Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy
ISSN: 0092-623X (Print) 1521-0715 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usmt20
The Role of Partner-Related Fascination in the Association Between Sexual Functioning and Relationship Satisfaction Andrea Burri, Sarah Radwan & Guy Bodenmann To cite this article: Andrea Burri, Sarah Radwan & Guy Bodenmann (2015) The Role of Partner-Related Fascination in the Association Between Sexual Functioning and Relationship Satisfaction, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41:6, 672-679, DOI: 10.1080/0092623X.2014.966398 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2014.966398
Accepted author version posted online: 25 Sep 2014. Published online: 05 Nov 2014. Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 139
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usmt20 Download by: [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh]
Date: 05 November 2015, At: 17:11
JOURNAL OF SEX & MARITAL THERAPY, 41(6), 672–679, 2015 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 0092-623X print / 1521-0715 online DOI: 10.1080/0092623X.2014.966398
The Role of Partner-Related Fascination in the Association Between Sexual Functioning and Relationship Satisfaction Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
Andrea Burri, Sarah Radwan, and Guy Bodenmann Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Past studies have shown strong associations between sexual functioning and interpersonal factors. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the moderating role of partner-related fascination—an important dimension of relationship quality—in the association between sexual functioning and relationship satisfaction in a community sample of Swiss men and women. A total of 70 individuals participated in an anonymous online survey. Variables related to sexual functioning, fascination and relationship satisfaction were subject to correlation, regression and moderation analyses.
Relationship satisfaction and fascination for the partner correlated significantly with sexual functioning in women only (r = .31 to .58). No significant correlations could be observed in men. In women, fascination had a moderating effect on the association between relationship satisfaction and sexual functioning (p < .05). In men, no moderating effect of fascination could be detected. The findings offer evidence for a more complex model of women’s sexuality that rests on emotional, contextual and motivational factors. It can be argued that women need a certain level of fascination, closeness and intimacy to enjoy a healthy sexuality. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of addressing gender differences and contextual factors for successful treatment and counseling of sexual problems. Recently, research emphasis has been placed on interpersonal and relationship factors in explaining sexual problems, particularly in women (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Lindau, Schumm, Laumann, Levinson, & O’Muircheartaigh, 2007; Shifren, Monz, Russo, Segreti, & Johannes, 2008). A study exploring the prevalence and risk factors for recent and lifelong sexual problems, for example, found that the most common, independent predictor of recent and lifelong female sexual dysfunction diagnosis in women was relationship dissatisfaction (Burri & Spector, 2011). Similarly, numerous studies conducted on men with erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation found significantly lower levels of relationship satisfaction in affected men compared with their healthy counterparts (Porst et al., 2007; Symonds, Roblin, Hart, & Althof, 2003). Although these studies suggest a link between relationship satisfaction and sexual functioning, they do not allow any inferences regarding the direction of causality because of their cross-sectional design.
Address correspondence to Andrea Burri, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Binzmuehlestrasse 14 Box 9, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
PARTNER-RELATED FASCINATION
673
The majority of studies investigating the link between interpersonal factors and sexuality have relied on the generic measure of relationship quality, without exploring the specific aspects and dimensions of it. According to Fletcher, Simpson, and Thomas (2000), relationship quality is regarded a multidimensional construct, consisting of satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love. In the idea of the tripartite nature of relationship commitment, consisting of personal, moral, and structural commitment, fascination (first described as the “attraction to the partner”) is thought to represent an important aspect of personal commitment (Johnson, Caughlin, & Huston, 1999, p. 161) and describes the degree to which an individual wants to stay and continue in a relationship, which partly depends on how much he or she feels attracted to their partner. In a work by Neff and Karney (2005), the idea of “attraction to the partner” was picked up again and labeled “global partner adoration,” showing similarities with the construct of fascination. The purpose of Neff and Karney’s (2005) study was to identify the type of love that leads to more stable and happier marriages by providing a theoretical model of different elements and attributes that need to be present. According to the authors, global adoration represents such a central element (Neff & Karney, 2005). As the perceptions of a partner become increasingly global, they also become more abstract in nature. Consequently, spouses have fewer objective standards to guide their evaluation and as a result tend to view their partners in a more positive light. Despite the findings of the relative importance of partner-related fascination for relationship quality, research on the construct, however, remains scarce. One explanation might be the unavailability of a generic instrument allowing a standardized assessment of the construct (e.g., Siffert & Bodenmann, 2010). To close this gap, the 11-item self-report questionnaire “Fascination for the Partner,” which rests heavily on the theoretical assumptions and empirical findings of Neff and Karney’s (2005) research, has been recently introduced and validated in a convenience sample of 240 men and women (Alder, Burri, & Bodenmann, 2014). Given the recently suggested importance of global partner fascination for relationship happiness, and the strong links between relationship and sexual satisfaction, the aim of the present study was to examine the moderating role of partner-oriented fascination in the relation between sexual functioning and relationship satisfaction in a convenience sample of Swiss men and women, and to investigate how these dynamics differ in men and women.
METHOD Sample The present study was a substudy of a larger epidemiologic online survey conducted in Switzerland, targeting a convenience sample of men and women of all ages. The survey was promoted through word-of-mouth recommendation, through advertisement among students, and on various internet platforms. To be eligible to participate in the online survey, individuals had to be 18 years or older, sexually active, and currently in a committed intimate relationship. Individuals who considered themselves “homosexual” or “somewhat more homosexual” according to the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid were excluded from study (Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985). Previous
674 .47∗∗ .10 .12 .15 .42∗∗ −.44∗∗ .33∗ −.17 .04 −.04 −.05 −.16 −.08
.25 .03 .06 −.06 .38∗ −.33∗ .09
−.33 −.09 −.12 .10 −.10 −.02
FPQ–Fascination
−.24 .15 −.11 −.04 .13 .22
.26 .13 −.13 .26 .13 −.13 .22
Commitment
−.12 .43∗ .33 .00 .37 .59∗∗
.58∗∗ .39∗ .21 .36∗ .51∗∗ −.22 .61∗∗
Sexuality
−.04 −.06 −.01 −.07 −.15 −.03
.12 .02 −.14 .05 .32∗ −.33∗ .033
Future
−.26 .04 .10 −.23 −.18 −.07
−.19 −.23 −.01 −.38∗ −.28 .21 .24
Mistrust
−.28 .02 .10 .07 −.01 .36
−.25 −.22 −.03 −.24 −.34∗ .31∗ .26
Constraint autonomy
−.24 .21 .12 −.04 .14 .35
.45∗∗ .26 .03 .41∗∗ .45∗∗ −.37∗ .45∗∗
Total FPQ
.08 .10 −.05 −.25 −.08 .22
.28 .36∗ −.03 .28 .52∗∗ −.35∗ .36∗
RAS
PEDT = Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool; FfP = Fascination for the Partner; FPQ = Questionnaire for the Assessment of Relationship Quality; RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale.
Women Desire Arousal Lubrication Orgasm Satisfaction Pain FSFI total Men PEDT total Erectile function Orgasmic function Sexual desire Intercourse satisfaction Overall satisfaction
FfP–Fascination
TABLE 1 Correlations Among Sexual Functioning, Relationship Satisfaction, and Fascination in Women and Men
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
PARTNER-RELATED FASCINATION
675
evidence suggests differences in sexual functioning and behavior, as well as in relationship dynamics between heterosexual and homosexual individuals and couples (e.g. Burri & Spector, 2011; Kurdek, 1998, 2004). Furthermore, the proportion of self-reported homosexual individuals in our sample was too small to conduct any meaningful comparative analysis. At the time of the data analyses, from a total of 243 who started the questionnaire, 96 finished it, 22 did not meet the inclusion criteria and 4 were excluded because of their sexual orientation, resulting in a final sample of 70 (27 men, 43 women). Characteristics of the overall sample are shown in Table 1. The mean age of all participants was 32.01 years (SD = 12.19 years), with the majority of the participants being female (61.47%). Significant gender differences could be detected for age (p < .003) and body mass index (p < .001). All participants provided informed consent by checking a box before starting the online survey. The study was approved by the local ethics committee. Materials The overall online questionnaire consisted of a total of 24 questionnaires. For the present study focusing on relationship satisfaction, fascination and sexual functioning, the Female Sexual Function Index (Rosen et al., 2000), the 15-item International Index of Erectile Function (Rosen et al., 1997), the 5-item Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool (Symonds et al., 2007), as well as the 7-item Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988) and the German version of the Questionnaire for the Assessment of Relationship Quality (FQP) (Siffert & Bodenmann, 2010) were used. Fascination was assessed using the newly developed Fascination for the Partner questionnaire (Alder, Burri, & Bodenmann, 2014), which is based on Neff and Karney’s (2005) findings on global partner adoration. The 11 items of the FfP are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). In the initial validation study on a Swiss convenience sample of 240 men and women 18 to 63 years of age, a high internal consistency for the measure with a Cronbach’s alpha of .83 could be detected (Alder, Burri, & Bodenmann, 2014). Principle component analyses and subsequent confirmatory factor analyses revealed a bestfitting two-factor structure with the first factor explaining 54.98% of the variance in fascination (including nine items). Of the 11 other items, 2 loaded on an additional factor, explaining 11.45% of the variation. Overall, the model fit was rather poor, with χ 2(.001; 43, N = 203) of 108.636 and χ 2/df of 2.5. The comparative fit index was .89, the Tucker-Lewis Index was .92, and the root mean square error of approximation was .09. Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .82. Fascination assessed by the FfP is subsequently referred to as fascination and fascination assessed by the subscale of the FPQ is subsequently labeled fascination narrow. The total FPQ score will be referred to as relationship quality. Statistical Analyses Data handling and analyses were conducted with SPSS 20. To investigate the relation between the variables, a set of correlation analyses were conducted, including point-biserial correlation coefficient (rpb), Spearman correlation (rho), and Pearson correlation (r). Comparisons between men and women were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test. To test the moderation hypothesis, the predictor and moderator variables were z-standardized to reduce multicollinearity (e.g., Aiken & West, 1991). In the linear regression
676
BURRI ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
the predictor variable relationship satisfaction and relationship quality, the moderator variables fascination and fascination narrow and the new predictor variable P (multiplication of the z-standardized predictor and moderator variable) were entered as independent variables. Sexual functioning was entered as the dependent variable. For all analyses, a p < .05 was considered statistically significant, unless stated otherwise. The resulting p values from the moderation analyses were corrected for multiple testing with Bonferroni correction. For all analyses, Likert-type scaled variables were treated as continuous. RESULTS Overall, no significant differences in the fascination, relationship satisfaction, relationship quality, or any of the FPQ subscales could be detected between men and women, except for the subscale of constraint autonomy, with women feeling less constrained in their autonomy compared with men (p < .05). Women reporting more partner-related fascination also reported more sexual satisfaction (r = .38; FPQ r = .42, both p < .01) and less sexual pain (Ffp r = –.33, p < .01; Table 1). In women, the FPQ sexuality subscale showed statistically significant correlations with desire, arousal, orgasm and sexual satisfaction (ranging from r = .36 to r = .61). Similarly, relationship quality correlated significantly with levels of desire, orgasm, sexual satisfaction and pain (ranging from r = –.37 to r = .45), but not with arousal or lubrication (Table 1). There was a moderate correlation between fascination and relationship quality (r = .38, p < .05). In men, no significant relationships between any of the sexuality subdomains and fascination could be detected. Furthermore, none of the FPQ subscales apart from sexuality, showed significant associations with sexual functioning (Table 1). However, a moderate correlation between fascination and relationship quality could be observed (r = .29, p < .05). Table 2 shows the results of the moderation analyses. Age and depression were included as covariates in the moderation models. In women, a significant association between relationship quality and overall sexual functioning could be detected (B = 1.87, p < .05) with women reporting higher relationship quality also showing better overall sexual functioning, therefore fewer sexual problems (Table 2). No significant moderating effect of fascination in this relationship could be detected, as the interaction term between the variables turned out nonsignificant (p > .05). Although in the association between relationship satisfaction and overall sexual functioning none of the main effects turned out to be statistically significant, a significant moderating effect of fascination could be detected (B = –1.02, p < .05). The more fascination for the partner women reported, the weaker was the relation between relationship satisfaction and female sexual functioning. In men, no significant relation between relationship quality and overall sexual functioning, nor a significant moderating effect of fascination in this relationship could be detected (Table 2). DISCUSSION Past studies have suggested a link between sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness (e.g., Byers, 2005; Laumann et al., 2006; Lawrence & Byers, 1995). In accordance with these reports, women in our study who were more satisfied with their relationship reported less sexual problems.
PARTNER-RELATED FASCINATION
677
TABLE 2 Moderation Analyses in Women and Men B
SEB
β
Adjusted R2
p
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
Women FPQ zFfP zFPQ Interaction: zFfP × zFPQ RAS zFfP zRAS Interaction: zFfP × zRAS FPQ zFfP zFPQ Interaction: zFfP × zFPQ RAS zFfP zRAS Interaction: zFfP × zRAS
−0.85 1.87 −0.32
.77 .86 .43
−.27 .55 −.14
.17 — —
.278 .036∗ .466
−0.49 1.09 −1.02
.60 .66 .44 Men
−.14 .32 −.39
.26 — —
.422 .104 .026∗
−1.81 1.54 1.77
1.23 1.29 1.09
−.49 .45 .52
.16 — —
.134 .193 .087
−3.38 1.96 1.81
1.38 1.31 1.02
−.59 .34 .36
.12 — —
.023∗ .149 .091
Note. zFfP = z-standardized predictor for Fascination for the Partner Questionnaire; zFPQ = z-standardized predictor. ∗ p < .05.
In men, however, no link between overall relationship satisfaction and sexual functioning or satisfaction could be detected. Mutual partner fascination is one of the factors regarded crucial for relationship quality. Here we report a significant positive relation between relationship satisfaction and fascination in both men and women, with this relationship being slightly stronger in women compared with men. This finding is somewhat in accordance with previous studies generally reporting that an individual’s perception of their romantic partner is associated with their subjectively felt relationship satisfaction (Murray, Holmnes, & Griffin, 1996; Neff & Karney, 2005). Women reporting higher fascination for their partner also reported more sexual desire and less sex-related pain. They were also more sexually satisfied and reported better overall sexual functioning compared with women who reported low fascination for their partner. In men, no association between fascination for the partner and sexual functioning could be detected. When examining the association between relationship satisfaction and sexual functioning we found a significant moderating effect of fascination in women. Results suggested that women with low fascination for their partner, coupled with high relationship satisfaction, reported less sexual problems. In contrast with women, no such moderating effect of partner fascination could be detected in male participants. Together with our earlier findings and previous research the findings point towards gender differences in sexuality and vulnerability to specific contextual with women being more vulnerable to such influences compared with men (e.g., Bodenmann, Ledermann, & Bradbury, 2007; Okami & Shackelford, 2001). As Basson (2000) postulated, men may not be unreceptive for nonsexual rewards in a relationship, but will often experience their sex drive and functioning as independent
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
678
BURRI ET AL.
of context. Overall, it can be argued that women need a certain level of fascination, closeness and intimacy for their partner to fully engage and enjoy sexuality. This insight stresses that an adequate classification of female sexuality is necessary, including individual and contextual factors. Understanding possible gender differences in sexuality might be helpful for developing gender-specific approaches to therapy. It is important to understand underlying processes and gender-specific priorities in sexual functioning to encourage communication between couples so that mutual understanding for possible interpersonal differences can be achieved. In particular, the importance of fascination for female intimates can be addressed and homework assignments to reestablish or promote fascination for the partner can be given. Limitations The results of the present study must be interpreted in view of some limitations. First, the main limitation of our study was the relatively small study sample, likely to result in reduced statistical power. This is especially true for the male sample. Therefore, the study has to be seen as a first exploratory investigation. Second, we did not collect any information regarding the duration of the current relationship and could therefore not control for the possible confounding influence of relationship duration on fascination for the partner. Third, all results were based on self-reported data. Objective measures—especially in terms of sexual parameters—may yield different results. Fourth, the poor psychometric properties of the FfP measuring fascination need to be considered. Clearly, the results obtained in the current study cannot be over generalized but given the good internal consistency, they do offer legitimacy for the use of the Ffp to assess fascination. The study design does not allow inferences regarding causality, for which longitudinal designs would be needed. Conclusions Our findings tentatively suggest a gender difference in sexual functioning and support a more complex model of women’s sexuality that includes emotional, contextual, and motivational factors. It is therefore important for therapists to deepen their understanding on possible gender differences in sexuality. Those insights might be helpful in developing gender-specific approaches for sex and relationship therapy and the management of related problems. Given that this is the first study investigating the relation between sexual functioning and fascination for the partner, the posited findings need to be confirmed in future studies. REFERENCES Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Alder, N., Burri, A., & Bodenmann, G. (2014). Validation of a tool to assess partner-related fascination (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Zurich, Switzerland. Basson, R. (2000). The female sexual response: A different model. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 26, 51–65. Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 407–425. Burri, A., & Spector, T. (2011). Recent and lifelong sexual dysfunction in a female UK population sample: Prevalence and risk factors. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8, 2420–2430.
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
PARTNER-RELATED FASCINATION
679
Byers, E. S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 113–118. Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor-analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354. Hendrick, S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship Assessment Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137–142. Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 160–177. Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 35–49. Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900. Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 553–568. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., Glasser, D. B., Kang, J., Wang, T., Levinson, B., . . . Gingell, C. (2006). A cross-national study of subjective sexual well-being among older women and men: Findings from the global study of sexual attitudes and behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 145–161. Lawrance, K. A., & Byers, S. A. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in longterm heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2, 267–285. Lindau, S. T., Schumm, L. P., Laumann, E. O., Levinson, W., & O’Muircheartaigh, C. A. (2007). A study of sexuality and health among older adults in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 762–774. McCabe, M. P., & Cobain, M. J. (1998). The impact of individual and relationship factors on sexual dysfunction among males and females. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 13, 131–143. Murray, L. S., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefit of positive illusions: idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79–98. Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). To know you is to love you: The implications of global adoration and specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 480–497. Odberg, K., & Fugl-Meyer, K. (2005). On Swedish women’s distressing sexual dysfunctions: Some concomitant conditions and life satisfaction. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2, 169–180. Okami, P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 186–241. Porst, H., Montorsi, F., Rosen, R. C., Gaynor, L., Gruppe, S., & Alexander, J. (2007). The Premature Ejaculation Prevalence and Attitudes (PEPA) Survey: Prevalence, comorbidities, and professional help-seeking. European Urology, 51, 816–824. Rosen, R. C., Riley, A., Wagner, G., Osterloh, I. H., Kirkpatrick, J., & Mishra, A. (1997). The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology, 49, 822–830. Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabshigh, R., . . . D’Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 26, 191–208. Serefoglu, E. C., Cimen, H. I, Ozdemir, A. T., Symonds, T., & Berktas, M. (2009). Turkish validation of the premature ejaculation diagnostic tool and its association with intravaginal ejaculatory latency time. International Journal of Impotence Research, 21, 139–144. Shifren, J. L., Monz, B. U., Russo, P. A., Segreti, A., & Johannes, C. B. (2008). Sexual problems and distress in United States women. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 112, 970–978. Siffert, A., & Bodenmann, G. (2010). Development of a new multidimensional questionnaire for the assessment of relationship quality (FPQ). Journal of Family Research, 2, 242–255. Symonds, T., Roblin, D., Hart, K., & Althof, S. (2003). How does premature ejaculation impact a man’s life? Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 29, 361–370.
ISSN: 0092-623X (Print) 1521-0715 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usmt20
The Role of Partner-Related Fascination in the Association Between Sexual Functioning and Relationship Satisfaction Andrea Burri, Sarah Radwan & Guy Bodenmann To cite this article: Andrea Burri, Sarah Radwan & Guy Bodenmann (2015) The Role of Partner-Related Fascination in the Association Between Sexual Functioning and Relationship Satisfaction, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41:6, 672-679, DOI: 10.1080/0092623X.2014.966398 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2014.966398
Accepted author version posted online: 25 Sep 2014. Published online: 05 Nov 2014. Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 139
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usmt20 Download by: [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh]
Date: 05 November 2015, At: 17:11
JOURNAL OF SEX & MARITAL THERAPY, 41(6), 672–679, 2015 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 0092-623X print / 1521-0715 online DOI: 10.1080/0092623X.2014.966398
The Role of Partner-Related Fascination in the Association Between Sexual Functioning and Relationship Satisfaction Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
Andrea Burri, Sarah Radwan, and Guy Bodenmann Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Past studies have shown strong associations between sexual functioning and interpersonal factors. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the moderating role of partner-related fascination—an important dimension of relationship quality—in the association between sexual functioning and relationship satisfaction in a community sample of Swiss men and women. A total of 70 individuals participated in an anonymous online survey. Variables related to sexual functioning, fascination and relationship satisfaction were subject to correlation, regression and moderation analyses.
Relationship satisfaction and fascination for the partner correlated significantly with sexual functioning in women only (r = .31 to .58). No significant correlations could be observed in men. In women, fascination had a moderating effect on the association between relationship satisfaction and sexual functioning (p < .05). In men, no moderating effect of fascination could be detected. The findings offer evidence for a more complex model of women’s sexuality that rests on emotional, contextual and motivational factors. It can be argued that women need a certain level of fascination, closeness and intimacy to enjoy a healthy sexuality. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of addressing gender differences and contextual factors for successful treatment and counseling of sexual problems. Recently, research emphasis has been placed on interpersonal and relationship factors in explaining sexual problems, particularly in women (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Lindau, Schumm, Laumann, Levinson, & O’Muircheartaigh, 2007; Shifren, Monz, Russo, Segreti, & Johannes, 2008). A study exploring the prevalence and risk factors for recent and lifelong sexual problems, for example, found that the most common, independent predictor of recent and lifelong female sexual dysfunction diagnosis in women was relationship dissatisfaction (Burri & Spector, 2011). Similarly, numerous studies conducted on men with erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation found significantly lower levels of relationship satisfaction in affected men compared with their healthy counterparts (Porst et al., 2007; Symonds, Roblin, Hart, & Althof, 2003). Although these studies suggest a link between relationship satisfaction and sexual functioning, they do not allow any inferences regarding the direction of causality because of their cross-sectional design.
Address correspondence to Andrea Burri, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Binzmuehlestrasse 14 Box 9, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
PARTNER-RELATED FASCINATION
673
The majority of studies investigating the link between interpersonal factors and sexuality have relied on the generic measure of relationship quality, without exploring the specific aspects and dimensions of it. According to Fletcher, Simpson, and Thomas (2000), relationship quality is regarded a multidimensional construct, consisting of satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love. In the idea of the tripartite nature of relationship commitment, consisting of personal, moral, and structural commitment, fascination (first described as the “attraction to the partner”) is thought to represent an important aspect of personal commitment (Johnson, Caughlin, & Huston, 1999, p. 161) and describes the degree to which an individual wants to stay and continue in a relationship, which partly depends on how much he or she feels attracted to their partner. In a work by Neff and Karney (2005), the idea of “attraction to the partner” was picked up again and labeled “global partner adoration,” showing similarities with the construct of fascination. The purpose of Neff and Karney’s (2005) study was to identify the type of love that leads to more stable and happier marriages by providing a theoretical model of different elements and attributes that need to be present. According to the authors, global adoration represents such a central element (Neff & Karney, 2005). As the perceptions of a partner become increasingly global, they also become more abstract in nature. Consequently, spouses have fewer objective standards to guide their evaluation and as a result tend to view their partners in a more positive light. Despite the findings of the relative importance of partner-related fascination for relationship quality, research on the construct, however, remains scarce. One explanation might be the unavailability of a generic instrument allowing a standardized assessment of the construct (e.g., Siffert & Bodenmann, 2010). To close this gap, the 11-item self-report questionnaire “Fascination for the Partner,” which rests heavily on the theoretical assumptions and empirical findings of Neff and Karney’s (2005) research, has been recently introduced and validated in a convenience sample of 240 men and women (Alder, Burri, & Bodenmann, 2014). Given the recently suggested importance of global partner fascination for relationship happiness, and the strong links between relationship and sexual satisfaction, the aim of the present study was to examine the moderating role of partner-oriented fascination in the relation between sexual functioning and relationship satisfaction in a convenience sample of Swiss men and women, and to investigate how these dynamics differ in men and women.
METHOD Sample The present study was a substudy of a larger epidemiologic online survey conducted in Switzerland, targeting a convenience sample of men and women of all ages. The survey was promoted through word-of-mouth recommendation, through advertisement among students, and on various internet platforms. To be eligible to participate in the online survey, individuals had to be 18 years or older, sexually active, and currently in a committed intimate relationship. Individuals who considered themselves “homosexual” or “somewhat more homosexual” according to the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid were excluded from study (Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985). Previous
674 .47∗∗ .10 .12 .15 .42∗∗ −.44∗∗ .33∗ −.17 .04 −.04 −.05 −.16 −.08
.25 .03 .06 −.06 .38∗ −.33∗ .09
−.33 −.09 −.12 .10 −.10 −.02
FPQ–Fascination
−.24 .15 −.11 −.04 .13 .22
.26 .13 −.13 .26 .13 −.13 .22
Commitment
−.12 .43∗ .33 .00 .37 .59∗∗
.58∗∗ .39∗ .21 .36∗ .51∗∗ −.22 .61∗∗
Sexuality
−.04 −.06 −.01 −.07 −.15 −.03
.12 .02 −.14 .05 .32∗ −.33∗ .033
Future
−.26 .04 .10 −.23 −.18 −.07
−.19 −.23 −.01 −.38∗ −.28 .21 .24
Mistrust
−.28 .02 .10 .07 −.01 .36
−.25 −.22 −.03 −.24 −.34∗ .31∗ .26
Constraint autonomy
−.24 .21 .12 −.04 .14 .35
.45∗∗ .26 .03 .41∗∗ .45∗∗ −.37∗ .45∗∗
Total FPQ
.08 .10 −.05 −.25 −.08 .22
.28 .36∗ −.03 .28 .52∗∗ −.35∗ .36∗
RAS
PEDT = Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool; FfP = Fascination for the Partner; FPQ = Questionnaire for the Assessment of Relationship Quality; RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale.
Women Desire Arousal Lubrication Orgasm Satisfaction Pain FSFI total Men PEDT total Erectile function Orgasmic function Sexual desire Intercourse satisfaction Overall satisfaction
FfP–Fascination
TABLE 1 Correlations Among Sexual Functioning, Relationship Satisfaction, and Fascination in Women and Men
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
PARTNER-RELATED FASCINATION
675
evidence suggests differences in sexual functioning and behavior, as well as in relationship dynamics between heterosexual and homosexual individuals and couples (e.g. Burri & Spector, 2011; Kurdek, 1998, 2004). Furthermore, the proportion of self-reported homosexual individuals in our sample was too small to conduct any meaningful comparative analysis. At the time of the data analyses, from a total of 243 who started the questionnaire, 96 finished it, 22 did not meet the inclusion criteria and 4 were excluded because of their sexual orientation, resulting in a final sample of 70 (27 men, 43 women). Characteristics of the overall sample are shown in Table 1. The mean age of all participants was 32.01 years (SD = 12.19 years), with the majority of the participants being female (61.47%). Significant gender differences could be detected for age (p < .003) and body mass index (p < .001). All participants provided informed consent by checking a box before starting the online survey. The study was approved by the local ethics committee. Materials The overall online questionnaire consisted of a total of 24 questionnaires. For the present study focusing on relationship satisfaction, fascination and sexual functioning, the Female Sexual Function Index (Rosen et al., 2000), the 15-item International Index of Erectile Function (Rosen et al., 1997), the 5-item Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool (Symonds et al., 2007), as well as the 7-item Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988) and the German version of the Questionnaire for the Assessment of Relationship Quality (FQP) (Siffert & Bodenmann, 2010) were used. Fascination was assessed using the newly developed Fascination for the Partner questionnaire (Alder, Burri, & Bodenmann, 2014), which is based on Neff and Karney’s (2005) findings on global partner adoration. The 11 items of the FfP are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). In the initial validation study on a Swiss convenience sample of 240 men and women 18 to 63 years of age, a high internal consistency for the measure with a Cronbach’s alpha of .83 could be detected (Alder, Burri, & Bodenmann, 2014). Principle component analyses and subsequent confirmatory factor analyses revealed a bestfitting two-factor structure with the first factor explaining 54.98% of the variance in fascination (including nine items). Of the 11 other items, 2 loaded on an additional factor, explaining 11.45% of the variation. Overall, the model fit was rather poor, with χ 2(.001; 43, N = 203) of 108.636 and χ 2/df of 2.5. The comparative fit index was .89, the Tucker-Lewis Index was .92, and the root mean square error of approximation was .09. Cronbach’s alpha in our study was .82. Fascination assessed by the FfP is subsequently referred to as fascination and fascination assessed by the subscale of the FPQ is subsequently labeled fascination narrow. The total FPQ score will be referred to as relationship quality. Statistical Analyses Data handling and analyses were conducted with SPSS 20. To investigate the relation between the variables, a set of correlation analyses were conducted, including point-biserial correlation coefficient (rpb), Spearman correlation (rho), and Pearson correlation (r). Comparisons between men and women were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test. To test the moderation hypothesis, the predictor and moderator variables were z-standardized to reduce multicollinearity (e.g., Aiken & West, 1991). In the linear regression
676
BURRI ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
