Sexual and Relationship Therapy

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csmt20

Factors associated with sexual satisfaction in

mixed-sex long-distance and geographically close
relationships

Kaitlyn Goldsmith & E. Sandra Byers

To cite this article: Kaitlyn Goldsmith & E. Sandra Byers (2023) Factors associated with sexual
satisfaction in mixed-sex long-distance and geographically close relationships, Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 38:2, 171-193, DOI: 10.1080/14681994.2020.1813884

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2020.1813884

Published online: 02 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 895

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csmt20
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
2023, VOL. 38, NO. 2, 171–193
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2020.1813884

Factors associated with sexual satisfaction in mixed-sex

long-distance and geographically close relationships
Kaitlyn Goldsmitha and E. Sandra Byers b

a
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; bUniversity of
New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Previous research indicates that relationship maintenance behav- Received 9 January 2020
iours are linked to relationship satisfaction. This study investigated Accepted 18 August 2020
the extent to which six relationship maintenance behaviours and
KEYWORDS
nine sexual maintenance behaviours contribute to relationship and
Long–distance relationships;
sexual satisfaction in long-distance relationships (LDRs) and geo- relationship maintenance;
graphically close relationships (GCRs). Based on online survey sexuality; gender
data, all of the relationship maintenance behaviours and sexual
maintenance behaviours were positively correlated with satisfac-
tion. Four of the relationship maintenance behaviours were
uniquely associated with relationship satisfaction. Two of the sex-
ual maintenance behaviours were uniquely associated with satis-
faction outcomes. Neither gender nor relationship type
moderated any associations. These results suggest the relation-
ship maintenance framework should be expanded to include sex-
ual behaviours and that relationship maintenance behaviours can
also be considered as sexual maintenance behaviours.

Various frameworks have been proposed to conceptualize factors that contribute to

relationship well-being. Research on the specific strategies individuals use to maintain
romantic relationships surged during the 1980s. Although there have been many rela-
tionhip maintenance typologies proposed, Stafford and Canary (1991) distilled the
more than 80 proposed behaviours into five overarching “relationship maintenance
behaviours” using factor analyses: positivity, openness, assurance, social networks,
and sharing tasks. They also created the most commonly used measure of relationship
maintenance behaviours and thus laid the foundation for much of the empirical lit-
erature in this area (Canary & Stafford, 1992; Stafford & Canary, 1991).
The relationship maintenance literature is grounded in social exchange theory
(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), which posits that relationships are a series of transactional
exchanges between partners, particularly interdependence theory. According to inter-
dependence theory relationships are defined by interdependence – that is, the influ-
ence of one member’s behaviour on each individual in the relationship and the
overall quality of the relationship (Miller, 1997; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). Consistent

CONTACT Kaitlyn Goldsmith kmgold@mail.ubc.ca Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia,

2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BCV6T 1Z4, Canada
ß 2020 College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists
172 K. GOLDSMITH AND E. S. BYERS

with this theory, researchers have consistently found that individuals who engage in relation-
ship maintenance behaviours report better relationship outcomes in several domains (e.g.,
Murray et al., 2015; Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013; Pistole et al., 2010; Vangelisti et al., 2013).
Building on the foundation of seminal relationship maintenance theory and
research from the 80 s and 90 s (Canary & Stafford, 1992; Dainton & Stafford, 1993;
Stafford & Canary, 1991), Merolla (2010, 2012) posited four sets of behaviours that
people use to maintain their relationship and increase satisfaction. Merolla’s frame-
work is informed by theories of communal orientation. Theories of communal orien-
tation emphasize the personal rewards (e.g., positive emotions) that result from
meeting a partner’s needs rather than the specific rewards they receive from their
partner in exchange for these acts (Arriaga, 2013; Le et al., 2013).
There also has been excellent research confirming the importance of sexuality in
maintaining romantic attachments (Birnbaum, 2007, 2014; Byers, 2005), However, the
frameworks proposed by relationship maintenance researchers do not explicitly
include sexual behaviours. To address this omission, Goldsmith and Byers (2018a)
recently proposed a parallel framework of behaviours aimed at enhancing the sexual
relationship, termed sexual maintenance behaviours. This framework builds on the
work of Muise and her colleagues, who have extended theories of communal orienta-
tion to sexual behaviours (Day et al., 2015; Muise et al., 2013; Muise & Impett, 2015).
These authors have shown that individuals engage in sexual behaviours as a way to
maintain a positive, rewarding sexual relationship with their partner regardless of the
transactional rewards received. However, researchers have not yet examined the
extent to which the sexual maintenance behaviours proposed by Goldsmith and Byers
actually serve as maintenance behaviours—that is, the extent that they are linked to
satisfaction outcomes. In addition, despite the strong link between romantic behav-
iours and sexual outcomes in relationships (Byers, 2005; Haning et al., 2007;
Schoenfeld et al., 2017), researchers have not yet examined whether relationship
maintenance behaviours are linked to sexual satisfaction.
Thus, the current study aimed to: (1) determine whether the existing relationship
maintenance framework should be expanded to include sexual maintenance behav-
iours, and (2) extend existing research linking the relationship maintenance behav-
iours to relationship outcomes by also examining their link with sexual satisfaction.
Because long-distance relationships (LDRs) are becoming increasingly common
(Arnett & Tanner, 2011; Merolla, 2010; Stafford, 2005) and Merolla’s conceptualiza-
tion suggests utility for unique relationship arrangements including LDRs, these asso-
ciations were examined in both LDRs and geographically close mixed-sex
relationships (GCRs). We restricted participants to individuals in mixed-sex relation-
ships for two reasons. First, sexual scripts may be enacted differently in same-sex
than in mixed-sex relationships (Rose, 1996; Rose & Zand, 2002). Second, there likely
are certain relationship maintenance behaviours that are unique to same-sex relation-
ships (Haas, 2003; Haas & Stafford, 1998).

Relationship maintenance behaviours and satisfaction

Merolla (2010, 2012) proposed that there are four sets of relationship maintenance
behaviours: positive relational cognition; dyadic interaction; third party interaction;
 SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 173

and prospective, introspective, and retrospective behaviours. Positive relational cogni-

tion refers to the idealization of one’s partner. Dyadic interactions involve positive
interactions with one’s partner. Third party interactions involve maintaining common
social networks with one’s partner. Prospective, introspective, and retrospective behav-
iours refer to engaging in positive behaviours before, during, and after separation,
respectively. In keeping with past research (Murray et al., 2015; Ogolsky & Bowers,
2013; Pistole et al., 2010; Vangelisti et al., 2013), it was expected that engaging in these
behaviours more frequently would be linked to higher relationship satisfaction.
Sexual satisfaction is “an affective response arising from one’s subjective evaluation
of the positive and negative dimensions associated with one’s sexual relationship”
(Lawrance & Byers, 1995, p. 268). Relationship satisfaction and dynamics are closely
linked to sexual satisfaction both theoretically (Haning et al., 2007; Lawrance &
Byers, 1995) and empirically (Byers, 2005; Schoenfeld et al., 2017). Thus, it was
expected that the relationship maintenance behaviours also would be associated with
sexual satisfaction.

Sexual maintenance behaviours and satisfaction

Paralleling Merolla’s (2010, 2012) categories of cognitions and dyadic interaction as
relationship maintenance behaviours, Goldsmith and Byers (2018a) proposed that sex-
ual maintenance behaviours include sexual cognitions and dyadic sexual interactions.
They also proposed a third category, solitary sexual behaviours, rather than a direct
parallel for third party interactions. In terms of sexual cognitions, three behaviours
were proposed: sexual idealization of the partner, sexual fantasies about the partner,
and sexual fantasies about nonpartners. Sexual idealization involves endorsing an
overly positive view of one’s sexual relationship. Similar to romantic idealization
(Stafford & Merolla, 2007), it is likely that individuals who idealize their partner in
the sexual domain experience increased sexual satisfaction. Individuals who engage in
sexual fantasies about their partner tend to experience more positive feelings about
the relationship and higher sexual arousal compared to those who experience more
sexual fantasies about nonpartners (Moyano et al., 2016; Renaud & Byers, 2001). This
finding suggests that more frequent sexual fantasies about the partner and fewer fan-
tasies about nonpartners may both serve as maintenance behaviours.
For dyadic sexual interactions, two behaviours were proposed by Goldsmith and
Byers (2018a): engaging in face-to-face sexual activities with one’s partner when
together; and engaging in online sexual activities with one’s partner (i.e., cybersex)
when apart. Engaging in these behaviours more frequently when desired has been
linked to increased sexual satisfaction (Schwartz & Young, 2009; Shaughnessy & Byers,
2014; Yucel & Gassanoz, 2010). These behaviours also have been linked to sexual satis-
faction when they are freely engaged in without genuine desire, termed sexual compli-
ance. Sexual compliance within a relationship is a potential sexual maintenance
behaviour because it is a way to prioritize the partner’s sexual needs and promote their
sexual satisfaction which, in turn, enhances one’s own satisfaction (Day et al., 2015).
Although solitary behaviours were not part of Merolla’s (2010, 2012) framework,
Goldsmith and Byers (2018a) proposed that solitary sexual activities (e.g.,
174 K. GOLDSMITH AND E. S. BYERS

masturbation, viewing pornography, less frequent fantasizing about someone other

than one’s partner, more frequent fantasizing about one’s partner) serve as sexual
maintenance behaviours. This is because people can engage in solitary sexual activities
for sexual gratification when their partner is unavailable for sexual activity (due to
geographical separation or lack of interest) without going outside of the relationship
(Coleman, 2003; Morgan, 2011; Stulhofer et al., 2010). Because infidelity is associated
with many undesirable relationship outcomes (Buunk, 1995; Hall & Finchan, 2009;
Vangelisti & Gerstenberger, 2004), we expected that solitary sexual behaviours could
reduce the likelihood of infidelity and thus serve as sexual maintenance behaviours.
There is some research to support an association between the proposed sexual
maintenance behaviours and relationship satisfaction. For example, researchers have
shown that greater sexual frequency and sexual compliance are associated with higher
relationship satisfaction (Day et al., 2015; Schwartz & Young, 2009). Because infidelity
is associated with many undesirable relationship outcomes (Buunk, 1995; Hall &
Finchan, 2009; Vangelisti & Gerstenberger, 2004), we expected that sexual behaviours
that reduce the likelihood of infidelity such as masturbation and pornography use
would serve as relationship maintenance behaviours. However, although some
researchers have found that more frequent pornography use is associated with lower
relationship satisfaction (Clark & Wiederman, 2000; Yucel & Gassanov, 2010) others
have found that pornography use is associated with higher relationship satisfaction
(Bridges & Morokoff, 2011). However, a review of past research did not reveal any
studies that have examined the association between sexual idealization, sexual fanta-
sies about partners and non-partners, or masturbation frequency and their link to
relationship satisfaction. Nonetheless, based on the association between sexual and
relationship satisfaction (Byers, 2005), it was anticipated that all of the sexual behav-
iours would also be associated with relationship satisfaction.

Proposed models for examining the associations between maintenance

behaviours and satisfaction outcomes
The causal mechanism behind that frequent finding that relationship satisfaction and
sexual satisfaction are closely linked (Byers et al., 1998; Lawrance & Byers, 1995;
Young, et al., 2000) has been debated with some models arguing that changes in rela-
tionship satisfaction precede changes in sexual satisfaction (Cupach & Metts, 1991;
Lawrance & Byers, 1995; MacNeil & Byers, 2009) and others arguing that sexual satis-
faction precedes relationship satisfaction (Fallis et al., 2016). Still others have argued
that they have a reciprocal relationship (Carvalheira & Costa, 2015; Quinn-Nilas,
2020; Sprecher, 2002; Young et al., 2000).
The present research was guided by arguments for a causal relationship between
sexual and relationship satisfaction and, as such, tested two possible conceptual mod-
els. First, we examined whether the maintenance behaviours have both a direct effect
on sexual satisfaction as well as an indirect effect on sexual satisfaction through rela-
tionship satisfaction (see Figure 1). Second, we examined whether the maintenance
behaviours have a direct effect on relationship satisfaction as well as an indirect effect
on relationship satisfaction through sexual satisfaction (see Figure 2).
 SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 175

Figure 1. Conceptual diagram for the conditional process model depicting the direct and indirect
effects of the sexual and relationship maintenance behaviours on sexual satisfaction.

Relationship type as a moderator of the associations between maintenance

behaviours and satisfaction outcomes
Researchers have consistently found that individuals in LDRs report similar relation-
ship and sexual satisfaction to individuals in GCRs (Dargie et al., 2015; Goldsmith &
Byers, 2018a, 2018b; Kelmer et al., 2013). Merolla (2010; 2012) proposed that individ-
uals in LDRs engage in more frequent maintenance behaviours than individuals in
GCRs as a way to attain these comparable levels of satisfaction. However, the results
of research comparing the frequency of relationship and sexual maintenance behav-
iours in LDRs and GCRs has been inconclusive with some investigations finding that
individuals in LDRs engage in maintenance behaviours more frequently than individ-
uals in GCRs (Merolla, 2012; Pistole et al., 2010; Stafford & Merolla, 2007) and others
finding that individuals in LDRs and GCRs engage in maintenance behaviours at
similar frequencies (Billedo et al., 2015; Goldsmith & Byers, 2018a). However, it may
be the strength of the associations between maintenance behaviours and satisfaction
outcomes in LDRs and GCRs rather than differences in the frequency of the behav-
iours that explains the similar satisfaction outcomes (Pistole et al., 2010). That is, it
may be that individuals in LDRs need to engage in a higher “dose” of maintenance
behaviours to achieve the same satisfaction outcomes as individuals in GCRs.
However, researchers have yet to examine the extent to which the sexual and rela-
tionship maintenance behaviours are associated with the satisfaction of individuals in
LDRs and GCRs or whether there are differences in the strength of these associations
across relationship type.

Gender as a moderator of the associations between maintenance behaviours

and satisfaction outcomes
Gender is an important consideration when predicting relationship satisfaction, espe-
cially within heterosexual relationships. In particular, traditional heterosexual gender
roles encourage men to place higher value on sexual activity in comparison with
176 K. GOLDSMITH AND E. S. BYERS

Figure 2. Conceptual diagram for the conditional process model depicting the direct and indirect
effects of the sexual and relationship maintenance behaviours on relationship satisfaction.

companionship, caretaking, and emotional intimacy and women to place higher value
on the nonsexual than the sexual aspects of the relationship (Baumeister, Cantanese,
& Vohs, 2001; Ruffieux et al., 2014; Simon & Gagnon, 2003). In keeping with these
gender roles, some researchers have suggested men and women differ in their
dependence on sexual versus relational rewards, positing that women’s satisfaction is
more dependent on relationship quality than sexual gratification (Day et al., 2015;
Fisher et al., 2015). Thus, it is likely that the relationship maintenance behaviours
would be more strongly associated with women’s satisfaction whereas the sexual
behaviours would be more strongly linked to men’s satisfaction.

The current study

The goal of this study was to test two models depicting the direct and indirect effects
of the sexual and relationship maintenance behaviours on sexual and relationship sat-
isfaction in mixed-sex relationships. Model 1 posited that more frequent relationship
and sexual maintenance behaviours are linked to higher sexual satisfaction indirectly
through relationship satisfaction (see Figure 1). Model 2 posited that more frequent
relationship and sexual maintenance behaviours are linked to higher relationship sat-
isfaction indirectly through sexual satisfaction (see Figure 2). We examined which of
the maintenance behaviours contribute uniquely to each type of satisfaction. Both
gender and relationship type were tested as moderators in the models.

Method
Participants
The final sample included 206 men and 289 women between the ages of 18 and 30
(M ¼ 26.22, SD ¼ 2.32) in a romantic relationship of at least six months. Thirty-five
additional participants were dropped: 23 who began the survey but did not complete
any of the questions and 12 who answered one or both of the questions designed to
 SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 177

assess inattention and spambots incorrectly. The majority of participants identified as

White (71%), 14% identified as Asian Canadian/Asian American, 5% identified as
African American, 4% identified as bicultural/multicultural, and the remainder identi-
fied as “other.” Participants grew up in the United States (82%) or Canada (18%).
Relationship length ranged between 6 months and 10 years (M ¼ 2.08, SD ¼ 2.46).
Twenty-three percent were married or living together, and the remainder were dating
exclusively. In terms of current relationship type, 232 individuals (47%; 92 men and
132 women) were in an LDR and 263 individuals (53%; 114 men and 157 women)
were in a GCR. Overall, participants reported engaging in sexual activity with their
partner an average of 3.14 times (SD ¼ 1.90) in the previous month.
A 2 (gender) X 2 (relationship type) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was conducted to determine whether the men and women in LDRs and GCRs dif-
fered in their demographic characteristics (age, ethnicity, length of relationship, and
sexual frequency). As a result of the large sample size and number of comparisons, a
conservative alpha (p < .01) was adopted for this and all subsequent analyses
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). The main effect for gender was significant, FWilks(5, 487)
¼ 33.00, p < .001, gp2 ¼ .25. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated that the men (M ¼ 26.86,
SD ¼ 3.32) were significantly older than were the women (M ¼ 23.00, SD ¼ 3.40), F(1,
491) ¼ 15.52, p < .001, gp2 ¼ .24. The main effect for relationship type also was sig-
nificant, FWilks(5, 487) ¼ 7.11, p < .001, gp2 ¼ .07. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated
that individuals in GCRs (M ¼ 25.18, SD ¼ 3.91) were significantly older than were
individuals in LDRs (M ¼ 23.96, SD ¼ 3.71), although the difference was small, F(1,
491) ¼ 17.32, p < .001, gp2 ¼ .03. In addition, individuals in GCRs (M ¼ 2.25,
SD ¼ 2.37) had relationship of longer duration than did individuals in LDRs
(M ¼ 1.73, SD ¼ 1.36), F(1, 491) ¼ 8.73, p ¼ .003, gp2 ¼ .02. The groups did not dif-
fer significantly in their other demographic characteristics and there was no signifi-
cant interaction effect.

Measures
Demographic and dating history questionnaire
Participants responded to questions assessing basic information and dating history
based on previous research (Byers et al., 2008; Shaughnessy et al., 2011). Questions
included participants’ age, ethnicity, relationship status (dating exclusively, cohabitat-
ing/married) relationship length, and overall sexual frequency. Participants were also
provided with Pistole and Roberts (2011) comprehensive definition of an LDR: “A
long-distance relationship is defined as a relationship in which there is a considerable
geographical distance between partners, it would be practically impossible for partners
to see one another every day, and the majority of communication within the relation-
ship is not face-to-face.” They were then asked whether they were currently involved
in an LDR (yes/no).

Relationship maintenance behaviours

The short form (5-item) Idealistic Distortion Scale was used to assess partner idealiza-
tion (Olson, 1999; Olson et al., 1987). Participants indicate on a 5-point Likert scale
178 K. GOLDSMITH AND E. S. BYERS

the degree to which they believe their partner matches their ideal (e.g., My partner
has all of the qualities I’ve always wanted in a mate.) Scores range from 5 to 25, with
higher scores indicating greater idealization. This measure has demonstrated good
test-retest reliability over a two-week period and good construct validity (Olson,
1999). Internal consistency in the current sample was good for individuals in both
GCRs and LDRs (a ¼ .82 and a ¼ .84, respectively).
The 31-item Routine and Strategic Relational Maintenance Scale (Stafford et al.,
2000) was used to assess dyadic (e.g., I tell my partner how much s/he means to me)
and third party interactions (e.g., I focus on common friends and affiliations) relation-
ship maintenance strategies. The scale consists of six factors of dyadic interaction:
Assurances (8 items), Openness (7 items), Conflict Management (5 items), Shared
Tasks (5 items), Positivity (2 items), Advice (2 items). It also includes one factor
assessing third party interaction: Social Networks (2 items). Responses are on a 7-
point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The 29
items assessing dyadic interactions and the two items assessing third party interac-
tions were summed separately to create a Dyadic Interaction score ranging from 29
to 203 and a Third Party Interaction Score ranging from 2 to 14. The authors have
provided evidence for the internal consistency as well as construct and content valid-
ity of the scale. Internal consistencies for the two scales were high in this study for
both GCRs (a ¼ .95 and .86) and LDRs (a ¼ .96 and a ¼ .83).
The Relational Continuity Constructional Units Questionnaire (Gilbertson et al.,
1998) was used to assess prospective, introspective, and retrospective dyadic relation-
ship maintenance behaviours (i.e., engaging in maintenance behaviours before, dur-
ing, and after separation). Gilbertson and colleagues (1998) demonstrated that the
scale has three factors: Prospective Behaviours (7 items; e.g., Attempt to spend time
together before you have to be apart), Introspective Behaviours (11 items; e.g., Display
pictures of your partner), Retrospective Behaviours, (4 items; e.g., Kiss and/or hug
your partner hello). Respondents indicate the percentage (0  100%) of the time
that they engage in each behavior. Responses are averaged for each factor, with
higher scores indicating more frequent behaviours. This scale has demonstrated good
internal consistency, construct, and content validity as well as good internal
consistency for both GCRs (a ¼ .85  .94) and LDRs (a ¼ .87  .92) (Gilbertson
et al., 1998).

Sexual maintenance behaviours

The Sexual Idealization Scale (Author citation, blinded for review) was used to assess
the degree to which participants believe that their partner matches their idea of an
ideal sexual partner. The authors demonstrated that this scale has good reliability as
well as convergent and discriminant validity. Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale
and possible scores range from 9 to 45, with higher scores indicating more sexual
idealization. Internal consistency in the current study, based on all nine items, was
good for both GCRs (a ¼ .86) and LDRs (a ¼ .83).
Two items were developed to assess sexual fantasies. First, sexual fantasies were
described for participants as any erotic or sexually arousing mental imagery that you
have had while awake … and experienced as positive whether spontaneous or
 SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 179

intentional, fleeting or elaborate, bizarre or realistic, and/or during or outside sexual

