Ivory
Research version · 18+
Light
P-120 vNextResearch Candidate · 18+

Scientific Base P-120.

P-120 is proposed as a candidate multilayer research architecture integrating several established and related research traditions without reducing them to a single general “sexuality score”.

Evidence status

Scientific literature supports related psychological mechanisms, methodological decisions and individual component hypotheses. It does not constitute direct empirical validation of the exact P-120 factor structure, thresholds, archetypal or trajectory rules, composite scores, cross-layer interpretation or future dyadic outputs.

Open full document · PDF
Primary academic document P-120 vNext — Scientific Concept Paper

Public Research Edition A4 · v1.2
1 September 2026 · 14 pp.

Defensible originality statementoriginal candidate integration and operationalization
5independent research layers
16falsifiable cross-layer hypotheses
13validation stages, 0–12
45scientific and methodological sources
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ATLAS

One Scientific Base. Several controlled research families.

Core remains the default scientific foundation. Extended and Outcomes expose only the public detail authorized by their current research status; shared validation, ethics and literature remain common.

EXTENDED

Extended Research

Public-safe scientific projection. Development status is not a psychometric validation claim.

COM-12 · Supplemental Research Module

Erotic Communication Architecture

How does a person express, receive, clarify, negotiate and repair sexually or erotically meaningful communication?

A distinct interpersonal erotic-communication process layer. It does not substitute for motivation, attachment, internal authorship of choice, preference content or downstream outcomes.

COM-E
Expressive Clarity & Disclosure
CANDIDATE
COM-R
Receptive Listening & Clarification
CANDIDATE
COM-N
Difference & Boundary Negotiation
CANDIDATE
COM-P
Repair & Re-engagement
CANDIDATE
Development state

A 32-item development pool was reduced to a 24-item Cognitive Candidate; item-level red-team, ownership firewalls and the C1/C2/C3 protocol are controlled at architecture level. Actual field observations remain required before freeze adjudication.

E0 BOUNDE1 CONTROLLEDE2 PENDINGE3 NOT_ESTABLISHEDE4 NOT_ESTABLISHED
REF-046REF-047REF-048REF-049REF-025
Publication ceiling
Candidate architecture, development history, verification methods, selected evidence anchors and the current field gate may be shown. Confirmed factor structure, a COM Total, production scoring, norms, diagnosis or consent-validity classification are not authorized.
MOT-12 · Supplemental Research Module

Sexual Motivation Architecture

Why — for what anticipated psychological result — does a person choose sexual or erotically significant intimacy?

A layer of reasons for choosing intimacy, separated from desire strength, activation triggers, behavior, communication ability, self-relation and downstream states.

M-H
Hedonic / Enhancement
CANDIDATE
M-C
Connection / Intimacy
CANDIDATE
M-P
Partner-Responsive / Communal
CANDIDATE
M-K
Coping / Affect Regulation
CANDIDATE
M-A
Avoidance / Relationship Protection
CANDIDATE
M-O
Obligation / Controlled Compliance
CANDIDATE_HIGH_OVERLAP
M-V
Validation / Contingent Self-Worth
CHALLENGE_CONDITIONAL
M0
Low Motive Access / Automaticity
AUXILIARY
Development state

After evidence/boundary audit, a 36-item controlled pool was reduced to a 24-item Cognitive Candidate plus a 12-item traceable reserve. Expert, CVI and cognitive programmes are ready for execution; M-V remains a challenge territory.

E0 BOUNDE1 CONTROLLEDE2 PENDINGE3 NOT_ESTABLISHEDE4 NOT_ESTABLISHED
REF-050REF-051REF-052REF-053REF-003REF-040
Publication ceiling
Candidate motive territories and development evidence only. No MOT Total, healthy/unhealthy motive classification, confirmed factor model, production scoring or psychometric-validity claim.
SELF-12 · Supplemental Research Module

Sexual Self-Relation Architecture

How does a person experience, evaluate and author themselves as a sexual subject?

A sexual self-relation layer that is not reducible to general self-esteem, body image, communication, motivation, attachment, embodied sensitivity or preferences.

SRG
Sexual Self-Regard / Acceptance
CORE_CANDIDATE
DPL
Desire & Pleasure Legitimacy
CORE_CANDIDATE
SAA
Sexual Agency / Autonomy
CORE_CANDIDATE
SSC
Sexual Self-Consciousness
CORE_CANDIDATE
SSH
Sexual Shame
CORE_CANDIDATE
PSD
Perceived Sexual Desirability
LIMITED
SBA
Sexual Body Appraisal
LIMITED
Development state

A broad 12-territory landscape was pruned and ownership-adjudicated into a 5 CORE + 2 LIMITED candidate architecture and a 21-item Cognitive Candidate. Expert/CVI/cognitive execution remains evidence-gated.

E0 BOUNDE1 CONTROLLEDE2 PENDINGE3 NOT_ESTABLISHEDE4 NOT_ESTABLISHED
REF-054REF-055REF-056REF-057REF-058REF-059REF-060
Publication ceiling
The 5 CORE + 2 LIMITED candidate architecture, development record, boundaries and selected evidence anchors may be shown. No SELF Total, confirmed seven-factor model, norms or participant interpretation.
RPE-MOD · Supplemental Research Module

Specialized Preference / Reward Architecture

Can specific preference/reward coordinates add information without duplicating activation, embodied response, communication, self-relation or outcomes?

An optional specialized preference/reward layer under separate safety/privacy and publication governance.

Development state

At the current stage only the minimal role, status, boundaries, fielding hold and independent-measurement/later-join principle are public.

E0 NOT_PROJECTEDE1 CONTROLLEDE2 NOT_ESTABLISHED_FOR_PUBLIC_CLAIMSE3 NOT_ESTABLISHEDE4 NOT_ESTABLISHED
Publication ceiling
Existing minimal role/status/boundary summary only. Detailed construct families, high-risk operational detail, scoring, norms, archetypes and respondent-facing interpretation remain suppressed until a separate RPE publication authority exists.
OUTCOMES

Outcomes & Life Spillover

Public-safe scientific projection. Development status is not a psychometric validation claim.

LIFE-12/18 · Candidate Outcome Layer

Intimacy-Life Integration / Relationship-to-Life Spillover

What broader affective, energetic, cognitive, restorative, engagement or meaning-related states are observed around and after intimacy?

A separate outcome/spillover layer. LIFE measures observed downstream states, not a psychosexual trait and not a causal effect of intimacy.

PAU
Positive Affective Uplift
CORE_CANDIDATE
NAL
Negative Affective Load
CORE_CANDIDATE
SV
Subjective Vitality
CORE_CANDIDATE
SLP
Sleep Quality / Initiation
CORE_CANDIDATE
WSE
Work / Study Engagement
CORE_CANDIDATE
MLS
Meaning / Life Significance
CORE_CANDIDATE
CCO
Cognitive Carryover
LIMITED_AUXILIARY
GLS
Global Life Satisfaction
EXTERNALIZED_ANCHOR
Development state

A 12-target outcome landscape was reduced to 8 respondent-facing territories and 6 CORE + CCO limited/auxiliary, with GLS externalized. Event/daily T0/T1, recent-pattern and global/external-anchor modes are not interchangeable; LIFE-18 remains the preferred developmental depth.

E0 BOUNDE1 CONTROLLEDE2 PENDINGE3 NOT_ESTABLISHEDE4 NOT_ESTABLISHED
REF-061REF-062REF-063REF-064REF-065REF-066REF-067REF-068
Publication ceiling
Candidate outcome architecture and external comparators with covariation/temporal-association wording only. No LIFE Total, causal attribution, productivity or health-outcome promise, or confirmed factor model.
METHODS

Methods, evidence states and cross-layer research questions

Cross-layer synthesis is research-only at this stage. Independent source coordinates are retained; no Extended super-score is authorized.

E0 · External scientific foundation

Published research, models, constructs and measurement precedents relevant to the measurement territory.

Does not mean: Validation of the integrated P-120 architecture.

E1 · Internal architecture verification

Construct-boundary, ownership, redundancy, item-level, information-gain, scope/exposure, safety, computational-contract and cross-module verification.

Does not mean: Reliability, factor validity, norms or population generalizability.

E2 · Human cognitive or cross-check evidence

Evidence-bearing comprehension, discrimination or field observations used to adjudicate development hypotheses.

Does not mean: Completed psychometric validation or external replication.

E3 · Psychometric validation

Quantitative respondent-sample evidence addressing reliability, factor structure, discriminant/incremental validity, stability, invariance or other explicitly tested properties.

Does not mean: Independent external replication unless separately established.

E4 · External replication

Independently reproduced evidence under a separately defined replication authority.

Does not mean: A default state of any current module.

P-120 does not collapse its layers into a single total. It separates neighboring processes in advance and formulates testable cross-layer questions: does joint reading of independent coordinates add information beyond each layer alone? At the current stage this is a research programme, not demonstrated cross-module validity.

Pre-registered cross-layer questions

CLQ-01 · Activation and motivationCan activation level, temporal durability and reasons for choosing intimacy dissociate?
P-72 × P-72D × MOT-12 · PENDING_HUMAN_COVALIDATION
CLQ-02 · Choice authorship and communicationCan internal authorship of a sexual choice differ from the ability to communicate and negotiate that choice?
SELF-12 × COM-12 · PENDING_HUMAN_COVALIDATION
CLQ-03 · Initiative, agency and motiveCan erotic initiative, internal authorship and motive differ within the same person?
P-72D × SELF-12 × MOT-12 · PENDING_HUMAN_COVALIDATION
CLQ-04 · Recovery after disruptionAre erotic re-engagement, communication repair and downstream cognitive carryover distinguishable despite overlapping time windows?
P-72D × COM-12 × LIFE-12/18 · PENDING_HUMAN_COVALIDATION
CLQ-05 · Attachment and communicationDoes sexual/erotic communication add information after attachment/security context is known?
AO-12 × COM-12 · PENDING_HUMAN_COVALIDATION
CLQ-06 · Self-relation and validation seekingIs standing sexual self-appraisal distinguishable from choosing intimacy for validation and from attachment reassurance?
SELF-12 × MOT-12 × AO-12 · PENDING_HUMAN_COVALIDATION
CLQ-07 · Embodied response and self-consciousnessCan embodied signal sensitivity coexist with strong evaluative sexual self-focus?
SOMA-24 × SELF-12 × P-72 · PENDING_HUMAN_COVALIDATION
CLQ-08 · Motive and downstream outcomeIs choosing intimacy to regulate a state distinct from the downstream state later observed?
MOT-12 × LIFE-12/18 · PENDING_HUMAN_COVALIDATION
CLQ-09 · Erotic dynamics and broader life functioningHow are post-event erotic/relational changes associated with broader affect, vitality, sleep, engagement and meaning states?
P-72D × LIFE-12/18 · PENDING_HUMAN_COVALIDATION
CLQ-10 · Preference and other layersDo preference/reward coordinates add information after activation, embodied response, communication and outcomes are measured independently?
RPE-MOD × P-72 × SOMA-24 × COM-12 × LIFE-12/18 · PENDING_HUMAN_COVALIDATION
INTEGRATED SCIENTIFIC LIBRARY

Core-45 / Global-70 Scientific Library

One navigable library preserves the frozen 45-reference Core and adds the separately governed 25-reference PASS 4 extension. Core reference roles are not inferred where the source object does not provide them.

45CORE
25PASS 4
70GLOBAL
Reference count is coverage metadata, not a validity metric. Module/role filters apply only where a controlled binding exists.
Showing 70 of 70
REF-001 · CORE 45
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. AERA.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
REF-002 · CORE 45
Andrade, J., May, J., Deeprose, C., Baugh, S.-J., & Ganis, G. (2014). Assessing vividness of mental imagery: The Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 547-563.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1111/bjop.12050
REF-003 · CORE 45
Balzarini, R. N., Muise, A., Dobson, K., Kohut, T., Raposo, S., & Campbell, L. (2021). The detriments of unmet sexual ideals and buffering effect of sexual communal strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1521-1550.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1037/pspi0000323
REF-004 · CORE 45
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mizrahi, M., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Sass, O., & Granovski-Milner, C. (2016). Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 530-546.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1037/pspi0000069
REF-005 · CORE 45
Blumenstock, S. M. (2024). Romantic attachment and sexual desire: The role of desire target. Journal of Sex Research, 61(2), 313-323.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1080/00224499.2023.2223205
REF-006 · CORE 45
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quinonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
REF-007 · CORE 45
Bonemei, R., Costantino, A. I., Battistel, I., & Rivolta, D. (2018). The perception of (naked only) bodies and faceless heads relies on holistic processing: Evidence from the inversion effect. British Journal of Psychology, 109(2), 232-243.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1111/bjop.12271
REF-008 · CORE 45
Bouchard, K. N., Cormier, M., Huberman, J. S., & Rosen, N. O. (2023). Sexual script flexibility and sexual well-being in long-term couples: A dyadic longitudinal study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 20(7), 945-954.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad067
REF-009 · CORE 45
Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2013). How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 36-52.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1037/a0030641
REF-010 · CORE 45
Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., Lalumiere, M. L., Laan, E., & Grimbos, T. (2010). Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal in men and women: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 5-56.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9556-9
REF-011 · CORE 45
de Oliveira, L., Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. (2021). A systematic review on sexual boredom. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 18(3), 565-581.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.12.019
REF-012 · CORE 45
de Oliveira, L., Stulhofer, A., Tafro, A., Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. (2023). Sexual boredom and sexual desire in long-term relationships: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 20(1), 14-21.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdac018
REF-013 · CORE 45
Dewitte, M., Carvalho, J., Corona, G., Limoncin, E., Pascoal, P., Reisman, Y., & Stulhofer, A. (2020). Sexual desire discrepancy: A position statement of the European Society for Sexual Medicine. Sexual Medicine, 8(2), 121-131.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1016/j.esxm.2020.02.008
REF-014 · CORE 45
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615-625.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1037/a0022898
REF-015 · CORE 45
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350-365.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
REF-016 · CORE 45
Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(2), 246-259.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.10.004
REF-017 · CORE 45
Gauvin, S. E. M., & Pukall, C. F. (2018). The SexFlex Scale: A measure of sexual script flexibility when approaching sexual problems in a relationship. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(4), 382-397.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1080/0092623x.2017.1405304
REF-018 · CORE 45
Handy, A. B., & Meston, C. M. (2016). Interoceptive awareness moderates the relationship between perceived and physiological genital arousal in women. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(12), 1907-1914.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.09.018
REF-019 · CORE 45
Hugill, N., Fink, B., & Neave, N. (2010). The role of human body movements in mate selection. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(1), 66-89.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1177/147470491000800107
REF-020 · CORE 45
Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2017). Affectionate touch to promote relational, psychological, and physical well-being in adulthood: A theoretical model and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 228-252.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1177/1088868316650307
REF-021 · CORE 45
Janssen, E., Vorst, H., Finn, P., & Bancroft, J. (2002). The Sexual Inhibition (SIS) and Sexual Excitation (SES) Scales: I. Journal of Sex Research, 39(2), 114-126.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1080/00224490209552130
REF-022 · CORE 45
Kalichman, S. C., & Rompa, D. (1995). Sexual sensation seeking and sexual compulsivity scales: Reliability, validity, and predicting HIV risk behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(3), 586-601.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6503_16
REF-023 · CORE 45
Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 359-366.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1037/a0019651
REF-024 · CORE 45
Krishnamurti, T., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). The Partner-Specific Sexual Liking and Sexual Wanting Scale: Psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(2), 467-476.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9785-6
REF-025 · CORE 45
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of long-term heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research, 46(1), 3-14.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1080/00224490802398399
REF-026 · CORE 45
Mark, K. P., & Lasslo, J. A. (2018). Maintaining sexual desire in long-term relationships: A systematic review and conceptual model. Journal of Sex Research, 55(4-5), 563-581.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1080/00224499.2018.1437592
REF-027 · CORE 45
McLeod, S., Berry, K., Hodgson, C., & Wearden, A. (2020). Attachment and social support in romantic dyads: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(1), 59-101.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1002/jclp.22868
REF-028 · CORE 45
Mehling, W. E., Acree, M., Stewart, A., Silas, J., & Jones, A. (2018). The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, Version 2 (MAIA-2). PLOS ONE, 13(12), e0208034.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208034
REF-029 · CORE 45
Meltzer, A. L., Makhanova, A., Hicks, L. L., French, J. E., McNulty, J. K., & Bradbury, T. N. (2017). Quantifying the sexual afterglow. Psychological Science, 28(5), 587-598.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1177/0956797617691361
REF-030 · CORE 45
Muise, A., Harasymchuk, C., Day, L. C., Bacev-Giles, C., Gere, J., & Impett, E. A. (2019). Broadening your horizons: Self-expanding activities promote desire and satisfaction in established romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 237-258.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1037/pspi0000148
REF-031 · CORE 45
Muise, A., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., & Desmarais, S. (2013). Keeping the spark alive: Being motivated to meet a partner's sexual needs sustains sexual desire in long-term romantic relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 267-273.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1177/1948550612457185
REF-032 · CORE 45
Peloquin, K., Brassard, A., Lafontaine, M.-F., & Shaver, P. R. (2014). Sexuality examined through the lens of attachment theory: Attachment, caregiving, and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 561-576.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.757281
REF-033 · CORE 45
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
REF-034 · CORE 45
Reed, C. L., Stone, V. E., Bozova, S., & Tanaka, J. (2003). The body-inversion effect. Psychological Science, 14(4), 302-308.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14431
REF-035 · CORE 45
Reed, C. L., Stone, V. E., Grubb, J. D., & McGoldrick, J. E. (2006). Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 73-87.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.73
REF-036 · CORE 45
Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex differences in response to visual sexual stimuli: A review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(2), 206-218.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9217-9
REF-037 · CORE 45
Saarinen, A., Harjunen, V. J., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Jaaskelainen, I. P., & Ravaja, N. (2021). Social touch experience in different contexts: A review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 131, 360-372.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.027
REF-038 · CORE 45
Schirmer, A., Croy, I., & Ackerley, R. (2023). What are C-tactile afferents and how do they relate to 'affective touch'? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 151, 105236.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105236
REF-039 · CORE 45
Schlotz, W., Wallot, S., Omigie, D., Masucci, M. D., Hoelzmann, S. C., & Vessel, E. A. (2021). The Aesthetic Responsiveness Assessment (AReA). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(4), 682-696.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1037/aca0000348
REF-040 · CORE 45
Shoikhedbrod, A., Harasymchuk, C., Impett, E. A., & Muise, A. (2026). When a partner supports your sexual autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 52(2), 381-399.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1177/01461672241279099
