Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620
DOI 10.1007/s10508-014-0426-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Individual and Partner Correlates of Sexual Satisfaction and
Relationship Happiness in Midlife Couples: Dyadic Analysis of the
International Survey of Relationships
William A. Fisher • Kelly L. Donahue • J. Scott Long • Julia R. Heiman
Raymond C. Rosen • Michael S. Sand
Received: 5 November 2012 / Revised: 18 June 2014 / Accepted: 10 August 2014 / Published online: 5 November 2014
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract The current research reports a dyadic analysis of
sexual satisfaction, relationship happiness, and correlates of these
couple outcomes in a large multinational dataset consisting of
1,009midlifeheterosexualcouples(2,018individuals)recruitedin
Japan, Brazil, Germany, Spain, and the United States (Heiman
et al., 2011). Actor-Partner Interdependence Models (Kenny,
Kashy, & Cook, 2006) identified correlates of sexual satisfaction
that included individuals’ reports of good health; frequent kissing,
cuddling, and caressing; frequent recent sexual activity; attaching
importance to one’s own and one’s partner’s orgasm; better sexual
functioning; and greater relationship happiness. Even after con-
trolling for individual-level effects, partners’ reports of good
health; frequent kissing, cuddling, and caressing; frequent recent
sexual activity; attaching importance to one’s own and one’s
partner’s orgasm; better sexual functioning; and greater relation-
ship happiness contributed significantly to predicting and under-
standingindividuals’sexualsatisfaction.Correlatesofrelationship
W. A. Fisher (&)
Department of Psychology and Department of Obstetrics and
Gynaecology, University of Western Ontario, London,
ON N6A 5C2, Canada
e-mail: fisher@uwo.ca
K. L. Donahue
Department of Pediatrics, Section of Adolescent Medicine, Indiana
University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
J. S. Long
Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN,
USA
J. R. Heiman
Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
R. C. Rosen  M. S. Sand
New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA, USA
•
happiness included individuals’ reports of good health; frequent
kissing, cuddling, and caressing; frequent recent sexual activity;
attaching importance to one’s own and one’s partner’s orgasm;
better sexual functioning; and greater sexual satisfaction, and once
again, even after controlling for individual-level effects, partners’
reports of each of these correlates contributed significantly to
predicting and understanding individuals’ relationship happiness.
Interactions of individual and partner effects with participant
gender are also reported. Current results demonstrate empirically
that the partner‘‘matters’’to an individual’s sexual satisfaction and
relationship happiness and indicate that a comprehensive under-
standing of factors contributing to these couple outcomes requires
a couple-level research strategy. Partner effects, even when con-
trolling for individual effects, were consistently observed, and
explanation of sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness
always depended on identifying and understanding mutual and
concurrent individual and partner influences.
Keywords Sexual satisfaction  Relationship happiness 
Dyadic analysis
Introduction
Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness are assumed to be
valued goals for most human beings in most cultures, and these
outcomes are thought to be the joint result of individual and
partner characteristics and couple-level processes over the course
of relationships (Fincham & Beach, 2006; Laumann et al., 2006;
Sprecher, Christopher, & Cate, 2006). Although sexual and
relationship satisfaction have been an enduring focus of research,
work in this area has paradoxically concentrated on the search for
individual, not couple, characteristics that may prove to be cor-
relates of sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness, and has
often examined such individual level correlates of sexual and
123
1610
relationship satisfaction among those in relatively new relation-
ships, rather than among individuals at midlife (Berscheid, 1999;
Rubin & Campbell, 2011; Kashy, Campbell, & Harris, 2006).
Commenting on the emergence of what has been termed ‘‘rela-
tionship science,’’ Berscheid (1999) noted that, ‘‘Reflecting psy-
chology’s individualistic orientation, virtually all of our
methodologies and statistics are predicated on the individual as
the unit of analysis’’ (p. 261). Confirming the somewhat ironic
individual focus of most relationship research, Kashy et al. (2006)
surveyed published studies of relationships in five major journals
andfoundthat70 %ofpeerreviewedstudiesofrelationshipswere
based on individual level—as opposed to couple-level—data.
The same individual, not couple, level focus has characterized
research in the area of sexual dysfunction (Heiman, 2002). Thus,
too little is known about the potentially mutual and concurrent
influence of the individual and the partner on sexual and rela-
tionship satisfaction, whether in couples in enduring relationships
or in relationships of any duration.
Efforts to understand sexual satisfaction and relationship hap-
piness at the individual level of analysis have proven informative,
albeit limited in scope to half of the dyadic equation. For example,
in a sample of middle-aged and older individuals from 29 coun-
tries, Laumann et al. (2006) found a correlation of 0.80 between
particular measures of individuals’ sexual satisfaction (e.g.,
‘‘During the past 12 months, how physically pleasurable did you
find your relationship with your partner to be?’’) and relationship
satisfaction (e.g., ‘‘During the past 12 months, how emotionally
pleasurable did you find your relationship with your partner to
be?’’) (see also Sprecher et al., 2006). Gender differences in cor-
relatesofsexualandrelationshipsatisfactionhavealsobeenfound.
Heiman et al. (2011) reported that men’s sexual satisfaction was
associated with men’s reports of good health, importance of
partners’ orgasm, physical sexual intimacy (kissing and cuddling
often, being touched/caressed by partner often), good sexual
functioning, and recent frequent sexual activity. Among women,
sexual satisfaction was associated with relationship duration,
physical sexual intimacy (kissing and cuddling often, being tou-
ched/caressed by partner often), good sexual functioning, and
recent frequent sexual activity. In the same study, men’s rela-
tionship happiness was found to be a function of reported good
health, physical sexual intimacy, and good sexual functioning,
while women’s relationship happiness was related to relation-
ship duration and good sexual functioning. Sexual satisfaction
and relationship happiness have also been reported to change,
concurrently, over time within individuals (Byers, 2005). Each
of these findings concerning sexual satisfaction and relationship
happiness, however, is based upon individuals’ reports of their
own characteristics and perceptions, and none of these studies
directly explored possible partner influences on individuals’ sex-
ual and relationship satisfaction.
Research that has adopted couple-level conceptual, methodo-
logical, and statistical approaches has refined our understanding of
individual and partner factors that contribute to sexual satisfaction
123
Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620
and relationship happiness. For example, Rubin and Campbell
(2011) found that individuals reporting increases in couple inti-
macy from the previous day experienced increased relationship
passion and positive affect the following day and that partners’
reports of increased intimacy the preceding day also contributed
significantly and independently to predicting individuals’ reports
of relationship passion and positive affect. In related research,
Butzer and Campbell (2008) found that anxiously and avoidantly
attached married individuals reported lower levels of sexual sat-
isfaction and that avoidant attachment among partners contributed
significantly and independently to individuals’ lessened sexual
satisfaction. In additional relevant research, Birnbaum, Reis,
Mikulincer, Gillath, and Orpaz (2006) investigated the influence
of individual and partner attachment orientation on the impact of
positive and negative sexual experiences on relationship satis-
faction. Findings indicated that partners’ attachment anxiety and
attachment avoidance contributed to individuals’ positive and
negative relationship-related behaviors on the days following
sexual interactions. For example, men with more anxiously
