Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Sexuality is central to well-being in many romantic relationships. Equity theory suggests that perceiving equal contributions within the relationship—presumably also within the sexual relationship—is associated with better outcomes, while a perceived imbalance may lead to distress or dissatisfaction. The current research examines whether equity of received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, as perceived by men and women, is associated with sexual satisfaction and sexual function for both partners. We conducted Dyadic Response Surface Analyses using data from 327 mixed-gender couples. Our results indicate that perceiving high, but not necessarily similar (i.e., equitable) levels of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem are associated with greater sexual satisfaction and function of both partners. When analyzing the subscales of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, i.e. partner contributions to sexual self-worth and sexual self-efficacy, separately, we found a broad equity effect between received and provided sexual self-worth and sexual satisfaction for both partners. This means, that equality in received and provided sexual self-worth is associated with higher sexual satisfaction compared to when inequality is perceived. Additionally, perceived overbenefit in partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy in men was linked to lower sexual function in men. Our findings have implications for research and practice and suggest that gendered sexual scripts should be considered alongside equity theory when conducting research on sexual health in couples.

Keywords

Sexual Self-esteem equity theory sexual satisfaction sexual function couples

Introduction

In monogamous romantic relationships, partners typically rely on each other exclusively to fulfill their interpersonal sexual needs (Impett et al., 2020). Research shows that sexual health within couples is interdependent (Chew et al., 2021), making sexual interactions an important element for experiencing high sexual satisfaction and high sexual function within partnered sexual activities (Velten & Margraf, 2017). Additionally, engaging in sexually satisfying interactions benefits both individual well-being (Stephenson et al., 2024) and relationship satisfaction (Fallis et al., 2016), highlighting partner interactions as a key research interest.

One aspect of sexual interactions within romantic relationships is sexual self-esteem, since it is directly linked to sexual behaviors (Kohlberger et al., 2019; Satinsky & Jozkowski, 2015), motivations (Aspis & Gewirtz-Meydan, 2024), emotional reactions (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006; Kotiuga et al., 2021), sexual satisfaction, and sexual function (Brassard et al., 2015; Peixoto et al., 2018). Recent research shows that sexual self-esteem is shaped through reciprocal interactions with a romantic partner, highlighting the role of partner contributions to one’s sexual self-esteem and their association with sexual health (Heinrichs et al., 2009; Hewitt-Stubbs et al., 2016; Kohlberger et al., 2019). However, the nature of how partner contributions to sexual self-esteem are associated with sexual health in a romantic couple remains unclear. Previously, equitable interactions with a romantic partner have been associated with better relationship function (Sprecher, 2018), with emerging work extending this concept to the sexual context (Hatfield et al., 1982; Johansen et al., 2023). In the current study, we draw on equity theory (Adams, 1965) as a theoretical framework to understand the unique role of how perceived contributions to one’s own and the partner’s sexual self-esteem relate to sexual satisfaction and sexual function. By doing so, this research aims to contribute to the understanding of how partner contributions to sexual self-esteem are associated with sexual health within romantic couples.

Sexual self-esteem

Sexual self-esteem is defined as one’s positive regard and confidence in the ability to have satisfying and enjoyable sexual experiences (Snell & Papini, 1989), and consists of sexual self-worth and sexual self-efficacy (Cast & Burke, 2002; Kong et al., 2023). Sexual self-esteem it is directly associated with sexual behaviors, motivations, and feelings (Aspis & Gewirtz-Meydan, 2024; Brotto et al., 2016; O’Sullivan et al., 2016), therefore being relevant for partnered sexual interactions. For instance, feeling sexually valued and confident in initiating and engaging in sexual activities is linked to increased likelihood of communicating one’s sexual needs and boundaries (Kohlberger et al., 2019; Satinsky & Jozkowski, 2015). Additionally, higher sexual self-esteem has been associated with higher sexual approach motivations (Aspis & Gewirtz-Meydan, 2024) and experiencing positive emotions during sexual activities (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006; Kotiuga et al., 2021). Improving sexual self-esteem through cognitive-behavioral therapy was associated with higher levels of sexual function after the intervention in women with urinary incontinence (Moradinasab et al., 2023). Therefore, sexual self-esteem plays a key role in shaping individuals’ sexual experiences and contributes to greater sexual satisfaction (e.g., Bornefeld-Ettmann et al., 2018; Brassard et al., 2015; Peixoto et al., 2018) and improved sexual function (e.g., Anzani et al., 2021; Peixoto et al., 2018; Rodríguez-Domínguez et al., 2021). At the same time, self-esteem research suggests that high sexual satisfaction and sexual function reinforce higher sexual self-esteem (Peixoto et al., 2018; Weber et al., 2024), indicating a bidirectional process between sexual self-esteem and sexual health.

Given the interdependent nature of sexual health and the importance of sexual self-esteem to partnered sexual activities, sexual self-esteem should be understood in a dyadic framework. Indeed, both self-esteem theories (i.e., sociometer theory; Leary, 2005; Leary & Baumeister, 2000; and self-broadcasting theory; Srivastava & Beer, 2005) and research findings indicate that sexual self-esteem is shaped through reciprocal interactions within the couple, where both partners contribute to each other’s sexual self-esteem (Heinrichs et al., 2009; Hewitt-Stubbs et al., 2016; Kohlberger et al., 2019). Thus, attention should be directed toward how partner interactions shaping sexual self-esteem are associated with sexual satisfaction and sexual function rather than solely focusing on individual sexual self-esteem.

Received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem

The process of how sexual self-esteem is shaped through reciprocal interactions within the couple is conceptualized in the Dyadic Sexual Self-Esteem Model (Wehrli et al., 2025). The model builds upon sociometer theory (Leary, 2005; Leary & Baumeister, 2000) and self-broadcasting theory (Srivastava & Beer, 2005) as well as dyadic interdependence theories (Bodenmann, 1997; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), suggesting that sexual self-esteem is interdependent between partners and emphasizing the importance of each partner’s contribution to the other’s sexual self-esteem. For example, contributing to a partner’s sexual self-esteem entails making them feel sexually capable and valued—by showing that their sexual desires matter or encouraging open communication about those desires. In turn, receiving a contribution to one’s own sexual self-esteem involves feeling supported and valued by one’s partner in these same areas.

Partner contributions to sexual self-esteem can be further differentiated into two aspects, namely partner contributions to sexual self-worth and partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy. Partner contributions to sexual self-worth are defined as the degree to which partners make each other feel like being of sexual value and deserving of respect during sexual interactions. Partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy refer to the degree to which partners make each other feel sexually capable and efficacious. Existing studies show that a differentiation of sexual self-esteem into aspects of sexual self-worth and sexual self-efficacy might be clinically relevant (Kong et al., 2023, 2024). While both constructs contribute to sexual self-esteem, they are not considered overlapping constructs and operate differently (Cast & Burke, 2002; Kong et al., 2024). Higher sexual self-efficacy has been more strongly related to better sexual functioning (Bond et al., 2020), less sexual anxiety (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006) as well as better sexual satisfaction and sexual communication (Kohlberger et al., 2019) compared to sexual self-worth-related aspects. However, studies that distinguish between these two aspects are limited, especially with regard to partner contributions, highlighting the need for further research (Kong et al., 2024).

The Dyadic Sexual Self-Esteem Model suggests that higher levels in received and provided sexual self-esteem are expected to benefit sexual health through adaptive affective, motivational, and behavioral processes within the couple. At the same time, higher sexual satisfaction and sexual function contribute to more favorable partner contributions to sexual self-esteem (Wehrli et al., 2025). Existing studies support this and suggest that being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs and expecting a partner to do the same is beneficial for sexual desire (Impett et al., 2020; Muise et al., 2013) and sexual satisfaction (Impett et al., 2019) for both members of a couple. Additionally, partners’ empathic responses and feeling special and valued as a partner were linked to sexual desire (Bergeron et al., 2024; Birnbaum et al., 2016) and sexual well-being (Bosisio et al., 2022). Furthermore, higher perceived partner responsiveness and support have been associated with better sexual satisfaction and greater sexual need fulfillment for both partners (Shoikhedbrod et al., 2023). For individuals facing sexual challenges, having a highly sexually responsive partner – and more importantly one that is perceived as such – can buffer the negative link of those challenges with both relationship and sexual outcomes of both partners (Balzarini et al., 2021; Day et al., 2015).

