Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 541–550

Perceptions of Partner Sexual Satisfaction in Heterosexual Committed Relationships

  • Erin E. Fallis
  • Uzma S. Rehman
  • Christine Purdon
Original Paper

Abstract

Sexual script theory implies that partners’ ability to gauge one another’s level of sexual satisfaction is a key factor in determining their own sexual satisfaction. However, relatively little research has examined how well partners gauge one another’s sexual satisfaction and the factors that predict their accuracy. We hypothesized that the degree of bias in partner judgments of sexual satisfaction would be associated with quality of sexual communication. We further posited that emotion recognition would ameliorate the biases in judgment such that poor communicators with good emotion recognition would make less biased judgments of partner satisfaction. Participants were 84 married or cohabiting heterosexual couples who completed measures of their own and their partners’ sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, quality of communication about sexual issues within their relationships, and emotion recognition ability. Results indicated that both men and women tended to be accurate in perceiving their partners’ levels of sexual satisfaction (i.e., partner perceptions were strongly correlated with self-reports). One sample t-tests indicated that men’s perceptions of their partners’ sexual satisfaction were biased such that they slightly underestimated their partners’ levels of sexual satisfaction whereas women neither over- nor underestimated their partners’ sexual satisfaction. However, the gender difference was not significant. Bias was attenuated by quality of sexual communication, which interacted with emotion recognition ability such that when sexual communication was good, there was no significant association between emotion recognition ability and bias, but when sexual communication was poor, better emotion recognition ability was associated with less bias.

Keywords

Couples Sexual satisfaction Sexual communication Emotion recognition 

References

  1. Ahlborg, T., Dahlof, L.-G., & Hallberg, L. (2005). Quality of the intimate and sexual relationship in first-time parents six months after delivery. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 167–174. doi:10.1080/00224490509552270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test revised version: A study with normal adults and adults with Asperger Syndrome or high-functioning Autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241–251. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00715.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beach, S. R., & Broderick, J. E. (1983). Commitment: A variable in women’s response to marital therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 11, 16–24. doi:10.1080/01926188308250143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byers, E. S., & Demmons, S. (1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 180–189. doi:10.1080/00224499909551983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Catania, J. A. (1998). Dyadic Sexual Communication scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (2nd ed.) (pp. 129–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1991). Sexuality and communication in close relationships. In W. R. Cupach & S. Metts (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 93–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Dunn, K. M., Croft, P. R., & Hackett, G. I. (2000). Satisfaction in the sex life of a general population sample. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 25, 141–151. doi:10.1080/009262300278542.Google Scholar
  9. Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kontula, O. (1997). Correlates of increased sexual satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 399–419. doi:10.1023/A:1024591318836.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Heyman, R. E., Sayers, S. L., & Bellack, A. S. (1994). Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: An empirical comparison of three measures. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 432–446. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.8.4.432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hudson, W. W. (1993). Index of sexual satisfaction. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (2nd ed.) (pp. 512–513). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Hudson, W. W., Harrison, D. F., & Crosscup, P. C. (1981). A short-form scale to measure sexual discord in dyadic relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 17, 157–174. doi:10.1080/00224498109551110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2, 267–285. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00092.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2005). Dyadic assessment of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 169–181. doi:10.1177/0265407505050942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of long-term heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 3–14. doi:10.1080/00224490802398399.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Metts, S. & Cupach, W. R. (1989). The role of communication in human sexuality. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal context (pp. 139–161). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Miller, S. A., & Byers, E. S. (2004). Actual and desired duration of foreplay and intercourse: Discordance and misperceptions within heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 301–309. doi:10.1080/00224490409552237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Bellavia, G., Griffin, D. W., & Dolderman, D. (2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 563–581. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.563.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151. doi:10.2307/351302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Purnine, D. M., & Carey, M. P. (1997). Interpersonal communication and sexual adjustment: The roles of understanding and agreement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1017–1025. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.65.6.1017.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you’re talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 80–96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120. doi:10.1007/BF01542219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Simms, D. C., & Byers, E. S. (2009). Interpersonal perceptions of desired frequency of sexual behaviours. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18, 15–25. http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/122833.Google Scholar
  25. Watts, A. J., & Douglas, J. M. (2006). Interpreting facial expression and communication competence following severe traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology, 20, 707–722. doi:10.1080/02687030500489953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wiederman, M. W. (1999). Volunteer bias in sexuality research using college student participants. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 59–66. doi:10.1080/00224499909551968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin E. Fallis
    • 1
  • Uzma S. Rehman
    • 1
  • Christine Purdon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations