The current research investigates how people make sexual decisions when romantic partners’ sexual desires conflict, situations we refer to as sexual interdependence dilemmas. Across an experimental study, a retrospective recall study, and a 21-day daily experience study, we found that people who were motivated to meet their partner’s sexual needs—those high in sexual communal strength—were more willing to engage in sex with their romantic partner, even when their own desire was low, and as a result, both partners reported enhanced relationship and sexual satisfaction. The benefits of sexual communal strength were due to communally oriented people’s increased desire to promote their partner’s interests and decreased desire to pursue their own interests. This is the first set of studies to investigate how people make decisions in sexual interdependence dilemmas and show that communally motivated individuals navigate these situations in a way that is beneficial for relationships.
BaumeisterR. F.BratslavskyE. (1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate love as a function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 49-67. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_3
2.
BlanchflowerD. G.OswaldA. J. (2004). Money, sex, and happiness: An empirical study. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106, 393-415. doi:10.1111/j.0347-0520.2004.00369.x
3.
BolgerN.DavisA.RafaeliE. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579-616. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030
4.
ByersE. S.LewisK. (1988). Dating couples’ disagreements over the desired level of sexual intimacy. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 15-29. doi:10.1080/00224498809551395
5.
ClarkM. S.GrahamS. M.WilliamsE.LemayE. P. (2008). Understanding relational focus of attentionmayhelp us understand relational phenomena. In ForgasJ. P.FitnessJ. (Eds.), Social relationships: Cognitive, affective and motivational processes (pp. 131-146). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
6.
ClarkM. S.MillsJ. R. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12-24. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.12
7.
ClarkM. S.MillsJ. R. (2012). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), The handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 232-250). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
9.
DaviesS.KatzJ.JacksonJ. L. (1999). Sexual desire discrepancies: Effects on sexual and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 553-567. doi:10.1023/A:1018721417683
10.
DayL.ImpettE. A. (in press). For it is in giving that we receive: The benefits of sacrifice in romantic relationships. In KneeC.ReisH. (Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships, Vol. 1: Positive approaches to optimal relationship development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
DiamondL. M. (2004). Emerging perspectives on distinctions between romantic love and sexual desire. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 116-119. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00287
12.
GonzagaG. C.TurnerR. A.KeltnerD.CamposB.AltemusM. (2006). Romantic love and sexual desire in close relationships. Emotion, 6, 163-179. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.163
13.
GordonA. M.ImpettE. A.KoganA.OveisC.KeltnerD. (2012). To have and to hold: Gratitude promotes relationship maintenance in intimate bonds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 257-274. doi:10.1037/a0028723
14.
HelgesonV. S.FritzH. L. (1998). A theory of unmitigated communion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 173-183. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_2
15.
IBM Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
16.
ImpettE. A.MuiseA.PeragineD. (2014). Sexuality in the context of relationships. In TolmanD. L.DiamondL. M.BauermeisterJ. A.GeorgeW. H.PfausJ. G.WardL. M. (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 269-315). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17.
ImpettE. A.PeplauL. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87-100. doi:10.1080/00224490309552169
18.
KelleyH. H.HolmesJ. G.KerrN. L.ReisH. T.RusbultC. E.Van LangeP. A. M. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499845
19.
KelleyH. H.ThibautJ. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.
20.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). The analysis of dyadic data. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
LambertN. M.ClarkM. S.DurtschiJ.FinchamF. D.GrahamS. M. (2010). Benefits of expressing gratitude: Expressing gratitude to a partner changes one’s view of the relationship. Psychological Science, 21, 574-580. doi:10.1177/0956797610364003
22.
LawranceK. A.ByersE. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2, 267-285. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00092.x
23.
LemayE. P.ClarkM. S. (2008). Walking on eggshells: How expressing relationship insecurities perpetuates them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 420-441. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.420
24.
LemayE. P.MelvilleM. C. (2014). Diminishing self-disclosure to maintain security in partners’ care. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 37-57. doi:10.1037/a0034161
25.
MaasC. J. M.HoxJ. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1, 86-92. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86
26.
MarkK. P. (2012). The relative impact of individual sexual desire and couple desire discrepancy on satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 27, 133-146. doi:10.1080/14681994.2012.678825
27.
MarkK. P.MurrayS. H. (2012). Gender differences in desire discrepancy as a predictor of sexual and relationship satisfaction in a college sample of heterosexual romantic relationships. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 38, 198-215. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2011.606877
28.
MettsS.CupachW. R. (1989). The role of communication in human sexuality. Westport, CT: Ablex.
29.
MillsJ.ClarkM. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. In Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 121-144). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
MillsJ.ClarkM. S.FordT. E.JohnsonM. (2004). Measurement of communal strength. Personal Relationships, 11, 213-230. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00079.x
31.
MuiseA.ImpettE. A. (2015). Good, giving, and game: The relationship benefits of communal sexual responsiveness. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 6, 164-172. doi:10.1177/1948550614553641
32.
MuiseA.ImpettE. A.KoganA.DesmaraisS. (2013). Keeping the spark alive: Being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs sustains sexual desire in long-term romantic relationships. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4, 267-273. doi:10.1177/1948550612457185
33.
NagurneyA. J. (2007). The effects of relationship stress and unmitigated communion on physical and mental health outcomes. Stress & Health, 23, 267-273. doi:10.1002/smi.1146
34.
O’SullivanL. F.AllgeierE. R. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234-243. doi:10.1080/00224499809551938
35.
O’SullivanL. F.ByersE. S. (1996). Gender differences in responses to discrepancies in desired level of sexual intimacy. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8, 49-67. doi:10.1300/J056v08n01_04
36.
O’SullivanL. F.ByersE. S.FinkelmanL. (1998). A comparison of male and female college students’ experiences of sexual coercion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 177-195. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00149.x
37.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
RehmanU. S.JanssenE.NewhouseS.HeimanJ.Holtzworth-MunroeA.FallisE.RafaeliE. (2011). Marital satisfaction and communication behaviors during sexual and nonsexual conflict discussions in newlywed couples: A pilot study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37, 94-103 doi:10.1080/0092623X.2011.547352
40.
RighettiF.FinkenauerC.FinkelE. J. (2013). Low self-control promotes the willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Psychological Science, 24, 1533-1540. doi:10.1177/0956797613475457
41.
RusbultC. E.MartzJ. M.AgnewC. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-387. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
42.
RusbultC. E.Van LangeP. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059
43.
RusbultC. E.Van LangeP. A. M. (2008). Why we need interdependence theory. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 2049-2070. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00147.x
44.
SanfordK. (2003). Problem-solving conversations in marriage: Does it matter what topics couples discuss?Personal Relationships, 10, 97-112. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00038
45.
SeligJ. P.PreacherK. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org/
46.
SprecherS. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 190-196. doi:10.1080/00224490209552141
47.
ThibautJ. W.KelleyH. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
48.
YabikuS. T.GagerC. T. (2009). Sexual frequency and the stability of marital and cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 983-1000. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00648.x
49.
ZakiJ.MitchellJ. P. (2013). Intuitive prosociality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 466-470. doi:10.1177/0963721413492764
50.
ZhangZ.ZyphurM. J.PreacherK. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 695-719. doi:10.1177/1094428108327450
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
