Communication and the Emotional, Cognitive, and Relational Consequences of First Sexual Encounters between Partners

Abstract

The initial sexual encounter between partners can be a salient relationship event that constitutes an important turning point in relationship development. The goal of this study was to examine the associations between communication and outcomes of initial coitus between partners. We hypothesized that communication would correspond with the emotional, cognitive, and relational outcomes of initial coitus, over and above the effects of individual and relational factors. Results supported the hypothesized associations between communication and sexual outcomes. The discussion highlights the implications of initial coitus as a turning point in relationship development and proposes future directions for research on sexual intimacy.

Keywords:

• Interpersonal Communication
• Relationship Development
• Sexual Intimacy

This research is a portion of the first author's master's thesis conducted under the direction of the second author at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Notes

Note. N = 323. Cell entries for variables are β's. The values for corrected R² represent an estimate of variance explained by the model corrected for measurement error.

^∗ p < .05;

^∗∗ p < .01;

^∗∗∗ p < .001.

Note. N = 323. Cell entries for variables are β's. The values for corrected R² represent an estimate of variance explained by the model corrected for measurement error.

^∗ p < .05;

^∗∗ p < .01;

^∗∗∗ p < .001.

Note. N = 323. Cell entries for variables are βs. The values for corrected R² represent an estimate of variance explained by the model corrected for measurement error.

^∗ p < .05;

^∗∗ p < .01;

^∗∗∗ p < .001.

We defined sexual experiences as heterosexual penile/vaginal intercourse and homosexual oral/anal sex because we wanted to focus on episodes that clearly constituted sexual intercourse without alienating homosexual respondents. Heterosexual oral sex and other forms of heavy petting and “hooking up” that are prevalent on college campuses were excluded, because some students do not consider these activities to constitute “sex.”

Hill & Preston (1996) advocate for eight motivating factors, but only six were used in this study. Given our focus on initial sexual encounters involving college students, we expected that the goal to procreate would be irrelevant to most, though perhaps not all, of our respondents. Furthermore, the CFA indicated that the two goals of feeling powerful and allowing one's partner to experience feelings of power should be collapsed into one scale we labeled dominance.

To simplify presentation, analyses treat this measure as interval, rather than ordinal. Although these data may not meet the criteria of equal intervals, results are not likely to be dramatically compromised (Binder, 1984; Labovitz, 1970).

Because communication is represented by a single variable, this analysis is equivalent with one in which the individual and relational factors are entered on a step prior to the communication variable. The two alternatives produce identical betas for communication, which indicate the association between communication and the dependent variable with all of the other variables covaried.

Although symbolic interdependence is similar to the widely embraced concept of cognitive interdependence, they should not be interpreted synonymously. Cognitive interdependence refers to conceptions of the self as part of a collective unit, which contributes to a couple oriented identity. Symbolic interdependence refers more generally to the shared interpretation of mutually experienced relational episodes. As such, relational episodes become symbols or benchmarks around which the relationship develops and is cooperatively remembered. Symbolic interdependence, then, is grounded in assumptions of symbolic interactionism, which suggests that ongoing interactions contribute to a shared construction of reality that bonds and unites relationship partners (e.g., Stephen & Markman, 1983).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jennifer A. Theiss

Jennifer A. Theiss (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, 2005) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Rutgers University.

Denise Haunani Solomon

Denise Haunani Solomon (Ph.D., Northwestern University, 1992) is a professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at the Pennsylvania State University.