styles and interpersonal approach and avoidance goals in everyday couple interactions. Pers Rel. 2008;15(3):359-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00203.x Hayes R, Dennerstein L. The impact of aging on sexual function and sexual dysfunction in women: A review of population-based studies. J Sex Med. 2005;2(3):317-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.20356.x Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, Leiblum S, Meston C, Shabsigh R, et al. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Mar Ther. 2000;26(2):191-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/009262300278597 Rosen R, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urol. 1997;49(6):822-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0 Forbes MK, Baillie AJ, Schniering CA. Critical flaws in the Female Sexual Function Index and the International Index of Erectile Function. J Sex Res. 2014;51(5):485-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.876607 Yule M, Davison J, Brotto L. The International Index of Erectile Function: A methodological critique and suggestions for improvement. J Sex Mar Ther. 2011;37(4):255-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2011.582431 ter Kuile MM, Brauer M, Laan E. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS): Psychometric properties within a Dutch population. J Sex Mar Ther. 2006;32(4):289-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230600666261 Henckens MJ, de Vries P, Janssen E, De Sutter T, van den Hout AJ, van Hooren SA, van Lankveld JJ. Associations of affect, action readiness, and sexual functioning. Sex Med. 2020;8(4):691-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2020.06.005 Neijenhuijs KI, Holtmaat K, Aaronson NK, Holzner B, Terwee CB, Cuijpers P, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)—a systematic review of measurement properties. J Sex Med. 2019;16(7):1078-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.04.010 Prekatsounaki S, Janssen E, Enzlin P. In search of desire: The role of intimacy, celebrated otherness, and object-of-desire affirmation in sexual desire in women. J Sex Mar Ther. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2018.1549633 Janssen E, Vorst H, Finn P, Bancroft J. The Sexual Inhibition (SIS) and Sexual Excitation (SES) Scales: I. Measuring sexual inhibition and excitation proneness in men. J Sex Res. 2002;39(2):114-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552130 Carpenter DL, Janssen E, Graham CA, Vorst H, Wicherts J. Sexual Inhibition/Excitation Scales - Short Form. In: Fisher TD, Davis CM, Yarber WL, Davis SL, editors. Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (3rd edition). New York: Routledge; 2011. p. 236-8. van Tuijl P, Verboon P, van Lankveld J. The relation of mood and sexual desire: An experience sampling perspective on the dual control model. Arch Sex Behav. 2022;51(8):3871-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02357-w Brennan KA, Clark CL, Shaver PR. Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In: Simpson JA, Rholes WS, editors. Attachment theory and close relationship. New York: Guilford Press; 1998. p. 46-76. Conradi HJ, Gerlsma C, van Duijn M, de Jonge P. Internal and external validity of the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire in an American and two Dutch samples. Eur J Psychiatr. 2006;20(4):258-69. https://doi.org/ Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Meth. 2007;39(2):175-91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 IBM_Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM_Corp.; 2020. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. On the adaptive control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing with independent statistics. J Educ Behav Stat. 2000;25(1):60-83. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165312 van Lankveld J, Dewitte M, Thewissen V, Jacobs N, Verboon P. Predicting sexual desire in daily life from an attachment perspective: An experience sampling study. J Sex Mar Ther. 2021;47(4):311-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2020.1871141 Meyer B, Olivier L, Roth DA. Please don’t leave me! BIS/BAS, attachment styles, and responses to a relationship threat. Pers Ind Diff. 2005;38(1):151-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.016 Additional Declarations There is NO conflict of interest to disclose. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: revise 02 Jul, 2025 Review # 2 received at journal 11 Jun, 2025 Review # 1 received at journal 21 May, 2025 Reviewer # 2 agreed at journal 21 May, 2025 Reviewer # 1 agreed at journal 16 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 09 May, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 08 May, 2025 First submitted to journal 06 May, 2025 Unknown event 06 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 05 May, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6594023","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":454186832,"identity":"1e5b7fd5-afee-4ec4-b7ce-974c2844d3d0","order_by":0,"name":"Jacques van Lankveld","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0956-4067","institution":"Open University of the Netherlands","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jacques","middleName":"van","lastName":"Lankveld","suffix":""},{"id":454186833,"identity":"8fe9902c-3e57-4e72-9c41-8e5b09c1ee47","order_by":1,"name":"Marieke Dewitte","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Maastricht University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marieke","middleName":"","lastName":"Dewitte","suffix":""},{"id":454186834,"identity":"9eba8ed2-498e-4dfa-84e3-fe2c311aaba3","order_by":2,"name":"Erick Janssen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Erick","middleName":"","lastName":"Janssen","suffix":""},{"id":454186835,"identity":"24476feb-cf7f-4d16-bac1-fea8ce5f59db","order_by":3,"name":"Peter Verboon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Peter","middleName":"","lastName":"Verboon","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-05 11:25:34","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6594023/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6594023/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82629762,"identity":"8f5c6fa8-eb91-46c9-a71f-7c6f84c89aa4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-13 13:37:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":833125,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6594023/v1/83ac9a6a-62c0-4a39-be6a-7f3ed048e72d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e conflict of interest to disclose.","formattedTitle":"The relevance of attachment orientation and sexual excitation and inhibition to our understanding of sexual desire and sexual arousal","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eRecent theoretical and empirical work explaining variability in sexual functioning in women and men features dispositional differences among individuals that might increase one’s vulnerability to sexual dysfunction, such as stronger inhibition proneness [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3 CR4 CR5\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Other theories that are relevant to our understanding of sexual functioning emphasize the role of one’s history of relational experiences, including those shaping adult attachment orientation [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR8\" citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Several other recent models of sexual response and function attribute important roles to combinations of individual and relational variables [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. A better understanding of the relevance of such dispositional factors and their interaction for sexual desire and arousal could help improve the treatment of sexual dysfunctions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study focused on the role of individual differences in sexual excitation and inhibition and attachment orientation in the prediction of sexual desire and arousal. Because some aspects of sexual function, including the prevalence of problems with low sexual desire [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], are known to differ between men and women and to change over the course of long-term relationships [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], we also examined the possible prediction by gender and relationship duration. We will first describe our conceptual framework and review the assumptions and existing empirical support for each of these factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eThe propensities for sexual excitation and sexual inhibition and their association with sexual desire and arousal\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dual control model of sexual response [DCM, 4, 14, 15] postulates that sexual arousal and related processes depend on the relative strength of sexual excitatory and inhibitory processes. The existence of an excitatory mechanism appears straightforward. Sexual excitation activates sexual arousal and fuels sexual desire in response to adequate sexual stimulation. The opposing mechanism of sexual inhibition is proposed to serve several adaptive functions in human sexuality, including putting a brake on sexual behavior in contexts that may involve a threat to the individual, be it physical, emotional, or interpersonal. Individual levels of sexual excitation and inhibition proneness are believed to constitute traits that are relatively stable over time [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. The assumptions based on the DCM have received considerable support so far. Sexual excitation and inhibition have been found to, either separately or in combination, predict a substantial part of the variability in sexual desire and arousal [e.g., 17, 18]. Nolet, Rouleau [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] and Winters, Christoff and Gorzalka [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] found that sexually healthy men with higher levels of sexual excitation proneness exhibit stronger genital responses [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Men with lower levels of sexual inhibition due to the threat of negative consequences of sexual activity, showed stronger genital responses to threatening sexual stimuli [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Based on these findings, we hypothesized in the present study that (H1) sexual excitation proneness is independently and positively associated with sexual desire and sexual arousal, and that (H2) sexual inhibition proneness, related to the threat of sexual performance failure, is independently and negatively associated with sexual desire and sexual arousal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAttachment and sexual desire and arousal\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAttachment orientation influences sexual responding by shaping the cognitive, emotional and behavioral processes underlying sexual desire and arousal. Although attachment orientation has also been considered a stable characteristic of individuals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], more recent research suggests that it is a dynamical construct that can vary over time and across different relationships [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. Adult attachment theory postulates that securely attached individuals experience sexuality with self-confidence and trust, both individually and within a partner context [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. They engage in sexual activities without having to satisfy attachment-related needs. In contrast, sexuality is often more problematic in insecurely attached persons (i.e., individuals with stronger attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, or a combination of both). More anxiously attached individuals experience a strong need to feel loved and protected, and they may use sex as a means of securing intimacy with their partner. This may cause worry and anxiety during sexual interactions, rendering sex stressful and unsatisfying [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. More avoidantly attached individuals, on the other hand, primarily rely on themselves when attempting to cope with threatening situations. They are inclined to avoid too much closeness with others, including their romantic partners. Attachment theory postulates that insecure attachment strategies are activated mainly in distressing contexts, including relationship conflict and intimacy concerns. More anxiously attached individuals will respond with hyperactivating strategies, including hypervigilance, negative/threatening interpretations of social interactions, and a strong desire for the enduring availability of an attachment figure. In contrast, more avoidant individuals tend to use deactivating strategies, by protecting their autonomy and their sense of control over the interaction and maintaining emotional distance from their partner [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on attachment theory, Birnbaum and colleagues postulated specific patterns of sexual hyperactivation and deactivation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Empirical research has revealed relevant associations between adult attachment orientations and sexual functioning [see for a review: 28]. Higher level of attachment avoidance was found to be associated with lower levels of sexual arousal, orgasm and sexual satisfaction in general population samples [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Negative associations were also found between attachment anxiety and orgasmic function. In student populations, both attachment anxiety and avoidance were negatively associated with sexual desire [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], and with general sexual functioning [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Gender differences were also found in student populations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. In this study, attachment avoidance among women predicted impairments in all aspects of sexual functioning. Attachment anxiety predicted lower levels of sexual arousal, satisfaction, and lower ability to achieve orgasm. A different pattern was found among men, showing that attachment anxiety negatively predicted multiple aspects of sexual functioning, whereas attachment avoidance did not predict lower but rather higher levels of sexual desire and arousal. In this study in a convenience sample from the community, we hypothesized that (H3) attachment anxiety is negatively associated with sexual desire and sexual arousal, and that (H4) attachment avoidance is negatively associated with sexual desire and arousal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePossible moderation of the association between sexual excitation and inhibition and sexual desire and arousal by attachment orientation\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost research so far has focused on bivariate associations between attachment orientation or sexual excitation and inhibition proneness on the one hand, and sexual desire and arousal on the other hand. To our knowledge, no studies have examined their interrelationships using a multivariate approach. Combining these factors might improve the prediction of sexual functioning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs described above, both sexual excitation/inhibition, as an individual trait variable, and attachment orientation, as a relationship-oriented variable, have been found to be important predictors of sexual desire and arousal. Toates’ [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] integrative theoretical framework of sexual motivation, arousal, and sexual behavior proposes that sexual excitation and inhibition proneness play a role at the early, automatic level, whereas attachment exerts its influence at the later, deliberate, and conscious level of cognitive processing. To our knowledge, the associations between sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and attachment orientation have only been investigated in a single study. Pozza, Casale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e] compared patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder with a healthy control group. Attachment avoidance, characterized by stronger self-confidence and lower need for approval, was associated with lower level of sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance consequences. Attachment was not related to sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance failure. The combined impact of sexual excitation/inhibition and attachment orientation on sexual functioning was not investigated in this study. It is conceivable that, as attachment orientation and the propensities for sexual excitation and inhibition are interrelated, they might also interact in their associations with sexual outcomes [e.g., 36]. Compared to more securely attached individuals, individuals with greater attachment anxiety and avoidance both aim to avoid negative outcomes, but they tend do this in different ways. The hyperactivation versus deactivation strategies of anxious and avoidant individuals [see 37], respectively, that are elicited under higher stress levels, might thus amplify or dampen the effects of sexual excitation and inhibition proneness on sexual desire and arousal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Similar to these activation-deactivation tendencies, the approach-distancing tendencies inherent in insecure attachment could enhance or weaken the effects of sexual arousal and inhibition on sexual desire and arousal. Attachment avoidance was found to be associated with self-reported distancing behavior in a student sample [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e], whereas attachment anxiety was inconsistently related both to avoiding distance and to failure to enhance closeness, resulting in erratic interpersonal behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is not yet clear whether attachment orientation is better approached as a moderator of the interaction between sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and sexual desire and arousal or as a mediating factor. Based on the commonly voiced view that attachment stems from childhood experience [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], it could be argued that one's early attachment orientation leads to a certain proclivity towards sexual arousal in adolescence and adulthood, suggesting a mediating role of attachment orientation. On the other hand, sexual excitation and inhibition proneness are considered stable traits [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] that serve as more distal factors, while attachment orientation is seen as a more variable factor [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e] that might serve as a proximal determinant, moderating the association of sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and sexual desire and arousal. More specifically, attachment avoidance - because of its deactivating function in emotion regulation - can be assumed to weaken the positive association of sexual excitation with sexual desire. In addition, the tendency of more avoidantly attached individuals to prefer interpersonal distance when feeling distressed, may amplify the negative associations of sexual inhibition proneness with sexual arousal. In case of attachment anxiety, predictions regarding the link with sexual inhibition proneness may be less straightforward. People with stronger attachment anxiety might get stuck in an approach-avoidance conflict when confronted with threat of sexual performance failure, resulting in stronger fluctuating levels of sexual functioning, depending on the relative strength of attachment anxiety and sexual inhibition in a particular situation. Alternatively, the general arousal provoked by attachment anxiety might add up to the sexual arousal facilitated by sexual excitation proneness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. In the absence of empirical evidence for either of these possibilities, the current study exploratively investigated the moderating role of attachment anxiety on the association between