REF-041 · CORE 45
Silvia, P. J., Rodriguez-Boerwinkle, R. M., Awa, K. N., Zabelina, D. L., & Christensen, A. P. (2025). Evaluating the structure of the AReA with bootstrap exploratory graph analysis. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 43(1), 550-564.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1177/02762374241259935
REF-042 · CORE 45
Stefanou, C., & McCabe, M. P. (2012). Adult attachment and sexual functioning: A review of past research. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(10), 2499-2507.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02843.x
REF-043 · CORE 45
Toledano, R., & Pfaus, J. (2006). The Sexual Arousal and Desire Inventory (SADI): A multidimensional scale to assess subjective sexual arousal and desire. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 3(5), 853-877.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00293.x
REF-044 · CORE 45
Trotter, P. D., McGlone, F., Reniers, R. L. E. P., & Deakin, J. F. W. (2018). Construction and validation of the Touch Experiences and Attitudes Questionnaire (TEAQ). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42(4), 379-416.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1007/s10919-018-0281-8
REF-045 · CORE 45
Williams, M. N., & Apicella, C. L. (2023). A test of multimodal communication in humans using 881 judgements of physical, vocal, and olfactory attractiveness. Heliyon, 9(6), e16895.
Source layer: CORE45 Core source-native citation/DOI only
doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16895
REF-046 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Mallory, A. B. (2022). Dimensions of couples' sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(3), 358–371.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: META_ANALYTIC_COMMUNICATION_CONTEXTCOM-12
doi:10.1037/fam0000946
REF-047 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Mallory, A. B., Stanton, A. M., & Handy, A. B. (2019). Couples' sexual communication and dimensions of sexual function: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(7), 882–898.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: META_ANALYTIC_COMMUNICATION_FUNCTION_CONTEXTCOM-12
doi:10.1080/00224499.2019.1568375
REF-048 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Moazami, S., Ashley, M., Czechowski, K., Courtice, E. L., & Shaughnessy, K. (2023). The Sexual Communication Scale (SeCS). The Journal of Sex Research, 60(1), 71–90.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_COMMUNICATION_MEASUREMENT_PRECEDENTCOM-12
doi:10.1080/00224499.2022.2129558
REF-049 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Morokoff, P. J., Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Whitmire, L., Grimley, D. M., Gibson, P. R., & Burkholder, G. J. (1997). Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS) for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 790–804.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_ASSERTIVENESS_BOUNDARY_COMPARATORCOM-12SELF-12
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.790
REF-050 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(4), 477–507.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_MOTIVE_TAXONOMY_PRECEDENTMOT-12
doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2
REF-051 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Impett, E. A., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2005). Approach and avoidance sexual motives: Implications for personal and interpersonal well-being. Personal Relationships, 12(4), 465–482.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: APPROACH_AVOIDANCE_MOTIVE_CONTEXTMOT-12LIFE-12/18
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00126.x
REF-052 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Impett, E. A., Strachman, A., Finkel, E. J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Maintaining sexual desire in intimate relationships: The importance of approach goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 808–823.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: APPROACH_GOALS_DESIRE_MAINTENANCE_CONTEXTMOT-12P-72D
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.808
REF-053 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Muise, A., & Impett, E. A. (2016). Applying theories of communal motivation to sexuality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(8), 455–467.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_COMMUNAL_MOTIVATION_REVIEWMOT-12
doi:10.1111/spc3.12261
REF-054 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Andersen, B. L., & Cyranowski, J. M. (1994). Women's sexual self-schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1079–1100.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_SELF_SCHEMA_PRECEDENTSELF-12
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1079
REF-055 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Snell, W. E., Jr., Fisher, T. D., & Walters, A. S. (1993). The Multidimensional Sexuality Questionnaire: An objective self-report measure of psychological tendencies associated with human sexuality. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 6(1), 27–55.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: MULTIDIMENSIONAL_SEXUAL_SELF_MEASUREMENT_PRECEDENTSELF-12MOT-12COM-12
doi:10.1177/107906329300600102
REF-056 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Horne, S., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2006). The Female Sexual Subjectivity Inventory: Development and validation of a multidimensional inventory for late adolescents and emerging adults. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 125–138.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_SUBJECTIVITY_MEASUREMENT_PRECEDENTSELF-12
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00276.x
REF-057 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Vickberg, S. M. J., & Deaux, K. (2005). Measuring the dimensions of women's sexuality: The Women's Sexual Self-Concept Scale. Sex Roles, 53, 361–369.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_SELF_CONCEPT_MEASUREMENT_PRECEDENTSELF-12
doi:10.1007/s11199-005-6759-y
REF-058 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
van Lankveld, J. J. D. M., Geijen, W. E. H., & Sykora, H. (2008). The sexual self-consciousness scale: Psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(6), 925–933.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_SELF_CONSCIOUSNESS_COMPARATORSELF-12SOMA-24
doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9253-5
REF-059 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Ashley, M., Drouin, S., & Shaughnessy, K. (2024). Measuring sexual self-concept: A methodological review. Psychology & Sexuality, 15(2), 254–277.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_SELF_CONCEPT_METHOD_REVIEWSELF-12METHODS
doi:10.1080/19419899.2023.2246494
REF-060 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Ferrer-Urbina, R., Sepúlveda-Páez, G. L., Henríquez, D.-T., et al. (2019). Development and validity evidence of the multidimensional scale of sexual self-concept in a Spanish-speaking context. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 32, 22.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_SELF_CONCEPT_VALIDITY_INVARIANCE_PRECEDENTSELF-12METHODS
doi:10.1186/s41155-019-0136-1
REF-061 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Kashdan, T. B., Goodman, F. R., Stiksma, M., Milius, C. R., & McKnight, P. E. (2018). Sexuality leads to boosts in mood and meaning in life with no evidence for the reverse direction: A daily diary investigation. Emotion, 18(4), 563–576.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: DAILY_SEXUALITY_AFFECT_MEANING_CONTEXTLIFE-12/18
doi:10.1037/emo0000324
REF-062 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Oesterling, C. F., Borg, C., Juhola, E., & Lancel, M. (2023). The influence of sexual activity on sleep: A diary study. Journal of Sleep Research, 32(4), e13814.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_ACTIVITY_SLEEP_DIARY_CONTEXTLIFE-12/18
doi:10.1111/jsr.13814
REF-063 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Lastella, M., Miller, D. J., Montero, A., Sprajcer, M., Ferguson, S. A., Browne, M., & Vincent, G. E. (2025). Sleep on it: A pilot study exploring the impact of sexual activity on sleep outcomes in cohabiting couples. Sleep Health, 11(2), 198–205.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SEXUAL_ACTIVITY_OBJECTIVE_SLEEP_PILOT_CONTEXTLIFE-12/18
doi:10.1016/j.sleh.2024.11.004
REF-064 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529–565.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SUBJECTIVE_VITALITY_MEASUREMENT_PRECEDENTLIFE-12/18
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x
REF-065 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: POSITIVE_NEGATIVE_AFFECT_MEASUREMENT_PRECEDENTLIFE-12/18
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
REF-066 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Buysse, D. J., Reynolds, C. F., III, Monk, T. H., Berman, S. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (1989). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Research, 28(2), 193–213.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: SLEEP_QUALITY_EXTERNAL_COMPARATORLIFE-12/18
doi:10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4
REF-067 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: WORK_ENGAGEMENT_EXTERNAL_COMPARATORLIFE-12/18
doi:10.1177/0013164405282471
REF-068 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: MEANING_IN_LIFE_EXTERNAL_COMPARATORLIFE-12/18
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80
REF-069 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological Assessment, 15(4), 446–455.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: INCREMENTAL_VALIDITY_METHODSMETHODSEXT-SYS
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.446
REF-070 · PASS 4 EXTENSION
Smith, G. T., Fischer, S., & Fister, S. M. (2003). Incremental validity principles in test construction. Psychological Assessment, 15(4), 467–477.
Source layer: PASS4_EXTENSION Evidence role: INCREMENTAL_VALIDITY_TEST_CONSTRUCTIONMETHODSEXT-SYS
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.467
SCIENTIFIC POSITIONING

Scientific foundation and P-120's own measurement architecture

External scientific foundation

Published scientific literature, empirical studies, existing research constructs, theoretical models and measurement precedents form the external scientific foundation of P-120.

P-120 integration architecture

P-120 uses its own integrative architecture: neighboring processes are separated and measured independently, after which their results may be read jointly without collapsing them into a single total.

Internal verification boundary

Internal scientific-methodological, computational and cross-module verification of the architecture is a separate evidence class and is not equivalent to empirical psychometric validation in respondent samples.

Module admission principle

A new module is retained only when it addresses an independent measurement question and has a defensible path to incremental information beyond neighboring layers.

Model

Five layers remain distinct.

Convergent and divergent signals across layers are equally legitimate. Cross-layer synthesis must not overwrite source scores or create a single global measure of sexuality.

SAT-24

Social-Affective Touch Architecture

Non-erotic baseline: affective value, bodily resonance, person/context effects, and bodily response to touch that does not fit one’s personal boundary.

BoundaryCalibration layer; does not measure tactile acuity, consent, or attachment style.
P-72

Erotic-Aesthetic Activation Architecture

Aesthetic, perceptual, bodily, novelty/salience-related, and relational mechanisms of engagement.

Boundary12 candidate components; activation profile.
P-72D

Desire Durability Architecture

Change in desire through familiarity, repetition, fulfillment, closeness, disruption, and repair.

BoundaryDurability profile; trajectories and composite indices remain candidate constructs.
AO-12

Dimensional Attachment Regulation

AX and AV as independent continuous coordinates of anxious attachment activation and avoidant deactivation/reduced reliance.

BoundarySupplemental layer; not a diagnosis of attachment style.
SOMA-24

Bodily Erotic Response Architecture

Noticing, semantic differentiation, modulation, and somatic interference in one’s own bodily erotic response.

BoundaryNot objective interoceptive accuracy and not a measure of sexual function.
Methodological architecture

Candidate constructs.

P-72 separates initial activation into 12 components; P-72D separately examines what happens to established desire over time.

P-72 · 12 activation componentsAE → GC
AEAesthetic Responsiveness
Aesthetic responsiveness

Beauty and bodily form are experienced as aesthetic value in their own right, including without sexual intent.

Boundary: AE–EA; AE–SG
EAErotic Activation by Beauty
Erotic activation by beauty

Visual beauty readily transitions into bodily/sexual arousal or desire.

Boundary: AE–EA; EA–ER
HVVisual-Haptic Simulation
Visual-haptic simulation

Vision alone evokes quasi-tactile impressions of surface, volume, density, temperature, or touch.

Boundary: HV–MS
SGSculptural / Global Form
Sculptural/global form

Attention is organized by silhouette, proportions, lines, and the balance of volumes.

Boundary: SG–AD; SG–DP
ADAnatomical Detail
Anatomical detail

Relief, transitions, surface, and local anatomical details acquire independent salience.

Boundary: SG–AD
SVScenographic / Visual Context Sensitivity
Scenographic sensitivity

Light, angle, visibility, background, and composition substantially alter the impression.

Boundary: SV–DP; SV–AD
DPDynamic Plasticity
Dynamic plasticity

Gesture, postural transition, and movement alter form and become sources of expressiveness in their own right.

Boundary: SG–DP; SV–DP
MSMultisensory Integration
Multisensory immersion

Real touch, temperature, scent, voice, breathing, and nearby movement deepen engagement.

Boundary: HV–MS
IGExpressive Intensity
Expressive intensity

Contrast, scale, accentuation, and coherent high expressiveness intensify attraction.

Boundary: IG–NR
NRNovelty Responsiveness
Novelty responsiveness

Variation, anticipation, and change refresh attention and counter habituation.

Boundary: IG–NR; NR–NRW
ERErotic Reciprocity
Erotic reciprocity

A partner’s desire, pleasure, and live engagement amplify one’s own desire.

Boundary: ER–GC
GCGenerative Co-Creation
Erotic co-creation

Mutual gaze and the shared creation of a visual-sensory atmosphere are themselves mechanisms of engagement.

Boundary: ER–GC
P-72D · desire durabilityNRW · END · ERC · Bond-Eros…
NRWWithin-partner novelty regenerationWithin-Partner Novelty Regeneration
Moderately strong support for related mechanisms
ENDExternal novelty dependenceExternal Novelty Dependence
Moderate support for related mechanisms
PANNeed for partner erotic agencyPartner Erotic Agency Need
Moderate support for related mechanisms
SEASelf erotic agencySelf Erotic Agency
Moderately strong support for related mechanisms
FCSDesire stability with familiarityFamiliarity Consolidation / Stability
Moderate support for related mechanisms
HAVHabituation vulnerabilityHabituation Vulnerability
Moderately strong support for the mechanism
ERCErotic repair capacityErotic Repair Capacity
Limited / research-stage
PostsexualPostsexual modesPINT / PBOND / PSTABLE / PAESTH / PSOC / PDEACT
Mixed; several modes remain research-stage
Bond-ErosBond-Eros architectureBENH / BNEU / AUT / FAMR
Mixed; candidate profile
EDPErotic Desire Durability PotentialErotic Desire Durability Potential
Derived / research-stage
Critical discriminant boundaries10 distinctions
AE ↔ EA

Aesthetic value without required arousal ↔ transition from beauty to erotic activation.

HV ↔ MS

Vision-based quasi-tactile simulation ↔ added contribution of real multisensory input.

SG ↔ AD

Global/configural body architecture ↔ salience of local details.

SG ↔ DP

Spatial global architecture ↔ change of form over time.

SV ↔ DP

Presentation context ↔ movement of the body itself.

IG ↔ NR

Intensity/salience ↔ novelty/variation.

ER ↔ GC

Amplification by partner response ↔ shared erotic authorship.

AUT ↔ AV

Eroticism contingent on autonomy ↔ avoidant attachment regulation.

TBR ↔ AV

Bodily response to boundary-incongruent touch ↔ attachment avoidance.

