https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5295-7838
![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
Couples experience greater satisfaction and desire when they are motivated to meet each other’s sexual needs (sexual communal strength); however, doing so at the expense of one’s own sexual needs (unmitigated sexual communion) can detract from satisfaction and desire. Self-determination theory suggests engaging in sex for pleasure and value (autonomous reasons) versus out of pressure and obligation (controlled reasons) may account for these differences. Across two dyadic studies, one cross-sectional (N = 103 couples) and one longitudinal (N = 147 couples), people higher in sexual communal strength had sex for more autonomous and less controlled reasons, and in turn, reported greater satisfaction and desire, overall, in daily life, and over time. In contrast, people higher in unmitigated sexual communion endorsed more controlled reasons for engaging in sex, and in turn reported lower satisfaction. Partners of people higher in sexual communal strength reported less controlled reasons for engaging in sex, and in turn, both partners felt more satisfied, whereas partners of people high in unmitigated sexual communion endorsed more controlled reasons and reported lower satisfaction. This research furthers our understanding of when and why being motivated to be responsive to a partner’s sexual needs enhances or detracts from sexual and relationship quality.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 The sample sizes used for sensitivity analyses were corrected for non-independence in the data to determine the number of independent observations. Effective sample size=N/(1+[n-1]*ICC, where N=total number of observations, n=cluster size (e.g., number of partners within a couple and/or number of repeated assessments within partners), and ICC=within-cluster correlation. See Wiley and Wiley (Citation2019), pp. 455–456.
2 Gravel et al. (Citation2016) originally distinguished self-determined (i.e., intrinsic, identified, and integrated) from non-self-determined (i.e., introjected, external, amotivation) sexual motives subscales, which we respectively refer to as autonomous and controlled reasons for engaging in sex across studies. Previous research has suggested that amotivation may reflect an impersonal motivational orientation that is distinct from the introjected and external elements of a controlled motivational orientation (Deci & Ryan, Citation1985). However, when analyzing our data with the amotivation items included versus excluded from the controlled subscale, our findings largely remained the same (see OSM).
3 In addition to self-determined reasons for engaging in sex, approach and avoidance sexual goals were also measured and examined as competing motivational mechanisms based on previous research (Muise et al., Citation2013). We re-ran our primary mediation models of self-determined reasons for engaging in sex mediating the effects of sexual communal motivation on satisfaction while controlling for approach and avoidance sexual goals, and largely, the findings reported in the results remained. (see OSM).
4 Given that people may be motivated to have sex in the presence or absence of sexual desire, we were interested in whether our effects on relationship and sexual satisfaction were specific to sexual motivation and not solely driven by desire. We reran the models examining the mediating effects of self-determined reasons for engaging in sex on the associations between sexual communal motivation and relationship and sexual satisfaction while controlling for sexual desire and found no significant changes to the findings.