Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Dec 6.
Published before final editing as: Couple Family Psychol. 2025 Nov 6:10.1037/cfp0000294. doi: 10.1037/cfp0000294

Sexual Communication Links Insecure Adult Attachment With Sexual Satisfaction Among U.S. College Students

Maya E Barrett 1, Evan J Basting 1, Patricia N E Roberson 2, Deborah P Welsh 1
PMCID: PMC12680027  NIHMSID: NIHMS2121808  PMID: 41357549

Abstract

Research suggests that addressing sexual difficulties and concerns may enhance sexual satisfaction and, in turn, improve sexual and relationship outcomes among partnered individuals. This study examined whether perceived quality of sexual communication indirectly links insecure attachment (i.e., anxious and avoidant attachment) to sexual satisfaction among college students. Further, this study assesses sexual satisfaction by measuring both participants’ own sexual satisfaction (i.e., self-sexual satisfaction) as well as their satisfaction derived from their partner’s sexual experiences (i.e., partner-derived sexual satisfaction). This assessment of sexual satisfaction is relatively new within the literature. Participants (N = 352; 84.9% identified as female, 13.6% male, 1.4% gender diverse) were undergraduates from a southeastern university who identified as sexually active and were involved in a sexual relationship and/or romantic relationship. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling and were on average, 18.78 years old. Most participants identified as heterosexual (88.40%) and the remaining identified as bisexual (8.20%), queer (2.30%), gay (1.70%), lesbian (0.60%), and pansexual (0.60%). We collected cross-sectional survey data across three semester waves (Spring 2022, Fall 2022, and Spring 2023) and tested hypotheses using path analysis. Results revealed that both anxious and avoidant attachment were indirectly related to self-sexual satisfaction and partner-derived sexual satisfaction through perceptions of worse sexual communication. Clinicians could consider assessing and targeting attachment-related concerns and sexual communication skills when working with couples and individuals experiencing sexual dissatisfaction. Moreover, future research might explore and develop therapeutic interventions that improve sexual communication strategies, particularly among those high in attachment insecurity.

Keywords: sexual satisfaction, anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, sexual communication

Introduction

Spanning the ages of 18 to 25, emerging adulthood is often categorized as a transitional period between adolescence and adulthood (Arnett, 2011). This developmental phase is marked by sexual exploration, identity development, and the challenge of balancing academic and work responsibilities (Shulman & Connolly, 2013; Patrick et al., 2007). Currently, more emerging adults are entering college than ever before (NCES, 2014). However, college-attending emerging adults represent a distinct subset of this population, as they are more likely to come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds and to identify as white and female (Arnett, 2015). Despite these demographic differences, college students remain a vital population for developmental research, as the defining features of emerging adulthood are often experienced in the context of campus life. Many students are simultaneously navigating their first serious romantic relationships and new sexual experiences while managing demanding academic responsibilities, developmental tasks that are closely linked to identity formation in adulthood (Birnbaum & Finkel, 2015). Importantly, communication patterns formed during emerging adulthood, like many interpersonal habits developed in this phase, carry lasting developmental significance. While some plasticity remains across the lifespan, these early interaction styles often establish norms for future relationships (Felt, 2017). Therefore, examining sexuality and attachment during emerging adulthood is especially vital, as these formative experiences shape relational patterns and well-being throughout life (Nelson & Padilla-Walker, 2013) and represent a critical window for effective intervention.

Attachment and Sexual Satisfaction

While attachment and sexuality have been previously conceptualized as independent, possibly because the fields of sex and couples therapy have traditionally evolved separately (Bergeron et al., 2008), studies have demonstrated that the two are closely related (Schachner & Shaver, 2004). Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1982) suggests that early childhood interactions with caregivers, particularly during times of need, shape individuals’ relational expectations, goals, and beliefs in adulthood. Children who experience nurturing, supportive, and responsive caregiving are more likely to develop a secure attachment style. In contrast, those who face physical or emotional absence, abuse, or neglect from caregivers are more prone to developing an insecure attachment style (Briere et al., 2017). As individuals enter adolescence and emerging adulthood, attachment shifts from parents to peers, with romantic relationships and sexual experiences becoming central to development.

Research has consistently demonstrated that higher levels of anxious and avoidant attachment among cisgender, heterosexual adults predict decreased sexual satisfaction and overall sexual functioning (Brassard et al., 2012; Butzer & Campbell, 2008). More recent studies have suggested that adults high in insecure attachment are more likely to experience decreased sexual interest (Mark, 2018). Avoidantly attached adults, having experienced unresponsive caregiving, often view relationships as unreliable and subsequently struggle with intimacy (Brennan et al., 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Furthermore, among heterosexual adults, avoidant attachment is associated with lower emotional closeness to a partner, and among heterosexual college students, it is linked to fewer expressions of intimacy, all of which can negatively affect sexual satisfaction (Péloquin et al., 2014; Schachner & Shaver, 2004). Another closely related factor is sexual desire. In a sample of sexually diverse adults, those with avoidant attachment reported lower sexual desire compared to their peers high in anxious or secure attachment (Mark et al., 2018). This may reflect a tendency of adults high in avoidant attachment to suppress or distance themselves from their own desire as a means of avoiding emotional closeness with a partner.

Conversely, heterosexual and cisgender adults high in anxious attachment are often preoccupied with fears of rejection or abandonment by their partners (Butzer & Campbell, 2008). For many, sex becomes a critical marker of relationship status, love, and safety (Davis et al., 2006), offering a pathway to intimacy and emotional reassurance (Birnbaum & Reis, 2019; Dewitte, 2012). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, heterosexual college students high in anxious attachment reported perceiving greater health risks compared to peers lower in anxious attachment yet still engaged in more hookups outside of their “pods” and demonstrated reduced caution in their dating behaviors (Peterson et al., 2023). Thus, for college students high in anxious attachment, the drive for intimacy may outweigh perceived threats to physical safety. This tendency is supported by other studies, in which students high in anxious attachment are more likely to engage in unwanted sex out of fear of upsetting or disappointing their partner (Muise et al., 2013), and may avoid discussions about safe sex (i.e., condom use) if they believe it could provoke rejection (Strachman & Impett, 2009). The pressure these students place on sex, as well as on themselves to engage in sex, may explain the reduced sexual satisfaction they subsequently experience.

Attachment and Sexual Communication

Sexual communication involves verbal and nonverbal exchanges between partners about their sexual beliefs, preferences, and behaviors (Warren & Warren, 2015). Effective sexual communication allows couples to negotiate the nature, timing, and context of their sexual activity without anxiety or fear of rejection (Byers, 2011). Yet, many partners struggle to openly express their sexual preferences and dislikes (Byers, 2011). These challenges persist despite extensive evidence linking effective sexual communication to greater sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and overall well-being (MacNeil & Byers, 2009; Mallory, 2022).

These findings extend to college-age heterosexual couples and individuals. When heterosexual college students engage in sexual conversations with their partners, they often report using the discussions for sexual decision making. Students frequently share information about their sexual health (e.g., STI status, birth control), what sexual activities they like and dislike, and their values around casual versus serious sexual relationships (Faulkner & Lannutti, 2010). After these conversations, students report feeling more comfortable with their partners, having a greater understanding of their partner’s sexuality, and feeling satisfied with their ability to express themselves (Faulkner & Lannutti, 2010).

While effective sexual communication has been found to promote sexual satisfaction (Mallory et al., 2022), studies have shown that insecure attachment often interferes with individuals’ ability to engage in such dialogue, compounding their relational difficulties (Timm & Keiley, 2011). Specifically, heterosexual adults high in anxious and avoidant attachment are less likely than heterosexual adults high in secure attachment to disclose their sexual needs, preferences, and dislikes (Davis et al., 2006; Goldsmith et al., 2016), as attachment insecurities appear to make interactions with sexual partners aversive and/or anxiety provoking (Trub et al., 2022). Avoidantly attached individuals tend to view close relationships as untrustworthy and unreliable, leading them to avoid intimacy with their partners (Schrage et al., 2020). When faced with intimacy or affection from their partner, individuals high in avoidant attachment become less responsive, ignore signs of intimacy, and experience negative emotions (Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). As a result, individuals high in avoidant attachment are often reluctant to engage in communication that feels intimate or vulnerable, such as discussing sexual preferences, desires, or issues (Feeney & Noller, 2004; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Anxiously attached individuals may also avoid discussing sexual preferences, but this reluctance stems from a fear that such communication might harm their relationship (Davis et al., 2006). Their desire for approval and affection from their partner often leads them to suppress their own sexual needs, in hopes of avoiding conflict and prioritizing their partner’s desires (Khoury & Findlay, 2014). This pattern appears particularly pronounced among heterosexual women high in anxious attachment, for whom digital communication may amplify risks. Recent research found that these women who use texting (particularly sexting) to escape unpleasant thoughts and emotions related to communication are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior with casual partners (Trub et al., 2022)

Sexual Communication – An Intervening Factor

Given its close associations with both insecure attachment and sexual satisfaction, sexual communication may play an indirect role in the relationship between the two. While previous studies have explored this possibility (e.g., Goldsmith et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2006; Khoury & Findlay, 2014), their findings have been inconsistent. For instance, Davis et al. (2006) found that sexual communication fully mediated the relationship between high levels of avoidant and anxious attachment and lower sexual satisfaction. In contrast, Khoury and Findlay (2014) did not replicate this effect for individuals high in attachment anxiety, suggesting possible variability across dimensions of insecure attachment. These discrepancies, along with the age of the existing studies, highlight the need for further research. Notably, no study to date has attempted to directly replicate or extend these findings within a college student sample, a notable gap considering the unique developmental challenges of emerging adulthood.

College students represent a particularly important population for this investigation, as they experience many hallmarks of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000). For many, college marks the first experience of living away from home and provides opportunities for identity exploration, including sexual identity development. Universities serve as incubators for this growth through both academic challenges and new romantic/sexual relationships that shape self-understanding and partner preferences (Lamont & Roach, 2025; Dalessandro & Wilkins, 2017). As students develop sexual identities and learn to negotiate preferences and boundaries, sexual communication becomes especially salient in the context of attachment and sexual satisfaction.

Current Study

The current study aims to address key limitations in prior research by testing whether sexual communication indirectly links insecure attachment to sexual satisfaction (see Figure 1 for the proposed path model). First, in testing this model, the current study will draw on a sample of undergraduate college students to extend existing findings to emerging adults, a population that has been underrepresented in prior research on these constructs. Second, the current study will adopt a novel approach in assessing sexual satisfaction among students. Previous research on sexual communication, insecure attachment, and sexual satisfaction has primarily focused on college students’ individual experiences of sexual satisfaction (e.g., their orgasm quality, their mood after sex). However, no study to date has examined how students experience sexual satisfaction in response to their partner’s sexual experiences, despite evidence that individuals derive satisfaction not only from their own pleasure, but also from their partner’s satisfaction and the types and frequency of shared sexual activities (Štulhofer et al., 2010). Thus, the current study will examine two forms of sexual satisfaction: self-satisfaction based on participants’ own experiences, and partner-derived satisfaction based on their partner’s experiences and shared sexual activities.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Proposed path model illustrating how perceived quality of dyadic sexual communication indirectly links anxious and avoidant attachment with self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction

Aims & Hypotheses

In this study, we anticipated that 1a) higher levels of attachment anxiety would be significantly linked to perceptions of worse sexual communication; 1b) higher levels of attachment anxiety would be associated with lower levels of self-sexual satisfaction and partner-derived sexual satisfaction. Additionally, we predicted that 2a) higher levels of attachment avoidance would be significantly linked to perceptions of worse sexual communication; 2b) higher levels of attachment avoidance would be associated with lower levels of self-sexual satisfaction and partner-derived sexual satisfaction. Further, we expected that 3) perceptions of worse sexual communication would be significantly linked to lower levels of self-sexual satisfaction and partner-derived sexual satisfaction. Finally, we anticipated that 4a) attachment anxiety and 4b) attachment avoidance would be indirectly related to self-sexual satisfaction and partner-derived sexual satisfaction through perceptions of worse sexual communication.

Method

Recruitment and Participants

After receiving Institutional Review Board approval, we recruited a sample of 352 undergraduate psychology students. To be eligible for the study, participants were required to be at least 18 years of age, identify as sexually active, and be involved in a sexual relationship and/or romantic relationship. Participants who met eligibility criteria completed an online survey via Qualtrics.com. Participants received partial course credit for study participation. Participants were on average, 18.78 years old, a first-year student (M = 1.48 years at university), and predominantly women (84.9% women, 13.6% men, 1.5% gender diverse people). Further, most participants identified as White (91.50%) followed by Hispanic/Latino (5.10%), Asian American (3.40%), Black (3.10%), Biracial/Multiracial (3.10%) and Native American (1.40%). Most participants identified as heterosexual (88.40%) and the remaining identified as bisexual (8.20%), queer (2.30%), gay (1.70%), lesbian (0.60%), and pansexual (0.60%). Notably, the study sample demonstrates limited diversity in gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation; however, it aligns with the typical demographic composition of psychology students at large public universities in the United States (DataUSA, n.d.).

Measures

Attachment

The Experiences in Close Relationships – Revised Questionnaire (ECR-R; Fraley et al., 2000) is a 36-item measure that asks participants to report how they feel in emotionally intimate relationships. After reading a statement about oneself in relation to their partner, participants rate on a 7-point Likert type scale how strongly they agree or disagree with the statement (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). After reverse coding negatively worded items, sum scores were created for each subscale of attachment anxiety (α = .0.94) and attachment avoidance (α = .95), as observed in the present sample. These subscales were averaged independently to provide continuous indicators of attachment avoidance and anxiety. For each dimension, a possible score of 18 to 126 is possible, with higher scores indicating higher levels of insecure attachment. Examples of items on the anxious attachment scale include “I’m afraid I will lose my partner’s love” and “My partner makes me doubt myself.” Examples of items on the avoidant attachment scale include “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners” and “I am nervous when partners get too close to me.” The ECR-R has demonstrated good psychometric properties, including good internal consistency reliability for both subscales (α = 0.90 or higher) as well as significant convergent and discriminant validity, ultimately providing a highly appropriate, replicable, and reliable self-report measure of adult romantic attachment (Fraley et al., 2000; Sibley et al., 2005; Sibley & Liu, 2004).

Sexual Communication

To assess perceived quality of sexual communication, participants completed the 13-item Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC; Catania, 1998, 2011). After reading a list of statements different people have made about discussing sex with their primary partner (e.g., “Some sexual matters are too upsetting to discuss with my sexual partner” and “My partner and I never seem to resolve our disagreements about sexual matters”), participants rate on a 6-point Likert type scale how much they agree with the statement (1 = Strongly Disagree, 6 = Strongly Agree). Scores are totaled and can range from 13 to 78. Higher scores indicate that participants perceive a worse quality of sexual communication with their partner (i.e., perceptions of worse sexual communication). This measure demonstrated strong internal consistency in the present sample (α = .84). The DSC has shown good psychometric properties, including adequate test-retest reliability, good internal consistency, and good discriminant validity between those with and without sexual problems (Catania, 1998).

Sexual Satisfaction

The New Sexual Satisfaction Scale (NSSS; Štulhofer et al., 2010) is a 20-item self-report multi-dimensional measure of sexual satisfaction. After reading a statement related to a dimension of an individual’s sex life, participants are asked to rate their satisfaction with that dimension on a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = Not at all satisfied, 5 = Extremely satisfied). All items on the measure can be summed to obtain one continuous indicator of sexual satisfaction. Potential scores range from 20 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher levels of sexual satisfaction. Of note, principal components analysis revealed a two-factor structure, with one factor containing items related to one’s personal sexual experiences and pleasure and the other capturing items focused on one’s partner’s sexual experiences and pleasure. Thus, the following subscales were introduced to the measure: 1) the ego-centered subscale (referred to as self-sexual satisfaction in this manuscript) which captures the sexual satisfaction derived from one’s personal sexual experiences (α = .93) and 2) the partner-and sexual activity-centered subscale (referred to as partner-derived sexual satisfaction in this manuscript), which measures the sexual satisfaction one experiences based on their partner’s sexual experiences, behaviors, and pleasure, as well as the variety and frequency of sexual activities one partakes in with their partner (α = .92; Štulhofer et al., 2010). These reliability estimates reflect internal consistency within the present sample.

Data Analytic Strategy

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between all study variables were calculated using SPSS version 29.0 (see Table 1). All study variables were normally distributed. To test study hypotheses, we conducted a fully saturated path analysis (df = 0) using MPlus Version 8.10 which allows for simultaneous testing of regression equations. Because the model was saturated, traditional goodness-of-fit indices (e.g., CFI, RMSEA) were not applicable (Kline, 2016); interpretation instead focused instead on parameter estimates and their significance.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables

Variable M (SD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Religiosity 2.37 (1.08) --
2. Anxious Attachment 3.18 (1.35) .07 --
3. Avoidant Attachment 2.98 (1.33) .06 .42** --
4. Perceived Quality of Dyadic Sexual Communication 29.36 (10.48) −.07 .37** .52** --
5. Self-Sexual Satisfaction 35.35 (9.32) .08 −.32** −.49** −.59** --
6. Partner Derived-Sexual Satisfaction 37.48 (8.77) .03 −.32** −.44** −.66** .73** --
Open in a new tab

Note.

**

p < 0.001

During hypotheses testing, we statistically controlled for the effects of religiosity, as an independent samples t-test revealed that participants who rated religion as more important were more likely to skip answering questions on the DSC as well as the NSSS, t(350) = −3.37, p < 0.001. We controlled for religiosity by including it as an additional predictor variable in all regression equations. As depicted in Figure 1, we simultaneously regressed both types of sexual satisfaction (self-sexual satisfaction and partner-derived sexual satisfaction) on perceived quality of sexual communication. We also regressed perceived quality of sexual communication and both types of sexual satisfaction on both forms of insecure attachment (anxiety and avoidance). When testing whether both forms of insecure attachment were indirectly related to both types of sexual satisfaction through perceived quality of sexual communication, we used bootstrap method procedures to estimate standardized confidence intervals for the indirect effects. Specifically, we used 10,000 bootstrap samples to calculate 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals to test for indirect effects between insecure attachment and sexual satisfaction via perceived quality of sexual communication. Indirect effects were considered significant if the bias-correct confidence interval excluded zero.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among study variables are reported in Table 1. Higher levels of anxious and avoidant attachment were significantly linked with lower levels of self-sexual satisfaction and partner-derived sexual satisfaction, as well as perceptions of worse sexual communication between partners. Further, perceptions of worse sexual communication were significantly associated with lower levels of self-sexual satisfaction and partner-derived sexual satisfaction.

Path Analysis

Results of path analyses are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2. Figure 2 presents the tested path model, illustrating the effects of anxious and avoidant attachment on self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction, through perceived quality of dyadic sexual communication. Findings demonstrated several significant direct effects. Consistent with hypotheses (1a) and (2a), higher levels of anxious attachment (β = 0.19, SE = 0.05, p <.001) and avoidant attachment (β = 0.45, SE = 0.06, p <.001) were significantly associated with perceptions of worse sexual communication. Additionally, in line with hypothesis (2b), avoidant attachment was negatively associated with self-sexual satisfaction (β = −0.24, SE = 0.05, p <.001) and partner-derived sexual satisfaction (β = −0.12, SE = 0.05, p <.05). Finally, in support of hypothesis (3), perceptions of worse sexual communication were significantly associated with lower levels of self-sexual satisfaction (β = −0.43, SE = 0.06, p <.001) and partner-derived sexual satisfaction (β = −0.57, SE = 0.05, p <.001). However, hypothesis (1b) was not supported, as there were no significant paths linking anxious attachment with self-sexual satisfaction or partner-derived sexual satisfaction.

Table 2.

Results from Tests of Indirect Effects

Anxious Attachment B (SE) 95% CI β (SE)
Anxious Attachment → Sexual Communication 1.47 (0.40) *** (0.69, 2.26) 0.19 (0.05) ***
Anxious Attachment → Self-Sexual Satisfaction −0.45 (0.33) (−1.08, 0.20) −0.06 (0.05)
Anxious Attachment → Partner-Derived Sexual Satisfaction −0.38 (0.30) (−0.98, 0.22) −0.06 (0.05)
Avoidant Attachment B (SE) 95% CI β (SE)
Avoidant Attachment→ Sexual Communication 3.50 (0.48) *** (2.50, 4.42) 0.45 (0.06) ***
Avoidant Attachment → Self-Sexual Satisfaction −1.69 (0.37) *** (−2.40, −0.95) −0.24 (0.05) ***
Avoidant Attachment → Partner-Derived Sexual Satisfaction −0.78 (0.33) * (−1.42, −0.11) −0.12 (0.05) *
Perceived Quality of Dyadic Sexual Communication B (SE) 95% CI β (SE)
Sexual Communication → Self-Sexual Satisfaction −0.39 (0.05) *** (−0.48, −0.28) −0.43 (0.06) ***
Sexual Communication → Partner-Derived Sexual Satisfaction −0.48 (0.05) *** (−0.57, −0.38) −0.57 (0.05) ***
Tests of Indirect Effects B (SE) 95% CI β (SE)
Anxious Attachment → Sexual Communication → Self-Sexual Satisfaction −0.57 (0.18) ** (−0.97, −0.26) −0.08 (0.03) **
Anxious Attachment → Sexual Communication → Partner-Derived Sexual Satisfaction −0.70 (0.21) ** (−1.15, −0.34) −0.11 (0.03) **
Avoidant Attachment → Sexual Communication → Self-Sexual Satisfaction −1.35 (0.23) *** (−1.85, −0.94) −0.19 (0.03) ***
Avoidant Attachment → Sexual Communication → Partner-Derived Sexual Satisfaction −1.68 (0.26) *** (−2.25, −1.20) −0.25 (0.04) ***
Open in a new tab

Note.

***

p < 0.001

**

p < 0.01

*

p < 0.05

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Path model of the effects of anxious and avoidant attachment on self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction, through perceived quality of dyadic sexual communication.

Note. Path model includes religiosity as a covariate. Paths in bold were statistically significant at p < 0.05.

Tests of Indirect Effects

The results of the tests of indirect effects (see Table 2) supported hypotheses (4a) and (4b). Results demonstrated that anxious attachment indirectly relates to both self-sexual satisfaction (βindirect = −0.08, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.97, −0.26]) and partner-derived sexual satisfaction (βindirect = −0.11, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [−1.15, −0.34]) through perceptions of worse sexual communication. Similarly, avoidant attachment was indirectly related to self-sexual satisfaction (βindirect = −0.19, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [−1.85, −0.94]) and partner-derived sexual satisfaction (βindirect = −0.25, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−2.25, −1.20]) through perceptions of worse sexual communication. The overall model accounted for 31% of the variance in perceived quality of dyadic communication (R2 = .31, p < .001), 40% of the variance in self-sexual satisfaction (R2 = .40, p < .001, and 45% of the variance in partner-derived sexual satisfaction (R2 = .45, p < .001).

Discussion

The current study examined the role of sexual communication in the relationship between insecure attachment and sexual satisfaction among college students, given that emerging adulthood is a critical period for exploring sexuality and attachment. Although our sample was primarily composed of White, cisgender heterosexual women, and thus results are likely primarily driven by this subgroup of college students, these findings offer preliminary insight into the associations between attachment, sexual communication, and sexual satisfaction. We also advanced research on this topic, which has largely been understudied in recent years, by having a focus on both self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction, as prior research largely centers on the satisfaction individuals experience from their own sexual pleasure (i.e., their orgasm, their mood after sex). Thus, incorporating participants’ satisfaction derived from their partner’s sexual satisfaction provides a more comprehensive understanding of sexual satisfaction as it relates to communication. In line with prior research (e.g., Timm & Keiley, 2011), our results indicated that higher levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance were associated with perceptions of worse sexual communication with one’s partner. Moreover, consistent with existing sexual communication literature (e.g., see review by Mallory, 2022), the results of our investigation indicated that perceptions of worse sexual communication with one’s partner were associated with lower levels of self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction.

Consistent with previous studies, we found that higher levels of avoidant attachment were associated with lower levels of self-sexual satisfaction, which may be attributable to the tendency for people with avoidant attachment to emotionally distance themselves from their partners and avoid intimacy (Brassard et al., 2007; Butzer & Campbell, 2008). Further, consistent with findings from Davis et al. (2006) and Khoury & Findlay (2014), our tests of indirect effects demonstrated that avoidant attachment was indirectly related to self-sexual satisfaction through perceptions of worse sexual communication. Thus, one’s reluctance or inability to engage in effective sexual communication with their sexual partner may contribute to lower sexual satisfaction among students with higher avoidant attachment. Attachment theory offers additional insight, suggesting that students high in avoidant attachment may be more reluctant to engage in sexual communication due to their discomfort with intimacy and vulnerability (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Discussing sexual preferences and boundaries might evoke feelings of vulnerability, contributing to avoidantly-attached students’ hesitation to communicate or inability to do so well. Ultimately, the findings of the current study greatly enhance our understanding of a potential factor that might underly the link between avoidant attachment and self-sexual satisfaction; however, longitudinal research is needed to confirm this.

We similarly expected anxious attachment to be negatively associated with self-sexual satisfaction. However, no significant direct effects were found between anxious attachment and sexual satisfaction in our sample. While these findings may initially appear inconsistent with prior research, tests of indirect effects and observed moderate negative bivariate associations provide further clarity, as higher levels of anxious attachment were correlated with lower levels of self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction. Consistent with the results of Davis et al. (2006) and Goldsmith et al. (2016) for women in their sample, tests of indirect effects revealed that anxious attachment was indirectly associated with self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction through perceptions of worse sexual communication. Thus, while no direct effects were identified, study results indicated that the observed associations between anxious attachment and self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction might be explained by a third variable – perceptions of worse sexual communication. As such, when accounting for the effects of perceptions of worse sexual communication, the direct associations between anxious attachment and self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction were no longer statistically significant, yet anxious attachment was indirectly related to self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction via perceptions of worse sexual communication. Further prospective studies are needed to determine whether perceptions of worse sexual communication fully explain this association.

In sum, consistent with prior research, it is possible that the association between anxious attachment and lower self-sexual satisfaction could be explained by one’s perceived worse quality of sexual communication with their partners. Prior research has shown that adults high in anxious attachment are less likely to express their sexual preferences due to fears that such discussions might lead to conflict and jeopardize their relationship (Davis et al., 2006). However, in line with research linking effective sexual communication to greater sexual satisfaction (e.g., Mallory et al., 2022), our findings suggest that students high in anxious attachment may experience reduced sexual satisfaction due to reluctance to express their sexual needs and desires. These study findings also indicate that the sample that Khoury & Findlay (2014) collected might not have been representative of adults with attachment anxiety. Indeed, Khoury & Findlay (2014) acknowledge that most of their participants (98 out of 125) had recently met their sexual partner within the past nine months. Once those participants were excluded from the sample, sexual communication was found to indirectly link anxious attachment with sexual dissatisfaction. Thus, as suggested by Khoury & Findlay (2014), the “honeymoon period” may mitigate some of sexual communication’s indirect effects on anxious attachment and sexual satisfaction. During this phase, partners may not have yet encountered sexual issues or differences that they feel uncomfortable discussing or expressing due to fears of rejection.