attachedfemalepartnersreportedgreaterincreasesinrelationship
quality and lesser enactment of relationship damaging behav-
iors following days of reported sexual events, compared to men
with less anxiously attached partners. Women whose male part-
ners were less avoidantly attached indicated a greater reduction
in relationship damaging behaviors following reported sexual
events, compared to women whose male partner was more avoi-
dantly attached. Each of these studies—conducted at the couple
level—serves to illustrate the mutual and concurrent influences
of both the individual and the partner on sexual satisfaction and
relationship happiness related outcomes, when a dyadic research
methodology is employed to explore these outcomes.
The current study aimed to contribute to understanding the
mutual influence of individual and partner characteristics on
sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness. To do so, we
investigated individual and partner correlates of these outcomes
in a large sample of midlife couples drawn from five nations. We
adopted a dyadic approach to analyzing a cluster of variables—
including good health, physical sexual intimacy, recent sexual
activity, and sexual functioning—that were found to influence
individuals’ reports of sexual and relationship happiness in Hei-
man et al.’s (2011) individual-level analysis of the same dataset.
These variables were selected for study on the basis of existing
literature as promising conceptual and empirical correlates of
sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness. We anticipated
finding that individual and partner reports of good health, good
sexual functioning, recent physical intimacy, and recent sexual
activitycontributeindependentlyandconcurrentlytoindividuals’
sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness. We also explored
gender-specific patterns of individual and partner effects on these
outcomes. The current study was thus designed to investigate the
potential mutual and concurrent influence of the individual and
the partner on individuals’ sexual and relationship satisfaction at
midlife,andmorebroadly,toaddtoexistingknowledgeregarding
Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620
correlates of sexual and relationship satisfaction that has been
drawn from individual-level analyses of smaller, younger, and
less heterogeneous samples.
Method
Participants
The International Survey of Relationships was a cross-sectional,
self-administered, questionnaire-based survey of sexual satis-
faction and relationship happiness and potential correlates of
these outcomes, conducted with both members of intact midlife
heterosexual couples in five nations. Sample inclusion criteria
were men aged 40–70 years and their female partners, in a
committed relationship, married or cohabiting for at least 1 year.
Same-sex couples were not recruited due to constraints on
recruitment of sufficient sample size within the resources avail-
able to this research.
The current research was carried out in Brazil, Germany,
Japan, Spain, and the U.S., sampling approximately 200 men in
the target age range and their female partners in each country. The
final sample included 1,009 couples (2,018 individuals), includ-
ing 198 couples in Brazil, 198 in Germany, 207 in Japan, 199 in
Spain, and 207 in the U.S. The sample included men aged 39–70
(median age 55) and their female partners, who were aged 25–76
(median age 52). Couple relationship duration averaged 25 years
(median and mean) and ranged from 1 to 51 years (SD 11.34
years).1 Ninety percent of couples had children, 73.7 % of par-
ticipants reported being in good health, and sexual activity had
occurred on average five to six times in the preceding 4 weeks.
Procedure
Data collection was carried out by Synovate, an international
healthcare market research firm, and employed sampling strat-
egies that were standard for each of the countries in this study.
Participants in the U.S., Germany, and Spain were recruited by
telephone using random digit dialing and market research panel
methods and were mailed self-administered questionnaires. In
Brazil and Japan, recruitment took place door-to-door, within
large cities in Brazil, and within randomly sampled locations for
Japan. Self-administered questionnaires were provided to par-
ticipants in Brazil and Japan. The research was described to
participants as‘‘…a study about people’s relationships and their
happiness with them. A number of questions deal with aspects of
your personal relationship, including sexuality and sexual
experiences.’’ The survey was translated and back-translated in
1
The interclass correlation for reported relationship duration within a
couple was 0.99. A total of 109 couples differed in their reported
relationship duration. For 81 of these couples, the reported difference
was 1 year, and the average difference among all discrepant couples was
0.43 years. For discrepant couples, we used the average of couple’s
reports.
1611
thelanguagesofthecountriesinvolvedinthisresearch.Men’sand
women’s versions of the questionnaire were provided to couple
members, who were instructed not to discuss their answers with
their partner until their questionnaires were completed and
returned to the investigators. The sampling methodology of the
International Survey of Relationships, initial refusal rates, and
refusal rates after potential participants had been informed of the
sexual content ofthesurvey, arereportedindetailbyHeiman etal.
(2011). This study was approved by the Institutional Review
Board of Indiana University.
Measures
The International Survey of Relationships assessed self-reports
of demographic characteristics, health status, sexual history,
sexual behavior, the importance of several aspects of sexual
behavior, and sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness.
The instrument comprised 125 items, many of which were
drawn from standardized questionnaires and some of which
were developed specifically for this study.
Single item assessments of sexual satisfaction and relationship
happiness were based on items from the International Index of
Erectile Function (Rosen et al., 1997), the Female Sexual Func-
tion Index (Rosen et al., 2000), and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale
(Spanier, 1976), respectively. Given the distribution of responses
to items assessing sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness,
we dichotomized responses for sexual satisfaction into ‘‘not sat-
isfied’’(comprising‘‘very dissatisfied,’’‘‘moderately dissatisfied,’’
‘‘dissatisfied,’’ and ‘‘equally satisfied and dissatisfied)’’ and ‘‘sat-
isfied’’ (comprising ‘‘moderately satisfied’’ and ‘‘very satisfied’’).
Similarly, we dichotomized responses for relationship happiness
into‘‘not happy’’(comprising‘‘very unhappy,’’‘‘fairly unhappy,’’
and‘‘a little unhappy’’) and‘‘happy’’(comprising‘‘happy,’’‘‘very
happy,’’‘‘extremely happy,’’and‘‘perfect’’).2
2
Dichotomization of the sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness
responses was based upon the skewed nature of the distributions of these
outcomes which is not uncommon in research on couple relationships. The
response distributions obtained were deemed to pose more challenges to
meaningful statistical analysis than the dichotomization of the sexual
satisfaction and relationship happiness outcomes and potential loss of
information that dichotomization entails. The dichotomous outcomes created
retain clearly anchored conceptual meaning that is faithful to the wording of
the items, to our analytic aims, and to the interpretation of our results.
‘‘Sexuallysatisfied’’individuals(comprising‘‘verysatisfied’’and‘‘moderately
satisfied’’individuals) are indeed reporting that they are sexually satisfied and
they differ from those who report that they are not sexually satisfied
(comprising‘‘very dissatisfied,’’‘‘moderately dissatisfied,’’‘‘dissatisfied,’’and
‘‘equally satisfied and dissatisfied’’ individuals). Those who are happy with
their relationships (comprising ‘‘happy,’’‘‘very happy,’’‘‘extremely happy,’’
and ‘‘perfect’’ ratings of relationship happiness) indeed report being happy
with their relationships and differ from those who indeed report that they are
not happy with their relationships (comprising ‘‘very unhappy,’’‘‘fairly
unhappy,’’and‘‘a little unhappy’’). Balancing the challenges of the distri-
butions of sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness responses and
the clearly anchored and meaningful dichotomization of these variables,
we judged dichotomization to be the best solution.
123
1612 Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620

Table 1 Descriptions of measured variables

Variable label Survey question Response categories

Outcomes
Sexual satisfaction
Relationship happiness
Predictors
Good health
Relationship duration
Age at start of relationship
Importance of orgasm
Importance of partner’s orgasm
Kiss/cuddle often
Touched/caressed by partner often
Frequency of sex in last 4 weeks
Lifetime sexual partners
Four-week sexual functioning score
Over the past 4 weeks, how satisfied have you been 0 = Not satisfied (very dissatisfied; moderately
with your sexual relationship with your partner? dissatisfied, equally satisfied/dissatisfied)
1 = Satisfied (moderately satisfied, and very
satisfied)
Which number best describes the degree of happiness, 0 = Unhappy (very unhappy, fairly unhappy, a
all things considered, in your relationship? little unhappy)
1 = Happy (happy, very happy, extremely happy,
and perfect)
Would you say your own health is excellent, good, fair, 0 = Poor/Fair
or poor? 1 = Excellent/Good
Constructed from years of marriage and years No. of years
cohabiting
Equal to age minus relationship duration No. of years
How important is it to you to reach orgasm yourself Scale from 1 to 10
during sex with your partner? (1 = Not at all; 10 = Very)
How important is it that your partner reaches orgasm Scale from 1 to 10
when you have sex together? (1 = Not at all; 10 = Very)
My partner and I kiss and cuddle each other: 0 = Very seldom/Seldom
1 = Often/Very often
Over the past 4 weeks, how often have you been 0 = Not at all/Once or twice/Weekly
sexually touched and caressed by your partner 1 = 2–3 times a week/Daily or almost daily
(whether or not sexual activity occurred)?
How many times during the past 4 weeks have you No. of times
engaged in sexual activity with your partner?
Over your lifetime, with how many partners have you No. of partners, both men and women
had sex (by sex we mean any genital contact and/or
stimulation)?
Scale constructed separately by gender Average score on included items. Scale with higher
Men: Level of desire; frequency of sexual arousal; values indicating higher sexual functioning
frequency of erection; frequency of maintaining
erection after penetration; frequency of ejaculation;
frequency of premature ejaculation
Women: Level of desire; frequency of sexual arousal;
frequency of lubrication; frequency of orgasm

Potential correlates of sexual satisfaction and relationship Statistical Analysis

happiness were selected on the basis of the literatures in these
areas (Fincham & Beach, 2006; Laumann et al., 2006; Sprecher
et al., 2006; Rubin & Campbell, 2011) and our own previous
research concerning individual-level correlates of sexual and
relationship happiness (Heiman et al., 2011). These potential
correlates included self-reported health, sexual history, impor-
tance of several aspects of sexual intimacy, and sexual behavior
and sexual function. Item wording and scoring for these
potential correlates of sexual satisfaction and relationship hap-
piness appear in Table 1. Further details concerning these
measures and research methodology are described in Heiman
et al. (2011).
To exploretheinfluence ofboth individual (i.e.,actor)and partner
characteristics on actor sexual satisfaction and relationship hap-
piness, we ran a series of logistic regression actor-partner inter-
dependence models (APIMs) (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006).
We used a random effects logit model, sometimes referred to as a
‘‘cluster-specific’’model, to account for the non-independence of
partners within a couple. This model is equivalent to a multi-level
model with individuals at level 1 clustered within couples at level
2 (see Hosmer, Lemeshow & Sturdivant, 2013). We conducted
these analyses using Stata’s xtlogit command (StataCorp, 2013)
to account for non-independence due to clustering.

123
Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620
Each couple contributed two separate cases to the analyses—
one case in which the man was treated as the actor and the
woman as the partner, and a second case in which the woman
was treated as the actor and the man as the partner. All actor- and
partner-level variables are within-couple variables that could
differ between individuals in a couple (e.g., an actor could report
that he or she was not in good health, while the partner might
report being in good health). The intercept was treated as a
random effect varying across couples (i.e., individuals were
clustered within couples who varied in their expected likelihood
of reporting each outcome). The couple’s relationship duration
and country of residence were included as between-couple
variables since values were the same for both members of the
couple. Dummy variables were created for country, with the
United States excluded as the reference category in all analyses.
The slope for each predictor was treated as a fixed effect, as
couples do not have enough cluster members to allow for esti-
mation of the variation in slopes across clusters (Kenny et al.,
2006).
Listwise deletion of missing data was used in all models. Only
cases with available data on all actor-level variables, partner-
level variables, and couple variables were used to estimate the
models. To measure within-couple similarity, we estimated
Pearson correlation coefficients for each of the predictors and
outcomes included in the current study (McMahon, Pouget, &
Tortu,2006).ThePearsoncorrelationcoefficient hasbeenshown
to be a reliable estimate of interdependence for binary variables
in dyadic datasets with a sufficient number of clusters (Zou &
Donner, 2004).
Actor- and Partner-Level Influences on Sexual Satisfaction
and Relationship Happiness
We first estimated the actor effect of each predictor on each out-
come, referred to as Model 1. For each predictor, the log odds of a
‘‘yes’’response to the outcome (e.g., the log odds of the actor being
sexually satisfied) were predicted by an intercept, the actor’s
gender,the actor’s responsetothe predictor in question (e.g.,being
in good health), and five couple-level variables (relationship
duration and four dummy codes representing country of residence
with the United States as the excluded category). A couple-level
random coefficient aj was included to account for similarities
within a couple not accounted for by other measured variables. In
Model1below,letjindicatecouple,iindicateindividual,andpij be
the probability of a positive response to the outcome. To simplify
notation, we abbreviate the effects of country as:

bcountry countryj ¼ bJapan Japanj þ bSpain Spain
 The four models provide us with estimates of (1) the effect of
þ bGermany Germanyj þ bBrazil Brazilj
Defining aXij as the value of a specific predictor for actor i in
couple j, and aFemaleij equal to 1 if the actor is female, else 0,
Model 1 is:
1613
 
pij
log ¼b0 þ aj þ baFemale aFemaleij þ baX aXij
1  pij
þ bduration durationj þ bcountry countryj
ð1Þ
In Model 1, aj is assumed to be distributed normally with mean 0
and variance r2.
Model 2 estimates the effect of the partners’ response for the
predictor on the outcome for the actor. Model 2 is equivalent to
the model shown in Eq. (1) except that the partners’ response for
the predictor was used in place of the actor’s own response.
Model 3 estimates both actor and partner effects for each
predictor on each outcome. Defining pXij as the value of a specific
predictor for the partner in couple j, Model 3 is:
 
pij
log ¼ b0 þ aj þ baFemale aFemaleij
1  pij
þ baX aXij þ bpX pXij
þ bdur durationj þ bcountry countryj
Partners’ gender is not included in the model since it is perfectly
collinear with the actor’s gender (i.e., if the actor is female, the
partner must be male, in the current sample).
Because each couple was comprised of a man and a woman
potentially distinguishable by their role in the couple (Kenny
et al., 2006), we also allowed the effects of the predictor to vary
by gender. Model 4 allows the effect of a regressor for an actor to
differ if the actor is male than if the actor is female; similarly, the
effects of the actor’s partner can differ by gender. For example,
the coefficient for aXij is bafX if the actor is female and bamX if the
actor is male, and similarly for the actor’s partner. Defining
aMale as 1 if the actor is male and else 0, with similar variables
for the partner, Model 4 is:
 
pij
log ¼b0 þ aj þ baFemale aFemaleij
1  pij


þ bafX aXij  aFemaleij


þ bamX aXij  aMaleij


þ bpfX pXij  pFemaleij


þ bpmX pXij  pMaleij
þ bdur durationj þ bcountry countryj
Since the coefficients in a fully interactive model for group
differences are not identified (Allison, 1999), we interpret
this model using predicted probabilities assuming the random
effect is zero (Long, 2014).
an actor’s characteristic on the actor’s odds of experiencing the
outcome, (2) the effect of the actor’s partners’ characteristics on
the actor’s odds of experiencing the outcome; (3) the effects of
both the actor’s and the actor’s partners’ characteristics when
123
1614 Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for couple-level measured variables Table 3 Within-pair similarity on measured variables
Measures Min Max M SD % Measures r 95 % CI n
missing
Outcomes
Outcomes Sexual satisfaction 0.36 (0.30, 0.41) 981
Sexual satisfaction 0 1 66.7 % – 1.6 % Relationship happiness 0.35 (0.30, 0.41) 1,000
Relationship happiness 0 1 83.7 % – 0.4 % Predictors
Predictors Age at start of relationship 0.81 (0.79, 0.83) 996
Female 0 1 50.0 % – 0.0 % Good health 0.33 (0.28, 0.39) 1,006
Age at start of relationship 10 67 28.15 8.30 1.2 % Lifetime sexual partners 0.37 (0.31, 0.42) 929
Good health 0 1 73.7 % – 0.1 % Kiss/cuddle often 0.56 (0.52, 0.61) 993
Lifetime sexual partnersa 1 83 8.36 13.66 4.5 % Touched/caressed by partner often 0.53 (0.48, 0.57) 992
Kiss/cuddle often 0 1 62.6 % – 0.8 % Importance of own orgasm 0.37 (0.31, 0.42) 988
Touched/caressed by partner 0 1 41.1 % – 0.9 % Importance of partner’s orgasm 0.41 (0.35, 0.46) 992
often
Frequency of sex in last 4 weeks 0.82 (0.80, 0.84) 967
Importance of own orgasm 1 10 7.90 2.39 1.0 %
Sexual functioning score 0.60 (0.55, 0.64) 914
Importance of partner’s orgasm 1 10 8.25 2.27 0.8 %
Frequency of sex in last 4 weeksa 0 81 5.63 7.19 2.3 % n = number of couples with complete data
Sexual functioning score 1 5 3.51 1.16 5.6 %
Relationship duration 1 50.5 25.11 11.33 1.1 % functioning scores, and strong for reports of recent frequency of
From United Statesb 0 1 20.5 % – 0.0 % sexual activity.
From Japan 0 1 20.5 % – 0.0 %
From Spain 0 1 19.7 % – 0.0 % Actor and Partner Effects of Predictor Variables
From Germany 0 1 19.6 % – 0.0 %
From Brazil 0 1 19.6 % – 0.0 % We first estimated actor and partner effects for each within-
Variables with no reported SD are binary, with the provided percentage couple predictor, run separately for each predictor, on odds of
corresponding to the proportion of individuals responding‘‘yes.’’ sexual satisfaction (Table 4)and relationship happiness (Table 5).
a
Square-root transformation of variable used in analyses. Five indi- When each predictor variable was examined separately, actor
viduals reported frequency of sex in the last 4 weeks above 60. Supple- effects (Model 1) and partner effects (Model 2) were each sig-
mental analyses recoding these extreme values to 60 or dropping them nificantly associated with odds of sexual satisfaction and rela-
from the analysis showed that these cases did not affect the conclusions
b tionship happiness for almost all measured predictors. Impor-
Used as reference category and excluded in analyses
tantly, the results from Model 3 (Tables 4, 5) show that most
of these partner-level effects remain significant predictors of
considered simultaneously, and (4) the effects of the actor and sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness, even after con-
partner when the effects are allowed to vary by gender. trolling for actor-level effects.
With respect to sexual satisfaction, in Model 3 (Table 4),
individuals who reported more lifetime sexual partners were
Results significantly less likely to report being sexually satisfied, while
individuals who reported being in good health, often kissing and
Descriptive Statistics cuddling, often being touched and caressed by their partner,
attaching greater importance to their own, and their partners’,
Means, ranges, and SDs of measures of sexual satisfaction, rela- orgasm, having more frequent recent sexual activity, having
tionship happiness, and potential correlates of these outcomes higher sexual functioning scores, and being happy in their rela-
are shown in Table 2. tionship, were significantly more likely to report being sexually
satisfied.
Within-Couple Similarity Even after controlling for individual-level effects in Model 3
(Table 4), partners’ reports of good health, kissing and cuddling
Within-couple correlations, shown in Table 3, indicate signifi- often, being touched/caressed often, importance of their own
cant actor and partner interdependence for the measured out- orgasm and their partner’s (i.e., the actor’s) orgasm, frequency
comes. Within-couple correlations were modest for ratings of of recent sexual activity, better sexual functioning, and being
sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness, moderate for happy in their relationship were significantly associated with the
reports of frequency of kissing and cuddling and sexual odds that the individual was sexually satisfied. The odds ratios

123
Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620 1615

Table 4 Estimates of actor and partner influence on likelihood of actor’s sexual satisfaction (Models 1–3), examined separately for each predictor, OR
(95 % CI)
Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Actor effect only Partner effect only Actor effect Partner effect n

