An examination of predictors of nonverbal and verbal communication of pleasure during sex and sexual satisfaction

Abstract

This study examined a model in which sexual communication apprehension and sexual self-esteem were expected to predict individuals’ verbal and nonverbal communication of pleasure during sex, which in turn were expected to predict participants’ sexual satisfaction. The data produced support for five of the six hypothesized relationships. Nonverbal communication during sex fully mediated the relationship between sexual self-esteem and sexual satisfaction, and partially mediated the relationship between sexual communication apprehension and sexual satisfaction. Verbal communication during sex did not predict sexual satisfaction. The findings draw attention to the need for scholars to examine both verbal and nonverbal forms of sexual communication, as well as factors that might influence the extent to which individuals’ communicate sexual pleasure during sexual encounters.

Keywords

Sexual communication sexual communication apprehension sexual self-esteem sexual satisfaction sexual relationships communication

Sexual communication represents an important relational process that helps facilitate healthy and satisfying sexual relationships (Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004). Sexual communication “refers to the process of discussing aspects of one’s sex life with one’s partner” including topics such as safer sex practices, sexual pleasure, and sexual initiation (Faulkner & Lanutti, 2010; Holmberg & Blair, 2009, p. 59). Sexual communication research spans a number of sex-related topics such as safer sex practices (e.g., Noar, Carlyle, & Cole, 2006), sexual scripts (e.g., Metts & Spitzberg, 1996), sexual consent (e.g., Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999), sexual initiation (e.g., Busse, Fishbein, Bleakley, & Hennessy, 2010), sexual self-disclosure (e.g., MacNeil & Byers, 2005), and sexual communication (in)directness (e.g., Theiss, 2011). Effective communication is critical to facilitate safe and consensual sexual interactions (Beres, 2010), safer sex practices (Noar et al., 2006), and satisfying sexual experiences (Davis et al., 2006). Conversely, ineffective communication can facilitate the “development and maintenance of sexual dysfunction” (Kelly, Strassberg, & Turner, 2004, p. 263), result in negative sexual and relational outcomes, and reduce motivations to engage in future sexual communication (Faulkner & Lanutti, 2010).

Much of the interpersonally oriented sexual communication literature focuses on the relational (e.g., relational communication) and sexual outcomes (e.g., sexual satisfaction) of communication that typically occurs outside of sexual encounters. Less research has examined antecedents of sexual communication processes such as the communication of sexual pleasure (Oattes & Offman, 2007). Moreover, although the majority of satisfying conversations about sexual pleasure are believed to occur during sexual interactions (Faulkner & Lanutti, 2010; Sprecher & Cate, 2004), previous research focuses almost entirely on communication about sex that typically occurs outside of sexual encounters (e.g., Byers & Demmons, 1999, MacNeil & Byers, 2005). Thus, the first purpose of this study is to examine two potential correlates of communication of sexual pleasure during sexual encounters: sexual communication apprehension (SCA) and sexual self-esteem (SSE).

Research examining other sexual communication processes that occur between sexual partners such as sexual scripts (e.g., La France, 2010), signaling sexual consent (e.g., Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999), and condom use negotiation (Zukoski, Harvey, & Branch, 2009) show the importance of examining verbal and nonverbal communication cues separately when studying sexual communication topics. For example, Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999) reported that sexually experienced participants reported using a variety of direct and indirect verbal cues and nonverbal cues to signal sexual consent, but most participants provided their consent nonverbally by providing no response to a partner’s initiation attempt (i.e., “You don’t say anything, you just start having intercourse”). Similarly, Zukoski et al. (2009) found that individuals reported using more verbal communication strategies (e.g., reminders, asking, commands, threats to withhold sex) than nonverbal communication strategies (e.g., putting a condom on and presenting a condom) to negotiate condom use. Finally, La France (2010) examined verbal and nonverbal cues in sexual scripts and found that both verbal and nonverbal cues can influence individuals’ perceptions of the likelihood of sex in important ways (i.e., increase or decrease likelihood of sex). For example, verbal cues such as “I came to the bar with friends” and “I think this is moving too fast” resulted in a perceived decreased likelihood of sex. Nonverbal cues such as a man kissing a woman after she stated “I think this is moving too fast” resulted in a perceived increased likelihood of sex (La France, 2010).

The aforementioned studies demonstrate the important roles that both verbal and nonverbal communication play in sexual experiences and the need to examine each type of communication separately. Yet, previous research on communication regarding sexual pleasure contains a verbal communication bias. For example, Byers and colleagues’ work examines the extent to which individuals have told their partners about what they like and dislike (i.e., sexual self-disclosure) regarding different sexual behaviors (e.g., kissing) (e.g., Byers & Demmons, 1999; Byers, Demmons, & Lawrance, 1998). Similarly, Green and Faulkner’s (2005) work examined verbal talk about sexual feelings and desires. Research on sexual assertiveness (e.g., Hurlbert, 1991; Quina, Harlow, Morokof, & Burkholder, 2000) has typically focused on individuals’ willingness or ability to assert their sexual wants, feelings, or desires in a verbal format (e.g., “I feel comfortable telling my partner how to touch me”; Hurlbert, 1991, p. 186). Many individuals have difficultly verbally telling sexual partners what they like and dislike sexually (Byers, 2011) and therefore might choose to do so nonverbally. However, previous research has ignored the important role that nonverbal cues play in communicating sexual pleasure (Sprecher & Cate, 2004) to regulate sexual interactions and to maximize sexual pleasure. Research on sexual initiation shows that individuals report using both verbal and nonverbal strategies to initiate sexual activity (Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2011), and if initiation takes both verbal and nonverbal forms, it is likely that the communication of pleasure during sex does as well. Thus, the second purpose of this study is to expand the literature on communication about sexual pleasure by testing a structural equation model that assesses SCA and SSE as predictors of nonverbal and verbal communication of pleasure during sex, and nonverbal and verbal communication during sex as predictors of sexual satisfaction (see Figure 1). To that end, the following sections explain the rational for the proposed model.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model predicting communication during sex and sexual satisfaction.

Links between sexual communication apprehension, sexual self-esteem, and communication during sex

Sexual communication apprehension (SCA) is defined in this study as fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with a sexual partner about sexual topics (e.g., sexual pleasure, safer sex practices). SCA was derived from the broader literature on communication apprehension (CA) which represents “one of the most researched constructs in the field of human communication” (McCroskey, 2009, p. 158). CA research shows that individuals who suffer from CA often withdraw from, or avoid, communication interactions (Daly & McCroskey, 1984) and often experience ineffective communication encounters (Honeycutt, Choi, & DeBerry, 2009).

Despite evidence that individuals can often experience anxiety, discomfort, and embarrassment during sexual communication interactions, and even consider sex a taboo topic in close relationships (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985), scholars have almost entirely ignored the study of apprehension in sexual communication contexts. Wheeless and Parsons’ (1995) study represents one exception. They reported negative relationships between sexual communication satisfaction and both interpersonal communication apprehension and receiver apprehension. However, neither Wheeless and Parsons’ (1995) conceptualization nor their operationalization of communication apprehension was specific to the sexual communication context. Instead, they argued that “how we communicate interpersonally…in general reflects much of how we communicate in intimate relationships—that general tendencies such as interpersonal communication apprehension…influence sexually intimate relations” (Wheeless & Parsons, 1995, p. 40). Perhaps a valid argument, given evidence that trait and state apprehension are typically related (Booth-Butterfield, 1988), but it also diminishes the unique and anxiety producing nature of sexual communication interactions that a general measure of interpersonal apprehension likely cannot fully capture. A measure “more specifically pertinent to one’s concept of sexual self…might be more likely to reflect sexuality-related aspects of relationships” (Oattes & Offman, 2007, p. 9) and more appropriately capture apprehension associated with sexual communication interactions. As such, a measure that more directly taps SCA will be used in this study.

A relationship between SCA and communicating pleasure during sex is expected given findings from the broader literature on CA and sexual communication. As previously stated, CA is related to communication avoidance and can result in communication withdrawal (Daly & McCroskey, 1984). Many individuals feel that having sex is much easier than communicating about sex (Pliskin, 1997), perhaps because they often lack appropriate models of effective sexual communication or past experience sharing sexual information with relational partners (Rosenthal & Peart, 1996). Research shows that individuals’ lack of skills and comfort with sexual discussions inhibits their communication about safer sex practices (Allen, Emmers-Sommer, & Crowell, 2001; Pliskin, 1997). Lack of skills and comfort with sexual discussions likely also inhibits individuals’ communication of pleasure during sex. Given the potential face threat that communicating sexual pleasure might invoke for self and partner (Pliskin, 1997), individuals who experience SCA may feel unequipped to engage in sexual communication and may be less inclined to nonverbally and verbally express sexual pleasure to a partner during sex. The first two hypotheses reflect this logic:

H_1–2: Sexual communication apprehension will be negatively related to individuals’ self-reported nonverbal communication of pleasure during sex (H₁) and verbal communication of pleasure during sex (H₂).

In addition to SCA, research on sexual self-esteem can also increase understanding of factors that might associate with communication during sexual interactions. Sexual self-esteem (SSE) refers to “an individual’s sense of self as a sexual being, and includes the value that individuals’ place on their sexual identity and sexual acceptability” (Calogero & Thompson, 2009, p. 162). Several factors negatively influence SSE such as sexual victimization (Van Bruggen, Runtz, & Kadlec, 2006), physical disabilities (Potgieter & Khan, 2005; Taleporos, Dip, & McCabe, 2002), life stressors, disrespect from partners (Heinrichs, MacKnee, Auton-Cuff, & Domeñe, 2009), the onset of a sexually transmitted infection, and verbal insults and name calling (Mayers, Heller, & Heller, 2003). Conversely, some factors that facilitate SSE include global self-esteem (Oattes & Offman, 2007), openness and comfort about sexuality, and having a loving, open, stable, and respectful relationship with a partner (Heinrichs et al., 2009). Furthermore, supportive communication from sexual partners facilitates SSE (Mayers et al., 2003).

Past research links self-esteem with several sexuality-related variables including safer sex practices (Ethier et al., 2006; Seal, Minichiello, & Omodei, 1997), age of first intercourse (Ethier et al., 2006), sexual narcissism (Hurlbert, Apt, Gasar, Wilson, & Murphy, 1994), and sexual self-efficacy (Rosenthal, Moore, & Flynn, 1991; Rostosky, Dekhtyar, Cupp, & Anderman, 2008). More recent research demonstrates that individuals’ SSE is positively related to their self-reported sexual assertiveness (Menard & Offman, 2009; Oattes & Offman, 2007). In other words, the more individuals view themselves as skilled and attractive sexual partners and in control of their sexuality, the more likely they believe they have the ability to communicate about satisfying sexual behaviors with their partners (Menard & Offman, 2009; Oattes & Offman, 2007). Furthermore, previous work connects self-esteem to other related communication variables such as communication competence (Richmond, McCroskey, & McCroskey, 1989) and intimate self-disclosure (e.g., Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004). Given evidence from previous research, the relationships between SSE and nonverbal and verbal communication of pleasure during sex are also expected to be positive. The next two hypotheses reflect this expectation:

H_3–4: Sexual self-esteem will be positively related to individuals’ self-reported nonverbal communication of pleasure during sex (H₃) and verbal communication of pleasure during sex (H₄).

Previous research demonstrates that communication apprehension and self-esteem are inversely related (e.g., Colby, Hopf, & Ayres, 1993; Hopf & Colby, 1992; McCroskey, Daly, & Richmond, 1977), and it is logical that individuals who perceive themselves as skilled and attractive sexual partners might experience less fear or anxiety about engaging in sexual communication. Thus, SSE and SCA are expected to demonstrate a negative covariance which is reflected in the model. Similarly, individuals’ use of nonverbal and verbal communication during sexual communication interactions often co-occur (e.g., Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999; Zukoski et al., 2009), thus nonverbal communication during sex and verbal communication during sex are expected to demonstrate a positive covariance. These two covariances are not offered as formal hypotheses, but they are appropriately reflected in the model with curved lines.

Communication during sex and sexual satisfaction

Sexual satisfaction, the final component of the model examined in this study, is defined “as an overall, global appraisal of the quality of one’s sex life” (Holmberg & Blair, 2009, p. 59). Various factors contribute to satisfying sexual relationships including factors related to sexual activity (e.g., frequency of intercourse and orgasm frequency) (e.g., Haavio-Mannila & Kontula, 1997; Young, Denny, Luquis, & Young, 1998), relationship quality (e.g., relational satisfaction) (e.g., Byers, 2005; Cupach & Comstock, 1990), and communication (e.g., sexual assertiveness, sexual self-disclosure, partner initiation and communication) (Bridges, Lease, & Ellison, 2004; MacNeil & Byers, 1997; Menard & Offman, 2009) the central focus of this study.

The important role that communication plays in facilitating satisfying sexual relationships is well evidenced in communication research. For instance, Green and Faulkner (2005) reported that dyadic sexual communication was positively related to relationship satisfaction (a distinct, but related concept to sexual satisfaction) for men and women, while sexual self-disclosure was positively related to satisfaction for men, but not women. Similarly, Byers and colleagues’ research on self-disclosure, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction (e.g., Byers & Demmons, 1999; MacNeil & Byers, 2005; MacNeil & Byers, 1997) demonstrates that both sexual and nonsexual self-disclosure contributes to satisfying sexual relationships.

Although research on sexual self-disclosure is informative, Menard and Offman (2009) argue that major differences exist between disclosing sexual preferences to a partner and enacting those preferences by actively making requests or initiating sexually satisfying behaviors (i.e., often referred to as sexual assertiveness). Accordingly, they found a strong positive correlation between sexual assertiveness and sexual satisfaction (Menard & Offman, 2009). However, most relevant to the current investigation, Brogan, Fiore, and Wrench (2009) specifically measured participants’ perceptions of the nonverbal and verbal communication that occurred during sexual encounters. They found that individuals’ reports of their partner’s verbal and nonverbal communication of sexual pleasure were positively and moderately correlated with their own sexual satisfaction, and their verbal and nonverbal communication were moderately correlated with one another (Brogan et al., 2009).

The current study examines the connection between individuals’ own communication during sex and their own sexual satisfaction. Presumably, individuals will experience greater sexual satisfaction if they nonverbally and verbally communicate their needs and desires to their sexual partners. Such communication can help sexual partners negotiate the interaction and maximize their own and their partner’s sexual pleasure. For example, verbal statements such as “that feels good” or “yeah, just like that” and nonverbal cues such as moans and facial expressions that reflect pleasure can essentially direct sexual partners in ways that will maximize one’s pleasure. Following this logic, the next two hypotheses predict the relationships between nonverbal and verbal communication of pleasure during sex and sexual satisfaction.

H_6–7: Individuals’ reports of their nonverbal communication of pleasure during sex will be positively related to their sexual satisfaction (H₆), and individuals’ reports of their verbal communication of pleasure during sex will be positively related to their sexual satisfaction (H₇).

Finally, previous research in other domains shows that communication can mediate the relationships between communication input variables (e.g., communication apprehension, communication competence, and self-esteem) and communication outcome variables (e.g., satisfaction). For instance, Jung (2011) showed that communication apprehension did not demonstrate a direct effect on communication satisfaction, but instead demonstrated an indirect effect through identity gap, a communication-related variable. Similarly, Madlock (2008) found that nonverbal immediacy mediated the relationship between supervisors’ communication competence and employees’ job satisfaction and communication satisfaction. Additionally, Schrodt et al., (2009) found that, for daughters, family conversation orientation fully mediated the relationship between mother and father communication competence and daughters’ communication competence, and partially mediated the relationship for sons. Perhaps most relevant, Theiss (2011) showed that communication indirectness mediated the relationships between husbands and wives relational uncertainty and their own sexual satisfaction. Given previous research in other domains that suggests that communication input variables influence output variables indirectly through different forms of communication, the model predicts that SCA and SSE influence the extent to which individuals engage in nonverbal and verbal communication of pleasure during sex, but it is their communication that directly affects individuals’ sexual satisfaction. In other words, to summarize the model, nonverbal communication and verbal communication during sex are predicted to mediate the relationships between the communication input variables (i.e., SCA and SE) and the communication outcome variable (i.e., sexual satisfaction; see Figure 1).

Method

Participants

A total of 207 individuals who reported having a sexual partner at the time of data collection participated in this study. A total of 88 participants were undergraduate students recruited from communication courses at an urban, northeastern university, and 119 participants were recruited online using a popular social networking site. The sample contained 60 men and 145 women, and 2 participants did not report their biological sex. The mean age of the sample was 29.38 years (SD = 9.12, Range = 18–58). The majority of the participants self-identified as White, not Hispanic or Latino (80.7%), followed by Black or African American (11.1%), White, Hispanic or Latino (3.4%), “Other” (2.9%), Asian (1.4%), and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (.5%). In total, 86% of participants were heterosexual, 8.7% were bisexual, 3.9% were homosexual, and 1.0% reported their sexual orientation as “other.” Participants’ relationship status at the time of the study varied; 37.7% were dating in a committed relationship, 28% were married, 12.1% were single, 12.1% were dating but not in a committed relationship, 6.8% were engaged, and 3.4% identified their relationship status as “other.”

Procedures

Participants were recruited using two methods. First, student participants were recruited from communication classrooms. Students were provided information about the study and informed consent and offered a small amount of extra credit for their participation. Second, a network sample was recruited using a popular social networking site. Information about the study, informed consent, and participation requirements were placed on the author’s homepage. The post asked social network members to participate in the study and to share information about the study with their online social network. All potential participants were provided a link to an online survey instrument and were instructed to complete the survey in private. To qualify for participation, individuals had to be 18 years of age or older and to have had at least one sexual partner in their lifetime. A sexual partner was defined as “any person you have had either oral, vaginal, or anal sex with either within or outside a committed relationship.” Only participants who reported having a sexual partner at the time of data collection were included in the analyses reported herein.

Measures

Sexual communication apprehension (SCA)

Thirty-three items were developed for this study to measure SCA. Items contained within the Personal Report of Intercultural Communication Apprehension scale (PRICA; Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997) and the Sexual Anxiety Subscale of Snell’s (1998) Sexual Self-Concept Questionnaire (MSSCQ) were adapted to fit the sexual communication context. For instance, the PRICA item “I am calm and relaxed when interacting with a group of people who are from different cultures” was adapted to “I am calm and relaxed when communicating with my partner about sexual issues,” and the MSSCQ item “I feel anxious when I think about the sexual aspects of my life” was adapted to “I feel anxious when I think about communicating with my partner about the sexual aspects of my life.” Additional items were written that on their face measured SCA as conceptually defined in this study. Participants rated the SCA items on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).

A principal components factor analysis with a direct oblimin rotation was conducted to examine the factor structure of the sexual communication apprehension items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .95, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, X ² (325) = 4116.12, p < .001. The scree plot and the item factor loadings revealed a three factor solution. To be retained on a factor, items were required to load at least .60 on their primary factor and less than .40 on a secondary factor. Seven of the original 33 items did not meet the 60–40 rule and were eliminated from the final analysis. The first factor contained 18 items and was labeled general sexual communication apprehension (GSCA). The GSCA factor contained items that measured apprehension over anticipating, or participating in, a conversation with a partner about the sexual aspects of their relationship or sexual issues more generally (e.g., “Generally, I am comfortable communicating with my partner about sexual issues” and “I feel nervous when I think about talking with my partner about the sexual aspects of our relationship”; α = .97, M = 2.23, SD = 1.00). The second factor contained five items and was labeled safer sex communication apprehension (SSCA) that measured apprehension over anticipating, or participating in, a conversation with a partner about safer sex practices or sexual history (e.g., “Thinking about asking my partner if he or she has been tested for sexually transmitted infections makes me nervous” and “The idea of initiating a conversation with my partner about safer sex practices makes me nervous”; α = .85, M = 1.96, SD = .95). The third factor, labeled negative disclosure apprehension (NDA), contained three items that measured apprehension over disclosing sexual dislikes to a partner (e.g., “I feel anxious when I think about telling my partner what I dislike during sex”; α = .84, M = 2.29, SD = 1.09). Factor 1 accounted for 56.23% of the variance, Factor 2 accounted for 8.36% of the variance, and Factor 3 accounted for 3.99%—for a cumulative total of 68.57% of variance explained. The component correlation matrix revealed that the correlations among the factors ranged from .23 to .50. Table 2 contains the factor loadings and items for the 26 SCA items that were retained following the exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

The 26 items that were retained from the EFA were then subjected to a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to determine if the three-factor structure that emerged in the EFA would demonstrate good fit using the more restrictive statistical tool (i.e., CFA). A second order latent CFA model was tested (see Figure 2). Sexual communication apprehension represented the second order latent factor, and the three factors, GSCA, SSCA, and NDA, represented the first-order factors. The hypothesized model demonstrated acceptable fit, X ² (296) = 401.86, p < .05; X ²/df = 1.36; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .05 [CI = .03 to .06]; SRMR = .06. All indicators loaded on their respective factor (as identified by the EFA), and all path coefficients were statistically significant at the p < .05 level. The standardized path coefficients in the model ranged from .65 to .95.

Figure 2.

Second-order latent factor model for sexual communication apprehension scale.

Sexual self-esteem (SSE)

Participants completed the 10-item sexual self-esteem subscale of Snell and Papini’s (1989) Sexuality Scale. Sample items include “I am a good sexual partner” and “I am not very confident about my sexual skill.” Participants rated the SSE items on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). A single factor CFA demonstrated acceptable fit, X ² (35) = 99.65, p < .05; X ²/df = 2.84; CFI = .92; RMSEA = .10 [CI = .08 to .12]; SRMR = .06. The standardized path coefficients for the indicators on the SSE factor were all significant and ranged from .45 to .91. The scale produced an acceptable relability coeficient, Cronbach’s alpha =. 93 (M = 4.54, SD = .94).

Communication during sexual interactions

Brogan et al. (2009) 18-item, multidimensional Sexual Communication Style Scale (SCSS) measured participants’ perceptions of their communication during sexual encounters. Nine items measured verbal communication during sex, and nine items measured nonverbal communication during sex. The original scale reported in Brogan et al. (2009) asked participants to report on their partner’s communication during sex. To fit the needs of this study, the SCSS was adapted to measure participants’ own communication during sex. Modeled after Brogan et al. (2009), participants received the following instructions:

Below are a series of statements that describe the ways some people communicate while having sex. Please think about your sexual interactions with your current sexual partner while answering these questions. For each item, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that you engage in the behaviors described. Verbal communication is defined as “the use of words to relay a message to another person.” Nonverbal communication is defined as “communication that occurs without the aid of words (touching, gesturing, eye gaze, smell, etc.).”

Sample items include “While having sex, I verbally tell my partner that I am sexually satisfied” and “While having sex, I demonstrate nonverbally what turns me on during sex.” Participants rated the SCSS items on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).

This study represents the first to use the SCSS as a measure of one’s own communication during sex, thus a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to determine whether the factor structure of the SCSS-Self confirmed the factor structure of the SCSS-Partner reported in Brogan et al. (2009) using exploratory factor analysis. A first order, correlated two-factor CFA model was tested: The verbal communication factor contained nine items, and the nonverbal communication factor also contained nine items. The model demonstrated good fit, X ² (134) = 239.20, p < .05; X ²/df = 1.79; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .06 [CI = .05 to .08]; SRMR = .08. The standardized path coefficients for the indicators on the verbal factor were all significant and ranged from .68 to .88. Similarly, the standardized path coefficients for the indicators on the nonverbal factor were also all significant and ranged from .50 to .73. The standardized correlation between the verbal communication factor and the nonverbal communication factor was significant and moderate in size at .58. Both subscales of the SCSS were reliable. Cronbach’s alpha for the verbal communication scale was .95 (M = 4.41, SD = 1.13) and alpha for the nonverbal communication scale was .88 (M = 5.00, SD = .76).

Sexual satisfaction

The 12 positively worded items from Hudson, Harrison, and Crosscup’s (1981) Index of Sexual Satisfaction (ISS) measured individuals’ sexual satisfaction. Sample items include “It is easy for me to get sexually satisfied with my partner” and “I enjoy the sex techniques that my partner likes or uses.” Participants responded to the items using a 5-point scale (1 = rarely or none of the time, 5 = most or all of the time) that measured the extent of time with which they agreed with each item. A single factor CFA demonstrated acceptable fit, X ² (54) = 127.07, p < .05; X ²/df = 2.35; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .08 [CI = .07 to .10]; SRMR = .05. The standardized path coefficients for the indicators on the sexual satisfaction factor were all significant and ranged from .22 to .86. The scale demonstrated an acceptable reliability coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha = .93 (M = 4.13, SD = .77).

Results

Preliminary analyses

First, Pearson product moment correlations were calculated among all of the variables of interest and are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Pearson’s correlations among independent and dependent variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. General sexual communication apprehension	1
2. Safer sex communication apprehension	.54***	1
3. Negative disclosure apprehension	.75***	.52***	1
4. Sexual self esteem	−.46***	−.16*	−.42***	1
5. Nonverbal communication during sex	−.39***	−.27***	−.31***	.34***	1
6. Verbal communication during sex	−.49***	−.28***	−.40***	.36***	.51***
7. Sexual satisfaction	−.66***	−.28***	−.53***	.42***	.48***	.46***

Notes. One-tailed. p < .05*, p < .001***.

All variables, except sexual satisfaction, were measured on a 6-point scale with higher values indicating greater endorsement of the variable. Sexual satisfaction was measured on a 5-point scale with higher values indicating greater sexual satisfaction.

Table 2.

Final factor structure of the sexual communication apprehension scale.

Factor 1: General sexual communication apprehension
1. I am calm and relaxed when communicating with my partner about sexual issues.	.887
2. I like to talk with my partner about what I like to do sexually.	.881
3. While participating in a conversation with my partner about sex, I get nervous.	.863
4. Talking with my partner about sex makes me feel uncomfortable.	.824
5. Engaging in sexual communication with my partner makes me nervous.	.822
6. Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in conversations about sex with my partner.	.821
7. While talking with my partner about sex, I feel very relaxed.	.816
8. I have no fear of speaking up in a conversation about sex with my partner.	.812
9. Generally, I am comfortable communicating with my partner about sexual issues.	.776
10. My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I communicate with my partner about sex.	.763
11. I feel calm when I think about talking with my partner about our sex life.	.762
12. Thinking about talking with my partner about our sex life leaves me with an uneasy feeling.	.748
13. I feel anxious when I think about communicating with my partner about the sexual aspects of my life.	.745
14. Ordinarily I am very calm and relaxed in conversations about sex with my partner.	.721
15. I feel nervous when I think about talking with my partner about the sexual aspects of our relationship.	.720
16. I am afraid to speak up in conversations about sex with my partner.	.719
17. I face the prospect of talking with my partner about sex with confidence.	.701
18. I worry when I think about talking with my partner about our sex life.	.687
Factor 2: Safer sex communication apprehension
19. I feel anxious when I think about talking to my partner about condom use.	.874
20. The idea of initiating a conversation with my partner about safer sex practices makes me nervous.	.859
21. I am comfortable talking to my partner about condom use.	.824
22. Talking with my partner about protecting ourselves against sexually transmitted infections makes me feel uncomfortable.	.673
23. Thinking about asking my partner if he or she has been tested for sexually transmitted infections makes me nervous.	.625
Factor 3: Negative disclosure apprehension
24. I have no fear of telling my partner about what I dislike during sex.	.757
25. I feel anxious when I think about telling my partner what I dislike during sex.	.692
26. Thinking about talking with my partner about what I do not like during sex leaves me with an uneasy feeling.	.625

Notes. All secondary loadings were removed from the table to present the factor solution more cleanly.

