Untangling the Porn Web: Creating an Organizing Framework for Pornography Research Among Couples

ABSTRACT

Research exploring the correlates, moderators, and potential consequences of viewing pornography for romantic couples has surged in recent years. Research in this area has primarily focused on the question of whether viewing pornography for either partner (or together) is related to enhanced, diminished, or has no effect on relational well-being. However, this narrow scholarly focus and the continued methodological limitations of research in this area have made synthesizing or drawing broad conclusions about pornography use from this scholarship difficult. One specific limitation of this area is the lack of any broad organizational framework that could help scholars categorize existing research while also laying the groundwork for future scholarship. In this paper, we argue for such a framework and suggest that relational pornography scholarship could be organized across five broad dimensions: the nuances of the content viewed, individual background factors, personal views and attitudes, a couple’s relational context, and couple processes. We provide a justification for these five areas and then discuss how this framework could help organize and structure the research in this area moving forward.

Research on viewing sexually explicit media, while certainly not new, has accelerated in the last decade. Pornographic imagery has been a historic fact of sexual intimacy for centuries (Kendrick, 1987). However, technological advancements in the last several decades have increased the ease of using sexually explicit material (Fisher & Barak, 2001) as well as hastened scholarly interest in such viewing and its effects. While this interest has led to a growth in the empirical scholarship examining pornography consumption and its correlates, much of this research continues to focus on individual viewing from a psychological framework (Grubbs, Perry, Wilt, & Reid, 2019; Willoughby & Leonhardt, 2018; Wright, Tokunaga, & Kraus, 2015). Research on the relational impacts and realities of pornography use is less frequent but will likely increase in its relevance given a growing proportion of romantic couples where at least one partner regularly views pornographic material (Carroll, Busby, Willoughby, & Brown, 2017).

Several important trends in the viewing of pornography suggest that a relational lens will be critical to most future research on pornography. First, while men viewing pornography in isolation was historically the most common behavioral pattern (Carroll et al., 2008), the proportion of women viewing pornography has been rising in the last several decades (Price, Patterson, Regnerus, & Walley, 2016). Price et al. (2016) noted a nearly 10% increase in pornography use among young adult women from the 1970s until the early 2000s. Likely paralleling this increase in use among women, romantic heterosexual couples using pornographic material concurrently is also becoming common (Carroll et al., 2017; Willoughby & Leonhardt, 2018). Even when such use remains an individual behavior, the growing proportion of the population that regularly engages with pornographic content, including when in a committed relationship, suggests that most modern couples will need to negotiate and create relational rules and norms for both partners’ individual and joint pornography use. Furthermore, this increasing relational context of pornography viewing has heightened scholarly (Carroll et al., 2017; Hald, Seaman, & Linz, 2014; Newstrom & Harris, 2016; Rasmussen, 2016) and public (Luscombe, 2016) interest in the relational effects of both individual and joint pornography use.

Despite these trends, the relational literature on pornography currently lacks a broad organizational framework that could guide and structure both past and present scholarship. While some scholars have created theoretical frameworks aimed at describing the process through which pornography may influence relationships (Leonhardt, Spencer, Butler, & Theobald, 2019a), larger conceptual frameworks aimed more at organizing and structuring the existing literature are lacking. Given the increasing focus put on pornography use from a relational lens, the lack of broader theoretical development in this area is a key concern. Research on pornography use has suffered from well-documented limitations and shortcomings, including inadequate and vague measurement (Busby, Chiu, Olsen, & Willoughby, 2017; Willoughby & Busby, 2016), a reliance on non-dyadic datasets (Campbell & Kohut, 2017; Willoughby & Leonhardt, 2018) and disagreement regarding the mechanisms through which pornography might influence individuals and couples (Leonhardt, Spencer, Butler, & Theobald, 2019a). However, of primary importance is the lack of an overarching conceptual framework or model that can give a common language or organizing structure to the relational work in this area. As noted by Newstrom and Harris (2016), the lack of any framework on pornography use among couples “ … makes it difficult to know how to interpret the results of the findings of a given study and to build upon existing research” (p. 420).

Such a general framework would have the benefit of unifying language and organizing past and current scholarship under empirically relevant themes and constructs. We first overview the current research in this area, including summarizing existing theoretical models that have been used in the past. We then outline specific limitations of the current scholarship and needs of any organizing model before proposing such a framework and summarizing its main dimensions.

We recognize in our attempt to create an organizing framework around relational pornography scholarship that even the concept of what pornography is and is not has been difficult to pinpoint and define (McKee, Byron, Litsou, & Ingham, 2019; Willoughby & Busby, 2016). While many scholars have proposed that pornography be defined as any sexually explicit content that is designed or created with the intent to sexually arouse, such a definition does not completely capture the range of sexual content that individuals or couples might perceive as pornographic. For the purposes of this paper and framework, we will refrain from attempting to define pornography around certain parameters. Instead, our review will encompass the wide array of measures and definitions that scholars have used in past research, with a focus on attempting to identify and organize the larger constructs that seem relevant and important in understanding how a wide range of sexual media might be associated with relational processes.

Overview of Existing Research on Relational Pornography

As already noted, the use of pornography has greatly increased since the advent of the internet and modern technology. The viewing of pornography by individuals and couples has now become largely normative for many segments of the population. In their recent summary of pornography use across several nationally representative datasets in the United States, Regnerus, Gordon, and Price (2016) noted that roughly 60% of men and one-third of women reported viewing pornography in the last year. Price et al. (2016) used the General Social Survey to note that pornography consumption and positive attitudes toward pornography have generally been trending up in the last several decades, especially among younger cohorts. Teens and young adults have also reported relatively high rates of pornography use across several studies, with Peter and Valkenburg (2016) noting recently that most studies suggest that over half of all adolescents have been exposed to some form of pornographic content.

Taken together, these trends suggest that some level of pornography use is now normative for most segments of the population. Recent research suggests this is beginning to be true at the couple level as well. Using national US data, Carroll et al. (2017) found that when romantic couples reported pornography use, most of these couples reported at least some use together. Willoughby and Leonhardt (2018) also recently observed that among their sample of 240 heterosexual couples, the majority reported at least some joint pornography use. Such recent studies suggest that not only is the individual use of pornography on the rise, it is quickly becoming the norm within most romantic partnerships.

Pornography use also appears to be a decidedly gendered behavior. While pornography use continues to trend higher across almost all segments of the population, a large gender gap remains, where men report significantly higher pornography viewing than women (Albright, 2008; Carroll et al., 2017, 2008; Maddox, Rhoades, & Markman, 2011; Petersen & Hyde, 2010; Poulsen, Busby, & Galovan, 2013). The purposes of pornography use also typically differ by gender. Men are more likely to use sexual media for solitary sexual activity, where women are more likely to report using sexual media as part of their coupled sexual activity (Albright, 2008; Bridges & Morokoff, 2011; Brown, Durtschi, Carroll, & Willoughby, 2017; Kohut, Balzarini, Fisher, & Campbell, 2018). Specifically, Carroll et al. (2017) found that women were more likely to report that their consumption was mostly or entirely couple-based in contrast to men who were more likely to report viewing pornography always alone. This seems consistent with findings by Kraus and Rosenberg (2014, 2016) where only a minority of men reported ever using pornography with a partner. In this way, pornography is not only becoming more situated within a relational context, but the uniquely gendered aspects of pornography use are becoming more important for scholars to consider within both mixed and same-gendered partnerships.

Given the rise of pornography use, both generally and specifically within romantic partnerships, scholars have expended considerable energy attempting to understand the potential causes and consequences of this use on relational well-being (Newstrom & Harris, 2016; Rasmussen, 2016). The research in this area has been decidedly mixed. On the one hand, a growing and somewhat consistent body of research has suggested that pornography use, especially male use, is associated with lower levels of sexual and relational well-being (Bridges & Morokoff, 2011; Maddox et al., 2011; Muusses, Kerkhof, & Finkenauer, 2015; Newstrom & Harris, 2016; Poulsen et al., 2013; Rasmussen, 2016; Sun, Bridges, Johnson, & Ezzell, 2016). This effect has generally been shown to be small but also consistent across a range of samples and potential confounding covariates (Wright, Tokunaga, Kraus, & Klann, 2017). Some studies have suggested that pornography use may be related to other negative aspects of couple process and well-being, including more negative feelings toward one’s partner (Grov, Gillespie, Royce, & Lever, 2011), higher rates of infidelity (Gwinn, Lambert, Fincham, & Maner, 2013; Maddox et al., 2011), and lower commitment to one’s partner (Minarcik, Wetterneck, & Short, 2016).

Other studies have explored a range of outcomes beyond general satisfaction and well-being measures. For example, using an open-ended “bottom-up” methodology, Kohut, Fisher, and Campbell (2017) reported a number of perceived positive effects of pornography, including improved sexual communication, more sexual experimentation and enhanced sexual comfort. These findings are reflective of a number of other studies showing pornography consumption to be associated with openness to discussing sexual desires and fantasies (Daneback, Træen, & Månsson, 2009), willingness to explore new sexual behaviors (Weinberg, Williams, Kleiner, & Irizarry, 2010), increased sexual knowledge (Hald, Smolenski, & Rosser, 2013), and better sexual communication (Grov et al., 2011).

A number of studies also suggest the possibility of no connection between pornography use and relational outcomes. “No effect” was the most common outcome reported in the bottom-up study asking participants to report on how pornography use influenced their relationship (Kohut et al., 2017), and some research has failed to find a direct link between pornography use and relationship well-being when controlling for sociodemographic variables, psychosexual variables, and relationship characteristics (Veit, Štulhofer, & Hald, 2017). In one of the most notable examples, Balzarini, Dobson, Chin, and Campbell (2017) tried to replicate previous research showing that viewing attractive nude images was associated with lower reported love for partners among men. Across three well-powered experimental studies, the authors failed to replicate the finding, showing that exposure to attractive nude images had no significant effect on men’s love for their partner (Balzarini et al., 2017).

While the majority of these studies have focused on individual use within a relational context, a few recent studies have also explored the unique effect of joint couple use. Generally, these studies have suggested that pornography use done collaboratively has been associated with positive relational outcomes (Kohut et al., 2018; Newstrom & Harris, 2016; Willoughby & Leonhardt, 2018). Kohut et al. (2018) found among 200 heterosexual couples that joint and concordant pornography use was associated with better communication and closeness patterns compared to couples who had discrepant use.

Relational outcomes associated with pornography use also differ along gendered lines. A meta-analysis by Wright et al. (2017) identified distinct differences in associations with male and female pornography use. Across studies they found that men’s pornography use was consistently associated with their own lower relational and lower sexual satisfaction. In contrast, there was no overall relationship between women’s use of pornography and the same outcomes. Male and female use also shows differences in the associated outcomes for their partners. Men’s use is typically associated with negative satisfaction or quality for women while women’s use has either a positive or neutral relationship with men’s satisfaction (Bridges & Morokoff, 2011; Poulsen et al., 2013; Willoughby & Leonhardt, 2018). Furthermore, women who believe their partners consume pornography report being less relationally and sexually satisfied (Wright & Tokunaga, 2018). These findings seem further nuanced when using a common fate model, as women’s pornography use is positively associated with the couples’ shared sexual satisfaction, yet men’s and women’s use are negatively associated with their own sexual satisfaction (Brown et al., 2017). Much remains to be explored in why these gender differences exist, as they may be at least partially attributable to use frequency (Wright, Steffen, & Sun, 2019) and the manner in which the material is used (Kohut et al., 2018).

To date, the research on pornography and couples has shown decidedly inconsistent results across a range of topics. While perhaps the majority of studies have suggested a small overall negative effect on relational well-being, several studies have also suggested both positive and null findings. These findings also appear to be heavily contextualized around both gender and the nature in which each couple uses pornography either together or separately. Recently, scholars have attributed many of these mixed findings to consistent and large limitations in this area of scholarship (Campbell & Kohut, 2017; Leonhardt et al., 2019a).

The Need for a Broad Contextual Approach

Given the expanding nature of the pornography literature focused on relational contexts and the increasing proportion of couples worldwide that are currently navigating pornography use as a normative sexual behavior, there is a need for a conceptual framework that can help situate this research within a common structure. Such a framework would allow scholars studying pornography to unify their language on this topic, create more consistent and better measurement, and segment the existing and future research into relevant and meaningful content areas. Establishing such a framework in order to help unify efforts in understanding the topic or area of research is common in the behavioral and psychological sciences when a given area of study reaches a point where sufficient and consistent research is occurring.

As a relational example of the development of such a framework, research on relationship and marriage education and enhancement began to increase throughout the late 1980’s and 1990’s with the concern over the high divorce rate. Several governments at the time also took a policy interest in marriage and divorce and began to invest in healthy marriage and relationship initiatives (Ooms, Bouchet, & Parke, 2004). As this research increased, scholars were becoming increasingly scattered in both their language, measurement, and approach to educational and intervention research. Hawkins, Carroll, Doherty, and Willoughby (2004) therefore proposed the COFRAME (Comprehensive Framework for Marriage Education) model that sought to provide a unifying framework of language and concepts for the field. This model identified dimensions of relationship education and helped scholars situate their empirical work within a common language and structure. This paper has been influential in this area, serving as the basis for much of the work that followed on relationship education for the next few decades.

This example has many parallels in the current pornography research on couples. As behavioral patterns around pornography have increased, scholarly interest has followed suit. Furthermore, many governmental agencies and other policy-based groups are beginning to be more involved in the policy arena regarding the use of pornography and its effects (Person, Hurka, & Knill, 2016). The currently scattered nature of relational pornography work, both conceptually and methodologically, suggests that such a broad and unifying framework might likewise be important and helpful to scholars in this area. Various researchers have made theoretical assertions about pornography use at both the individual and dyadic level. However, these assertions tend to oversimplify a complex sexual behavior, leading to theories that are helpful in specific situations, but have been limited as broad frameworks for the study of this topic. Much of the existing theoretical material on pornography applies individual psychological theories to the specific behavior of viewing pornography, often so focused that both researchers and readers fail to see the bigger picture. Objectification (commonly considered the separation of identity from sexuality; Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998) is one of the clearest examples of an overly narrow lens. Evidence shows that objectification is a common theme in pornography scenes (e.g., Fritz & Paul, 2017; Klaassen & Peter, 2015), and a growing number of studies suggest that pornography may be influencing more objectifying views, particularly of women (e.g., Peter & Valkenburg, 2009; Vandenbosch & van Oosten, 2017). However, a variety of messages are simultaneously presented in pornography. Focusing solely on the objectifying message neglects other messages that might be portrayed (e.g., eroticism; Leonhardt et al., 2019a).

Sexual script theory (Gagnon & Simon, 1973) has a broader lens, with the 3AM model applying script theory specifically to pornography use (Wright, 2011). The theory has the advantage of more holistically considering what messages might be portrayed in pornography and detailing a number of factors that moderate the likelihood of sexual script enactment. Wright (2011) highlighted that viewing sexual content is most likely to influence outcomes insofar as its scripts are acquired, activated, and applied. Wright (2011) provided a long list of content factors (e.g., arousal value, salience, simplicity, plausibility), audience factors (e.g., gender, motivations, age), accessibility factors (e.g., frequency of use, duration of use), and situational factors (e.g., time pressure, sexual arousal) that all play a role in the enactment of a sexual script. The 3AM model draws on sexual script theory (Gagnon & Simon, 1973), providing important groundwork for a plethora of considerations of how pornography shapes individual sexual attitudes and behaviors. However, one unfortunate drawback of the 3AM is that it is still largely individually focused, acknowledging the possibility of a variety of contextual or relational moderators, but neglecting the mention of specific relational factors. Considering the complexity of the relational context surrounding pornography use (e.g., Kohut et al., 2018; Willoughby & Leonhardt, 2018), a framework for the study of couple outcomes would benefit from more detailed description of couple contextual variables.

While objectification and scripting theories have dominated the individual-focused pornography literature, a smaller body of theoretical scholarship exists focused on relational contexts. The Antecedents-Context-Effects (ACE) model (Campbell & Kohut, 2017) is perhaps the most fleshed-out relational model to date, highlighting the importance of taking into account antecedents and contextual factors when examining pornography. More specifically, the authors addressed (a) the problem with how pornography is defined across studies, (b) methodological limitations, (c) gendered assumptions, (d) “harm-focused” research approaches, and (e) methodologies that recruit individuals rather than dyads. Considering these limitations, the authors advised caution in the interpretation of associations found in pornography research up to this point. In many ways, the aim of the ACE model was to assert that any study failing to account for couple dynamics when assessing associations between pornography use and relational outcomes could not be confident that the connection between the two outcomes is due in fact to pornography use.

This broad assertion is valuable. The model highlights a number of limitations that need to be addressed, but it provides limited specification concerning how these antecedents and contextual factors could play a role (Campbell & Kohut, 2017). While the authors mention a number of potential antecedents (e.g., individual differences, culture, life experiences, gender), contexts of use (e.g., frequency of use, solitary use, joint use, hidden use, content of use), and consequences of use (e.g., positive, negative, neutral), they stop short of providing a clear framework for what important relational factors should be considered. In this way, the ACE model provided an important warning for relational scholarship on pornography, but did not establish a clear roadmap or organizing framework for scholars to follow.

Leonhardt et al. (2019a) provided some of the most recent theoretical work on the subject. Their framework synthesized several ideas from the 3AM and ACE to suggest conditions of how and why viewing certain types of sexual content might influence different aspects of sexual quality. They highlighted (a) the importance of considering the content viewed, distinguishing between sexually suggestive, sexually explicit, and paraphilic content, (b) careful consideration of the outcome being assessed, specifically pointing out the distinction between short-term and long-term sexual quality factors, (c) moderators of sexual script application (e.g., exclusivity, formativeness, resonance, reinforcement), (d) and contextual factors of use (e.g., congruency of use, congruency of script application, moral incongruence). The model has advantages, such as providing a number of falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested in future work. However, one of the biggest critiques from commentaries on the model (e.g., Kohut & Campbell, 2018; Ley, 2019; Vandenbosch, 2018), and acknowledged by the authors themselves (Leonhardt, Spencer, Butler, & Theobald, 2019b), was the limited number of specific moderators they were able to address. For example, both Prause (2019) and Perry (2019b) noted that Leonhardt and colleagues failed to adequately address the potentially important moderating factor of masturbation in their model. Furthermore, the paper focused solely on components of sexual quality as outcomes, neglecting other relational factors that may be influenced from pornography use.

Taken together, the theoretical scholarship related to the relational context of pornography is still in its infancy. Most theoretical work on pornography remains firmly rooted in individual-based scholarship and existing relational models either lack a clear enough organizational structure to provide clear guidance to scholars or are focused exclusively on the potential causal mechanisms between pornography use and sexual outcomes. In some ways, this lack of theoretical development continues to be tied to underlying and persistent methodological limitations in the field. For example, the most commonly cited limitations of this area of scholarship is the operationalization and measurement of pornography use (Kohut, 2014; Willoughby & Busby, 2016). When assessing use of sexually explicit material on the internet, researchers rarely understand exactly what people are viewing. Researchers even lack consensus on how to label pornography use, using various terms such as visual sexual stimuli (VSS), sexually explicit material (SEM), sexual media, erotica, online sexual activities (OSAs), and cybersex (Vaillancourt-Morel, Daspe, Charbonneau-Lefebvre, Bosisio, & Bergeron, 2019).

An additional measurement limitation is that almost all pornography scholarship is based on self-reported frequency items. Estimating the frequency of pornography use through self-report data is potentially problematic, as previous research suggests that people inaccurately report the amount of time they spend on media (Kahn, Ratan, & Williams, 2014). Additionally, failing to account for the specific content being viewed could result in several issues when it comes to understanding pornography’s potential impact. Some people consider non-explicit material to be pornographic (Willoughby & Busby, 2016) and viewing different types of content could be connected to different relational outcomes (e.g., Leonhardt & Willoughby, 2019; Štulhofer, Buško, & Landripet, 2010)

Long-standing methodological problems with pornography research appear to be a contributing factor to a lack of theoretical development but create a “chicken/egg” problem for scholars. Do scholars need to solve measurement problems before getting the data needed for clear theory to develop? Or do clear conceptual frameworks need to be developed to help guide the solving of these methodological problems? Though the two inform each other in important ways, we would argue the latter question is more likely the case. While important, current theoretical work neglects a wide range of other important questions when it comes to pornography use and relational sexuality, making it difficult for scholars to know where to focus their methodological energies. For example, what experiences change pornography patterns across the life course? What factors change viewing preferences or couple use patterns? How does pornography intersect with other sexual behaviors to influence individual well-being? These and many other questions remain salient and important as pornography usage increases, yet no theoretical framework applied to pornography and couples is currently broad enough to help structure such a wide range of research questions and hypotheses.

Proposing an Organizing Framework

As opposed to most current theoretical work in this area that seeks to hypothesize about processes linking pornography use to well-being, a broader framework would provide context to the study of pornography within relationships. Instead of being concerned regarding what effect (or non-effect) pornography use may be having on couples, this framework would provide a common structure and language to any scholar wishing to explore questions related to pornography and romantic relationships. While the ACE model (Campbell & Kohut, 2017) provides an important step forward in this area, a framework that provides more specific language and dimensions would provide even more structure to future scholarship.

Such frameworks typically structure their language around common dimensions that help frame the empirical work in a given area. We believe that the current scholarship on pornography suggests the presence of five specific and unique dimensions that scholars should consider when exploring pornography use within a relational context. These dimensions are the following: Pornography Content, Individual Background Factors, Personal Views and Attitudes, Couple Process, and Relational Contexts. (see Figure 1). While a few of these dimensions have been discussed and explored in previous scholarship, others have only been studied in limited ways. This is despite clear indications that such dimensions are likely important to the relational science linked to pornography use. We note that such dimensions likely have some overlap (represented visually in Figure 1). For example, personal attitudes toward pornography may have unique effects on pornography use at a relational level but the combinations of each partner’s individual beliefs may also create unique relational context factors. As such, dimensions should be considered individually important but conceptually interconnected. Below we provide more context for these dimensions and relevant supporting research before providing thoughts on how this framework would be beneficial to the future work on pornography use among couples.

Figure 1. Five dimensions of an organizational framework for relational pornography research.

Pornography Content

One of the areas that most research on pornography has ignored has been the content of sexual media individuals view. In fact, as noted earlier, the use of vague measurement, devoid of items that assess specific content areas, is perhaps one of the largest current gaps in the scholarly literature on pornography. This is despite recent calls arguing that understanding the content of the sexual media individuals view may be important to both accurately assessing pornography use (Busby et al., 2017) and understanding the correlates of such use (Willoughby & Busby, 2016). In perhaps the most direct call for why assessing and understanding content may be important, Willoughby and Busby (2016) showed that individual definitions and perceptions of what type of sexual media is considered pornographic varies across individuals. They noted that such definitions also significantly shift in relation to religiosity, gender, and marital status, suggesting that internal definitions of what is and is not pornographic are based on both proximate life circumstances and general background factors. Likewise, Leonhardt and Willoughby (2019) found that mainstream explicit sexual media and more general sexual media (i.e. sex scenes in movies, etc.) had differential associations with sexual satisfaction among individuals in relationships.

Beyond these calls for scholars to focus more on the content of sexual media and pornography, several studies focused specifically on the content of pornographic movies and videos suggest that such a focus would likely uncover an array of potentially important moderators and other confounding factors. Klaassen and Peter (2015) found in their content analysis of 400 popular pornography videos that both men and women are portrayed in objectifying ways within pornographic videos but the nature of that objectification varied by gender. In their study, gender was also relevant in terms of differing portrayals of dominance and submissiveness. Objectification is a common theme in the content-based research on pornography but some scholars have noted that such objectification differs not only based on the gender of the actors but on the anticipated gender of the audience (Fritz & Paul, 2017). Studies have also suggested that violent content, aggression, and consent are additional factors that scholars should consider when exploring content (Klaassen & Peter, 2015; Shor & Seida, 2019). Likely even more avenues of content remain relatively unexplored, including depictions of monogamy and varying depictions of non-normative sexual acts as sought after and pleasurable.

Further, the smaller but more focused literature on child pornography and other extreme forms of pornographic material, including violent pornography (Foubert, Brosi, & Bannon, 2011; Malamuth, Addison, & Koss, 2000), likewise suggest that such content may have unique associations with individual or relational behavior. However, essentially no current relational scholarship focused on pornography has considered how varying types of content may change, alter, or moderate associations between such viewing and relational processes and outcomes. Given the wide array of content that individuals and couples may be viewing both individually and together, the pornographic content couples and individuals view is likely a key dimension for scholars to consider.

Of course, one of the main obstacles of such work is determining and agreeing on aspects of content that are the most salient and likely to be associated with couple processes. The sheer variety of sexually explicit content available to individuals and couples makes it difficult to incorporate such assessment with any degree of parsimony. For example, Hald, Stulhofer, and Lange (2018) recently attempted to incorporate the content of pornography viewed in their exploration of sexual arousal, sexual orientation, and gender. They used 27 different content themes in their analysis in an attempt to holistically assess various content areas. As scholars attempt to incorporate elements of content into future studies, they must continue to work toward determining what content areas and aspects of content are the most salient to couple-based research.

Individual Background Factors

Another factor to consider when exploring pornography use at the couple level is the individual background factors that each person brings to the relationship. Perhaps the largest dimension to consider, relational scholarship has long noted the importance of considering individual factors such as personality traits, individual preference, family background, and individual demographics when understanding relational trajectories, process, and well-being (Martinson, Holman, Larson, & Jackson, 2010). These factors provide another important context for relational pornography use as such factors likely alter the likelihood of viewing pornography while in a relationship, the effect of such use, and create individual dispositions toward pornography that will alter relational conversations about pornography use.

One example of a relevant individual factor may be the age that someone started to use pornography. From a scripting perspective, someone who started using pornography at an earlier age may be more likely to apply the script in their sexual interactions with a partner (Leonhardt et al., 2019a; Wright, 2011). This more formative influence may occur in part due to younger individuals having less ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality (Murray et al., 2006). The limited empirical research in this area suggests that one’s personal history with pornography may create unique trajectories of use that will influence the nature of pornography use within a relationship.

Researchers are still assessing the extent that personality characteristics may play a role in the frequency and patterns of pornography use. For example, adults who use pornography more frequently score higher in neuroticism and narcissism, as well as lower in extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Egan & Parmar, 2013). One specific personality trait that deserves scholarly focus is impulsivity. Impulsivity has received attention as a potential predictor for the small percentage of individuals who suffer from dysregulated pornography use, with some mixed results (e.g., Antons & Brand, 2018; Gola et al., 2017). Although research has consistently shown that high frequency pornography use tends to be associated with problematic relationship outcomes (e.g., Wright et al., 2017), it is important to assess how individual differences may lead to a higher propensity for high frequency use (potentially to the point of dysregulation) as there will likely be relational consequences for such use (Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2017).

Individual background factors linked to sexuality are also important to consider. Some important sexuality-specific individual differences that each person brings to the relationship include masturbation patterns and sexual drive. For example, Miller, McBain, Li, and Raggatt (2019) found that the negative association between pornography use and sexual satisfaction occurred through masturbation frequency. Perry (2019a) recently found that a link between pornography use and relational well-being vanished once masturbation was controlled for. Researchers have only recently begun to assess the intercorrelations between pornography use and masturbation. An understanding of how these factors interrelate when applied in a couple context is an area ripe for additional research.

Other factors that deserve attention are sensation seeking, hypermasculinity, and hyperfemininity. A study showed that sexual sensation seeking (Chen et al., 2018) may play a contributing role in predicting problematic pornography use, particularly for men. Hypermasculinity (sometimes termed gender role-conflict) has been linked to an increased likelihood of both pornography use frequency and problematic pornography use (Szymanski & Stewart-Richardson, 2014). Hyperfemininity has been linked to how women process pornographic material, as women with low and moderate degrees of hyperfemininity (as opposed to high) are more critical of male targeted pornography (van Oosten, Peter, & Boot, 2015). Particularly considering the gendered norms often depicted in pornography (e.g., Klaassen & Peter, 2015) that arguably depict hypermasculinity and hyperfemininity, these topics deserve continual investigation.

Sexual orientation is yet another individual factor that is rarely considered in the current scholarship on pornography. As mentioned, gender differences remain one of the most consistent findings in the study of pornography (Carroll et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2017), suggesting that male-male, male-female, and female-female relational orientations may have unique and differential contexts for pornography use. Some research has suggested that the gender of the user and not the specific sexual orientation of the relationship may be a more important factor in determining the effect pornography has on the relationship (Vaillancourt-Morel et al., 2019). Related to this, no study of pornography in a couple context has attempted to explore how the presence of transgendered individuals may also alter pornography patterns or effects.

Research has suggested that several individual background factors are important to consider in terms of their potential impact on the relational aspects of pornography use. More factors have yet to be directly explored that are likely tied to pornography use (such as family of origin factors or the influence of peer interactions) and several factors will likely be uncovered in the future. Scholars should continue to consider how individual background factors shift individual and couple pornography use patterns while also serving as moderators for how pornography use is correlated with relational well-being.

Personal Views and Attitudes

A third dimension important to consider related to pornography use within relationships is the personal views and attitudes of each individual within the partnership. In many ways, personal views and attitudes can be encompassed within the broader individual background factors category. However, the extensive research on individual views and attitudes and their effects on pornography use patterns and outcomes merits specific attention. Scholars have noted that attitudes toward pornography are important factors to consider when studying the effects of pornography use (Maas, Vasilenko, & Willoughby, 2018; Perry & Whitehead, 2019). As noted by several psychological theories, individual attitudes and beliefs are important components of how individuals make relational decisions and often precede decisions to engage in specific behaviors. Personal views and attitudes about pornography could have two important implications for relational processes and well-being. First, they provide the relational and individual filter through which pornography is defined and moralized within each relationship. As noted by scholars, personal definitions of what is pornography differ significantly (Willoughby & Busby, 2016) and such definitions (and their differences between romantic partners) likely create differing relational environments within which pornography is used. Secondly, personal views and attitudes may moderate the relational effects of pornography by shifting individual reactions to partner use and internal consequences of individual use (Grubbs, Exline, Pargament, Hook, & Carlisle, 2015; Perry, 2016).

For example, previous research has highlighted how some view pornography use by romantic partners as a betrayal of relational boundaries (Zitzman & Butler, 2009), potentially creating a relational environment where pornography use operates in a similar fashion as other forms of infidelity (Whitty, 2003). It appears to be an issue for a significant minority of individuals, as a recent study of university students found that 13% of US participants and 10% of Spanish participants considered using pornography to be infidelity (Negy, Plaza, Reig-Ferrer, & Fernandez-Pascual, 2018). There was no difference between men and women. Though it appears to be a significant minority, clearly this is the type of phenomenon that should be further investigated in samples that are more representative. Such research ties to one’s personal expectations around sexuality generally and pornography specifically. Maas et al. (2018) identified acceptance of pornography as moderating associations between pornography use and relationship satisfaction. More pornography use was actually associated with higher relationship satisfaction for men who were more accepting of pornography, but the relationship was inverted for those who were less accepting of pornography. Another potential fertile area for relational scholarship in this area lies in couples who have disagreeing or varying views on pornography use. Research has suggested that behavior differences in use (Willoughby & Leonhardt, 2018) may be associated with negative outcomes and that gender gaps in pornography use are also apparent in overall attitudes (Carroll et al., 2017).

Of course, for many individuals and couples, negative personal views of pornography are tied to underlying religious or moral beliefs (Bradley, Grubbs, Uzdavines, Exline, & Pargament, 2016). Individuals who hold traditional religious beliefs likely have unique and potentially strong oppositional views on pornography. Along these lines, moral opposition to pornography strengthens the negative association between marital quality and consumption (Perry, 2018). Negative associations between pornography use and sexual satisfaction are similarly exacerbated for men with ties to conventional religion (Perry & Whitehead, 2019).

Although this line of research has received little attention at the couple level, it has received ample attention at the individual level (e.g., Grubbs, Exline, et al., 2015; Grubbs, Kraus, & Perry, 2019; Grubbs, Perry et al., 2019). As shown in a recent meta-analysis (Grubbs, Wright, Braden, Wilt, & Kraus, 2019), individuals who view pornography when morally opposed to it are more likely to report being addicted to pornography. This report of addiction (which may or may not reflect actual dysregulated behaviors) is then linked to a variety of negative outcomes (i.e., intrapersonal, interpersonal, and religious/spiritual; Grubbs, Wright et al., 2019). In one of the few relationally focused studies on the topic, researchers found that religiosity was a robust predictor of relational anxiety, meaning that individuals were less comfortable pursuing relationships and openly disclosing their pornography use to a romantic partner (Leonhardt, Willoughby, & Young-Petersen, 2018). Overall, moral incongruence and perceived addiction are topics that deserve additional relational focus.

Another important area of research focused on personal views and attitudes has been in the area of the perceived realism of pornographic content. Researchers have suggested that one’s personal perception that pornographic scenes are accurate depictions of sexual encounters has important implications for how pornographic content is internalized and influences both individual and couple (e.g., Hald & Malamuth, 2008; Leonhardt et al., 2019a; Owens, Behun, Manning, & Reid, 2012). In most cases, scholars have assumed that the more an individual perceives pornographic media to depict real life, the more likely such viewing will influence their sexual scripting and behavior. Research applying this idea has shown that perceived realism was a critical mediator between pornography use and shifts in sexual attitudes among adolescents (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006) and that perceived realism tends to decrease over the course of adolescence (Wright & Stulhofer, 2019).

Despite limited research on the effects of perceived addiction, moral incongruence, and perceived realism in the relational sphere, there exists enough evidence to suggest that assessing, documenting, and understanding individual partners’ views and attitudes toward pornography is important to consider. In addition to specific views of pornography, broader views and attitudes about sexual intimacy may also be relevant, although currently are largely unexplored.

Relational Context

The relational context of a couple is likely another important yet understudied element of understanding pornography use from a relational lens. Relational context refers to the particular context and situations within which each couple finds themselves. These may be micro or macro-cultural context or couple-level factors that are created by the unique combination of individual factors that both partners bring to the relationship. Research has suggested that beyond specific relational processes or individual factors, each partnership has distinctive elements that create unique relational environments. Recent statistical advancements to relational research, including the introduction of the common-fate model (Ledermann & Kenny, 2012), have allowed scholars to begin to explore how larger contextual factors may shift and alter relational environments in ways that influence relational process and well-being. Such a view borrows from ecological model ideas (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), assuming that larger cultural and other macro-level factors influence and shift internal relational processes. Applied to the use of pornography, background and contextual factors for each couple may create unique environments that may make pornography use more or less likely or even shift its effect.

Perhaps the most obvious of these contexts is the relationship status or relational label of the couple. Marital, cohabiting, casual, or non-monogamous relationships have been shown to have slightly differing processes and outcomes (Moors, Matsick, & Schechinger, 2017). In particular, sexual behavior, attitudes and processes have also been shown to differ based on relationship status (Herbenick et al., 2010), suggesting that differing statuses may be important to consider when exploring pornography. While rarely considered in the existing literature, such context may matter in terms of altering or framing pornography use within a given relationship. Similarly, relational length may shift couple dynamics (Ahmetoglu, Swami, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010), creating a unique and varied context through which relationships interact with pornography.

Beyond relationship status and length, research suggests other relational contextual factors to be important when considering pornography use. For example, how each couple creates a unique relational environment around monogamy may also be an important factor. With a growing proportion of couples reporting being in some form of a consensual non-monogamous relationship (Sheff & Tesene, 2015), it is unclear if varying approaches to monogamy may shift behavioral patterns of pornography or its use within a relationship. Cultural contexts, such as the religious nature of a couple’s larger culture or broader geographical cultural norms around sexuality, may also influence pornography use given the strong opposition to pornography common among religious groups (Sherkat & Ellison, 1997). Even more specifically, joint and individual religious behaviors, religious values, and religious affiliation are likely other important relational factors that create unique and varied couple environments for pornography use. Joint religious practices have been shown to impact relational sexuality by creating a unique religious relational context through which couples interact (Dew, Uecker, & Willoughby, 2018) and sexual sanctification (Hernandez, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2011) could likewise alter the practices and effect of pornography within a relational context.

Many of these relational contextual factors are likely derived from the unique combinations of the individual factors and personalized attitudes of each member of the relationship. For example, two partners who come from differing religious backgrounds and hold differing moral views of pornography may create relationship environments where conflict related to pornography use is more likely. This may be in addition to the unique individual effect each partner’s personal views create toward their own and their partner’s pornography use. Existing research does point to the importance of considering such unique contexts within relationships when exploring pornography use among couples. The varying contexts romantic couples find themselves in likely alter the environment in which pornography is consumed, its intended purpose, and potentially its correlates with relational process.

Couple Process

Perhaps one of the more studied aspects of pornography and romantic relationships relates to the context of a couple’s relational process. Differing from the broad context of the romantic relationship, this dimension refers to how elements of couple process, sexual or otherwise, may influence or alter how pornography is used and affects relationships. This includes broad process factors such as communication and interactional patterns, sexual behavioral patterns, and broader elements known to impact couple process such as commitment and relational effort (Stafford & Canary, 1991; Stanley, Rhoades, & Whitton, 2010). This dimension also includes specific interactional patterns that couples may create focused specifically on pornography use, such as the decision to use pornography together as a part of regular sexual patterns (Carroll et al., 2017).

Perhaps the most obvious aspects of couple process that would influence pornography use is how a romantic couple negotiates, communicates, and uses pornography individually and jointly within their relationships. Pornography use is increasingly becoming a topic that modern couples are discussing and negotiating within their relationship. Given the taboo nature of pornography use among some couples, individual pornography use may be hidden or not openly discussed and initial empirical evidence suggests that hiding use from one’s partner may have relational implications (Willoughby & Leonhardt, 2018). While less is known about couple communication specifically about pornography, the general literature on sexual communication (see Timm & Keiley, 2011) suggests that how couples discuss sex and the degree of openness and honesty about pornography use may be another important aspect to consider.

Another critical couple process factor is how each couple uses pornography together or alone. Couple or shared pornography use is consistently associated with more positive outcomes for couples when compared to solitary use such as higher relational satisfaction (Bridges & Morokoff, 2011), open sexual communication and closeness (Kohut et al., 2018), and higher sexual satisfaction (Maddox et al., 2011; Willoughby & Leonhardt, 2018). Beyond this, couples whose frequency of individual pornography use is concordant with each other have similar communication and closeness outcomes as couples where neither partner uses pornography alone (Kohut et al., 2018). Similarly, discrepancies between partners’ pornography use are associated with less relationship satisfaction, less stability, less positive communication, and more relational aggression (Willoughby, Carroll, Busby, & Brown, 2016). Such research appears to suggest that how couples create process around pornography use may have a large effect on how pornography use is related to relational well-being.

Other aspects of couple process known to be associated with relational well-being such as conflict resolution, general communication skills, empathy, and forgiveness (Carroll, Badger, & Yang, 2006) are also likely important to consider in future research. These broader process factors are currently understudied and underutilized in the current scholarship on pornography use within couple relationships. Such broader processes may alter how or if couples discuss pornography, provide potential motivation to engage in solitary or coupled pornography use, or simply moderate other associations between pornography use and couple well-being.

Future Directions and Conclusions

The proposed model provides scholars interested in the continued study of pornography within romantic relationships with several important benefits to help guide and direct future research in this area. While broad, such a framework provides a focus on five empirically and theoretically relevant areas in which scholars should likely concentrate their future work. Given the well-documented limitations of the current field that broadly relate to a continued lack of specificity and attention to contextual factors by scholars (Campbell & Kohut, 2017), the proposed framework will help focus future research on important factors known or theorized to be relevant when considering pornography within a relational context. Such a framework has been beneficial in other areas of relational scholarship (Hawkins et al., 2004) and will likely help structure future research on pornography and couples.

We believe the use of the proposed model would have at least four key implications for future research in this area. First, it would allow scholars to become more specific and targeted in their approach to this topic. As noted (see Willoughby, 2019), scholars, policy makers, and the general public have often fallen into the trap of approaching pornography with too much of a black and white perspective, attempting to determine if and how pornography has an effect on global individual and couple well-being. These approaches attempt to determine if “pornography” collectively is either healthy or unhealthy (or neither) for couples. This approach likely creates a false sense of one overarching continuum, where the goal of scholars is assumed to be determining where on the healthy-unhealthy continuum pornography falls. However, existing research suggests strongly that pornography use and its relational effects are nuanced, heavily moderated, and contextually sensitive. What is needed to move any discussion of the relational effects forward is a better focus on the factors related to pornography use outlined in the current model. Using this proposed model would allow scholars to focus research questions and hypotheses on specific dimensions of the model, allowing better specificity in research design and measurement. Scholars may also elect to examine interconnections between dimensions, allowing them to consider previously unexplored links between critical aspects of relational pornography use rather than just pornography use generally. By concentrating on specific dimensions (or the dimensions collectively), scholars will be more focused in their approach and be better positioned to provide clear policy and educational guidelines regarding pornography use.

Not only would the proposed framework provide scholars with a clearer ability to focus on a given dimension of work and help focus measurement, the use of these dimensions can also direct and help the growing theoretical work in this area. For example, the recent growing work on moral incongruence (Grubbs, Exline, et al., 2015) could be re-conceptualized as specific theory related to the individual background factors and personal views and attitudes dimensions of the model. Other dimensions, such as pornographic content and relational context need additional theoretical attention (Leonhardt et al., 2019a), suggesting that scholars should perhaps devote energy in the near future into advancing conceptual and theoretical models aimed at understanding how these dimensions may influence pornography use. For example, Leonhardt et al. (2019a) recently highlighted the importance of considering specific types of content viewed (sexually suggestive, versus sexually explicit, versus paraphilic), as well as the importance of considering relational context (e.g., congruency of use and congruency of sexual script application). However, they noted that this should be considered a starting point in need of additional attention (Leonhardt et al., 2019b).

A second important implication of the proposed model is a push toward better and more specific measurement and assessment. In acknowledging that pornography use is a complex relational and individual behavior, scholars can use the proposed model to recognize the need to assess multiple dimensions of pornography use at once. While assessing all five dimensions within every study focused on relational pornography may not be possible, researchers can use the proposed model to acknowledge their ability (or inability) to address pornography use from a holistic perspective. Perhaps most simply, the model suggests the need to assess three broad areas in each study: the content of pornography, individual variables (background factors and/or personal views) and couple variables (process and relational context).

As argued by other scholars (see Campbell & Kohut, 2017), the proposed model further suggests the need for dyadic data and measurement to adequately assess the relational dynamics of pornography use and its correlates. To understand how pornography use intersects with couple process, it is vital that scholars collect dyadic data that would allow for the exploration of how a variety of dimensions for one partner influences the dimensions of the other partner. For example, scholars might use such data to explore how the personal views of one partner influences the relational outcomes of the other. Alternatively, scholars might explore how each partners’ personal family background influences how that couple negotiates pornography use within their relationship.

Third, the proposed model will help scholars explore meaningful connections between various dimensions. As proposed, the five dimensions of the current model are not meant to be viewed as isolated factors, but likely connect to each other in important and unique ways. For example, individual background factors may help create personal views and attitudes about pornography. Such personal views and definitions of pornography may create unique couple processes centered on both sexual intimacy and pornography specifically. The dimensions of the current model may help scholars then consider such specific connections and hypotheses between the factors we have identified as particularly salient when considering pornography use among couples. Not only are the dimensions of the proposed model likely interconnected at the individual level, their interaction between partners is likely also of scholarly interest. The proposed model echoes sentiments of other scholars who have called for stronger dyadic models in this body of research. Pragmatically, this means that by using this proposed model, scholars may begin to open up new lines of inquiry based less on attempting to determine if pornography use is generally having positive or negative effects on relationship but more on how interconnections and overlap between dimensions might help us understand how romantic couples are discussing, negotiating, and using pornography.

Finally, the proposed framework extends beyond empirical ramifications and has important clinical implications as well. While not the focus of the current review, the proposed model can also serve as a template for practitioners assisting clients who are navigating pornography use either at the couple or individual level. A number of individuals report perceiving their pornography use to be problematic, often describing it as compulsive or addictive (Grubbs, Stauner, Exline, Pargament, & Lindberg, 2015) and present themselves to therapy with such problems (Schneider & Schneider, 1996); however, discussion is ongoing for a diagnostic category in which to place such persons (Kraus et al., 2018). This has led to a lack of consensus regarding how, or even if, to treat such individuals (Duffy, Dawson, & Das Nair, 2016). The proposed pornography framework will not resolve this debate but it could give relevant considerations to clinicians trying to understand the effects of a particular client’s use. Whether it be developing assessment tools, providing a template for educational materials, or simply guiding dialogs with individual, couples, and families, the proposed five-dimensional model gives clinicians a common language and structure through which to develop such interventions.

Given the amount of empirical work currently focused on pornography in a relational context, it is time for scholarship to unite across a common broad framework. A review of the current literature connecting pornography to romantic relationships suggests that common limitations continue to plague the research in this area. While simple in structure, the proposed framework provides the necessary language and identification of key relevant dimensions to help focus the future work in this area.