Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dyadic Coorientation: Reexamination of a Method for Studying Interpersonal Communication

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

Abstract

The coorientation method is used rarely to studycommunication in sexual dyads or other relationships dueto uncertainty regarding the optimal way to calculatekey variables (i.e., understanding, agreement, and perceived agreement). We examined thismatter empirically, assessing sexual coorientation among76 cohabiting couples; 152 adults completed measures oftheir own and their partners' sexual preferences as well as sexual satisfaction. Three sets ofsexual preference coorientation variables werecalculated using correlational, difference score, andcombined approaches. These variables were thencorrelated with the sexual adjustment measures todetermine which coorientation approach had greaterexplanatory power across several hypothesizedrelationships. Results clearly favored the correlationalmethod. We identify several potential applications of thecoorientation method and provide guidelines for itsapplication to research on dyadicrelationships.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Bentler, P. M. (1968a). Heterosexual behavior–I. Males. Behav. Res. Ther. 6: 21-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1968b). He terosexual behavior–II. Females. Behav. Res. Ther. 6: 27-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Applying the interpersonal perception model to the real world: An introduction. Am. Behav. Sci. 16: 465-468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on "understanding of others" and "assumed similarity. " Psychol. Bull. 52: 177-193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., and Gleser, G. C. (1953). Assessing similarity between profiles. Psychol. Bull. 50: 456-473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. D. (1993). A comparison of various measure s of family sexual communication: Psychometric properties, validity, and behavioral corre lates. J. Sex Res. 30: 229-238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, E., Anderson, C., and Rubinstein, D. (1978). Frequency of sexual dysfunction in "normal" couples. New Engl. J. Med. 299: 111-115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, E., Anderson, C., and Rubinstein, D. (1980). Marital role ideals and perception of marital role behavior in distressed and nondistressed couples. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 6: 55-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, W. W., Harrison, D. F., and Crosscup, P. C. (1981). A short-form scale to measure sexual discord in dyadic relationships. J. Sex Res. 17: 157-174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, H. S. (1974). The New Sex Therapy: Active Treatment of Sexual Dysfunctions. Times Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilmann, P. R., Mills, K. H., Caid, C., Bella, B., Davidson, E., and Wanlass, R. (1984). The sexual interaction of women with secondary orgasmic dysfunction and their partners. Arch. Sex. Behav. 13: 41-49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., and Acitelli, L. K. (1994). Measuring similarity in couples. J. Fam. Psychol. 8: 417-431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiblum, S. R., and Rosen, R. C. (1979). The weekend workshop for dysfunctional couples: Assets and limitations. J. Sex Marital Ther. 5: 57-69.

    Google Scholar 

  • LoPiccolo, J., and Friedman, J. M. (1988). Broad-spectrum treatment of low sexual desire: Integration of cognitive, behavioral, and systemic therapy. In Leiblum, S. R., and Rosen, R. C. (eds.), Sexual Desire Disorders, Guilford, New York, pp. 313-347.

    Google Scholar 

  • LoPiccolo, J., and Steger, J. (1974). The Sexual Interaction Inventory: A new instrument for assessment of sexual dysfunction. Arch. Sex. Behav. 3: 585-595.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, J. M., and Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. Am. Behav. Sci. 16: 469-499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, E. P., and Joanning, H. H. (1985). Enhancing marital sexuality: An evaluation of a program for the sexual enrichment of normal couples. J. Sex Marital Ther. 11: 157-164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychol. Rev. 60: 393-404.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Keefe, G. J. (1973). Coorientation variables in family study. Am. Behav. Sci. 16: 513-536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, V., and Roberts, D. F. (1987). Public opinion processes. In Berger, C. R., and Chaffee, S. H. (eds.), Handbook of Communication Science, Sage, Newbury Park, pp. 781-816).

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnine, D. M., and Carey, M. P. (1997). Interpersonal communication and sexual adjustment: The roles of understanding and agreement. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 65: 1017-1025.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnine, D. M., and Carey, M. P. (1998). Age and gender differences in sexual behavior pre ferences: A follow-up report. J. Sex Marital Ther. 24: 27-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnine, D. M., Carey, M. P., and Jorgensen, R. S. (1994). Gender differences regarding preference s for specific heterosexual practices. J. Sex Marital Ther. 20: 271-287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnine, D. M., Carey, M. P., and Jorgensen, R. S. (1996). The Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences: Development and psychometric evaluation. Behav. Res. Ther. 34: 375-387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnine, D. M., Carey, M. P., and Jorgensen, R.S.(1998). Inventory of Dyadic He terosexual Preferences and Inventory of Dyadic Heterosexual Preferences-Other. In Davis, C. M., Yarber, W. L., Bauserman, R., Schreer, G., and Davis, S. L. (eds.), Sexually-Related Measures: A Compendium. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. L., Clifford, R. E., and Eisenman, R. (1987). Communication of sexual preferences in married couples. Bull. Psychonom. Soc. 25: 58-60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, R. B., and Graham, E. E. (1994). Measures of interpersonal communication. In Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., and Sypher, H. E. (eds.), Communication Research Measures: A Sourcebook, Guilford, New York, pp. 21-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. J., Hastorf, A. H., and Ellsworth, P. C. (1970). Person Perception, London. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stata Corporation. (1995). Stata Statistical Software: Release 4.0, Stata Corporation, College Station, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steeves, H. L. (1984). Developing coorientation measures for small groups. Commun. Monogr. 51: 185-192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmadge, L. D., and Talmadge, W. C. (1986). Relational sexuality: An understanding of low sexual desire. J. Sex Marital Ther. 12: 3-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhulst, J., and Heiman, J. R. (1988). A systems perspective on sexual desire. In Leiblum, S. R., and Rosen, R. C. (eds.), Sexual Desire Disorders, Guilford, New York, pp. 243-267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wackman, D. B. (1973). Interpersonal communication and coorientation. Am. Behav. Sci. 16: 537-550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wincze, J. P., and Carey, M. P. (1991). Sexual Dysfunction: A Guide for Assessment and Treatment. Guilford, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Daniel M. Purnine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael P. Carey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Purnine, D.M., Carey, M.P. Dyadic Coorientation: Reexamination of a Method for Studying Interpersonal Communication. Arch Sex Behav 28, 45–62 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018741605446

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018741605446

Search

Navigation