![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Sexual difficulties are common among women and men and are associated with various mental and physical health problems. Although psychological traits are known to impact sexual attitudes and behavior, sexuality- and personality-related traits have not been jointly investigated to assess their relevance for sexual functioning in couples. The aim of this study was to investigate how psychological traits of two partners influence women’s and men’s sexual function. Data from 964 couples, representative of the adult population in Germany, were analyzed. Sexual function was assessed with the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Sexuality-related traits were measured with the Sexual Excitation/Sexual Inhibition Inventory for Women and Men (SESII-W/M). Personality was measured with self-report and partner-rating versions of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Sexual excitation was a positive and sexual inhibition was a negative predictor of sexual function in both genders. Women whose partners were sexually inhibited reported lower sexual function. Conscientious individuals reported better sexual function. Women whose partners were more conscientious also had better sexual function. Assessing partner-related factors may be helpful to identify predisposing and maintaining factors of sexual dysfunctions, especially in women.
Notes
1 In this study, we decided to name this personality trait, with its “positive” label, emotional stability. Some of the studies cited in the introduction, however, used the negative end point of the scale, namely, neuroticism. The two labels refer to opposite end points of the same factor.
2 The amount of variance explained and the overall pattern of results were similar if only self-report or partner ratings were used. Please contact the author for further information.
3 To allow for a calculation of the total score of women who had missing values, we calculated the mean scores of all subscales before weighting them according to the instructions of Rosen et al. (Citation2000). This led to a change of the total range from 2–36 to 1.2–36. This procedure had no impact on the results of this study.
4 To improve readability, this formula includes only one personality trait. Our complete formula, however, included all trait factors as well as control variables and their interaction with gender.