EIA ↔ EID

Noticing bodily change ↔ understanding its erotic meaning.

Evidence map

Map of the evidence base.

Status refers to support for a related mechanism or methodological precedent — not direct validation of an exact P-120 scale.

strong precedent moderately strong moderate research-stage methodological precedent
Scientific traditionClosest precedentP-120Current assessment
Aesthetic responsivenessAReA; individual differences in aesthetic responsivenessAEModerately strong
Visual sexual responseVisual sexual-stimulus reviews; eye tracking; SIS/SESEAModerate
Sensory imageryPsi-Q; sensory imagery paradigmsHVModerate
Global/local body processingBody inversion effect; part-whole paradigmsSG, ADSG — moderate; AD — research-stage
MovementBiological motion; perception of body movementDPModerate
Multimodality / touchTEAQ; multimodal attractivenessMS, SATModerate
Novelty / boredomSexual sensation seeking; SBI; desire in long-term relationshipsNR, NRW, END, HAVModerate-to-strong support for related mechanisms
ResponsivenessPartner responsiveness; sexual communal motivationER, BENHStrong support for the mechanism
AttachmentECR/ECR-RS traditions; social-support researchAO AX/AVStrong architectural precedent
Interoception / arousalMAIA-2; subjective vs genital arousal; SADISOMAStrong support for related mechanisms; candidate module
Agency / autonomySexual assertiveness; support for sexual autonomyPAN, SEA, AUTModerate support for related mechanisms
Repair / flexibilitySexFlex; flexibility of sexual scriptsERCERC — research-stage
Postsexual dynamicsSexual afterglow; partner-specific desire/preferencePostsexual modesPartial; exact modes remain research-stage
Forced choiceThurstonian IRT and forced-choice methodsP indexMethodological precedent; calibration pending
Falsifiability

16 hypotheses the system must be capable of losing.

The scientific value is not in confirming every initial idea, but in allowing data to separate, merge, or reject candidate distinctions.

H1

AE and EA should be related but separable: high aesthetic value may occur without rapid erotic transduction.

H2

HV should relate more strongly to sensory imagery under visual-only presentation, while MS should relate to the added effect of real multimodal signals.

H3

SG and AD should show different convergence with global/configural and local/part-based body-processing criteria.

H4

Orthogonal manipulation of intensity × novelty should distinguish IG and NR if both constructs are robust.

H5

ER and GC should produce different dyadic effects: responding to a partner’s desire is not equivalent to jointly creating a scene or atmosphere.

H6

High NR need not co-occur with high END; a “high NR + high NRW + low END” configuration is possible.

H7

NRW should predict renewal of desire within a relationship beyond P-72 NR and current sexual boredom.

H8

ERC should predict recovery after disruption beyond satisfaction, general regulation, and SexFlex-like flexibility, if ERC itself is not redundant.

H9

AO-12 AV and P-72D AUT should be related but distinguishable; autonomy-contingent eroticism should not collapse into avoidant attachment.

H10

SAT TBR and AO AV should be separable; bodily response to touch-boundary violation should not substitute for avoidant attachment.

H11

SAT SSR and SOMA EIA may share variance in bodily noticing but should not form one global sensitivity factor.

H12

SOMA EIA and EID should be distinguishable: noticing bodily change is not the same as understanding its erotic meaning.

H13

Stable postsexual modes should recur within the same person across multiple events; otherwise they should be treated as situational or removed.

H14

EDP should demonstrate calibration and incremental value beyond its components; otherwise a component profile is preferable.

H15

Initial activation and desire durability should be related but not isomorphic: strong chemistry may coexist with low repair capacity, while moderate activation may coexist with high durability.

H16

Actual compatibility of a specific couple requires data from both partners; one person’s profile should not yield a compatibility percentage.

Model survival condition

The model must be allowed to become simpler.

The value of P-120 depends on its willingness to become simpler: constructs that cannot be separated, replicated, or shown to be informative should be merged, renamed, or removed through documented version governance.

Scientifically acceptable outcomes

Fewer than 12 P-72 factors, merging neighboring components, lack of incremental validity for ERC/EDP, strong DIF, or absent expected cross-layer relationships are scientifically acceptable outcomes — not a “failure of the test.”

A defensible meaning of compatibility

An individual profile does not establish the compatibility of a specific couple. Dyadic inference requires data from both partners, relationship context, temporal dynamics, and a statistical model of actor-partner effects. A future Couple Matrix should test interactions between needs and capabilities rather than output a pseudo-precise compatibility percentage.

APIM and extensions of the actor-partner interdependence model are identified as an appropriate statistical basis for future dyadic research.
Validation program

Validation program 0–12.

From version control and response-process evidence to structure, independent samples, longitudinal data, DIF, dyadic validation, and independent replication.

0
Version governance & preregistration

Version identifiers, preregistration of hypotheses/exclusions/model comparisons, an evidence registry, and a decision log.

Criterion · Reproducible version control.
1
Content validity / response process

Expert review, cognitive interviews, paraphrasing, think-aloud, debriefing, SAT-QA/SOMA-QA.

Criterion · Items are understood as intended.
2
Pilot item-functioning assessment

Distributions, floor/ceiling effects, N/A, burden, mode, response categories, and missingness.

Criterion · Remove or rewrite systematically ambiguous items.
3
Structural exploration

EFA/ESEM; comparison of 12-component, broader, hierarchical, and merged models; competing P-72D structures.

Criterion · Retain an architecture only if it outperforms simpler alternatives.
4
Confirmation in a holdout sample

CFA/ESEM in an independent holdout sample.

Criterion · Control overfitting to the pilot sample.
5
Reliability / temporal stability

Omega, local dependence, test-retest, and empirical uncertainty around dominance.

Criterion · Empirically supported intervals rather than preliminary equivalence zones.
6
Convergent / discriminant validity

AReA, TEAQ, ECR-RS, MAIA-2, SADI, SIS/SES, SBI, PSSLW, SAQ-9, SexFlex, and relational variables.

Criterion · Related but non-redundant associations.
7
Forced-choice calibration

Paired comparisons / Thurstonian IRT; parameter-recovery simulations.

Criterion · Decision to retain or redesign the P index.
8
Experimental criteria

Visual-only vs multimodal; static vs dynamic; global vs local; intensity × novelty; scene × movement.

Criterion · Behavioral convergence of critical components.
9
Longitudinal / event-based validation

Repeated measures of partner-specific desire, boredom, novelty, events, repair, and postsexual diaries.

Criterion · Prospective validity and separation of situational from stable variation.
10
Invariance / DIF

Sex/gender, orientation, age, culture, administration mode, and translation.

Criterion · Conditions under which group comparisons are defensible.
11
Dyadic validation

Both partners; APIM/APIMeM, dyadic SEM, partner report, and need × capability interactions.

Criterion · Assess compatibility without pseudo-precision from a single respondent.
12
Independent replication

Independent teams, preregistered replication, and calibration updates.

Criterion · Move from developer-generated evidence to independent validation.
Ethics & privacy

Interpretive invariants.

01

Adults 18+ only and voluntary participation.

02

Consent is never inferred from arousal, bodily response, preference, or a score.

03

The system does not diagnose pathology, trauma, attachment disorder, sexual dysfunction, or sexual orientation.

04

A high or low score is not a judgment of maturity, morality, masculinity/femininity, or health.

05

Pilot identifiers should be pseudonymous; unnecessary identifying data are not collected.

06

N/A means insufficient experience, not low functioning.

07

Research Candidate status must remain visible until the evidence status changes.

08

Derived labels must be traceable to frozen source scores and versioned rules; Engine C does not rewrite source scores.

09

Formal research requires ethics review, rules for storing/deleting sensitive data, access control, and withdrawal procedures.

Limitations

What may distort a result.

self-report bias and social desirability
retrospective reconstruction
confounding with availability of relevant experience
wording effects and overlap between neighboring constructs
dependence on context and administration mode
measurement error in individual postsexual indicators
risk that a persuasive narrative profile sounds more precise than the data justify
Especially important for the automated report layer.
Persuasive prose must not sound more precise than the calculated data and evidence level allow. The narrative-report engine therefore receives only authorized interpretations after deterministic scoring.
Scientific & methodological literature

45 sources.

The list is reproduced from Scientific Concept Paper v1.1. DOI links open in a new window.

45shown
01
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. AERA.
02
Andrade, J., May, J., Deeprose, C., Baugh, S.-J., & Ganis, G. (2014). Assessing vividness of mental imagery: The Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 547-563. DOI ↗
03
Balzarini, R. N., Muise, A., Dobson, K., Kohut, T., Raposo, S., & Campbell, L. (2021). The detriments of unmet sexual ideals and buffering effect of sexual communal strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1521-1550. DOI ↗
04
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mizrahi, M., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Sass, O., & Granovski-Milner, C. (2016). Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 530-546. DOI ↗
05
Blumenstock, S. M. (2024). Romantic attachment and sexual desire: The role of desire target. Journal of Sex Research, 61(2), 313-323. DOI ↗
06
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quinonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. DOI ↗
07
Bonemei, R., Costantino, A. I., Battistel, I., & Rivolta, D. (2018). The perception of (naked only) bodies and faceless heads relies on holistic processing: Evidence from the inversion effect. British Journal of Psychology, 109(2), 232-243. DOI ↗
08
Bouchard, K. N., Cormier, M., Huberman, J. S., & Rosen, N. O. (2023). Sexual script flexibility and sexual well-being in long-term couples: A dyadic longitudinal study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 20(7), 945-954. DOI ↗
09
Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2013). How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 36-52. DOI ↗
10
Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., Lalumiere, M. L., Laan, E., & Grimbos, T. (2010). Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal in men and women: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 5-56. DOI ↗
11
de Oliveira, L., Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. (2021). A systematic review on sexual boredom. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 18(3), 565-581. DOI ↗
12
de Oliveira, L., Stulhofer, A., Tafro, A., Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. (2023). Sexual boredom and sexual desire in long-term relationships: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 20(1), 14-21. DOI ↗
13
Dewitte, M., Carvalho, J., Corona, G., Limoncin, E., Pascoal, P., Reisman, Y., & Stulhofer, A. (2020). Sexual desire discrepancy: A position statement of the European Society for Sexual Medicine. Sexual Medicine, 8(2), 121-131. DOI ↗
14
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615-625. DOI ↗
15
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350-365. DOI ↗
16
Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(2), 246-259. DOI ↗
17
Gauvin, S. E. M., & Pukall, C. F. (2018). The SexFlex Scale: A measure of sexual script flexibility when approaching sexual problems in a relationship. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(4), 382-397. DOI ↗
18
Handy, A. B., & Meston, C. M. (2016). Interoceptive awareness moderates the relationship between perceived and physiological genital arousal in women. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(12), 1907-1914. DOI ↗
19
Hugill, N., Fink, B., & Neave, N. (2010). The role of human body movements in mate selection. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(1), 66-89. DOI ↗
20
Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2017). Affectionate touch to promote relational, psychological, and physical well-being in adulthood: A theoretical model and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 228-252. DOI ↗
21
Janssen, E., Vorst, H., Finn, P., & Bancroft, J. (2002). The Sexual Inhibition (SIS) and Sexual Excitation (SES) Scales: I. Journal of Sex Research, 39(2), 114-126. DOI ↗
22
Kalichman, S. C., & Rompa, D. (1995). Sexual sensation seeking and sexual compulsivity scales: Reliability, validity, and predicting HIV risk behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(3), 586-601. DOI ↗
23
Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 359-366. DOI ↗
24
Krishnamurti, T., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). The Partner-Specific Sexual Liking and Sexual Wanting Scale: Psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(2), 467-476. DOI ↗
25
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of long-term heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research, 46(1), 3-14. DOI ↗
26
Mark, K. P., & Lasslo, J. A. (2018). Maintaining sexual desire in long-term relationships: A systematic review and conceptual model. Journal of Sex Research, 55(4-5), 563-581. DOI ↗
27
McLeod, S., Berry, K., Hodgson, C., & Wearden, A. (2020). Attachment and social support in romantic dyads: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(1), 59-101. DOI ↗
28
Mehling, W. E., Acree, M., Stewart, A., Silas, J., & Jones, A. (2018). The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, Version 2 (MAIA-2). PLOS ONE, 13(12), e0208034. DOI ↗
29
Meltzer, A. L., Makhanova, A., Hicks, L. L., French, J. E., McNulty, J. K., & Bradbury, T. N. (2017). Quantifying the sexual afterglow. Psychological Science, 28(5), 587-598. DOI ↗
30
Muise, A., Harasymchuk, C., Day, L. C., Bacev-Giles, C., Gere, J., & Impett, E. A. (2019). Broadening your horizons: Self-expanding activities promote desire and satisfaction in established romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 237-258. DOI ↗
31
Muise, A., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., & Desmarais, S. (2013). Keeping the spark alive: Being motivated to meet a partner's sexual needs sustains sexual desire in long-term romantic relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 267-273. DOI ↗
32
Peloquin, K., Brassard, A., Lafontaine, M.-F., & Shaver, P. R. (2014). Sexuality examined through the lens of attachment theory: Attachment, caregiving, and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 561-576. DOI ↗
33
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. DOI ↗
34
Reed, C. L., Stone, V. E., Bozova, S., & Tanaka, J. (2003). The body-inversion effect. Psychological Science, 14(4), 302-308. DOI ↗
35
Reed, C. L., Stone, V. E., Grubb, J. D., & McGoldrick, J. E. (2006). Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 73-87. DOI ↗
36
Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex differences in response to visual sexual stimuli: A review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(2), 206-218. DOI ↗
37
Saarinen, A., Harjunen, V. J., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Jaaskelainen, I. P., & Ravaja, N. (2021). Social touch experience in different contexts: A review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 131, 360-372. DOI ↗
38
Schirmer, A., Croy, I., & Ackerley, R. (2023). What are C-tactile afferents and how do they relate to 'affective touch'? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 151, 105236. DOI ↗
39
Schlotz, W., Wallot, S., Omigie, D., Masucci, M. D., Hoelzmann, S. C., & Vessel, E. A. (2021). The Aesthetic Responsiveness Assessment (AReA). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(4), 682-696. DOI ↗
40
Shoikhedbrod, A., Harasymchuk, C., Impett, E. A., & Muise, A. (2026). When a partner supports your sexual autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 52(2), 381-399. DOI ↗
41
Silvia, P. J., Rodriguez-Boerwinkle, R. M., Awa, K. N., Zabelina, D. L., & Christensen, A. P. (2025). Evaluating the structure of the AReA with bootstrap exploratory graph analysis. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 43(1), 550-564. DOI ↗
42
Stefanou, C., & McCabe, M. P. (2012). Adult attachment and sexual functioning: A review of past research. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(10), 2499-2507. DOI ↗
43
Toledano, R., & Pfaus, J. (2006). The Sexual Arousal and Desire Inventory (SADI): A multidimensional scale to assess subjective sexual arousal and desire. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 3(5), 853-877. DOI ↗
44
Trotter, P. D., McGlone, F., Reniers, R. L. E. P., & Deakin, J. F. W. (2018). Construction and validation of the Touch Experiences and Attitudes Questionnaire (TEAQ). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42(4), 379-416. DOI ↗
45
Williams, M. N., & Apicella, C. L. (2023). A test of multimodal communication in humans using 881 judgements of physical, vocal, and olfactory attractiveness. Heliyon, 9(6), e16895. DOI ↗
Controlled internal sources5
01