While most of these studies focus on general motivation, expectations, and responsiveness in partner interactions, the nature of how partner contributions to sexual self-esteem are associated with sexual health remains unclear. Given the relevance of sexual self-esteem for sexual motivations, feelings, and behaviors as well as the interdependent nature of sexual interactions, this should be investigated in more detail. One valuable framework to research this relationship is provided by equity theory.

The role of equity theory for partner contributions to sexual self-esteem

Equity theory suggests that people inherently strive for equitable contributions within social interactions (Adams, 1965). In the context of sexual interactions, this suggests that perceiving an equal balance in one’s own and the partner’s contributions to the sexual relationship can promote sexual satisfaction and function. For example, viewing a partner as equally responsive to one’s own sexual needs and desires, or being motivated to invest in the shared sexual relationship, is therefore considered beneficial for sexual health (Schoeb et al., 2013; Sprecher, 1998). When there is a perceived imbalance between the efforts provided and received by partners, equity theory proposes that individuals experience dissatisfaction and distress (Adams, 1965). Such imbalance can manifest as either an underbenefit, where one partner contributes more than they receive, or an overbenefit, where one receives more than they provide (Adams, 1965). Therefore, when contributions to the sexual relationship are not equal between partners, this may cause diminished sexual satisfaction or low sexual function (Schoeb et al., 2013; Sprecher, 1998). Research found support for negative correlates of both underbenefit and overbenefit in sexual interactions. For instance, individuals who perceived themselves as being in a sexually equitable or overbenefitting relationships had higher sexual satisfaction compared to those who perceived themselves as sexually underbenefitting (Schoeb et al., 2013). On the other hand, perceiving overbenefit might result in experiencing failure to acknowledge and meet the sexual needs of a partner, which could diminish sexual intimacy, increase conflict, and reduce relationship satisfaction (Vowels et al., 2022).

In the context of sexual self-esteem, this suggests that a perceived balance in contributions to sexual self-esteem within romantic relationships is associated with greater sexual satisfaction and function, whereas perceived imbalances can lead to distress or dissatisfaction (Adams, 1965; Sprecher, 1998). Overbenefit occurs when a partner feels that their partner puts in more effort to make them feel sexually capable and valued than they do in return. Underbenefit is the opposite, where one partner feels they are putting in more effort than they receive. While existing research highlights the links between partner interactions, sexual self-esteem and sexual health (Hewitt-Stubbs et al., 2016; Kohlberger et al., 2019), the role of equity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem has not been investigated so far. Moreover, the distinct associations of sexual self-worth and sexual self-efficacy with sexual health outcomes have received limited attention (Aspis & Gewirtz-Meydan, 2024; Kong et al., 2023). Investigating this in more detail would contribute to the understanding of how interactions between partners are associated with couples’ sexual health.

The aim of this study

The aim of the present study is to explore the association between equity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and sexual satisfaction as well as sexual function as key sexual outcomes in monogamous romantic couples. Research shows gendered effects on sexual self-esteem (i.e., Kohlberger et al., 2019) and other sexuality variables (Busby et al., 2023; Velten et al., 2019), necessitating distinguishable dyads to avoid confounding results (Schönbrodt et al., 2018). Specifically, the study addresses three core research questions. In the first research question (RQ1), we investigate whether higher levels in equity of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem are associated with higher levels of sexual satisfaction and sexual function. Based on existing literature on relationship equity and sexual well-being, we hypothesize that higher levels of equity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem will be positively associated with both sexual satisfaction (H1a) and sexual function (H1b).

In the second research question (RQ2), we examine the associations of inequity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem with sexual satisfaction and sexual function. We hypothesize that inequity—whether overbenefitting or underbenefitting–will be associated with lower levels of sexual satisfaction (H2a) and sexual function (H2b). We expect a curvilinear association, where greater inequity in either direction corresponds to lower sexual satisfaction and function, while moving towards equity is associated with better outcomes.

Finally, given the limited empirical research on the relationship between sexual self-worth, sexual self-efficacy, and sexual outcomes, we aim to explore the differential relevance of equity in partner contributions to sexual self-worth versus partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy for sexual satisfaction and sexual function (RQ3). We hypothesize that there will be a difference in the association of equity in partner contributions to sexual self-worth compared to equity in partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy with both sexual satisfaction (H3a) and sexual function (H3b), though the direction of these associations is not predetermined due to the exploratory nature of this question.

Method

Participants

In total, 382 couples participated in a cross-sectional online survey. Since distinguishable dyads are needed for analysis, 41 same-gender (seven couples with both partners identifying as cismen and 34 couples with both partners identifying as ciswomen) and 14 nonbinary couples (couples where at least one person did not identify as cisgender: four individuals identified as transmen, three as transwoman, three as non-binary, and five as other gender) were excluded, leaving 327 mixed-gender couples all identifying as cisgender. The sample showed a relatively young age, varied relationship duration, and a predominantly high level of education (see Table 1). Overall, couples expressed being sexually satisfied (women: M = 4.16, SD = 0.55, scale range = 1-5, observed range = 1.66-5.00; men: M = 4.25, SD = 0.54, scale range = 1-5, observed range = 2.25-5.00) and had an overall high level of sexual function (women: M = 28.37, SD = 4.85, scale range = 2–36, observed range = 3.40-35.70; men: M = 64.82, SD = 10.86, scale range = 4-85, observed range = 12.00-75.00).

Table 1.

Sample characteristics.

	Women (n = 327)				Men (n = 327)
Variable	M	Md	SD	Range	M	Md	SD	Range
Age (years)	24.34	22.00	7.23	18.00-75.00	25.66	23.50	7.50	18.00-74.00
Relationship duration (years)	3.33	1.92	4.55	0.08-42.08	3.33	1.92	4.52	0.08-42.08
Relationship duration (years)		%		n		%		n
Highest educational level
Middle school		1		3		3		9
Apprenticeship		7		22		23		74
High school		62		203		38		123
Bachelor’s degree		18		59		19		63
Master’s degree		9		30		12		41
Doctoral degree		1		3		2		6
Other		2		7		3		11
Living situation
With parents (and siblings)		43		142		38		123
Shared house		23		75		23		75
With partner		20		64		20		64
Alone		7		23		12		40
With partner and children		4		14		4		14
Other		3		9		3		11
Children
Yes		6		19		7		24
No		94		308		93		303
Cultural ethnic background
Western/European		94		308		95		310
African/Afro-European		0		0		1		2
Far East/Asia/South Asia		3		9		2		8
Arab world		1		4		1		3
Latin America/Caribbean		4		12		2		6
Other		1		3		1		3
People’s sexual orientation
Heterosexual people		82		269		96		315
Bisexual people		12		40		3		9
Pansexual people		4		12		<1		2
Homosexual people		<1		2		<1		1
Asexual people		<1		1		0		0
Other people		<1		2		0		0
Psychiatric drug use
No		95		311		95		312
Yes		5		16		5		15
Intake of hormones
No		51		166		99		325
Yes		49		160		<1		2
Prefer not to answer		<1		1		0		0

Procedure

The study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YTMK2) in accordance with open-science guidelines and was approved by the ethical review board of the University of Zurich on the 20th of February 2024 (ref. number: 22.12.17). Data was obtained through an anonymous online survey hosted by Unipark. The link to the survey was distributed via social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook), mailing lists of various organizations and universities, sexual health clinics, and via personal contacts. Paid advertisements on social media platforms were geo-restricted for adults living in German-speaking parts of Europe (e.g., Germany, Switzerland, Austria). Recruitment for the study started on the 25th of March 2024 and ended on the 24th of July 2024. To be eligible for participating in the study, participants were required to be in a committed romantic relationship, at least 18 years old, German speaking, and have a partner who was also interested in participating in the study. The couples were instructed to complete the survey alone and not discuss it with their partner. After individuals gave their written informed consent to participating in the study including to publishing the data on OSF, an individualized partner code was created before participants could continue with the survey. At the end of the survey, a link for their partner’s participation was automatically sent to them. The survey took around 30 minutes to complete and both partners individually received automated personalized feedback on their sexual and relational health at the end of the survey. After both partners completed the survey, the couple received information on how to improve and maintain partnered sexuality as well as the opportunity to gain university credits and to participate in a price draw.

Measures

All measures previously showed high reliability and validity. Higher scores in all questionnaires indicated higher levels in the respective construct.

