Sexual Kindred Spirits

Abstract

We examined whether sexual similarity, complementarity, and perceptual accuracy exist within a large sample of heterosexual couples. Partners exhibited similarity and complementarity of sexual preferences, and they perceived each other’s preferences with a considerable degree of accuracy; these effects were greater than found in randomly assigned pseudocouples. In addition, people overperceived sexual similarity and complementarity, and they overperceived the accuracy with which their partner knew their preferences. We suggest these three forms of overperception are the result of motivated cognitive processes in service of sexual relationship maintenance. Using actor–partner interdependence modeling (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006), overperception predicted sexual satisfaction, as did complementarity, but similarity and accuracy did not. These findings indicate that motivated cognition may foster sexual satisfaction, as theories of motivated relationship cognitions suggest.

Keywords

Why are some people sexually satisfied, whereas others are not? To answer this question, we first consider the possibility that congruence between partners’ sexual preferences fosters satisfying sexual encounters. The appeal of this approach is evident in the long-standing interest in the roles of similarity and complementarity in close relationships (Markey & Markey, 2009; Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008). A different perspective proposes that sexual satisfaction is a consequence of motivated perception of the sexual relationship. The merit of this approach is suggested by research showing that satisfaction and stability in close relationships may be due not so much to partners’ accurate perception of each other (Finkenauer & Righetti, 2011) but rather to motivated overperception that operates in the service of relationship maintenance (Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, & Hannon, 2001). These approaches have rarely been applied to understanding sexual satisfaction; furthermore, when they have been used, methodological issues, discussed below, have left key questions unanswered.

It is important to understand the underpinnings of sexual satisfaction because sexual satisfaction is closely tied to relationship stability and satisfaction (Sprecher, 2002) and predicts divorce in longitudinal studies (e.g., Oggins, Leber, & Veroff, 1993). Thus, to understand sexual satisfaction is to understand one basis for the health and stability of romantic relationships. Sex also provides a unique window into relationship processes due to its highly interactive nature. Unlike going out for dinner, where divergent tastes may not affect partners, or watching a movie, during which falling asleep may be acceptable, sex requires both partners to engage in coordinated activity to an extent not required in many other shared activities. Sex therefore is reasonably considered one of the most interdependent activities in relational life.

In the present research we sought to extend the existing literature in several ways. First, we examined whether heterosexual romantic partners exhibit similarity or complementarity of sexual preferences and if they accurately perceive each other’s sexual preferences. Second, we examined whether sexual satisfaction is accounted for by similarity, complementarity, and accuracy and/or by the motivated overperception of those features. Based on theories of motivated cognition in close relationships (e.g., Murray et al., 2011; Rusbult et al., 2001), we expected that overperception of similarity, complementarity, and partner accuracy would emerge as consistent predictors of sexual satisfaction. Third, we sought to resolve key methodological ambiguities in prior investigations based on recent advances in measurement and dyadic analysis.

Similarity of Partners’ Sexual Preferences

Considering the central role of sexuality in most romantic relationships, one might expect to find some degree of similarity of sexual preferences within established couples. People tend to mate with similar others—a principle known as assortative mating—spanning various physical characteristics, cognitive abilities, personal values, personality traits, and sense of humor (for reviews, see Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Watson et al., 2004). In the only assessment of similarity of sexual preferences within couples of which we are aware, Purnine and Carey (1999) asked both members of 76 heterosexual and cohabiting couples to rate how much they and their partner would enjoy 27 sex-related behaviors. They found some degree of similarity between partners using both correlational and difference score strategies. However, their analyses did not account for the possibility that people in general tend to enjoy certain sexual activities (e.g., kissing) more than other activities (e.g., receiving anal sex). This is potentially problematic because normative preferences, or stereotypical responding, may artificially inflate estimates of similarity (Luo & Klohnen, 2005). Thus, it is unknown whether heterosexual relationship partners have similar sexual preferences at levels beyond what would be normatively expected. To account for such inflation, we compared observed similarity with the similarity found in randomly paired pseudocouples (explained below; Gurtman, 2001).

Does liking the same things during sex make sexual satisfaction more likely? Jack and Jill’s mutual enjoyment of having the lights on or off, or talking lovingly, dirty, or not at all, may maximize both partners’ pleasure. In nonsexual domains of close relationships, the association between actual similarity and relationship satisfaction is tenuous and depends on the domain in which similarity is assessed. Similarity of values predicts relationship satisfaction and stability more consistently than similarity of personality (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). However, a recent meta-analysis concluded that although similarity may influence attraction in brief interactions, it is not consistently associated with attraction or satisfaction in existing relationships (Montoya et al., 2008). Nevertheless, Montoya et al. found that in existing relationships the perception of similarity was strongly related to attraction and relationship satisfaction, implying that within established relationships, motivated perception of similarity may be more important than actual similarity.

Sex, however, is more interactive and inherently dyadic than most domains of couples’ lives, suggesting that similarity may influence sexual satisfaction. Sex is a joint venture, and similar desires may allow both partners to do more of what they enjoy and less of what they do not enjoy. In Purnine and Carey’s (1999) study, discussed earlier, similarity of sexual preferences was associated with sexual satisfaction; however, they did not examine the possibility that perceived similarity may matter more than actual similarity, even if these perceptions are inaccurate (Murray, Holmes, Bellavia, Griffin, & Dolderman, 2002). As we discuss later, overperception of sexual similarity may create a sense of being sexual “kindred spirits” (Murray et al., 2002), fostering a safe rapport that minimizes sexual anxieties and facilitates pleasurable sexual encounters.

Complementarity of Partners’ Sexual Preferences

Imagine that Jack enjoys giving oral sex, using toys on his partner, and talking dirty, and that Jill enjoys receiving oral sex, having toys used on her, and hearing dirty talk. Their preferences are not similar, but they complement each other’s in ways that their idiosyncratic desires can be met. Thus, beyond similarity, complementarity of preferences may also lead to sexual satisfaction. Winch, Ktsanes, and Ktsanes (1954) defined complementarity as a match on characteristics that are different in kind yet interrelated, such that when combined, the need or goal underlying each characteristic can be gratified (e.g., one partner is dominant and the other is submissive). Winch et al.’s formulations have received little support, with reviews of the literature concluding that complementarity plays little role in mate selection or relationship satisfaction (Markey & Markey, 2009).

However, few aspects of couples’ lives require as exceptional a degree of coordination of individual actions as sex does. Sex is a highly interactive activity requiring role differentiation to be successful—for one partner to receive (e.g., oral sex or stimulation with toys), the other must provide. Complementarity is distinct from similarity because Jack’s enjoyment of giving oral sex and Jill’s desire to receive oral sex fit together—similarity, both of them enjoying receiving oral sex, would not necessarily be effective. Importantly, complementarity means not only desiring to give (or get) what one’s partner enjoys getting (or giving), but also not enjoying giving (or getting) those things that one’s partner does not enjoy getting (or giving). Whether complementarity of sexual preferences exists within couples and whether it is associated with sexual satisfaction has received no attention in the literature.

Accurate Knowledge of Partners’ Sexual Preferences

Is Jack aware of Jill’s penchant for playing rough, and does Jill know that Jack likes playing with toys? Does knowledge of each other’s sexual idiosyncrasies play any role in sexual satisfaction? Research outside of the sexual domain suggests that relationship partners likely have some knowledge of each other’s proclivities and that it should influence their enjoyment of sex. Partners perceive each other’s attributes with some degree of accuracy across various judgment domains (see Fletcher & Kerr, 2010, for a review), including attitudes and behaviors (Overall & Fletcher, 2010), personality traits (Decuyper, De Bolle, & De Fruyt, 2012), and preferences for food, movies, and consumer goods (Scheibehenne, Mata, & Todd, 2011). Accurately perceiving a partner’s traits and preferences may confer a variety of benefits for relationships. For example, when partners are predictable, it is easier to provide appropriate support and to coordinate behavior (Finkenauer & Righetti, 2011). However, past research on perceptual accuracy has yielded mixed results, with some studies finding positive associations with relationship satisfaction (e.g., Gill & Swann, 2004), whereas others have not (e.g., Letzring & Noftle, 2010).

The few existing investigations of accurate knowledge of partners’ sexual preferences and sexual satisfaction do not paint a clear picture. LoPiccolo and Steger (1974) found that among 70 married couples who were asked to rate 17 sexual behaviors, men’s, but not women’s, knowledge of their partners’ preferences was positively associated with the average of both partners’ sexual satisfaction. However, as LoPiccolo and Steger note, this association might have been spurious due to reliance on difference scores.¹ Purnine and Carey (1999) found consistent associations between men’s accuracy and both partners’ sexual satisfaction, but women’s accuracy was associated with their own but not their partner’s satisfaction. Their couples were also somewhat accurate in perceiving each other’s preferences; however, the degree of accuracy that could be expected due to stereotypic responding was not considered. Like couple similarity scores, accuracy scores are vulnerable to stereotypic responding (Luo & Klohnen, 2005). Believing that one’s partner enjoys kissing more than receiving anal sex may reflect knowledge of social norms rather than understanding of a partner. Thus, it is unknown whether couples’ knowledge of each other’s sexual preferences exceeds normative expectations and whether this accuracy contributes to sexual satisfaction. In addition to the possible benefits of accurate knowledge, it is unknown whether the overperception of how well a partner knows one’s own preferences may also contribute to sexual satisfaction.

Motivated Overperception of Similarity, Complementarity, and Partner Accuracy

To this point, we have focused on objective characteristics of relationships. However, perceptions of objective reality may be discomforting. Relationships are fraught with risks and vulnerability. For example, people may feel uncertain of their partner’s commitment, their goals might conflict, and there may be tempting alternatives on the horizon. In the face of such threats, relationship-enhancing cognitions allow people to maintain a sense of safety and security (Murray et al., 2009; Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006). Rusbult et al. (2001) conceptualized these motivated cognitions as relationship maintenance mechanisms.

One strategy to quiet doubts and concerns is to perceive partners in a way that enhances the subjective sense of relationship quality. Murray and colleagues (2002) found that partners tend to overperceive similarity in traits, values, and feelings; in other words, people tended to perceive a greater degree of similarity with their partners than was warranted by reality. Importantly, partners who overperceived similarity felt more satisfied and better understood in their relationships, fostering a sense of being “kindred spirits.” Similarly, Lemay, Clark, and Feeney (2007) found that people who overperceived similarity between their own and their partner’s responsiveness reported greater relationship satisfaction. In their meta-analysis, Montoya et al. (2008) found that perceived similarity was strongly associated with relationship satisfaction, whereas actual similarity was not. Moreover, the benefits of these motivated cognitions appear durable: In the studies by Murray and colleagues (2002) and Lemay and colleagues (2007), overperception of similarity positively predicted longitudinal change in relationship satisfaction.

There are at least two reasons why the sexual domain of romantic relationships may be particularly fraught with risk and vulnerabilities, and likely to elicit strategic mental restructuring. First, for most couples, as relationships develop, increased commitment typically entails sexual exclusivity despite the likelihood of attraction to others at some point. Thus, partners in established relationships might be motivated to construe their sexual relationships in especially positive terms as a way of minimizing the attractiveness of alternatives. Alternatively, people may realize that their partners could have sex with any number of other people and be just as, or perhaps even more, sexually satisfied. This conjecture is supported by recent findings indicating that commitment is associated with perceived superiority and optimism regarding one’s sex life, even after accounting for sexual satisfaction (de Jong & Reis, 2014). Second, awareness of discrepancies between partners’ idiosyncratic desires may suggest sexual incompatibility, which, given that sexuality requires revealing one’s body and sexual secrets and fantasies, brings with it a risk of shame and rejection. In the face of these risks, perceiving more sexual compatibility and partner accuracy than actually exists fosters a sense of security and safety.

Full awareness of these risks may impede sexual initiation, receptivity, or exploration. In the face of such concerns, people may use motivated cognitive strategies to maintain the benefits of sex. We propose that motivated cognition may operate in the perception of similarity, complementarity, and partner accuracy, fostering a sense of being sexual “kindred spirits” (Murray et al., 2002) and thereby enhancing sexual satisfaction. We expect that people overperceive the degree to which their sexual preferences are similar to their partner’s. By overperceiving sexual similarity, concerns about whether one’s sexual desires are socially acceptable or reasonable can be allayed by the belief that partners have sexual tastes that are “in sync.” Furthermore, people may anticipate more fulfilling sexual interactions if their desires are shared by their partners. Moreover, similarity makes other people easier to predict, and believing that a partner’s preferences are similar to one’s own may reduce the inherent uncertainty of sexual relationships. Overperceiving sexual similarity may also foster feelings of mutual understanding. Because feeling understood and validated are building blocks of intimacy (Reis & Shaver, 1988), overperceiving similarity may in turn facilitate a sense of being connected with one’s partner (Murray et al., 2002).

Analogous arguments apply to the functional value of overperceiving complementarity. If Jack loves giving oral sex, believing that Jill enjoys receiving oral sex bolsters Jack’s belief that their sex is mutually pleasurable. The importance of overperceiving complementarity is also suggested by models of sexual arousal. According to incentive motivation theories of sexual response, sexual desire emerges from the pull of expected sexual rewards that are associated with environmental stimuli (Both, Everaerd, Laan, & Janssen, 2007). Consider two partners who believe that their sexual desires are complementary. These lovers are more likely to associate sexual cues and invitations with expectations of reward, and in turn are more likely to respond to these cues with sexual desire. For example, if Jill likes receiving oral sex, she is more likely become sexually aroused by Jack’s offer of oral sex if she believes that he enjoys giving it. Moreover, believing that Jack enjoys giving oral sex, she may enjoy the experience more because she feels less obliged to reciprocate. In other words, it may be easier to experience sexual pleasure believing that one’s lover also finds the behavior pleasurable. Sexual doubts and fears may also be quieted by overperceiving a partner’s knowledge of one’s own sexual preferences. Believing that a partner understands and values core aspects of the self contributes to the unfolding of intimacy (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). Given the vulnerabilities and risks inherent in sex, it is a domain in which people want to be understood and accepted. Overperceiving how well a partner understands one’s sexual preferences may foster trust so that it feels safe to disclose sexual aspects of the self and, in turn, intimacy grows. In turn, intimacy may facilitate sexual function among both men and women (Basson, 2005; Janssen, McBride, Yarber, Hill, & Butler, 2008) and also contribute to the maintenance of long-term sexual satisfaction (e.g., Rubin & Campbell, 2012).

To assess overperception of similarity, complementarity, and partner accuracy, we separated the component of perception that was accurate from the component that was not. This approach contrasts with most investigations of perceived similarity, which assessed how partners were perceived, but did not make the conceptually critical distinction between accurate and mistaken perception (Murray, 1999). We therefore followed the approach used by Murray and colleagues (2002), in which actual characteristics are partialled out from a perceptual index, resulting in an index of overperception.

Overview of the Study

The primary goals of this study were to examine similarity and complementarity of sexual preferences and accuracy in perceiving a partner’s preferences. For all three variables, we examined whether observed levels exceeded those that could be expected due to stereotypic responding. We also wanted to clarify the roles of these three variables in sexual satisfaction. As described above, we hypothesized that similarity, complementarity, and accuracy would be associated with sexual satisfaction. Furthermore, we expected that overperception of similarity, complementarity, and partner accuracy would be evident among people who are sexually satisfied. As mentioned earlier, these processes either have not yet been examined in the context of sexuality or have been examined with methods that were open to possible artifacts.

The current study contributes to the literature in another way. Methods for studying couples have evolved dramatically in recent years, reflecting better understanding of statistical issues that arise in couples research. Two such changes are actor–partner interdependence modeling (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006), which simultaneously examines actor and partner effects while controlling statistical dependency in partners’ responses, and the use of pseudocouples (Gurtman, 2001), which controls for artifactually inflated correlations between partners due to stereotypic responding.

We also controlled for relationship length for several reasons. Some research shows that over time, partners converge across a range of domains and traits, such as attitudes (Acitelli, Kenny, & Weiner, 2001) and emotional responses (Anderson, Keltner, & John, 2003). Because convergence might be influential with regard to sexual preferences, we felt it would be important to control for relationship length. In addition, in predicting sexual satisfaction, we wanted to account for the decline in sexual satisfaction that typically occurs over the duration of a relationship (Edwards & Booth, 1994).

Method

Participants

The survey was advertised via several online avenues (email listservs, Craigslist.org, psych.hanover.edu, Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk; subjects from Mechanical Turk were paid $0.01) and was described as a study of “Couples’ Sexual Activities.” Participants were 18 years of age or older, dating, engaged, or married, and were offered feedback as incentive to participate. Three couples were excluded because at least one partner exhibited inattentive responding (e.g., giving the same response across multiple pages of measures). Three hundred four heterosexual couples remained in the final sample (111 married, 31 engaged, 162 dating). Mean age was M = 28.45, SD = 8.24, ranging from 18 to 65. Relationship length in months was M = 60.86, SD = 70.84, ranging from 1 month to 34 years.

Measures

Sexual Activity Inventory

Sexual preferences were assessed with the Sexual Activity Inventory, developed for this study. Initially, 81 items were written from qualitative descriptions of sexual fantasies and positive and negative aspects of individuals’ sex lives, which were collected for unrelated studies. Our intent was to tap a broad range of sexual activities in which couples might engage, ranging from typical to less typical behaviors. These items were presented to a separate sample of adults (175 males, 144 females, mean age 29.9 years) via Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk, who were asked to rate each for enjoyment (“When it comes to sex, I enjoy, or would enjoy . . .”) using a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = strongly). Because of similar content and high correlations (.62 and above), we dropped redundant items and retained items with the greatest variance. In addition, we discarded items with low variance or low mean enjoyment because we wanted items that would produce variance on similarity and complementarity scores. Twenty-nine items (see supplementary materials²) were retained in the final version. If necessary, items were phrased to be grammatically correct for each of the three sets of ratings (e.g., “hearing my partner talk dirty,” “hearing me talk dirty,” “hearing him or her talk dirty”).

First, participants provided self-ratings of enjoyment for the activities (“When it comes to sex, I enjoy, or would enjoy . . .”). Next, participants provided partner ratings (“When it comes to sex, my partner enjoys, or would enjoy . . .”). Last, they provided reflected appraisals (i.e., an individual’s perception of how the self is appraised by partners: “When it comes to sex, my partner thinks I enjoy, or would enjoy . . .”). Participants responded using a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = strongly). Examples of items are “kissing” and “taking control of my partner.”

Sexual satisfaction

The Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction (Lawrance & Byers, 1998) asks, “In general, how would you describe your sexual relationship with your partner?” Responses are given on five 7-point bipolar scales (good–bad, pleasant–unpleasant, positive–negative, satisfying–unsatisfying, valuable–worthless). Cronbach’s α was .92.

Procedure

Measures were administered online via Surveymonkey.com. After the Sexual Activity Inventory, participants completed the measure of sexual satisfaction and demographic questions. Participants then gave several pieces of information (e.g., a unique phrase) to enable matching of responses within couples, and they were given a link to send to their partners. There were 881 individuals who completed the survey but for whom there was no matching partner data. If requested by both partners, we emailed them feedback about a month later, describing how similar their preferences were and how accurately they knew each other’s preferences.

Methodological Issues in Quantifying Similarity, Complementarity, Accuracy, and Overperception

The six sets of ratings obtained from each couple were used to calculate dyad-level profile indices. Similarity, accuracy, and overperception of similarity and partner accuracy were assessed across all 29 activities. Complementarity and overperception of complementarity were assessed across five pairs of items that were different in kind but interrelated such that when combined, they constituted a shared sexual act. That is, complementarity was indexed as the correlation between partners’ ratings of items matched on complementarity (e.g., Partner A’s ratings of giving oral sex, receiving oral sex, being taken control of, and taking control of my partner with Partner B’s ratings of receiving oral sex, giving oral sex, taking control of my partner, and being taken control of, respectively; see supplementary materials for more detailed explanations).

Similarity, complementarity, and accuracy indices were computed using within-couple intraclass correlations, which account for differences in patterns of responding across all items and in mean levels and variability of responding (Kenny et al., 2006; McGraw & Wong, 1996). The overperception indices assessed the extent to which people inferred more similarity, complementarity, and partner accuracy than warranted by reality. These indices were computed using partial correlations, closely following previous work that used similar idiographic methods (Murray et al., 2002).³ We first calculated perceived similarity (i.e., the Pearson correlation between own enjoyment and perception of one’s partner’s enjoyment), perceived complementarity (i.e., Pearson’s r between own enjoyment and perception of one’s partner’s enjoyment on the complementary items), and perceived partner accuracy (i.e., Pearson’s r between own enjoyment and reflected appraisal). These correlations could reflect accurate perceptions as well as overperception. From these, we partialled out the partner’s actual ratings, thus making the resulting partial correlations indices of perceptions of similarity, complementarity, and partner accuracy that was not warranted by reality (more specifically we partialled out, respectively, partner’s enjoyment of the 29 items, partner’s enjoyment of the complementarity items, and partner’s perception of one’s own enjoyment of the 29 items).

To account for stereotypic responding, couple correlations for similarity, complementarity, and accuracy were evaluated against a sampling distribution derived from pseudocouples (Gurtman, 2001). Pseudocouples were randomly paired mixed-sex couples; the estimates derived within pseudocouples indicated the degrees of similarity, complementarity, and accuracy that could be expected to exist within a couple responding stereotypically. These random pairings were generated by resampling the original data 1,000 times, with replacement. Observed correlations were evaluated against this sampling distribution using a z test.

Results

To reduce skew, we transformed all dyadic indices using Fisher’s z procedure (Gurtman, 2001). All analyses were performed using these transformed correlations although for clarity untransformed correlations are reported in the text and tables. Negative skew in sexual satisfaction was corrected with an inverse transformation. To calculate relationship length, we aggregated men’s and women’s reports (which were highly correlated, r = .96), and log transformed the result to reduce positive skew.

Descriptive Statistics

For 70.4% of the couples, the female partner was the first to complete the survey, χ²(1) = 101.16, p < .001. Few other differences were found between the first partner to participate and the second. Paired-samples t tests revealed that the first partner to complete the study was less accurate, t(303) = −2.79, p = .006, M_first = .49, SD = .20, M_second = .52, SD = .21, and lower on overperceived complementarity, t(303) = −2.65, p = .009, M_first = .24, SD = .42, M_second = .32, SD = .40. The first partner was marginally lower on overperceived partner accuracy, t(303) = −1.87, p = .06, M_first = .52, SD = .24, M_second = .55, SD = .22. No differences were found on sexual satisfaction, t(303) = −.12, p = .91, M_first = 5.29, SD = .84, M_second = 5.31, SD = .81, or overperceived similarity, t(303) = .90, p = .37, M_first = .24, SD = .9, M_second = .21, SD = .31.

A paired-samples t test revealed no gender differences in sexual satisfaction (M_men = 5.31, SD = .79, M_women = 5.28, SD = .85), t(303) = .30, p = .77. Relationship length was negatively associated with mean enjoyment of the activities, sexual satisfaction, similarity, complementarity, accuracy, and overperception of similarity, complementarity, and partner accuracy (ps < .05). Correlations and means are reported in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Table 1.

Individual-Level Correlations Between Sexual Satisfaction and Dyadic Indices (N = 608).

	Sexual satisfaction	Relationship length	Similarity	Complementarity	Accuracy	Overperceived similarity	Overperceived complementarity
Relationship length	−.24***
Similarity	.18***	−.19***
Complementarity	.18***	−.13**	.54***
Accuracy	.05	−.12**	.43***	.46***
Overperceived similarity	.30***	−.21***	.32***	.17***	.04
Overperceived complementarity	.27***	−.13**	.19***	.14***	.11**	.33***
Overperceived partner accuracy	.22***	−.09*	.11**	.11**	.03	.38**	.33***

Note. This table reports correlations for transformed distributions (relationship length: log; sexual satisfaction: inverse; similarity, complementarity, accuracy, and overperception indices: Fisher’s z).

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Cross-Partner Correlations Between Sexual Satisfaction and Individual-Level Indices (N = 304).

	Women’s sexual satisfaction	Women’s accuracy	Women’s overperceived similarity	Women’s overperceived complementarity	Women’s overperceived partner accuracy
Men’s sexual satisfaction	.54***	.01	.17**	.20**	.08
Men’s accuracy	.18**	.44***	.09	.09	−.04
Men’s overperceived similarity	.13*	.00	.13*	.12*	.04
Men’s overperceived complementarity	.14*	.05	.15**	.09	.01
Men’s overperceived partner accuracy	.14*	−.06	.13*	.04	.06

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Means and Standard Deviations for Sexual Satisfaction and Enjoyment Ratings (N = 304 couples).

	Men	Women
Sexual satisfaction	5.31 (.79)	5.28 (.85)
Own enjoyment	5.06 (.79)	4.81 (.83)
Perceived partner enjoyment	4.72 (.88)	5.04 (.82)
Reflected appraisal	4.84 (.86)	4.50 (.89)

Note. All three enjoyment ratings, but not sexual satisfaction, differed by gender, p < .001.

Table 4.

Means and Standard Deviations for Indices of Similarity, Complementarity, and Partner Perception.

	Actual couples	Pseudocouples	z test
Similarity^a	.23 (.25)	.13 (.19)	9.37
Complementarity^a	.35 (.33)	.19 (.29)	9.61
Accuracy^a—Men	.54 (.21)	.24 (.20)	47.50
Accuracy^a—Women	.47 (.20)	.18 (.19)	38.75
Overperceived similarity^b—Men	.21 (.29)
Overperceived similarity^b—Women	.24 (.31)
Overperceived complementarity^b—Men	.29 (.40)
Overperceived complementarity^b—Women	.26 (.42)
Overperceived partner accuracy^b—Men	.52 (.23)
Overperceived partner accuracy^b—Women	.55 (.22)

Note. All correlations reported are untransformed though difference tests compared Fisher’s z-transformed correlations. All actual-couple correlations differ significantly from zero at p < .001. Means and standard deviations for pseudocouples are averaged across 1,000 resamples. Only accuracy differed by sex, p < .001.

Intraclass correlations.

Partial Pearson’s r correlations.

Enjoyment Ratings for Men and Women

We tested whether the means of the three sets of ratings given by men and women differed using repeated-measures ANOVA. The interaction between gender and type of rating was significant, F(2, 604) = 35.32, p < .001. To make post hoc comparisons, we used paired-sample t tests with a Bonferroni correction to control for family-wise Type 1 error rate, setting alpha at .0033. Men found the activities more enjoyable (M = 5.06, SD = .79) than women did (M = 4.81, SD = .83), t(303) = 18.89, p < .001. Men were perceived by their partners as enjoying the activities (M = 5.04, SD = .82) more than women were perceived as enjoying them (M = 4.72, SD = .88), t(303) = 5.17, p < .001. In other words, men enjoyed the activities more than women did, and both were aware of this difference. The difference between men’s enjoyment and their partners’ perception of their enjoyment was not significant, t(303) = .39, p = .70, and the difference between women’s enjoyment and their partners’ perception of their enjoyment was marginally significant, t(303) = 1.84, p = .07. Reflected appraisal was higher for men (M = 4.84, SD = .86) than for women (M = 4.60, SD =.89), and for both men and women, reflected appraisal was lower than actual enjoyment. The mean difference was .23, t(302) = 7.90, p < .001, for men, and .22, t(303) = 6.61, p < .001, for women. In other words, men and women believed that their partners thought that they enjoyed the activities less than they actually did. Men and women did not differ in the degree to which reflected appraisal was lower than actual enjoyment, F(1, 302) = .023, p = .88.

Dyadic Indices of Similarity, Complementarity, and Accuracy

To account for stereotypic responding, the mean profile intraclass correlations assessing similarity, complementarity, and accuracy were compared with the same indices derived from pseudocouples (see Table 2). For all three indices, the mean correlation was significantly greater within actual couples than pseudocouples. For similarity, M_actual = .23, SD = .25, z > 9.37, p < .001; for complementarity, M_actual = .35, SD = .33, z > 9.61, p < .001; for accuracy, M_actual = .51, SD = .21, z > 56.04, p < .001. Therefore, couples exhibited greater degrees of similarity, complementarity, and accuracy than would be expected due to stereotypic responding.

Overperception of Similarity, Complementarity, and Partner Accuracy

In keeping with previous investigations (Murray et al., 2002), observed levels of the three indices of overperception were not compared with those obtained from pseudocouples. Because these indices control for “reality” (i.e., actual similarity, complementarity, or accuracy), normative differences are controlled. To test whether the observed levels were higher than zero we conducted repeated-measures ANOVAs on partners’ scores and inspected the intercepts. The mean level of overperceived similarity (M = .22, SD = .30) was significant greater than zero, F(1, 303) = 276.71, p < .001, and there was no difference between partners, M_men = .21, SD = .29, M_women = .24, SD = .31, F(1, 303) = 1.67, p = .20. The mean overperceived complementarity correlation (M = .27, SD = .41) was also greater than zero, F(303) = 220.38, p < .001, and partners did not differ, M_men = .29, SD = .40, M_women = .2, SD = .42, F(1, 303) = .87, p = .35. The mean level of overperceived partner accuracy (M = .54, SD = .23) was greater than zero, F(303) = 2226.38, p < .001, and women were marginally higher than men, M_men = .52, SD = .23, M_women = .55, SD = .22, F(1, 303) = 2.87, p = .09. In other words, people tended to believe that their partners’ preferences were both more similar and complementary to their own that was actually the case, and people tended to believe that their partner perceived their sexual preferences more accurately than was actually the case.

Actual and Overperceived Similarity, Complementarity, and Accuracy in Sexual Satisfaction

We tested the roles of actual and overperceived similarity, complementarity, and accuracy in men’s and women’s sexual satisfaction using Structural Equation Models (SEM).^4,5 All models included relationship length as a covariate. None of the two-way interactions between relationship length and the other predictors were significant and length will not be discussed further. In the models that included overperception indices, because we were interested in both actor and partner effects on sexual satisfaction, we employed APIM (Kenny et al., 2006).

Similarity and complementarity

We regressed men’s and women’s sexual satisfaction onto both similarity and complementarity (see Figure 1) because they were moderately correlated, r = .54, p < .001. A chi-square difference test in which paths were constrained to be equal across men and women was not significant, χ²(2) = 2.62, p = .27. When compared with a model in which all paths were set to be equal across partners, allowing individual effects to vary across partners did not improve fit; accordingly, we pooled all effects across partners. Complementarity predicted sexual satisfaction, b = .06, SE =.03, z = 2.05, p = .04, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.002, .12], though similarity did not, b = .07, SE = .05, z = 1.48, p = .14, 95% CI = [−0.02, .17],

Figure 1.

Path model for actual similarity and actual complementarity predicting sexual satisfaction, controlling for relationship length.

Because similarity was assessed using all 29 items in the inventory, whereas complementarity was assessed using only the 10 complementary items, it was possible that the above results reflect the use of different items. To address this potential confound, we computed a modified similarity index that included only the 10 items used in the complementarity index. The 29- and 10-item versions of the similarity index were highly correlated, r = .80, and the 10-item similarity index and complementarity were correlated, r = .53, ps < .001. We predicted men’s and women’s sexual satisfaction from complementarity and the 10-item similarity index. A chi-square difference test in which paths were constrained to be equal across men and women was not significant, χ²(2) = 2.56, p = .28. Allowing individual effects to vary across partners did not improve fit; accordingly, we pooled all effects across partners. Complementarity predicted sexual satisfaction in this model, b = .09, SE =.03, z = 2.81, p = .005, 95% CI = [.03, .15], though similarity did not, b = .001, SE = .03, z = .02, p = .99, 95% CI [−.06, .06]. Thus, when assessed using only activities that could be matched in a complementary fashion, complementarity played a stronger role in sexual satisfaction than similarity.

Similarity and overperceived similarity

We regressed men’s and women’s sexual satisfaction onto similarity and men’s and women’s overperceived similarity (see Figure 2). Similarity and overperceived similarity were correlated, for men r = .29, for women r = .36, ps < .001. A chi-square difference test constraining paths to be equal across men and women was not significant, χ²(3) = 2.62, p = .46. When compared with a model in which all paths were set to be equal across partners, allowing individual effects to vary across partners did not improved fit; thus, we pooled all effects across partners. Similarity did not predict sexual satisfaction, b = .05, SE = .05, z = 1.06, p = .29, 95% CI = [−.04, .14], but, as predicted, overperceived similarity predicted own sexual satisfaction, b = .17, SE = .03, z = 6.03, p < .001, 95% CI = [.12, .23]. Partner effects of overperceived similarity were not significant, b = .04, SE = .03, z = 1.60, p = .11, 95% CI = [−.01, .10]. In sum, overperceiving similarity of sexual preferences was associated with higher sexual satisfaction and actual similarity accounted for no additional variance.

Figure 2.

Path model for actual similarity and overperceived similarity predicting sexual satisfaction, controlling for relationship length.

Complementarity and overperceived complementarity

We regressed men’s and women’s sexual satisfaction onto complementarity and men’s and women’s overperceived complementarity (see Figure 3). Complementarity and overperceived complementarity were correlated, for men r = .12, for women r = .16, ps < .05. A test constraining paths to be equal across men and women was not significant, χ²(3) = 1.84, p = .61. When compared with a model in which all paths were set to be equal across partners, allowing individual effects did not improve fit; so, we pooled effects across partners. Complementarity predicted greater sexual satisfaction, b = .06, SE = .03, z = 2.50, p = .01, 95% CI = [.01, .11]. Overperceived complementarity predicted the overperceiver’s sexual satisfaction, b = .10, SE = .02, z = 5.82, p < .001, 95% CI = [.07, .13]. Partner effects of overperceived complementarity were also significant, b = .05, SE = .02, z = 2.87, p = .004, 95% CI = [.02, .08]. Thus, overperceived complementarity was associated with greater sexual satisfaction for both the overperceiver and the partner with whom complementarity was overperceived. Even after accounting for the actor and partner effects of overperception, actual complementarity of sexual preferences remained a significant predictor of sexual satisfaction.

Figure 3.

Path model for actual complementarity and overperceived complementarity predicting sexual satisfaction, controlling for relationship length.

Accuracy and overperceived partner accuracy

We regressed men’s and women’s sexual satisfaction onto men’s and women’s accuracy and overperceived partner accuracy (see Figure 4). A test in which paths were constrained to be equal across men and women was not significant, χ²(4) = 5.42, p = .25. Compared with a model in which all paths were set to be equal across gender, allowing the partner effects of accuracy to vary resulted in a better fitting model, χ²(1) = 3.92, p = .05. Thus, we pooled all effects across gender except for partner effects of accuracy. Men’s and women’s accuracy were correlated, r = .44, p < .001. Women whose preferences were more accurately perceived by their partners reported greater sexual satisfaction, b = .12, SE = .04, z = 3.23, p = .001, 95% CI = [.05, .20]; in contrast, men’s sexual satisfaction was unrelated to women’s accuracy, b = .02, SE = .045, z = .41, p = .68, 95% CI = [−.07, .11]. There were no actor effects of accuracy, b = −.01, SE = .03, z = −.44, p = .66, 95% CI = [−.08, .05]; in other words, accurate knowledge of the other’s preferences was unrelated to one’s own sexual satisfaction. Actor effects of overperceived partner accuracy were significant, b = .15, SE = .03, z = 5.24, p < .001, 95% CI = [.10, .21], indicating that people who believed their partner knew their sexual preferences better than was actually the case reported higher sexual satisfaction. There were also partner effects of overperceived partner accuracy, b = .06, SE = .03 z = 1.96, p = .05, 95% CI = [.001, .11], indicating that people whose accuracy was overperceived also reported higher sexual satisfaction. In sum, actual accuracy accrued benefits to sexual satisfaction only for women who had partners who accurately knew their sexual preferences. In contrast, overperception of accuracy was associated with sexual satisfaction for both men and women, ever after accounting for the effect of men’s accuracy on women’s sexual satisfaction.^6,7

Figure 4.

Path model for actual accuracy and overperceived partner accuracy predicting sexual satisfaction, controlling for relationship length.

Discussion

Within a large sample of heterosexual couples who reported their own preferences and perceptions of their partner’s preferences across a range of sexual behaviors, several key findings emerged. We found that partners tended to have sexual preferences that were both more similar and complementary than could be expected among randomly paired couples, and were relatively accurate in perceiving their partners’ preferences. People perceived higher levels of similarity, complementarity, and partner accuracy than were warranted by reality. When we examined associations between these indices and sexual satisfaction, we found that sexual complementarity was consistently associated with sexual satisfaction, whereas sexual similarity was not. Men’s accuracy predicted their female partner’s, but not their own, sexual satisfaction, and women’s accuracy was related to neither partner’s satisfaction. Overperception proved to be a robust predictor of sexual satisfaction. That is, people who perceived greater degrees of similarity, complementarity, and partner accuracy than warranted by reality were more sexually satisfied. Partner effects of overperceived complementarity were found, indicating benefits for not only the overperceiver but also the partner. All effects controlled for relationship length.

In predicting sexual satisfaction, when complementarity was modeled with either similarity or overperceived complementarity, complementarity emerged as a significant predictor. However, similarity did not emerge as significant when modeled with either complementarity or overperceived similarity. Moreover, when the 10-item version of the similarity index (computed using the same 10 items comprised by the complementarity index) was substituted for the 29-item version of the similarity index, complementarity retained its significant effect on sexual satisfaction and the effect of similarity dropped to near-zero. This result provides a novel contribution to the existing literature in which there is little evidence for complementarity in couples, much less any role of complementarity in predicting satisfaction (Markey & Markey, 2009; White & Hatcher, 1984). Why might complementarity be influential in the sexual domain but not in other aspects of couples lives? Sex depends on two conditions that are less relevant in most other aspects of couple’s lives: high degrees of behavioral coordination and cognitive engagement. Compare sex with dining out, during which it is unlikely to be problematic if Jack indulges in his beloved Brussels sprouts while Jill ignores them because they turn her stomach. In contrast, most sexual activities require involvement by both partners, for example, when engaging in oral sex or dirty talk, or playing with dominance/submission or toys.

Sex also benefits from high levels of cognitive engagement. Sexual arousal and in turn, sexual pleasure and orgasm, result from attentional focus directed toward sexual cues within the environment, such as a partner’s appearance or touch (de Jong, 2009; Janssen, Everaerd, Spiering, & Janssen, 2000). If a partner’s sexual behaviors are experienced as boring, unpleasant, or even repulsive, attentional focus becomes increasingly difficult, sexual arousal is impeded, and continued engagement may become unpleasant or impossible. Complementary preferences on highly interactive sexual behaviors lessen the likelihood of attentional disengagement and may therefore contribute to sexual satisfaction. To be sure, ill effects of lack of complementarity may be ameliorated by the willingness to satisfy a partner’s sexual desires even if they do not mesh with one’s own (Muise, Impett, Kogan, & Desmarais, 2013). However, it is unknown to what extent engaging in nondesired sexual activity can make up for lack of complementarity and what the long-term effects of engaging in such sex acts might be.

Future investigations of complementarity might consider other specific domains of couples’ lives that require high degrees of coordination and cognitive engagement. For example, conversation entails complex behavioral coordination (turn taking, verbal and nonverbal expressions) and cognitive engagement. The relevance of complementarity to conversation is suggested by findings indicating that in conversation dominance elicits submission (and vice versa; Sadler, Ethier, & Woody, 2011). Another area that might prove fruitful is transactive memory, which describes how romantic partners can coordinate encoding, storing, and retrieving information in a shared memory system (Wegner, Erber, & Raymond, 1991). By differentiating their knowledge and coordinating their contributions, couples develop memory systems that are more effective than they could achieve individually.

When modeled with complementarity, similarity did not predict sexual satisfaction. This finding accords with research demonstrating that similarity does not predict attraction or relationship satisfaction (Montoya et al., 2008). However, sexual similarity may accrue some benefit, as indicated by the modest bivariate correlation with sexual satisfaction (r = .18) and path estimate when modeled with the 29-item similarity index (b = .07). However, because the inventory comprised many behaviors that could only occur if one’s partner were to enact the complementary behavior (e.g., to receive oral sex, a partner must give it), sexual similarity may also bring conflict. Imagine, for example, that both partners enjoy receiving but not giving oral sex, or being in control but not being taken control of.

The accuracy with which men knew their partners’ preferences predicted their partners’ sexual satisfaction, but women’s accuracy was unrelated to men’s satisfaction, consistent with prior findings (LoPiccolo & Steger, 1974; Purnine & Carey, 1997, 1999). The former result may be explained by women’s tendency to experience orgasm less frequently and consistently during sex compared with men (Laumann et al., 2004), so that women’s orgasms and in turn sexual satisfaction may require a greater degree of knowledge and skill by their partners. In contrast, because men are more likely to experience orgasm with relative ease, their sexual satisfaction may depend less on their partner’s knowledge of what they enjoy during sex. In addition, women tend to emphasize the emotional and intimate aspects of sex more than men do (Peplau, 2003), so their partner’s understanding of their sexual desires may represent a relatively more important component of their sexual experience. Thus, in contrast to findings suggesting that partner accuracy may be relatively irrelevant to romantic relationships (Pollmann & Finkenauer, 2009), our findings point to one area where accuracy may be important.

Sexual Overperception

This study found evidence for three forms of overperception. First, people overperceived similarity of sexual preferences with their partner. Second, people overperceived the degree to which their partner’s sexual preferences were complementary with their own. Third, people felt better understood by their partner than was actually the case. These three forms of overperception may exemplify relationship-enhancing motivated cognitions that help create a sense of being “kindred spirits” with one’s partner (Murray et al., 2002), facilitating closeness and intimacy, and thereby fostering sexual satisfaction.

The functional role of motivated cognition in nonsexual aspects of close relationships is well established (Murray, 1999; Murray et al., 2011). Our findings demonstrate that the sexual domain of romantic relationships is especially fertile ground for cognitive enhancement. Although sex can be a unique and potent force in relationships, bringing partners together as they fall in love (Regan, 2004), enabling intimacy and pleasure, and contributing to satisfaction and stability (Sprecher, 2002), it also entails risks and vulnerability—during sex, people bare their bodies, disclose intensely personal thoughts and needs, and risk rejection and shame. As described earlier, overperception of sexual compatibility and partner accuracy may be a useful strategy for coping with these risks, by reducing perception of risk, motivating sexual initiation or receptivity, and creating intimacy.

Relationship length was negatively associated with accuracy, in contrast to findings that accuracy plateaus early in relationships (e.g., Kenny, 2004). An explanation may lie in the negative associations also found between relationship length and both similarity and complementarity. Declines in sexual similarity and complementarity may accompany the cooling of sexual passion and frequency that typically occurs as relationships lengthen. If so, it is possible that partners learn to ignore the ways in which their preferences no longer mesh with their partners’. Support for this possibility comes from Ickes and Simpson (1997) who suggest that, as relationships lengthen, partners may be motivated to overlook information that represents a threat to relationship stability.

Limitations

We theorized that similarity, complementarity, and accuracy, and the overperception of these qualities, may influence couples’ sex lives positively. However, because our data is cross-sectional rather than longitudinal, we cannot determine whether causality may also run in the opposite direction or if, more likely, causality is bidirectional. Why might sexual satisfaction lead to modified preferences, increased accuracy, or overperception? First, pleasurable sex might motivate people to adopt preferences that are compatible with their partners’ desires: When the rewards of sex are high, people may be more willing to accommodate their partner’s preferences, just as they are more willing to accommodate in general (Rusbult et al., 2001). Second, naive theories of human sexuality sometimes stipulate that good sex requires similarity, complementarity, or partner accuracy, and partners may realign their perceptions to match their assumptions. Of course, even if sexual satisfaction influences preferences, accuracy, and overperception, the functional value of overperception remains compelling: Couples who have great sex tend to overperceive concordance of preferences and accuracy, which in turn may motivate sexual approach behaviors and promote closeness and intimacy.

Self-selection bias is a persistent risk in investigations of sexuality that rely on convenience samples. Volunteer participants are likely to be relatively comfortable reporting on sexuality, and Dunne (2002) found that such persons tended to have more liberal sexual attitudes and more sexual experience. Furthermore, our sample exhibited relatively high levels of sexual satisfaction, possibly affecting the generalizability of our findings. For example, among less sexually experienced, liberal, or satisfied couples, actual characteristics of the sexual relationship, such as similarity, complementarity, and partner accuracy may play a more prominent role than they did in our sample. Also, overperception may play a different role in such couples. Because some of the couples were in relatively new relationships and we did not ask whether they were sexually active, it is possible that some couples had not yet had sex (or had had minimal sexual activity). Future investigations should consider whether the observed processes operate similarly regardless of the degree of sexual activity. In addition, our sample consisted of English-speaking heterosexual couples. Whether the findings would differ in other cultures or among nonheterosexuals remains to be investigated.

Finally, future research should examine whether similar processes operate in nonmonogamous relationships (Conley, Ziegler, Moors, Matsick, & Valentine, 2013). Although we did not ask about monogamy, it is reasonable to assume that a majority were monogamous. Nevertheless, because our functional argument depends to some extent on the assumption of long-term monogamy, it will be important to ascertain whether these processes also apply in nonmonogamous couples.

Conclusion

This study provides a rigorous dyad-centered examination of sexual preferences and partner perception. We took advantage of advances in statistical methods (Gurtman, 2001; Kenny et al., 2006) to build on previous research on sexual similarity and accuracy and to lay a foundation for future investigations into partner perception in the sexual domain. These findings are the first to demonstrate that motivated cognition plays a role in the ways that people think about their sex lives in much the same way that they influence other aspects of their relationship (Murray, 1999). Furthermore, this research demonstrates the multifaceted and inherently interdependent nature of sexuality in close relationships. The current work suggests that perception and even misperception may be foundational to sexual harmony.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Michael Maniaci for advice on statistical matters and to Nickola Overall and Catrin Finkenauer for comments on an earlier version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author is supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Notes

References

Acitelli

L. K.

Kenny

D. A.

Weiner

(2001). The importance of similarity and understanding of partners’ marital ideals to relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 8, 167-185.

Anderson

Keltner

John

O. P.

(2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1054.

Basson

(2005). Women’s sexual dysfunction: Revised and expanded definitions. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 172, 1327-1333.

Berscheid

Reis

H. T.

(1998). Attraction and close relationships. In Gilbert

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193-281). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Both

Everaerd

Laan

Janssen

(2007). Desire emerges from excitement: A psychophysiological perspective on sexual motivation. In Janssen

(Ed.), The psychophysiology of sex (pp. 327-339). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Conley

T. D.

Ziegler

Moors

A. C.

Matsick

J. L.

Valentine

(2013). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 124-141.

Decuyper

De Bolle

De Fruyt

(2012). Personality similarity, perceptual accuracy, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Personal Relationships, 19, 128-145.

de Jong

D. C.

(2009). The role of attention in sexual arousal: Implications for treatment of sexual dysfunction. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 237-248.

10.

de Jong

D. C.

Reis

H. T.

(2014). We have the best sex! Commitment and positive construals of sex. Manuscript submitted for publication.

11.

Dunne

M. P.

(2002). Sampling considerations. In Wiederman

M. W.

Whitley

B. E.

(Eds.), Handbook for conducting research on human sexuality (pp. 85-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Edwards

J. N.

Booth

(1994). Sexuality, marriage, and well-being: The middle years. In Rossi

A. S.

(Ed.), Sexuality across the life course (pp. 233-259). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

13.

Finkenauer

Righetti

(2011). Understanding in close relationships: An interpersonal approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 22, 316-363.

14.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Kerr

P. S. G.

(2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 627-658.

15.

Funk

J. L.

Rogge

R. D.

(2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583.

16.

Gill

M. J.

Swann

W. B.

(2004). On what it means to know someone: A matter of pragmatics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 405-418.

17.

Gurtman

M. B.

(2001). Interpersonal complementarity: Integrating interpersonal measurement with interpersonal models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 97-110.

18.

Ickes

Simpson

J. A.

(1997). Managing empathic accuracy in close relationships. In Ickes

(Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 218-250). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19.

Janssen

Everaerd

Spiering

Janssen

(2000). Automatic processes and the appraisal of sexual stimuli: Toward an information processing model of sexual arousal. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 8-23.

20.

Janssen

McBride

K. R.

Yarber

Hill

B. J.

Butler

S. M.

(2008). Factors that influence sexual arousal in men: A focus group study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 252-265.

21.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34.

22.

Kenny

D. A.

(2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 265-280.

23.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

24.

Laumann

E. O.

Nicolosi

Glasser

D. B.

Paik

Gingell

Moreira

Wang

(2004). Sexual problems among women and men aged 40-80 y: Prevalence and correlates identified in the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors. International Journal of Impotence Research, 17, 39-57.

25.

Lawrance

Byers

E. S.

(1998). Interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction questionnaire. In Davis

C. M.

Yarber

W. L.

Bauserman

(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 514-519). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

26.

Lemay

E. P. J.

Clark

M. S.

Feeney

B. C.

(2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 834-853.

27.

Letzring

T. D.

Noftle

E. E.

(2010). Predicting relationship quality from self-verification of broad personality traits among romantic couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 353-362.

28.

LoPiccolo

Steger

J. C.

(1974). The Sexual Interaction Inventory: A new instrument for assessment of sexual dysfunction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3, 585-595.

29.

Luo

S. H.

Klohnen

E. C.

(2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304-326.

30.

Markey

P. M.

Markey

C. N.

(2009). Complementarity. In Reis

H. T.

Sprecher

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 286-288). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

31.

McGraw

K. O.

Wong

S. P.

(1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46.

32.

Montoya

R. M.

Horton

R. S.

Kirchner

(2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889-922.

33.

Muise

Impett

E. A.

Kogan

Desmarais

(2013). Keeping the spark alive: Being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs sustains sexual desire in long-term romantic relationships. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4, 267-273.

34.

Murray

S. L.

(1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 23-34.

35.

Murray

S. L.

Griffin

D. W.

Derrick

J. L.

Harris

Aloni

Leder

(2011). Tempting fate or inviting happiness? Unrealistic idealization prevents the decline of marital satisfaction in newlyweds. Psychological Science, 22, 619-626.

36.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Aloni

Pinkus

R. T.

Derrick

J. L.

Leder

(2009). Commitment insurance: Compensating for the autonomy costs of interdependence in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 256-278.

37.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Bellavia

Griffin

D. W.

Dolderman

(2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 563-581.

38.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Collins

N. L.

(2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641-666.

39.

Oggins

Leber

Veroff

(1993). Race and gender differences in Black and White newlyweds’ perceptions of sexual and marital relations. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 152-160.

40.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

(2010). Perceiving regulation from intimate partners: Reflected appraisal and self-regulation processes in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 17, 433-456.

41.

Peplau

L. A.

(2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 37-40.

42.

Pollmann

M. M.

Finkenauer

(2009). Investigating the role of two types of understanding in relationship well-being: Understanding is more important than knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1512-1527.

43.

Purnine

D. M.

Carey

M. P.

(1997). Interpersonal communication and sexual adjustment: The roles of understanding and agreement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1017-1025.

44.

Purnine

D. M.

Carey

M. P.

(1999). Dyadic coorientation: Reexamination of a method for studying interpersonal communication. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 45-62.

45.

Regan

P. C.

(2004). Sex and the attraction process: Lessons from science (and Shakespeare) on lust, love, chastity, and fidelity. In Harvey

J. H.

Wenzel

Sprecher

(Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 115-133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

46.

Reis

H. T.

Clark

M. S.

Holmes

J. G.

(2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In Mashek

Aron

(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

47.

Reis

H. T.

Shaver

(1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Mashek

D. J.

Aron

(Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367-389). Oxford, UK: John Wiley.

48.

Rubin

Campbell

(2012). Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict heightened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3, 224-231.

49.

Rusbult

C. E.

Olsen

Davis

J. L.

Hannon

P. A.

(2001). Commitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms. In Harvey

J. H.

Wenzel

(Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 87-113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

50.

Sadler

Ethier

Woody

(2011). Interpersonal complementarity. In Horowitz

L. M.

Strack

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 123-142). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

51.

Scheibehenne

Mata

Todd

P. M.

(2011). Older but not wiser—Predicting a partner’s preferences gets worse with age. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 184-191.

52.

Sprecher

(2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 190-196.

53.

Tomlinson

J. M.

Aron

Carmichael

C. L.

Reis

H. T.

Holmes

J. G.

(2014). The costs of being put on a pedestal: Effects of feeling over-idealized. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 384-409.

54.

Watson

Klohnen

E. C.

Casillas

Nus Simms

Haig

Berry

D. S.

(2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029-1068.

55.

Wegner

D. M.

Erber

Raymond

(1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923-929.

56.

White

S. G.

Hatcher

(1984). Couple complementarity and similarity: A review of the literature. American Journal of Family Therapy, 12, 15-25.

57.

Winch

R. F.

Ktsanes

(1954). The theory of complementary needs in mate-selection: An analytic and descriptive study. American Sociological Review, 19, 241-249.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.23 MB