The bivariate correlations were all significant, in the expected direction and ranged in magnitude from .16 to .75. All three dimensions of sexual communication apprehension (GSCA, SSCA, and NDA) were negatively related to self-reported verbal and nonverbal communication during sex. Sexual self-esteem was positively related to verbal and nonverbal communication of pleasure during sex, and verbal and nonverbal communication during sex were positively related to sexual satisfaction.

Second, several analyses were conducted to determine whether it was necessary to control for any demographic variables while testing the hypotheses. The following variables were investigated as potential control variables: age, biological sex, method of recruitment (i.e., student sample versus network sample), sexual orientation, and relationship status. Correlation tests revealed that participant age was not significantly related to any of the independent or dependent variables examined in this study. Similarly, a one-way ANOVA showed that no differences existed in the independent or dependent variables as a function of sexual orientation. Thus, age and sexual orientation were not controlled for in the main analyses.

However, group differences were detected for biological sex, method of recruitment, and relationship status for some variables and therefore were controlled for in the main analyses. Specifically, men (M = 2.22, SD = 1.06) reported higher levels of safer sex communication apprehension than women (M = 1.86, SD = .89), t (197) = 2.38, p < .05, and men (M = 4.78, SD = .86) also reported higher levels of sexual self-esteem than women (M = 4.45, SD = .96), t (192) = 2.25, p < .05. Conversely, women (M = 4.15, SD = .61) reported experiencing higher levels of sexual satisfaction than men (M = 3.91, SD = .68), t (194) = 2.35, p < .05. The only difference found for method of recruitment was for safer sex communication apprehension: participants from the student sample (M = 2.21, SD = 1.05) reported higher levels of safer sex communication apprehension than participants from the network sample (M = 1.78, SD = .82), t (198) = 3.30, p < .01. Finally, a series of one-way ANOVAs revealed significant differences in general communication apprehension, F (5, 195) = 2.78, p < .05, safer sex communication apprehension, F (5, 194) = 2.44, p < .05, negative disclosure apprehension, F (5, 193) = 3.34, p < .01, and sexual satisfaction, F (5, 191) = 4.97, p < .01, as a function of relationship status. Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests were conducted to determine the source of the mean differences detected by the ANOVAs and the following significant differences were detected. Married participants (M = 2.46, SD = 1.04) reported greater general communication apprehension than participants in a committed dating relationship (M = 1.93, SD = .84). Single participants (M = 2.42, SD = .83) reported greater safer sex communication apprehension than married participants (M = 1.74, SD = .87). Participants in a committed dating relationship (M = 1.95, SD = .90) reported less negative disclosure apprehension than participants who were in a noncommitted dating relationship (M = 2.70, SD = 1.39) as well as married participants (M = 2.51, SD = 1.05). Participants in a committed dating relationship (M = 4.34, SD = .61) reported greater sexual satisfaction than married participants (M = 3.73, SD = .91). Finally, engaged participants (M = 4.47, SD = .50) reported greater sexual satisfaction than married participants (M = 3.73, SD = .91).

To control for the group differences reported above during hypothesis testing, new variables were created by regressing the control variable(s) onto its respective dependent variable and saving the residuals. For example, group differences were found in safer sex communication apprehension as a function of biological sex, method of recruitment, and relational status. Consequently, all three variables were regressed onto safer sex communication apprehension, and the residual of safer sex communication apprehension was saved and used during hypothesis testing. The same procedure was followed for sexual self-esteem (controlled for biological sex), general sexual communication apprehension (controlled for relational status), negative disclosure apprehension (controlled for relational status), and sexual satisfaction (controlled for biological sex and relational status). The residuals of these five variables were used to test the hypothesized model.

Main analyses

The hypothesized model (See Figure 1) was tested using EQS 6.1 for Windows using maximum likelihood estimation. Goodness of fit was assessed using the following global fit indices: Model Chi-Square, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and the Chi-Square Difference test was used when examining nested models. A significant chi-square test indicates poor model fit (Kline, 2005), whereas CFI values above .90 indicate acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999), RMSEA values below .05 indicate close fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and SRMR values .10 or below indicate acceptable fit (Kline, 2005). Additionally, local fit is reported in the form of standardized path coefficients.

The global fit for the hypothesized model demonstrated poor fit, X² (10, N = 193) = 82.16, p < .05, CFI = .87, SRMR = .11, RMSEA = .20, with a 90% CI of .16 to .23. An examination of the modification indices suggested that adding a direct path between sexual communication apprehension and sexual satisfaction would decrease the model chi-square and significantly improve model fit. Since it is logical that sexual communication apprehension may have a direct effect, as well as an indirect effect on sexual satisfaction through sexual communication, this parameter was added to the model (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Final model predicting communication during sex and sexual satisfaction.

The modified model demonstrated acceptable fit, X² (9, N = 193) = 12.44, p > .05, CFI = 1.0, SRMR = .03, RMSEA =.05, with a 90% CI of .00 to .09, and produced a significant increase in model fit from the hypothesized model ΔX² (1) = 69.72, p < .05. Further review of the modification indices indicated that no further additions to the model would significantly improve model fit.

The path coefficients revealed support for five of the six hypotheses tested. As predicted, SCA was negatively related to both nonverbal (β = −.31, z = 3.83, p < .05) (H₁ supported) and verbal communication during sex (β = −.43, z = 5.36, p < .05) (H₂ supported), whereas sexual self-esteem was positively related to both nonverbal (β = .20, z = 2.57, p < .05 (H₃ supported) and verbal communication during sex (β = .17, z = 2.24, p < .05) (H₄ supported). Nonverbal communication during sex was positively related to sexual satisfaction (β = .25, z = 4.13, p < .05) (H₅ supported) and fully mediated the relationship between sexual self-esteem and sexual satisfaction, and it partially mediated the relationship between SCA and sexual satisfaction. Although not originally hypothesized, SCA also had a strong direct effect on sexual satisfaction (β = -.58, z = 8.22, p < .05). Contrary to the prediction posed in H₆, verbal communication during sex was not a significant predictor of sexual satisfaction (β = -.02, z = .27, p > .05). Finally, as expected, SCA and sexual self-esteem had a significant negative covariance (β = -.51, z = 7.28, p < .05), and nonverbal and verbal communication during sex had a significant positive covariance (β = .39, z = 4.86, p < .05). Finally, the predictors accounted for 20% of the variance in nonverbal communication during sex (R ² = .20), 28% of the variance in verbal communication during sex (R ² = .28), and 54% of the variance in sexual satisfaction (R ² = .54).

Discussion

This study tested a model that predicted that sexual communication apprehension and sexual self-esteem would predict verbal and nonverbal communication during sex, which in turn would predict sexual satisfaction. After controlling for certain demographics variables (see Results section for explanation), the results suggest that SCA and SSE predicted participants’ verbal and nonverbal communication of pleasure during sex, and nonverbal communication during sex, but not verbal communication, predicted participants’ sexual satisfaction. Although not hypothesized, SCA also had a direct effect on participants’ sexual satisfaction. These results, as well as their scholarly and practical implications are discussed next.

Predictors of communication during sex and sexual satisfaction

This study set out to add to the sexual communication literature by first identifying potential predictors of communication during sex. The study predicted that SCA would be negatively related to verbal and nonverbal communication of pleasure during sex. The results of the study provide support for these predictions and are consistent with findings from previous research. This study shows that even at low levels, SCA (M = 2.23 on a 6-point scale) can negatively affect the extent to which individuals communicate pleasure during sex using both verbal and nonverbal means, although the impact is likely more pronounced among individuals who experience higher levels of SCA. These findings mirror the broader literature that reveals that communication apprehension can serve as a barrier to communication (Daly & McCroskey, 1984), and they also resonate with research that suggests that feelings of discomfort and uncertainty about sexual communication or relationships can inhibit open sexual communication about safer sex practices (Allen et al., 2001; Pliskin, 1997) and sexual desires (Theiss, 2011). It appears that when individuals experience SCA or uncertainty about their relationship they might err on the side of caution and limit their sexual expression or choose to express themselves using less direct means (Theiss, 2011).

Contrary to SCA, the study predicted that SSE would be positively related to verbal and nonverbal communication of pleasure during sex. The results are consistent with these predictions, reinforce previous research, and demonstrate that having a positive sense of sexual self and confidence in one’s self as a sexual being can not only enhance individuals’ belief in their ability to communicate about sex (Menard & Offman, 2009; Oattes & Offman, 2007), but can also enhance the extent to which they communicate pleasure during sex using verbal and nonverbal means. Scholars demonstrate that several factors influence the development of individuals’ sexual self (Heinrichs et al., 2009; Mayers et al., 2003; Oattes & Offman, 2007) and it’s possible that individuals’ communication during sex has a reciprocal influence on their SSE. In other words, individuals who communicate pleasure during sex and who are sexually satisfied likely have greater esteem for their sexual abilities, which in turn feeds their SSE. The cross-sectional nature of the data precludes assessments of causality, but the findings of this study are encouraging and suggest that helping individuals improve their SSE could lead to greater communication of pleasure during sex.

The findings regarding SCA, SSE, and verbal and nonverbal communication during sex coupled with the preliminary results that showed differences in these communication antecedents as a function of different demographic markers point to practical contributions to improving sexual communication. For example, the preliminary results showed that the student sample experienced higher safer sex communication apprehension than the network sample, and men experienced higher safer sex communication apprehension than women. These results suggest an opportunity for more targeted interventions for the college population, and particularly the male college population, to build confidence in their ability to communicate about safer sex practices by reducing their apprehension. Such interventions would not only help improve individuals’ sexual communication skills, but they could also help protect them from contracting sexually transmitted infections and experiencing unplanned pregnancies if their SCA previously served as a barrier to safer sex practices. Additionally, the preliminary results showed that married participants reported greater general communication apprehension and negative disclosure apprehension than non-married participants, which suggests potential avenues for improving marital sexual relationships. For instance, practitioners can work with married couples to address the roots of their SCA and help them devise tailored strategies for effectively communicating their sexual desires to one another.

In addition to identifying correlates of communication of pleasure during sex, this study also set out to add to the sexual communication literature by examining how one’s own verbal and nonverbal communication of pleasure during sex related to their own sexual satisfaction. The study predicted that both nonverbal communication during sex and verbal communication during sex would positively predict participants’ sexual satisfaction. The findings provide support for nonverbal communication only: verbal communication was not a significant predictor of sexual satisfaction in the model. These findings are interesting in light of previous research which suggests that open communication about sexual intimacy is related to increased sexual satisfaction (e.g., Davis et al., 2006; MacNeil & Byers, 2005; Theiss, 2011), thereby implying that both verbal and nonverbal communication of pleasure would facilitate sexual satisfaction. However, previous research has focused on communication about sex rather than communication during sex, and this study provides at least preliminary evidence that sexual communication processes might differ depending on when the communication occurs. Perhaps nonverbal communication disrupts the flow of the sexual interaction less or is less awkward than verbal communication, and thereby nonverbal communication leads to greater satisfaction (e.g., a woman moving her partner’s hand to her breast is likely less disruptive or awkward than saying “please touch my breast”). Similarly, expressing (dis)pleasure nonverbally through facial expression, body movement, or sounds such as moans might be perceived as easier, more natural in the moment, and less face-threatening to self and partner than verbally and explicitly telling a partner to “move this way” or “stop doing that.” Individuals might feel more comfortable expressing pleasure, and perhaps more importantly displeasure, using nonverbal rather than verbal cues, and thereby use nonverbal cues more during sex that are directly intended to facilitate sexual pleasure. In other words, if individuals know best what satisfies them sexually, they might strategically communicate those needs to their partner using nonverbal cues that enhance their chances of having their needs met to increase their own satisfaction.

When compared to other sexual communication studies that examined both verbal and nonverbal forms of communication, the findings of this study complement some findings and contradict others. For instance, Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999) reported that individuals used both verbal and nonverbal strategies to communicate sexual consent, but the most commonly reported strategy was providing consent nonverbally by starting to have sex. Conversely, Zukoski et al. (2009) reported that participants used verbal condom negotiation strategies slightly more than nonverbal strategies. These studies suggest that individuals use both verbal and nonverbal cues during sexual encounters. However, individuals prefer to enact different types of communication cues (verbal, nonverbal, or their combination) depending on the sexual communication context and their communication purpose. When the purpose of communication is to express desire to have sexual intercourse or to express pleasure during intercourse, nonverbal cues might be preferred due to their lack of interference with the mood or the act itself. Conversely, individuals might prefer to use verbal communication slightly more when negotiating condom use because verbal strategies might be perceived as more direct and persuasive (e.g., If we don’t use a condom, we don’t have sex”) than nonverbal strategies (e.g., setting a condom on the bedside table). Taken together, the findings of the current study and previous research provide further evidence that sexual communication scholars should continue to advance the communication literature by examining both verbal and nonverbal forms of sexual communication.

Finally, SCA not only affected individuals’ tendency to verbally and nonverbally communicate sexual pleasure as predicted, but it also directly affected their sexual satisfaction. A strong and negative relationship was detected between SCA and sexual satisfaction. This finding is intriguing given previous research that suggests that communication can mediate the relationship between communication input variables (e.g., communication apprehension, communication competence, conversation orientation, and relational uncertainty) and communication outcome variables (e.g., communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, sexual satisfaction) (e.g., Jung, 2011; Madlock, 2008; Schrodt et al., 2009; Theiss, 2011). One plausible explanation for the direct effect is that the apprehension or anxiety individuals experience regarding sexual communication could serve as a distraction during sex that prevents people from fully enjoying the sexual experience. Individuals’ apprehension over communicating their desires during sex may take them “out of the moment” causing them to think more about what their partner might think if they communicated their desires verbally or nonverbally and less about the emotional and physical aspects of the interaction that might facilitate their own sexual satisfaction. Additionally, individuals who are apprehensive about sexual communication might also experience anxiety about having sex in general thereby contributing to reduced sexual satisfaction. Future research should evaluate people’s cognitive reactions to sex and/or their desire for sex to determine if these speculations have merit.

Scholarly and practical implications

The findings reported herein have important scholarly and practical implications. From a scholarly standpoint, this study demonstrates that SCA and sexual self-esteem represent important variables to consider when theorizing about sexual communication, particularly the communication of pleasure during sexual encounters. Currently, the literature lacks formal theories or models that attempt to explain factors that facilitate healthy and effective sexual communication generally. Scholars have tested models to explain the connection between self-disclosure of sexual (dis)likes and relationship and sexual satisfaction in romantic relationships (e.g., Byers et al., 1998; MacNeil & Byers, 2005), but the goal of these models is to understand processes that affect sexual satisfaction, not necessarily processes that increase or decrease sexual communication. From a communication standpoint, understanding factors that influence sexual communication is an important step in developing theories that explain different sexual communication processes. The current study contributes information to this process, but formal theory development requires additional research to identify other factors that might serve important explanatory functions.

From a practical standpoint, previous scholars have argued that sex therapy should include “training to increase both general communication and sexual self-disclosure” (MacNeil & Byers, 1997, p. 282), and that health professionals and clinicians need to be aware of the link between factors that influence not only disclosure of sexual needs, but factors that influence active requests for partner’s to fulfill sexual needs (Menard & Offman, 2009). The current study identifies potential points of intervention for clinicians and sex therapists working with individuals and couples who suffer from communication, sexual, and relational problems. For example, clinicians who identify patients who suffer from SCA can work with them to identify potential underlying causes of their anxiety, develop individualized treatment or communication skills training programs to reduce patients’ apprehension, and over time increase patients’ willingness to communicate sexual pleasure to their partner during sexual encounters. Such treatment and skills training to reduce anxiety could simultaneously bolster individuals’ sexual self-esteem while also facilitating greater communication and sexual satisfaction.

Limitations and directions for future research

Although this study has several strengths, limitations also exist. First, although two sampling methods were used in attempt to diversify the sample demographics and sexual experiences, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the potential presence of a self-selection bias. Previous research demonstrates that people who volunteer to participate in sexuality studies differ from those who decline to participate (Morokoff, 1986). Thus, the views represented in this study might be those of individuals who are more sexually experienced, more comfortable providing information about their sexuality, and perhaps more open to sexual communication than the general population. The mean score for SCA was low; therefore the results for SCA may not apply to individuals who experienced higher levels of SCA. Second, due to imposed inclusion restrictions, the results of this study only apply to individuals in intact sexual partnerships and may not generalize to individuals whose past sexual partnerships dissolved. Third, the dyadic nature of sexual communication is not considered in this study and the results of this study only represent the perceptions of one member of the sexual partnership. Future research would benefit by including the perspectives of both sexual partners to understand whether sexual partners perceive the communication that occurs during their encounters similarly or differently, and how those perceptions relate to both partner’s sexual satisfaction. Finally, the self-report nature of the data presents some limitations. For example, it is unknown how closely participants’ self-reported perceptions of their communication during sex actually reflect the communication that occurs during their sexual encounters. Although it is unrealistic to observe naturally occurring conversation during sex, the self-report nature of the study should be considered when interpreting the results of this study.

Conclusion

This study contributes knowledge to the sexual communication literature regarding predictors of communication during sexual encounters as well as predictors of sexual satisfaction. The findings provide evidence that both communication-related factors (i.e., SCA) and psychological factors (i.e., SSE) impact the extent to which individuals express their sexual satisfaction during sexual encounters using both verbal and nonverbal cues. Moreover, this study demonstrates that nonverbal communication and SCA directly affect individuals’ sexual satisfaction. Further research of factors that influence communication during sex can aid in the development of appropriate theoretical models that explain this communication process and provide clinicians with useful information they can apply when counseling individuals or couples who suffer from communication, relational, or sexual problems.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Allen

Emmers-Sommer

T. M.

Crowell

T. L.

(2001). Couples negotiating safer sex behaviors: A meta-analysis of the impact of conversation and gender. In Allen

Preiss

R. W.

Gayle

B. M.

Burrell

(Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 263–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baxter

Wilmot

(1985). Taboo topics in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 253–269.

Beres

(2010). Sexual miscommunication? Untangling assumptions about sexual communication between casual sex partners. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 12, 1–14.

Booth-Butterfield

(1988). A meta-analysis of the cross-situational consistency of communication apprehension. Communication Research Reports, 5, 64–70.

Bridges

S. K.

Lease

S. H.

Ellison

C. R.

(2004). Predicting sexual satisfaction in women: Implications for counselor education and training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 158–166.

Brogan

S. M.

Fiore

Wrench

J. S.

(2009). Understanding the psychometric properties of the sexual communication style scale. Human Communication, 12, 421–445.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Busse

Fishbein

Bleakley

Hennessy

(2010). The role of communication with friends in sexual initiation. Communication Research, 37, 239–255.

Byers

E. S.

(2011). Beyond The birds and the bees and Was it good for you?: Thirty years of research on sexual communication. Canadian Psychology, 52, 20–29.

10.

Byers

Demmons

(1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 180–189.

11.

Byers

Demmons

Lawrance

(1998). Sexual satisfaction within dating relationships: A test of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 257–267.

12.

Byers

(2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 113–118.

13.

Calogero

R. M.

Thompson

J. K.

(2009). Sexual self-esteem in American and British college women: Relations with self-objectification and eating problems. Sex Roles, 60, 160–173.

14.

Colby

Hopf

Ayres

(1993). Nice to meet you? Inter/interpersonal perceptions of communication apprehension in initial interactions. Communication Quarterly, 41, 221–230.

15.

Cupach

W. R.

Comstock

(1990). Satisfaction with sexual communication in marriage: Links to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 7, 179–186.

16.

Daly

J. A.

McCroskey

J. C.

(Eds.). (1984). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

17.

Davis

Shaver

P. R.

Widaman

K. F.

Vernon

M. L.

Follette

W. C.

Beitz

(2006). “I can’t get no satisfaction”: Insecure attachment, inhibited sexual communication, and sexual dissatisfaction. Personal Relationships, 13, 465–483.

18.

Ethier

K. A.

Kershaw

T. S.

Lewis

J. B.

Milan

Niccolai

L. M.

Ickovics

J. R.

(2006). Self-esteem, emotional distress and sexual behaviour among adolescent females: Inter-relationships and temporal effects. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 268–274.

19.

Faulkner

Lanutti

(2010). Examining the content and outcomes of young adults’ satisfying and unsatisfying conversations about sex. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 375–385.

20.

Green

Faulkner

S. L.

(2005). Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles, 53, 239–251.

21.

Haavio-Mannila

Kontula

(1997). Correlates of increased sexual satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 399–419.

22.

Heinrichs

K. D.

MacKnee

Auton-Cuff

Domeñe

J. R.

(2009). Factors affecting sexual-self esteem among young adult women in long-term heterosexual relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18, 183–199.

23.

Hickman

S. E.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

(1999). “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom:” How young women and men communication sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 258–272.

24.

Holmberg

Blair

K. L.

(2009). Sexual desire, communication, satisfaction, and preferences of men and women in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 57–66.

25.

Honeycutt

J. M.

Choi

C. W.

DeBerry

J. R.

(2009). Communication apprehension and imagined interactions. Communication Research Reports, 26, 228–236.

26.

Hopf

Colby

(1992). The relationship between interpersonal communication apprehension and self-efficacy. Communication Research Reports, 9, 131–135.

27.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

28.

Hudson

W. W.

Harrison

D. F.

Crosscup

P. C.

(1981). A short-form scale to measure sexual discord in dyadic relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 17, 157–174.

29.

Hurlbert

D. F.

(1991). The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: A comparative study between sexually assertive and sexually nonassertive women. Journal of Sex and Martial Therapy, 17, 183–190.

30.

Hurlbert

D. F.

Apt

Gasar

Wilson

N. E.

Murphy

(1994). Sexual narcissism: A validation study. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 20, 24–34.

31.

Jung

(2011). Identity gap: Mediator between communication input and outcome variables. Communication Quarterly, 59, 315–338.

32.

Kelly

Strassberg

Turner

(2006). Behavioral assessment of couples’ communication in female orgasmic disorder. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 32, 263–276.

33.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

34.

La France

B. H.

(2010). What verbal and nonverbal communication cues lead to sex?: An analysis of the traditional sexual script. Communication Quarterly, 58, 297–318.

35.

MacNeil

Byers

E. S.

(1997). The relationships between sexual problems, communication, and sexual satisfaction. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6, 277–283.

36.

MacNeil

Byers

E. S.

(2005). Dyadic assessment of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 169–181.

37.

Madlock

P. E.

(2008). Employee satisfaction: An examination of supervisors' communication competence. Human Communication, 11, 87–100.

38.

Mayers

K. S.

Heller

D. K.

Heller

J. A.

(2003). Damaged sexual self-esteem: A kind of disability. Sexuality and Disability, 21, 269–282.

39.

McCroskey

J. C.

(2009). Communication apprehension: What have we learned in the last four decades. Human Communication, 12, 157–171.

40.

McCroskey

J. C.

Daly

J. A.

Richmond

V. P.

(1977). Studies of the relationship between communication apprehension and self-esteem. Human Communication Research, 3, 269–277.

41.

Menard

A. D.

Offman

(2009). The interrelationships between sexual self-esteem, sexual assertiveness and sexual satisfaction. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18, 35–45.

42.

Metts

Spitzberg

B. H.

(1996). Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-based approach. In Burleson

B. R.

(Ed.), Communication Yearbook 19 (pp. 49–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

43.

Morokoff

P. J.

(1986). Volunteer bias in the psychophysiological study of female sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 22, 35–51.

44.

Neuliep

J. W.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1997). The development of intercultural and interethnic communication apprehension scales. Communication Research Reports, 14, 145–156.

45.

Noar

Carlyle

Cole

(2006). Why communication is crucial: Meta-analysis of the relationship between safer sexual communication and condom use. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 365–390.

46.

Oattes

M. K.

Offman

(2007). Global self-esteem and sexual self-esteem as predictors of sexual communication in intimate relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 16, 89–100.

47.

Pliskin

K. L.

(1997). Verbal intercourse and sexual communication: Impediments to STD prevention. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 11, 89–109.

48.

Potgieter

Khan

(2005). Sexual self-esteem and body image of South African spinal cord injured adolescents. Sexuality and Disability, 23, 1–20.

49.

Quina

Harlow

L. L.

Morokof

P. J.

Burkholder

(2000). Sexual communication in relationships: When words speak louder than actions. Sex Roles, 42, 523–549.

50.

Richmond

V. P.

McCroskey

J. C.

McCroskey

L. L.

(1989). An investigation of self-perceived communication competence and personality orientations. Communication Research Reports, 6, 28–36.

51.

Rosenthal

Moore

Flynn

(1991). Adolescent self-efficacy, self-esteem and sexual risk-taking. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 77–88.

52.

Rosenthal

Peart

(1996). The rules of the game: Teenagers communicating about sex. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 321–332.

53.

Rostosky

Dekhtyar

Cupp

P. K.

Anderman

E. M.

(2008). Sexual self-concept and sexual self-efficacy in adolescents: A possible clue to promoting sexual health? Journal of Sex Research, 45, 277–286.

54.

Schrodt

Ledbetter

A. M.

Jernberg

K. A.

Larson

Brown

Glonek

(2009). Family communication patterns as mediators of communication competence in the parent-child relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 853–874.

55.

Seal

Minichiello

Omodei

(1997). Young women’s sexual risk taking behaviour: Re-visiting the influences of sexual self-efficacy and sexual self-esteem. International Journal of STD and AIDS, 8, 159–165.

56.

Snell

W. E.

(1998). The multidimensional sexual self-concept questionnaire. In Davis

C. M.

Yarber

W. L.

Bauserman

Schreer

Davis

S. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality related measures (pp. 522–524). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

Snell

W. E.

Fisher

T. D.

Miller

R. S

(1991). Development of the sexual awareness questionnaire: Components, reliability, and validity. Annals of Sex Research, 4, 65–92.

58.

Snell

W. E.

Papini

D. R.

(1989). The sexuality scale: An instrument to measure sexual self-esteem, sexual depression, and sexual preoccupation. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 256–263.

59.

Sprecher

Cate

R. M.

(2004). Sexual satisfaction and sexual expression as predictors of relationship satisfaction and stability. In Harvey

J. H.

Wenzel

Sprecher

(Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 235–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

60.

Sprecher

Hendrick

S. S.

(2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 857–877.

61.

Taleporos

Dip

McCabe

M. P.

(2002). The impact of sexual esteem, body esteem, and sexual satisfaction on psychological well-being in people with physical disability. Sexuality and Disability, 20, 177–183.

62.

Theiss

J. A.

(2011). Modeling dyadic effects in the associations between relational uncertainty, sexual communication, and sexual satisfaction for husbands and wives. Communication Research, 38, 565–584.

63.

Van Bruggen

L. K.

Runtz

M. G.

Kadlec

(2006). Sexual revictimization: The role of sexual self-esteem and dysfunctional sexual behaviors. Child Maltreatment, 11, 131–145.

64.

Vannier

O’Sullivan

(2011). Communicating interest in sex: Verbal and nonverbal initiation of sexual activity in young adults’ romantic dating relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 961–969.

65.

Wheeless

L. R.

Parsons

L. A.

(1995). What you feel is what you might get: Exploring communication apprehension and sexual communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 12, 39–45.

66.

Young

Luquis

Denny

Young

(1998). Correlates of sexual satisfaction in marriage. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 7, 115–127.

67.

Zukoski

A. P.

Harvey

Branch

(2009). Condom use: Exploring verbal and non-verbal communication strategies among Latino and African American men and women. AIDS Care, 21, 1042–1049.