sexual excitation and inhibition and sexual desire and arousal. We used cross-sectional self-report data to test a moderation model of the association between sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness, attachment anxiety, and sexual desire and arousal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo replicate previously observed associations between sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and attachment anxiety and avoidance, we hypothesized that (H5) sexual excitation proneness is independently and negatively associated with attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, and that (H6) sexual inhibition proneness is independently and positively associated with attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance will differentially moderate the associations between sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness on the one hand, and sexual desire and sexual arousal on the other hand. Specifically, we hypothesized that (H7) the positive association between sexual excitation proneness and sexual desire and arousal will decrease at higher levels of attachment avoidance, and that (H8) the negative association between sexual inhibition proneness and sexual desire and sexual arousal will increase at higher levels of attachment avoidance. The moderation effects of attachment anxiety on the associations between sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness and sexual desire and arousal were investigated exploratively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough they do not occupy a central position in the conceptual framework of the present study, age and relationship duration have generally shown a negative association with sexual desire and arousal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. In the present study, the associations of age and relationship duration with sexual desire and arousal were included as covariates in the analyses only if found significant after preliminary testing. Gender differences in the associations of sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and attachment orientations with sexual desire and sexual arousal were investigated exploratively.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUndergraduate students of the [blinded for review] performed the recruitment for the study as part of their course requirements. They invited individuals in their personal circles of acquaintance. Due to the distance-teaching nature of the university, this recruitment procedure ensured a wide geographical distribution of participants and diversity in terms of age, level of education, and work status. Participants were stimulated to invite individuals in their own circle of acquaintances to also participate (snowball method). Interested individuals were eligible when they were 18 years of age or older, self-identified as heterosexual, were sufficiently proficient reading Dutch to answer the study questions, were in a sexual relationship, and had recently been sexually active with their partner. The latter criterion was assessed post hoc, when participants indicated while completing the sexual functioning questionnaires whether or not they had been sexually active in the past four weeks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData of 358 participants who met the inclusion criteria were used in the analyses. Gender was reported using one question (“How do you describe yourself?”) with three response options: man, woman, other. Self-reported gender of participants was: man N = 116 (mean age: 39.3; SD: 12.0; range: 19–68) and woman N = 242 (mean age: 37.6; SD: 11.7; range: 18–67). None of the participants reported other gender. Mean relationship duration was 11.4 (± 10.9) year, and 47.8% had children. Education level among women was: lower secondary education 8.7%; higher secondary 12.4%; lower professional 16.6%; higher professional 34.4%; university education 27.8%. Education level among men was: lower secondary education 6.9%; higher secondary 13.8%; lower professional 17.2%; higher professional 30.2%; university education 31.9%. Nationalities were: Dutch 88%, UK \u0026lt; 1%, German 1%, Belgian 8%, other 2%. Religious affiliations were: None 64%, Christian 36%, Muslim \u0026lt; 1%.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants received an invitation by email in which the purpose of the study and the procedures for participation were explained. Participation was voluntary and was not rewarded in monetary or other ways. Individuals who responded and indicated their interest and willingness to participate received a digital login code and a URL linking to an online survey, after providing online informed consent. They were asked to complete the survey within two weeks. The study proposal was approved by the local IRB of the [blinded for review], ID: U2012/07084/NJA.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eInstruments\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe online survey assessed demographic information (age, gender, sexual orientation, partnered status, duration of relationship, education level), sexual desire and sexual arousal, sexual excitation/inhibition proneness, and attachment orientation. To assess sexual desire and arousal we used the Female Sexual Function Index [FSFI; 40] in women, and the International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF; 41] in men. Although both instruments have been criticized on various grounds [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e], particularly for their unsuitability for use with individuals who are not currently\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003esexually active, it was decided to use them nevertheless as several studies relevant to the key variables included in the current study used them, and this would allow us to evaluate our findings against this background.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eFemale Sexual Function Index [FSFI; 40, 44].\u003c/em\u003e The FSFI was used to assess sexual desire and arousal in women. It is a 19-item self-report questionnaire that is organized in six subscales measuring sexual desire, sexual arousal, vaginal lubrication, orgasm, sexual satisfaction, and pain during sex. The items regarding sexual desire are answered using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5; items belonging to the remaining subscales are answered using Likert-type scales ranging from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating absence of sexual activity during the reference period. Example items wordings are “Over the past 4 weeks, how often did you feel sexual desire or interest?” and “Over the past 4 weeks, how would you rate your level of sexual arousal (“turn on”) during sexual activity or intercourse?” For the present study, the subscales of sexual desire and sexual arousal were selected. Higher FSFI scores represent higher levels of sexual functioning. The Dutch translation of the FSFI was found to have sound psychometric characteristics properties, showing good internal consistency of the subscales (Cronbach’s α’s ranging from 0.72 to 0.98) and test-retest reliability (with correlations ranging from 0.71 to 0.90) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. The internal consistency in the present sample was found to range from good to excellent with Cronbach’s α of subscales ranging from .84 (sexual desire) to .96 (arousal).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eInternational Index of Erectile Function [IIEF; 41].\u003c/em\u003e A Dutch translation of the IIEF was used to assess sexual desire and arousal in men [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. It is a 15-item self-report questionnaire that is organized in six subscales measuring erectile function, orgasmic function, sexual desire, satisfaction with intercourse, and overall sexual satisfaction. Four items belonging to different subscales are answered using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5; the other items are answered using Likert-type scales ranging from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating absence of sexual activity or intercourse during the reference period. Example items wordings are “Over the past 4 weeks, how often have you felt sexual desire?” and “Over the past 4 weeks, how often were you able to get an erection during sexual activity?” For the present purpose the subscale scores of sexual desire and erectile function were selected. Higher IIEF scores represent higher levels of sexual desire and arousal. The IIEF was found to have acceptable psychometric characteristics properties, showing satisfactory to excellent internal consistency of the subscales in several studies with Cronbach’s α’s ranging from 0.73 to 0.99 across studies, and satisfactory test-retest reliability with correlations ranging from 0.71 to 0.84 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. The internal consistency in the present sample was found to range from good to excellent with Cronbach’s α of subscales ranging from .78 (sexual desire) to .94 (erectile function).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales – Short Form\u003c/em\u003e [SIS/SES-SF; 47] To measure sexual inhibition and excitation in both men and women, we used the SIS/SES-SF. This is an abbreviated version using 14 items selected from the original 45-item SIS/SES Scales measuring propensity for sexual excitation and sexual inhibition [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. The selected items of the SIS/SES-SF represent the three-factor structure of the SIS/SES Scales equally well for women and men. We used the Dutch item translations using gender-neutral item wordings. Example item wordings are “When a sexually attractive stranger accidentally touches me, I easily become aroused”, and “I cannot get aroused unless I focus exclusively on sexual stimulation” Two subscales, SES (sexual excitation proneness; range: 6–24), and SIS1 (sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance failure; range: 4–16), were used. All subscales were shown to have acceptable internal consistency and adequate discriminant and convergent validity. The internal consistency in previous research in a US sample was acceptable with Cronbach’s α’s for men (SES α = .75, and SIS1 α = .66) and women (SES α = .61, and SIS1 α = .61) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. Confirmatory factor analysis in a Dutch sample current sample replicated the expected three-factor structure of the SIS/SES-SF (Fit measures: CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, RSMEA = 0.06 and SRMR = 0.08) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. Higher scores indicate higher sexual excitation or inhibition proneness. In the present study, the reliability was found satisfactory, with Cronbach’s α = .70 for SIS1 and α = .81 for SES.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eExperiences in Close Relationships [ECR; 51, 52]\u003c/em\u003e. The validated Dutch translation of the ECR was employed to measure attachment anxiety and avoidance in both men and women [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. This self-report questionnaire contains 36 propositions, for each of which participants indicate their level of endorsement on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (very much disagree) to 7 (very much agree). Example item wordings are “I rather not show my deepest feelings to a partner”, and “I worry about being alone”. The internal consistency was found satisfactory with Cronbach’s α’s varying from .88 to .94 for the avoidance subscale, and from .86 to .91 for the anxiety subscale in Dutch and US samples [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. In the present sample, the internal consistency was found to be excellent for both attachment avoidance (Cronbach’s α = .90.) and attachment anxiety (α = .89). In the psychometric study of Conradi, Gerlsma [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e] the correlation between the anxiety and avoidance subscales scores in Dutch student samples converged with a US student sample, but the correlations in a Dutch population sample were higher. The correlation in the present study is comparable to those in this population sample. The subscale means in the present sample are higher than in the population sample. Higher scores indicate higher attachment anxiety and avoidance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStatistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePower analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e] yielded a required number of participants of 208 for multiple linear regression analysis with 17 predictors (2-tailed, effect size \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.15, α = .05, power = 0.80). Descriptive statistics and correlations of the relevant variables were computed on the raw scores of these variables using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 27 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e] We followed Cohen's [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e] guidelines of Pearson's \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .10, .30, and .50, to interpret observed effect sizes of correlations as, respectively, small, medium, or large. For testing the hypotheses two models were formulated to investigate, respectively, the prediction of levels of sexual desire and sexual arousal, including the two-way interactions of predictors from DCM and attachment theory, and the three-way interactions of these predictors with gender. Multiple linear regression analysis (MLRA) was applied to test both models. The distribution of the variables was visually inspected. The analysis was based on complete cases; missing values were not imputed. VIF scores were calculated for each predictor variable to test for multicollinearity. For the FSFI and IIEF standardized subscale scores were calculated to directly compare data of women and men. Although their items have different wordings, we treated these variables as if they were measuring the same constructs. All other predictor variables in the regression model were centered before entering them in the analysis. P-values for the predictor variables in each model were corrected for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. A general significance threshold of \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .05 was used.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eDescriptives.\u003c/em\u003e The distributions of sexual desire and sexual arousal, split by gender, are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The scores on both variables were normally distributed, but some participants had very low scores. Sexual desire and arousal were significantly positively correlated (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.61, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. As expected, SES correlated positively with sexual desire and arousal (H1), while SIS1 correlated negatively with sexual desire and arousal (H2). Sexual excitation proneness correlated negatively with attachment avoidance (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05), whereas the association with attachment anxiety was not significant, partially supporting and refuting the predictions in H5. Contrary to our prediction, sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance failure correlated negatively with attachment avoidance (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05), refuting H6. Sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance consequences did not correlate with insecure attachment orientation, also refuting H6. Both attachment anxiety and avoidance were not correlated with sexual desire and sexual arousal, refuting H3 and H4.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographics and Descriptives of Key Study Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;242)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eM (SD) / %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMen (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;116)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eM (SD) / %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37.6 (11.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39.3 (12.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en.s.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationship Length\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.2 (11.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.8 (10.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighest Education Level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en.s.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLower secondary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher secondary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLower professional\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigher professional\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSES\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.6 (0.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.2 (0.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSIS1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5 (0.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.9 (0.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment Anxiety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.4 (0.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en.s.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0 (1.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.7 (1.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSexual Desire\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.6 (1.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.7 (1.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSexual Arousal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.9 (1.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.3 (2.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelation Coefficients of Study Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Age\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Relationship Duration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.66\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Sexual Desire\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.18\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.36\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Sexual Arousal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.22\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.61\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. SES\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.31\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.16\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. SIS1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.19\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.20\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.41\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.42\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. ECR- Attachment Anxiety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. ECR- Attachment Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.13*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"8\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotes: SES\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Sexual Excitation Proneness; SIS1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Sexual Inhibition Proneness due to the threat of performance failure; SIS2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Sexual Inhibition Proneness due to the threat of performance consequences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e* \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.05; \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.01; \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.001 (all 2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e about here\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePredicting Sexual Desire and Arousal\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNone of the three-way interactions were found to be significant. Therefore, the following results are based on two-way interaction models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSexual Desire.