Abstract
The current research reports a dyadic analysis of sexual satisfaction, relationship happiness, and correlates of these couple outcomes in a large multinational dataset consisting of 1,009 midlife heterosexual couples (2,018 individuals) recruited in Japan, Brazil, Germany, Spain, and the United States (Heiman et al., 2011). Actor-Partner Interdependence Models (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) identified correlates of sexual satisfaction that included individuals’ reports of good health; frequent kissing, cuddling, and caressing; frequent recent sexual activity; attaching importance to one’s own and one’s partner’s orgasm; better sexual functioning; and greater relationship happiness. Even after controlling for individual-level effects, partners’ reports of good health; frequent kissing, cuddling, and caressing; frequent recent sexual activity; attaching importance to one’s own and one’s partner’s orgasm; better sexual functioning; and greater relationship happiness contributed significantly to predicting and understanding individuals’ sexual satisfaction. Correlates of relationship happiness included individuals’ reports of good health; frequent kissing, cuddling, and caressing; frequent recent sexual activity; attaching importance to one’s own and one’s partner’s orgasm; better sexual functioning; and greater sexual satisfaction, and once again, even after controlling for individual-level effects, partners’ reports of each of these correlates contributed significantly to predicting and understanding individuals’ relationship happiness. Interactions of individual and partner effects with participant gender are also reported. Current results demonstrate empirically that the partner “matters” to an individual’s sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness and indicate that a comprehensive understanding of factors contributing to these couple outcomes requires a couple-level research strategy. Partner effects, even when controlling for individual effects, were consistently observed, and explanation of sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness always depended on identifying and understanding mutual and concurrent individual and partner influences.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The interclass correlation for reported relationship duration within a couple was 0.99. A total of 109 couples differed in their reported relationship duration. For 81 of these couples, the reported difference was 1 year, and the average difference among all discrepant couples was 0.43 years. For discrepant couples, we used the average of couple’s reports.
Dichotomization of the sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness responses was based upon the skewed nature of the distributions of these outcomes which is not uncommon in research on couple relationships. The response distributions obtained were deemed to pose more challenges to meaningful statistical analysis than the dichotomization of the sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness outcomes and potential loss of information that dichotomization entails. The dichotomous outcomes created retain clearly anchored conceptual meaning that is faithful to the wording of the items, to our analytic aims, and to the interpretation of our results. “Sexually satisfied” individuals (comprising “very satisfied” and “moderately satisfied” individuals) are indeed reporting that they are sexually satisfied and they differ from those who report that they are not sexually satisfied (comprising “very dissatisfied,” “moderately dissatisfied,” “dissatisfied,” and “equally satisfied and dissatisfied” individuals). Those who are happy with their relationships (comprising “happy,” “very happy,” “extremely happy,” and “perfect” ratings of relationship happiness) indeed report being happy with their relationships and differ from those who indeed report that they are not happy with their relationships (comprising “very unhappy,” “fairly unhappy,” and “a little unhappy”). Balancing the challenges of the distributions of sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness responses and the clearly anchored and meaningful dichotomization of these variables, we judged dichotomization to be the best solution.
References
Allison, P. D. (1999). Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods & Research, 28, 186–208.
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260–266.
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientation, sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929–943.
Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal relationships, 15(1), 141–154.
Byers, E. S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in long term relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 113–118.
Catania, J. A., Gibson, D. R., Chitwood, D. D., & Coates, T. J. (1990). Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: Influences on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 339–362.
Dean, J., Rubio-Aurioles, E., McCabe, M., Eardley, I., Speakman, M., Buvat, J., et al. (2008). Integrating couples in ED treatment: Improving the sexual experience of the couple. International Journal of Clinic Practice, 62, 127–133.
Fincham, D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006). Relationship satisfaction. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 579–594). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, W. A., Rosen, R. C., Mollen, M., Brock, G., Karlin, G., Pommerville, P., et al. (2005). Improving the sexual quality of life of couples affected by erectile dysfunction: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of vardenafil. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 699–708.
Graubard, B., & Korn, E. (1999). Predictive margins with survey data. Biometrics, 55, 652–659.
Gulledge, A. K., Gulledge, M. H., & Stahmann, R. F. (2003). Romantic physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 233–242.
Harvey, J. H., & Wenzel, A. (2006). Theoretical perspectives in the study of close relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 35–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Heiman, J. R. (2002). Sexual dysfunction: Overview of prevalence, etiological factors, and treatments. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 73–78.
Heiman, J. R., Long, J. S., Smith, S. N., Fisher, W. A., Sand, M. S., & Rosen, R. C. (2011). Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness in midlife and older couples in five countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 741–753.
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Kashy, D. A., Campbell, L., & Harris, D.W. (2006). Advances in data analytic approaches for relationships research: The broad utility of hierarchical linear modeling.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., Glasser, D. B., Kang, J. H., Wang, T., Levinson, B., et al. (2006). A cross-national study of subjective sexual well-being among older women and men: Findings from the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 145–161.
Long, J. S. (2014). Group comparisons in logit and probit using predicted probabilities. Manuscript in preparation, Indiana University.
Mansfield, K. P., Koch, P. B., & Voda, A. M. (1998). Qualities midlife women desire in their sexual relationships and their changing sexual response. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 285–303.
McMahon, J. M., Pouget, E. R., & Tortu, S. (2006). A guide for multilevel modeling of dyadic data with binary outcomes using SAS PROC NLMIXED. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50, 3663–3680.
Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 37–40.
Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabsigh, R., … D’Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 26, 191–208.
Rosen, R. C., Fisher, W. A., Eardley, I., Niederberger, C., Nadel, A., & Sand, M. (2004). The The Multinational Men’s Attitudes Life Events Sexuality (MALES) Study: I. Prevalence of erectile dysfunction and related health concerns in the general population. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 20, 607–617.
Rosen, R. C., Riley, A., Wagner, G., Osterloh, I. H., Kirkpatrick, J., & Mishra, A. (1997). The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology, 49, 822–830.
Rubin, H., & Campbell, L. (2011). Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict heightened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 224–231.
Salisbury, C., & Fisher, W. A. (2014). Did you come? A qualitative exploration of gender differences in beliefs, experiences, and concerns surrounding female coital orgasm occurrence in heterosexual partnerships. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 616–631.
Sand, M., Fisher, W. A., Rosen, R., Brock, G., & Goldstein, I. (2005). The sexual function of women whose partners have sexual dysfunction. In C. Meston, S. Davis, A. Traish, & I. Goldstein (Eds.), Women’s sexual function and dysfunction: Study, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 314–322). London: Taylor and Francis, Blackwell.
Saunders, D. M., Fisher, W. A., Hewitt, E. C., & Clayton, J. P. (1985). A method of empirically assessing volunteer selection effects: Recruitment procedures and response to erotica. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1703–1712.
Seal, D. W. (1997). Interpartner concordance of self-reported sexual behavior among college dating couples. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 39–55.
Shifren, J., Monz, B., Russo, P. A., Segreti, A., & Johannes, C. B. (2008). Sexual problems and distress in United States women: Prevalence and correlates. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 112, 970–978.
Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage Family, 38, 15–28.
Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2006). Sexual satisfaction and sexual expression as predictors of relationship satisfaction and stability. In J. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 235–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
StataCorp. (2013). Stata: Release 13. Statistical Software. College Station, TX: StataCorp.
van Anders, S. M., Edelstein, R. S., Wade, R. M., & Samples-Steele, C. R. (2013). Descriptive experiences and sexual vs. nurturant aspects of cuddling between adult romantic partners. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 553–560.
van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & Kuo, P. X. (2011). The steroid/peptide theory of social bonds: Integrating testosterone and peptide responses for classifying social behavioral contexts. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 1265–1275.
Zou, G., & Donner, A. (2004). Confidence interval estimation of the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary outcome data. Biometrics, 60, 807–811.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by an independent investigator initiated grant from Bayer-Schering Inc (J. R. Heiman, PI). The design, conceptualization, analysis, and interpretation of results are the sole product of the co-authors and have not been subject to editorial influence of Bayer-Schering. The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions of Lorne Campbell regarding this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fisher, W.A., Donahue, K.L., Long, J.S. et al. Individual and Partner Correlates of Sexual Satisfaction and Relationship Happiness in Midlife Couples: Dyadic Analysis of the International Survey of Relationships. Arch Sex Behav 44, 1609–1620 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0426-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0426-8