Further, the current study uniquely examined how insecure attachment relates to individuals’ satisfaction with their partner’s sexual experiences, as well as the potential role of sexual communication on that relationship. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has explored this specific component of sexual satisfaction within the proposed model. Current study findings underscore the significant impact of attachment style and sexual communication on global sexual satisfaction. Higher levels of avoidant attachment were associated not only with lower self-sexual satisfaction but also with lower partner-derived sexual satisfaction. This dissatisfaction with their partner’s sexual experiences may reflect their limited attunement to their partner’ sexual needs and experiences, as adults high in avoidant attachment tend to avoid vulnerability and prioritize self-reliance during sex (Péloquin et al., 2014). These students may be overlooking or misinterpreting cues related to their partner’s sexual desires or preferences, as well as generally desiring sex less with a partner (Mark et al., 2018), given how vulnerable or intimate sex can feel. In addition, results from the tests of indirect effects indicate that, similar to self-sexual satisfaction, perceptions of worse sexual communication indirectly link avoidant attachment to partner-derived sexual satisfaction. These results could suggest that students high in avoidant attachment may experience greater dissatisfaction with their partner’s sexual experiences due to a reluctance to engage in transparent and vulnerable discussions about sexual preferences, which may leave them to guess at what their partner enjoys and feel less satisfied as a result.

Further, tests of indirect effects revealed that perceptions of worse sexual communication indirectly link anxious attachment with lower levels of partner-derived sexual satisfaction. Evidently, perceptions of worse sexual communication could potentially explain the relationship between anxious attachment and both types of sexual satisfaction. For students high in anxious attachment, their strong desire to maintain emotional closeness and intimacy with their partners may result in two tendencies: (1) an avoidance of discussions about their sexual preferences and (2) an avoidance of initiation of broader conversations about sex, all to avoid potential conflict or discomfort with their partner. (Byers, 2011; Davis et al., 2006). Consequently, they, like students high in avoidant attachment, may be left with little information about how to please their partner, yet unlike students with higher levels of avoidant attachment, could have an incredibly strong need to please their partner, as they might feel as though their relationship is on the line. Thus, it follows that their ineffective sexual communication with their partner may leave them dissatisfied with their partner’s sexual experiences and the kinds of sexual activities they engaged in.

Clinical Implications

While the relationship between attachment style and relationship outcomes has been widely examined, by comparison, attachment and sexuality research remains less explored. The current study adds to a growing body of literature examining how attachment influences sexual behaviors and experiences and yields several practical, as well as unique, implications for clinicians.

By exploring potential factors contributing to sexual dissatisfaction in emerging adults high in insecure attachment, this study highlights several potential areas for clinical assessment and intervention. Clinicians working with emerging adults presenting with sexuality-related concerns could explore their clients’ attachment styles and perceived quality of sexual communication with their partners. Identifying whether a client has an insecure attachment style—and, if so, its specific type—may provide valuable insights to guide subsequent interventions. These approaches may include supporting clients in developing secure and trusting intimate relationships, which could enhance sexual satisfaction. Clinicians can also offer psychoeducation about how attachment styles influence sexual satisfaction in relationships. If clients high in insecure attachment report difficulties in sexual communication with their partners, psychoeducation on how significantly attachment may shape one’s ability and reluctance to engage in effective sexual communication could be introduced. Evidence-based models such as Attachment-Based Family Therapy (ABFT), which has demonstrated efficacy in several randomized controlled trials, may offer a concrete framework for addressing attachment-related concerns in this population (Diamond et al., 2024).

Once clients recognize the importance of sexual communication, and its connection to attachment and sexual satisfaction, clinicians can integrate structured skill-building programs, such as The Love Guru Program (Rosier & Tyler, 2017). This intervention teaches individuals how to sexually coach their partners to foster mutual pleasure. Specifically, the program enhances participants’ understanding of their own and their partners’ preferences while developing effective communication skills for expressing sexual desires and boundaries. Graduates of The Love Guru Program reported reduced hesitation in discussing sex, greater confidence in sexual coaching (e.g., articulating likes, dislikes, and boundaries), improved ability to guide their partners, and higher sexual and relationship satisfaction (Rosier & Tyler, 2017).

In sum, study findings highlighted the potential importance of learning how to effectively communicate sexual preferences and dislikes, especially for college students with high levels of insecure attachment. However, evidence-based interventions specifically targeting sexual communication (as opposed to general communication skills) remain limited (Mallory et al., 2019). Thus, study results may inform future applied research by supporting the development of targeted, evidence-based sexual communication programs, given the well-established link between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations of this study that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the generalizability of the results is limited, as the study sample consisted primarily of White, heterosexual, cisgender women. To ensure broader applicability, future research should replicate these findings with more diverse samples that include racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minority individuals. Second, although the study used tests of indirect effects, whose interpretation relies on an assumed order of events, the cross-sectional nature of the data prevents any causal conclusions from being drawn. Future studies that utilize longitudinal designs could more conclusively determine whether insecure attachment predicts decreased sexual satisfaction via perceptions of worse sexual communication. Third, self-reports were used to assess sexual communication and satisfaction. Relying on self-report data, particularly when assessing variables related to sex and sexuality for women (Alexander & Fisher, 2003), introduces the possibility of socially desirable responding. Although online, anonymous surveys have been shown to reduce this bias (e.g., Weber et al., 2025), the current study did not include a measure specifically designed to detect socially desirable responding. Future research on sexual reporting should consider incorporating such measures to help control socially desirable bias in the results. Fourth, several variables in the current study, such as sexual communication and sexual satisfaction, are inherently relational and typically involve both partners. However, by relying solely on individual-level data, the present study was unable to capture perspectives from both participants and their partners. This limitation is particularly relevant to partner-derived sexual satisfaction, which reflects the satisfaction one feels based on their partner’s sexual experiences, behaviors, and pleasure—none of which were directly assessed from the partner in this study. Future studies should incorporate dyadic data to more accurately capture the bidirectional nature of sexual communication and satisfaction, as this approach would offer a more nuanced understanding of how each partner’s experiences and perceptions shape each other. Finally, while the current study examined a distinct form of sexual satisfaction (partner-derived sexual satisfaction), we did not assess general relationship satisfaction, a well-established correlate of sexual satisfaction and sexual communication. As such, we were not able to examine how insecure attachment, perceptions of sexual communication, and sexual satisfaction interacted with overall relationship satisfaction. We recommend future studies integrate this construct into their model, to better understand its relative contributions.

