Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Is Sexual Communication Different from Nonsexual Communication? A Moment-by-Moment Analysis of Discussions Between Romantic Partners

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

Abstract

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.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlborg, T., Dahlof, L.-G., & Hallberg, L. R.-M. (2005). Quality of the intimate and sexual relationship in first-time parents six months after delivery. Journal of Sex Research, 42(2), 167–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M., Kunkel, A., & Dennis, M. R. (2011). “Let’s (not) talk about that”: Bridging the past sexual experiences taboo to build healthy romantic relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48(4), 381–391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, S. R., & Broderick, J. E. (1983). Commitment: A variable in women’s response to marital therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 11(4), 16–24. doi:10.1080/01926188308250143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2010). Intimate relationships. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, E. S. (2011). Beyond the birds and the bees and was it good for you?: Thirty years of research on sexual communication. Canadian Psychology (Psychologie Canadienne), 52(1), 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, E. S., & Demmons, S. (1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 36(2), 180–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. S., Mills, J. R., & Corcoran, D. M. (1989). Keeping track of needs and inputs of friends and strangers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(4), 533–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conte, H. R., & Plutchik, R. (1981). A circumplex model for interpersonal personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 701–711.

    Article  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Day, L. C., Muise, A., Joel, S., & Impett, E. A. (2015). To do it or not to do it? How communally motivated people navigate sexual interdependence dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(6), 791–804.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 

  • English, T., John, O. P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Emotion regulation and peer-rated social functioning: A 4-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 780–784.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, E., Anderson, C., & Rubinstein, D. N. (1978). Frequency of sexual dysfunction in normal couples. New England Journal of Medicine, 299(3), 111–115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital interaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 16–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, L. M., Wilson, K. R., Turan, B., Zolotsev, P., Constantino, M. J., & Henderson, L. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 67–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavner, J. A., & Bradbury, T. N. (2012). Why do even satisfied newlyweds eventually go on to divorce? Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lizdek, I., Sadler, P., Woody, E., Ethier, N., & Malet, G. (2012). Capturing the stream of behavior: A computer-joystick method for coding interpersonal behavior continuously over time. Social Science Computer Review, 30(4), 513–521.

    Article  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 

  • 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(2), 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 3–14.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  • 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(6), 1017–1025.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, P., Ethier, N., Gunn, G. R., Duong, D., & Woody, E. (2009). Are we on the same wavelength? Interpersonal complementarity as shared cyclical patterns during interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1005–1020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, K. (2003). Problem-solving conversations in marriage: Does it matter what topics couples discuss. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Theiss, J. A., & Estlein, R. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of the perceived threat of sexual communication: A test of the relational turbulence model. Western Journal of Communication, 78(4), 404–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. S. (1996). An informal history of the interpersonal circumplex tradition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(2), 217–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, H. C., Hanna, M. A., Lavner, J. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2013). Discussion topic and observed behavior in couples’ problem-solving conversations: Do problem severity and topic choice matter? Journal of Family Psychology, 27(2), 330–335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada awarded to Uzma Rehman.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Uzma S. Rehman, Ivana Lizdek, Erin E. Fallis & Siobhan Sutherland

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA

    Jackson A. Goodnight

Authors
  1. Uzma S. Rehman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivana Lizdek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erin E. Fallis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Siobhan Sutherland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jackson A. Goodnight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Uzma S. Rehman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Uzma S. Rehman, Ivana Lizdek, Erin E. Fallis, and Siobhan Sutherland declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rehman, U.S., Lizdek, I., Fallis, E.E. et al. How Is Sexual Communication Different from Nonsexual Communication? A Moment-by-Moment Analysis of Discussions Between Romantic Partners. Arch Sex Behav 46, 2339–2352 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1006-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1006-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation