Sexual Satisfaction Mediates the Effects of the Quality of Dyadic Sexual Communication on the Degree of Perceived Sexual Desire Discrepancy
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The Beneficial Role of Sexual Communication in Sexual Satisfaction
1.2. The Effect of Sexual Communication and Sexual Satisfaction on Sexual Desire
1.3. Aims and Hypothesis
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants and Procedure
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Quality of Dyadic Sexual Communication
2.2.2. Sexual Satisfaction
2.2.3. Degree of Perceived Sexual Desire Discrepancy
2.2.4. Other Measures
2.3. Strategic Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Descriptives and Correlations
3.2. Mediation Model
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mark, K.P. The relative impact of individual sexual desire and couple desire discrepancy on satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. 2012, 27, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mark, K.P.; Murray, S.H. Gender differences in desire discrepancy as a predictor of sexual and relationship satisfaction in a college sample of heterosexual romantic relationships. J. Sex. Marital. Ther. 2012, 38, 198–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.M.; Vanhoutte, B.; Nazroo, J.; Pendleton, N. Sexual health and positive subjective well-being in partnered older men and women. J. Gerontol. 2016, 71, 698–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ellison, C.R. A research inquiry into some American women’s sexual concerns and problems. Women Ther. 2002, 24, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewitte, M.; Carvalho, J.; Corona, G.; Limoncin, E.; Pascoal, P.; Reisman, Y.; Štulhofer, A. Sexual desire discrepancy: A position statement of the European Society for Sexual Medicine. Sex. Med. 2020, 8, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, J.J.; Muise, A.; Barranti, M.; Mark, K.P.; Rosen, N.O.; Harasymchuk, C.; Impett, E. Are couples more satisfied when they match in sexual desire? New insights from response surface analyses. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 2021, 12, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vowels, L.M.; Mark, K.P. Strategies for Mitigating Sexual Desire Discrepancy in Relationships. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2020, 49, 1017–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zilbergeld, B.; Ellison, C.R. Desire discrepancies and arousal problems in sex therapy. In Principles and Practice of Sex Therapy; Leiblum, S.R., Pervin, L.A., Eds.; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 65–101. [Google Scholar]
- Meston, C.M.; Buss, D.M. Why humans have sex. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2007, 36, 477–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vannier, S.A.; O’Sullivan, L.F. Sex without desire: Characteristics of occasions of sexual compliance in young adults’ committed relationships. J. Sex. Res. 2010, 47, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wood, J.M.; Koch, P.B.; Mansfield, P.K. Women’s sexual desire: A feminist critique. J. Sex. Res. 2006, 43, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Santtila, P.; Wager, I.; Witting, K.; Harlaar, N.; Jern, P.; Johansson, A.D.A.; Sandnabba, N.K. Discrepancies between sexual desire and sexual activity: Gender differences and associations with relationship satisfaction. J. Sex Marital. Ther. 2007, 34, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sutherland, S.E.; Rehman, U.S.; Fallis, E.E.; Goodnight, J.A. Understanding the phenomenon of sexual desire discrepancy in couples. Can. J. Hum. Sex. 2015, 24, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bridges, S.K.; Horne, S.G. Sexual satisfaction and desire discrepancy in same sex women’s relationships. J. Sex Marital. Ther. 2007, 33, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Murray, S.H.; Sutherland, O.; Milhausen, R.R. Young women’s descriptions of sexual desire in long-term relationships. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. 2012, 27, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willoughby, B.J.; Farero, A.M.; Busby, D.M. Exploring the effects of sexual desire discrepancy among married couples. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2014, 43, 551–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mark, K.P. Sexual desire discrepancy. Curr. Sex. Health Rep. 2015, 7, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metts, S.; Cupach, W.R. The role of communication in human sexuality. In Human Sexuality: The Societal and Interpersonal Context; McKinney, K., Sprecher, S., Eds.; Ablex: Norwood, NJ, USA, 1989; pp. 139–161. [Google Scholar]
- Harris, S.; Monahan, J.L.; Hovick, S.R. Communicating new sexual desires and the factors that influence message directness. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. 2014, 29, 405–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snell, W.E.; Belk, S.S.; Papini, D.R.; Clark, S. Development and validation of the sexual self-disclosure scale. Ann. Sex. Res. 1989, 2, 307–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wheeless, L.R.; Wheeless, V.E.; Baus, R. Sexual communication, communication satisfaction, and solidarity in the developmental stages of intimate relationships. West. J. Commun. 1984, 48, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catania, J.A. Help-Seeking: An Avenue for Adult Sexual Development. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Meston, C.; Trapnell, P. Outcomes assessment: Development and validation of a five-factor sexual satisfaction and distress scale for women: The sexual satisfaction scale for women (SSS-W). J. Sex. Med. 2005, 2, 66–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Murray, S.H.; Milhausen, R.R. Sexual desire and relationship duration in young men and women. J. Sex Marital. Ther. 2012, 38, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Murray, S.H.; Milhausen, R.R.; Sutherland, O. A qualitative comparison of young women’s maintained versus decreased sexual desire in longer-term relationships. Women Ther. 2014, 37, 319–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, S.; Milhausen, R.; Graham, C.A.; Kuczynski, L. A qualitative exploration of factors that affect sexual desire among men aged 30 to 65 in long-term relationships. J. Sex. Res. 2017, 54, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mallory, A.B.; Stanton, A.M.; Handy, A.B. Couples’ sexual communication and dimensions of sexual function: A meta-analysis. J. Sex. Res. 2019, 56, 882–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kelly, M.P.; Strassberg, D.S.; Turner, C.M. Behavioral assessment of couples’ communication in female orgasmic disorder. J. Sex Marital. Ther. 2006, 32, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Herbenick, D.; Mullinax, M.; Mark, K. Sexual desire discrepancy as a feature, not a bug, of long-term relationships: Women’s self-reported strategies for modulating sexual desire. J. Sex. Med. 2014, 11, 2196–2206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byers, E.S.; Demmons, S. Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships. J. Sex. Res. 1999, 36, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cupach, W.R.; Comstock, J. Satisfaction with sexual communication in marriage: Links to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh 1990, 7, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mark, K.P.; Jozkowski, K.N. The mediating role of sexual and nonsexual communication between relationship and sexual satisfaction in a sample of college-age heterosexual couples. J. Sex Marital Ther. 2013, 39, 410–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrance, K.; Byers, E.S. Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction. Pers. Relatsh. 1995, 2, 267–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yanikkerem, E.; Goker, A.; Ustgorul, S.; Karakus, A. Evaluation of sexual functions and marital adjustment of pregnant women in Turkey. Int. J. Impot. Res. 2016, 28, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MacNeil, S.; Byers, E.S. Dyadic assessment of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh 2005, 22, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacNeil, S.; Byers, E.S. The relationships between sexual problems, communication, and sexual satisfaction. Can. J. Hum. Sex. 1997, 6, 277–284. [Google Scholar]
- Montesi, J.L.; Conner, B.T.; Gordon, E.A.; Fauber, R.L.; Kim, K.H.; Heimberg, R.G. On the relationship among social anxiety, intimacy, sexual communication, and sexual satisfaction in young couples. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2013, 42, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, B.W.; Bodnar, L.E. The equity model of sexuality: Navigating and negotiating the similarities and differences between men and women in sexual behaviour, roles and values. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. 2005, 20, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fay, A. Sexual problems related to poor communication. Med. Asp. Hum. Sex. 1977, 11, 48–63. [Google Scholar]
- Zimmer, D. Interaction patterns and communication skills in sexually distressed, maritally distressed, and normal couples: Two experimental studies. Sex Marital. Ther. 1983, 9, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byers, E.S. The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction: Implications for sex therapy with couples. Can. J. Couns. Psychother. 1999, 33, 95–111. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ590818.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2022).
- Cupach, W.R.; Metts, S. Sexuality and communication in close relationships. In Sexuality in Close Relationships; McKinney, K., Sprecher, S., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1991; pp. 93–110. [Google Scholar]
- Purnine, D.M.; Carey, M.P. Interpersonal communication and sexual adjustment: The roles of understanding and agreement. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1997, 65, 1017–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, L.C.; Narciso, I.; Novo, R.F.; Pereira, C.R. Predicting couple satisfaction: The role of differentiation of self, sexual desire, and intimacy in heterosexual individuals. Sex. Relatsh. Ther. 2014, 29, 390–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mark, K.P.; Lasslo, J.A. Maintaining sexual desire in long-term relationships: A systematic review and conceptual model. J. Sex. Res. 2018, 55, 563–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nimbi, F.M.; Tripodi, F.; Rossi, R.; Navarro-Cremades, F.; Simonelli, C. Male sexual desire: An overview of biological, psychological, sexual, relational, and cultural factors influencing desire. Sex. Med. Rev. 2020, 8, 59–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nimbi, F.M.; Tripodi, F.; Rossi, R.; Michetti, P.M.; Simonelli, C. Which psychosocial variables affect drive the most? Analysis of sexual desire in a group of Italian men. Int. J. Impot. Res. 2019, 31, 410–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catania, J.A. Dyadic sexual communication scale. In Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures; Fisher, T.D., Clive, M.D., Yarber, W.L., Davis, S.L., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; pp. 152–164. ISBN 9781315881089. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, N.; Træen, B.; Štulhofer, A.; Hald, G.M. Mechanisms underlying the association between perceived discrepancy in sexual interest and sexual satisfaction among partnered older adults in four European countries. Eur. J. Ageing 2020, 17, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynolds, W.M. Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. J. Clin. Psychol. 1982, 38, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maino, E.; Aceti, G. Contributo all’adattamento italiano della Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale [Contribution to the Italian adaptation of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale]. TPM–Test Psychom. Methodol. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 4, 81–93. [Google Scholar]
- Manganelli Rattazzi, A.M.; Canova, L.; Marcorin, R. La desiderabilità sociale: Un’analisi di forme brevi della scala di Marlowe e Crowne [Social desirability: An analysis of short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale]. TPM–Test Psychom. Methodol. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 7, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
- Caputo, A. The relationship between gratitude and loneliness: The potential benefits of gratitude for promoting social bonds. Eur. J. Psychol. 2015, 11, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caputo, A. Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: Evidence from an online survey. Univ. Psychol. 2017, 16, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hayes, A.F.; Scharkow, M. The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24, 1918–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vowels, M.J.; Mark, K.P.; Vowels, L.M.; Wood, N.D. Using spectral and cross-spectral analysis to identify patterns and synchrony in couples’ sexual desire. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0205330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Graham, C.A.; Catania, J.A.; Brand, R.; Duong, T.; Canchola, J.A. Recalling sexual behavior: A methodological analysis of memory recall bias via interview using the diary as the gold standard. J. Sex. Res. 2003, 40, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McAuliffe, T.L.; DiFranceisco, W.; Reed, B.R. Effects of question format and collection mode on the accuracy of retrospective surveys of health risk behavior: A comparison with daily sexual activity diaries. Health Psychol. 2007, 26, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rao, A.; Tobin, K.; Davey-Rothwell, M.; Latkin, C.A. Social desirability bias and prevalence of sexual HIV risk behaviors among people who use drugs in Baltimore, Maryland: Implications for identifying individuals prone to underreporting sexual risk behaviors. AIDS Behav. 2017, 21, 2207–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zapien, N. Participation bias and social desirability effects in research on extramarital affairs: Considerations of meaning and implications for sexual behavior research. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2017, 46, 1565–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, K.R.; Grubbs, J.B.; Pargament, K.J.; Exline, J.J. Social desirability bias in pornography-related self-reports: The role of religion. J. Sex. Res. 2018, 55, 381–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botta, D.; Nimbi, F.M.; Tripodi, F.; Silvaggi, M.; Simonelli, C. Are role and gender related to sexual function and satisfaction in men and women practicing BDSM? J. Sex. Med. 2019, 16, 463–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, B.M. The influence of social desirability on sexual behavior surveys: A review. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2022, 51, 1495–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basson, R. Rethinking low sexual desire in women. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2002, 109, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levine, S.B. Reexploring the concept of sexual desire. J. Sex Marital. Ther. 2002, 28, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sprecher, S. Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. J. Sex. Res. 2002, 39, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, B.; Ross, L.W. Maintaining sexual desire and satisfaction in securely bonded couples. Fam. J. 2018, 26, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, S.B.; Ritchie, L.; Knopp, K.; Rhoades, G.K.; Markman, H.J. Sexuality within female same-gender couples: Definitions of sex, sexual frequency norms, and factors associated with sexual satisfaction. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2018, 47, 681–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muise, A.; Schimmack, U.; Impett, E.A. Sexual frequency predicts greater well-being, but more is not always better. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 2016, 7, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variables | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Quality of dyadic Sexual communication | 63.14 | 13.07 | 1 | |||||||||
2. Sexual satisfaction | 21.73 | 6.06 | 0.61 ** | 1 | ||||||||
3. Degree of perceived sexual desire discrepancy | 1.50 | 1.54 | −0.35 ** | −0.38 ** | 1 | |||||||
4. Gender | - | - | −0.06 | −0.00 | 0.03 | 1 | ||||||
5. Age | 28.96 | 8.63 | −0.23 ** | −0.12 * | 0.14 ** | 0.21 ** | 1 | |||||
6. Sexual orientation | - | - | 0.012 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.18 ** | 0.05 | 1 | ||||
7. Relationship duration | 6.03 | 6.29 | −0.27 ** | −0.11 * | 0.19 ** | 0.03 | 0.62 ** | −0.05 | 1 | |||
8. Having a child/children | - | - | −0.19 ** | −0.12 * | 0.10 | −0.05 | 0.50 ** | −0.09 | 0.53 ** | 1 | ||
9. Desire to have a child/children | - | - | 0.15 ** | 0.09 | −0.15 ** | −0.02 | −0.46 ** | −0.11 * | −0.35 ** | −0.31 ** | 1 | |
10. Social desirability | 7.83 | 2.35 | 0.16 ** | 0.21 ** | −0.14 ** | 0.03 | 0.10 | −0.07 | 0.01 | 0.06 | −0.01 | 1 |
Degree of Perceived Sexual Desire Discrepancy | Sexual Satisfaction | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 3 | Model 2 | |||||||
β | SE | 95% CI | β | SE | 95% CI | β | SE | 95% CI | |
Constant | 0.00 | 0.05 | [−0.10, 0.10] | 0.00 | 0.05 | [−0.09, 0.09] | 0.00 | 0.04 | [−0.08, 0.08] |
Quality of dyadic sexual communication | −0.31 *** | 0.05 | [−0.41, −0.20] | −0.14 * | 0.06 | [−0.26, −0.02] | 0.61 *** | 0.04 | [0.52, 0.69] |
Sexual satisfaction | - | - | - | −0.27 *** | 0.06 | [−0.39, −0.15] | - | - | - |
Gender | 0.02 | 0.05 | [−0.09, 0.12] | 0.02 | 0.05 | [−0.08, 0.12] | 0.03 | 0.04 | [−0.06, 0.11] |
Age | −0.02 | 0.07 | [−0.16, 0.12] | −0.03 | 0.07 | [−0.17, 0.10] | −0.05 | 0.06 | [−0.16, 0.07] |
Sexual orientation | 0.00 | 0.05 | [−0.10, 0.10] | 0.01 | 0.05 | [−0.08, 0.11] | 0.05 | 0.04 | [−0.04, 0.13] |
Relationship duration | 0.10 | 0.07 | [−0.03, 0.23] | 0.13* | 0.07 | [0.01, 0.26] | 0.11 * | 0.06 | [0.00, 0.22] |
Having a child/children | −0.02 | 0.06 | [−0.14, 0.10] | −0.03 | 0.06 | [−0.15, 0.08] | −0.05 | 0.05 | [−0.15, 0.05] |
Desire to have a child/children | −0.09 | 0.06 | [−0.20, 0.02] | −0.08 | 0.05 | [−0.19, 0.02] | 0.01 | 0.05 | [−0.08, 0.10] |
Social desirability | −0.09 | 0.05 | [−0.19, 0.01] | −0.06 | 0.05 | [−0.15, 0.04] | 0.12 ** | 0.04 | [0.04, 0.21] |
0.15 *** | 0.19 *** | 0.40 *** | |||||||
F | 7.84 | 9.56 | 29.81 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Galizia, R.; Theodorou, A.; Simonelli, C.; Lai, C.; Nimbi, F.M. Sexual Satisfaction Mediates the Effects of the Quality of Dyadic Sexual Communication on the Degree of Perceived Sexual Desire Discrepancy. Healthcare 2023, 11, 648. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11050648
Galizia R, Theodorou A, Simonelli C, Lai C, Nimbi FM. Sexual Satisfaction Mediates the Effects of the Quality of Dyadic Sexual Communication on the Degree of Perceived Sexual Desire Discrepancy. Healthcare. 2023; 11(5):648. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11050648
Chicago/Turabian StyleGalizia, Roberta, Annalisa Theodorou, Chiara Simonelli, Carlo Lai, and Filippo Maria Nimbi. 2023. "Sexual Satisfaction Mediates the Effects of the Quality of Dyadic Sexual Communication on the Degree of Perceived Sexual Desire Discrepancy" Healthcare 11, no. 5: 648. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11050648