Sexual Afterglow: How Long Does It Last and Does It Vary by the Relative Importance of Sex,Who Initiates It,or Who Rejects It?

Abstract

Pioneering research suggested that sexual afterglow (lingering sexual satisfaction following an act of sex) lasts 2 but not 3 days and predicts subsequent relationship satisfaction. Nevertheless, recent research highlights the importance of considering the differential impacts of sexual acceptance and rejection. We used 2-week, daily-diary data from 576 participants to demonstrate that sexual afterglow lasted at least 1 day on average, particularly following partner-initiated and mutually initiated sex, and did not depend on individual differences in the importance of sex or sexual rejection, though negative aftereffects of sexual rejection lasted 3 days. Furthermore, lingering sexual (dis)satisfaction often predicted subsequent relationship satisfaction. Mini-meta-analyses of the current data with all published data suggest sexual afterglow lasts at least 1 day and predicts relationship quality whereas sexual rejection did not reliably produce aftereffects. Conclusions focus future research on other factors that may contribute to differences in sexual afterglow and reactions to other discrete events.

Keywords

sex sexual satisfaction sexual afterglow romantic relationships

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Bolger

Laurenceau

J. P.

(2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.

Curran

P. J.

Hussong

A. M.

(2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14(2), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015914

Davis

Shaver

P. R.

Vernon

M. L.

(2004). Attachment style and subjective motivations for sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 1076–1090. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264794

Dobson

Zhu

Balzarini

R. N.

Campbell

(2020). Responses to sexual advances and satisfaction in romantic relationships: Is yes good and no bad? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(6), 801–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619888884

Finkel

E. J.

Eastwick

P. W.

Reis

H. T.

(2015). Best research practices in psychology: Illustrating epistemological and pragmatic considerations with the case of relationship science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000007

French

J. E.

McNulty

J. K.

Makhanova

Maner

J. K.

Eckel

L. A.

Nikonova

Meltzer

A. L.

(2022). An empirical investigation of the roles of biological, relational, cognitive, and emotional factors in explaining sex differences in dyadic sexual desire. Biological Psychology, 174, 108421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2022.108421

Goh

J. X.

Hall

J. A.

Rosenthal

(2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1

10.

Hazan

Shaver

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

11.

Inzlicht

Tullett

A. M.

Legault

Kang

S. K.

(2011). Lingering effects: Stereotype threat hurts more than you think. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5(1), 227–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01031.x

12.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341

13.

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

14.

Mark

K. P.

Vowels

L. M.

Murray

S. H.

(2018). The impact of attachment style on sexual satisfaction and sexual desire in a sexually diverse sample. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(5), 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2017.1405310

15.

Matuschek

Kliegl

Vasishth

Baayen

Bates

(2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001

16.

McNulty

J. K.

Maxwell

J. A.

Meltzer

A. L.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2019). Sex-differentiated changes in sexual desire predict marital dissatisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 2473–2489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01471-6

17.

McNulty

J. K.

Wenner

C. A.

Fisher

T. D.

(2016). Longitudinal associations among relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of sex in early marriage. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10508-014-0444-6

18.

Meltzer

A. L.

Makhanova

Hicks

L. L.

French

J. E.

McNulty

J. K.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2017). Quantifying the sexual afterglow: The lingering benefits of sex and their implications for pair-bonded relationships. Psychological Science, 28(5), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617691361

19.

Meltzer

A. L.

McNulty

J. K.

(2016). Who is having more and better sex? The Big Five as predictors of sex in marriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.05.010

20.

Muise

Schimmack

Impett

E. A.

(2016). Sexual frequency predicts greater well-being, but more is not always better. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(4), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615616462

21.

Park

H. G.

Leonhardt

N. D.

Johnson

M. D.

Muise

Busby

D. M.

Hanna-Walker

V. R.

. . .Impett

E. A

(2023). Sexual satisfaction predicts future changes in relationship satisfaction and sexual frequency: New insights from within-person associations over time. Personality Science, 4, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.11869

22.

Park

Impett

E. A.

MacDonald

(2021). Generalizability of results from dyadic data: Participation of one versus two members of a romantic couple is associated with breakup likelihood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(2), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220920167

23.

Petersen

J. L.

Hyde

J. S.

(2011). Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors: A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. Journal of Sex Research, 48(2–3), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.551851

24.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306

25.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. University Press.

26.

Schmidt

F. L.

Hunter

J. E.

(2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage.

27.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Nelligan

J. S.

(1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434

28.

Viechtbauer

(2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03

29.

Zhao

McNulty

J. K.

Turner

J. A.

Hicks

L. L.

Meltzer

A. L.

(2022). Evidence of a bidirectional association between daily sexual and relationship satisfaction that is moderated by daily stress. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(8), 2791–3806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02399-0

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB