This article was downloaded by: [B-on Consortium - 2007]

On: 21 March 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919435511]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sex Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653667

Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of

individuals in long-term relationships
E. Sandra Byersa
a
Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B., Canada

Online publication date: 11 January 2010

To cite this Article Byers, E. Sandra(2005) 'Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of
individuals in long-term relationships', Journal of Sex Research, 42: 2, 113 — 118
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00224490509552264
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490509552264

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Relationship Satisfaction and Sexual Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study of
Individuals in Long-Term Relationships
E. Sandra Byers
University of New Brunswick

This study examined the association between relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction over time to provide evi-
dence about possible causal explanations for the association between the two variables. Eighty-seven individuals in long-
term relationships completed measures of sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction at 2 times 18 months apart. There
was only limited evidence, based on exploratory analyses, to support either the hypothesis that changes in relationship sat-
isfaction lead to changes in sexual satisfaction or the hypothesis that changes in sexual satisfaction lead to changes in rela-
tionship satisfaction. However, sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction were found to change concurrently. The qual-
ity of intimate communication accounted for part of the concurrent changes in relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfac-
tion. I discuss the results in terms of the need to develop more complex models depicting the longitudinal associations
between relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction.

Both therapists and the general public see the quality of a Alternately, it may be that the level of sexual satisfac-
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 15:34 21 March 2011

couple's romantic relationship and the quality of their sex
life as linked (Sprecher, 1998; Wincze & Carey, 2001). In
fact, researchers consistently have shown that there is a
strong positive association between relationship satisfaction
and sexual satisfaction (e.g., Haavio-Mannila & Kontula,
1997; Purnine & Carey, 1997). Authors often make implicit
assumptions about the direction of this relationship to
inform theory and practice. However, there has been little
research investigating whether there is a causal relationship
between the two variables and, if so, its direction.
The Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual
Satisfaction proposes that relationship quality affects sex-
ual satisfaction (Lawrance & Byers, 1995). In keeping
with this view, partners' experiences of unresolved con-
flicts, not feeling loved, and emotional distance have been
shown to be associated with lower sexual satisfaction
(Davidson & Darling, 1988; Schenk, Pfrang, & Rausche,
1983). In addition, MacNeil and Byers (2005) found that
relationship satisfaction partially mediates the association
between self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction. The
authors interpreted this finding as indicating that self-dis-
closure leads to greater relationship satisfaction, which in
turn leads to higher sexual satisfaction. Further, O'Leary
and Arias (1983) found that marital therapy that focused
on nonsexual relationship issues resulted in significant
increases in sexual satisfaction.
I would like to thank Sheila MacNeil for her assistance with data preparation
and Barry Spinner for his suggestions regarding data analysis. Shannon
Archibald, Jacqueline Cohen, Andrea Miller, Heather Sears, and Angela Weaver
provided valuable feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Data at Time 1
were collected by Kelli-an Lawrance, now at Brock University in St. Catharines,
Ontario, for her doctoral dissertation.
Address correspondence to E. Sandra Byers, Ph.D., Department of
Psychology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B. E3B 6E4, Canada;
e-mail: byers@unb.ca.
tion impacts the affective evaluation of the overall rela-
tionship (i.e., relationship satisfaction). For example, rela-
tionship enhancement programs include improvement of
the sexual relationship as a way to promote future rela-
tionship adjustment (Floyd, Markman, Kelly, Blumberg, &
Stanley, 1995). This view also is inherent in measures of
relationship adjustment, such as the widely used Dyadic
Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). That is, these measures
typically include items assessing the sexual relationship in
calculating a total relationship adjustment/satisfaction
score. In the current study, unidimensional, global mea-
sures were used to assess both sexual satisfaction and rela-
tionship satisfaction.
It may also be that the association between sexual satis-
faction and relationship satisfaction is bidirectional. Data
from a 2-year longitudinal study of newly married couples
supports this view (Henderson-King & Veroff, 1994).
However, Henderson-King and Veroff used cross-lag corre-
lations to assess directionality. Cross-lag correlations do
not provide sound information about cause and effect
because they fail to control for the association of the two
variables at Time 1 (Fincham, Beach, Harold, & Osborne,
1997; Rogosa, 1980). In a longitudinal study of dating cou-
ples, Sprecher (2002) assessed the association between
relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction using the
appropriate statistical controls. She found evidence that
change in relationship satisfaction is associated with
change in sexual satisfaction. However, consistent with the
Henderson-King and Veroff study, she did not find evidence
to support either causal direction. This may be because
Sprecher used a 2-item measure of sexual satisfaction with
unknown reliability and validity. Alternately, it may be
because her sample consisted of individuals in the early
stages of their relationships. Relationship satisfaction is
more strongly associated with sexual satisfaction early in

The Journal of Sex Research Volume 42, Number 2, May 2005: pp. 113-118 113
 114
relationships than it is in long-term relationships (Byers,
1999), a phenomenon that may have obscured the longitu-
dinal association between these two variables.
Finally, it may be that the association between sexual
satisfaction and relationship satisfaction reflects the influ-
ence of a third variable. There is indirect evidence to sug-
gest that the quality of intimate communication might
account for concurrent changes in relationship satisfac-
tion and sexual satisfaction—that is, that poor communi-
cation results in both decreased relationship satisfaction
and deceased sexual satisfaction. Communication has
been shown to be associated with both relationship satis-
faction and sexual satisfaction (Byers & Demmons, 1999;
Cupach & Comstock, 1990; Fowers & Olson, 1989). In
addition, Markman (1979, 1981) found that for couples
planning marriage, although unrewarding communication
patterns were not associated with concurrent relationship
adjustment, these patterns were predictive of marital dis-
tress 5 years later. If communication does account for
concurrent changes in sexual and relationship satisfaction,
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 15:34 21 March 2011
the association between changes in the two variables
would be reduced when communication is controlled.
It may be that the causal association between relation-
ship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction differs for women
and men. The traditional sexual script prescribes greater
interest in sexual activity for men than for women. For
women, satisfying sex is expected to occur only within the
context of a loving relationship. In contrast, men are
expected to be highly motivated to engage in sexual activ-
ity both inside and outside of long-term relationships.
Vohs, Catanese, and Baumeister (2004) concluded that,
consistent with the traditional sexual script, research has
consistently shown that men have a stronger sexual moti-
vation than do women. Further, Sprecher (2002) found
that relationship satisfaction (but not sexual satisfaction)
negatively predicted the likelihood of relationship break-
up for women but not for men. In contrast, sexual satis-
faction (but not relationship satisfaction) negatively pre-
dicted the likelihood of relationship dissolution for men
but not for women. Thus, it may be that for men decreased
sexual satisfaction leads to decreased relationship satis-
faction, whereas for women, the reverse is true.
The goal of this study was to explore the association
between relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction
over time in men and women in long-term relationships
in order to provide evidence about possible causal expla-
nations for the association between the two variables.
Showing that one variable predicts change in the other
variable over time is necessary for establishing causality
(Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Ruvolo, 1998). For exam-
ple, a finding that relationship satisfaction predicts
change in sexual satisfaction would be consistent with
the hypothesis that relationship quality affects sexual sat-
isfaction. A finding that relationship satisfaction does not
predict change in sexual satisfaction would be inconsis-
tent with the hypothesized causal relationship. The
hypothesis that communication accounts for concurrent
Relationship and Sexual Satisfaction
changes in sexual and relationship satisfaction was also
explored.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
Community members as well as staff, alumni, and students
at a medium-sized co-ed university were recruited for a
study of long-term sexual relationships. At Time 1, we
mailed questionnaires to randomly selected university
alumni regardless of location (n = 790), all university staff
(« = 763), and members of the community who responded
to posters and newspaper advertisements (n = 103). We
sent only one questionnaire to any address to ensure that
none of the participants were in relationships with each
other. Questionnaire packages included a cover letter
detailing the nature of the study and requesting participa-
tion by individuals in relationships of one year or longer,
as well as a questionnaire with its own preaddressed,
stamped return envelope.