Conclusion

This study examined whether perceived quality of sexual communication indirectly links insecure attachment and sexual satisfaction in a sample of undergraduate students. Findings indicate that college students with higher levels of anxious and avoidant attachment tended to report perceptions of worse sexual communication with their partners. Additionally, students with higher avoidant attachment were more likely to report lower levels of self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction. However, this pattern was not observed among those high in anxious attachment. Finally, both anxious and avoidant attachment were indirectly related to lower levels of self- and partner-derived sexual satisfaction through perceptions of worse sexual communication with their partners. These findings underscore the importance of clinicians assessing attachment-related concerns and sexual communication skills when addressing sexual dissatisfaction in couples and individuals. Additional research is needed to explore and develop evidence-based interventions for enhancing sexual communication skills.

Impact Statement.

This study found that college students with insecure attachment styles tend to experience lower sexual satisfaction, in part because they perceive their sexual communication with their partners as worse. These findings may inform therapy with those experiencing sexual dissatisfaction, as therapists could consider helping individuals improve their sexual communication skills and address insecure attachment-related concerns.

Funding

This work was supported, in part, by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number F31AA031420. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the United States and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Tennessee Knoxville.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

  1. Alexander MG & Fisher TD (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 27–35. 10.1080/00224490309552164 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnett JJ (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett JJ (2011). Debating emerging adulthood: Stage or process. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199757176.002.0003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnett JJ (2015). College students as emerging adults: The developmental implications of the college context. Emerging Adulthood, 4(3), 219–222. https://doi-org.utk.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/2167696815587422 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergeron S, Benazon N, Jodoin M, & Brousseau M. (2008). Sexualite ´ et dysfonction sexuelle [Sexuality and sexual dysfunction]. In Wright J, Lussier Y, & Sabourin S. (Eds.), Manuel clinique des psychothérapies de couple [Clinical handbook of couple psychotherapies] (pp. 361–396). Presse de l’Universite du Quebec. 10.2307/j.ctv18ph71h.11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Birnbaum GE, & Finkel EJ (2015). The magnetism that holds us together: Sexuality and relationship maintenance across relationship development. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 29–33. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Birnbaum GE, & Reis HT (2019). Evolved to be connected: The dynamics of attachment and sex over the course of romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 11–15. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowlby J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowlby J. (1982). Attachment and loss, Vol. I. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1969). [Google Scholar]
  10. Brassard A, Shaver PR, & Lussier Y. (2007). Attachment, sexual experience, and sexual pressure in romantic relationships: A dyadic approach. Personal Relationships, 14(3), 475–493. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00166.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brassard A, Péloquin K, Dupuy E, Wright J, & Shaver PR (2012). Romantic attachment insecurity predicts sexual dissatisfaction in couples seeking marital therapy. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 38(3), 245–262. 10.1080/0092623X.2011.606881 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brennan KA, Clark CL, & Shaver PR (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson JA & Rholes WS (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Briere J, Runtz M, Eadie E, Bigras N, & Godbout N. (2017). Disengaged parenting: Structural equation modeling with child abuse, insecure attachment, and adult symptomatology. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 260–270. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.02.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Butzer B, & Campbell L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 141–154. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00189.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Byers ES (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. 10.1037/a0022048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Catania JA (1998). Dyadic sexual communication. In Davis CM, Yarber WL, Bauserman R, Schreer G, & Davis LD (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  17. Catania JA (2011). Dyadic sexual communication scale. In Fisher TD, Davis CM, Yarber WL (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315881089 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dalessandro C, & Wilkins AC (2017). Blinded by love: Women, men, and gendered age in relationship stories. Gender & Society, 31(1), 96–118. https://doi-org.utk.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0891243216679121 [Google Scholar]
  19. DataUSA. (n.d.). Psychology. Retrieved June 20, 2025, from https://datausa.io/profile/cip/psychology [Google Scholar]
  20. Davis D, Shaver PR, Widaman KF, Vernon ML, Follette WC, & Beitz K. (2006). “I can’t get no satisfaction”: Insecure attachment, inhibited sexual communication, and sexual dissatisfaction. Personal Relationships, 13(4), 465–483. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00130.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dewitte M. (2012). Different perspectives on the sex-attachment link: Towards an emotion-motivational account. The Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 105–124. 10.1080/00224499.2011.576351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Diamond G, Rivers AS, Winston-Lindeboom P, Russon J, & Roeske M. (2024). Evaluating attachment-based family therapy in residential treatment in the United States: does adolescents’ increased attachment security to caregivers lead to decreases in depressive symptoms? Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health, 18(1), 147. https://doiorg.utk.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/s13034-024-00833-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Faulkner SL & Lannutti PJ (2010). Examining the content and outcomes of young adults’ satisfying and unsatisfying conversations about sex. Qualitative Health Research, 20(3), 375–385. 10.1177/1049732309354274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Feeney JA, & Noller P. (2004). Attachment and Sexuality in Close Relationships. In Harvey JH, Wenzel A, & Sprecher S. (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 183–201). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  25. Felt E. (2017). The relationship between emerging adulthood and communication patterns. [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. Walden University Scholar Works. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3988/ [Google Scholar]