activities (Hicks & Leitenberg, 2001). Next, in separate questions, participants indi-
cated the frequency with which they had experienced fantasies involving their current
partner and someone other than their partner in the previous month. Responses were
on a 7-point frequency scale from not at all (1) to more than once per day (7). Each
item was used separately.
Eight items adapted from the Brief Index of Sexual Functioning for Women (Mazer
et al., 2000) were used to assess the frequency of sexual activity (Cohen & Byers,
2013). The questions pertaining to sexual frequency and masturbation are gender
neutral and have been used in previous research with both men and women (Foster
& Byers, 2013). Participants indicated the frequency with which they have engaged in
seven sexual behaviours with their partner ranging from kissing to intercourse in the
most recent week when they and their partner were in the same geographical loca-
tion, as well as the frequency with which they had engaged in these behaviours with
their partner in the previous month on a scale ranging from not at all (0) to more
than once a day (6). The former measure was used in our analyses because these
responses would not be affected by geographical distance. In keeping with Cohen and
Byers (2013), the genitally-focused behaviour (i.e., oral sex, vaginal penetration or
intercourse, anal penetration or intercourse) an individual engaged in most frequently
was used as the score on this measure (i.e., each individual’s highest score was used).
Participants also completed one item assessing masturbation frequency using the
same scale.
The Online Sexual Experience Questionnaire (Shaughnessy & Byers, 2014) was used
to assess the frequency of online sexual activity (OSA). This measure assesses OSA
with one’s current partner (e.g., sexual messaging and webcam use; six items, range 6
to 42) as well as solitary OSA (e.g., viewing pornography; 5 items, range 5 to 35) in
the previous month. All responses are made on a 7-point scale ranging from not at
all (0) to more than once a day (6). The authors have provided evidence for the
internal consistency as well as construct and content validity of the scale
(Shaughnessy & Byers, 2014). Internal consistency in this study was excellent for
GCRs (OSA with partner a ¼ .96; solitary OSA a ¼ .85) and LDRs (OSA with part-
ner a ¼ .95; solitary OSA a ¼ .81).
Sexual compliance was assessed using questions and scoring based on definitions
of sexual compliance developed by Impett and Peplau (2002) and adapted by Katz
and Schneider (2015). Three items were used to assess in-person sexual compliance
in the previous month: percent of sexual interactions during which they have acqui-
esced to unwanted oral/vaginal/anal sexual activity with their partner in the absence
of explicit partner pressure. They were then asked the same three questions with
respect to online sexual activity. Responses were averaged for in-person and online
sexual compliance, respectively, and ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores reflect more
frequent sexually compliant behaviour. A group of sexuality researchers examined the
items and judged them to have good content validity. Cronbach’s alpha was good for
both in-person (a ¼ .84) and online (a ¼ .90) sexual compliance and no poor items
were identified. Thus all three items were retained for both scales. Inspection of the
data revealed that sexual compliance scores were highly skewed in that 43% of
180 K. GOLDSMITH AND E. S. BYERS

participants indicated that they had never complied in person, and 67% indicated
that they had never complied online. Therefore, the two sexual compliance variables
were dichotomized (never complied/complied at least once).

Satisfaction
The Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction (GMREL; Lawrance, Byers, & Cohen,
2011) was used to assess relationship satisfaction. Participants responded to the ques-
tion, “Overall, how would you describe your relationship with your partner?” on five
7-point bipolar scales (very bad to very good, very unpleasant to very pleasant, very
negative to very positive, very unsatisfying to very satisfying, and very worthless to very
valuable). Scores range from 5 to 35, with higher scores indicating higher levels of
relationship satisfaction. The measure has demonstrated good internal consistency
and construct validity (Lawrance et al., 2011). In the current study, internal consist-
ency was high for both GCRs (a ¼ .92) and LDRs (a ¼ .90).
The Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction (GMSEX; Lawrance et al., 2011) was
used to assess sexual satisfaction. Participants responded to the question, “Overall,
how would you describe your sexual relationship with your partner?” on the same
five 7-point bipolar scales as for GMREL. Scores range from 5 to 35, with higher
scores indicating higher sexual satisfaction. This measure has demonstrated good
internal consistency, test-retest reliability at 3 months, and construct validity
(Lawrance et al., 2011). Internal consistency was high in the current study for both
GCRs (a ¼ .94) and LDRs (a ¼ .94).

Procedure
Participants were recruited via Amazon’s crowdsourcing website MechanicalTurkV R

for a study on “sexuality and relationships” between 2015 and 2017. An additional 53
participants in LDRs were recruited on MechanicalTurkV for a study on “sexuality
R

and long-distance relationships” because not enough individuals in LDRs responded

to the general advertisement1. Participants who clicked the link were directed to the
CheckboxV platform hosted on the university server where they read an informed
R

consent page describing the purpose of the study, details about participation, confi-
dentiality of their responses, and freedom to withdraw. After consenting to partici-
pate, participants were directed to the survey, and completed questionnaires in the
following order: Demographic and Dating History Questionnaire, Idealistic Distortion
Scale, Routine and Strategic Relational Maintenance Scale, Relational Continuity
Constructional Units Questionnaire, Sexual Idealization Scale, Sexual Fantasy
Questionnaire, Sexual Frequency Questionnaire, Online Sexual Experiences
Questionnaire, Sexual Compliance Questionnaire, Global Measure of Relationship
Satisfaction; Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction. The survey also included three
multiple choice questions placed at random throughout the survey that were valid-
ation/attention checks (e.g., “what is 1 þ 2”). Only participants who answered all three
of these questions correctly were retained in the final sample. The survey took
approximately 30 minutes to complete. Finally, participants were presented with infor-
mation about the purpose of the study and contact information for the researchers
 SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 181

Table 1. Zero-order correlations between the maintenance behaviours and satisfaction outcomes.
Relationship Satisfaction Sexual Satisfaction
Romantic Idealization .57 .50
Dyadic Interaction .58 .52
Third Party Interaction .30 .30
Prospective .39 .38
Introspective .23 .30
Retrospective .34 .37
Sexual Idealization .55 .72
Frequency of Partner Fantasies .18 .25
Frequency of Non-Partner Fantasies .21 .17
Sexual Frequency (Week) .05 .19
Frequency of Online Sexual Activity With Partner .14 .10
Sexual Compliance In Person .17 .14
Sexual Compliance Online .19 .17
Frequency of Solitary Online Sexual Activity .27 .23
Masturbation .16 .13
Note. N ¼ 495,
p < .001.

should they have any questions. Participants were provided $1.00 for their participa-
tion, in line with MechanicalTurkV standards.
R

Results
To determine whether demographic differences between individuals in LDRs and
GCRs accounted for group differences in the associations between the maintenance
behaviours and satisfaction outcomes, all of the analyses were conducted with and
without age, relationship type, and relationship length as covariates. The results did
not differ. To simplify interpretation, the analyses without the covariates are
reported below.

Associations between the maintenance behaviours and satisfaction outcomes

On average, participants reported relatively high relationship (M ¼ 30.42, SD ¼ 5.05)
and sexual (M ¼ 30.12, SD ¼ 5.47) satisfaction. Zero-order correlations revealed
that, in line with predictions, all of the relationship maintenance behaviours were sig-
nificantly positively correlated with both relationship and sexual satisfaction (see
Table 1). Of the sexual maintenance behaviours, sexual idealization and frequency of
partner fantasies were significantly positively associated with, and frequency of non-
partner fantasies was negatively associated with, relationship and sexual satisfaction as
predicted. Sexual frequency was positively associated with sexual satisfaction but not
relationship satisfaction. Contrary to predictions, the rest of the sexual maintenance
behaviours (frequency of in-person and online sexual compliance, solitary online sex-
ual activity, and masturbation) were negatively correlated with relationship and sexual
satisfaction, sharing between 1% and 7% of their variance.

Conditional process models predicting satisfaction

A conditional process model using the SPSS macro PROCESS was used to test direct,
indirect, and potential moderator effects in the proposed models (Hayes, 2018). The
182 K. GOLDSMITH AND E. S. BYERS

SPSS PROCESS macro employs a 10,000-sample bootstrap procedure to estimate

bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) testing the significance of indirect
effects. CIs that do not contain 0 indicate a significant indirect effect. The moderation
effects for both gender and relationship type were not significant in either model and
were therefore dropped.
The results of the test of Model 1 (see Figure 1) are presented in Table 2. In terms
of direct effects, only sexual idealization and frequency of partner fantasies were
uniquely associated with sexual satisfaction. Only romantic idealization, dyadic inter-
actions, and prospective behaviours were significant unique predictors of relationship
satisfaction such that individuals who engaged in these behaviours more frequently
reported higher relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction was a significant
predictor of sexual satisfaction. There were indirect effects for romantic idealization,
dyadic interactions, prospective behaviours, and sexual idealization indicating that
they were associated with sexual satisfaction through relationship satisfaction.
The results of the test of Model 2 (see Figure 2) are reported in Table 3. In terms
of direct effects, sexual idealization and frequency of partner fantasies were uniquely
associated with sexual satisfaction such that individuals who engaged in these behav-
iours more frequently reported higher sexual satisfaction. Only romantic idealization,
dyadic interactions, and prospective behaviours were significant unique predictors of
relationship satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction was a significant predictor of relationship
satisfaction. There were indirect effects for romantic and sexual idealization indicating
that they were associated with relationship satisfaction through sexual satisfaction.

Discussion
The current study builds on foundational relationship maintenance literature (Canary
& Stafford, 1992; Dainton & Stafford, 1993; Stafford & Canary, 1991) and contempor-
ary extensions of this literature (Merolla, 2010; 2012), broadening our knowledge of
how relationships are maintained in several important ways. First, it extends previous
research indicating that relationship maintenance behaviours are linked to higher
relationship satisfaction (Murray et al., 2015; Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013; Pistole et al.,
2010; Vangelisti et al., 2013) by showing that these behaviours also are associated
with sexual satisfaction for men and women. This finding expands on the utility of
relationship maintenance frameworks by suggesting that they can also be used to
understand the sexual aspects of relationships for both men and women. Second, the
results demonstrate that there are sexual maintenance behaviours that are associated
with both relationship and sexual satisfaction, suggesting that contemporary iterations
of the framework (Merolla, 2012) should be expanded to include sexual maintenance
behaviours. Finally, the results suggest that aspects of both the relationship and sexual
maintenance frameworks can be used to enhance our understanding of diverse rela-
tionship types, including LDRs. No gender differences in the associations between the
maintenance behaviours and satisfaction emerged, suggesting that men and women
can benefit equally from similar maintenance behaviours. This finding falls in line
with research suggesting that men’s and women’s romantic and sexual expectations
and experiences are often more similar than different (Northrup et al., 2013). It is
Table 2. Conditional process model testing the effects of the romantic and sexual maintenance behaviours on sexual satisfaction: direct effects and indir-
ect effects (through relationship satisfaction) for the full sample.
Direct Effects Indirect Effect 95% CI
Total Effect
Direct Effects of IVs
on Sexual Effect of M on
Satisfaction Direct Effects of IVs Sexual Satisfaction
(c’ path) on M (a path) (b path)
Relationship
Maintenance Behaviours b b b b Estimate SE Lower Upper
Romantic Idealization .21 .05 .46 .21a .05 .11 .31
Dyadic Interaction .03 .00 .07 .03a .01 .01 .05
Third Party Interaction .01 .00 .06 .03 .03 .09 .03
Prospective .00 .00 .01 .00a .00 .00 .00
Introspective .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Retrospective .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Sexual
Maintenance Behaviours
Sexual Idealization .50 .40 .10 .05a .05 .01 .09
Frequency of .45 .39 .15 .07 .06 .03 .19
Partner Fantasies
Frequency of Non- .05 .07 .11 .05 .05 .04 .16
Partner Fantasies
Sexual Frequency .17 .14 .02 .01 .05 .12 .09
OSA with Partner .02 .03 .02 .01 .01 .01 .03
Sexual Compliance .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00
Sexual Compliance Online .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00
Solitary OSA .03 .00 .07 .03 .02 .08 .02
Masturbation .01 .01 .17 .08 .07 .21 .05
M: Relationship Satisfaction .45 .04
Note. N ¼ 495. The overall models predicting relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction were significant, F(15, 376) ¼ 22.83, p < .001, R2 ¼ .48, and F(16, 375) ¼ 49.02, p < .001,
R2 ¼ .68, respectively.
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY

p < .001. Subscripts for indirect effects indicate that the confidence interval did not include 0 and is therefore a significant effect.
183
 184

Table 3. Conditional process model testing the effects of the romantic and sexual maintenance behaviours on relationship satisfaction: direct effects and
indirect effects (through sexual satisfaction) for the full sample.
Direct Effects Indirect Effect 95% CI
Total Effect
Direct Effects of IVs
on Relationship Effect of M on
Satisfaction Direct Effects of IVs Relationship
(c’ path) on M (a path) Satisfaction (b path)
Relationship
Maintenance Behaviours b b b b Estimate SE Lower Upper
K. GOLDSMITH AND E. S. BYERS

Romantic Idealization .38 .38 .15 .07a .04 .00 .15

Dyadic Interaction .05 .05 .03 .02 .01 .00 .03
Third Party Interaction .04 .04 .03 .01 .03 .08 .03
Prospective .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Introspective .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Retrospective .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Sexual
Maintenance Behaviours
Sexual Idealization .50 .11 .44 .11a .04 .19 .03
Frequency of .46 .06 .45 .07 .11 .28 .16
Partner Fantasies
Frequency of Non- .12 .06 .12 .05 .10 .15 .26
Partner Fantasies
Sexual Frequency .17 .08 .13 .06 .06 .05 .16
OSA with Partner .02 .03 .03 .01 .01 .02 .01
Sexual Compliance .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00
Sexual Compliance Online .00 .01 .01 .00 .00 .01 .01
Solitary OSA .03 .00 .03 .03 .02 .08 .02
Masturbation .01 .14 .07 .03 .08 .19 .13
M: Sexual Satisfaction .48 .04
Note. N ¼ 495. The overall models predicting relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction were significant, F(16, 375) ¼ 33.89, p < .001, R2 ¼ .59, and F(15, 376) ¼ 35.47, p < .001,
R2 ¼ .58, respectively.
p < .001. Subscripts for indirect effects indicate that the confidence interval did not include 0 and is therefore a significant effect.
 SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 185

important to note that the current research is cross-sectional in nature. Thus, longitu-
dinal research is needed to determine whether the maintenance behaviours are caus-
ally linked to relationship outcomes.

Associations between the relationship maintenance behaviours and satisfaction

Although the current research was cross-sectional, the results shed light on possible
mechanisms between maintenance behaviours and satisfaction outcomes. That is,
consistent with research that has documented the importance of positive partner-
focused romantic cognitions and behaviours in maintaining relationship satisfaction
(Day et al., 2015; Ogolsky & Bowers, 2013; Stafford & Merolla, 2007), we found that
all of the relationship maintenance behaviours were associated with relationship satis-
faction at the bivariate level. The current findings extend this research by showing
that romantic idealization, dyadic interaction, and prospective behaviours were
uniquely associated with relationship satisfaction in both models. In contrast, third
party interaction, introspective, and retrospective behaviours were not uniquely
related to relationship satisfaction. This may be because, consistent with reinforce-
ment theory (Byrne & Clore, 1970; May & Hamilton, 1980), they only indirectly con-
tribute to relationship satisfaction by strengthening the bond and shared positive
experiences between the partners.
We also found that all of the relationship maintenance behaviours were associated
with sexual satisfaction at the bivariate level and, thus, likely serve to maintain sexual
well-being. This finding is consistent with research and theory indicating the close
connection between romantic and sexual satisfaction (Byers, 2005) as well as with
research indicating that both romantic and sexual behaviours contribute to romantic
and sexual outcomes (Peplau, Fingerhut, & Beals, 2004; Schwartz & Young, 2009).

