Abstract
Despite consistent evidence that sexual communication positively correlates with relationship and sexual satisfaction, there has been empirical murkiness regarding which aspects of sexual communication matter more or less for relationship and sexual satisfaction. A systematic meta-analysis was conducted to investigate if the strength of the association between sexual communication and relationship and sexual satisfaction varied by dimensions of sexual communication and individual, interpersonal, and cultural factors. The meta-analysis included 93 studies with 209 unique effect sizes, which represented 38,499 unique individuals in a current relationship. The multilevel meta-analysis evidenced a positive association between sexual communication and both relationship (r = .37) and sexual satisfaction (r = .43). For relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction, the effect size for quality of sexual communication (r = .43; .52) was larger compared to the frequency of sexual communication (r = .31; .31) and sexual self-disclosure (r = .28; .39). After controlling for the average age and relationship length of the sample, samples with married participants (r = .49) had larger effect sizes compared to samples with mixed relationship statuses (r = .35). Higher levels of individualism (b = .003) strengthened, and higher levels of gender inequality (b = −.06) weakened, the association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction. Finally, when sociosexuality was low, sexual communication had a large association with relationship satisfaction for men (r = .69) and a small association for women (r = .16). Measurement, sample characteristics, and cultural factors have an important role in understanding the link between partners’ sexual communication and their relationship and sexual satisfaction.
Keywords: couples, sexual communication, meta-analysis, sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction
Talking comfortably with a romantic partner about one’s sexual needs and desires is an important component of relationship and sexual satisfaction (Byers, 2011; Faulkner & Lannutti, 2010). Yet, research suggests that even in long-term romantic relationships, partners report only knowing 62% of what their partners find sexually pleasing and 26% of what their partners find sexually displeasing (Byers, 2011). Further, discussing sex has been found to be one of the least discussed and most difficult topics to discuss in observational studies of couples (e.g., Rehman et al., 2011). Although couples may find these conversations difficult, numerous studies indicate that when couples do discuss their sexual relationship, it positively relates to both their relationship satisfaction and their sexual satisfaction (MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009). For this reason, researchers and practitioners generally agree that sexual communication can be a positive force in romantic relationships (MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009; Mark & Jozkowski, 2013).
Despite recognition of the benefits of sexual communication in romantic relationships, there is a limited empirical understanding of how sexual communication contributes to both relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. There are three limitations of existing research on sexual communication addressed in this meta-analysis. First, there has been empirical murkiness regarding the measurement of sexual communication—there are few empirically validated measures, and existing measures of sexual communication often measure different aspects of sexual communication. Second, while sexual communication is considered to be multidimensional, few studies assess multiple dimensions of sexual communication or articulate why a particular measure, corresponding to a particular dimension of sexual communication, is utilized—both omissions limit understanding regarding how different aspects of sexual communication relate differently or similarly to either relationship satisfaction or sexual satisfaction. Finally, there have been few attempts to systematically identify individual (e.g., gender and age), interpersonal (e.g., relationship length or and relationship status), and cultural factors that strengthen or weaken the association between sexual communication and relationship or sexual satisfaction. A clearer understanding of relevant factors that are related to the associations between sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction will provide coherence in the literature that can inform future studies, shifting the focus to elucidating mechanisms that explain these associations. Given the evidence that many couples struggle to discuss their sexual relationship, and the paucity of information about which aspects of sexual communication matter most, sexual communication is an untapped resource that practitioners and researchers could utilize to strengthen couples’ relationships.
A single empirical study would be insufficient to comprehensively address the existing limitations regarding the connection between couples’ sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction. The purpose of the current meta-analysis is to (a) synthesize the available research on the associations of couples’ sexual communication with relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction in order to understand how different dimensions of sexual communication uniquely relate to them and (b) identify moderators of these associations. This meta-analysis provides the first comprehensive study of the strength of the association between sexual communication and both relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction, differences in these associations by dimensions of sexual communication, and examination of which individual, interpersonal, and cultural factors strengthen or weaken these associations.
Theoretical Framework
The current meta-analysis is informed by sexual script theory (Simon & Gagnon, 1986) and the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction (IEMSS; MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009). Sexual script theory proposes that our ideas about sexual behaviors are informed and learned through cultural, interpersonal, gender, and intrapsychic scripts—these scripts are sequences of events or actions, related to sex, that we “should” follow in different situations (Simon & Gagnon, 1986). Sexual scripts can inform couples’ sexual dynamics through adherence to cultural norms that inform their interpersonal, gender, and intrapsychic scripts, but through sexual communication, partners can adhere to and rewrite the interpersonal, gender, and intrapsychic sexual scripts in their relationship (Masters et al., 2013). As partners rewrite these scripts to fit their individual and relationship needs, the adapted scripts can positively impact relationship and sexual satisfaction (MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009; Masters et al., 2013).
Informed by sexual script theory, the IEMSS proposed two pathways through which sexual communication influenced relationship and sexual satisfaction: the expressive pathway and the instrumental pathway (MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009). In the expressive pathway, sexual disclosure increases couples’ relationship satisfaction via increased intimacy, which can then increase sexual satisfaction (MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009). The connection between sexual self-disclosure and relationship satisfaction, the focal part of this model for relationship satisfaction in the present study, is consistent with the findings that, in general, self-disclosure enhances intimacy (Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004). Through the instrumental pathway, disclosing sexual preferences increases partners’ understanding of each other’s sexual preferences, which can shift interpersonal sexual scripts, allowing partners to engage in more rewarding and satisfactory sexual interactions (MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009). Although the instrumental and expressive pathways were theorized with sexual communication operationalized as sexual self-disclosure, compelling evidence suggests that the quality (Montesi et al., 2011) and frequency of sexual communication (Valvano et al., 2018) also foster relationship and sexual satisfaction.
Moderators
In line with sexual script theory and the IEMSS, several moderators of the association between sexual communication and both relationship, and sexual satisfaction are investigated. The primary moderator of interest is dimensions of sexual communication (i.e., frequency, disclosure, and quality). Individual (i.e., gender and age), interpersonal (i.e., relationship length and relationship status), and cultural factors (i.e., country of study, individualism, sociosexuality, and gender inequality) are also investigated as moderators of the links between sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction.
Dimensions of Sexual Communication
In one of the earliest reviews of research about sexuality in romantic relationships, three general dimensions of couples’ sexual communication were identified in the literature: frequency of sexual communication, quality of sexual communication, and sexual self-disclosure (Metts & Cupach, 1989). The IEMSS proposes that sexual self-disclosure is the antecedent through which the expressive and instrumental pathways can enhance relationship and sexual satisfaction, but sexual script theory highlights the complexity with which couples’ sexual communication (beyond disclosure alone) can be used to rewrite sexual scripts (Masters et al., 2013). Further, research supports the important role of the frequency of, quality of, and disclosure related to sexual communication. Frequency of sexual communication captures how often couples discuss their sexual relationship. More frequent sexual communication is associated with both greater relationship and sexual satisfaction (Valvano et al., 2018). Quality of sexual communication captures the openness to discussing the sexual relationship (Montesi et al., 2011), positive affect when discussing the sexual relationship (Rehman et al., 2011), satisfaction with these discussions (Cupach & Comstock, 1990), and emotional safety to communicate about sexual issues (Rehman et al., 2017)—all of which are positively associated with relationship and sexual satisfaction. Sexual self-disclosure involves telling a partner about sexual preferences and desires to engage in specific sexual activities (MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009), sexual values, past sexual experiences, and sexual attitudes (Coffelt & Hess, 2014). Sexual self-disclosure is also positively associated with greater relationship and sexual satisfaction (MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009). Given that each dimension of sexual communication assesses different aspects of sexual communication, it is reasonable to explore differences between the association of each dimension with relationship and sexual satisfaction in order to understand if there is variability in the strength of their associations.
Gender
Research with the IEMSS proposes that men and women might utilize sexual communication differently: Men use sexual communication instrumentally to have more rewarding sex which enhances sexual satisfaction, while women use sexual communication to enhance sexual satisfaction indirectly through increasing relationship satisfaction (MacNeil & Byers, 2005). The proposal that men and women use sexual communication differently aligns with gendered scripts of sexuality for men and women (Masters et al., 2013). However, there is also evidence of no gender differences in how sexual communication is associated with relationship and sexual satisfaction (MacNeil & Byers, 2009; Montesi et al., 2011). Most studies have not directly tested for gender differences in the associations between couples’ sexual communication and relationship or sexual satisfaction, and when they have, the results tend to be inconsistent.
Age, Relationship Length, and Relationship Status
Age, relationship length, and relationship status are interrelated to intrapsychic, gender, interpersonal, and cultural scripts regarding expectations for and patterns of sexual behavior, communication, commitment, and intimacy in relationships (Faulkner & Lannutti, 2010; Lantagne & Furman, 2017; Masters et al., 2013). As people get older, they tend to have more experience with relationships (Lantagne & Furman, 2017), and as people remain in long-term relationships, they may also better understand their sexual preferences and can become more comfortable discussing these preferences with sexual partners (Wheeless et al., 1984). Indeed, one of the few studies testing relationship length as a moderator of the association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction found that the positive association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction was larger for couples together for longer than a year compared to couples together less than a year (Montesi et al., 2011). This difference between relatively shorter and longer relationships suggests that sexual communication and satisfaction are more strongly related in longer-term relationships.
It is also important to consider that as relationships increase in duration, relationship status also changes (e.g., dating to married), reflecting changes in commitment. Greater commitment in long-term relationships may change the strength of the association between sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction (Theiss & Estlein, 2014). In newer relationships, individuals may withhold discussing their sexual preferences for fear of rejection or damaging the relationship as there are fewer barriers to relationship dissolution (Faulkner & Lannutti, 2010; Montesi et al., 2011; Theiss & Estlein, 2014). Relationships that involve greater commitment, like marriage, could allow individuals to feel more comfortable discussing their sexual desires (Coffelt & Hess, 2014; Wheeless et al., 1984). Taken together, age, relationship length, and relationship status may be important interrelated factors for understanding the associations between couples’ sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction.
Cultural Variability
Studies that measure couples’ sexual communication and its association with either relationship or sexual satisfaction have been done in numerous countries, but there have been few cross-cultural comparisons of these associations. Given that sexual scripts (Simon & Gagnon, 1986) differ across cultures, it is possible that the role of sexual communication for relationship and sexual satisfaction varies by culture. In one study, researchers assessed the association between sexual communication and relationship satisfaction in couples from “love” and arranged marriages in India and “companionate” marriages in the United States (Yelsma & Athappilly, 1988). The “love” and “companionate” labels both represent marriages motivated by romance, but the different terminology emphasize the different cultural contexts for these kinds of marriages. The researchers found that sexual communication and relationship satisfaction were not associated in “love” marriages in India, but they were positively associated in arranged marriages in India and in “companionate” marriages in the U.S. Moreover, the association between sexual communication and relationship satisfaction in U.S. couples was larger in magnitude compared to both groups of couples in India. This would suggest that sexual communication and relationship satisfaction were more highly correlated among U.S. married couples. Although country-level comparisons give some insight into effect size differences, the comparisons do little to explain why the differences exist. For example, in Yelsma and Athappilly (1988), the different magnitudes of the correlation between sexual communication and relationship satisfaction are likely better explained by the cultural meanings of marriage rather than inherent country differences.
In order to contextualize cultural variability in the current meta-analysis, three exploratory indicators of cultural variability are considered: individualism (Hofstede et al., 2010), sociosexuality (Schmitt, 2005), and gender inequality (United Nations Development Program, 2020). Together these indicators can inform how cultural context changes the association between sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction.
Individualistic cultures tend to favor direct communication while communication tends to be more context specific and indirect in collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 2015). Direct verbal sexual communication is often considered most effective for communicating sexual desires to increase relationship and sexual satisfaction (Byers, 2011). However, directly talking about sexual desires could align or clash with cultural norms regarding communication, romantic relationships, and sexuality (Mallory et al., 2019), which may affect how strongly sexual communication correlates with relationship and sexual satisfaction.
Sociosexuality represents attitudes toward casual sex with multiple partners and sex outside romantic relationships (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Lower (or restricted) sociosexuality corresponds with preferences for sex within emotionally invested romantic relationships, and higher (or unrestricted) sociosexuality corresponds with preferences for sex without emotional investment (Schmitt, 2005). Depending on the cultural sociosexual scripts, the associations between sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction may vary in strength. Further, because men tend to report unrestricted, and women restricted sociosexuality (Schmitt, 2005), how sociosexuality changes this association may vary by gender. In cultures with unrestricted sociosexuality, sexual behavior may have greater importance in relationships, which might make sexual communication more critical for maintaining relationship and sexual satisfaction (Schmitt, 2005; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991).
Gender inequality reflects gender-based disadvantages in reproductive health, empowerment, and the labor market (United Nations Development Program, 2020), which often translate to less restrictive sexual standards for men and more restrictive sexual standards for women (Petersen & Hyde, 2010). Culturally normative gender power dynamics (i.e., cultural and gender scripts) can influence how strongly sexual communication associates with relationship and sexual satisfaction differently for men and women. It is only when partners can express and have understood their sexual desires that they can develop sexual scripts that benefit their relationship (Greene & Faulkner, 2005; MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009). Unequal power dynamics in a relationship may undermine couples’ sexual communication, mitigating its association with relationship and sexual satisfaction (Greene & Faulkner, 2005).
The Present Study
Given the diversity of methods and samples in studies that examine the association between sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction, a meta-analysis is appropriate for providing coherence regarding these associations and determining when they differ across a number of moderators. The main research question addressed is whether associations between sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction differ by dimension of sexual communication measured (i.e., frequency of sexual communication, quality of sexual communication, and sexual self-disclosure). Given the variability in studies on sexual communication and these outcomes, several moderators are tested to help identify important individual, interpersonal, and cultural moderators that can help to better understand the associations between sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction.
Method
Inclusion Criteria
Studies in the current meta-analysis (a) included a measure of relationship or sexual satisfaction, (b) measured sexual communication, (c) were published in English, (d) included sufficient information to calculate at least one effect size, and (e) included participants in a current relationship or analyzed participants in a relationship separately from participants who were not in a relationship. Both published (i.e., peer-reviewed articles) and unpublished (i.e., Theses and Dissertations) studies were included in this systematic meta-analysis. The University of Texas of Austin institutional review board (IRB) considered this study exempt from IRB review (2017-01-0056). This study was not preregistered. Below, I report how I determined the sample size, any data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study.
Literature Search
See Figure 1 for a flow diagram of the systematic search, screening process, and search terms. Database searches were conducted for articles published through May 2018: no start date was specified. The following were databases used to locate articles: Academic Search Complete, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Family Studies Abstracts, Gender Studies Database, Medline, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) Life. Two searches were conducted—one with the names of sexual communication measures (i.e., the “specific search”) as the search criteria, and the other used the term “sexual communication” as the focal search term (i.e., the “general search”). For the specific search, instruments were excluded that assessed sexual risk communication (e.g., contraception use). Measures were first identified in the Handbook of Sexuality Related Measures (Fisher et al., 2013), which included measures of sexual communication through 2011, then preliminary searches were conducted to ensure that each search was returning relevant results, and finally, highly cited articles on sexual communication were reviewed to identify other relevant studies. Two additional steps were taken to find articles. First, when an included study was published after 2000 but did not provide sufficient information to calculate an effect size or include moderators, the authors were contacted via email and asked to provide the information. Second, reference lists of included studies were reviewed to identify any articles not captured in the database search.
Figure 1. Flow Diagram of Article Search and Screening Process.
Note. Specific search terms: “Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness,” “sexual communication satisfaction” (The sexual communication satisfaction scale/inventory was called both a scale and inventory in different studies. So, in order to ensure both names would be included, “sexual communication satisfaction” was used instead of “sexual communication satisfaction scale” or “sexual communication satisfaction inventory), “Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale,” “Sexual Self-Disclosure Questionnaire,” “Sexual Self-Disclosure Scale,” “The Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Women,” “Sexual Communication Scale,” “Sexual Communication Styles Scale,” “Sexual Satisfaction Inventory,” “Couples Communication Scale,” “Indirect Sexual Communication,” “Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction,” “Sexual Function Scale,” and “Female Partners Communication During Sexual Activity Scale.” Because there is a large literature about parent–child sexual communication, and this meta-analysis only concerns quantitative research, “parent–child” and “qualitative” were added as exclusion criteria in the search terms (Mixed-methods studies were included if they provided usable statistics to calculated effect sizes). General search terms: “sexual communication” was paired with “couples,” “relationship,” “marriage,” and “marital.” Exclusion terms were deemed necessary after preliminary searches returned a large number of articles that were clearly not relevant to sexual communication in a romantic relationship. The exclusion terms included “parent–child” “mother*,” “father*,” “qualitative,” “HIV” “peer,” “tech*,” “physician” “porn*” “therap*.”
In total, 93 articles were included with a total of 209 effect sizes, which represented 38,499 participants in a current relationship. There were 111 effect sizes and 74 studies for sexual satisfaction, and there were 98 effect sizes and 55 studies for relationship satisfaction.
Coding Procedures
Undergraduate coders were trained to reliably full-text code the articles identified for inclusion. Coders extracted general study characteristics (e.g., study author and year), sample characteristics (e.g., mean sample age), and effect sizes (see Table 1). All articles were coded by at least two people (κ = .78). When there were discrepancies between coders, the discrepancies were recorded and discussed with the first author. Following these discussions, a final code was determined and entered into the data set.
Table 1.
Summary of Study Characteristics (N = 93)
Variable | n | Variable | n/Mean | Range |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dimension of sexual communicationa | Relationship status | |||
Quality | 50 | Dating only | 10 | |
Frequency | 29 | Married only | 23 | |
Disclosure | 18 | Mixed | 60 | |
Gender composition | n | Publication status | n | |
Men only | 8 | Journal | 80 | |
Women only | 24 | Dissertation | 13 | |
Bothb | 61 | M | ||
Country of studyc Australia |
2 | Age (years) | 33.51 | 18–67.62 |
Belgium | 4 | Relationship length (years) | 8.59 | 0.53–34 |
Canada | 15 | |||
Germany | 1 | Individualism | 77.94 | 15–91 |
Ghana | 5 | |||
India | 1 | Sociosexuality | 37.91 | 14.24–57.38 |
Ireland | 1 | |||
Israel | 1 | Gender inequality | 0.19 | 0.04–0.54 |
Romania | 1 | |||
Spain | 1 | |||
Taiwan | 1 | |||
The Netherlands | 4 | |||
Turkey | 4 | |||
U.K. | 2 | |||
United States | 48 | |||
Mixed sample | 3 |
Note. Individualism was measured with Hofstede et al. (2010) cultural dimensional model which provides individualism scores for most countries (https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/). Sociosexuality was measure with the mean scores for countries overall, men, and women (Schmitt, 2005). Gender inequality was measured with Gender Inequality Index scores developed and calculated by the United Nations Development Program for the 2020 Human Development Report (http://hdr.undp.org/en/2020-report).
Total adds up to 97 to account for multiple dimensions of sexual communication in Blunt-Vinti et al. (2019), Greene and Faulkner (2005), and Valvano et al. (2018).
There were studies that included both men and women in a relationship and men and women were in relationships but not partners.
Yelsma and Athappilly (1988) was a cross-cultural study with married couples from India and the U.S., so two distinct countries were represented, and the summary statistics add up to 94.
Measurement
Measures of couples’ sexual communication captured in the meta-analysis are briefly described next and are grouped by dimensions of sexual communication. Example items, psychometric properties, and dimensions of measures used in at least two studies are located in Supplemental Table S1. Measures and coding of moderators are shown in Table 1.
Frequency of Sexual Communication
Measures of the frequency of sexual communication include the Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction noncommunication subscale (Rust & Golombok, 1985), and the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness (Hurlbert, 1991). There were also a few researcher-created measures for individual studies measure that the frequency of sexual communication with yes/no indicator or assessed the or frequency of discussing sexual topics (e.g., Bienvenu, 1980).
Quality of Sexual Communication
Measures of sexual communication quality include the Sexual Communication Satisfaction Scale (Wheeless et al., 1984), the Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (Catania, 1987), the Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Women communication subscale (Meston & Trapnell, 2005), the Inhibition of Need Expression Scale (INES; Davis et al., 2006), and the Indirect Sexual Communication Scale (Theiss & Solomon, 2007).
Sexual Self-Disclosure
Measures of sexual self-disclosure included the Sexual Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (Byers & Demmons, 1999), the Sexual Self-Disclosure Scale (Herold & Way, 1988), and the Revised Sexual Self-Disclosure Scale (Snell et al., 1989).
Publication Bias
Publication bias was addressed a priori by including dissertations and theses, contacting authors, and reviewing reference lists of included articles. Posteriori, publication bias was assessed by testing publication status as a moderator and Egger’s Regression (Egger et al., 1997). If publication status moderated the mean effect size, or Egger’s regression showed that the standard deviate of the effect size (Effect Size/Standard Error) was significantly related to its precision (1/Standard Error), publication bias might explain the strength of the effect sizes.
Analysis Plan
Correlations were transformed using the Fisher’s Z transformation for the analysis and transformed back to a correlation for reporting results. When necessary, correlations were reverse coded. Data were analyzed using R (R Core Team, 2013) and the metaSEM package (Cheung, 2015). Multilevel modeling was used to account for multiple effect sizes nested in a study (Cheung, 2015). The multilevel modeling approach allows for the estimation of unbiased standard errors when there are multiple effect sizes from the same study and to assess heterogeneity and variance at each level of the model (Cheung, 2015). Heterogeneity of effect sizes was assessed with, I2, the variance of effect sizes with tau (τ2), and R2 quantified the amount of variance explained by moderators. I2 is an index of the proportion of heterogeneity that is between studies (i.e., “true” variability) rather than due to sampling error. I2 is interpreted on a scale from 0% (i.e., no between-study heterogeneity) to 100% (all between-study heterogeneity; Borenstein et al., 2017). In the multilevel model, heterogeneity is expressed between effect sizes in the same study (level two; ) and between studies (level three; ). τ is the standard deviation (τ2 the variance) of the effect size at levels two (τ2) and three (τ3) of the model. R2 reflects the variance explained by moderators at each level of the model.
Moderator analyses were conducted with separate metaregressions for relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. Dichotomous variables included gender and if studies were conducted in the U.S. or not. Three-category moderators included dimensions of sexual communication and relationship status of the sample. Continuous moderators included age, relationship length, individualism, sociosexuality, and gender inequality. Moderators with three categories were tested for moderation by comparing the metaregression model with the moderator to the overall effect size model with the likelihood-ratio test (see Table 1, for how variables were coded). Each moderator was tested separately in its own model, with a few exceptions. First, age, relationship length, and relationship status were tested together to account for their interrelated contributions to the associations between sexual communication and both relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. Second, a model that included an interaction between sociosexuality and gender and a model that included an interaction between gender inequality and gender tested for gender differences in how sociosexuality and gender inequality changed the magnitude of the association between both relationship and sexual satisfaction. The data file, R script, and list of measures for outcomes will be made available on Open Science Framework (Mallory, 2021).
