Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individual and Partner Correlates of Sexual Satisfaction and Relationship Happiness in Midlife Couples: Dyadic Analysis of the International Survey of Relationships

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current research reports a dyadic analysis of sexual satisfaction, relationship happiness, and correlates of these couple outcomes in a large multinational dataset consisting of 1,009 midlife heterosexual couples (2,018 individuals) recruited in Japan, Brazil, Germany, Spain, and the United States (Heiman et al., 2011). Actor-Partner Interdependence Models (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) identified correlates of sexual satisfaction that included individuals’ reports of good health; frequent kissing, cuddling, and caressing; frequent recent sexual activity; attaching importance to one’s own and one’s partner’s orgasm; better sexual functioning; and greater relationship happiness. Even after controlling for individual-level effects, partners’ reports of good health; frequent kissing, cuddling, and caressing; frequent recent sexual activity; attaching importance to one’s own and one’s partner’s orgasm; better sexual functioning; and greater relationship happiness contributed significantly to predicting and understanding individuals’ sexual satisfaction. Correlates of relationship happiness included individuals’ reports of good health; frequent kissing, cuddling, and caressing; frequent recent sexual activity; attaching importance to one’s own and one’s partner’s orgasm; better sexual functioning; and greater sexual satisfaction, and once again, even after controlling for individual-level effects, partners’ reports of each of these correlates contributed significantly to predicting and understanding individuals’ relationship happiness. Interactions of individual and partner effects with participant gender are also reported. Current results demonstrate empirically that the partner “matters” to an individual’s sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness and indicate that a comprehensive understanding of factors contributing to these couple outcomes requires a couple-level research strategy. Partner effects, even when controlling for individual effects, were consistently observed, and explanation of sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness always depended on identifying and understanding mutual and concurrent individual and partner influences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The interclass correlation for reported relationship duration within a couple was 0.99. A total of 109 couples differed in their reported relationship duration. For 81 of these couples, the reported difference was 1 year, and the average difference among all discrepant couples was 0.43 years. For discrepant couples, we used the average of couple’s reports.

  2. Dichotomization of the sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness responses was based upon the skewed nature of the distributions of these outcomes which is not uncommon in research on couple relationships. The response distributions obtained were deemed to pose more challenges to meaningful statistical analysis than the dichotomization of the sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness outcomes and potential loss of information that dichotomization entails. The dichotomous outcomes created retain clearly anchored conceptual meaning that is faithful to the wording of the items, to our analytic aims, and to the interpretation of our results. “Sexually satisfied” individuals (comprising “very satisfied” and “moderately satisfied” individuals) are indeed reporting that they are sexually satisfied and they differ from those who report that they are not sexually satisfied (comprising “very dissatisfied,” “moderately dissatisfied,” “dissatisfied,” and “equally satisfied and dissatisfied” individuals). Those who are happy with their relationships (comprising “happy,” “very happy,” “extremely happy,” and “perfect” ratings of relationship happiness) indeed report being happy with their relationships and differ from those who indeed report that they are not happy with their relationships (comprising “very unhappy,” “fairly unhappy,” and “a little unhappy”). Balancing the challenges of the distributions of sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness responses and the clearly anchored and meaningful dichotomization of these variables, we judged dichotomization to be the best solution.

References

  • Allison, P. D. (1999). Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods & Research, 28, 186–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260–266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientation, sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929–943.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal relationships, 15(1), 141–154.

  • Byers, E. S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in long term relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 113–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Catania, J. A., Gibson, D. R., Chitwood, D. D., & Coates, T. J. (1990). Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: Influences on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 339–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, J., Rubio-Aurioles, E., McCabe, M., Eardley, I., Speakman, M., Buvat, J., et al. (2008). Integrating couples in ED treatment: Improving the sexual experience of the couple. International Journal of Clinic Practice, 62, 127–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fincham, D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006). Relationship satisfaction. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 579–594). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W. A., Rosen, R. C., Mollen, M., Brock, G., Karlin, G., Pommerville, P., et al. (2005). Improving the sexual quality of life of couples affected by erectile dysfunction: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of vardenafil. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 699–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graubard, B., & Korn, E. (1999). Predictive margins with survey data. Biometrics, 55, 652–659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gulledge, A. K., Gulledge, M. H., & Stahmann, R. F. (2003). Romantic physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J. H., & Wenzel, A. (2006). Theoretical perspectives in the study of close relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 35–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University.

  • Heiman, J. R. (2002). Sexual dysfunction: Overview of prevalence, etiological factors, and treatments. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 73–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heiman, J. R., Long, J. S., Smith, S. N., Fisher, W. A., Sand, M. S., & Rosen, R. C. (2011). Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness in midlife and older couples in five countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 741–753.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kashy, D. A., Campbell, L., & Harris, D.W. (2006). Advances in data analytic approaches for relationships research: The broad utility of hierarchical linear modeling.

  • Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., Glasser, D. B., Kang, J. H., Wang, T., Levinson, B., et al. (2006). A cross-national study of subjective sexual well-being among older women and men: Findings from the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 145–161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S. (2014). Group comparisons in logit and probit using predicted probabilities. Manuscript in preparation, Indiana University.

  • Mansfield, K. P., Koch, P. B., & Voda, A. M. (1998). Qualities midlife women desire in their sexual relationships and their changing sexual response. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, J. M., Pouget, E. R., & Tortu, S. (2006). A guide for multilevel modeling of dyadic data with binary outcomes using SAS PROC NLMIXED. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50, 3663–3680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 37–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabsigh, R., … D’Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 26, 191–208.

  • Rosen, R. C., Fisher, W. A., Eardley, I., Niederberger, C., Nadel, A., & Sand, M. (2004). The The Multinational Men’s Attitudes Life Events Sexuality (MALES) Study: I. Prevalence of erectile dysfunction and related health concerns in the general population. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 20, 607–617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, R. C., Riley, A., Wagner, G., Osterloh, I. H., Kirkpatrick, J., & Mishra, A. (1997). The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology, 49, 822–830.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H., & Campbell, L. (2011). Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict heightened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 224–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury, C., & Fisher, W. A. (2014). Did you come? A qualitative exploration of gender differences in beliefs, experiences, and concerns surrounding female coital orgasm occurrence in heterosexual partnerships. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 616–631.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sand, M., Fisher, W. A., Rosen, R., Brock, G., & Goldstein, I. (2005). The sexual function of women whose partners have sexual dysfunction. In C. Meston, S. Davis, A. Traish, & I. Goldstein (Eds.), Women’s sexual function and dysfunction: Study, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 314–322). London: Taylor and Francis, Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, D. M., Fisher, W. A., Hewitt, E. C., & Clayton, J. P. (1985). A method of empirically assessing volunteer selection effects: Recruitment procedures and response to erotica. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1703–1712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seal, D. W. (1997). Interpartner concordance of self-reported sexual behavior among college dating couples. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shifren, J., Monz, B., Russo, P. A., Segreti, A., & Johannes, C. B. (2008). Sexual problems and distress in United States women: Prevalence and correlates. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 112, 970–978.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage Family, 38, 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2006). Sexual satisfaction and sexual expression as predictors of relationship satisfaction and stability. In J. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 235–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp. (2013). Stata: Release 13. Statistical Software. College Station, TX: StataCorp.

  • van Anders, S. M., Edelstein, R. S., Wade, R. M., & Samples-Steele, C. R. (2013). Descriptive experiences and sexual vs. nurturant aspects of cuddling between adult romantic partners. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 553–560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & Kuo, P. X. (2011). The steroid/peptide theory of social bonds: Integrating testosterone and peptide responses for classifying social behavioral contexts. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 1265–1275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zou, G., & Donner, A. (2004). Confidence interval estimation of the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary outcome data. Biometrics, 60, 807–811.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by an independent investigator initiated grant from Bayer-Schering Inc (J. R. Heiman, PI). The design, conceptualization, analysis, and interpretation of results are the sole product of the co-authors and have not been subject to editorial influence of Bayer-Schering. The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions of Lorne Campbell regarding this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5C2, Canada

    William A. Fisher

  2. Department of Pediatrics, Section of Adolescent Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Kelly L. Donahue

  3. Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    J. Scott Long

  4. Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Julia R. Heiman

  5. New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA, USA

    Raymond C. Rosen & Michael S. Sand

Authors
  1. William A. Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelly L. Donahue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Scott Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julia R. Heiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raymond C. Rosen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael S. Sand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William A. Fisher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fisher, W.A., Donahue, K.L., Long, J.S. et al. Individual and Partner Correlates of Sexual Satisfaction and Relationship Happiness in Midlife Couples: Dyadic Analysis of the International Survey of Relationships. Arch Sex Behav 44, 1609–1620 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0426-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0426-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation