A dyadic assessment of the association between sexual communication and daily sexual satisfaction

Abstract

Although sexual communication’s association with sexual and relational functioning and satisfaction have been well established, to date only a small number of studies have used dyadic data, and all have used single time-point self-report measures of sexual outcomes. This study examined the unique association between sexual communication quality and daily levels of sexual satisfaction in couples. Participants included 81 couples comprised of mostly mixed-sex dyads of a diverse range of ages and relationship lengths. Using dyadic cross-sectional data on sexual communication quality in couples as well as 21-day daily diary data assessments of sexual satisfaction on days individuals reported having sex, our analyses revealed significant within-partner and cross-partner associations between individual’s perceived sexual communication quality in their relationship and average daily sexual satisfaction. Greater perceived sexual communication quality was also associated with less variability in individuals’ daily reports of sexual satisfaction on days they had sex. Additional models were run adding relationship satisfaction as a covariate and controlling for relationship length. Lastly, similarity in reports of sexual communication between partners did not moderate the association between sexual communication quality and average daily sexual satisfaction. Our findings suggest that greater quality sexual communication may be uniquely associated with better and more consistent daily sexual satisfaction in relationships. This research expands our current understanding of sexual communication’s impact in relationships day to day.

Keywords

Actor-partner interdependence model close relationships daily diary data romantic relationships sexual communication sexual satisfaction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ackerman

R. A.

Kenny

D. A.

(2016). APIMPowerR: An interactive tool for actor-partner interdependence model power analysis. [Computer software]. https://robert-a-ackerman.shinyapps.io/APIMPowerRdis/

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Blunt-Vinti

Jozkowski

K. N.

Hunt

(2019). Show or tell? Does verbal and/or nonverbal sexual communication matter for sexual satisfaction? Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 45(3), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2018.1501446

Bolger

Laurenceau

J. P.

(2013). Intensive longitudinal methods. Guilford.

Brown

R. D.

Weigel

D. J.

(2018). Exploring a contextual model of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(2), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295299

Byers

E. S.

Demmons

(1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 36(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551983

Byers

E. S.

Rehman

U. S.

(2014). Sexual well-being. In Tolman

D. L.

Diamond

L. M.

Bauermeister

J. A.

George

W. H.

Pfaus

J. G.

Ward

L. M.

(Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology, Vol. 1. Person-based approaches (pp. 317–337). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14193-011

Catania

J. A.

Milhausen

R. R.

Sakaluk

J. K.

Fisher

T. D.

Davis

C. M.

Yarber

W. L.

(2020). Dyadic sexual communication scale. In Handbook of sexuality-related measures (4th ed., pp. 212–214). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315183169

Cupach

W. R.

Metts

(1991). Sexuality and communication in close relationships. In McKinney

Sprecher

(Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 93–110). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

10.

Edwards

J. R.

Parry

M. E.

(1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613. https://doi.org/10.5465/256822

11.

Fallis

E. E.

Rehman

U. S.

Woody

E. Z.

Purdon

(2016). The longitudinal association of relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction in long-term relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(7), 822–831. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000205

12.

Frey

Hojjat

(1998). Are love styles related to sexual styles? The Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551942

13.

Graham

C. A.

Catania

J. A.

Brand

Duong

Canchola

J. A.

(2003). Recalling sexual behavior: A methodological analysis of memory recall bias via interview using the diary as the gold standard. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(4), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552198

14.

Holmberg

Blair

K. L.

(2009). Sexual desire, communication, satisfaction, and preferences of men and women in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 46(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490802645294

15.

Joel

Eastwick

P. W.

Allison

C. J.

Arriaga

X. B.

Baker

Z. G.

Bar-Kalifa

Bergeron

Birnbaum

G. E.

Brock

R. L.

Brumbaugh

C. C.

Carmichael

C. L.

Chen

Clarke

Cobb

R. J.

Coolsen

M. K.

Davis

de Jong

D. C.

Debrot

DeHaas

E. C.

… Wolf

(2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(32), 19061–19071. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917036117.

16.

Jones

A. C.

Robinson

W. D.

Seedall

R. B.

(2018). The role of sexual communication in couples’ sexual outcomes: A dyadic path analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(4), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12282

17.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

18.

Kim

Muise

Impett

E. A.

(2018). The relationship implications of rejecting a partner for sex kindly versus having sex reluctantly. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(4), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517743084

19.

Kim

J. J.

Muise

Sakaluk

J. K.

Rosen

N. O.

Impett

E. A.

(2020). When tonight is not the night: Sexual rejection behaviors and satisfaction in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(10), 1476–1490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220907469

20.

Lane

S. P.

Shrout

P. E.

(2010). Assessing the reliability of within-person change over time: A dynamic factor analysis approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(6), 1027. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.534380

21.

Lawrance

Byers

E. S.

(1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00092.x

22.

Leiblum

S. R.

Rosen

R. C.

(1988). Sexual desire disorders. Guilford Press.

23.

MacNeil

Byers

E. S.

(2005). Dyadic assessment of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505050942

24.

MacNeil

Byers

E. S.

(2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of long-term heterosexual couples. The Journal of Sex Research, 46(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490802398399

25.

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000946

26.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1568375

27.

Maxwell

J. A.

Muise

MacDonald

Day

L. C.

Rosen

N. O.

Impett

E. A.

(2017). How implicit theories of sexuality shape sexual and relationship well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 238–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000078

28.

Merwin

K. E.

Bergeron

Jodouin

J. F.

Mackinnon

S. P.

Rosen

N. O.

(2022). Few differences in sexual talk by gender/sex and dyad type: A retrospective and daily diary study with couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(8), 3715–3733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02363-y

29.

Meston

C. M.

Buss

D. M.

(2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(4), 477–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2

30.

Metts

Cupach

W. R.

(1989). The role of communication in human sexuality. In McKinney

Sprecher

(Eds), Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal context (pp. 139–161). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

31.

Montesi

J. L.

Fauber

R. L.

Gordon

E. A.

Heimberg

R. G.

(2011). The specific importance of communicating about sex to couples’ sexual and overall relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(5), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510386833

32.

Rehman

U. S.

Rellini

A. H.

Fallis

(2011). The importance of sexual self-disclosure to sexual satisfaction and functioning in committed relationships. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(11), 3108–3115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02439.x

33.

Roels

Janssen

(2020). Sexual and relationship satisfaction in young, heterosexual couples: The role of sexual frequency and sexual communication. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 17(9), 1643–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.06.013

34.

Rogers

K. H.

Wood

Furr

R. M.

(2018). Assessment of similarity and self-other agreement in dyadic relationships: A guide to best practices. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(1), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517712615

35.

Rosier

J. G.

Tyler

J. M.

(2017). Finding the love guru in you: Examining the effectiveness of a sexual communication training program for married couples. Marriage and Family Review, 53(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1177629

36.

Rubinsky

Hosek

(2020). “We have to get over it”: Navigating sex talk through the lens of sexual communication comfort and sexual self-disclosure in LGBTQ intimate partnerships. Sexuality and Culture, 24(3), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09652-0

37.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x

38.

Schmiedeberg

Huyer-May

Castiglioni

Johnson

M. D.

(2017). The more or the better? How sex contributes to life satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 465–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0843-y

39.

Simon

Gagnon

J. H.

(1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542219

40.

Smith

T. W.

Carlson

S. E.

Uchino

B. N.

Baucom

B. R. W.

(2022). To put asunder: Are there perils of partialing in actor–partner interdependence models? Journal of Family Psychology, 36(8), 1462–1472. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001011

41.

Sunner

L. E.

Walls

Blood

E. A.

Mehta

C. M.

Shrier

L. A.

(2013). Feasibility and utility of momentary sampling of sex events in young couples. The Journal of Sex Research, 50(7), 688–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.674574

42.

Urganci

Ong

A. D.

Burrow

A. L.

DeHart

(2023). Linking mean level and variability in affect to changes in perceived regard: A dyadic longitudinal burst study of African American couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(4), 1151–1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221103276

43.

Velten

Margraf

(2017). Satisfaction guaranteed? How individual, partner, and relationship factors impact sexual satisfaction within partnerships. PLoS One, 12(2), Article e0172855. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172855

44.

Wiederman

M. W.

(1999). Volunteer bias in sexuality research using college student participants. Journal of Sex Research, 36(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551968