Results
All effect sizes and moderator analyses, unless otherwise noted, are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Moderator Models for Relationship Satisfaction and Sexual Satisfaction
Variable | Moderator | r | SE | LL | UL | k | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Relationship satisfaction | ||||||||||
Mean effect size | 0.37*** | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.42 | 98 | 0.01** | 0.03*** | 0.19 d | 0.74 d | |
Dimension | Frequency | 0.31a | 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.38 | 29 | 0.01** | 0.02*** | 0.27 | 0.14 |
Quality | 0.43a,b | 0.03 | 0.38 | 0.48 | 53 | |||||
Disclosure | 0.28b | 0.05 | 0.19 | 0.37 | 16 | |||||
Gender | Women | 0.37 | 0.04 | 0.30 | 0.43 | 34 | 0.01 | 0.03** | 0.05 | 0.04 |
Men | 0.44 | 0.04 | 0.29 | 0.58 | 24 | |||||
U.S. versus Non-U.S. | Not U.S. | 0.36 | 0.04 | 0.30 | 0.43 | 45 | 0.01** | 0.04*** | 0.01 | 0.04 |
U.S. | 0.41 | 0.05 | 0.23 | 0.58 | 53 | |||||
Individualism | b 0 | 0.20 | 0.16 | −0.10 | 0.47 | 95 | 0.03** | 0.03** | 0.00 | 0.03 |
b 1 | 0.002 | 0.002 | −0.001 | 0.006 | ||||||
Sociosexuality | b 0 | 0.39 | 0.026 | 0.339 | 0.443 | 92 | 0.01** | 0.03*** | 0.00 | 0.02 |
b 1 | 0.002 | 0.002 | −0.002 | 0.006 | ||||||
Gender inequality | b 0 | 0.38 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.43 | 91 | 0.01** | 0.03* | 0.08 | 0.00 |
b 1 | −0.57 | 0.34 | −0.87 | 0.01 | ||||||
Rel status | Dating | 0.26a | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.37 | 16 | 0.01** | 0.02*** | 0.00 | 0.16 |
Married | 0.46a,b | 0.05 | 0.38 | 0.53 | 25 | |||||
Mixed | 0.37b | 0.03 | 0.31 | 0.42 | 57 | |||||
Age | b 0 | 0.37 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.42 | 85 | 0.01* | 0.03*** | 0.00 | 0.02 |
b 1 | 0.02 | 0.027 | −0.036 | 0.069 | ||||||
Rel length | b 0 | 0.40 | 0.03 | 0.34 | 0.45 | 51 | 0.01* | 0.02* | 0.02 | 0.25 |
b 1 | 0.10* | 0.041 | 0.017 | 0.174 | ||||||
b 2 (squared term) | −0.04* | 0.019 | −0.080 | −0.007 | ||||||
Sexual satisfaction | ||||||||||
Mean effect size | 0.43*** | 0.03 | 0.39 | 0.47 | 111 | 0.01* | 0.04*** | 0.25 d | 0.70 d | |
Dimension | Frequency | 0.31a | 0.04 | 0.23 | 0.38 | 33 | 0.01* | 0.03*** | 0.03 | 0.32 |
Quality | 0.52a,b | 0.03 | 0.47 | 0.56 | 56 | |||||
Disclosure | 0.39b | 0.05 | 0.29 | 0.47 | 22 | |||||
Gender | Women | 0.41 | 0.04 | 0.35 | 0.46 | 49 | 0.02* | 0.04** | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Men | 0.43 | 0.04 | 0.28 | 0.58 | 32 | |||||
U.S. versus Non-U.S. | Not U.S. | 0.42 | 0.04 | 0.36 | 0.48 | 57 | 0.02* | 0.04*** | 0.00 | 0.04 |
U.S. | 0.47 | 0.06 | 0.29 | 0.66 | 54 | |||||
Individualism | b 0 | 0.26 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.43 | 106 | 0.02* | 0.04*** | 0.02 | 0.08 |
b 1 | 0.003* | 0.001 | 0.00 | 0.01 | ||||||
Sociosexuality | b 0 | 0.48 | 0.029 | 0.43 | 0.54 | 101 | 0.02* | 0.04** | 0.01 | 0.00 |
b 1 | 0 | 0.002 | −0.005 | 0.004 | ||||||
Gender inequality | b 0 | 0.44 | 0.03 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 95 | 0.01* | 0.04*** | 0.01 | 0.09 |
b 1 | −0.50* | 0.25 | −0.78 | −0.06 | ||||||
Rel status | Dating | 0.34 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.49 | 8 | 0.01* | 0.04*** | 0.00 | 0.04 |
Married | 0.44 | 0.06 | 0.34 | 0.53 | 22 | |||||
Mixed | 0.44 | 0.03 | 0.39 | 0.49 | 81 | |||||
Age | b 0 | 0.44 | 0.03 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 99 | 0.02* | 0.04** | 0.00 | 0.00 |
b 1 | 0.002 | 0.03 | −0.06 | 0.06 | ||||||
Rel length | b 0 | 0.43 | 0.03 | 0.38 | 0.48 | 69 | 0.01 | 0.04** | 0.02 | 0.00 |
b 1 | −0.01 | 0.04 | −0.08 | 0.06 |
Note. r = the Pearson’s R correlation coefficient; SE = standard error; LL = lower bound of 95% confidence interval; UL = upper bound of 95% confidence interval; = variance between effect sizes at the second level; = variance between studies at the third level; = variance explained by the moderator(s) at the second level; = variance explained by the moderator(s) at the third level; b = regression coefficient; b0 = the intercept. Rows with the same letters significantly differed from each other.
For mean effect sizes these values are I2, rather than R2.
Mean Effect Sizes
Overall sexual communication was positively associated with both relationship satisfaction (r = .37, 95% CI [.33, .42]) and sexual satisfaction (r = .43, 95% CI [.39, .47]). The effect size for sexual satisfaction was larger compared to relationship satisfaction (p < .001). There was significant within- (relationship satisfaction: τ2 = .01; sexual satisfaction τ2 = .17) and between-study variability (relationship satisfaction τ3 = .01; sexual satisfaction τ3 = .02).
Publication Bias
Publication status did not moderate the association between sexual communication and relationship satisfaction (p = .09) or the association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction (p = .17). Egger’s regression suggested that there was no publication bias for the relationship satisfaction model (Zintercept = 0.31, 95% CI [−0.81, 1.44], p = .59) or sexual satisfaction model (Zintercept = −1.91, 95% CI [−2.62, 0.23], p = .10). Together, the assessments for publication bias suggest that the effect sizes for the relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction models were not explained by publication bias.
Relationship Satisfaction
Dimensions of Sexual Communication
The model with dimension of sexual communication as a moderator differed from the model without it (p = .004), suggesting that frequency of sexual communication, quality of sexual communication, and sexual self-disclosure differ in their association with relationship satisfaction. Pairwise comparisons between each dimension indicated that quality of sexual communication (r = .43, 95% CI [.38, .48]) had a larger effect size compared to studies measuring sexual self-disclosure (r = .28, 95% CI [.19, .37]) and frequency of sexual communication (r = .31, 95% CI [.24, .38]). Sexual self-disclosure and frequency of sexual communication did not differ. Accounting for the dimension of sexual communication explained 27% of the variance within and 14% of the variance between studies.
Gender
Gender did not moderate the effect size (p = .16).
Age Relationship Length, and Relationship Status
Age did not moderate the association between sexual communication and relationship satisfaction (p = .53). A squared term of relationship length moderated the association between overall sexual communication and relationship satisfaction (b = −.04, 95% CI [−.08, −.01]), which suggested that the strength of the association increased with relationship length until about 9 years (the mean relationship across studies) and then weakened. Relationship length accounted for 2% of the variance within studies and 25% of the variance between studies. Finally, a model with relationship status as a moderator differed from the model without the moderator (p = .02). Pairwise tests indicated that studies of married couples (b = .46, SE = .05, 95% CI [.38, .53]) had a larger effect size compared to dating samples (b = .26, SE = .06, 95% CI [.15, .37]), and samples with mixed relationship statuses (b = .37, 95% CI [.31, .42]). Relationship status accounted for 16% of the variance between studies.
The results from a model including age, relationship length, and relationship status of the study indicated that relationship status was the only significant moderator (see Supplemental Table S2). Studies with married samples had larger effect sizes compared to mixed status (b = .17, 95% CI [.04, .29]) samples. Mixed and married samples did not differ from dating samples. The full model accounted for 51% of the variance between studies.
Cultural Variability
Whether a study was conducted inside of or outside of the U.S. (p = .61), individualism (p = .23), sociosexuality (p = .31), and gender inequality (p = .06) did not moderate the association between sexual communication and relationship satisfaction. However, there was a significant interaction between sociosexuality and gender (see Supplemental Table S3). When sociosexuality was high, men (r = .95) and women (r = .92) had positive correlations between sexual communication and relationship satisfaction. When sociosexuality was low, men (r = .69) had a large positive correlation between sexual communication and relationship satisfaction while the association was small for women (r = .16).
Sexual Satisfaction
Dimensions of Sexual Communication
The model with dimension of sexual communication in the model differed from the model without it (p < .001), suggesting that frequency of sexual communication, quality of sexual communication, and sexual self-disclosure differed in their associations with sexual satisfaction. Pairwise comparisons indicated that quality of sexual communication (r = .52, 95% CI [.47, .56]) had the largest effect size, which significantly differed from the effects of frequency of sexual communication (r = .31, 95% CI [.23, .38]) and sexual self-disclosure (r = .39, 95% CI [.29, .47]). The frequency of sexual communication and sexual self-disclosure did not differ. Accounting for the dimension of sexual communication explained 3% of the variance within studies and 32% of the variance between studies.
Gender
Gender did not moderate the effect size (p = 1.00).
Age Relationship Length, Relationship Status
In individual models, age (p = .95) relationship length (p = .71), and relationship status (p = .51) did not significantly moderate the association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction, which suggested that the association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction did not vary as a function of age, relationship length, or relationship status.