At Time 1,94 men and 150 women in opposite-sex rela-
tionships (1 individual in a same-sex relationship was
dropped from the study to increase the homogeneity of the
sample) returned completed questionaires. No attempt was
made to preselect individuals in long-term relationships,
and thus the return rate from individuals who were eligible
to participate could not be determined. However, the min-
imum return rate (assuming all individuals who received a
questionnaire were in a long-term relationship) was 13%
for alumni, 6% for university staff, and 41% for communi-
ty members.
Participants who were willing to complete a follow-up
questionnaire provided their name and address on a post-
card that was returned separately. We mailed follow-up
questionnaires to these participants 18 months after the ini-
tial mailing (Time 2). (Data from a 3-month follow-up were
not used in the current study as 18 months provided a bet-
ter test of the longitudinal hypotheses.) We made no
attempt to find participants who had moved. Eighty-seven
Time 1 participants (34 men and 53 women; 36%) com-
pleted the Time 2 questionnaire and indicated that they
were with the same partner as at Time 1. To match the Time
1 and Time 2 questionnaires while maintaining anonymity,
participants devised their own code number according to
instructions provided on both questionnaires. Lawrance
and Byers (1995) reported Time 1 data.
I conducted two separate MANOVAs to determine
whether respondents who completed the questionnaire at
Time 1 and Time 2 differed from those who only complet-
ed the Time 1 questionnaire. The two groups did not differ
in their demographic characteristics (gender, age, length of
relationship, relationship status, having a child living at
home), F(5, 236) = 0.84, p = .521. They also did not differ
in their Time 1 relationship satisfaction or sexual satisfac-
tion scores, F(2, 236) = 0.62, p = .540. The 87 participants
who completed both questionnaires ranged in age from 23
to 61 (M = 37.7, SD = 10.0). At Time 1, respondents had
 Byers
been with their present partner for between 1 and 35 years
(M = 12.2, SD = 9.3); most were married (85%) and had
children living at home (82%). Although ethnicity was not
assessed, in keeping with the ethnic composition of both
the province and the university, it is highly likely that the
sample was primarily Caucasian. Nine participants (10%)
reported that they and/or their partners had been in thera-
py during the 18 month follow-up period. Although 3 of
these individuals reported being in therapy for relationship
issues, they were retained in the sample because, at Time
1, they reported being relationally satisfied.
Measures
Participants completed the Interpersonal Exchange Model
of Sexual Satisfaction (IEMSS) Questionnaire (Lawrance
& Byers, 1998) at Time 1 and Time 2, as well as some
additional items that differed at each administration. Only
the measures that are related to the goals of this study are
described here.
Background questionnaire. A background questionnaire
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 15:34 21 March 2011
was used to collect demographic information such as gen-
der, age, type and length of current relationship, and num-
ber of children living in the home.
Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction (GMREL;
Lawrance & Byers, 1998). The GMREL assessed satisfac-
tion with the overall relationship. Respondents rated their
relationship with their partner on five 7-point bipolar scales:
good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant, positive-negative, satisjy-
ing-unsatisfying, valuable-worthless. Possible scores on the
GMREL range from 5 to 35, with higher scores indicating
greater relationship satisfaction. Lawrance and Byers (1998)
provided evidence for the reliability and validity of the
GMREL. Internal consistency of the GMREL was high for
the present sample (a = .95 at Time 1 and .96 at Time 2).
Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction (GMSEX;
Lawrance & Byers, 1998). The GMSEX is identical to the
GMREL except participants rate their sexual relationship
with their partners. Lawrance and Byers provided evidence
for the reliability and validity of the GMSEX. Internal con-
sistency was high for the present sample (a = .96 at both
time periods).
Primary Communication Inventory (PCI; Navran,
1967). The PCI is a 25-item measure that was used to
assess the quality of verbal and nonverbal communica-
tion within the respondent's relationship at Time 2 only.
Table 1. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Sexual Satisfaction at Time 2
Model l a
Predictor r P sr R2 change
GMSEX Tl .74* .74 .74* .55
GMREL Tl .50* .07 .06 .00
Communication .52*
GMREL T2 .65* .49 .38 .14
Note. N = 87; F(3, 83) = 62.60, p = .000; GMSEX Tl = sexual satisfaction at Time 1;
GMREL Tl = relationship satisfaction at Time 1; GMREL T2 = relationship satisfaction at Time 2.
»R2 = .69, F(3, 83) = 62.60, p = .000. hR2 = .70, F(4, 82) = 38.13, p = .000.
*p<.001.
115
Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from never to
very frequently. Navran (1967) found the PCI to have
good validity. Internal consistency in the present study
was good (a = .81).
RESULTS
I used hierarchical multiple regression analyses to investi-
gate the association between relationship satisfaction and
sexual satisfaction over time. To control for extraneous
variance, I assessed the correlation between relationship
satisfaction at Time 1 and sexual satisfaction at Time 2
after controlling for sexual satisfaction at Time 1, and vice
versa. As a result, the criterion being analyzed for other
predictors were residuals (or changes) in satisfaction from
Time 1 to Time 2. Thus, if relationship satisfaction influ-
ences sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction at Time
1 would predict the change in sexual satisfaction from
Time 1 to Time 2. In contrast, if sexual satisfaction influ-
ences relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction at Time
1 would predict the change in relationship satisfaction
from Time 1 to Time 2.
In the first analysis, sexual satisfaction at Time 2 served
as the dependent variable (see Table 1). I entered sexual
satisfaction at Time 1 on the first step to control the over-
lap between sexual satisfaction at the two time periods. As
a result, the criterion being analyzed for the other predic-
tors were changes in sexual satisfaction from Time 1 to
Time 2. The addition of relationship satisfaction at Time 1
on the second step did not add significantly to the multiple
R, indicating that relationship satisfaction at Time 1 was
not associated with the change in sexual satisfaction
between Time 1 and Time 2. Finally, I entered relationship
satisfaction at Time 2 on the third step, which added sig-
nificantly to the prediction of sexual satisfaction at Time 2.
This indicates that changes in sexual satisfaction between
Time 1 and Time 2 were accompanied by similar changes
in relationship satisfaction over the same period.
I tested gender differences in the association between
relationship satisfaction at Time 1 and sexual satisfaction
at Time 2 using partialled products based on centered vari-
ables (Cohen, Cohen, & West, 2003). After controlling for
sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction at Time 1,
neither gender nor the interaction between gender and rela-
tionship satisfaction at Time 1 added significantly to the
prediction of sexual satisfaction at Time 2. This indicates
Model 2b
Fchange P sr R2 change Fchange
103.48* .74 .74* .55 103.48*
0.60 .07 .06 .00 0.60
.32 .26* .07* 14.42*
38.27* .43 .29* .08* 22.42*
 116
that relationship satisfaction was not associated with the
change in sexual satisfaction between Time 1 and Time 2
for either the men or the women.
In the second analysis, relationship satisfaction at Time 2
served as the dependent variable (see Table 2). After I con-
trolled for relationship satisfaction at Time 1, entry of sexu-
al satisfaction at Time 1 on the second step did not add sig-
nificantly to the multiple R. This indicates that sexual satis-
faction at Time 1 was not related to the change in relation-
ship satisfaction between Time 1 and Time 2.1 entered sex-
ual satisfaction at Time 2 on the third step, and it added sig-
nificantly to the prediction of relationship satisfaction at
Time 2. This indicates that the changes in relationship satis-
faction between Time 1 and Time 2 did predict the changes
in sexual satisfaction between Time 1 and Time 2. After I
controlled for relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfac-
tion at Time 1, neither gender nor the interaction between
gender and sexual satisfaction at Time 1 added significantly
to the prediction of relationship satisfaction at Time 2. This
indicates that sexual satisfaction at Time 1 was not associat-
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 15:34 21 March 2011
ed with change in relationship satisfaction between Time 1
and Time 2 for either the men or the women.
Together, these analyses indicate that relationship satis-
faction and sexual satisfaction changed concurrently from
Time 1 to Time 2. However, there was no evidence that
relationship satisfaction or sexual satisfaction at Time 1
was causally linked to the other form of satisfaction at
Time 2 for either men or women.
Communication Quality and Changes in Satisfaction
Next I examined whether a third variable, the quality of
intimate communication, accounted for the concurrent
changes in sexual and relationship satisfaction using the
procedures recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986).