  26. Fraley RC, Waller NG, & Brennan KA (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 350–365. 10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.350 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldsmith KM, Dunkely CR, Dang SS, & Gorzalka BB (2016). Sexuality and romantic relationships: Investigating the relation between attachment style and sexual satisfaction. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 31(2), 190–206. 10.1080/14681994.2016.1158804 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hazan C, & Shaver PR (1994). Deeper into attachment theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 68–79. 10.1207/s15327965pli0501_15 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Khoury CB, & Findlay BM (2014). What makes for good sex? The associations among attachment style, inhibited communication, and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Relationships Research, 5, 1–11. 10.1017/jrr.2014.7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kline RB (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lamont E. & Roach T. (2025). Coming out queer: Sexual and romantic exploration and identity development of LGBTQ+ college students. Social Currents, 12(1), 60–79. DOI: 10.1177/23294965241285469 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. MacNeil S, & Byers ES (2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of long-term heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research, 46(1), 3–14. 10.1080/00224490802398399 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mallory AB (2022). Dimensions of couples’ sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(3), 358–371. 10.1037/fam0000946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Mallory AB, Stanton AM, & Handy AB (2019). Couples’ sexual communication and dimensions of sexual function: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 56(7), 882–898. 10.1080/00224499.2019.1568375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Mark KP, Vowels LM, & Murray SH (2018). The impact of attachment style on sexual satisfaction and sexual desire in a sexually diverse sample. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(5), 450–458. 10.1080/0092623X.2017.1405310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mikulincer M, & Nachson O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 321–331. 10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mikulincer M, & Shaver PR (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press [Google Scholar]
  38. Muise A, Impett EA, & Desmarais S. (2013). Getting it on versus getting it over with: Sexual motivation, desire, and satisfaction in intimate bonds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1320–1332. 10.1177/0146167213490963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The condition of education, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from www.nces.gov [Google Scholar]
  40. Nelson LJ, & Padilla-Walker LM (2013). Flourishing and floundering in emerging adult college students. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 67–78. 10.1177/2167696812470938 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Patrick ME, Maggs JL, & Abar CC (2007). Reasons to have sex, personal goals, and sexual behavior during transition to college. Journal of Sex Research, 44(3), 240–249. 10.1080/00224490701443759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Péloquin K, Brassard A, Lafontaine MF, & Shaver PR (2014). Sexuality examined through the lens of attachment theory: Attachment, caregiving, and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 561–576. 10.1080/00224499.2012.757281 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Peterson JL, Hamilton HR, DeHart T, Kellogg D, & Morgan M. (2023). Love sick: Attachment anxiety and COVID-era romantic encounters among college students. Emerging Adulthood, 11(4), 1068–1073. https://doi-org.utk.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/21676968231177117 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rosier JG & Tyler JM (2017). Finding the Love Guru in you: Examining the effectiveness of a sexual communication training program for married couples. Marriage & Family Review, 53(1), 65–87. 10.1080/01494929.2016.1177629. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Schachner D,A, & Shaver PR (2004). Attachment dimensions and sexual motives. Personal Relationships, 11(2), 179–195. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00077.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Schrage KM, Maxwell JA, Impett EA, Keltner D, & MacDonald G. (2020). Effects of verbal and nonverbal communication of affection on avoidantly attached partners’ emotions and message receptiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(11), 1567–1580. 10.1177/0146167220910311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Shulman S, & Connolly J. (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 27–39. 10.1177/2167696812467330 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sibley CG, Fischer R, & Liu JH (2005). Reliability and validity of the revised experiences in close relationships (ECR-R) self-report measure of adult romantic attachment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1524–1536. 10.1177/0146167205276865 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Sibley CG, & Liu JH (2004). Short-term temporal stability and factor structure of the revised experiences in close relationships (ECR-R) measure of adult attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(4), 969–975. 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00165-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Štulhofer A, Buško V, & Brouillard P. (2010). Development and bicultural validation of the new sexual satisfaction scale. Journal of Sex Research, 47(4), 257–268. 10.1080/00224490903100561 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Strachman A, & Impett EA (2009). Attachment orientations and daily condom use in dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 46(4), 319–329. 10.1080/00224490802691801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Timm TM, & Keiley MK (2011). The effects of differentiation of self, adult attachment, and sexual communication on sexual and marital satisfaction: A path analysis. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37(3), 206–223. 10.1080/0092623X.2011.564513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Trub L, Doyle KM, Hubert ZM, Parker V, & Starks TJ (2022). Sexting to sex: Testing an attachment-based model of connections between texting behavior and sex among heterosexually active women. Computers in Human Behavior, 128, 107097. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107097 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Warren C, & Warren L. (2015). Family and partner communication about sex. In Turner LH and West R. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of family communication (pp. 184–202). SAGE. 10.4135/9781483375366.n12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Weber M, Kilger H, & Friese M. (2025). How valid are self-reports of sexual motivation? Using the item sum technique to examine socially desirable responding in online research. Motivational Science. Advance online publication. 10.1037/mot0000399 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES