Testing the Communication During Sexual Activity Model: An Examination of the Associations among Personality Characteristics,Sexual Communication,and Sexual and Relationship Satisfaction

Abstract

Preliminary evidence suggests that communication during and after sexual activity is linked to positive sexual and relational assessments, but the process of communication during sexual activity (i.e., predictors and outcomes of such behavior) has yet to be explicated. As such, the current study puts forth the Communication During Sexual Activity model, which posits that one’s propensity for affectionate communication, sexual self-esteem, and sexual assertiveness predict verbal communication during sexual activity, which in turn is associated with sexual and relationship satisfaction. Within a sample of emerging adults, structural equation modeling revealed that sexual self-esteem and trait affection were positively associated with communication during sexual activity. However, sexual assertiveness did not significantly predict communication during sexual activity. Communication during sexual activity was also positively associated with sexual satisfaction, and indirectly associated with relationship satisfaction through sexual satisfaction. The implications of the findings for future sexual communication research and interventions are addressed.

Keywords

affection exchange theory sexual communication trait affection sexual self-esteem sexual assertiveness communication during sexual activity sexual satisfaction relationship satisfaction

Sexual activity is an important aspect of many romantic relationships and distinguishes romantic relationships from other types of interpersonal relationships (Haavio-Mannila & Kontula, 1997). Sexual activity is linked to a range of positive outcomes such as overall improved mental health (Brody & Costa, 2009), trust, love, passion, intimacy (Costa & Brody, 2007), and better expression of emotion (Brody, 2003). Engaging in desired levels of sexual activity is positively associated with sexual satisfaction (Muise et al., 2014), or the evaluation of how satisfied an individual feels with their sexual life or sexual experiences. Being sexually satisfied may garner larger relational benefits, given its association with greater feelings of love (Sprecher & Regan, 1998), commitment (Waite & Joyner, 2001), and relational satisfaction (see del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes et al., 2014, for review). It is clear that the presence and quality of sexual activity are vital and unique components of romantic relationships. As such, it is important to identify specific aspects of sexual episodes that may influence one’s sexual satisfaction, and in turn, their larger relational well-being.

One behavior associated with greater sexual satisfaction is verbally sharing sexual likes and dislikes, or engaging in sexual self-disclose (Byers & Demmons, 1999). Despite the known benefits of sexual self-disclosure outside of the sexual episode, only recently have researchers recognized the role of sexual communication during sexual episodes in promoting positive sexual and relational outcomes (e.g., Denes, Crowley, & Bennett, 2020; Denes, Crowley, Winkler, et al., 2020; Muise et al., 2014). When exploring sexual communication, most researchers focus on what happens either before a sexual encounter, such as safe sex practices (Noar et al., 2006) or giving consent (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013), or on the aftermath of sexual encounters, such as pillow talk (Denes, 2012). A developing line of research, however, has started to focus on communication during sexual activity, recognizing the important role communication during heightened moments of intimacy may play in promoting sexual satisfaction (e.g., Babin, 2013; Denes, Crowley, & Bennett, 2020; Jonason et al., 2016), which may in turn have larger consequences for relational maintenance and well-being. Yet, research is needed to better understand predictors of communication during sexual activity, in an effort to identify risk factors and points of intervention for improving sexual communication and its attendant relational outcomes.

The aim of the present study is to advance and test a model of communication during sexual activity. Guided by affection exchange theory (AET; Floyd, 2001), the model extends and merges work on affectionate and sexual communication to explicate the process of communication during sexual activity, including identifying the causes and consequences of this intimate form of communication. More specifically, the model details three personality traits that are expected to be associated with communication during sexual activity (i.e., trait affectionate communication, sexual self-esteem, and sexual assertiveness), as well as direct and indirect pathways between communication during sexual activity and sexual and relationship satisfaction. Taken together, the present findings will expand the understanding of communication during sexual activity and its associations with important sexual and relational outcomes.

Communication During Sexual Activity and Affection Exchange Theory

A developing body of research on communication during sexual activity provides preliminary evidence of the importance of this intimate form of communication for sexual and relational well-being. For example, Babin (2013) examined both verbal and nonverbal communication during sexual activity and found that these forms of communication were significantly correlated with one another, and that nonverbal communication was positively associated with sexual satisfaction. Similarly, Jonason et al. (2016) found that individuals reported more relationship satisfaction following sexual activity when they engaged in more mutualistic erotic talk, which is verbal communication during sexual activity that is partner-focused, facilitates relationship building, and is oriented toward enhancing the quality of the sexual activity for both partners. Additionally, both individualistic (i.e., communication during sex that is focused on one’s own sexual desire and outcomes) and mutualistic erotic talk were associated with greater sexual arousal (Jonason et al., 2016). Denes, Crowley, and Bennett (2020) also examined verbal communication during sexual communication. Their study revealed that individuals who disclosed more positive thoughts and feelings during sexual activity were more likely to experience orgasm than those who did not, controlling for biological sex. Building upon Jonason et al.’s (2016) findings, Denes, Crowley, and Bennett (2020) also found that individuals reported more relationship satisfaction following sexual activity when they engaged in more positive disclosures and mutualistic erotic talk during sex. Together, this growing body of research suggests that communication during sex has important linkages to sexual and relational outcomes. However, research is needed to identify key predictors of communication during sexual activity that may aid in understanding which individuals are most likely to engage in, and potentially benefit from, such intimate interactions.

One factor that may be important in understanding individuals’ likelihood of communicating during sex involves their propensity for affectionate communication. Affectionate communication is often investigated through the lens of affection exchange theory (AET; Floyd, 2002), which takes an evolutionary and biological perspective to understanding why individuals are motivated to communicate affection and the consequences of communicating affection for individuals and their relational partners. AET suggests that being more affectionate or communicating more affection incurs greater benefits than being less affectionate or communicating less affection because it promotes pair bonding, which is essential for sharing resources (Floyd, 2001). Affection is defined as “an internal psychological state of positive, often intimate regard for another” (Floyd & Morman, 1998, p. 145), whereas affectionate communication entails “the symbolic behaviors through which people convey messages of love, fondness, and positive regard to each other” (Floyd, 2015, p. 24). Affection can be expressed through nonverbal communication, such as a kiss or hug, or verbal communication, such as “I love you” or “thank you,” as well as through supportive acts like making dinner for someone who is overwhelmed (Floyd & Morman, 1998).

Building from a Darwinian perspective, AET states that certain traits are adaptive and can contribute to human reproduction and survival. The theory advances trait affectionate communication as a particular characteristic that provides reproductive advantages and is therefore desirable. Trait affectionate communication assesses general tendencies to give and receive affection (Floyd, 2002) and is a more stable way to examine individuals’ general affectionate behavior (Pauley et al., 2014). High trait affection individuals are more likely to express great amounts of affection to their partners, are more comfortable receiving affection, receive more affection, are more likely to be in a romantic relationship, are more likely to be satisfied in a romantic relationship, are less fearful of intimacy, are more comfortable with closeness, are more likely to have a secure attachment style, and report greater levels of happiness, less stress, and overall better mental health than individuals who are lower in trait affection (Floyd, 2002).

Trait Affectionate Communication, Sexual Self-Esteem, and Sexual Assertiveness

The present study embraces the key tenets of AET by recognizing that certain traits may indirectly influence relational well-being via their influence on sexual communication. Communicating during intimate sexual interactions is one way that individuals maintain and reinforce pair bonds and intimacy (Denes, Afifi et al., 2017), and such pair bonds, in turn, contribute to surviving and thriving (Macdonald & Macdonald, 2010). As such, AET provides a valuable lens for determining predictors of sexual communication and their indirect effect on sexual and relationship satisfaction.

Several studies have examined expressions of affection in sexual contexts (e.g., Denes, 2012; Muise et al., 2014), but limited scholarship has linked trait affectionate communication to sexual communication. One exception is Bennett et al. (2019), who found a positive association between trait affectionate communication and the amount of time individuals spent engaging in affectionate behavior (e.g., cuddling, kissing, intimate talking) after sex. In turn, engaging in affectioante post sex behavior was associated with greater sexual satisfaction. This preliminary evidence suggests that one’s propensity to engage in affectionate communication is associated with verbal and nonverbal communication during sexual episodes. As such, trait affectionate communication is advanced as one potential factor that can aid in understanding individuals’ likelihood of engaging in communication during sex, and which should have indirect effects on sexual and relational well-being.

Research on affectionate communication has also revealed a positive association between trait affectionate communication and self-esteem (Floyd, 2002; Floyd et al., 2005). If individuals with higher levels of trait affectionate communication also tend to report greater self-esteem, it may be the case that these two variables work in tandem to impact communication behavior and outcomes. In other words, individuals who are more affectionate in their communication may also have higher levels of self-esteem, which together lead to a greater propensity for prosocial communication.

In the context of sexual behavior, a specific component of self-esteem focused on one’s sexual confidence is particularly relevant. Sexual self-esteem refers to one’s comfortability or perceived ability to have a satisfying sexual experience (Snell & Papini, 1989). Sexual self-esteem is positively linked to sexual health (i.e., sexual adjustment or high risk sex behaviors) and sexual satisfaction (Van Bruggen et al., 2006), and as such, is likely important in understanding sexual communication, sexual behavior, and their outcomes. Oattes and Offman (2007) also found that sexual self-esteem was positively associated with individuals’ abilities to communicate about their sexual needs and was more predictive of sexual communication than general self-esteem, suggesting that this specific type of self-esteem may be more relevant than broader measures when considering predictors of sexual communication. Within the context of communication during sexual episodes, specifically, Babin (2013) found a positive association between sexual self-esteem and communication during sexual activity. Sexual self-esteem is considered particularly important when communicating about pleasure and disclosing sexual likes and dislikes (Babin, 2013). Taken together, prior work suggests that affectionate communication tendencies and self-esteem are associated with one another, and that together, they are likely to impact individuals’ propensity to engage in communication during sex.

Sexual self-esteem has been pointed to as an important predictor of sexual satisfaction to consider alongside sexual self-esteem (Ménard & Offman, 2009). Sexual assertiveness assesses how confident individuals feel expressing themselves in a sexual context and how much perceived control they have in moving forward with the sexual experience (Morokoff et al., 1997). Studies examining a range of communication behaviors have pointed to communication self-efficacy as a predictor of individuals’ propensity to communicate (e.g., Afifi & Steuber, 2009; Greene et al., 2012), and sexual assertiveness similarly captures one’s efficacy or assertiveness in talking about sex and expressing sexual preferences. Floyd (2002) has shown that individuals who communicate affection are more likely to feel self-efficacious when it comes to attending to their own needs.

Sexual assertiveness is also associated with a range of positive sexual and relational outcomes. For example, sexually assertive women experience more orgasms, have greater sexual desire, and report higher levels of satisfaction, both relationally and sexually (Hurlbert, 1991). Sexual assertiveness has also been positively correlated with enjoying sexual activity (Haavio-Mannila & Kontula, 1997) and sexually assertive sexual talk has been positively correlated with relationship satisfaction (Greene & Faulkner, 2005). Research on sexual assertiveness tends to focus mostly on verbal communication and individuals’ level of comfort expressing sexual wants and desires (Hurlbert, 1991). Related to these findings on sexual assertiveness, Theiss (2011) found that uncertainty or lack of comfort with sexual communication was associated with a less open dialog about sexual desires, which may in turn limit expression during sexual activity. In other words, individuals who lack the confidence to communicate may withhold sexual desires, and in turn communicate less during sexual activity. In the context of communication during sex, sexual assertiveness is likely associated with individuals’ ability and likelihood to express themselves sexually, which should, in turn, contribute to a satisfying sexual experience. Taken together, trait affectionate communication, sexual self-esteem, and sexual assertiveness are three individual difference variables that are likely connected to individuals’ propensity to express themselves during sexual activity.

Outcomes of Communication During Sexual Activity

AET posits that affectionate communication is linked to positive individual and relational outcomes (Floyd et al., 2005), and prior work has provided ample support for the links between high trait affectionate communication and such outcomes (Floyd, 2002). Within the context of sexual activity, specifically, AET has been applied to understand the relational benefits of communication during sexual episodes (e.g., Bennett et al., 2019; Denes, Crowley, Winkler, et al., 2020). As such, the theory is well-positioned to aid in understanding the direct and indirect associations between the three trait predictors identified above, communication during sexual activity, and relevant outcomes.

To thoroughly understand the causes and consequences of communication during sexual activity, it is necessary to not only identify predictors of sexual communication, but also its association with important relational quality indicators, such as sexual and relationship satisfaction. Prior studies have found that sexual self-disclosure is positively associated with sexual satisfaction (Byers & Demmons, 1999; Cupach & Comstock, 1990). Sexual satisfaction is often measured via self-report by asking how satisfying an individual perceives their own sexual relationships or sexual life to be (Lawrance et al., 1998). Although orgasm is not the only way to measure sexual satisfaction, orgasm is the “most easily quantifiable index of sexual satisfaction” (Haavio-Mannila & Kontula, 1997, p. 401), and has been linked to sexual communication in prior work. For example, disclosing more positive thoughts and feelings during sexual activity has been associated with an increased likelihood of orgasm (Denes, Crowley, & Bennett, 2020). Jonason et al. (2016) also found a positive association between mutualistic erotic talk and sexual satisfaction, but did not find the same association for individualistic erotic talk, suggesting that talk focused on both individuals’ experiences may be more satisfying than talk focused solely on one’s self. In terms of nonverbal communication, Babin (2013) found that nonverbal communication during sexual activity, but not verbal communication, was positively associated with sexual satisfaction (Babin, 2013).

Sexual satisfaction plays an important role in larger relational assessments, as well. The positive link between sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction is well-established, with sexual satisfaction predicting relationship satisfaction (see del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes et al., 2014, for review). Although previous studies have linked communication during sexual activity to greater relationship satisfaction (Brogan et al., 2009) and sexual communication outside of the sexual episode to relationship satisfaction (Greene & Faulkner, 2005), researchers have yet to determine whether communication during sexual activity has an indirect influence on relationship satisfaction through sexual satisfaction. In other words, building from prior studies demonstrating that sexual satisfaction contributes to relationship satisfaction and that sexual communication benefits sexual satisfaction, it is likely that communication during sexual activity is associated with greater sexual satisfaction, which in turn should be associated with greater relationship satisfaction.

Advancing a Model of Communication During Sexual Activity

Taken as a whole, research on the predictors of sexual communication and the effects of sexual communication on sexual and relational satisfaction are employed to advance a model of communication during sexual activity. More specifically, research on trait affection, sexual self-esteem, and sexual assertiveness suggest that these three personality constructs are likely important predictors of individuals’ sexual communication behavior. Through the lens of AET, communication during sexual activity may be viewed as a way to express affection to one’s partner, as individuals often express sentiments during sexual activity geared toward increasing the pleasurable aspect of sexual activity (i.e., mutualistic erotic talk; Jonason et al., 2016). Individuals who are higher in trait affection are more likely to express affection and more comfortable expressing affection (Floyd, 2002); as such, it is likely that individuals who are higher in trait affection are more likely to communicate with their partner during sexual activity. Similarly, sexual self-esteem and sexual assertiveness are likely associated with sexual communication, as these traits suggest that an individual feels comfortable in sexual spaces. Taken together, the first part of the model advances three personality traits that are likely associated with communicative behavior during sexual activity:

H1: Trait affectionate communication will be positively associated with communication during sexual activity.

H2: Sexual self-esteem will be positively associated with communication during sexual activity.

H3: Sexual assertiveness will be positively associated with communication during sexual activity.

As previously reviewed, sexual communication both within (e.g., Babin, 2013; Brogan et al., 2009) and outside (Greene & Faulkner, 2005) of the sexual episode has been associated with sexual and relationship satisfaction. Furthermore, researchers have examined the links between sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction, with sexual satisfaction preceding relationship satisfaction (e.g., see del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes et al., 2014, for review). To replicate previous findings and to test new indirect relationships, the following hypotheses are put forth:

H4: Verbal communication during sexual activity will be positively associated with sexual satisfaction.

H5: Verbal communication during sexual activity will be indirectly associated with relationship satisfaction through sexual satisfaction, such that the more individuals report engaging in communication during sexual activity, the higher their reported sexual satisfaction, and subsequently the higher their reported relationship satisfaction.

Taken together, the hypotheses detailed above represent the pathways of the Communication During Sexual Activity Model, as depicted in Figure 1. This initial test of the model focuses on the experiences of emerging adults, as emerging adulthood is an important time for establishing sexual and relational scripts (e.g., Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2011). Emerging adults are likely to be exploring their sexuality (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994), which may include refining their sexual skills and sexual communication. During this time period, individuals may be more likely to adapt and change their behavior than older or more experienced individuals who have more established patterns of sexual interaction. As such, exploring sexual communication processes among emerging adults is a worthy endeavor and the findings will be valuable in offering recommendations and designing interventions that can assist emerging adults in establishing satisfying partnerships during their formative years.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from a large, Northeastern university introductory Communication course. Due to the nature of the hypotheses and rationale, participants had to self-identify as being currently in a sexual relationship with someone of a different sex. The present study focused only on individuals in different-sex relationships to avoid other confounding factors related to differences in different-sex versus same-sex sexual relationships (e.g., differences in sexual activity frequency and mate selection processes; Jepsen & Jepsen, 2002; Solomon et al., 2005). There were 165 total participants who qualified and participated. The sample consisted of slightly more women (60%) and all participants’ were cisgender, which was assessed by asking participants about both their biological sex and gender identity. The majority of the participants identified as white (71.5%), with the next largest category as Asian (11.5%) followed by Hispanic or Latinx (7.6%), Black or African American (6.7%), and bi-racial or multi-racial (2.4%). Individuals ranged in age from 18 to 42 years (M = 19.32, SD = 2.09). All of the participants reported that they were currently in a different-sex romantic relationship; most participants reported their sexual orientation as heterosexual (93.3%), but others reported their sexual orientation as bisexual, homosexual (3.6% and 2.4% respectively), or asexual (.6%).

Procedure

All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at University of Connecticut. The study used a cross-sectional survey provided to participants through Qualtrics. Participants were offered research course credit in exchange for participation in the study. A link to the Qualtrics survey was provided to interested participants, as well as an alternative assignment if individuals did not feel comfortable participating in the study. Upon clicking on the survey link, participants were presented with an IRB-approved information sheet. They clicked “next” to indicate consent and proceeded to the survey items. Participants were then asked to complete the measures detailed below, thanked for their participation, and awarded their research credit through a separate survey that was not linked to their responses to the study measures. All participants completed the survey online from their own computers.

Measures

Trait affection (given)

The 10-item Trait Affection Given Scale (Floyd, 2002) was used to measure trait affectionate communication and was evaluated on a Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Example items include “I love giving people hugs or putting my arms around them” and “I am always telling my loved ones how much I care about them” (α = .92, M = 4.83, SD = 1.23).

Sexual self-esteem

Sexual self-esteem was measured with a shortened sub-scale of the Sexuality Scale (Snell & Papini, 1989), which included 5 items evaluated on a Likert scale with (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. This scale was shortened from 10 to 5 items prior to data collection to reduce potential fatigue. Example items include “I am a good sexual partner” and “I would rate my sexual skill quite highly” (α = .85, M = 5.41, SD = 1.22).

Sexual assertiveness

To measure sexual assertiveness, a reduced version of the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness (Hurlbert, 1991) was used. This scale was shortened from 25 to 8 items prior to data collection to reduce potential fatigue. The reduced scale consisted of 8 Likert-type items ranging from (1) “all the time” to (5) “never.” Example items include, “I communicate my sexual desires to my partner,” “I feel comfortable telling my partner how to touch me,” and “I am reluctant to insist that my partner satisfy me (reverse-coded)”(α = .79, M = 4.08, SD = 0.78).

Communication during sexual activity

A newly developed scale was used to measure general tendencies to engage in verbal communication during sexual activity with one’s partner (see Bennett, 2020 for additional details). The items were analyzed using an exploratory factor analysis in SPSS. Items with a .60 loading or above were retained (DeVellis, 2017). The 4-item measure included a Likert measure of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Example items include, “I say words during sexual activity (e.g., Oh God!, Yes!, Right there!, Pussy, Cock)” and “I talk with my partner during sexual activity (e.g., about what you like, about your day, about what you want to do next)” (α = .71, M = 4.07, SD = 1.44).

Sexual satisfaction

Sexual satisfaction was measured using Lawrance et al.’s (1998) sexual satisfaction questionnaire. Participants were asked, “How would you describe your sexual relationship with your partner?” The questionnaire includes five 7-point semantic differential items ranging from “very good” to “very bad,” “very pleasant” to “very unpleasant,” “very positive” to “very negative,” “very valuable” to “worthless,” and “very satisfying” to “very unsatisfying” (α = .95, M = 6.08, SD = 0.89).

Relationship satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction was measured using a modified version of Hendrick’s (1988) relationship assessment scale. The scale consists of 7 items assessed on 7-point semantic differential scale with anchors to match the nature of the questions, which include “How good is your relationship compared to most?” and “How many problems are there in your relationship?” (α = .87, M = 5.78, SD = 1.08).

Demographics

Participants were asked about their general demographics including their age, race, biological sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

Results

A correlation matrix including all of the key variables can be seen in Table 1. The criteria used to achieve model fit is the same for both the measurement model and the structural model. The chi-square fit index is highly dependent on sample size and can yield a significant value when the rest of the fit indices are “good fitting” (Halsey et al., 2015; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003; Vandenberg, 2006) so this criterion was not central in the present investigation. However, it is reported below to allow for a more holistic picture of the model. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) is one of the better fit indices to use if there are limited participants. Additionally, the SRMR does not penalize for model complexity, with a value of less than .08 being considered a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is an additional fit index that is considered to be one of the most popular and used to evaluate model fit, with .08, .05, and .01 being the cutoff points for a mediocre, good, or excellent model fit, respectively (MacCallum et al., 1996). The comparative fit index (CFI) and the normed fit index (NFI) are also essential fit indices to include. A CFI above .90 indicates satisfactory fit (Awang, 2012; Hair et al., 2010). A TLI greater than .90 also indicates satisfactory fit (Forza & Filippini, 1998).

Table 1.

Bivariate Zero-Order Correlation Matrix of Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Trait affection	—	—	—	—	—
2. Sexual self-esteem	.23**	—	—	—	—
3. Sexual assertiveness	.23**	.46***	—	—	—
4. Communication during sexual activity	.27***	.31***	.24**	—	—
5. Sexual satisfaction	.25***	.42***	.61***	.21**	—
6. Relationship satisfaction	.14	.29***	.40***	0.11	.61***

Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

***

Correlation is significant at the .001 level (two-tailed).

Measurement Model Testing

A two-step approach was implemented for this study, in which the structural model estimations followed a measurement model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). All model testing was conducted using MPlus version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Prior to testing the measurement model, tests were run to examine multicollinearity (R² > .90; Kline, 2015). There was no evidence of multicollinearity among the key variables; as such, all variables were retained for analyses. In order to ensure that all of the observed items were measuring the latent variables of interest, a measurement model was first tested. The initial measurement model did not yield adequate fit: χ² = 1872.81, df = 830, p < .001; CFI = .78; TLI = .77; RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .09. The only modification indices that made sense for the measurement model were to eliminate items that were not loading strongly onto the latent construct; these items were subsequently dropped. Following previous research, strong loadings for the established items was considered to be .60 and above (Awang, 2014). After dropping the items that did not load at these standardized cut-offs, the model yielded an adequate fit: χ² = 559.66, df = 335, p < .001; CFI = .93; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .07. The items dropped included two from the relationship satisfaction scale (“How much do you love your partner?” and “How many problems are there in your relationship?”), one from the affection scale (“I love giving people hugs or putting my arms around them”), one from the communication during sexual activity scale (“I talk with my partner during sexual activity (e.g., about what you like, about your day, about what you want to do next)”), two from the sexual self-esteem scale (“I am not very confident in sexual encounters” and “I sometimes doubt my sexual competence”), and five from the sexual assertiveness scale (“I feel uncomfortable talking during sex,” “I feel uncomfortable telling my partner what feels good,” “I am reluctant to insist my partner satisfy me,” “When a technique does not feel good, I tell my partner,” and “I feel comfortable giving sexual praise to my partner”).

Structural Model Testing Kline

After obtaining an acceptable measurement model, the structural model was constructed in order to test the hypotheses. The hypothesized structural model did not demonstrate adequate fit: χ² = 666.45, df = 340, p < .001; CFI = .89; TLI = .88; RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .15. Several modification indices were proposed by the analysis software. Those that made theoretical sense were implemented one at a time to improve model fit. The modifications made were to allow sexual satisfaction to predict relationship satisfaction and allow for sexual assertiveness, sexual esteem, and affection to be correlated with one another. In addition, errors between satisfaction and sexual assertiveness and sexual satisfaction and sexual communication were also allowed to correlate. Because each of these pairs were highly correlated in the measurement model and because they are similar constructs, these modifications made sense. In other words, whatever is not being measured in one of these variables is correlated with what is not being measured in the other variables. After implementing these modifications, the model adequately fit the data: χ² = 561.90, df = 340, p < .001; CFI = .93; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .07. The non-significant paths were left in for the hypothesis testing, given the theoretical basis for their inclusion. The full results of the model testing are provided in Figure 2.

The initial hypotheses predicted that trait affectionate communication (H1), sexual self-esteem (H2), and sexual assertiveness (H3) would be positively associated with communication during sexual activity. The results revealed a significant positive association between trait affection and communication during sexual activity (β = .17, p < .01) and sexual self-esteem and communication during sexual activity (β = .40, p < .001) The results revealed a negative but non-significant association between sexual assertiveness and communication during sexual activity (β = −.04, p = .74). Therefore, H1 and H2 were supported, but H3 was not.

H4 predicted that communication during sexual activity would be positively associated with sexual satisfaction. The results revealed a significant positive association between communication during sexual activity and sexual satisfaction (β = 1.12, p < .001). Although it is not common, standardized beta coefficients can be higher than 1 if there are multiple predictors and/or multicollinearity. If one tests for multicollinearity and it is not occurring, the standardized beta coefficient can still be higher than 1 (Deegan, 1978). Therefore, H4 was supported.

H5 predicted that communication during sexual activity would be indirectly associated with relationship satisfaction through sexual satisfaction. Indirect effects testing revealed that the effect of communication during sexual activity on relationship satisfaction through sexual satisfaction was significant (β = .69, p < .001). The direct effect of communication during sexual activity on relationship satisfaction was not significant (β = −.05, p = .57), indicating mediation. Therefore, there was evidence that sexual satisfaction mediated the association between communication during sexual activity and relationship satisfaction. Overall, H5 was supported.

Discussion

The present study tested the relationships between the personality variables of trait affection, sexual self-esteem, and sexual assertiveness and their association with verbal communication during sexual activity. The effect of communication during sexual activity on the outcomes of sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction were also examined. Sexual self-esteem and trait affection positively predicted communication during sexual activity, whereas sexual assertiveness was not significantly associated with communication during sexual activity. Communication during sexual activity was positively associated with sexual satisfaction and was also indirectly associated with relationship satisfaction. These findings and their implications for Affection Exchange Theory and the Communication During Sexual Activity Model are discussed next.

Trait Predictors and Communication During Sexual Activity

The primary analyses focused on personality characteristics that were expected to influence an individual’s communication during sexual activity. First, the findings contribute to research rooted in AET. A growing body of research has explicated the role of affection in sexual encounters, finding, for example, that greater sexual frequency is predictive of affectionate behavior (Debrot et al., 2017) and that increasing pillow talk, a potentially affectionate form of communication after sexual activity, offers benefits for relationships (Denes, Crowley, Winkler, et al., 2020). The present findings provide further evidence that individuals’ propensity to give affection is associated with positive relational outcomes. More specifically, the more individuals reported a tendency to give affection, the more they communicated with their partner during sex. In turn, communication during sex was associated with sexual and relationship satisfaction (discussed more below). Establishing linkages between trait affectionate communication, communication during sexual activity, and sexual and relationship satisfaction provides further support for a central tenet of AET that affectionate communication contributes to survival by reinforcing pair bonds.

Another trait predictor tested in the model was sexual self-esteem, which was positively associated with communication during sexual activity. Although causal pathways cannot be established from the present data, this finding suggests that sexual self-esteem would be an area worth exploring in future interventions aimed at improving communication during sexual activity. Sexual self-esteem has been positively linked to sexual satisfaction (Ménard & Offman, 2009) and negatively linked to sexual anxiety, which are both associated with overall sexual function and performance (Brassard et al., 2015). Sexual self-esteem is positively associated with one’s likelihood to disclose sexual information, which may allow for individuals to form a stronger pair bond with one another. Combined with the findings of the present investigation, focusing on increasing one’s sexual self-esteem may be a crucial aspect in opening the lines of communication during sexual activity and improving sexual experiences.

Although sexual self-esteem and sexual assertiveness share similarities in their focus on one’s sexual self-concept and confidence, sexual assertiveness was not associated with communication during sexual activity. Through the lens of AET, assertiveness may be less relevant to maintaining pair bonds in intimate relationships than trait affection tendencies or self-esteem, and therefore is less impactful in predicting communication outcomes. Although speculative, it may also be the case that sexual assertiveness, which focuses on direct expression, could be misinterpreted as aggressive or overly direct, which is antithetical to affectionate communication. Given that the sexual assertiveness items focused on general confidence in expressing one’s sexual needs, it may also be that individuals who are more sexually assertive had already engaged in sexual expression and openness. As such, sexual assertiveness may not be associated with communication during sexual activity because for some sexually assertive individuals, they may have felt that they had already expressed themselves and additional verbal expression was unnecessary, whereas for others their assertiveness may contribute to an environment of openness around sexual communication. Qualitative explorations of the motivations for engaging in communication during sexual activity and its potential linkages to individuals’ sexual confidence would aid in further unpacking these unexpected findings.

Communication During Sexual Activity and Sexual Outcomes

A key goal of the Communication During Sexual Activity model is to better understand communication during sexual activity and its associations with sexual and relational outcomes, such as sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction. Communication during sexual activity was positively associated with sexual satisfaction, which is consistent with Jonason et al. (2016) finding that mutualistic erotic talk during sex is a predictor of sexual satisfaction and Denes, Crowley, and Bennett (2020) finding that more positive communication during sex was associated with a greater likelihood of orgasm. Replicating the association between communication during sexual activity and sexual satisfaction helps to confirm these previous findings, while also providing predictive validity for the new measure of communication during sexual activity utilized in the present study. However, because the current study focused on individual data, it is not possible to determine whether a partner’s sexual communication also contributed to sexual satisfaction. Nonetheless, it is interesting that individuals’ reports of their own communication being linked to sexual satisfaction, perhaps suggesting that focusing on one’s own expressions makes the sexual experience more enjoyable and more satisfying for oneself. However, given the correlational nature of the data, it is also possible that when individuals are more sexually satisfied, they are more expressive during the sexual episode. Future experimental studies in which some participants are assigned to increase their communication during sexual activity would aid in identifying causal pathways between communication during sex and sexual and relational outcomes.

The results also revealed that sexual satisfaction fully mediated the association between communication during sexual activity and relationship satisfaction. More specifically, the direct effect of communication during sexual activity on relationship satisfaction was not significant; however, the overall total indirect effect from communication during sexual activity through sexual satisfaction to relationship satisfaction was significant and positive. Given the well-established link between sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction (see del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes et al., 2014, for review), the finding that sexual satisfaction positively associated with relationship satisfaction was anticipated. Affectionate communication has been seen to contribute to relationship satisfaction (Punyanunt-Carter, 2004) when using AET as a theoretical framework. The current findings build upon this work by suggesting that communication during sexual activity may be one form of affectionate behavior that contributes to relationship satisfaction via its impact on sexual satisfaction.

Taken together, the Communication During Sexual Activity Model adds an important missing piece to the literature by not only identifying predictors and outcomes of communication during sexual activity, but also by recognizing the role that individual difference variables play in sexual communication processes. The model explicates several pathways, grounded in affectionate exchange theory, that help explain who is most likely to engage in communication during sexual activity and the links between such communication and sexual and relational well-being. Importantly, the model provides a needed addition to theoretical models of sexual communication, which up until this point have focused on either communication outside of the sexual episode (e.g., the Contextual Model of Sexual Self-Disclosure and Sexual Satisfaction; Brown & Weigel, 2018) or following sexual activity (e.g., the Post Sex Disclosures Model; Denes, 2018). By finding support for most of the model pathways, researchers can continue to test, expand, and refine the model to better understand partners’ talk during sexual activity and, more broadly, the role of communication in intimate contexts.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the current study aimed to address several important aspects of communication during sexual activity, there are limitations that should be noted. First, this study focused specifically on emerging adults in romantic relationships. Although this is an important time for developing sexuality and sexual preferences (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994), it would be valuable for future research to examine communication during sexual activity in other generations of couples. It may be that more established couples have developed relationship norms (Hinde, 1979; Knapp & Vangelisti, 1992) that are more influential than individual differences or trait characteristics. It would also be valuable for future research to include a larger sample of opposite sex couples, as such couples may have differing scripts regarding sexual behavior (e.g., Pham, 2016), which may subsequently influence their communication during sexual activity and its attendant outcomes.

The associations among the study variables should also be examined with individuals in a range of relationship types (e.g., single/uncommitted, consensual non-monogamous, etc.) to validate the findings beyond a monogamous different sex couples sample. For individuals who are single, communication during sexual activity may be less important for the overall sexual experience, in particular if the sexual activity is not an ongoing occurrence with that specific partner. The current study also only examined individual data. Although this is an effective starting point, future research should gather dyadic data in order to determine the effects of communication during sexual activity on not only individuals’ sexual and relational outcomes, but also how such communication may affect their partner’s sexual and relational outcomes. It may be that an individual’s communication during sexual activity has stronger effects on their partner’s sexual and relational experience than their own. Collecting dyadic data may also serve to expand the newly developed communication measure. For example, including both partners’ assessments may reveal unique factors connected to perceptions of the partner’s communication during sexual activity. The current study also focused on general communication during sexual activity, rather than communication during a specific sexual episode. As such, it is possible that the patterns revealed in the present study may vary if individuals were asked to immediately reflect upon specific sexual communication episodes, as has been done in prior work (e.g., Denes, Crowley, & Bennett, 2020). Future research should aim to inquire about a specific sexual episode as well as general communication during sexual activity, which would allow researchers to determine whether specific or general communication during sexual activity explains more variance in sexual and relational outcomes.