\u003c/em\u003e The VIF scores in this regression model for the predictor variables, respectively SES, SIS1, attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, gender, age, and relationship duration are: 1.9, 2.1, 2.2, 2, 1.3, 2, 2, indicating absence of multicollinearity. A significant regression model was found (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.408), see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Sexual desire was positively predicted by sexual excitation proneness (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.21, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.53, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05) and negatively by inhibition proneness related to threat of performance failure (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = -0.47, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -5.65, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), supporting H1 and H2. Both attachment anxiety and avoidance did not predict sexual desire, refuting H3 and H4. Gender was a significant predictor of sexual desire (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), with men reporting higher level of sexual desire, compared to women. Finally, relationship duration negatively predicted sexual desire (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = -0.02, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -4.69, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001); longer duration came with lower sexual desire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSexual Arousal.\u003c/em\u003e The VIF scores in this regression model for the predictor variables, respectively SES, SIS1, attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, gender, age, and relationship duration are: 1.9, 2.1, 2.2, 2, 1.3, 2, 2, indicating absence of multicollinearity. A significant regression model was found (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.317). Contrary to the prediction in H1, sexual excitation proneness did not predict sexual arousal. As predicted in H2, sexual inhibition proneness related to the threat of sexual performance failure was a significant negative predictor of sexual arousal (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = -0.42, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -5.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). As predicted in H3, attachment anxiety (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e = -0.21, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -4.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) negatively predicted sexual arousal. Contrary to the prediction in H4, however, attachment avoidance did not predict sexual arousal. Gender was also a significant predictor of sexual arousal (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.49, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), with men reporting higher level of sexual arousal, compared to women. Age and relationship duration did not predict sexual arousal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment anxiety did not moderate the associations between sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and sexual desire and arousal (all \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e about here\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegression Model Predicting Sexual Desire and Sexual Arousal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95% Confidence Interval\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep(B-H corrected)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLower\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUpper\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredicting Sexual Desire\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntercept\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.159\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.148\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.323\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.868\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.450\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSES\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.207\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.082\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.530\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.044\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.046\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.367\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSIS1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.473\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.084\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-5.652\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.638\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.308\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment Anxiety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.061\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.056\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.087\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.412\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.172\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.087\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.795\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.184\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.183\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender (male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.634\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.324\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.437\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.831\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.120\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.412\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationship Duration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-4.686\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.032\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSES * Attachment Anxiety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.074\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.069\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.070\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.412\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.062\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.210\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSES * Attachment Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.086\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.060\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.442\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.322\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.203\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSIS1 * Attachment Anxiety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.074\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.253\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.838\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.126\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.163\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSIS1 * Attachment Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.067\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.065\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.033\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.412\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.195\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSES * Gender (male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.081\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.150\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.540\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.737\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.214\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.376\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSIS1 * Gender (male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.321\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.148\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.173\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.091\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.612\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment Anxiety * Gender (male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.040\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.098\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.409\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.788\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.233\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.153\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment Avoidance * Gender (male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.092\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.204\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.838\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.163\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredicting Sexual Arousal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntercept\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.275\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.135\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.605\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.541\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSES\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.068\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.075\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.909\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.777\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.079\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.214\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSIS1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.419\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.076\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-5.481\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.569\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.268\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment Anxiety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.207\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.051\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-4.039\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.308\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.106\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.044\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.710\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.777\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.119\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.056\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender (male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.487\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.092\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.321\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.307\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.667\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.157\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.938\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationship Duration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.890\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.179\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSES * Attachment Anxiety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.063\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.645\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.777\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.083\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.165\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSES * Attachment Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.054\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.569\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.777\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.138\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.076\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSIS1 * Attachment Anxiety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.025\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.067\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.374\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.849\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.157\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSIS1 * Attachment Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.338\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.849\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.137\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.097\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSES * Gender (male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.089\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.137\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.653\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.777\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.359\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.180\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSIS1 * Gender (male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.193\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.135\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.432\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.383\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.072\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.459\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment Anxiety * Gender (male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.197\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.090\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.199\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.373\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment Avoidance * Gender (male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.084\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.989\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.165\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.167\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep(B-H corrected): p-values were corrected for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure (2000)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study we investigated a multifactorial model of sexual desire and arousal using predictors from two distinct conceptual frameworks, respectively, sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness from the DCM [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], and attachment anxiety and avoidance from the adult attachment theory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. The correlation pattern of excitation and inhibition propensities with insecure attachment orientations partly supported our hypotheses. The negative correlations of attachment avoidance with sexual excitation proneness and with sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance failure were found as hypothesized. Unexpectedly, however, sexual excitation proneness and sexual inhibition proneness due to the threat of performance failure were not correlated with attachment anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe observed pattern of associations of factors from the DCM with sexual desire and arousal partly supported our hypotheses. Sexual excitation proneness positively predicted sexual desire, but did not predict sexual arousal. Sexual inhibition due to fear of performance failure (SIS1) negatively predicted sexual desire and sexual arousal. These findings are in line with previous research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], although Quinta Gomes, Janssen [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] found that sexual inhibition proneness predicted sexual desire and arousal only in men.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe correlational outcomes did not support our predictions regarding the associations of insecure attachment with sexual desire and arousal. Neither attachment anxiety nor attachment avoidance were bivariately correlated with sexual desire and arousal. In previous studies in non-clinical samples contradictory results were found: whereas some found negative correlations of attachment avoidance with sexual arousal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] and orgasm [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] in women, another study failed to find bivariate associations of attachment anxiety and avoidance with sexual desire [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e]. As predicted, however, attachment anxiety was found a negative predictor of sexual arousal. The discrepancies between the outcomes of correlation and regression analysis might be speculatively explained by the presence of substantial shared variance between the predictor variables. The predictive value in this study of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance for sexual desire and arousal was only revealed in a multivariate approach controlling for the shared variance between the predictors. Further research is required to clarify the implications of this finding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContrary to what was hypothesized, we found no support for moderating effects of insecure attachment orientation on the associations of sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness with sexual desire and arousal. Sexual excitation and inhibition propensity and attachment orientations have been proposed to interact in the modulation of sexual arousal and behavior [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], albeit at different levels of cognitive processing. In the present non-experimental study design using retrospective self-report variables, no evidence of interactions between the key factors was found. A speculative explanation of not finding the interaction between sexual excitation and inhibition propensities and attachment orientations, might be that the interaction is mainly operational under momentaneous threats to the individual\u0026rsquo;s sexual functioning that are strong enough to activate the individual\u0026rsquo;s emotional self-regulation strategies associated with attachment anxiety and avoidance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]. Future experimental research, in which threat is manipulated, might test this speculation. In addition, the present study was conducted in a nonclinical sample, and further research in samples including individuals with sexual dysfunction might reveal stronger associations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotwithstanding the finding in the current study that they were not interrelated in their effects on sexual desire and arousal, measures from both theoretical perspectives were found to be independent predictors of sexual desire and arousal. The current findings can be taken to support the recommendation to address both factors as part of the assessment in clinical sexology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe general nature of the study sample, that did not necessarily include women and men with sexual difficulties meeting clinical criteria, even though sexual desire and arousal scores contained some extremely low scores, may have limited the odds of revealing interactions between sexual excitation/inhibition and attachment orientation with a discontinuous nature. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that a model that assumes strong interactions between these variables is characteristic of the general population.