Associations between the sexual maintenance behaviours and satisfaction

In his model, Merolla (2012) did not propose any sexual behaviours as relationship
maintenance behaviours. This is an important omission because the findings of the
current research suggest that there are a number of sexual behaviours that likely serve
as relationship maintenance behaviours. That is, consistent with prior research
(Carvalheira & Costa, 2015; Peplau et al., 2004; Schwartz & Young, 2009; Yucel &
Gassanov, 2010), three of the proposed sexual maintenance behaviours were associ-
ated with higher relationship and sexual satisfaction at the bivariate level: higher sex-
ual idealization, more frequent fantasies about the partner, and fewer fantasies about
nonpartners. In addition, greater sexual frequency was associated with higher sexual
satisfaction. These findings are consistent with our proposal that in-person, partner-
focused, desired sexual behaviours may serve as sexual maintenance behaviours. This
suggests that researchers in the field of relationship maintenance should include sex-
ual behaviours in their conceptualizations.
We proposed a category of sexual maintenance behaviours that did not have a dir-
ect parallel within Merolla’s (2012) framework—solitary sexual behaviours. However,
contrary to predictions and prior research (Moyano et al., 2016; Renaud & Byers,
186 K. GOLDSMITH AND E. S. BYERS

2001; Shaughnessy & Byers, 2014; Yucel & Gassanov, 2010), frequency of masturba-
tion and solitary online sexual activity were negatively related to satisfaction out-
comes. We also found that sexual compliance was negatively associated with
satisfaction outcomes (Muise & Impett, 2015). These findings suggest that sexual
behaviours that do not directly involve the partner (i.e., were solitary, computer
mediated) or are not genuinely desired (i.e., sexual compliance) do not serve as main-
tenance behaviours. It may be that they play some other role in men and women’s
sexual lives such as enhancing personal well-being. It is also possible that the causal
direction is reversed such that individuals who are less sexually satisfied engage in
more frequent online, solitary, and sexually compliant behaviours. For solitary sexual
behaviours, it may be that people are using those behaviours as a less-satisfying proxy
for partnered sexual behaviours. That is, they would rather be engaging in partnered
sex, and are less satisfied with masturbation is their only option. Finally, it may be
that it is not these behaviours in and of themselves, but rather approach or avoidance
motivations behind the behaviours that determine their outcomes (Day et al., 2015;
Muise et al., 2013). Of note, the magnitudes of these associations were small and they
did not contribute uniquely to predicting either relationship satisfaction or sexual sat-
isfaction. Thus, these behaviours are likely not particularly detrimental to the roman-
tic and sexual relationship.

Evaluating the proposed models

Based on previous research (Byers & MacNeil, 2006; Cupach & Metts, 1991; Fallis
et al., 2016; McNulty et al., 2016), we tested two models depicting the associations
between the maintenance behaviours and romantic and sexual satisfaction. Model 1
posited that the maintenance behaviours would have direct effects and indirect effects
(through relationship satisfaction) on sexual satisfaction. Model 2 posited that the
maintenance behaviours would have direct effects and indirect effects (through sexual
satisfaction) on relationship satisfaction.
The results provide significant support for Model 1. That is, in keeping with pre-
dictions, there were significant indirect paths via relationship satisfaction between
romantic idealization, dyadic interactions, prospective behaviours, and sexual idealiza-
tion and sexual satisfaction. These results suggest there is an “affective pathway”
whereby these positive behaviours improve the “affective climate” of the relationship,
thus improving sexual outcomes (Cupach & Metts, 1991). There were also significant
direct pathways between sexual idealization and frequency of fantasies about one’s
partner and sexual satisfaction. This finding suggests that partner-based sexual cogni-
tions may also affect sexual satisfaction directly, in keeping with a more instrumental
pathway and the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction (Byers &
MacNeil, 2006; MacNeil & Byers, 2009). However, there were no direct effects
between the sexual maintenance behaviours and relationship satisfaction, suggesting
that these sexual behaviours may not play a direct role in maintaining relationship
satisfaction over and above the relationship maintenance behaviours.
The results also provide some support for Model 2. That is, in keeping with longi-
tudinal research indicating that sexual satisfaction precedes relationship satisfaction
 SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 187

(Fallis et al., 2016), we found significant indirect paths via sexual satisfaction of
romantic and sexual idealization on relationship satisfaction. Taken together with the
findings with respect to Model 1 as well as research demonstrating a reciprocal rela-
tionship between relationship and sexual satisfaction (McNulty et al., 2016), these
findings suggest that idealization (romantic and sexual) may both indirectly affect
sexual satisfaction through its impact on relationship satisfaction as well as indirectly
affect relationship satisfaction though its effects on sexual satisfaction. Model 2 also
provides additional support for both an affective and an instrumental pathway
between relationship and sexual satisfaction. That is, the significant direct pathways
between romantic idealization, dyadic interactions, prospective behaviours, and rela-
tionship satisfaction are consistent with an affective pathway. The direct associations
between sexual idealization and frequency of partner fantasies and sexual satisfaction
are consistent with an instrumental pathway.
Comparing across the two models, more indirect effects emerged between the
maintenance behaviours and sexual satisfaction through relationship satisfaction
(Model 1) than vice versa (Model 2). This finding shows support for research
(MacNeil & Byers, 2009) and theory (Cupach & Metts, 1991) suggesting an affective
pathway whereby relationship interactions affect sexual satisfaction through relation-
ship satisfaction (Model 1) rather than vice versa. Nonetheless, taken together, it
appears that both mechanisms likely operate in relationships.

The effect of relationship type: LDR or GCR

A strength of this study was that it included men and women in both LDRs and
GCRs. The results suggest that the effect of the relationship and sexual maintenance
behaviours on satisfaction outcomes is similar across relationship type, ruling out dif-
ferences in the strengths of the associations as an explanation for the similar satisfac-
tion outcomes in LDRs and GCRs (Pistole et al., 2010). This suggests that the
important factors for maintaining satisfaction may not depend on physical proximity
and instead are likely easily enacted by individuals in both LDRs and GCRs. This
finding may provide insight into why the LDRs are increasingly common among
emerging adults (Arnett & Tanner, 2011). That is, individuals in LDRs may not need
to change key maintenance behaviours to accommodate geographical distance given
that most of the important contributing behaviours can be done from afar. Of
importance for the sexual relationship in LDRs, many of the potential sexual main-
tenance behaviours meant to overcome the barrier of geographical separation (i.e.,
solitary and computer-mediated behaviours) were negatively associated with satisfac-
tion outcomes at the bivariate level and not uniquely related to satisfaction outcomes.
Instead, behaviours focused on the romantic partner as well as cognitive sexual
behaviours (i.e., idealization), more easily maintained from a distance, were positively
associated with higher satisfaction.

Conclusion
There are a number of limitations that should be noted. First, the sample was
recruited using the crowdsourcing website MechanicalTurkV
R . Research has indicated
188 K. GOLDSMITH AND E. S. BYERS

that participants recruited via MTurkV R tend to be more representative of the popula-

tion than those obtained using other online recruitment strategies (Birnbaum, 2000;
Paolacci et al., 2010). Nonetheless, the sample was a group of heterosexual young
adults in a mixed-sex relationship who were mostly young, White, educated U.S. resi-
dents. As such, the extent to which these results are generalizable to other individuals
are unknown. In addition, the advertisements for the studies indicated that sexual ques-
tions would be included, potentially generating a more sexually open and liberal sample
(Morokoff, 1986; Saunders et al., 1985). Finally, the data were cross-sectional such that
the maintenance behaviours and satisfaction outcomes were assessed concurrently. No
causal inferences can be drawn. That is, although we hypothesized and assessed the
extent to which maintenance behaviours are associated with satisfaction, it is also pos-
sible that individuals who are more satisfied engage in more maintenance behaviours.
It is also possible that there are reciprocal relationships between maintenance behav-
iours and satisfaction. Longitudinal research is needed to establish the directions of the
relationships between the maintenance behaviours and satisfaction outcomes.
Nonetheless, the results have important implications. First, our finding that there
are direct links between the relationship and sexual maintenance behaviours and rela-
tionship and sexual satisfaction suggests that to more fully understand satisfaction in
romantic relatinships, it is important to consider both relationship and sexual main-
tenance behaviours. Specifically, to fully capture the spectrum of behaviours individu-
als engage in to maintain their sexual and romantic relationships, researchers should
consider expanding the relationship maintenance framework to include cognitive and
dyadic sexual maintenance behaviours. Second, our findings of indirect associations
between the maintenance behaviours and both satisfaction outcomes provide further
evidence of reciprocal links between relationship and sexual behaviours and satisfac-
tion. Finally, the results suggest that individuals in LDRs and GCRs are more similar
than different in terms of how relationship and sexual maintenance behaviours affect
satisfaction. This suggests that individuals in an LDR do not necessarily need to
change their behaviour to maintain their sexual or relationship satisfaction. Indeed,
the results highlight the importance of nurturing a positive, supportive romantic con-
nection and engaging in mutually gratifying sexual activities with one’s partner as
paramount to satisfaction outcomes, regardless of whether an individual is in an LDR
or GCR. This finding is encouraging for couples as well as for clinicians working
with couples considering beginning an LDR and have concerns about maintaining
their relationship. The finding that not all of the proposed maintenance behaviours
were associated with higher satisfaction highlights that these behaviours are not
necessarily always positive. Thus, it is important for clinicians working with couples
to assess the role of sexual behaviours for each couple. That is, clinicians should
assess the role of these behaviours in the context of specific relationship with a bal-
anced view, assessing both negative and positive potential outcomes of these behav-
iours for the individuals and the couple.

Notes
1. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine whether
individuals in LDRs recruited with the two different advertisements differed in their
 SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 189

demographic characteristics (age, ethnicity, length of relationship, and sexual frequency).

The main effect for advertisement was not significant, FWilks(5, 227) ¼ 2.22, p ¼ .07, gp2
¼ .00, indicating the groups did not differ.

ORCID
E. Sandra Byers http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6511-6712

References
(2000). Birnbaum, M. H. (Ed.). Psychological experiments on the Internet. Academic Press.
Arnett, J. J., & Tanner, J. (2011). In defense of emerging adulthood as a life stage: Rejoinder to
Kloep’s and Hendry’s Chapters 4 and 5. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), Debating emerging adulthood:
Stage or process (pp. 212–134). Oxford University Press.
Arriaga, X. B. (2013). An interdependence theory analysis of close relationships. In J. A.
Simpson & Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 39–65). Oxford
University Press.
Billedo, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2015). The use of social networking sites for rela-
tionship maintenance in long-distance and geographically close romantic relationships.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networks, 18(3), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1089/
cyber.2014.0469
Birnbaum, G. E. (2007). Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfac-
tion in a community sample of women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1),
21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507072576
Birnbaum, G. E. (2014). Sexy building blocks: The contribution of the sexul system to attach-
ment formation and maintenance. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Mechanisms of
social connection: From brain to group (pp. 315–332). American Psychological Association.
Bridges, A. J., & Morokoff, P. J. (2011). Sexual media use and relationship satisfaction in het-
erosexual couples. Personal Relationships, 18(4), 562–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
6811.2010.01328.x
Buunk, B. P. (1995). Sex, self-esteem, dependency, and extradyadic sexual experience as related
to jealousy responses. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(1), 147–153. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0265407595121011
Byers, E. S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of
individuals in long-term relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 42(2), 113–118. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224490509552264
Byers, E. S., Demmons, S., & Lawrance, K. (1998). Sexual satisfaction within dating relation-
ships: A test of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 15(2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598152008
Byers, E. S., & MacNeil, S. (2006). Further validation of the interpersonal exchange model of
sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 32(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00926230500232917
Byers, E. S., Sears, H. A., & Weaver, A. D. (2008). Parent’s reports of sexual communication
with children in kindergarten to grade 8. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(1), 86–96.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00463.x
Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L. (1970). A reinforcement model of evaluative responses. Personality:
An International Journal, 1(2), 103–128.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage.
Communication Monographs, 59(3), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376268
Carvalheira, A. A., & Costa, P. A. (2015). The impact of relational factors on sexual satisfac-
tion among heterosexual and homosexual men. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 30(3),
314–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2015.1041372
190 K. GOLDSMITH AND E. S. BYERS

Carvalheira, A., Traeen, B., & Stulhofer, A. (2015). Masturbation and pornography use among
coupled heterosexual men with decreased sexual desire: How many roles of masturbation?
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41(6), 626–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2014.
958790
Clark, C. A., & Wiederman, M. W. (2000). Gender and reactions to a hypothetical relationship
partner’s masturbation and use of sexually explicit media. Journal of Sex Research, 37(2),
133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490009552030
Cohen, J. N., & Byers, E. S. (2013). Beyond lesbian bed death: Enhancing our understanding
of the sexuality of sexual-minority women in relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 0, 1–11.
Coleman, E. (2003). Masturbation as a means of achieving sexual health. Journal of Psychology
& Human Sexuality, 14(2/3), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v14n02_02
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1991). Sexuality and communication in close relationships. In K.
McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 93–110). Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relation-
ship type, partner similarity and sex differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
10(2), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000206
Dargie, E., Blair, K. L., Goldfinger, C., & Pukall, C. F. (2015). Go long! Predictors of positive
relationship outcomes in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Sex & Marital
Therapy, 41(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2013.864367
Day, L. C., Muise, A., Joel, S., & Impett, E. A. (2015). To do it or not to do it? How commu-
nally motivated people navigate sexual interdependence dilemmas. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 41(6), 791–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215580129
Fallis, E. E., Rehman, U. S., Woody, E. Z., & Purdon, C. (2016). The longitudinal association
of relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction in long-term relationships. Journal of
Family Psychology, 30(7), 822–831. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000205
Fisher, W. A., Donahue, K. L., Long, J. S., Heiman, J. R., Rosen, R. C., & Sand, M. S. (2015).
Individual and partner correlates of sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness in midlife
couples: Dyadic analysis of the international survey of relationships. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 44(6), 1609–1620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0426-8
Foster, L. R., & Byers, E. S. (2013). Comparison of the sexual well-being of individuals with
and without herpes and/orhuman papillomavirus infection diagnosis. International Journal
of Sexual Health, 25(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2012.739596
Gilbertson, J., Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1998). Relational continuity constructional units and
the maintenance of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(6),
774–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598156004
Goldsmith, K. M., & Byers, E. S. (2018a). Perceived and reported sexual and romantic out-
comes in long-distance and geographically close relationships. The Canadian Journal of
Human Sexuality, 27(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2018-0016
Goldsmith, K. M., & Byers, E. S. (2018b). Maintaining long–distance relationships:
Comparison to geographically close relationships. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 35(3),
338–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2018.1527027
Haas, S. M. (2003). Relationship maintenance in same-sex couples. In D. J. Canary & M.
Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual,
and cultural variations (pp. 209–230). Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers.
Haas, S. M., & Stafford, L. (1998). An initial examination of maintenance behaviours in gay
and lesbian relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(6), 846–855.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598156008
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Psychological distress: Precursor or consequence of dating
extradyadic sexual activity? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(2), 143–159. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167208327189
Haning, R. V., O’Keefe, S. L., Randall, E. J., Kommor, M. J., Baker, E., & Wilson, R. (2007).
Intimacy, orgasm likelihood, and conflict predict sexual satisfaction in heterosexual male
 SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 191

and female respondents. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 33(2), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00926230601098449
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Hicks, T. V., & Leitenberg, H. (2001). Sexual fantasies about one’s partner versus someone
else: Gender differences in incidence and frequency. The Journal of Sex Research, 38(1),
43–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552069
Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). Why some women consent to unwanted sex with a dat-
ing partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4),
360–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00075
Katz, J., & Schneider, M. E. (2015). Hetero)sexual compliance with unwanted casual sex:
Associations with feelings about first sex. Sex Roles, 72(9-10), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11199-015-0467-z
Kelmer, G., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Relationship quality, com-
mitment, and stability in long-distance relationships. Family Process, 52(2), 257–270. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01418.x
Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships:
The Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2(4),
267–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00092.x
Lawrance, K., Byers, E. S., & Cohen, J. N. (2011). Interpersonal exchange model of Sexual
Satisfaction Questionnaire. In Handbook of sexuality-related measures (3rd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Le, B. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Webster, G. D., & Cheng, C. (2013). The personal and
interpersonal rewards of communal orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
30(6), 694–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512466227
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of
long-term heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research, 46(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224490802398399
May, J. L., & Hamilton, P. A. (1980). Effects of musically evoked affect on women’s interper-
sonal attraction toward and perceptual judgments of physical attractiveness of men.
Motivation and Emotion, 4(3), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00995420
Mazer, N. A., Leiblum, S. R., & Rosen, R. C. (2000). The brief index of sexual functioning for
women (BISF-W): A new scoring algorithm and comparison of normative and surgically
menopausal populations. Menopause, 7, 350–363.
McNulty, J. K., Wenner, C. A., & Fisher, T. D. (2016). Longitudinal associationa among rela-
tionship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of sex early in marriage. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0444-6
Merolla, A. J. (2010). Relationship maintenance and non-copresence reconsidered:
Conceptualizing geographic separation in close relationships. Communication Theory, 20(2),
169–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01359.x
Merolla, A. J. (2012). Connecting here and there: A model of long-distance relationship main-
tenance. Personal Relationships, 19(4), 775–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.
01392.x
Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to
alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 758–766. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.73.4.758
Morgan, E. M. (2011). Associations between young adults’ use of sexually explicit materials
and their sexual preferences, behaviors, and satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 48(6),
520–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.543960
Morokoff, P. J. (1986). Volunteer bias in the psychophysiological study of female sexuality.
Journal of Sex Research, 22(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498609551288
Moyano, N., Byers, E. S., & Sierra, J. C. (2016). Content and valence of sexual cognitions and
their relatinoship with sexual functioning in Spanish men and women. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 45(8), 2069–2080. Online before print. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0659-1
192 K. GOLDSMITH AND E. S. BYERS

Muise, A., & Impett, E. A. (2015). Good, giving, and game: The relationship benefits of com-
munal sexual motivation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(2), 164–172. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1948550614553641
Muise, A., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., & Desmarais, S. (2013). Keeping the spark alive: Being
motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs sustains sexual desire in long-term romantic
relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1948550612457185
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Griffin, D. W., & Derrick, J. L. (2015). The equilibrium model of
relationship maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 93–133.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000004
Northrup, C., Schwartz, P., & Witte, J. (2013). The normal bar: The surprising secrets of happy
couples and what they reveal about creating a new normal in your relationship. Crown
Publishing Group.
Ogolsky, B. G., & Bowers, J. R. (2013). A meta-analytic review of relationship maintenance
and its correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 343–367. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0265407512463338
Olson, D. H. (1999). Counselor’s manual for PREPARE/ENRICH: Version 2000. Life
Innovations.
Olson, D. H., Fournier, D. G., & Druckman, J. M. (1987). Counselor’s manual for PREPARE/
ENRISH. (Revised edition). PREPARE/ENRICH, Inc.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon mechan-
ical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
Peplau, L. A., Fingerhut, A., & Beals, K. P. (2004). Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians
and gay men. In J. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close
relationships. (pp. 350–369). Erlbaum.
Pistole, M. C., & Roberts, A. (2011). Measuring long-distance romantic relationships: A valid-
ity study. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 44(2), 63–76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175611400288
Pistole, M. C., Roberts, A., & Chapman, M. L. (2010). Attachment, relationship maintenance,
and stress in long distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 27(4), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510363427
Quinn-Nilas, C. (2020). Relationship and sexual satisfaction: A developmental perspective on
bidirectionality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(2), 624–646. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0265407519876018
Renaud, C. A., & Byers, E. S. (2001). Positive and negative sexual cognitions: Subjective experi-
ence and relationships to sexual adjustment. Journal of Sex Research, 38(3), 252–262.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552094
Rose, S. (1996). Lesbian and gay love scripts. In E. D. Rothblum, & L A. Bond (Eds.),
Preventing heterosexism and homophobia (pp. 151–173). Sage Publications, Inc.
Rose, S., & Zand, D. (2002). Lesbian dating and courtship from young adulthood to midlife.
Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n01_09
Ruffieux, M., Nussbeck, F. W., & Bodenmann, G. (2014). Long-term prediction of relationship
satisfaction and stability by stress, coping, communication, and well being. Journal of
Divorce & Remarriage, 55(6), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2014.931767
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An inter-
dependence analysi. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204. https://doi.
org/10.1177/026540759301000202
Saunders, D., Fisher, W., Hewitt, E., & Clayton, J. (1985). A method for empirically assessment
volunteer selection effects: Recruitment procedures and responses to erotica. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1703–1712. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.
1703
Schoenfeld, E. A., Loving, T. J., Pope, M. T., Huston, T. L., & Stulhofer, A. (2017). Does sex
really matter? Examining the connections between souses’ nonsexual behaviors, sexual
 SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 193

frequency, sexual satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46 (2),
489–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0672-4
Schwartz, P., & Young, L. (2009). Sexual satisfaction in committed relationships. Sexuality
Research and Social Policy, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2009.6.1.1
Shaughnessy, K., & Byers, E. S. (2014). Contextualizing cybersex experience: Heterosexually
identified men and women’s desire for and experiences with cybersex with three types of
partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.
005
Shaughnessy, K., Byers, E. S., & Walsh, L. (2011). Online sexual activity experience of hetero-
sexual students: Gender similarities and differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2),
419–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9629-9
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. (2003). Sexual scripts: Origins, influences, and changes. Qualitative
Sociology, 26(4), 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000005053.99846.e5
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfac-
tion, love, commitment, and stability. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 190–196. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224490209552141
Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross-residential relationships. Erlbaum.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,
gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(2),
217–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407591082004
Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational main-
tenance: Scale development, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational charac-
teristics. Communication Monographs, 67(3), 306–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03637750009376512
Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long distance dating
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0265407507072578
Stulhofer, A., Busko, V., & Landripet, I. (2010). Pornography, sexual socialization, and satisfac-
tion among young men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10508-008-9387-0
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Allyn and
Bacon.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Wiley.
Vangelisti, A. L., & Gerstenberger, M. (2004). Communication. And marital extradyadic sexual
activity. In J. Duncombe, K., Harrison, G., Allan, & D. Marsden (Eds.), The state of affairs:
Explorations in extradyadic sexual activity and commitment. (pp. 59–78). Erlbaum.
Vangelisti, A. L., Middleton, A. V., & Ebersole, D. S. (2013). Couples’ online cognitions during
conflict: Links between what partners think and their relational satisfaction. Communication
Monographs, 80(2), 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.775698
Young, M., Denny, G., Young, T., & Luquis, R. (2000). Sexual satisfaction among married
women. American Journal of Health Studies, 16, 73–84.
Yucel, D., & Gassanov, M. A. (2010). Exploring actor and partner correlates of sexual satisfac-
tion among married couples. Social Science Research, 39(5), 725–738. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ssresearch.2009.09.002