Conclusion

Overall, the current study contributes to the growing body of literature on communication during sexual activity and on interpersonal communication as a whole. Though the main study findings are correlational and thus causal paths cannot be established, the results of the model testing nonetheless suggest that communication during sexual activity is linked to positive sexual and relational outcomes. As such, learning more about what individuals communicate during sexual activity aid in helping couples maintain their relationship and be more honest and open with one another. Furthermore, communication during sexual activity may help reinforce connection between partners, potentially contributing to a communal mindset. Being able to view one another as members of a team or unit and being concerned about a partner’s well-being, which could be enhanced or reinforced through communicating during sexual activity, can contribute to relational functioning, have stress-ameliorating benefits, and contribute to health (Afifi et al., 2016).

Future research might use the Communication During Sexual Activity Model to inform an intervention for communicating during sexual activity, which may be of interest not only to researchers, but also to sexual therapists and other professionals who work with couples or individuals with sexual issues. Individuals without sexual issues could also benefit from the development of an intervention focused on increasing one’s sexual self-esteem and highlighting the importance of communication during sexual activity. The focus on developing communication efficacy, in this case in a sexual context, is likely to benefit the development and growth of relationships and the individuals within them (e.g., Riggio et al., 2013). Taken together, discovering ways to encourage couples to express their thoughts and feelings, specifically during sexual activity, is a worthwhile aim for future research investigating sexual communication and its influence on individuals and their relationships.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Margaret Bennett-Brown

Amanda Denes

Author Biographies

Margaret Bennett-Brown (PhD, University of Connecticut) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Texas Tech University and a Research Fellow at the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University. Her primary areas of specialization are interpersonal and health communication, focusing on affection and its effects on mental and physical health within the context of intimate romantic relationships. Her research has been presented at national and international conferences and published in top Communication and interdisciplinary journals.

Amanda Denes (PhD, University of California, Santa Barbara) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Connecticut. Her primary area of specialization is interpersonal communication, with emphases in biosocial models of communication, sexual communication, and communication processes related to maintaining successful relationships. Her research has been published in top Communication and interdisciplinary journals and she is co-editor of the Oxford Handbook of the Physiology of Interpersonal Communication.

References

Afifi

T. D.

Merrill

A. F.

Davis

(2016). The theory of resilience and relational load. Personal Relationships, 23(4), 663–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12159

Afifi

Steuber

(2009). The revelation risk model (RRM): Factors that predict the revelation of secrets and the strategies used to reveal them. Communication Monographs, 76(2), 144–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750902828412

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Awang

(2012). A handbook on structural equation modeling using AMOS. Universiti Technologi MARA Press, Malaysia, 83–102.

Awang

(2014). A handbook on structural equation modeling. MPWS Rich Resources.

Babin

E. A.

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512454523

Bennett

(2020, November). The construction and validation of the communication during sexual activity scale (CDSAS) [Paper presentation]. Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality 2020 Conference, New Orleans, LA, United States.

Bennett

LoPresti

B. J.

Denes

(2019). Exploring trait affectionate communication and post sex communication as mediators of the association between attachment and sexual satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109505.

Brassard

Dupuy

Bergeron

Shaver

P. R.

(2015). Attachment insecurities and women’s sexual function and satisfaction: The mediating roles of sexual self-esteem, sexual anxiety, and sexual assertiveness. Journal of Sex Research, 52(1), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.838744

10.

Brody

(2003). Alexithymia is inversely associated with women’s frequency of vaginal intercourse. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(1), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021897530286

11.

Brody

Costa

R. M.

(2009). Satisfaction (sexual, life, relationship, and mental health) is associated directly with penile-vaginal intercourse, but inversely with other sexual behavior frequencies. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6(7), 1947–1954. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01303.x

12.

Brogan

S. M.

Fiore

Wrench

J. S.

(2009). Understanding the psychometric properties of the sexual communication style scale. Human Communication, 12, 421–445.

13.

Brown

R. D.

Weigel

D. J.

(2018). Exploring a contextual model of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 55(2), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295299

14.

Byers

E. S.

Demmons

(1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 36(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551983

15.

Costa

R. M.

Brody

(2007). Women’s relationship quality is associated with specifically penile-vaginal intercourse orgasm and frequency. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 33(4), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230701385548

16.

Cupach

W. R.

Comstock

(1990). Satisfaction with sexual communication in marriage: Links to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590072002

17.

Debrot

Meuwly

Muise

Impett

E. A.

Schoebi

(2017). More than just sex: Affection mediates the association between sexual activity and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216684124

18.

Deegan

Jr . (1978). On the occurrence of standardized regression coefficients greater than one. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38(4), 873–888.

19.

del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes

Santos-Iglesias

Sierra

J. C

. (2014). A systematic review of sexual satisfaction. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1697-2600(14)70038-9

20.

Denes

(2012). Pillow talk: Exploring disclosures after sexual activity. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2011.651253

21.

Denes

(2018). Toward a post-sex disclosures model: Exploring the associations among orgasm, self-disclosure, and relationship satisfaction. Communication Research, 45(3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215619216

22.

Denes

Crowley

J. P.

Bennett

(2020a). Between the sheets: Investigating young adults’ communication during sexual activity. Personal Relationships, 27, 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12324

23.

Denes

Afifi

T. D.

Granger

D. A.

(2017). Physiology and pillow talk: Relations between testosterone and communication post sex. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 281–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516634470

24.

Denes

Crowley

J. P.

Winkler

K. L.

Dhillon

Ponivas

A. L. P.

Bennett

(2020). Exploring the effects of pillow talk on relationship satisfaction and physiological stress responses to couples’ difficult conversations. Communication Monographs, 87, 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2020.1726424

25.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.

26.

Floyd

(2001). Human affection exchange: I. Reproductive probability as a predictor of men’s affection with their sons. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 10, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1001.39

27.

Floyd

(2002). Human affection exchange V: Attributes of the highly affectionate. Communication Quarterly, 50, 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370209385653

28.

Floyd

(2015). Affection exchange theory. In Berger

C. R.

Roloff

M. E.

(Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 24–31). Wiley Blackwell.

29.

Floyd

Hess

J. A.

Miczo

L. A.

Halone

K. K.

Mikkelson

A. C.

Tusing

K. J.

(2005). Human affection exchange: VIII. Further evidence of the benefits of expressed affection. Communication Quarterly, 53(3), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370500101071

30.

Floyd

Morman

M. T.

(1998). The measurement of affectionate communication. Communication Quarterly, 46(2), 144–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379809370092

31.

Forza

Filippini

(1998). TQM impact on quality conformance and customer satisfaction: A causal model. International Journal of Production Economics, 55(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0925-5273(98)00007-3

32.

Greene

Faulkner

S. L.

(2005). Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles, 53, 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-5682-6

33.

Greene

Magsamen-Conrad

Venetis

M. K.

Checton

M. G.

Bagdasarov

Banerjee

S. C.

(2012). Assessing health diagnosis disclosure decisions in relationships: Testing the disclosure decision-making model. Health Communication, 27, 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.586988

34.

Haavio-Mannila

Kontula

(1997). Correlates of increased sexual satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024591318836

35.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Andersen

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

36.

Halsey

L. G.

Curran-Everett

Vowler

S. L.

Drummond

G. B.

(2015). The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nature Methods, 12(3), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3288

37.

Hazan

Zeifman

(1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In Bartholomew

Perlman

(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 151–177). Jessica Kingsley.

38.

Hendrick

S. S.

(1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430

39.

Hinde

R. A.

(1979). Towards understanding relationships. Academic Press.

40.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

41.

Hurlbert

D. F.

(1991). The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: A comparative study between sexually assertive and sexually nonassertive women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 17, 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926239108404342

42.

Jepsen

L. K.

Jepsen

C. A.

(2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39(3), 435–453. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2002.0027

43.

Jonason

P. K.

Betteridge

G. L.

Kneebone

I. I.

(2016). An examination of the nature of erotic talk. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0585-2

44.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Peterson

Z. D.

(2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique Insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50(6), 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.700739

45.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.

46.

Knapp

M. L.

Vangelisti

A. L.

(1992). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Allyn & Bacon.

47.

Lawrance

K. A.

Byers

E. S.

Cohen

, et al. (1998). Interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction questionnaire. In Davis

C. M.

(Ed.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 514–519). SAGE.

48.

MacCallum

R. C.

Browne

M. W.

Sugawara

H. M.

(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.130

49.

Macdonald

T. M.

(2010). The peptide that binds: A systematic review of oxytocin and its prosocial effects in humans. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 18(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3109/10673220903523615

50.

Ménard

A. D.

Offman

(2009). The interrelationships between sexual self-esteem, sexual assertiveness and sexual satisfaction. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18(1/2), 35–45.

51.

Morokoff

P. J.

Quina

Harlow

L. L.

Whitmire

Grimley

D. M.

Gibson

P. R.

Burkholder

G. J.

(1997). Sexual assertiveness scale (SAS) for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 790–804. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.790

52.

Muise

Giang

Impett

E. A.

(2014). Post sex affectionate exchanges promote sexual and relationship satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1391–1402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0305-3

53.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2017). Mplus user’s Guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

54.

Noar

S. M.

Carlyle

Cole

(2006). Why communication is crucial: Meta-analysis of the relationship between safer sexual communication and condom use. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730600671862

55.

Oattes

M. K.

Offman

(2007). Global self-esteem and sexual self-esteem as predictors of sexual communication in intimate relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 16(3/4), 89–100.

56.

Pauley

P. M.

Hesse

Mikkelson

A. C.

(2014). Trait affection predicts married couples’ use of relational maintenance behaviors. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2013.864292

57.

Pham

J. M.

(2016). The limits of heteronormative sexual scripting: College student development of individual sexual scripts and descriptions of lesbian sexual behavior. Frontiers in Sociology, 1, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2016.00007

58.

Punyanunt-Carter

N. M.

(2004). Reported affectionate communication and satisfaction in marital and dating relationships. Psychological Reports, 95(3 Pt 2), 1154–1160.

59.

Riggio

H. R.

Weiser

D. A.

Valenzuela

A. M.

Lui

P. P.

Montes

Heuer

(2013). Self-efficacy in romantic relationships: Prediction of relationship attitudes and outcomes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(6), 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.801826

60.

Schermelleh-Engel

Moosbrugger

Müller

(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness of fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.

61.

Snell

W. E.

Papini

D. R.

(1989). The sexuality scale: An instrument to measure sexual-esteem, sexual-depression, and sexual-preoccupation. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498909551510

62.

Solomon

S. E.

Rothblum

E. D.

Balsam

K. F.

(2005). Money, housework, sex, and conflict: Same-sex couples in civil unions, those not in civil unions, and heterosexual married siblings. Sex Roles, 52(9-10), 561–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3725-7

63.

Sprecher

Regan

P. C.

(1998). Passionate and companionate love in courting and young married couples. Sociological Inquiry, 68, 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.1998.tb00459.x

64.

Theiss

J. A.

(2011). Modeling dyadic effects in the associations between relational uncertainty, sexual communication, and sexual satisfaction for husbands and wives. Communication Research, 38, 565–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211402186

65.

Van Bruggen

L. K.

Runtz

M. G.

Kadlec

. (2006). Sexual revictimization: The role of sexual self-esteem and dysfunctional sexual behaviors. Child Maltreatment, 11(2), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505285780

66.

Vandenberg

R. J.

(2006). Introduction: Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105285506

67.

Vannier

S. A.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

(2011). Communicating interest in sex: Verbal and nonverbal initiation of sexual activity in young adults’ romantic dating relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 961–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9663-7

68.

Waite

L. J.

Joyner

(2001). Emotional satisfaction and physical pleasure in sexual unions: Time horizon, sexual behavior, and sexual exclusivity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00247.x