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStrengths and limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis is the first study, to our knowledge, in which the associations of the dual control model and the attachment theory were jointly and multivariately investigated in relation to sexual desire and arousal. Although several associations between the study concepts were established, the cross-sectional design of this study does not allow to draw conclusions about causality. The use of retrospective self-report measures of sexual desire and arousal, limits the interpretations of the present finding. The subscales used in this study to measure female (FSFI) and male (IIEF) sexual arousal are not identical, as the FSFI subscale focuses on subjective sexual arousal, whereas the IIEF subscale focuses on erectile function. However, alternative measures measuring sexual arousal for women and men that use identical conceptualizations, are internationally validated and widely used in sex research, are not readily available. Future research should preferentially use momentaneous measures of both subjective and genital sexual desire and arousal in an experimental study design, that would, moreover, allow for manipulation of potentially relevant contextual factors, including imminent threats to sexual function. The convenience sample in the present study introduced a limitation to the generalizability of the findings and future studies could also include clinical samples.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe conclude from this cross-sectional study that sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and attachment anxiety and avoidance are relevant predictors of sexual desire and arousal. However, based on the present data, sexual excitation and inhibition proneness and attachment anxiety and avoidance do not seem to interact strongly. In clinical diagnostics, assessment of both factors nevertheless seems relevant.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConflict of Interest Statement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNobre PJ. Psychological determinants of erectile dysfunction: Testing a cognitive-emotional model. J Sex Med. 2010;7(4 Pt 1):1429-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01656.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisher WA, Byrne D, White LA, Kelley K. Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality. J Sex Res. 1988;25(1):123-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551448 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCabe MP, Cobain MJ. The impact of individual and relationship factors on sexual dysfunction among males and females. Sex Mar Ther. 1998;13(2):131-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674659808406554\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBancroft J, Janssen E. The dual control model of male sexual response: A theoretical approach to centrally mediated erectile dysfunction. Neurosc Biobehav Rev. 2000;24(5):571-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(00)00024-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Lankveld J, Odekerken I, Kok-Verhoeven L, van Hooren S, de Vries P, van den Hout A, Verboon P. Implicit and explicit associations with erotic stimuli in sexually functional and dysfunctional men. J Sex Med. 2015;12(8):1791-804. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12930\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNobre PJ, Pinto-Gouveia J. Dysfunctional sexual beliefs as vulnerability factors for sexual dysfunction. J Sex Res. 2006;43(1):68-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552300\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuise A, Impett EA, Desmarais S. Getting it on versus getting it over with: Sexual motivation, desire, and satisfaction in intimate bonds. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2013;39(10):1320-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490963\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDewitte M. Different perspectives on the sex-attachment link: Towards an emotion-motivational account. J Sex Res. 2012;49(2-3):105-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.576351\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStefanou C, McCabe MP. Adult attachment and sexual functioning: A review of past research. J Sex Med. 2012;9(10):2499-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02843.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarvalho J, Nobre P. Biopsychosocial determinants of men\u0026apos;s sexual desire: Testing an integrative model. J Sex Med. 2011;8(3):754-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02156.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBasson R. Biopsychosocial models of women\u0026apos;s sexual response: Applications to management of \u0026apos;desire disorders\u0026apos;. Sex Rel Ther. 2003;18(1):107-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1468199031000061308\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDennerstein L, Guthrie JR, Hayes RD, DeRogatis LR, Lehert P. Sexual function, dysfunction, and sexual distress in a prospective, population-based sample of mid-aged, Australian-born women. J Sex Med. 2008;5(10):2291-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00936.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKingsberg SA. The impact of aging on sexual function in women and their partners. Arch Sex Behav. 2002;31(5):431-7. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019844209233\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBancroft J, Graham CA, Janssen E, Sanders SA. The dual control model: Current status and future directions. J Sex Res. 2009;46(2-3):121-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902747222\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJanssen E, Bancroft J. The dual control model of sexual response: A scoping review, 2009\u0026ndash;2022. J Sex Res. 2023;60(7):948068. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2219247\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVelten J, Zahler L, Scholten S, Margraf J. Temporal stability of sexual excitation and sexual inhibition in women. Arch Sex Behav. 2019;48(3):881-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1323-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBloemendaal LB, Laan ET. The psychometric properties of the Sexual Excitation/Sexual Inhibition Inventory for Women (SESII-W) within a Dutch population. J Sex Res. 2015;52(1):69-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.826166\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuinta Gomes AL, Janssen E, Santos-Iglesias P, Pinto-Gouveia J, Fonseca LM, Nobre PJ. Validation of the Sexual Inhibition and Sexual Excitation Scales (SIS/SES) in Portugal: Assessing gender differences and predictors of sexual functioning. Arch Sex Behav. 2018;47:1721-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1137-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNolet K, Rouleau J-L, Benbouriche M, Carrier Emond F, Renaud P. How ego depletion affects sexual self-regulation: Is it more than resource depletion? J Sex Res. 2016;53(8):994-1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1096887\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWinters J, Christoff K, Gorzalka BB. Conscious regulation of sexual arousal in men. J Sex Res. 2009;46(4):330-43. https://doi.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJanssen E, Vorst H, Finn P, Bancroft J. The Sexual Inhibition (SIS) and Sexual Excitation (SES) Scales: II. Predicting psychophysiological response pattens. J Sex Res. 2002;39(2):127-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552131\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Lankveld J, Janssen E. Cognitieve theorie\u0026euml;n in seksuologisch onderzoek en praktijk. Tijdschr Seksuol. 2020;44(4):170-80. https://doi.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFraley RC. Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2002;6(2):123-51. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_03\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFraley RC, Vicary AM, Brumbaugh CC, Roisman GI. Patterns of stability in adult attachment: An empirical test of two models of continuity and change. J Person Soc Psychol. 2011;101(5):974-92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024150\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 2007.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMikulincer M, Shaver PR, Bar-On N, Ein-Dor T. The pushes and pulls of close relationships: Attachment insecurities and relational ambivalence J Person Soc Psychol. 2010;98(3):450-68. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017366\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBirnbaum GE, Mikulincer M, Szepsenwol O, Shaver PR, Mizrahi M. When sex goes wrong: A behavioral systems perspective on individual differences in sexual attitudes, motives, feelings, and behaviors. J Person Soc Psychol. 2014;106(5):822. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment orientations and emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2019;25:6-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurri A, Schweitzer R, O\u0026apos;Brien J. Correlates of female sexual functioning: Adult attachment and differentiation of self. J Sex Med. 2014;11(9):2188-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12561\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen DL, Belsky J. Avoidant romantic attachment and female orgasm: Testing an emotion-regulation hypothesis. Attachm Hum Dev. 2008;10(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730701868555\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBirnbaum GE, Reis HT. When does responsiveness pique sexual interest? Attachment and sexual desire in initial acquaintanceships. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012;38(7):946-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212441028\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDang SS, Northey L, Dunkley CR, Rigby RA, Gorzalka BB. Sexual anxiety and sexual beliefs as mediators of the association between attachment orientation with sexual functioning and distress in university men and women. Can J Hum Sex. 2018;27(1):21-32. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2017-0025\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunkley CR, Dang SS, Chang S, C. H., Gorzalka BB. Sexual functioning in young women and men: Role of attachment orientation. J Sex Mar Ther. 2016;42(5):413-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2015.1061075\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToates F. An integrative theoretical framework for understanding sexual motivation, arousal, and behavior. J Sex Res. 2009;46(2-3):168-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902747768\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePozza A, Casale S, Marazziti D, Albert U, Mucci F, Berti E, et al. Attachment styles and propensity for sexual response in adult obsessive-compulsive disorder. Sex Rel Ther. 2023;38(4):696-714. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2021.1900805\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDewitte M. Adult attachment and attentional inhibition of interpersonal stimuli. Cogn Emot. 2011;25(4):612-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.508683\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMizrahi M, Hirschberger G, Mikulincer M, Szepsenwol O, Birnbaum GE. Reassuring sex: Can sexual desire and intimacy reduce relationship‐specific attachment insecurities? Eur J Soc Psychol. 2016;46(4):467-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2184\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLocke KD. Attachment styles and interpersonal approach and avoidance goals in everyday couple interactions. Pers Rel. 2008;15(3):359-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00203.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes R, Dennerstein L. The impact of aging on sexual function and sexual dysfunction in women: A review of population-based studies. J Sex Med. 2005;2(3):317-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.20356.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, Leiblum S, Meston C, Shabsigh R, et al. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Mar Ther. 2000;26(2):191-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/009262300278597\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosen R, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urol. 1997;49(6):822-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eForbes MK, Baillie AJ, Schniering CA. Critical flaws in the Female Sexual Function Index and the International Index of Erectile Function. J Sex Res. 2014;51(5):485-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.876607\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYule M, Davison J, Brotto L. The International Index of Erectile Function: A methodological critique and suggestions for improvement. J Sex Mar Ther. 2011;37(4):255-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2011.582431\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eter Kuile MM, Brauer M, Laan E. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS): Psychometric properties within a Dutch population. J Sex Mar Ther. 2006;32(4):289-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230600666261\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHenckens MJ, de Vries P, Janssen E, De Sutter T, van den Hout AJ, van Hooren SA, van Lankveld JJ. Associations of affect, action readiness, and sexual functioning. Sex Med. 2020;8(4):691-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2020.06.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeijenhuijs KI, Holtmaat K, Aaronson NK, Holzner B, Terwee CB, Cuijpers P, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)\u0026mdash;a systematic review of measurement properties. J Sex Med. 2019;16(7):1078-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.04.010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrekatsounaki S, Janssen E, Enzlin P. In search of desire: The role of intimacy, celebrated otherness, and object-of-desire affirmation in sexual desire in women. J Sex Mar Ther. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2018.1549633\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJanssen E, Vorst H, Finn P, Bancroft J. The Sexual Inhibition (SIS) and Sexual Excitation (SES) Scales: I. Measuring sexual inhibition and excitation proneness in men. J Sex Res. 2002;39(2):114-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552130\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarpenter DL, Janssen E, Graham CA, Vorst H, Wicherts J. Sexual Inhibition/Excitation Scales - Short Form. In: Fisher TD, Davis CM, Yarber WL, Davis SL, editors. Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (3rd edition). New York: Routledge; 2011. p. 236-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Tuijl P, Verboon P, van Lankveld J. The relation of mood and sexual desire: An experience sampling perspective on the dual control model. Arch Sex Behav. 2022;51(8):3871-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02357-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrennan KA, Clark CL, Shaver PR. Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In: Simpson JA, Rholes WS, editors. Attachment theory and close relationship. New York: Guilford Press; 1998. p. 46-76.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConradi HJ, Gerlsma C, van Duijn M, de Jonge P. Internal and external validity of the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire in an American and two Dutch samples. Eur J Psychiatr. 2006;20(4):258-69. https://doi.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Meth. 2007;39(2):175-91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIBM_Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM_Corp.; 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenjamini Y, Hochberg Y. On the adaptive control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing with independent statistics. J Educ Behav Stat. 2000;25(1):60-83. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165312\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Lankveld J, Dewitte M, Thewissen V, Jacobs N, Verboon P. Predicting sexual desire in daily life from an attachment perspective: An experience sampling study. J Sex Mar Ther. 2021;47(4):311-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2020.1871141\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeyer B, Olivier L, Roth DA. Please don\u0026rsquo;t leave me! BIS/BAS, attachment styles, and responses to a relationship threat. Pers Ind Diff. 2005;38(1):151-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-journal-of-impotence-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ijir","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Journal of Impotence Research](http://www.nature.com/ijir/)","snPcode":"41443","submissionUrl":"https://mts-ijir.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"International Journal of Impotence Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"sexual excitation proneness, sexual inhibition proneness, attachment orientation, sexual desire, sexual arousal","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6594023/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6594023/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explored the role of sexual excitation and inhibition and attachment orientation in sexual desire and arousal. We investigated whether attachment orientation moderated the associations between sexual excitation and inhibition and sexual desire and arousal. A convenience sample of 358 participants (242 women and 116 men; mean age: 37.6, SD: 12.0) completed online questionnaires including the Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales\u0026ndash;Short Form, the Experiences in Close Relationships scale, the Female Sexual Function Index (women only), and the International Index of Erectile Function (men only). Associations were tested using multiple linear regression analysis. Sexual excitation/inhibition and attachment anxiety independently predicted part of the variance in sexual desire and arousal. Relationship duration negatively predicted level of sexual desire, while male gender positively predicted level of sexual arousal. The associations between sexual excitation/inhibition and sexual desire and arousal were not moderated by attachment orientation. Further research into the interaction of sexual excitation and sexual inhibition proneness and adult attachment orientation as determinants of sexual desire and arousal seems warranted.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The relevance of attachment orientation and sexual excitation and inhibition to our understanding of sexual desire and sexual arousal","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-13 13:21:03","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6594023/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"revise","date":"2025-07-02T13:54:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-06-11T11:07:05+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-05-21T20:28:23+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-05-21T07:35:07+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-05-16T12:04:36+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-09T08:13:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-05-08T11:55:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"International Journal of Impotence Research","date":"2025-05-06T14:44:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksFailed","content":"","date":"2025-05-06T13:38:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-05-05T11:22:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-journal-of-impotence-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ijir","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Journal of Impotence Research](http://www.nature.com/ijir/)","snPcode":"41443","submissionUrl":"https://mts-ijir.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"International Journal of Impotence Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a0263f87-d3b9-4f55-846a-e0557b2cc124","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 13th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":48296313,"name":"Health sciences/Risk factors"},{"id":48296314,"name":"Health sciences/Signs and symptoms"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-27T19:15:59+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-13 13:21:03","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6594023","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6594023","identity":"rs-6594023","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}