the predictor variable relationship satisfaction and relationship quality, the moderator variables fascination and fascination narrow and the new predictor variable P (multiplication of the z-standardized predictor and moderator variable) were entered as independent variables. Sexual functioning was entered as the dependent variable. For all analyses, a p < .05 was considered statistically significant, unless stated otherwise. The resulting p values from the moderation analyses were corrected for multiple testing with Bonferroni correction. For all analyses, Likert-type scaled variables were treated as continuous. RESULTS Overall, no significant differences in the fascination, relationship satisfaction, relationship quality, or any of the FPQ subscales could be detected between men and women, except for the subscale of constraint autonomy, with women feeling less constrained in their autonomy compared with men (p < .05). Women reporting more partner-related fascination also reported more sexual satisfaction (r = .38; FPQ r = .42, both p < .01) and less sexual pain (Ffp r = –.33, p < .01; Table 1). In women, the FPQ sexuality subscale showed statistically significant correlations with desire, arousal, orgasm and sexual satisfaction (ranging from r = .36 to r = .61). Similarly, relationship quality correlated significantly with levels of desire, orgasm, sexual satisfaction and pain (ranging from r = –.37 to r = .45), but not with arousal or lubrication (Table 1). There was a moderate correlation between fascination and relationship quality (r = .38, p < .05). In men, no significant relationships between any of the sexuality subdomains and fascination could be detected. Furthermore, none of the FPQ subscales apart from sexuality, showed significant associations with sexual functioning (Table 1). However, a moderate correlation between fascination and relationship quality could be observed (r = .29, p < .05). Table 2 shows the results of the moderation analyses. Age and depression were included as covariates in the moderation models. In women, a significant association between relationship quality and overall sexual functioning could be detected (B = 1.87, p < .05) with women reporting higher relationship quality also showing better overall sexual functioning, therefore fewer sexual problems (Table 2). No significant moderating effect of fascination in this relationship could be detected, as the interaction term between the variables turned out nonsignificant (p > .05). Although in the association between relationship satisfaction and overall sexual functioning none of the main effects turned out to be statistically significant, a significant moderating effect of fascination could be detected (B = –1.02, p < .05). The more fascination for the partner women reported, the weaker was the relation between relationship satisfaction and female sexual functioning. In men, no significant relation between relationship quality and overall sexual functioning, nor a significant moderating effect of fascination in this relationship could be detected (Table 2). DISCUSSION Past studies have suggested a link between sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness (e.g., Byers, 2005; Laumann et al., 2006; Lawrence & Byers, 1995). In accordance with these reports, women in our study who were more satisfied with their relationship reported less sexual problems.
PARTNER-RELATED FASCINATION
677
TABLE 2 Moderation Analyses in Women and Men B
SEB
β
Adjusted R2
p
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
Women FPQ zFfP zFPQ Interaction: zFfP × zFPQ RAS zFfP zRAS Interaction: zFfP × zRAS FPQ zFfP zFPQ Interaction: zFfP × zFPQ RAS zFfP zRAS Interaction: zFfP × zRAS
−0.85 1.87 −0.32
.77 .86 .43
−.27 .55 −.14
.17 — —
.278 .036∗ .466
−0.49 1.09 −1.02
.60 .66 .44 Men
−.14 .32 −.39
.26 — —
.422 .104 .026∗
−1.81 1.54 1.77
1.23 1.29 1.09
−.49 .45 .52
.16 — —
.134 .193 .087
−3.38 1.96 1.81
1.38 1.31 1.02
−.59 .34 .36
.12 — —
.023∗ .149 .091
Note. zFfP = z-standardized predictor for Fascination for the Partner Questionnaire; zFPQ = z-standardized predictor. ∗ p < .05.
In men, however, no link between overall relationship satisfaction and sexual functioning or satisfaction could be detected. Mutual partner fascination is one of the factors regarded crucial for relationship quality. Here we report a significant positive relation between relationship satisfaction and fascination in both men and women, with this relationship being slightly stronger in women compared with men. This finding is somewhat in accordance with previous studies generally reporting that an individual’s perception of their romantic partner is associated with their subjectively felt relationship satisfaction (Murray, Holmnes, & Griffin, 1996; Neff & Karney, 2005). Women reporting higher fascination for their partner also reported more sexual desire and less sex-related pain. They were also more sexually satisfied and reported better overall sexual functioning compared with women who reported low fascination for their partner. In men, no association between fascination for the partner and sexual functioning could be detected. When examining the association between relationship satisfaction and sexual functioning we found a significant moderating effect of fascination in women. Results suggested that women with low fascination for their partner, coupled with high relationship satisfaction, reported less sexual problems. In contrast with women, no such moderating effect of partner fascination could be detected in male participants. Together with our earlier findings and previous research the findings point towards gender differences in sexuality and vulnerability to specific contextual with women being more vulnerable to such influences compared with men (e.g., Bodenmann, Ledermann, & Bradbury, 2007; Okami & Shackelford, 2001). As Basson (2000) postulated, men may not be unreceptive for nonsexual rewards in a relationship, but will often experience their sex drive and functioning as independent
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
678
BURRI ET AL.
of context. Overall, it can be argued that women need a certain level of fascination, closeness and intimacy for their partner to fully engage and enjoy sexuality. This insight stresses that an adequate classification of female sexuality is necessary, including individual and contextual factors. Understanding possible gender differences in sexuality might be helpful for developing gender-specific approaches to therapy. It is important to understand underlying processes and gender-specific priorities in sexual functioning to encourage communication between couples so that mutual understanding for possible interpersonal differences can be achieved. In particular, the importance of fascination for female intimates can be addressed and homework assignments to reestablish or promote fascination for the partner can be given. Limitations The results of the present study must be interpreted in view of some limitations. First, the main limitation of our study was the relatively small study sample, likely to result in reduced statistical power. This is especially true for the male sample. Therefore, the study has to be seen as a first exploratory investigation. Second, we did not collect any information regarding the duration of the current relationship and could therefore not control for the possible confounding influence of relationship duration on fascination for the partner. Third, all results were based on self-reported data. Objective measures—especially in terms of sexual parameters—may yield different results. Fourth, the poor psychometric properties of the FfP measuring fascination need to be considered. Clearly, the results obtained in the current study cannot be over generalized but given the good internal consistency, they do offer legitimacy for the use of the Ffp to assess fascination. The study design does not allow inferences regarding causality, for which longitudinal designs would be needed. Conclusions Our findings tentatively suggest a gender difference in sexual functioning and support a more complex model of women’s sexuality that includes emotional, contextual, and motivational factors. It is therefore important for therapists to deepen their understanding on possible gender differences in sexuality. Those insights might be helpful in developing gender-specific approaches for sex and relationship therapy and the management of related problems. Given that this is the first study investigating the relation between sexual functioning and fascination for the partner, the posited findings need to be confirmed in future studies. REFERENCES Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Alder, N., Burri, A., & Bodenmann, G. (2014). Validation of a tool to assess partner-related fascination (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Zurich, Switzerland. Basson, R. (2000). The female sexual response: A different model. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 26, 51–65. Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 407–425. Burri, A., & Spector, T. (2011). Recent and lifelong sexual dysfunction in a female UK population sample: Prevalence and risk factors. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8, 2420–2430.
Downloaded by [University of Wisconsin Oshkosh] at 17:11 05 November 2015
PARTNER-RELATED FASCINATION
679
Byers, E. S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 113–118. Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor-analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354. Hendrick, S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship Assessment Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137–142. Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 160–177. Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 35–49. Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900. Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 553–568. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., Glasser, D. B., Kang, J., Wang, T., Levinson, B., . . . Gingell, C. (2006). A cross-national study of subjective sexual well-being among older women and men: Findings from the global study of sexual attitudes and behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 145–161. Lawrance, K. A., & Byers, S. A. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in longterm heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2, 267–285. Lindau, S. T., Schumm, L. P., Laumann, E. O., Levinson, W., & O’Muircheartaigh, C. A. (2007). A study of sexuality and health among older adults in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 762–774. McCabe, M. P., & Cobain, M. J. (1998). The impact of individual and relationship factors on sexual dysfunction among males and females. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 13, 131–143. Murray, L. S., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefit of positive illusions: idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79–98. Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). To know you is to love you: The implications of global adoration and specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 480–497. Odberg, K., & Fugl-Meyer, K. (2005). On Swedish women’s distressing sexual dysfunctions: Some concomitant conditions and life satisfaction. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2, 169–180. Okami, P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 186–241. Porst, H., Montorsi, F., Rosen, R. C., Gaynor, L., Gruppe, S., & Alexander, J. (2007). The Premature Ejaculation Prevalence and Attitudes (PEPA) Survey: Prevalence, comorbidities, and professional help-seeking. European Urology, 51, 816–824. Rosen, R. C., Riley, A., Wagner, G., Osterloh, I. H., Kirkpatrick, J., & Mishra, A. (1997). The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology, 49, 822–830. Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabshigh, R., . . . D’Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 26, 191–208. Serefoglu, E. C., Cimen, H. I, Ozdemir, A. T., Symonds, T., & Berktas, M. (2009). Turkish validation of the premature ejaculation diagnostic tool and its association with intravaginal ejaculatory latency time. International Journal of Impotence Research, 21, 139–144. Shifren, J. L., Monz, B. U., Russo, P. A., Segreti, A., & Johannes, C. B. (2008). Sexual problems and distress in United States women. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 112, 970–978. Siffert, A., & Bodenmann, G. (2010). Development of a new multidimensional questionnaire for the assessment of relationship quality (FPQ). Journal of Family Research, 2, 242–255. Symonds, T., Roblin, D., Hart, K., & Althof, S. (2003). How does premature ejaculation impact a man’s life? Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 29, 361–370.