P-120 vNext Unified Controlled Self-Administered Pilot Form v1.2 — Editorial Designer Edition. Research Candidate, 2026.

02

P-120 Scientific Evidence & Construct Rationale — Final Research Candidate. Internal evidence dossier, 2026.

03

P-72 v4.0 Measurement Model & Structural Specification. Pre-validation structural specification, 2026.

04

P-72 v4.0 Scoring, Archetype & Interpretation Manual. Research Candidate, 2026.

05

P-72D Measurement / Scientific Specification and Scoring & Interpretation Manual — Pilot Readiness Revision. Controlled internal documents, 2026.

P-120 · EXTENDED RESEARCH SET

Want to go deeper?

Optional Deep-Dive Research Modules

P-120 already explores how desire emerges, what happens to it over time, how a person experiences closeness and touch, and how they perceive their own bodily response. Some aspects of experience can be examined even more deeply.

A separate set of supplemental research modules is being developed for this purpose. They may eventually be completed after the core P-120 — individually or in any combination.

The core profile remains unchanged. Supplemental modules add new layers of understanding.

CORE → OPTIONAL LENSES

P-120 already provides a self-contained multilayer profile.

The Extended Research Set lets you look deeper — without replacing or recalculating the core result.

P-120 Your core profile CORE UNCHANGED
COM

How you talk about desire

Erotic Communication Architecture · COM-12 Planned Supplemental Research Module

How easily can you identify and articulate your own desires?

How freely can you talk about them with a partner?

What happens when desires do not match?

Can the conversation be reopened after awkwardness, refusal, or tension?

desire → disclosure → hearing the other → mismatch → negotiation → repair

MOT

Why you enter intimate contact

Sexual Motivation Architecture · MOT-12 Planned Supplemental Research Module

Two people can do the same thing for entirely different internal reasons.

Intimacy may be connected with pleasure, exploration, connection, and desire — or with a need for reassurance, avoidance of tension, compliance with expectations, or fear of losing a partner.

not “what turns me on?” but “why am I entering this contact?”

SELF

How you relate to yourself as a sexual person

Sexual Self-Relation Architecture · SELF-12 Candidate Research Architecture

How easy is it to acknowledge your own desire?

How confidently does a person experience themselves as a sexual subject?

What happens to self-consciousness, confidence, feeling desired, body acceptance, and the acceptance of one’s own responses?

desire is directed not only toward another person — one simultaneously experiences oneself.

LIFE

What happens beyond the bedroom

Intimacy–Life Integration · LIFE-12/18 Planned Outcome Research Layer

The quality of intimacy does not exist in a vacuum.

A future outcome layer may examine how the state of relationships and intimate life coexists with emotional background, subjective energy, rumination, sleep, social openness, concentration, and overall engagement with life.

not “sexuality determines life,” but “how is the state of intimacy related to the rest of life?”

CROSS-LAYER RESEARCH

The most interesting questions begin between the layers

Each supplemental module may provide a separate profile on its own.

The main research value appears when its result is examined alongside the existing P-120 architecture.

P-72 × MOT

What activates me — and why do I enter intimate contact?

P-72D × COM

What happens to desire over time — and can I communicate the need for change?

AO × MOT

Closeness regulation — and motives for sexual contact.

SOMA × SELF

What the body notices — and how a person relates to their own bodily response.

AUT × COM

Whether autonomy is needed — and whether a person can explain that need to a partner.

P-120 × LIFE

How the state of intimacy coexists with the state of the rest of life.

POST-PILOT RESEARCH ARCHITECTURE

What this means — and what it does not mean yet

The Extended Research Set is being developed as a separate Post-Pilot Research architecture. These modules are not part of the current frozen P-120 measurement model and are not used to alter its results.

Future cross-layer relationships are treated first as research hypotheses. They do not automatically become new indices, types, or compatibility percentages before empirical testing.

TWO SYSTEMS · FUTURE RESEARCH BRIDGE

One level deeper still — two people

An individual profile shows how one system is organized. When data from two people are available, the research question changes: what happens when two different architectures meet?

A
+
B
  • whether A can communicate a need to B;
  • whether B can respond to that need;
  • how consequential a mismatch actually is;
  • whether distress emerges;
  • whether adaptation is possible;
  • how negotiation and repair operate.