Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 44, Issue 6, pp 1609–1620 | Cite as

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

  • William A. FisherEmail author
  • Kelly L. Donahue
  • J. Scott Long
  • Julia R. Heiman
  • Raymond C. Rosen
  • Michael S. Sand
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Sexual satisfaction Relationship happiness Dyadic analysis 

Notes

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.

References

  1. Allison, P. D. (1999). Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods & Research, 28, 186–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260–266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal relationships, 15(1), 141–154.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Graubard, B., & Korn, E. (1999). Predictive margins with survey data. Biometrics, 55, 652–659.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Heiman, J. R. (2002). Sexual dysfunction: Overview of prevalence, etiological factors, and treatments. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 73–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kashy, D. A., Campbell, L., & Harris, D.W. (2006). Advances in data analytic approaches for relationships research: The broad utility of hierarchical linear modeling.Google Scholar
  17. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  18. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Long, J. S. (2014). Group comparisons in logit and probit using predicted probabilities. Manuscript in preparation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seal, D. W. (1997). Interpartner concordance of self-reported sexual behavior among college dating couples. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage Family, 38, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. StataCorp. (2013). Stata: Release 13. Statistical Software. College Station, TX: StataCorp.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zou, G., & Donner, A. (2004). Confidence interval estimation of the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary outcome data. Biometrics, 60, 807–811.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • William A. Fisher
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kelly L. Donahue
    • 2
  • J. Scott Long
    • 3
  • Julia R. Heiman
    • 4
  • Raymond C. Rosen
    • 5
  • Michael S. Sand
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Pediatrics, Section of Adolescent MedicineIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of SociologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  4. 4.Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and ReproductionIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  5. 5.New England Research InstitutesWatertownUSA

Personalised recommendations