Cultural Variability
Whether a study was conducted within or outside of the U.S. (p = .64) and sociosexuality (p = .85) did not moderate the association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction. However, high levels of individualism (b = .003, 95% CI [.00, .01]) strengthened the association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction, while higher levels of gender inequality (b = −.50, 95% CI [−.78, −.06]) weakened, it. The strength of this association for gender inequality was attenuated, but still significant, when gender was included in the model (b = −.06, 95% CI [−.12, −.01]; Supplemental Table S4). Individualism accounted for 2% of the variation within studies and 8% of the variation between studies and gender inequality accounted for 1% variation within studies and 9% between studies.
Discussion
Couples’ sexual communication represents a positive force in relationships that can enhance relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction; yet many couples struggle with it (Byers, 2011). The utility of research on couples’ sexual communication has been limited by murkiness regarding how different dimensions of couples’ sexual communication contribute to their relational and sexual satisfaction. Informed by sexual script theory (Simon & Gagnon, 1986) and the IEMSS (MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009), this meta-analysis represents the first systematic effort to document how different dimensions of sexual communication are distinctly associated with relationship and sexual satisfaction, as well as factors moderate these associations. The first finding was that sexual communication had a stronger positive association with sexual satisfaction than relationship satisfaction. Second, the quality of sexual communication had the strongest association with relationship and sexual satisfaction. Third, the positive association between sexual communication and relationship satisfaction was stronger in samples of married couples net of sample age and relationship length. Fourth, individualistic countries had a stronger positive association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction. Fifth, countries with more gender inequality had a weaker association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction. Finally, when sociosexuality was low, sexual communication had a large positive correlation with relationship satisfaction for men and weak positive correlation for women. These findings highlight several factors important for future studies on sexual communication and its association with relationship and sexual satisfaction.
Although the directionality of these associations cannot be determined in this meta-analysis, the results indicated that sexual communication is more closely tied to sexual satisfaction than relationship satisfaction. Previous research has been mixed regarding the order of the associations between sexual communication, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction, with studies finding evidence for all orderings of their correlations (Cupach & Comstock, 1990; MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009; Mark & Jozkowski, 2013). Given the stronger association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction, it is possible that sexual communication may affect relationship satisfaction through sexual satisfaction—a finding that aligns with the expressive pathway of the IEMSS (MacNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009).
One way that sexual communication may contribute differently to relationship and sexual satisfaction is through different aspects of sexual communication. The quality of sexual communication was more strongly related to relationship and sexual satisfaction than the frequency of sexual communication and sexual self-disclosure, demonstrating that sexual self-disclosure is not the only aspect of sexual communication that enhances relationship satisfaction or sexual satisfaction. Given the nuanced sexual communication that couples’ use to rewrite the interpersonal and gender scripts in their relationships (Faulkner & Lannutti, 2010; Masters et al., 2013), it makes sense that the quality of their discussions about sex play a larger role than sexual self-disclosure and the frequency of sexual communication.
One reason that quality of sexual communication may have a larger association with relationship and sexual satisfaction, compared to other dimensions of sexual communication, is that couples tend to be more positive about their relationship when reporting about it globally (e.g., quality of sexual communication) than when reporting on specific (e.g., the frequency of sexual communication) aspects of it (Neff & Karney, 2005). Further, the quality of sexual communication overlaps in important ways with the frequency and disclosure dimensions of sexual communication. For example, frequent conversations about one’s sexual relationship likely only benefit the relationship if these are high-quality (e.g., open and satisfying) conversations (Valvano et al., 2018). Similarly, partners can share their sexual preferences, but if these conversations are hostile, the disclosure may not promote the intimacy or understanding of sexual preferences needed to promote relationship or sexual satisfaction (Rehman et al., 2011, 2017). It is also possible that semantic overlap between items in measures of the quality of sexual communication and measures of relationship and sexual satisfaction inflates their correlations. Although it was not possible to look at the overlap between dimensions of sexual communication, or between sexual communication and satisfaction measures in the present study, the quality of sexual communication may be the most important aspect of sexual communication as it impacts the other dimensions of sexual communication and key components of relationship and sexual satisfaction.
Regarding gender, the nonsignificant finding aligns with the gender similarity hypothesis, which proposes that often there are no gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors and that when they are, they are typically small (Petersen & Hyde, 2010). In other words, sexual communication is important, regardless of gender, for relationship and sexual satisfaction (MacNeil & Byers, 2009; Montesi et al., 2011). For sexual satisfaction, it may be that sexual communication matters differently for women, but only for specific aspects of sexual well-being (e.g., sexual desire; Mallory et al., 2019).
An important contribution of this meta-analysis is delineating whether age, relationship length, or relationship status were moderators of the association between sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction. When age, relationship length, and relationship status of the sample were included as moderators of the association between sexual communication and relationship satisfaction, only relationship status remained a significant predictor. Thus, how closely related sexual communication and relationship satisfaction are related varies by relationship stage, which leaves a key question unanswered: when does sexual communication become more closely tied to relationship and satisfaction? It was not possible to fully assess this in the present study, but one explanation may be the changes in commitment that accompany changes in relationship status. Cultural scripts suggest that talking explicitly about sex early too early in a relationship could be a possible source of conflict (Faulkner & Lannutti, 2010; Montesi et al., 2011). Indeed, previous research suggests that partners sometimes fear that disclosing fantasies could threaten the relationship, but more often this is the case earlier in the relationship (Faulkner & Lannutti, 2010; Montesi et al., 2011). Moreover, the relational turbulence model (Theiss & Solomon, 2007) has found that relational uncertainty, which often occurs earlier in relationships, increases the perceived threat of talking about sex, decreasing sexual satisfaction through avoiding sexual topics, and indirect sexual communication (Theiss & Estlein, 2014). Thus, commitment may strengthen the link between sexual communication and relationship satisfaction.
Aligning with the notion that sexual scripts vary by culture (Simon & Gagnon, 1986), several indicators of cultural variability were related to the associations between sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction. The stronger association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction in more individualistic countries may be explained by the research suggesting that individualistic countries tend to value direct communication over indirect and context-driven communication (Hofstede, 2015). While indirect and nonverbal sexual communication have utility (McNeil et al., 2018; Rehman et al., 2017), it is often more direct and verbal sexual communication that is related to greater sexual satisfaction (Theiss & Estlein, 2014). Nations with greater gender inequality have an imbalance of power between men and women that often corresponds to devaluing women’s sexual autonomy and power in romantic relationships (Petersen & Hyde, 2010)—this may explain why greater gender inequality was associated with a weaker correlation between sexual communication and satisfaction. Successful sexual communication in healthy relationships requires a sense of safety, respect, and equality between partners for it to translate effectively into sexual satisfaction (Greene & Faulkner, 2005; Rehman et al., 2017). In countries characterized by unrestricted sociosexuality, where both men and women are in favor of sexual permissiveness, better sexual communication may matter more for maintaining relationship satisfaction given the importance of sexual permissiveness. Interestingly, gender equality and unrestricted sociosexuality are positively related (Schmitt, 2005); thus, it tracks that in cultures with restricted sociosexuality, sexual communication and relationship satisfaction might be less closely linked for women who may have less sexual autonomy or power in their relationships. Together, the findings for individualism, gender inequality, and sociosexuality highlight how cultural factors, particularly around communication norms, sociosexuality, and gender inequality affect the associations between sexual communication and relationship and sexual satisfaction.
Limitations and Future Directions
There were several limitations to this meta-analysis that point to future directions for research on couples’ sexual communication. These limitations broadly include the demographic homogeneity of included studies, methodological homogeneity of the included studies, and the conceptual overlap between measures and dimensions of sexual communication.
A limitation with relationship science generally, that was reflected in the current meta-analysis, is the demographic homogeneity of participants in studies of couples. One impact of this demographic homogeneity was the low power to detect and test for significant differences. For example, some of the groups in the three-level moderators had a small number of effect sizes (e.g., dating samples), only five studies included in the meta-analysis were exclusively participants in same-gender relationships, and only one study based in the United States had a sample that was not majority White (Matsuda, 2017). Future primary studies should be conducted with dating samples, same-gender couples, racially and ethnically diverse couples, and in countries beyond those included in this meta-analysis to better understand the associations between couples’ sexual communication and both relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction in these populations.
This meta-analysis reflects the limited methodological diversity present in the literature on sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction: The majority of studies were cross-sectional, included one partner, and used one-time self-report measures. There are only a handful of observational studies observing couples discussing their sexual relationship (McNeil et al., 2018; Rehman et al., 2011, 2017); no studies used daily diary or panel data; only 12 studies utilized dyadic data, and there were few national studies. Future studies utilizing these aforementioned methods would provide novel information about in-the-moment dynamics of couples’ sexual communication, how sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction dynamically shape each other over time, the mechanisms through which sexual communication is related to relationship and sexual satisfaction, and better demographics of how often couples discuss sex and what topics they discuss.
A conceptual and methodological limitation of this meta-analysis was the overlap between measures of sexual communication both within and between dimensions. Only three studies (see Table 1) included more than one dimension of sexual communication. Though theoretically driven and empirically supported, the dimensions of sexual communication utilized in this meta-analysis to compare different measures of sexual communication were broad; realistically, there is overlap in these dimensions. Relatedly, there may be semantic overlap between items in sexual communication measures and relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction measures that might inflate their correlations. More research is needed to assess differences and similarities between dimensions of couples’ sexual communication and their associations with both relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction within the same sample. Even within the dimensions of quality, frequency, and sexual self-disclosure, there is substantial variability in measurement, and more work is needed to comprehensively delineate and define key components of each dimension. Measurement testing that identifies when and how dimensions of sexual communication measures are distinct or overlap and clarifies the sematic overlap between items in measures of sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction would be major contributions to the field. Future studies should also elaborate on which specific aspects of quality of sexual communication link it so strongly to relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. Identifying the specific aspects of quality sexual communication might provide insight that can enhance couples’ sexual communication in their relationships.
Conclusion
This meta-analysis reviewed 93 studies to examine the association between sexual communication and both relationship and sexual satisfaction. The moderate association found differed by how sexual communication was measured but also supported that sexual communication is a positive resource for couples’ sexual and relational well-being. Key interpersonal and cultural moderators highlighted areas that future studies explore. Hopefully, this meta-analysis encourages researchers to describe why one aspect of sexual communication matters more or less given the relational outcome being investigated, and to build upon the findings and limitations of this meta-analysis.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
Results from an earlier version of this article were presented at the 2019 National Council of Family Relationship Annual Conference. I would like to thank Aprile Benner, Lisa Neff, and Stephen Russell who provided feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. I would also like to thank Tatianna Arevalo, Geetha Pokala, Prachi Shah, Patience Ojionuka, and Marco Flores who helped to screen and code articles for the meta-analysis. The data file, R script, and additional files will be made available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nq846). This work was supported by grant, P2CHD042849, Population Research Center, and by grant, T32HD007081, Training Program in Population Studies, both awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This research was also supported in part by the National Institute of Mental Health through a grant awarded to Allen B. Mallory grant number F31MH115608.
Footnotes
Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000946.supp
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analyses.
- *Amidu N, Owiredu WK, Woode E, Addai-Mensah O, Quaye L, Alhassan A, & Tagoe EA (2010a). Incidence of sexual dysfunction: A prospective survey in Ghanaian females. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 8, Article 106. 10.1186/1477-7827-8-106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Amidu N, Owiredu WK, Woode E, Appiah R, Quaye L, & Gyasi-Sarpong CK (2010c). Sexual dysfunction among Ghanaian men presenting with various medical conditions. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 8, Article 118. 10.1186/1477-7827-8-118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Amidu N, Owiredu WKBA, Woode E, Addai-Mensah O, Gyasi-Sarpong KC, & Alhassan A (2010b). Prevalence of male sexual dysfunction among Ghanaian populace: Myth or reality? International Journal of Impotence Research, 22, 337–342. 10.1038/ijir.2010.24 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Amidu N, Quaye L, Afoko AA, Karikari P, Gandau BBN, Amoah EO, & Nuwoku E (2014). Golombok Rust Inventory of sexual satisfaction for the presence of sexual dysfunction within a Ghanaian urological population. International Journal of Impotence Research, 26, 135–140. 10.1038/ijir.2013.52 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Anderson AB, Rosen NO, Price L, & Bergeron S (2016). Associations between penetration cognitions, genital pain, and sexual well-being in women with provoked vestibulodynia. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(3), 444–452. 10.1016/j.jsxm.2015.12.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Anderson M (2011). Sexual communication in romantic relationships: An investigation into the disclosure of sexual fantasies (Order No. 3489846) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/8yn7ntc [Google Scholar]
- *Apt CV, & Hurlbert DF (1992). Motherhood and female sexuality beyond one year postpartum: A study of military wives. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 18(2), 104–114. 10.1080/01614576.1992.11074044 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Babin EA (2013). An examination of predictors of nonverbal and verbal communication of pleasure during sex and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 270–292. 10.1177/0265407512454523 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Banmen J, & Vogel NA (1985). The relationship between marital quality and interpersonal sexual communication. Family Therapy, 12, 45–58. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1474289306?accountid=7118&forcedol=true# [Google Scholar]
- *Beyazit F, & Sahin B (2018). Determining the factors influencing the intimate relationship between sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment in postmenopausal women. Menopause Review, 17(2), 57–62. 10.5114/pm.2018.77302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bienvenu MJ (1980). Counselor’s and teacher’s manual for the sexual communication inventory. Family Life Publications. [Google Scholar]
- *Blunt-Vinti H, Jozkowski KN, & Hunt M (2019). Show or tell? Does verbal and/or nonverbal sexual communication matter for sexual satisfaction? Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 45(3), 206–217. 10.1080/0092623X.2018.1501446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Bois K, Bergeron S, Rosen NO, McDuff P, & Grégoire C (2013). Sexual and relationship intimacy among women with provoked vestibulodynia and their partners: Associations with sexual satisfaction, sexual function, and pain self-efficacy. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10(8), 2024–2035. 10.1111/jsm.12210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Borenstein M, Higgins JPT, Hedges LV, & Rothstein HR (2017). Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(1), 5–18. 10.1002/jrsm.1230 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Bradford A, Fellman B, Urbauer D, Gallegos J, Meaders K, Tung C, & Ramondetta L (2015). Assessment of sexual activity and dysfunction in medically underserved women with gynecologic cancers. Gynecologic Oncology, 139(1), 134–140. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.08.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Brown RD, & Weigel DJ (2018). Exploring a contextual model of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 55(2), 202–213. 10.1080/00224499.2017.1295299 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Byers ES (2011). Beyond the birds and the bees and was it good for you?: Thirty years of research on sexual communication. Canadian Psychology, 52(1), 20–28. 10.1037/a0022048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Byers ES, & Demmons S (1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 36(2), 180–189. 10.1080/00224499909551983 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Catania JA (1987). Help-seeking: An avenue for adult sexual development (Order No. 8800057) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Francisco]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/38rrawz7 [Google Scholar]
- Cheung MW-L (2015). Meta-analysis a structural equation modeling approach. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- *Coffelt TA, & Hess JA (2014). Sexual disclosures: Connections to relational satisfaction and closeness. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40(6), 577–591. 10.1080/0092623X.2013.811449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Cupach WR, & Comstock J (1990). Satisfaction with sexual communication in marriage: Links to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(2), 179–186. 10.1177/0265407590072002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *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]
- Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, & Minder C (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. The BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Fallis EE, Purdon C, & Rehman US (2013). Development and validation of the response to sexual difficulties scale. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(1), 67–79. 10.1007/s10508-012-9973-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Fallis EE, Rehman US, & Purdon C (2014). Perceptions of partner sexual satisfaction in heterosexual committed relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 541–550. 10.1007/s10508-013-0177-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- *Ferroni P, & Taffe J (1997). Women’s emotional well-being: The importance of communicating sexual needs. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 12(2), 127–138. 10.1080/02674659708408155 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Fisher TD, Davis CM, Yarber WL, & Davis SL (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of sexuality-related measures (3rd ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315881089 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Fleishman JM (2016). Coming of age at the time of Stonewall: Internalized homophobia, resilience, sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction in aging adults’ same-sex relationships (Order No. 10120144) [Doctoral dissertation, Widener University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/yu2b8bh4 [Google Scholar]
- *Garos S, Kluck A, & Aronoff D (2007). Prostate cancer patients and their partners: Differences in satisfaction indices and psychological variables. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 4(5), 1394–1403. 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00545.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Gillespie BJ (2017). Correlates of sex frequency and sexual satisfaction among partnered older adults. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43(5), 403–423. 10.1080/0092623X.2016.1176608 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Goldsmith KM, Dunkley 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]
- *Grauvogl A, Peters ML, Evers SMAA, & van Lankveld JJDM (2015). A new instrument to measure sexual competence and interaction competence in youth: Psychometric properties in female adolescents. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41(5), 544–556. 10.1080/0092623X.2014.933461 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Greene K, & Faulkner SL (2005). Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles, 53, 239–251. 10.1007/s11199-005-5682-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Gungor S, Baser I, Ceyhan S, Karasahin E, & Acikel CH (2007). Mode of delivery and subsequent long-term sexual function of primiparous women. International Journal of Impotence Research, 19, 358–365. 10.1038/sj.ijir.3901546 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Gungor S, Keskin U, Gülsün M, Erdem M, Ceyhan ST, & Ergün A (2015). Concordance of sexual dysfunction and dissatisfaction by self-report and those by partner’s perception in young adult couples. International Journal of Impotence Research, 27, 133–139. 10.1038/ijir.2015.6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Hellemans S, Loeys T, Buysse A, & De Smet O (2015a). Prevalence and impact of intimate partner violence (IPV) among an ethnic minority population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(19), 3389–3418. 10.1177/0886260514563830 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Hellemans S, Loeys T, Dewitte M, Smet OD, & Buysse A (2015b). Prevalence of intimate partner violence victimization and victims’ relational and sexual well-being. Journal of Family Violence, 30(6), 685–698. 10.1007/s10896-015-9712-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Hendrickx L, Gijs L, Janssen E, & Enzlin P (2016). Predictors of sexual distress in women with desire and arousal difficulties: Distinguishing between personal, partner, and interpersonal distress. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(11), 1662–1675. 10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.09.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herold ES, & Way L (1988). Sexual self-disclosure among university women. Journal of Sex Research, 24(1), 1–14. 10.1080/00224498809551394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Hess JA, & Coffelt TA (2012). Verbal communication about sex in marriage: Patterns of language use and its connection with relational outcomes. Journal of Sex Research, 49(6), 603–612. 10.1080/00224499.2011.619282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hofstede G (2015). National differences in communication styles. In Brzozowska D (Ed.), Culture’s software: Communication styles (pp. 1–14). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, & Minkov M (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
- *Holmberg D, & Blair KL (2009). Sexual desire, communication, satisfaction, and preferences of men and women in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 46(1), 57–66. 10.1080/00224490802645294 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Hurlbert DF (1991). The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: A comparative study between sexually assertive and sexually nonassertive women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 17(3), 183–190. 10.1080/00926239108404342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Hurlbert DF, Apt C, & Rabehl SM (1993). Key variables to understanding female sexual satisfaction: An examination of women in nondistressed marriages. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 19(2), 154–165. 10.1080/00926239308404899 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Hurlbert DF, Fertel ER, Singh D, & Fernandez F (2005). The role of sexual functioning in the sexual desire adjustment and psychosocial adaptation of women with hypoactive sexual desire. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 14, 15–30. [Google Scholar]
- *Johnson SL (2009). Individual and interdependent analyses of relational maintenance, sexual communication, and marital quality (Order No. 3371210) [Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/29tazd6d [Google Scholar]
- *Jones AC, Robinson WD, & Seedall RB (2018). The role of sexual communication in couples’ sexual outcomes: A dyadic path analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(4), 606–623. 10.1111/jmft.12282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *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, Article e7. 10.1017/jrr.2014.7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Kohlberger B (2011). Sexual self-schema and its influence on perceptions of sexual health in romantic relationships (Order No. 1498164) [Master’s thesis, Wayne State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/exswm3xb [Google Scholar]
- *Konzen J (2014). The EIS model: A mixed methods research study of a multidisciplinary sex therapy treatment (Order No. 3642199) [Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/d45rsm9c [Google Scholar]
- *Lambert S, Keegan A, & Petrak J (2005). Sex and relationships for HIV positive women since HAART: A quantitative study. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 81(4), 333–337. 10.1136/sti.2004.013516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lantagne A, & Furman W (2017). Romantic relationship development: The interplay between age and relationship length. Developmental Psychology, 53(9), 1738–1749. 10.1037/dev0000363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Lazar A (2016). The moderating effect of religiousness and spirituality on the relation between dyadic sexual and non-sexual communication with sexual and marital satisfaction among married Jewish women. Archiv für Religionspsychologie, 38(3), 353–377. 10.1163/15736121-12341321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Leclerc B, Bergeron S, Brassard A, Bélanger C, Steben M, & Lambert B (2015). Attachment, sexual assertiveness, and sexual outcomes in women with provoked vestibulodynia and their partners: A mediation model. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(6), 1561–1572. 10.1007/s10508-014-0295-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Lee JT, Hu YL, Meston CM, Lin HH, & Tseng H-M (2019). The sexual satisfaction scale for women (SSS-W): Adaptation and validation of a traditional Chinese version in Taiwan. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 45(3), 179–189. 10.1080/0092623X.2018.1494649 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Lehmiller JJ, Vanderdrift LE, & Kelly JR (2014). Sexual communication, satisfaction, and condom use behavior in friends with benefits and romantic partners. Journal of Sex Research, 51(1), 74–85. 10.1080/00224499.2012.719167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Leonhardt ND, Willoughby BJ, Busby DM, Yorgason JB, & Holmes EK (2018). The significance of the female orgasm: A nationally representative, dyadic study of newlyweds’ orgasm experience. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 15(8), 1140–1148. 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.05.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Lundquist KM (1996). A study of the relationships among relational maintenance strategies, sexual communication strategies and romantic relational satisfaction (Order No. 1380819) [Master’s thesis, University of North Texas]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/3cm35f28 [Google Scholar]
- *MacNeil S, & Byers ES (1997). The relationships between sexual problems, communication, and sexual satisfaction. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6, 277–283. [Google Scholar]
- *MacNeil S, & Byers ES (2005). Dyadic assessment of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(2), 169–181. 10.1177/0265407505050942 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *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]
- Mallory AB (2021). Dimensions of couples’ sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction: A meta-analysis. https://osf.io/nq846 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- *Mark KP, & Jozkowski KN (2013). The mediating role of sexual and nonsexual communication between relationship and sexual satisfaction in a sample of college-age heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 39(5), 410–427. 10.1080/0092623X.2011.644652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Masters NT, Casey E, Wells EA, & Morrison DM (2013). Sexual scripts among young heterosexually active men and women: Continuity and change. Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 409–420. 10.1080/00224499.2012.661102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Matsuda Y (2017). Actor–partner interdependence model analysis of sexual communication and relationship/family planning factors among immigrant Latino couples in the United States. Health Communication, 32(5), 612–620. 10.1080/10410236.2016.1160317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McNeil J, Rehman US, & Fallis E (2018). The influence of attachment styles on sexual communication behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 55(2), 191–201. 10.1080/00224499.2017.1318817 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Merwin KE, O’Sullivan LF, & Rosen NO (2017). We need to talk: Disclosure of sexual problems is associated with depression, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction in women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43(8), 786–800. 10.1080/0092623X.2017.1283378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Meston C, & Trapnell P (2005). Development and validation of a five-factor sexual satisfaction and distress scale for women: The Sexual Satisfaction Scale for Women (SSS-W). Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2(1), 66–81. 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.20107.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Metts S, & Cupach WR (1989). The role of communication in human sexuality. In McKinney K, & Sprecher S (Eds.), Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal context (pp. 139–161). Praeger. [Google Scholar]
- *Montesi JL, Conner BT, Gordon EA, Fauber RL, Kim KH, & Heimberg RG (2013). On the relationship among social anxiety, intimacy, sexual communication, and sexual satisfaction in young couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(1), 81–91. 10.1007/s10508-012-9929-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Montesi JL, Fauber RL, Gordon EA, & Heimberg RG (2011). The specific importance of communicating about sex to couples’ sexual and overall relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(5), 591–609. 10.1177/0265407510386833 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Neff LA, & Karney BR (2005). To know you is to love you: The implications of global adoration and specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 480–497. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.480 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Negash S (2012). Sexual health education in college: The impact of sexual negotiation training on sexual risk reduction (Order No. 3539594) [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/mz79pe82 [Google Scholar]
- *Nguyen B-TN (2015). The role of partner’s receptiveness and intimacy in the relation between sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction [Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/w2kmyt6j [Google Scholar]
- *O’Gorman EC, Bownes IT, & Dinsmore WW (1990). Sexual and marital dysfunction and polypartnerism in STD clinic attenders. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 5(1), 63–68. 10.1080/02674659008407998 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Owiredu WK, Amidu N, Alidu H, Sarpong C, & Gyasi-Sarpong CK (2011). Determinants of sexual dysfunction among clinically diagnosed diabetic patients. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 9, Article 70. 10.1186/1477-7827-9-70 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Parsons JT, Starks TJ, Gamarel KE, & Grov C (2012). Non-monogamy and sexual relationship quality among same-sex male couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(5), 669–677. 10.1037/a0029561 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Pazmany E, Bergeron S, Verhaeghe J, Van Oudenhove L, & Enzlin P (2015). Dyadic sexual communication in pre-menopausal women with self-reported dyspareunia and their partners: Associations with sexual function, sexual distress and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(2), 516–528. 10.1111/jsm.12787 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Petersen JL, & Hyde JS (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21–38. 10.1037/a0017504 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Plaud JJ, Dubbert PM, Holm J, Wittrock D, Smith P, Edison J, McAnulty R, Caddell J, Summerville M, & Jones A Jr. (1996). Erectile dysfunction in men with chronic medical illness. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 27(1), 11–19. 10.1016/0005-7916(96)88307-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Quinn-Nilas C, Milhausen RR, Breuer R, Bailey J, Pavlou M, DiClemente RJ, & Wingood GM (2016). Validation of the sexual communication self-efficacy scale. Health Education & Behavior, 43(2), 165–171. 10.1177/1090198115598986 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/ [Google Scholar]
- *Rancourt KM, Rosen NO, Bergeron S, & Nealis LJ (2016). Talking about sex when sex is painful: Dyadic sexual communication is associated with women’s pain, and couples’ sexual and psychological outcomes in provoked vestibulodynia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(8), 1933–1944. 10.1007/s10508-015-0670-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Reese JB, Porter LS, Regan KR, Keefe FJ, Azad NS, Diaz LA Jr., Herman JM, & Haythornthwaite JA (2014). A randomized pilot trial of a telephone-based couples intervention for physical intimacy and sexual concerns in colorectal cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 23, 1005–1013. 10.1002/pon.3508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Reese JB, Porter LS, Somers TJ, & Keefe FJ (2012). Pilot feasibility study of a telephone-based couples intervention for physical intimacy and sexual concerns in colorectal cancer. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 38(5), 402–417. 10.1080/0092623X.2011.606886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Rehman US, 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 & Marital Therapy, 37(2), 94–103. 10.1080/0092623X.2011.547352 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rehman US, Lizdek I, Fallis EE, Sutherland S, Goodnight JA, Rehman US, Fallis EE, & Goodnight JA (2017). How is sexual communication different from nonsexual communication? A moment-by-moment analysis of discussions between romantic partners. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(8), 2339–2352. 10.1007/s10508-017-1006-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Rose MP (1996). Sexuality and chronic illness: A biopsychosocial model of sexual satisfaction in women with interstitial cystitis (Order No. 9706613) [Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/7z3vcarf [Google Scholar]
- *Rosenthal L, & Starks TJ (2015). Relationship stigma and relationship outcomes in interracial and same-sex relationships: Examination of sources and buffers. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(6), 818–830. 10.1037/fam0000116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Rust J, & Golombok S (1985). The Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction (GRISS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(1), 63–64. 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1985.tb01314.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Santos-Iglesias P, & Sierra JC (2010). Hurlbert index of sexual assertiveness: A study of psychometric properties in a Spanish sample. Psychological Reports, 107(1), 39–57. 10.2466/02.03.07.17.21.PR0.107.4.39-57 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schmitt DP (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–275. 10.1017/S0140525X05000051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Simon W, & Gagnon JH (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97–120. 10.1007/BF01542219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Simpson JA, & Gangestad SW (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883. 10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Smith AP (2010). The couple relationship following sexual trauma: Intimacy and religious coping (Order No. 305243336) [Doctoral dissertation, Regent University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/z6cdhn23 [Google Scholar]
- Snell WE Jr., Belk SS, Papini DR, & Clark S (1989). Development and validation of the Sexual Self-Disclosure Scale. Annals of Sex Research, 2(4), 307–334. 10.1007/BF00849749 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Socher S (1999). Correlates of sexual satisfaction in women (Order No. 9917700) [Doctoral Dissertation, City University of New York]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/k9c87wwu [Google Scholar]
- Sprecher S, & Hendrick SS (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(6), 857–877. 10.1521/jscp.23.6.857.54803 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Starks TJ, Grov C, & Parsons JT (2013). Sexual compulsivity and interpersonal functioning: Sexual relationship quality and sexual health in gay relationships. Health Psychology, 32(10), 1047–1056. 10.1037/a0030648 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Stephenson KR, Pulverman CS, & Meston CM (2014). Assessing the association between childhood sexual abuse and adult sexual experiences in women with sexual difficulties. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27(3), 274–282. 10.1002/jts.21923 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Ter Kuile MM, Brauer M, & Laan E (2006). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS): Psychometric properties within a Dutch population. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 32(4), 289–304. 10.1080/00926230600666261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Theiss JA (2011). Modeling dyadic effects in the associations between relational uncertainty, sexual communication, and sexual satisfaction for husbands and wives. Communication Research, 38(4), 565–584. 10.1177/0093650211402186 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Theiss JA, & 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. 10.1080/10570314.2013.845794 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Theiss JA, & Solomon DH (2007). Communication and the emotional, cognitive, and relational consequences of first sexual encounters between partners. Communication Quarterly, 55(2), 179–206. 10.1080/01463370601036663 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *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]
- *Traa MJ, De Vries J, Roukema JA, & Den Oudsten BL (2012). The preoperative sexual functioning and quality of sexual life in colorectal cancer: A study among patients and their partners. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(12), 3247–3254. 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02938.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Tracey LL (2006). Interpersonal and psychosocial correlates of anorgasmia [Master’s thesis, University of Toronto]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/ymuz7jdv [Google Scholar]
- *Turliuc MN, & Scutaru EL (2013). A semi-model of predictive factors for mixed infidelity. Annals of AII Cuza University. Psychological Services, 22, 35–51. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Development Program. (2020). Human development indices and indicators 2020 statistical update. United Nations. http://hdr.undp.org/en/2020-report [Google Scholar]
- *Valvano AK, Rollock MJD, Hudson WH, Goodworth MR, Lopez E, & Stepleman L (2018). Sexual communication, sexual satisfaction, and relationship quality in people with multiple sclerosis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 63(2), 267–275. 10.1037/rep0000203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Van Lankveld JJDM, & Ter Kuile MM (1999). The Golombok Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction (GRISS): Predictive validity and construct validity in a Dutch population. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(6), 1005–1023. 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00200-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Velten J, & Margraf J (2017). Satisfaction guaranteed? How individual, partner, and relationship factors impact sexual satisfaction within partnerships. PLOS ONE, 12(2), Article e0172855. 10.1371/journal.pone.0172855 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Waxman SE (2009). Laser Doppler imaging: A new measure of genital blood flow in female sexual arousal (Order No. NR70380) [Doctoral dissertation, Queen’s University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/ubrfry5x [Google Scholar]
- *Weaver AD, & Byers ES (2013). Eye of the Beholder? Sociocultural Factors in the Body Image and Sexual Well-Being of Heterosexual Women. International Journal of Sexual Health, 25(2), 128–147. 10.1080/19317611.2012.737446 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wheeless LR, Wheeless VE, & Baus R (1984). Sexual communication, communication satisfaction, and solidarity in the developmental stages of intimate relationships. Western Journal of Speech Communication: WJSC, 48(3), 217–230. 10.1080/10570318409374158 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- *Widman LM (2006). Sexual communication and contraceptive use in adolescent dating couples [Master’s thesis, University of Tennessee]. Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1834/ [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Yanikkerem E, Goker A, Ustgorul S, & Karakus A (2016). Evaluation of sexual functions and marital adjustment of pregnant women in Turkey. International Journal of Impotence Research, 28(5), 176–183. 10.1038/ijir.2016.26 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- *Yelsma P, & Athappilly K (1988). Marital satisfaction and communication practices: Comparisons among Indian and American couples. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 19(1), 37–54. 10.3138/jcfs.19.1.37 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.