Participants with better communication reported higher
relationship satisfaction (r = .61 at Time 1 and r = .69 at
Time 2, p = .000) and higher sexual satisfaction (r = .40 at
Time 1 and r = .52 at Time 2, p = .000). The results of
these analyses are presented as Model 2 in Tables 1 and 2.
Communication added significantly to the prediction of
sexual satisfaction at Time 2 after controlling for sexual
satisfaction and relationship satisfaction at Time 1, indi-
cating that communication was associated with the change
in sexual satisfaction (see Table 1). The addition of rela-
tionship satisfaction at Time 2 also significantly increased
Table 2. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Relationship Satisfaction at Time 2
Model l a
1
Predictor r P sr R change
GMREL Tl .64* .64 .64* .41
GMSEX Tl .45* .09 .07 .01
Communication .69*
GMSEX T2 .65* .64 .43 .19
Note. N = 87; F(3, 83) = 41.06, p = .000; GMSEX Tl = sexual satisfaction at Time 1;
GMSEX T2 = relationship satisfaction at Time 2; GMREL Tl = relationship satisfaction at Time 1.
°R2 = .60, F(3, 83) = 41.06, p = .000. bR2 = .65, F(4, 82) = 38.13, p = .000.
Relationship and Sexual Satisfaction
the prediction of sexual satisfaction at Time 2. However,
the P for relationship satisfaction at Time 2 was reduced
from (3 = .49 to P = .43.
A parallel analysis predicting relationship satisfaction at
Time 2 yielded similar results (see Table 2). After I con-
trolled for relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction
at Time 1, communication significantly added to the pre-
diction of relationship satisfaction at Time 2, indicating
that communication was associated with the change in
relationship satisfaction. The addition of sexual satisfac-
tion at Time 2 also significantly increased the prediction of
relationship satisfaction at Time 2. Again, the P was
reduced from p = .64 to P = .50. These results indicate that
the quality of communication was associated with change
in both relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction.
Further, communication partially accounted for concurrent
changes in relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction.
Exploratory Analyses
It may be that the causal relationship between relationship
satisfaction and sexual satisfaction differs for individuals
whose satisfaction is increasing compared to those whose
satisfaction is decreasing. This would have obscured the
results in the previous analyses. Therefore, I used separate
exploratory multiple regression analyses to test the associ-
ation between relationship satisfaction and change in sex-
ual satisfaction from Time 1 to Time 2 for (a) the 28 indi-
viduals whose sexual satisfaction had increased, and (b)
the 35 individuals whose sexual satisfaction had
decreased. (The sexual satisfaction of 21 individuals had
not changed.) As was the case for the complete sample,
relationship satisfaction did not predict change in sexual
satisfaction from Time 1 to Time 2 for individuals whose
sexual satisfaction had decreased. However, for those indi-
viduals whose sexual satisfaction had increased, after I
controlled for sexual satisfaction at Time 1 (R2 = .78), rela-
tionship satisfaction at Time 1 added to the prediction of
sexual satisfaction at Time 2 (R2 change = .05, F[l, 24] =
4.29, p = .049). These results indicate that for this group,
individuals with higher relationship satisfaction at Time 1
reported a greater increase in their sexual satisfaction from
Time 1 to Time 2.
Likewise, I used separate regression analyses to test
whether sexual satisfaction predicted the change in rela-
tionship satisfaction from Time 1 to Time 2 for (a) the 27
Model 2b
Fchange P sr R2 change Fchange
58.22* .64 .64* .41 58.22*
0.76 .09 .07 .01 0.76
.48 .38* .14 26.64*
38.27* .50 .31* .10 22.42*
 Byers
individuals whose relationship satisfaction had increased,
and (b) the 31 individuals whose relationship satisfaction
had decreased from Time 1 to Time 2. (The relationship
satisfaction of 28 individuals had not changed.) As was the
case for the complete sample, sexual satisfaction did not
predict change in relationship satisfaction for those indi-
viduals whose relationship satisfaction had increased.
However, for those individuals whose relationship satis-
faction had decreased, after I controlled for relationship
satisfaction at Time 1 (R2 = .51), sexual satisfaction at
Time 1 added uniquely to the prediction of sexual satisfac-
tion at Time 2 (R2 change = .13, F[l, 28] = 9.82,/? = .004).
These results indicate that for this group, individuals with
lower sexual satisfaction at Time 1 reported a greater
decrease in their relationship satisfaction from Time 1 to
Time 2.
DISCUSSION
This study examined the association between sexual satis-
faction and relationship satisfaction over an 18-month
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 15:34 21 March 2011
period. As one of only a handful of longitudinal studies in
the area, the results add to our understanding of the asso-
ciation between relationship satisfaction and sexual satis-
faction over time. Before discussing the results, a number
of limitations should be noted. The response rate was low
at Time 1, and only 36% of the Time 1 sample completed
the questionnaire 18 months later, raising the possibility
that the results were affected by selection bias. However,
individuals who participated at both time periods did not
differ from the rest of the Time 1 sample in their demo-
graphic characteristics, relationship satisfaction, or sexual
satisfaction. In addition, the sample was fairly small and
homogeneous, consisting for the most part of highly edu-
cated Caucasian individuals who reported being relational-
ly and sexually satisfied.
Consistent with past research, individuals with greater
relationship satisfaction also reported greater sexual sat-
isfaction (Haavio-Mannila & Kontula, 1997; Purnine &
Carey, 1997). In addition, changes in sexual satisfaction
were associated with changes in relationship satisfaction
for these individuals in long-term relationships, as
Sprecher (2002) found in her study of dating couples.
However, there was only limited evidence based on
exploratory analyses to support a causal connection in
either direction. That is, in the complete sample there was
no evidence to support either the view that low sexual
satisfaction leads to a decrease in relationship satisfac-
tion or the view that low relationship satisfaction leads to
a decrease in sexual satisfaction for either men or
women. Thus, it may be that very small increments or
decrements in relationship satisfaction cause equally
small changes in relationship satisfaction (or vice versa)
over so short a time period that relationship satisfaction
and sexual satisfaction change concurrently. Of course,
given the correlational nature of this study, these results
cannot be used to disprove either causal hypothesis.
Thus, for example, it also may be that there is a causal
117
relationship between relationship satisfaction and sexual
satisfaction, but it occurs over a longer time frame than
the 18 months examined in this study.
The findings from the exploratory analyses suggest one
possible explanation for why the current study and past
research have failed to find evidence for a causal relation-
ship between relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfac-
tion. That is, there may not be a single causal direction
between relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction.
Rather, it may be that in some situations or for some indi-
viduals, low sexual satisfaction causes a decrease in rela-
tionship satisfaction. In the current study, low sexual satis-
faction at Time 1 was associated with a greater decrease in
relationship satisfaction only for individuals whose rela-
tionship satisfaction was decreasing. For these individuals
it may be that low sexual satisfaction represented one more
problem area that added to the overall decline in relation-
ship satisfaction. In other situations or for other individu-
als, the causal direction might be reversed. In this study,
higher relationship satisfaction was associated with a
greater increase in sexual satisfaction only for individuals
whose sexual satisfaction was increasing.
Past research has shown that intimate communication
is associated with both sexual satisfaction and relation-
ship satisfaction (Cupach & Comstock, 1990; Fowers &
Olson, 1989). Our results extend past research by demon-
strating that communication is also associated with
changes in both relationship satisfaction and sexual satis-
faction over time. That is, poor communicators were like-
ly to report decreases in both relationship satisfaction and
sexual satisfaction over the 18 months of the study,
whereas good communicators were likely to report
increases in satisfaction. Further, communication quali-
ty accounted for some of the concurrent changes in the
two variables. This suggests that poor communication
results in decreased satisfaction in a number of areas of
relationship functioning, including sexual satisfaction
and overall relationship satisfaction.
In sum, the results suggest that past research and thera-
peutic interventions based on implicit or explicit assump-
tions about the nature of the longitudinal association
between relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction
have been too simplistic. Researchers need to develop and
validate more complex models than they have used in the
past that incorporate situational variables as well as indi-
vidual and relationship characteristics. That is, we need to
ask for which individuals and in what situations low rela-
tionship satisfaction leads to decreased sexual satisfaction,
and for whom and in what situations the reverse occurs.
The results of this study suggest that communication qual-
ity is one such variable, although not the only factor since
communication accounted for only part of the concurrent
changes in relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction.
The results do not, however, support propositions based on
the traditional sexual script that the direction of the associ-
ation between relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfac-
tion differs for men and women. Only by developing more
 118
sophisticated models are we likely to gain insight into the
complex interplay of relationship satisfaction and sexual
satisfaction.
REFERENCES
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable dis-
tinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statis-
tical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
1,173-1,182.
Byers, E. S. (1999). The Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual
Satisfaction: Implications for sex therapy with couples. Canadian
Journal of Counselling, 32, 95-111.
Byers, E. S., & Demmons, S. (1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-dis-
closure within dating relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 36,
1-10.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., & West, S. G. (2003). Applied multiple regression/cor-
relation for the behavioural sciences (3rd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cupach, W. R., & Comstock, J. (1990). Satisfaction with sexual communi-
cation in marriage: Links to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 179-186.
Davidson, J., & Darling, C. (1988). The sexually experienced woman:
Multiple sex partners and sexual satisfaction. The Journal of Sex
Research, 24, 141-154.
Downloaded By: [B-on Consortium - 2007] At: 15:34 21 March 2011
Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., Harold, G. T., & Osborne, L. N. (1997).
Marital satisfaction and depression: Different causal relationships for
men and women? Psychological Science, 8, 351-357.
Floyd, F. J., Markman, H. J., Kelly, S., Blumberg, S. L., & Stanley, S. M.
(1995). Prevention intervention and relationship enhancement. In N. S.
Jacobson & A. S. Gunman (Eds), Clinical handbook of couple therapy
(pp. 212-226). New York: Guilford.
Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1989). ENRICH Marital Inventory: A dis-
criminant validity and cross-validation assessment. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 15, 65-79.
Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kontula, O. (1997). Correlates of increased sexual
satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 399-419.
Henderson-King, D. H., & Veroff, J. (1994). Sexual satisfaction and marital
well-being in the first years of marriage. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 11, 509-534.
Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term het-
erosexual relationships: The Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual
Satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2, 267-285.
Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1998). Interpersonal Exchange Model of
Relationship and Sexual Satisfaction
Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R.
Baureman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Sexuality related measures:
A compendium (2nd ed., pp. 514-519). Thousand Oaks, CA: Gage.
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2005). Dyadic assessment of sexual self-dis-
closure and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Personal and Social
Relationships, 22, 193-205.
Markman, H. J. (1979). Application of a behavioural model of marriage in
predicting relationship satisfaction of couples planning marriage.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 743-749.
Markman, H. J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress: A 5-year follow-up.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 760-762.
Navran, L. (1967). Communication and adjustment in marriage. Family
Process, 6, 173-184.
O'Leary, K. D., & Arias, N. (1983). The influence of marital therapy on sex-
ual satisfaction. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 9, 171-181.
Purnine, D. M., & Carey, M. P. (1997). Interpersonal communication and
sexual adjustment: The roles of understanding and agreement. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1,017-1,025.
Rogosa, D. (1980). A critique of cross-lagged correlations. Psychological
Bulletin, 88, 245-258.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioural research:
Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw Hill
Ruvolo, A. P. (1998). Marital well-being and general happiness of newly-
wed couples: Relationships across time. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 15, 470-489.
Schenk, J., Pfrang, H., & Rausche, A. (1983). Personality traits versus the
quality of the marital relationship as the determinant of marital sexuali-
ty. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 12, 31-42.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assess-
ing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 38, 15-28.
Sprecher, S. (1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. The Journal of
Sex Research, 35, 32-43.
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships:
Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. The
Journal of Sex Research, 39, 190-196.
Vohs, K. D., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Sex in "his" ver-
sus "her" relationships. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds),
Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 455-474). Mahway,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wincze, J. P., & Carey, M. P. (2001). Sexual dysfunction: A guide for assess-
ment and treatment. New York: Guilford.
Manuscript accepted August 11, 2004