Sociodemographic information

Participants were asked about their age, gender, sexual orientation, highest completed educational attainment, ethnic background, and living situation. Additionally, participants were asked about their relationship duration, number of children, psychiatric drug use (e.g., antidepressants), and intake of hormones (e.g., hormonal contraceptives).

Received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem

The two scales Perceived Partner’s Influence on Self and Perceived Own Influence on Partner from the Dyadic Sexual Self-Esteem Inventory (DSSEI; Wehrli et al., 2025), were used to assess received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem between partners. The six items are scored on a six-point Likert scale (1 = don’t agree at all to 6 = completely agree). The two scales can be further divided into elements of sexual self-worth (e.g. “My partner makes me feel like my sexual desires and needs are valuable.” and “I make my partner feel like their sexual desires and needs are valuable”) and sexual self-efficacy (e.g. “My partner encourages me to explore what brings me pleasure during partnered sexual activities.” and “I encourage my partner to explore what brings them pleasure during partnered sexual activities”). The scale previously showed high reliability and validity for all subscales and additionally exhibited measurement invariance across gender and timepoint. In the present study, both scales showed significant correlations with sexual satisfaction and sexual function (see Table 2). Internal consistencies for the total scores in the current study were good (Perceived Partner’s Influence on Self: total score α = .87 for women and men, Sexual Self-Worth subscale: α = .87 for women and α = .75 for men, Sexual Self-Efficacy subscale: α = .88 for women and α = .89 for men; Perceived Own Influence on Partner: total score: α = .89 for women and α = .87 for men, Sexual Self-Worth subscale: α = .89 for women and α = .83 for men, Sexual Self-Efficacy subscale: α = .88 for women and α = .86 for men).

Table 2.

Results of the correlation analyses of perceived provided and received partner contributions to sexual self-esteem with sexual satisfaction and sexual function.

		M	SD	Correlations
		M	SD	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	Perceived Partner’s influence on self (women)	5.40	0.66	.55***	.50***	.36***	.31***	.41***	.32***	.31***
2	Perceived own influence on partner (women)	5.13	0.73	-	.50***	.35***	.46***	.33***	.40***	.17***
3	Sexual satisfaction (women)	4.16	0.55		-	.62***	.38***	.35***	.53***	.31***
4	Sexual function (women)	28.37	4.85			-	.32***	.33***	.45***	.54***
5	Perceived Partner’s influence on self (men)	5.07	0.85				-	.54***	.54***	.28***
6	Perceived own influence on partner (men)	5.24	0.62					-	.43***	.39***
7	Sexual satisfaction (men)	4.25	0.54						-	.43***
8	Sexual function (men)	64.82	10.86							-

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Equity of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem

The equity index for the preliminary analysis was obtained by subtracting the values of the DSSEI scale Perceived Own Influence on Partner (DSSEpr) from the values of the DSSEI scale Perceived Partner’s Influence on Self (DSSEre; EQ = DSSEre − DSSEpr) as perceived by men and women separately (following prior research: Bar-Kalifa et al., 2018; Meier et al., 2021). If the respondent reported similar influence of the partner on one’s self-esteem (e.g., 4) as they had on their self-esteem (e.g., 4), the respondent’s equity of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem was zero (EQ = 4 − 4 = 0), the highest possible equity score. If the respondent reported an overbenefit of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem (DSSEre > DSSEpr), the equity score was positive. For example, if the respondent reported their partner as contributing a great amount to their own sexual self-esteem (6) while not contributing to the sexual self-esteem of the partner (1), the respondent’s score would be 5 (EQ = 6 − 1 = 5), which is the highest possible equity score in the direction of an overbenefit. Negative scores, on the other hand, describe an underbenefit of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem (DSSEre < DSSEpr) with −5 being the lowest possible equity score (EQ = 1 − 6 = −5) in the direction of underbenefit.

Sexual satisfaction

The Short form of the New Sexual Satisfaction Index (original English version by Štulhofer et al., 2010; German version by Hoy et al., 2019) includes 12 items, which are scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all satisfied to 5 = very satisfied; zero = does not apply to me). For up to three missing values or three instances of using the category “does not apply to me” the total score was calculated using mean imputation. Internal consistency of the instrument’s global score was good (α = .83 for women and α = .84 for men).

Sexual function

Sexual function for women was measured with the Female Sexual Function Index (Rosen et al., 2000; German version by Berner et al., 2004), which assesses six different sexual function domains (i.e., sexual desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain). The 19 items are scored on a five- or six-point scale depending on the item (0/1 to 5 points). The internal consistency of the instrument’s global score was excellent (α = .91).

Sexual function for men was measured with the International Index of Erectile Function (Rosen et al., 1997; German version by; Wiltink et al., 2003), which evaluates five different sexual function domains (i.e., erectile function, orgasmic function, sexual desire, intercourse satisfaction, and overall sexual satisfaction). The 15 items are scored on a six-point or five-point scale (0/1 to 5 points). Internal consistency of the instrument’s global score was excellent (α = .91). Because sexual function was measured differently for men and women, we z-standardized the outcome to make comparisons between men and women.

Statistical analyses

Dyadic response surface analysis

For all our hypotheses, we used the Dyadic Response Surface Analysis (DRSA; Schönbrodt et al., 2018). The DRSA is a combination of an Actor-Partner-Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006) and Response Surface Analysis (Edwards, 2003; Humberg et al., 2019). It builds on polynomial regression and provides three-dimensional graphs that illustrate the dyadic associations for each partner’s outcome. DRSA further allows us to capture how received (x-axis) and provided (y-axis) partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, as perceived by women and men, are associated with sexual satisfaction or function for each partner (z-axis). Existing studies recommend using individual perceptions of how participants rate themselves and their partner, as these are particularly predictive of sexual outcomes (Busby et al., 2023; Muise et al., 2016). Accordingly, we focus on within-person perceptions of received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem for our analyses. Beyond what difference scores can offer, DRSA can give insight into how equity and inequity relate to the outcome variable and can detect curvilinear effects (Edwards & Parry, 1993; Shanock et al., 2010).

To ensure we had enough variance in the combination of received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, we examined equity and inequity of each partner’s partner contributions to sexual self-esteem. A cut off point of >.05 standard deviations was applied to consider a person as being discrepant (experiencing an overbenefit or an underbenefit), following the recommendations of Humberg et al. (2019) and Schönbrodt et al. (2018). Among women, 38% (n = 125) reported perceiving equitable partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, while 45% (n = 148) reported perceiving an overbenefit and 17% (n = 54) reported perceiving an underbenefit. Among men, 56% (n = 182) perceived equitable partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, while 28% (n = 91) perceived an overbenefit and 16% (n = 54) perceived an underbenefit. For valid results within DRSA, at least 10% of cases should be classified as discrepant, which is the case here.

The DRSA were computed using structural equation modeling. Robust ML estimator and bootstrap using 10,000 iterations to deal with nonnormality of the data and potential ceiling effects were employed (Pek et al., 2018). We compared the unconstrained models with actor and partner effects to a constrained version, where actor and partner effects were considered equal. Since the unconstrained version either fit the data significantly better or did not show any worse fit, we retained the unconstrained models for all analyses. Age was added to the models as a control variable since previous studies have shown associations of age with sexual self-esteem (e.g. Hewitt-Stubbs et al., 2016), sexual satisfaction (e.g. Miguel et al., 2024), and sexual function (e.g., Hayes & Dennerstein, 2005). Controlling for age did not change the results. For predictor and outcome variables, we dealt with outliers using best-practices recommendations (Aguinis et al., 2013). To ensure that influential cases do not heavily affect the DRSA results, we checked the difference in fit, Cook’s distance, and hat values (Pek & MacCallum, 2011). In case of having identified influential observations, we examined whether excluding them affected the DRSA results to determine the robustness of our findings and reported the results accordingly (Aguinis et al., 2013; Pek & MacCallum, 2011). To better understand the difference in results when influential cases were excluded, we looked at the characteristics of cases marked as influential (in total n = 25). ANOVAs revealed that cases marked as influential reported significantly higher age, longer relationship duration, as well as lower levels of perceived received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, sexual function, and sexual satisfaction compared to cases not marked as influential.

All analyses were performed using R version 4.4.2 (R Core Team, 2023). A significance level of p < .05 was employed. All code and results are available online from the OSF (https://osf.io/r2gmv/?view_only=05cd055fa9c54a7a920e41acd8f73a6e), and data is available upon request.

Overview of dyadic response surface analysis surface values

Our inferences in relation to the hypotheses are based on the response surface parameters a₁ to a₅ (see Bar-Kalifa et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2021; Landolt et al., 2024 for dyadic examples). To get an overall understanding of the association between equity of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and the outcome variables, it is important that all response surface parameters are interpreted in relation to each other rather than in isolation (Humberg et al., 2019; Schönbrodt et al., 2018).

The surface parameter a₁ represents linear associations and tests the line of equity (i.e., the line where perceptions of received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem perfectly match at different levels). If only a₁ is significant and positive, it indicates that matching at higher levels of perceived received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem is associated with higher sexual satisfaction or function than matches at lower levels. The surface parameter a₂ tests the curvature of the line of equity, indicating whether moderate levels of provided and received partner contributions to sexual self-esteem correspond to higher (or lower) sexual satisfaction or function. The a₃ parameter assesses how sexual satisfaction and function are associated with overbenefit and underbenefit of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem (line of inequity). A significant and positive a₃ indicates that sexual satisfaction or function are higher in case of overbenefit of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, while a significant and negative a₃ indicates that sexual satisfaction or function is higher in case of an underbenefit. The a₄ parameter shows whether increasing inequity in either direction–underbenefit to the left and overbenefit to the right–is associated with better or worse sexual satisfaction or function (curvature of the line of inequity) compared to equity. A significant negative a₄ indicates a decrease in sexual satisfaction and function when moving from the center of the line of inequity (where it intersects with the line of equity) in both directions of inequity. The a₅ response surface parameter is mainly there to validate a possible (in)equity effect, since it tests whether the ridge line (first principal axis) is positioned at the line of equity. If all response surface parameters (a₁–a₄) indicated an (in-)equity effect, a nonsignificant a₅ would be required to confirm this.

Evidence of equity effects within dyadic response surface analysis

To determine whether equity in perceived provided and received partner contributions to sexual self-esteem is better than inequity, we follow the guidelines of Humberg et al. (2019). Using the surface parameters above, requirements of a broad equity effect include a significant, negative a₄ value, while a₃ and a₅ values are not significant. We expect a significant and positive a₁ value next to the significant and negative a₄ value. This would indicate that equity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem is better than inequity but allows for the influence of the level of perceived received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem.

Power analysis for dyadic response surface analysis

To date, there is no known method to directly determine the sample size required for adequate power in DRSA. According to the APIM-calculator (Ackermann et al., 2016), a sample size of 159 couples is necessary to achieve 80% power for detecting small actor and partner effects (r = .15) with an alpha of 5%. Current guidelines suggest that DRSA requires a sample size that is two to three times larger (Humberg et al., 2019; Nestler et al., 2015). Therefore, we aimed to recruit at least 318 mixed-gender couples for our DRSA. Additionally, previous studies have utilized similar sample sizes to study sexuality in couples using DRSA (Kim et al., 2021; Landolt et al., 2024; Tavares et al., 2022).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, sexual satisfaction, and sexual function. Difference analyses of the equity index of received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem showed that women, on average, report significantly more overbenefit (M = .27, SD = .66, range = −1.83–2.5), while men report more underbenefit (M = -.17, SD = .74, range = −3.33 to 2; t₍₃₂₆₎ = 7.18, p < .001, Hedges’ g = 0.63). Furthermore, large correlations (women: r = .55, p < .001; men: r = .54, p < .001) were observed between the perceived partner’s influence on one’s sexual self-esteem and the perceived own influence on the partner’s sexual self-esteem. Likewise, sexual satisfaction (r = .53, p < .001) and sexual function (r = .54, p < .001) between partners showed a large correlation.

Are there equity effects in the association between partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and sexual satisfaction and sexual function?

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and sexual satisfaction

For sexual satisfaction, there was no support for a broad equity effect in the association between partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and sexual satisfaction (significant positive a₁, nonsignificant a₄). In men and women with higher levels of received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, both members of the couple reported higher sexual satisfaction (significant positive a₁). Women’s perception of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem explained 34% of the variance in women’s sexual satisfaction and 19% of men’s sexual satisfaction. Men’s perception of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem explained 35% of the variance in men’s sexual satisfaction and 18% of the variance in women’s sexual satisfaction. These associations were stable when excluding influential cases, but the explained variance dropped to 28% for men’s and 14% for women’s sexual satisfaction.

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and sexual function

For sexual function, there was no support for a broad equity effect between women’s perceptions of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and sexual function (significant positive a₁, nonsignificant a₄). In women with higher levels of received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, both members of the couple reported higher sexual function (significant positive a₁). The model explained 19% of the variance in women’s sexual function and 10% of the variance in men’s sexual function. These associations were stable when excluding influential cases, however, the explained variance dropped to 17% for women and 4% for men.

Men reported lower sexual function when they perceived inequity compared to equity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem (significant negative a₄). Nevertheless, they reported significantly lower sexual function in the case of an overbenefit of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem compared to an underbenefit (significant negative a₃), which contradicts a broad equity effect. Higher levels in men’s perceived received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem were associated with higher sexual function in both men and women (significant positive a₁). The model explained 21% of the variance in men’s sexual function and 15% of the variance in women’s sexual function. When influential cases were excluded, results did not change, apart from the response surface parameter a₄ being not significant, and the explained variance dropped to 11% in men’s and women’s sexual function.

How is equity in partner contributions to sexual self-worth versus sexual self-efficacy associated with sexual satisfaction and sexual function?

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-worth and sexual satisfaction

For sexual satisfaction, there was a broad equity effect between women’s perception of partner contributions to sexual self-worth and sexual satisfaction (significant positive a₁, significant negative a₂, significant negative a₄; see Figure 1(a)). Women who perceived contributions of their own and their partner’s sexual self-worth as equal reported higher sexual satisfaction compared to women who perceived these contributions as unequal. Furthermore, matching at higher levels of perceived received and provided sexual self-worth was associated with higher sexual satisfaction for both women and their partner, compared to matching at lower levels (see Figures 1(a) and 1(b)). Women’s perception of partner contributions to sexual self-worth explained 32% of the variance in women’s sexual satisfaction and 16% of men’s sexual satisfaction. When influential cases were excluded, only the linear effects (significant positive a₁ for men and women) remained significant, and the explained variance dropped to 20% for women and 11% for men.

Figure 1.

DRSA Model with provided and received partner contributions to sexual self-worth as perceived by women predicting women’s (A) and men’s (B) sexual satisfaction. Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. CSSW = Contributions to Sexual Self Worth. The z-axis represents sexual satisfaction. The x-axis represents women’s perception of provided contributions to sexual self-worth, whereas the y-axis represents women’s perception of received contributions to sexual self-worth. Dots represent individual measurements of women (A) and men (B) over which the surface is placed. The line on the surface leading from front to back is the line of equity (i.e., where contributions to sexual self-worth are perceived as equal). The line on the surface leading from left to right is the line of inequity (i.e., where contributions are not perceived as equal), leading from cases where women perceive underbenefit to cases where women perceive overbenefit.

For men’s perception of partner contributions to sexual self-worth, there was no indication for a broad equity effect in the association with men’s and women’s sexual satisfaction (significant positive a₁, nonsignificant a₄). Higher levels in men’s perceived provided and received partner contributions to sexual self-worth were related to higher levels in their own and their partner’s sexual satisfaction (significant positive a₁). The model explained 36% of the variance for men’s sexual satisfaction and 19% of the variance for women’s sexual satisfaction. When influential cases were excluded, results revealed a broad equity effect (significant positive a₁, significant negative a₄). Men who perceived contributions to their own and their partner’s sexual self-worth as equal reported higher sexual satisfaction compared to those who did not perceive contributions as equal. The model explained 20% of the variance in men’s sexual satisfaction and 13% of the variance in women’s sexual satisfaction.

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy and sexual satisfaction

For sexual satisfaction, there was no support for a broad equity effect between women’s perception of partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy and sexual function (significant positive a₁, nonsignificant a₄). Higher levels of provided and received partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy as perceived by women were related to higher levels of men’s and women’s sexual satisfaction (significant positive a₁). The model explained 27% of the variance in women’s sexual satisfaction and 16% of men’s sexual satisfaction. When influential cases were excluded, partner effects revealed a U-shaped association between the women’s predictor variables and men’s sexual satisfaction (significant positive a₁ and a₂). This means that, compared to high and low levels, moderate levels in provided and received partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy as perceived by women are related to moderate levels of male sexual satisfaction. The model explained 23% of the variance in women’s sexual satisfaction and 12% of the variance in men’s sexual satisfaction.

For men’s perception of partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy, there was no support for a broad equity effect (significant positive a₁, nonsignificant a₄). Higher levels of provided and received partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy as perceived by men were related to higher levels of men’s and women’s sexual satisfaction (significant positive a₁). The model explained 33% of the variance in men’s sexual satisfaction and 15% of the variance in women’s sexual satisfaction. When influential cases were excluded, effects stayed the same and the explained variance dropped to 31% for men and 14% for women.

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-worth and sexual function

For sexual function, there was no support for a broad equity effect in the association between women’s perception of partner contributions to sexual self-worth with women’s sexual function (significant positive a₁, nonsignificant a₄, significant negative a₅) and men’s sexual function (significant positive a₁, significant negative a₄, significant negative a₅). Higher levels of provided and received partner contributions to sexual self-worth as perceived by women were associated with higher women’s and men’s sexual function (significant positive a₁). The model explained 16% of the variance in women’s sexual function and 12% of the variance in men’s sexual function. Excluding influential cases did not reveal a broad equity effect either, and the explained variance dropped to 12% for women and 4% for men.

For men’s perception of partner contributions to sexual self-worth, there was no support for a broad equity effect in the association with sexual function (significant positive a₁, nonsignificant a₄). Higher levels of provided and received partner contributions to sexual self-worth as perceived by men were associated with higher sexual function in men and women (significant positive a₁). The model explained 15% of the variance in men’s sexual function and 12% of the variance in women’s sexual function. Excluding influential cases did not change these results, and the explained variance dropped to 8% for men’s sexual function and 9% for women’s sexual function.

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy and sexual function

For sexual function, there was no support for a broad equity effect in the association between women’s perception of partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy and women’s sexual function (significant positive a₁, nonsignificant a₄) as well as men’s sexual function (significant positive a₁, significant positive a_3, nonsignificant a₄). Higher levels of received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy as perceived by women are associated with women’s and men’s higher sexual function (significant positive a₁). Overbenefitting compared to underbenefitting as perceived by women was linked to better sexual function for men (significant positive a₃; see Figure 2(a) and 2(b)). The model explained 15% of the variance in women’s sexual function and 9% of the variance in men’s sexual function. Results did not change when influential cases were excluded, and the explained variance dropped to 13% for women and 6% for men.

Figure 2.

DRSA Model with provided and received partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy as perceived by women (A, B) and men (C, D) predicting women’s and men’s sexual function. Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. CSSEff = Contributions to Sexual Self-Efficacy. The z-axis represents sexual function. The x-axis represents provided contributions to sexual self-efficacy as perceived by women (A, B) and men (C, D), whereas the y-axis represents received contributions to sexual self-efficacy as perceived by women (A, B) and men (C, D). Dots represent individual measurements of women (A, D) and men (B, C) over which the surface is placed. The line on the surface leading from front to back is the line of equity (i.e., where contributions to sexual self-efficacy are perceived as equal). The line on the surface leading from left to right is the line of inequity (i.e., where contributions are not perceived as equal), leading from cases where underbenefit is perceived to cases where overbenefit is perceived.

For men’s perception of partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy, there was no support for a broad equity effect in the association with men’s sexual function (significant positive a₁, significant negative a₃, nonsignificant a₄) and women’s sexual function (significant positive a₁, nonsignificant a₄). Higher levels of received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy as perceived by men were associated with higher levels of men’s and women’s sexual function (significant positive a₁). Overbenefitting compared to underbenefitting as perceived by men was linked to worse sexual function for men (significant negative a₃; see Figure 2(c) and (D)). The model explained 14% of the variance in women’s sexual function and 18% of the variance in men’s sexual function. When influential cases were excluded, only the linear association remained significant (significant positive a₁), and the explained variance in men’s and women’s sexual function dropped to 10%.

Discussion

This study aimed to examine a broad equity effect between received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and key sexual outcomes in couples, such as sexual satisfaction and sexual function. We found evidence that perceiving high, but not necessarily similar (i.e., equitable), levels of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem were associated with higher sexual satisfaction and function of both partners. These results show that high levels of partner contributions were consistently linked to higher sexual satisfaction and sexual function. Men reported lower sexual function when they perceived unequal partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, compared to equal contributions. Specifically, men’s overbenefitting was associated with worse male sexual function compared to underbenefitting. Equity effects became more apparent when partner contributions to sexual self-worth and sexual self-efficacy were considered separately.

In general, no broad equity effects were found, which led us to reject H1 and H2. However, the results consistently indicate that greater perceived partner contributions to sexual self-esteem were associated with greater sexual satisfaction. The same pattern was found for sexual function, but less variance was explained. Likewise, greater perceived partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy and sexual self-worth were associated with greater sexual satisfaction and sexual function. While these findings contradict a previous study on equity effects in regard to sexual aspects of romantic relationships in a non-clinical sample (Schoeb et al., 2013), they echo studies finding that high levels in sexual desire, rather than matching levels in sexual desire, were associated with relationship and sexual satisfaction (Kim et al., 2021), as well as with behavioral sexual outcomes (Pawłowska et al., 2024). Additionally, the results are in line with studies reporting that higher levels in motivation to meet one’s partner’s sexual needs (i.e., sexual communal strength) were associated with higher levels in sexual desire, sexual, and relationship satisfaction (Impett et al., 2019, 2020; Muise et al., 2013). This suggests that an overall high level of positive contributions to one’s partner’s sexual self-esteem is associated with sexual satisfaction and function. Higher sexual satisfaction and function might support more positive and reciprocal partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, while they might in turn increase sexual satisfaction and function. This might particularly be the case in in non-clinical samples and when considering a more global evaluation of sexual self-esteem.

Interestingly, when examining the subscales separately, broad equity effects became apparent for partner contributions to sexual self-worth and sexual satisfaction. This was the case for women in the total sample and men in the sample excluding influential cases. Additionally, men’s overbenefit in partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy was related to worse sexual function in men. This supports our H3a and H3b, postulating different associations with sexual satisfaction and sexual function when considering partner contributions to sexual self-worth and efficacy separately. This suggest that equity effects might be masked or compensated for when sexual self-worth and sexual self-efficacy are considered simultaneously (Kong et al., 2024). Additionally, previous research has suggested that self-worth is likely to be more closely linked to affective components such as satisfaction, while self-efficacy is expected to have a stronger connection with motivational components and behavioral reactions such as sexual performance (Chen et al., 2004). This might explain why equity in sexual self-worth was associated with sexual satisfaction, but not sexual function.

As mentioned above, overbenefit in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem in men was linked to lower sexual function in men, while this was not the case for women. This can be attributed to sexual self-efficacy, as the subscale analysis revealed that overbenefit in partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy, but not sexual self-worth, was associated with decreased sexual function. While this was not considered a broad equity effect according to more strict definitions (Humberg et al., 2019; Schönbrodt et al., 2018), other authors interpret this as a sign of inequity and point towards the benefit of interpreting these results (Bar-Kalifa et al., 2018). Research has shown that sexual difficulties affect both partners (Kaya et al., 2015; Pascoal et al., 2018; Velten & Margraf, 2017) and partners often engage in various supportive behaviors to manage challenges together (Bodenmann, 1997). Partners of men experiencing reduced sexual function might, therefore, attempt to put in additional effort to help manage the challenges arising from these difficulties, leading to a perceived overbenefit for men. This way reduced sexual function might lead to a temporary increase in women’s contributions to their partner’s sexual self-esteem.

Additionally, a perceived overbenefit in sexual self-efficacy might cause stress by conflicting with traditional sexual gendered scripts. Indeed, sexual script theory (Wiederman, 2005) posits that men are expected to initiate and dominate sexual activities with a partner, while women play a more passive and responsive role. The ability to maintain an erection, delay ejaculation, and ideally satisfy their female partners is therefore associated with men’s perceived desirability as a sexual partner (Savoury et al., 2022; Wiederman, 2005). Interestingly, research has shown that sexual performance is closely linked to men’s sense of self (Hawley et al., 2024; Savoury et al., 2022). This indicates that reduced sexual performance (experienced through perceived overbenefit in sexual self-efficacy) might inflict stress through experience of shame, personal failure, and disappointment (Gordon, 2018) as well as cognitive distraction during sexual activities (Bockaj et al., 2024). These factors are known to contribute to decreased sexual desire and higher sexual distress, especially when sexual scripts are rigid (Bouchard et al., 2023). At the same time, self-broadcast theory suggests that social interactions are determined by how an individual sees themselves (Srivastava & Beer, 2005). Decreased sexual function might reduce men’s sexual self-efficacy, which in turn would lead to reduced contributions of men towards their partner’s sexual self-efficacy.

Similarly, perceived inequity in partner contributions to sexual self-worth—the sense of feeling sexually valued by a partner—may create a dynamic that conflicts with traditional gendered scripts, potentially compromising sexual satisfaction for both partners (Bouchard et al., 2023; Machette & Montgomery-Vestecka, 2023; Scappini & Fioravanti, 2022). For example, if women feel entitled to experience equity in partner contributions to sexual self-worth, they may be less sexually satisfied if they are not receiving as much partner contributions to sexual self-worth as they expect to. On the other hand, when women receive more partner contributions to sexual self-worth than they provide, this might result in them feeling less desirable as a sexual partner since the female sexual script would expect them to provide pleasure to a partner rather than receiving it. This suggest that sexual script theory should be considered alongside equity theory in research on couples’ sexual interactions.

Nevertheless, the equity effect between partner contributions to sexual self-worth and higher sexual satisfaction were sensitive to influential cases among both men and women, likely due to an undersampling of couples facing sexual health challenges. In fact, the couples flagged as influential showed significantly higher age, lower levels of perceived received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem, decreased sexual function, and lower sexual satisfaction. The equity effect between partner contributions to sexual self-worth and sexual satisfaction was apparent for women only when influential cases were included. Women might be more sensitive to dyadic inequality compared to men (Meier et al., 2020; Pawłowska et al., 2024), particularly when sexual health challenges are present in the couple. Indeed, in this study only 38% of women perceived equity while 56% of men perceived equity, and associations were generally stronger for women. Additionally, a previous study has highlighted that women stressed the importance of reciprocity in sexual interactions for sexual satisfaction (Tomaszewska et al., 2023).

In contrast, the equity effect for men was only evident when influential cases were excluded. In our sample, influential cases were significantly older and might therefore identify more likely as more conservative couples adhering more to traditional gendered sexual scripts where equity might be less important for men (Ricoy-Cano et al., 2020). However, these findings should be replicated before drawing final conclusions.

Limitations and future research

Despite the strengths of this research, there are a number of limitations to this study that suggest promising directions for future research. The first limitation is the correlational nature of the research design. As such, we do not know whether equity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem shapes sexual satisfaction and function or vice versa. Future research should incorporate longitudinal designs such as daily diary studies or intervention studies targeting partner contributions to sexual self-esteem (e.g., enhancement of providing partner contributions to sexual self-worth and -efficacy while similarly targeting sexual scripts within couples) to uncover the underlying associations with sexual satisfaction and function in more detail.

Second, older couples or those experiencing sexual health challenges were underrepresented in our sample. Additionally, there was a ceiling effect for sexual satisfaction, which may have limited the predictive power of the partner contribution to sexual self-esteem variables. It would be valuable for future research to replicate these findings in a more clinical sample and identify differences between clinical and non-clinical samples. Analyzing a more clinical sample categorizing by individuals with sexual function issues and their partners, rather than categorizing by gender (i.e., Meier et al., 2021), could potentially reveal equity effects more clearly.

Third, both partners were required to participate in the study, which made recruiting more difficult compared to when only individuals are required to participate. Although the study was conducted anonymously, it is possible that participating couples may have had more permissive sexual attitudes, greater openness in sexual communication and consequently higher levels of equality, satisfaction and sexual function than the general population. This may have limited our ability to detect curvilinear effects within the sample, and equity effects might be stronger in the general population than in our sample.

Another limitation is that we did not assess information on employment status, income, socioeconomic status, and pregnancy. Additionally, we did not control for masturbation, which has been shown to contribute to sexual satisfaction and sexual function in partnered interactions (Cervilla & Sierra, 2022). However, research is conflicted about whether masturbation is independent of sexual activities with a partner or used to compensate for unsatisfying sexual partner interactions (Fischer & Træen, 2022; Herbenick et al., 2023; Regnerus et al., 2017). While we instructed participants to answer questions about sexual satisfaction and sexual function regarding their partnered sexual activities, future research should include masturbation as a control variable. Additional control variables could include experience of psychological stress and physical health challenges. Our study specifically focused on sexual self-esteem due to its interpersonal nature and relevance for behavioral, motivational, and affective components of sexuality. Future studies could directly examine these components and explore the role of equity in specific behaviors, such as initiating sexual activity and sexual communication. Moreover, studies could investigate similarities in approach and avoidance motivations as well as emotions such as sexual desire and sexual anxiety. Additionally, examining equity in other aspects of sexual self-concept domains, such as contributions to sexual body-esteem, would be a valuable area for future research.

Finally, we used subjective measures that may be prone to recall bias and social desirability. Although we attempted to mitigate social desirability bias by using an anonymous research design, we cannot rule out the possibility that these biases influenced participants’ perceptions of received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and sexual function.

Implications for clinical practice and conclusion

The implications of this research for clinical practice emphasize the importance of carefully considering how partners interact within the sexual domain. Clinicians and prevention campaigns should generally encourage couples to cultivate higher levels of both partner contributions to sexual self-worth and sexual self-efficacy, while considering individuals’ sexual scripts to address potential conflicts. For enhancing sexual satisfaction specifically, fostering balanced interactions in partner contributions to sexual self-worth may be important. When addressing sexual function, clinicians should be attentive to male overbenefit in partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy and explore how individual gendered sexual scripts might contribute to conflict or interact with sexual function within these couples. Overall, our study underscores the importance of considering both individual and dyadic effects in understanding sexual health within couples.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. Dr. Felix Schönbrodt and Prof. Dr. Eran Bar-Kalifa for their inputs with statistics. Additionally, we would like to thank all couples who participated in the study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study. Open access funding provided by the University of Zurich.

Open science statement

In line with the IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, this research was pre-registered prior to data analysis. We preregistered all hypotheses, statistical analyses, inference statistics, questionnaires used and power analyses on OSF (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YTMK2). Consent to publish the data was obtained by all participants. The data can be viewed at: and is available to interested people via email (fabienne.wehrli@psychologie.uzh.ch). The materials used in the research can be publicly posted. The materials can be obtained at: https://osf.io/r2gmv/?view_only=05cd055fa9c54a7a920e41acd8f73a6e

Ethical statement

ORCID iDs

Fabienne S. V. Wehrli

Selina A. Landolt

Katharina Weitkamp

Data Availability Statement

Data and core are available on OSF:

References

Ackermann

R. A.

Ledermann

Kenny

D. A.

(2016). APIMPowerR: An interactive tool for Actor-Partner Interdependence Model power analysis [Computer software]. [Software]. https://robert-a-ackerman.shinyapps.io/APIMPowerRdis/

Adams

J. S.

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz

(Hrsg.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Bd. 2, S. 267–299). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2

Aguinis

Gottfredson

R. K.

Joo

(2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112470848

Anzani

Di Sarno

Di Pierro

Prunas

(2021). Narcissistic personality traits and sexual satisfaction in men: The role of sexual self-esteem. Sexes, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes2010002

Aspis

Gewirtz-Meydan

(2024). I’m sexy and I know it: Exploring the moderating role of sexual motivations in the relationship between sexual self-esteem and sexual functioning in Israeli adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 0(0), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2306478

Balzarini

R. N.

Muise

Dobson

Kohut

Raposo

Campbell

(2021). The detriments of unmet sexual ideals and buffering effect of sexual communal strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1521–1550. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000323

Bar-Kalifa

Pshedetzky-Shochat

Rafaeli

Gleason

M. E. J.

(2018). Daily support equity in romantic couples: Response Surface Analyses of monadic and dyadic data. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(7), 790–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617725150

Bergeron

Vaillancourt-Morel

M.-P.

Péloquin

Rosen

N. O.

(2024). Intimacy promotes couples’ sexual well-being on a daily basis and over one year: The role of positive sexual cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(7), 2737–2749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02912-7

Berner

Kriston

Zahradnik

H.-P.

Härter

Rohde

(2004). Validity and reliability of the German female sexual function index (FSFI-d). Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 64, 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-815815

10.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Reis

H. T.

Mizrahi

Kanat-Maymon

Sass

Granovski-Milner

(2016). Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000069

11.

Bockaj

Muise

M. D.

Belu

C. F.

Rosen

N. O.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

(2024). Under pressure: Men’s and women’s sexual performance anxiety in the sexual interactions of adult couples. The Journal of Sex Research, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2357587

12.

Bodenmann

(1997). Dyadic coping: A systematic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 137–140.

13.

Bond

J. C.

Morrison

D. M.

Hawes

S. E.

(2020). Sexual self-efficacy and entitlement to pleasure: The association of the female sexual subjectivity inventory with sexual risk taking and experience of orgasm. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(3), 1029–1038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01563-3

14.

Bornefeld-Ettmann

Steil

Höfling

Weßlau

Lieberz

K. A.

Rausch

Priebe

Fydrich

Müller-Engelmann

(2018). Validation of the German version of the sexual self-esteem inventory for women and its application in a sample of sexually and physically abused women. Sex Roles, 79(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0849-5

15.

Bosisio

Rosen

N. O.

Dubé

Vaillancourt-Morel

M.-P.

Daspe

M.-È.

Bergeron

(2022). Will you be happy for me? Associations between self-reported, perceived, and observed responses to positive events and sexual well-being in cohabiting couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(8), 2454–2477. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221080581

16.

Bouchard

K. N.

Cormier

Huberman

J. S.

Rosen

N. O.

(2023). Sexual script flexibility and sexual well-being in long-term couples: A dyadic longitudinal study. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 20(7), 945–954. https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdad067

17.

Brassard

Dupuy

Bergeron

Shaver

P. R.

(2015). Attachment insecurities and women’s sexual function and satisfaction: The mediating roles of sexual self-esteem, sexual anxiety, and sexual assertiveness. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(1), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.838744

18.

Brotto

Atallah

Johnson-Agbakwu

Rosenbaum

Abdo

Byers

E. S.

Graham

Nobre

Wylie

(2016). Psychological and interpersonal dimensions of sexual function and dysfunction. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(4), 538–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.01.019

19.

Busby

D. M.

Hanna‐Walker

Leonhardt

N. D.

Kim

J. J.

(2023). Sexual passion in couple relationships: Emerging patterns from dyadic response surface analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 85(1), 92–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12888

20.

Cast

A. D.

Burke

P. J.

(2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80(3), 1041–1068. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2002.0003

21.

Cervilla

Sierra

J. C.

(2022). Masturbation parameters related to orgasm satisfaction in sexual relationships: Differences between men and women. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 903361. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.903361

22.

Chen

Gully

S. M.

Eden

(2004). General self-efficacy and self-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 375–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.251

23.

Chew

P. Y.

Choy

C. L.

Sidi

Abdullah

Che Roos

N. A.

Salleh Sahimi

H. M.

Abdul Samad

F. D.

Ravindran

(2021). The association between female sexual dysfunction and sexual dysfunction in the male partner: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 18(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.10.001

24.

Day

L. C.

Muise

Joel

Impett

E. A.

(2015). To do it or not to do it? How communally motivated people navigate sexual interdependence dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(6), 791–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215580129

25.

Edwards

J. R.

(2003). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression and response surface methodology: (576892011-020) [dataset]. https://doi.org/10.1037/e576892011-020

26.

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

27.

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

28.

Fischer

Træen

(2022). A seemingly paradoxical relationship between masturbation frequency and sexual satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(6), 3151–3167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02305-8

29.

Gordon

A. M.

(2018). How men experience sexual shame: The development and validation of the Male Sexual Shame Scale. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 26(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826517728303

30.

Hatfield

Greenberger

Traupmann

Lambert

(1982). Equity and sexual satisfaction in recently married couples. The Journal of Sex Research, 18(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498209551131

31.

Hawley

W. R.

Cancilla

B. A.

Barnes

J. L.

Morrow

G. D.

(2024). Social perceptions of masculinity and sexual esteem are impacted by Viagra use, testosterone, and sexual performance. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(7), 2473–2488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02880-y

32.

Hayes

Dennerstein

(2005). The impact of aging on sexual function and sexual dysfunction in women: A review of population-based studies. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2(3), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.20356.x

33.

Heinrichs

K. D.

MacKnee

Auton-Cuff

Domene

J. F.

(2009). Factors affecting sexual-self esteem among young adult women in long-term heterosexual relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18(4), 183–200.

34.

Herbenick

Wasata

Coleman

(2023). Masturbation prevalence, frequency, reasons, and associations with partnered sex in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from a U.S. nationally representative survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 52(3), 1317–1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02505-2

35.

Hewitt-Stubbs

Zimmer-Gembeck

Mastro

Boislard

M.-A.

(2016). A longitudinal study of sexual entitlement and self-efficacy among young women and men: Gender differences and associations with age and sexual experience. Behavioral Sciences, 6(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs6010004

36.

Horne

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.

37.

Hoy

Strauß

Kröger

Brenk-Franz

(2019). Überprüfung der deutschen Kurzversion der “New Sexual Satisfaction Scale” (NSSS-SD) in einer repräsentativen Stichprobe. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 69(03/04), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0620-0002

38.

Humberg

Nestler

Back

M. D.

(2019). Response surface analysis in personality and social psychology: Checklist and clarifications for the case of congruence hypotheses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618757600

39.

Impett

E. A.

Kim

J. J.

Muise

(2020). A communal approach to sexual need responsiveness in romantic relationships. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 287–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1796079

40.

Impett

E. A.

Muise

Harasymchuk

(2019). Giving in the bedroom: The costs and benefits of responding to a partner’s sexual needs in daily life. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(8), 2455–2473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518787349

41.

Johansen

Harkin

Keating

Sanchez

Buzwell

(2023). Fairer sex: The role of relationship equity in female sexual desire. The Journal of Sex Research, 60(4), 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2079111

42.

Kaya

Gunes

Gokce

A. M.

Kalkan

(2015). Is sexual function in female partners of men with premature ejaculation compromised? Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41(4), 379–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2014.915905

43.

Kelley

H. H.

Thibaut

J. W.

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. John Wiley.

44.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

45.

Kim

J. J.

Muise

Barranti

Mark

K. P.

Rosen

N. O.

Harasymchuk

Impett

(2021). Are couples more satisfied when they match in sexual desire? New insights from response surface analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(4), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620926770

46.

Kohlberger

Simon

V. A.

Rivera

(2019). A dyadic perspective on sexual subjectivity and romantic relationship functioning. Journal of Relationships Research, 10. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2019.18

47.

Kong

L. V.

Goh

P. H.

Ting

R. S.-K.

(2023). Bidimensional self-esteem and sexual functioning among Malaysian young adults: The moderating role of relationship status. Psychology & Sexuality, 14(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2022.2053564

48.

Kong

L. V.

Ting

R. S. K.

Chung

K. R.

Hidayat

Ooi

W. L.

Goh

P. H.

(2024). Bidimensional self-esteem and sexual functioning among young adults: A systematic review. Current Psychology, 43(6), 4930–4944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04699-7

49.

Kotiuga

Yampolsky

M. A.

Martin

G. M.

(2021). Adolescents’ perception of their sexual self, relational capacities, attitudes towards sexual pleasure and sexual practices: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01543-8

50.

Landolt

S. A.

Impett

E. A.

Weitkamp

Roth

Bernecker

Bodenmann

(2024). Extradyadic stress as a barrier to sexual activity in couples? A dyadic response surface analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241255910

51.

Leary

M. R.

(2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value: Getting to the root of self-esteem. European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), 75–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280540000007

52.

Leary

M. R.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Bd. 32, S. 1–62). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80003-9

53.

Machette

A. T.

Montgomery-Vestecka

(2023). Applying sexual scripts theory to sexual communication discrepancies. Communication Reports, 36(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2023.2175004

54.

Meier

Landolt

S. A.

Bradbury

T. N.

Bodenmann

(2021). Equity of dyadic coping in patients with depression and their partners. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 40(3), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2021.40.3.249

55.

Meier

Milek

Rauch-Anderegg

Benz-Fragnière

Nieuwenboom

J. W.

Schmid

Halford

W. K.

Bodenmann

(2020). Fair enough? Decreased equity of dyadic coping across the transition to parenthood associated with depression of first-time parents. PLoS One, 15(2), e0227342. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227342

56.

Miguel

von Humboldt

Leal

(2024). Sexual well-being across the lifespan: Is sexual satisfaction related to adjustment to aging? Sexuality Research and Social Policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-024-00939-y

57.

Moradinasab

Iravani

Mousavi

Cheraghian

Molavi

(2023). Effect of cognitive–behavioral therapy on sexual self-esteem and sexual function of reproductive-aged women suffering from urinary incontinence. International Urogynecology Journal, 34(8), 1753–1763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-023-05460-1

58.

Muise

Impett

E. A.

Kogan

Desmarais

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612457185

59.

Muise

Stanton

S. C. E.

Kim

J. J.

Impett

E. A.

(2016). Not in the mood? Men under- (not over-) perceive their partner’s sexual desire in established intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(5), 725–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000046

60.

Nestler

Grimm

K. J.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

(2015). The social consequences and mechanisms of personality: How to analyse longitudinal data from individual, dyadic, round–robin and network designs. European Journal of Personality, 29(2), 272–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1997

61.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

Byers

E. S.

Brotto

L. A.

Majerovich

J. A.

Fletcher

(2016). A longitudinal study of problems in sexual functioning and related sexual distress among middle to late adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(3), 318–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.05.001

62.

Pascoal

P. M.

Byers

E. S.

Alvarez

M.-J.

Santos-Iglesias

Nobre

P. J.

Pereira

C. R.

Laan

(2018). A dyadic approach to understanding the link between sexual functioning and sexual satisfaction in heterosexual couples. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(9), 1155–1166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1373267

63.

Pawłowska

Loeys

Janssen

Dewitte

(2024). The role of dyadic sexual desire similarity in predicting sexual behaviors in cohabitating couples: An ecological momentary assessment study. The Journal of Sex Research, 61(2), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2170965

64.

Peixoto

M. M.

Amarelo-Pires

Pimentel Biscaia

M. S.

Machado

P. P. P.

(2018). Sexual self-esteem, sexual functioning and sexual satisfaction in Portuguese heterosexual university students. Psychology and Sexuality, 9(4), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2018.1491413

65.

Pek

MacCallum

R. C.

(2011). Sensitivity analysis in structural equation models: Cases and their influence. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(2), 202–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.561068

66.

Pek

Wong

A. C. M.

(2018). How to address non-normality: A taxonomy of approaches, reviewed, and illustrated. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2104. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02104

67.

R Core Team . (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (4.2.1). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/

68.

Regnerus

Price

Gordon

(2017). Masturbation and partnered sex: Substitutes or complements? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(7), 2111–2121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0975-8

69.

Ricoy-Cano

A. J.

Obrero-Gaitán

Caravaca-Sánchez

Fuente-Robles

Y. M. D. L.

(2020). Factors conditioning sexual behavior in older adults: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(6), 1716. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061716

70.

Rodríguez-Domínguez

Lafuente-Bacedoni

Durán

(2021). Effect of the lockdown due to COVID-19 on sexuality: The mediating role of sexual practices and arousal in the relationship between gender and sexual self-esteem. Psychological Reports. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211028999

71.

Rosen

Brown

Heiman

Leiblum

Meston

Shabsigh

Ferguson

D’Agostion

(2000). The female sexual function index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 26, 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/009262300278597

72.

Rosen

Riley

Wagner

Osterloh

I. H.

Kirkpatrick

Mishra

(1997). The international index of erectile function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology Times, 49(6), 822–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0

73.

Satinsky

Jozkowski

K. N.

(2015). Female sexual subjectivity and verbal consent to receiving oral sex. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41(4), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2014.918065

74.

Savoury

M. C.

Mahar

E. A.

Mintz

L. B.

(2022). Feelings of masculinity and accomplishment in response to penetrative versus non-penetrative orgasms. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(1), 611–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02070-0

75.

Scappini

Fioravanti

(2022). Gender scripts and female sexual functioning: The role of sexual pressure and sexual subjectivity. The Journal of Sex Research, 59(9), 1110–1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2042477

76.

Schoeb

Belzile

Brassard

Desruisseaux

L.-M.

Potvin

Blais

Bruyninx

(2013). The perceived equity and equality of sexual practices scale: Validation of a measure of equity and equality within couples. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 22(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.922

77.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Humberg

Nestler

(2018). Testing similarity effects with dyadic response surface analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(6), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2169

78.

Shanock

L. R.

Baran

B. E.

Gentry

W. A.

Pattison

S. C.

Heggestad

E. D.

(2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4

79.

Shoikhedbrod

Rosen

N. O.

Corsini-Munt

Harasymchuk

Impett

E. A.

Muise

(2023). Being responsive and self-determined when it comes to sex: How and why sexual motivation is associated with satisfaction and desire in romantic relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 60(8), 1113–1125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2130132

80.

Snell

W. E.

Papini

D. R.

(1989). The sexuality scale: An instrument to measure sexual-esteem, sexual-depression, and sexual-preoccupation. The Journal of Sex Research, 26(2), 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498909551510

81.

Sprecher

(1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551915

82.

Sprecher

(2018). Inequity leads to distress and a reduction in satisfaction: Evidence from a priming experiment. Journal of Family Issues, 39(1), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16637098

83.

Srivastava

Beer

J. S.

(2005). How self-evaluations relate to being liked by others: Integrating sociometer and attachment perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 966–977. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.966

84.

Stephenson

K. R.

Pickworth

Jones

P. S.

(2024). Gender differences in the association between sexual satisfaction and quality of life. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 39(2), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2021.2004309

85.

Štulhofer

Buško

Brouillard

(2010). Development and bicultural validation of the New sexual satisfaction scale. Journal of Sex Research, 47(4), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903100561

86.

Tavares

I. M.

Barros

Rosen

N. O.

Heiman

J. R.

Nobre

P. J.

(2022). Is expectant couples’ similarity in attitudes to sex during pregnancy linked to their sexual well-being? A dyadic study with response surface analysis. The Journal of Sex Research, 59(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1946672

87.

Tomaszewska

Schuster

Krahé

(2023). Young adults’ understanding of sexual competence: A qualitative study with German university students. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 20(1), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-022-00767-y

88.

Velten

Brailovskaia

Margraf

(2019). Exploring the impact of personal and partner traits on sexuality: Sexual excitation, sexual inhibition, and big five predict sexual function in couples. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(3), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1491521

89.

Velten

Margraf

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

90.

Vowels

L. M.

Roos

C. A.

Mehulić

O’Dean

S. M.

Sánchez-Hernández

M. D.

(2022). What does it mean to be responsive to a partner’s sexual needs? Toward a definition of sexual need responsiveness. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02432-2

91.

Weber

Hopwood

C. J.

Denissen

J. J. A.

Bleidorn

(2024). Self-esteem and sexual experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241257355

92.

Wehrli

F. S. V.

Weitkamp

Bodenmann

(2025). Development and preliminary validation of the dyadic sexual self-esteem inventory. Current Psychology, 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07383-0

93.

Wiederman

M. W.

(2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13(4), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480705278729

94.

Wiltink

Hauck

E. W.

Phädayanon

Weidner

Beutel

M. E.

(2003). Validation of the German version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) in patients with erectile dysfunction, Peyronie’s disease and controls. International Journal of Impotence Research, 15(3), 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900997

The role of equity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem for sexual health in romantic couples

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Sexual self-esteem

Received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem

The role of equity theory for partner contributions to sexual self-esteem

The aim of this study

Method

Participants

Procedure

Measures

Sociodemographic information

Received and provided partner contributions to sexual self-esteem

Equity of partner contributions to sexual self-esteem

Sexual satisfaction

Sexual function

Statistical analyses

Dyadic response surface analysis

Overview of dyadic response surface analysis surface values

Evidence of equity effects within dyadic response surface analysis

Power analysis for dyadic response surface analysis

Results

Preliminary analyses

Are there equity effects in the association between partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and sexual satisfaction and sexual function?

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and sexual satisfaction

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-esteem and sexual function

How is equity in partner contributions to sexual self-worth versus sexual self-efficacy associated with sexual satisfaction and sexual function?

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-worth and sexual satisfaction

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy and sexual satisfaction

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-worth and sexual function

Equity in partner contributions to sexual self-efficacy and sexual function

Discussion

Limitations and future research

Implications for clinical practice and conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Open science statement

Ethical statement

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References