Age at start of relationship 0.99 (0.97, 1.02) 0.98 (0.95, 1.00)* 1.00 (0.98, 1.03) 0.97 (0.95, 1.00) 1,960
Good health 1.68 (1.21, 2.33)** 2.38 (1.71, 3.32)** 1.78 (1.28, 2.49)** 2.44 (1.74, 3.42)** 1,958
Lifetime sexual partners 0.85 (0.77, 0.94)** 1.09 (0.98, 1.21) 0.85 (0.77, 0.94)** 1.09 (0.98, 1.21) 1,815
Kiss/cuddle often 6.83 (4.99, 9.34)** 3.72 (2.82, 4.89)** 5.39 (3.84, 7.57)** 2.38 (1.73, 3.27)** 1,936
Touched/caressed often 8.13 (5.76, 11.48)** 4.03 (2.98, 5.45)** 6.85 (4.72, 9.93)** 3.05 (2.16, 4.29)** 1,947
Importance of own orgasm 1.16 (1.09, 1.23)** 1.27 (1.19, 1.35)** 1.17 (1.10, 1.25)** 1.28 (1.20, 1.37)** 1,926
Importance of partner’s orgasm 1.23 (1.16, 1.32)** 1.26 (1.18, 1.35)** 1.23 (1.15, 1.32)** 1.26 (1.18, 1.35)** 1,934
Frequency of sex in last 4 weeks 3.62 (3.03, 4.33)** 2.75 (2.38, 3.17)** 2.71 (2.19, 3.35)** 1.51 (1.24, 1.82)** 1,895
Sexual functioning score 2.92 (2.50, 3.41)** 2.31 (2.03, 2.64)** 2.56 (2.15, 3.06)** 1.87 (1.59, 2.19)** 1,799
Happy with relationship 5.60 (3.78, 8.29)** 2.23 (1.55, 3.22)** 5.49 (3.65, 8.26)** 2.11 (1.43, 3.09)** 1,947
Model 1 parameters: Actor effect, actor gender, couple’s relationship duration, country of residence. Model 2 parameters: Partner effect, actor gender,
couple’s relationship duration, country of residence. Model 3 parameters: Actor effect, partner effect, actor gender, couple’s relationship duration,
country of residence
OR odds ratio, 95 % CI 95 % confidence interval, n total number of cases included in Model 3
p B .10; * p B .05; ** p B .01 for two-tailed test

Table 5 Estimates of actor and partner influence on likelihood of actor’s relationship happiness (Models 1–3), examined separately for each predictor,
OR (95 % CI)
Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Actor effect only Partner effect only Actor effect Partner effect n

Age at start of relationship 1.03 (1.00, 1.06) 0.99 (0.96, 1.02) 1.04 (1.01, 1.08)* 0.97 (0.94, 1.01) 1,983
Good health 2.42 (1.63, 3.61)** 2.02 (1.36, 3.01)** 2.62 (1.73, 3.96)** 2.22 (1.47, 3.35)** 1,981
Lifetime sexual partners 1.05 (0.92, 1.19) 0.90 (0.80, 1.02) 1.02 (0.89, 1.16) 0.90 (0.79, 1.02) 1,829
Kiss/cuddle often 5.89 (3.88, 8.94)** 3.38 (2.31, 4.94)** 4.68 (3.00, 7.31)** 2.30 (1.51, 3.51)** 1,959
Touched/caressed often 5.12 (3.23, 8.12)** 2.44 (1.61, 3.71)** 4.65 (2.88, 7.51)** 2.02 (1.30, 3.16)** 1,954
Importance of own orgasm 1.14 (1.05, 1.23)** 1.07 (0.99, 1.16) 1.15 (1.06, 1.25)** 1.09 (1.01, 1.18)* 1,947
Importance of partner’s orgasm 1.19 (1.10, 1.29)** 1.09 (1.00, 1.18)* 1.20 (1.10, 1.31)** 1.11 (1.02, 1.20)* 1,955
Frequency of sex in last 4 weeks 1.96 (1.60, 2.38)** 1.53 (1.29, 1.82)** 1.89 (1.48, 2.41)** 1.07 (0.85, 1.35) 1,909
Sexual functioning score 2.13 (1.75, 2.60)** 1.59 (1.32, 1.91)** 2.12 (1.71, 2.63)** 1.48 (1.21, 1.82)** 1,803
Sexually satisfied 6.08 (4.01, 9.20)** 2.34 (1.62, 3.37)** 5.88 (3.79, 9.12)** 2.16 (1.45, 3.22)** 1,932
Model 1 parameters: Actor effect, actor gender, couple’s relationship duration, country of residence. Model 2 parameters: Partner effect, actor gender,
couple’s relationship duration, country of residence. Model 3 parameters: Actor effect, partner effect, actor gender, couple’s relationship duration,
country of residence
OR odds ratio, 95 % CI 95 % confidence interval, n total number of cases included in Model 3
p B .10; * p B .05; ** p B .01 for two-tailed test

for the partner effects of these variables on individuals’ sexual
satisfaction are somewhat smaller in magnitude than the cor-
responding actor effects when both effects were considered
simultaneously but they remain both statistically significant and
conceptually quite meaningful.
With respect to relationship happiness, in Model 3 (Table 5),
individuals who were older at the start of their relationship, who
werein goodhealth,kiss andcuddleoften,touch andcaressoften,
place greater importance on their orgasm and their partners’
orgasm, report more frequent recent sexual activity, have a
higher sexual functioning score, and report feeling sexually
satisfied were significantly more likely to report being happy in
their relationship. Even after controlling for the individual effects
of these variables, those with partners who reported being in
good health, kissing and cuddling often, being touched and
caressed often, placed greater importance on their orgasm and

123
1616 Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620

Table 6 Estimates of actor and partner influence on likelihood of actor’s sexual satisfaction by gender of actor (Model 4), examined separately for each
predictor, OR (95 % CI)
Predictor Female actor Male actor
Actor effect Partner effect Actor effect Partner effect

Age at start of relationship 0.98 (0.93, 1.02) 0.99 (0.95, 1.04) 1.03 (0.98, 1.07) 0.96 (0.91, 1.00)
Good health 1.17 (0.71, 1.93) 2.67 (1.63, 4.36)** 2.61 (1.61, 4.23)** 2.28 (1.39, 3.74)**
Lifetime sexual partners 0.78 (0.63, 0.96)* 1.12 (0.98, 1.28) 0.88 (0.77, 1.00)* 1.04 (0.84, 1.28)
Kiss/cuddle often 4.68 (2.88, 7.60)** 2.33 (1.46, 3.74)** 6.22 (3.83, 10.10)** 2.42 (1.52, 3.87)**
Touched/caressed often 4.82 (2.94, 7.90)** 3.16 (1.89, 5.26)** 10.39 (5.98, 18.06)** 2.92 (1.82, 4.70)**
Importance of own orgasm 1.21 (1.11, 1.32)** 1.17 (1.05, 1.29)** 1.13 (1.02, 1.26)* 1.37 (1.25, 1.50)**
Importance of partner’s orgasm 1.20 (1.10, 1.31)** 1.20 (1.08, 1.34)** 1.30 (1.16, 1.45)** 1.30 (1.18, 1.42)**
Frequency of sex in last 4 weeks 2.45 (1.82, 3.29)** 1.42 (1.08, 1.86)** 3.06 (2.23, 4.19)** 1.63 (1.22, 2.20)**
Sexual functioning score 3.24 (2.55, 4.11)** 1.19 (0.94, 1.51) 2.00 (1.56, 2.56)** 2.57 (2.06, 3.20)**
Happy with relationship 5.30 (3.03, 9.27)** 2.04 (1.12, 3.72)* 5.76 (3.12, 10.64)** 2.16 (1.26, 3.70)**
OR odds ratio, 95 % CI 95 % confidence interval
p B .10; * p B .05; ** p B .01 for two-tailed test

Table 7 Estimates of actor and partner influence on likelihood of actor’s relationship happiness by gender of actor (Model 4), examined separately for
each predictor, OR (95 % CI)
Predictor Female actor Male actor
Actor effect Partner effect Actor effect Partner effect

Age at start of relationship 1.02 (0.96, 1.08) 1.00 (0.94, 1.05) 1.07 (1.01, 1.14)* 0.94 (0.89, 1.00)
Good health 3.01 (1.67, 5.42)** 1.99 (1.11, 3.54)* 2.24 (1.22, 4.14)** 2.50 (1.34, 4.65)**
Lifetime sexual partners 1.02 (0.79, 1.33) 0.89 (0.76, 1.04) 1.01 (0.86, 1.20) 0.90 (0.69, 1.18)
Kiss/cuddle often 3.79 (2.03, 7.08)** 3.04 (1.65, 5.62)** 5.87 (2.98, 11.57)** 1.65 (0.86, 3.20)
Touched/caressed often 3.02 (1.60, 5.70)** 3.26 (1.67, 6.37)** 7.86 (3.64, 16.97)** 1.24 (0.64, 2.38)
Importance of own orgasm 1.20 (1.08, 1.33)** 1.07 (0.94, 1.22) 1.08 (0.94, 1.24) 1.11 (0.99, 1.24)
Importance of partner’s orgasm 1.23 (1.10, 1.38)** 1.11 (0.97, 1.27) 1.15 (1.00, 1.32)* 1.11 (0.99, 1.25)
Frequency of sex in last 4 weeks 2.65 (1.78, 3.93)** 0.89 (0.63, 1.27) 1.39 (0.96, 2.02) 1.28 (0.87, 1.90)
Sexual functioning score 2.21 (1.65, 2.95)** 1.50 (1.10, 2.05)** 1.98 (1.42, 2.77)** 1.49 (1.10, 2.00)**
Sexually satisfied 5.60 (3.10, 10.11)** 2.37 (1.34, 4.18)** 6.20 (3.29, 11.68)** 1.95 (1.06, 3.56)*
OR odds ratio, 95 % CI 95 % confidence interval
p B .10; * p B .05 ;** p B .01 for two-tailed test

their partners’ (i.e., the actor’s) orgasm, had higher sexual func-
tioning scores, and reported feeling sexually satisfied were
significantly more likely to be happy in their relationship.
Gender Differences
Estimates for Model 4 predicting sexual satisfaction are pre-
sented in Table 6, with estimates for relationship happiness in
Table 7. In Model 4, the effect of each predictor was allowed to
differ by gender and by actor/partner status. The effects of each
predictor variable and differences by gender and actor/partner
status were then assessed using predictions, sometimes referred
to as predictive margins (Graubard & Korn, 1999). For binary
predictors, we computed tables of predicted probabilities of
reporting the outcome by the level of the predictor and gen-
der. For continuous predictors, such as the sexual functioning
score, we plotted the probability of the outcome by gender.
Because of the focus on partner-level influences in the current
analyses, we will further highlight gender differences in part-
ner-level influences found in the current analyses (for a descrip-
tion of gender differences in individual-level influences on
sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness, analysed using
an individual-level approach, see Heiman et al., 2011).
As shown in Table 6, significant partner effects were found
for both men and women for nearly all of the measured pre-
dictors of actor’s sexual satisfaction. The magnitude of the
estimated effect differed somewhat between men and women.
Importantly, our results indicate a significant effect of partner
sexual functioning on men’s sexual satisfaction, while partners’
sexual functioning did not significantly predict women’s sexual
satisfaction. Figure 1 illustrates the change in predicted proba-
bility of sexual satisfaction for both genders across the range of

123
Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620 1617

partners’ response level for each of these two predictors. It is also

worth noting that there is an actor effect of women’s reported
importance of their own orgasm on their relationship happiness,
and a trend for the female partner effect of importance of own
orgasm on male actor’s relationship happiness.

Discussion

The current research illustrates the importance of adopting a

Fig. 1 Predicted probability of actor’s sexual satisfaction by actor gender
and partners’ reported sexual functioning score. Predicted probabilities
were calculated based on parameter estimates obtained in Model 4. All
other variables were held at their means, with random effect held at 0
Table 8 Predicted probability of actor’s relationship happiness by actor
gender and partner report of kissing/cudding often and being touched/
caressed often
Predictor Female actor Male actor
Kiss/cuddle often 0.95 0.96
Do not kiss/cuddle often 0.86 0.94
Difference 0.09** 0.02 ns
Touched/caressed often 0.96 0.96
Not touched/caressed often 0.88 0.95
Difference 0.08** 0.01 ns
Predicted probabilities were calculated based on parameter estimates
obtained in Model 4. All other variables were held at their means, with
random effect held at 0
** p B .01 for two-tailed test
partners’ sexual functioning. For female actors, the predicted
probability of sexual satisfaction appears to remain relatively
high and stable across the range of partners’ sexual functioning
scores. In contrast, the predicted probability of male actors’
sexual satisfaction is relatively low when female partners’
sexual functioning is low but appears to increase significantly as
the partners’ sexual functioning increases.
As shown in Table 7, partners’ good health, partners’ sexual
functioning, and partners’ sexual satisfaction were significantly
associated with actors’ relationship happiness for both men and
women. Again, the magnitude of the estimated effect differed
somewhat between men and women. Notably, our results indicate
significant effects of partner reports of frequent kissing and cud-
dlingaswellasbeingfrequentlytouchedandcaressedonwomen’s
relationship happiness, while no significant partner effects were
found for men. Table 8 shows the relative differences in actor’s
predictedprobabilityofrelationshiphappinessbyactorgenderand
dyadic approach to understanding individual- and partner-level
factors that contribute to sexual satisfaction and relationship
happiness among individuals in enduring relationships. Current
results emphasize that the partner ‘‘matters’’ to an individuals’
sexual satisfaction andrelationshiphappiness, and that a compre-
hensive understanding of factors that contribute to these couple
outcomes requires a couple-level research strategy. The number
and magnitude of actor and partner effects on sexual satisfaction
and relationship happiness was surprisingly similar. Partner
effects,even when controlling for actor effects, were very con-
sistently observed, and explanation of sexual satisfaction and
relationship outcomes always depended on identifying and
understanding both individual and partner influences. Several
points in this connection are of special interest.
First, our findings indicate that partners in ongoing relation-
ships, in this case of significant duration of an average of 25 years,
show significant but modest agreement in reports of sexual sat-
isfaction and relationship happiness, significant and moderate
agreement regarding levels of sexual functioning, and significant
and strong agreement in reports of recent sexual activity. Findings
for only modest agreement in partners’ reports of sexual satis-
faction and relationship happiness—outcomes that are presum-
ably important to couples in long term relationships—are intrigu-
ing and potentially consequential, given that sexual satisfac-
tion significantly predicts relationship happiness, and rela-
tionship happiness is a significant predictor of sexual satisfac-
tion, for both men and women in the relationships under study.
Within our large, multi-national sample, it appears that couples
that have stayed together over the long run may have accommo-
dated to less than perfect similarity in feelings of sexual and rela-
tionship satisfaction. Can social exchange theory account for
relationship persistence in the face of partner discrepancy in sex-
ual and relationship satisfaction, if partners perceive that they
lack favorable alternatives to their current relationship (Harvey
& Wenzel, 2006)?Do mature couplessimply experience low lev-
els of distress in relation to couple discordance in sexual and
relationship satisfaction, as is the case with lessened distress
concerning sexual function problems as individuals age (Shifren,
Monz, Russo, Segreti, & Johannes, 2008)? Does the fact that
most couple members in the current study reported relatively
high levels of sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness
diminish the importance of only modest partner agreement
concerning these outcomes? Over and above the issue of

123
1618
modest partner agreement in reports of sexual and relation-
ship satisfaction, we note that the current finding for moderate
partner concordance in levels of sexual functioning is consis-
tent with the literature concerning the reciprocal effects of indi-
viduals’ and partners’ levels of sexual function and dysfunc-
tion (Fisher et al., 2005; Sand, Fisher, Brock, & Goldstein, 2005).
Current findings for strong interpartner correlation in reports
of recent sexual activity are also consistent with the published
literature (e.g., Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953;
Seal, 1997) and may be viewed as suggestive of the validity of
participants’ responses to the survey measures.
Second, our findings clearly and consistently establish that
both individual and partner characteristics mutually and con-
currently influence the sexual satisfaction of individuals in couple
relationships. Individuals in midlife who have good sexual
functioning are more likely to be sexually satisfied than individ-
uals with poorer sexual functioning, and individuals whose
partners have good sexual functioning are also substantially more
likely to be sexually satisfied than those whose partners have poor
sexual functioning, even when controlling for the individuals’
own level of sexual functioning. Our finding for the influence of a
partners’ sexual functioning on the individuals’ sexual function-
ing underscores the clinical appropriateness of addressing sexual
function issues of both the individual and the partner in the sex
therapy setting (for discussions of the interdependence of partner
sexual functioning, see Dean et al., 2008; Fisher et al., 2005; Sand
et al., 2005). Similarly, individuals at midlife who are happy with
their relationship are more likely to be sexually satisfied than
individuals who are not happy with their relationship, and individ-
uals with partners who are happy with their relationship are also
considerably more likely to be sexually satisfied than those with
partnerswhoarenothappywiththeirrelationship,evenwhencon-
trolling for the individuals’ own ratings of their relationship hap-
piness. We found similar patterns of actor and partner influ-ences
for nearly all other measured correlates of sexual satisfaction.
The observed pattern of actor and partner effects on sexual
satisfaction occasionally varied by gender, with women show-
ing an actor effect, but no partner effect, of sexual functioning on
their sexual satisfaction while men showed both an actor and a
partner effect of sexual functioning on their level of sexual
satisfaction. Our finding for an actor effect but no partner effect
of sexual functioning on women’s sexual satisfaction is sug-
gestive of the independence of women’s sexual satisfaction in
this respect. Our finding for actor and partner effects of sexual
functioning on men’s sexual satisfaction appears tobeconsistent
with recent research concerning men’s considerable sensitivity
to women’s sexual responsiveness in the context of sexual
intercourse (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014).
Third, our findings clearly and consistently establish that both
individual and partner characteristics are related to relationship
happiness. As was the case in models predicting sexual satis-
faction, individuals at midlife who are in good health are more
likely to be happy in their relationship than are individuals in
123
Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620
poor health, as are individuals who kiss and cuddle often, who
were touched and caressed often, who rate the importance of
their own and their partners’ orgasm to be greater, and had more
frequent recent sexual activity, higher sexual functioning scores,
and who are sexually satisfied. Critically, it is also the case that
individuals whose partners are in good health, who report
kissing and cuddling often and being touched and caressed
often, who rate the importance of their own and their partners’
orgasm to be greater, who have higher sexual functioning scores,
and who are sexually satisfied, also reported higher levels of
relationship happiness, even when controlling for individuals’
own reports of these characteristics. Furthermore, the findings
that individuals who are sexually satisfied report nearly six times
the likelihood of relationship happiness, and that individuals
whose partners are sexually satisfied report more than twice the
likelihood of relationship happiness, even after controlling for
individuals’ reports of sexual satisfaction, suggest substantial
conceptual and empirical interdependence of relationship and
sexual satisfaction.
As with sexual satisfaction, patterns of actor and partner
effects on relationship happiness were sometimes gender depen-
dent, and this was more often the case for correlates of rela-
tionship happiness than for correlates of sexual satisfaction. For
example, women whose partners reported kissing and cuddling
often were significantly more likely to indicate that they were
happy with their relationship compared to women whose part-
ners did not report kissing and cuddling often, while men’s
relationshiphappinesswassignificantlyaffectedbytheirownbut
not by their partners’ reports of kissing and cuddling. A similar
pattern of actor and partner effects of touching and caressing on
relationship happiness was also observed for women but not for
men, who only reported actor effects of touching and caressing
on their relationship happiness. This pattern of female but not
male relationship happiness in association with partner touching
and kissing and cuddling is consistent with findings for women’s
preference for such forms of physical affection (Gulledge,
Gulledge, & Stahmann 2003; Mansfield, Koch, & Voda, 1998;
Peplau, 2003), with findings that cuddling is perceived as a
nurturant nonsexual activity that is nonetheless associated with
sexual activity (van Anders, Edelstein, Wade, & Samples-Steele,
2013), and with theorizing concerning the evolutionary function
and hormonal foundations of cuddling (van Anders, Goldey, &
Kuo, 2011).
Fourth, our findings for couple-level correlates of sexual
satisfaction and relationship happiness demonstrate an over-
arching pattern of some conceptual significance. Specifically, in
terms of both actor effects and partner effects, sexual satisfaction
contributes to relationship happiness, and relationship happiness
contributes to sexual satisfaction. Moreover, a host of actor
effects and partner effects for correlates of sexual satisfaction—
including kissing and touching, cuddling and caressing, and
importance of own and partner orgasm—show actor and partner
effects for both male and female partners. In contrast, there is
Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620
more heterogeneity in actor and partner effects for correlates of
relationship happiness for men and women. These observations
for tight male–female correspondence in actor and partner cor-
relates of sexual satisfaction but somewhat lesser male–female
consistency in actor and partner correlates of relationship satis-
faction require conceptualization within the area of gender,
sexuality, and relationships, as well as further research.
The current research had a number of strengths, including the
dyadic approach to analyzing both individual and partner influ-
ence on sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness, and it is
unique in its use of a large, heterogeneous, multinational sample
of couples in relationships of relatively long duration. At the
same time, there are several limitations to this research, including
the fact that the couples recruited for this research were likely
biased in the direction of sexual and relationship happiness and,
for purely pragmatic reasons, we sampled only mixed-sex cou-
ples. Not only were mean levels of sexual satisfaction and rela-
tionship happiness fairly high, the likelihood of self-selection of
unhappy couples for participation in couples-focused research
would presumably be low. Moreover, bias may be introduced by
the requirement that both members of couples participate in the
current research and by the exclusion of unsuccessful couples
whose relationships no longer exist and who were not available
for recruitment to the current research. (Catania, Gibson, Chit-
wood, & Coates, 1990; Saunders, Fisher, Hewitt, & Clayton,
1985). However, the current study was focused more on pro-
cess—in this case, the mutual and concurrent contribution of
individual and partner characteristics to relationship outcomes—
than on absolute or normative levels of sexual satisfaction and
relationship happiness, and we see no specific reason why such
processes would differ dramatically in a relatively self-selected
sample, although this remains to be demonstrated. We note as
well that the requirements of survey research in this large, mul-
tinational sample required the use of single item, unidimensional
measures of sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness.
These constructs may of course be conceptualized and assessed
at the multidimensional level, which was not the case in the cur-
rent research. Finally, we note that the current study is cross-
sectional and inference of causality is not possible. Cross-sec-
tional research at the couple-level must be complemented by
longitudinal couple-level research as well as research testing
theorized mechanisms underlying couple-level effects (e.g., see
Birnbaum et al., 2006; Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Rubin &
Campbell, 2011).
We conclude by noting that the current research clearly
demonstrates the significant contributions of both individuals
and their partners to sexual and relationship outcomes. Our
findings underscore the value of adopting a dyadic approach to
analyzing relationship data, while providing substantive infor-
mation regarding important actor and partner correlates of sexual
satisfaction and relationship happiness among couples at midlife.
Further dyadic research, adopting longitudinal approaches and
the sampling of additional heterogeneous populations (e.g.,
1619
same-sex as well as mixed-sex couples) will be required to
confirm and extend the relationships we have reported.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by an independent
investigator initiated grant from Bayer-Schering Inc (J. R. Heiman, PI).
The design, conceptualization, analysis, and interpretation of results are
the sole product of the co-authors and have not been subject to editorial
influence of Bayer-Schering. The authors wish to acknowledge the
helpful suggestions of Lorne Campbell regarding this article.
References
Allison, P. D. (1999). Comparing logit and probit coefficients across
groups. Sociological Methods & Research, 28, 186–208.
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American
Psychologist, 54, 260–266.
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A.
(2006). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientation,
sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 91, 929–943.
Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfac-
tion, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples.
Personal relationships, 15(1), 141–154.
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.
Catania, J. A., Gibson, D. R., Chitwood, D. D., & Coates, T. J. (1990).
Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: Influences
on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual
behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 339–362.
Dean, J., Rubio-Aurioles, E., McCabe, M., Eardley, I., Speakman, M.,
Buvat, J., et al. (2008). Integrating couples in ED treatment:
Improving the sexual experience of the couple. International
Journal of Clinic Practice, 62, 127–133.
Fincham, D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006). Relationship satisfaction. In A.
L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
personal relationships (pp. 579–594). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fisher, W. A., Rosen, R. C., Mollen, M., Brock, G., Karlin, G., Pommerville,
P., et al. (2005). Improving the sexual quality of life of couples affected
by erectile dysfunction: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-con-
trolled trial of vardenafil. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 699–708.
Graubard, B., & Korn, E. (1999). Predictive margins with survey data.
Biometrics, 55, 652–659.
Gulledge, A. K., Gulledge, M. H., & Stahmann, R. F. (2003). Romantic
physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 233–242.
Harvey, J. H., & Wenzel, A. (2006). Theoretical perspectives in the study
of close relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 35–50).
Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Heiman, J. R. (2002). Sexual dysfunction: Overview of prevalence,
etiological factors, and treatments. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 73–78.
Heiman, J. R., Long, J. S., Smith, S. N., Fisher, W. A., Sand, M. S., &
Rosen, R. C. (2011). Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness
in midlife and older couples in five countries. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 40, 741–753.
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied
logistic regression (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Kashy, D. A., Campbell, L., & Harris, D.W. (2006). Advances in data
analytic approaches for relationships research: The broad utility of
hierarchical linear modeling.
123
1620
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis.
New York: Guilford.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953).
Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Laumann, E.O., Paik,A., Glasser,D.B., Kang, J.H.,Wang, T., Levinson,B.,
et al. (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.
Long, J. S. (2014). Group comparisons in logit and probit using predicted
probabilities. Manuscript in preparation, Indiana University.
Mansfield, K. P., Koch, P. B., & Voda, A. M. (1998). Qualities midlife
women desire in their sexual relationships and their changing
sexual response. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 285–303.
McMahon, J. M., Pouget, E. R., & Tortu, S. (2006). A guide for multi-
level modeling of dyadic data with binary outcomes using SAS PROC
NLMIXED. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50, 3663–
3680.
Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ?
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 37–40.
Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabsigh, 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.
Rosen, R. C., Fisher, W. A., Eardley, I., Niederberger, C., Nadel, A., &
Sand, M. (2004). The The Multinational Men’s Attitudes Life
Events Sexuality (MALES) Study: I. Prevalence of erectile
dysfunction and related health concerns in the general population.
Current Medical Research and Opinion, 20, 607–617.
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.
Rubin, H., & Campbell, L. (2011). Day-to-day changes in intimacy pre-
dict heightened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual
satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 3, 224–231.
Salisbury, C., & Fisher, W. A. (2014). Did you come? A qualitative explo-
ration of gender differences in beliefs, experiences, and concerns
123
Arch Sex Behav (2015) 44:1609–1620
surrounding female coital orgasm occurrence in heterosexual partner-
ships. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 616–631.
Sand, M., Fisher, W. A., Rosen, R., Brock, G., & Goldstein, I. (2005). The
sexual function of women whose partners have sexual dysfunction. In
C. Meston, S. Davis, A. Traish, & I. Goldstein (Eds.), Women’s sexual
function and dysfunction: Study, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 314–
322). London: Taylor and Francis, Blackwell.
Saunders, D. M., Fisher, W. A., Hewitt, E. C., & Clayton, J. P. (1985). A
method of empirically assessing volunteer selection effects: Recruit-
ment procedures and response to erotica. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49, 1703–1712.
Seal, D. W. (1997). Interpartner concordance of self-reported sexual
behavior among college dating couples. Journal of Sex Research,
34, 39–55.
Shifren, J., Monz, B., Russo, P. A., Segreti, A., & Johannes, C. B. (2008).
Sexual problems and distress in United States women: Prevalence
and correlates. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 112, 970–978.
Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for
assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of
Marriage Family, 38, 15–28.
Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2006). Sexual satisfaction
and sexual expression as predictors of relationship satisfaction and
stability. In J. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook
of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 235–256). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
StataCorp. (2013). Stata: Release 13. Statistical Software. College Sta-
tion, TX: StataCorp.
van Anders, S. M., Edelstein, R. S., Wade, R. M., & Samples-Steele, C.
R. (2013). Descriptive experiences and sexual vs. nurturant aspects
of cuddling between adult romantic partners. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 42, 553–560.
van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & Kuo, P. X. (2011). The steroid/
peptide theory of social bonds: Integrating testosterone and peptide
responses for classifying social behavioral contexts. Psychoneu-
roendocrinology, 36, 1265–1275.
Zou, G., & Donner, A. (2004). Confidence interval estimation of the
intraclass correlation coefficient for binary outcome data. Biomet-
rics, 60, 807–811.