How Is Sexual Communication Different from Nonsexual Communication? A Moment-by-Moment Analysis of Discussions Between Romantic Partners
Our goal was to investigate whether systematic differences exist in how couples discuss sexual versus nonsexual conflicts in their relationships and to explore the nature of these differences. We compared sexual and nonsexual conflict discussions on two key dimensions of interpersonal behavior: warmth and dominance. Past theoretical work suggests that there are unique barriers to sexual communication that lead partners to perceive such communication as being more threatening to the relationship and to the self (Metts & Cupach, 1989). Empirical findings have supported this perspective by demonstrating that sexual communication tends to be avoided by couples (e.g., Byers, 2011). Extending this notion further, we reasoned that relationship partners should behave in ways to mitigate the increased perceived threat associated with sexual communication, leading to observable differences in how couples navigate sexual versus nonsexual relationship conflicts. We recruited a sample of 115 couples in established relationships and asked each couple to engage in two recorded interactions: one sexual and one nonsexual conflict discussion. Subsequently, each partner was coded continuously on the two dimensions of warmth and dominance. We found a number of differences in how couples discussed sexual versus nonsexual conflicts. Further, couples reported higher levels of anxiety in advance of sexual, as compared to nonsexual, conflict discussions. However, anxiety did not mediate the observed differences in communication. The theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed.
KeywordsSexual communication Interpersonal theory Romantic relationships
This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada awarded to Uzma Rehman.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Uzma S. Rehman, Ivana Lizdek, Erin E. Fallis, and Siobhan Sutherland declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2010). Intimate relationships. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
- Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
- Cundiff, J. M., Smith, T. W., Butner, J., Critchfield, K. L., & Nealey-Moore, J. (2015). Affiliation and control in marital interaction: Interpersonal complementarity is present but is not associated with affect or relationship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 35–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Diamond, L. M. (2013). ”Where’s the sex in relationship research”. Let’s talk about sex: Multidisciplinary discussions. Sydney: Cape Breton University.Google Scholar
- Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (1997). The relationships between sexual problems, communication, and sexual satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6(4), 277–283.Google Scholar
- 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
- Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2013). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.Google Scholar
- Rehman, U. S., Janssen, E., Newhouse, S., Heiman, J., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Fallis, E., & Rafaeli, E. (2011). Marital satisfaction and communication behaviors during sexual and nonsexual conflict discussions in newlywed couples: A pilot study. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 37(2), 94–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar