The ebb and flow of sexual well-being: The contributions of basic psychological needs and autonomous and controlled sexual motivation to daily variations in sexual well-being

Abstract

Why do people have better sexual experiences on certain days but not others? In this study, we used self-determination theory (SDT) to examine whether sexual motives that are autonomous (i.e., genuinely self-endorsed) as opposed to controlled (i.e., pressured) were associated with variations in daily sexual well-being. We also sought to identify circumstances associated with changes in the quality of sexual motivation by considering the extent to which daily interactions with a partner satisfied the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In a 21-day study of daily experiences (N = 113), findings from multilevel analyses suggested that on days when sexual motives were more autonomous and less controlled, people experienced higher sexual well-being (i.e., higher sexual satisfaction, more positive sexual affect, and less negative sexual affect). Furthermore, on days when interactions with the partner were more positive, as evidenced by better needs satisfaction, sexual motives were more autonomous and this, in turn, was associated with higher sexual well-being. These associations held above the contributions of gender, relationship length, frequency of sexual activities, and relational satisfaction. These findings demonstrate the usefulness of SDT as a framework for the motivational underpinnings of sexual well-being.

Keywords

Basic psychological needs self-determination theory sexual motivation sexual satisfaction sexual well-being

Sexual activities can enhance quality of life and contribute to fulfilling relationships by fostering positive emotions and strengthening interpersonal bonds (e.g., Diamond & Huebner, 2012; George et al., 2014; Muise, Kim et al., 2016). Implicit in this body of research is that an active sex life, free of sexual problems, is associated with positive outcomes in overall sexual well-being and relationship satisfaction. However, the positive associations between sexual activities and well-being may not simply be a matter of quantity. For instance, one study showed a curvilinear relationship between frequency of sexual activities and well-being (Muise, Schimmack, & Impett, 2016). That is, beyond an average frequency of one sexual event a week, sexual frequency did not predict increases in well-being. In a study where couples were randomly assigned to a condition in which they were asked to double their weekly sexual frequency over a 90-day period or to a control condition, couples in the increased frequency condition did not report higher well-being at the end of the study (Loewenstein et al., 2015). The experimental task produced an adverse effect as couples in the increased frequency condition reported a decrease in positive mood, sexual desire, and sexual enjoyment.

Recent research suggests that the quality of sexual activities may be a better predictor of well-being outcomes than their sheer quantity. For instance, in a longitudinal study of married couples, sexual satisfaction emerged as a better predictor of relational satisfaction than frequency of sexual activities (Schoenfeld et al., 2017). Thus, a critical direction for sexuality research is to identify the factors that foster satisfying sexual experiences. One factor receiving increasing attention from researchers is the quality of sexual motivation or the reasons for engaging in sexual activities (for a review, see Muise, 2017). Despite the growth of this research, the circumstances fostering optimal and nonoptimal sexual motives have received less attention (Muise, 2017). In this study, we used self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) to examine whether sexual motives that are fully volitional as opposed to being the result of pressures explained daily variations in sexual well-being. Furthermore, as partnered sexual activities are embedded in a broader relationship context, we examined whether the quality of daily interactions between partners influenced the association between sexual motivation and sexual well-being.

Self-determination theory

SDT proposes that optimal functioning and well-being are a function of the extent to which close relationships support or hinder three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Autonomy refers to having a sense of choice, feeling volitional, and having genuine ownership over one’s actions as opposed to being controlled by pressures and expectations (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Competence relates to feeling effective in one’s environment and possessing the necessary skills to enact change or achieve desired goals (Deci, 1975). Finally, relatedness refers to the need to be cared for and feel connected to others (Ryan, 1995).

Satisfaction of these needs plays a central role in daily experiences of well-being. Evidence from daily diary studies suggest that “good days” were those on which people felt more autonomous, competent, and related to others; on these days, participants reported increased well-being (Reis et al., 2000; Sheldon et al., 1996). Consequently, the extent to which close relationships satisfy basic psychological needs on a given day can be considered an important indicator of the quality of daily interpersonal interactions and a determinant of well-being outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Another central tenet of SDT is that the quality of one’s motivation for performing a behavior influences its outcomes. SDT distinguishes between two broad forms of motivation: autonomous and controlled. Autonomous motives are self-determined because they are self-congruent, whereas controlled motives are non-self-determined because they result from controlling pressures (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Autonomous motivation is characterized by genuine choice and ownership over one’s action; it is manifested in behaviors perceived as inherently pleasurable and interesting, as resonating with deeply held values and identities, or as important in achieving a personally significant outcome (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In contrast, controlled motivation is the result of pressuring demands and expectations (Deci & Ryan, 1985). These pressures can be external, such as seeking rewards and avoiding negative consequences imposed by others, or they can be internal, such as avoiding guilt and shame, or enhancing one’s self-worth (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Because a person can have different reasons for performing a behavior, autonomous and controlled motivation can be associated with one another (or not) depending on their motivational profile (for a discussion, see Ratelle et al., 2007). For instance, a person can report high levels of both autonomous and controlled sexual motivation, whereas another could report high levels on one and low levels on the other. Extensive research conducted in multiple life domains including work (Gagné & Deci, 2005), education (Guay et al., 2008), interpersonal relationships (Knee et al., 2016), health (Ng et al., 2012), and sports and exercise (Standage & Ryan, 2012) consistently demonstrates that higher autonomous motivation and lower controlled motivation are associated with higher well-being and better functioning.

Autonomous and controlled motivation may be particularly relevant for understanding daily fluctuations in well-being in committed relationships. In a study of responses to partner transgressions, people who endorsed more autonomous reasons for being in their relationship were more likely to forgive partner transgressions over a 5-week period (Hadden et al., 2017). Additionally, on weeks when people reported higher autonomous relational motivation, they were more likely to forgive partner transgressions in comparison to weeks when it was lower. Another study of married and cohabiting couples on motivation for helping a partner suffering with chronic pain showed that on days when reasons to help were more autonomous (e.g., commitment) rather than controlled (e.g., guilt avoidance), the supporting partner experienced more positive affect and less exhaustion and reported fewer conflicts with their partner (Kindt et al., 2016). Thus, autonomous and controlled motivation can provide insights on the circumstances surrounding daily variations in positive and negative experiences.

According to SDT, basic needs satisfaction is a central contextual determinant of motivation quality. In committed relationships, supporting a partner’s basic psychological needs facilitates the emergence of autonomous motivation, whereas thwarting them typically leads to controlled motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2014). Thus, basic needs satisfaction and motivation combine in a motivational sequence delineating the antecedents and consequences of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vallerand, 1997). This model is particularly useful in understanding how the context of a relationship interacts with a person’s motivation to produce daily variations in positive or negative experiences. For instance, in one study examining the quality of conflict resolution in committed relationships, people who experienced more basic needs satisfaction from their partner reported more autonomous relational motivation (Patrick et al., 2007). In turn, this effect was associated with better conflict resolutions, as evidenced by higher post-disagreement satisfaction and stronger commitment after a conflict with their partner.

SDT research on sexual well-being

By addressing both the antecedents and consequences of motivation, SDT’s motivational sequence provides a theoretical framework explaining when and why people experience variations in the quality of their sexual experiences. Cross-sectional studies suggest a relationship between engaging in sexual activities for autonomous or controlled reasons and individual differences in sexual health and well-being. Higher autonomous sexual motivation is associated with better sexual response, higher sexual satisfaction, and lower sexual distress (Boislard-Pépin et al., 2002; Gravel et al., 2016; Gravel et al., 2017). In contrast, controlled sexual motivation is linked to more problems with sexual response, lower sexual satisfaction, and higher sexual distress (Gravel et al., 2016; Gravel, et al., 2017). Research on women’s sexual submission has also highlighted that lowered sexual autonomy was a mechanism in the association between sexual submissiveness and sexual dissatisfaction (for a review, see Sanchez et al., 2012).

Other studies have examined basic needs satisfaction and self-determination in the context of daily sexual activities. In a 21-day study of daily experiences, Smith (2007) showed that people reported higher sexual well-being on days when they experienced more basic needs satisfaction during sexual interactions. In two studies of daily sexual experiences, Brunell and Webster (2013) tested a variation of the motivational sequence. Sexual motivation was measured using an index of relative self-determination in which sexual amotivation (i.e., lack of intention to engage in sexual activities) and controlled sexual motivation scores were subtracted from autonomous sexual motivation scores, providing an overall evaluation of a person’s self-determination. They found that on days when sexual motivation was relatively more autonomous, people in dating relationships reported more basic needs satisfaction during sexual activities, which in turn was associated with higher relational and global well-being. In a longitudinal study of casual sex motives and well-being in university students, those who reported more controlled reasons to engage in casual sex reported feeling more depressed and anxious, more physical symptoms, and poorer self-esteem (Vrangalova, 2015).

Next directions for SDT perspectives on daily sexual well-being

Because SDT research on daily sexual well-being is an emerging area of inquiry, important questions about both the contributions of basic needs satisfaction and autonomous and controlled sexual motivation remain to be addressed. First, no study to date has examined the distinct role of autonomous and controlled sexual motivation in daily experiences of sexual well-being. Since autonomous and controlled motivation are theoretically distinct constructs that capture optimal and nonoptimal motivational orientations (Deci & Ryan, 2000), they provide an important opportunity to isolate the different processes underlying positive and negative sexual experiences.

Second, further research is needed on the antecedents of daily variations in autonomous and controlled sexual motivation. This question is not only relevant for SDT research but also for research on the quality of sexual motivation more broadly. So far, much of this research has examined daily variations in the quality of sexual motives as a predictor; as a result, knowledge on the antecedents of daily variations in sexual motives remains limited (Muise, 2017). Given that targeting the quality of sexual motivation offers a promising line of intervention for enhancing sexual well-being, it is critical to identify the factors conducive to optimal and nonoptimal forms of sexual motivation. In the light of evidence from SDT research on global, relational, and sexual well-being (Brunell & Webster, 2013; Patrick et al., 2007; Reis et al., 2000; Sheldon et al., 1996; Smith, 2007), we propose that the quality of nonsexual partnered interactions, as evidenced by the extent to which partners satisfy each other’s basic psychological needs, may offer new insights on the circumstances shaping daily variations in the quality of sexual motivation and sexual well-being. Additionally, given that few studies have focused on the links between broader relationship processes and the quality of sexual experiences in couples, examining these associations contributes to a much-needed integration of relationship science to sexuality research (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000; Impett et al., 2014).

The present study

The goal of this study was to validate the motivational sequence proposed by SDT in the context of daily variations in sexual well-being. We predicted that on days when people experienced autonomous sexual motivation and lower controlled sexual motivation, their reports of sexual well-being derived from partnered sexual activities would increase. Furthermore, we predicted that these associations would be influenced by the quality of nonsexual interactions between partners, as evidenced by the extent to which these interactions satisfied basic psychological needs. As such, we predicted that on days when participants experienced more autonomy, competence, and relatedness during interactions with their partners, their sexual motivation would be more autonomous and less controlled, which in turn would be associated with higher sexual well-being. To strengthen confidence in our results, we also tested whether our predictions would hold beyond the contributions of gender, frequency of sexual activities (i.e., the number of times participants engaged in sexual activities over the course of the study), relationship length, and relationship satisfaction to sexual well-being (Byers & Rehman, 2014; Impett et al., 2014; Muise et al., 2016).

Method

Procedures and participants

Following the guidelines suggested by Maas and Hox (2005) in their simulation study on sample size determination for multilevel modeling, our objective was to recruit a minimum of 50 participants. Recruitment was done through a psychology department participant pool, posters placed in different campus locations at the researchers’ university, and snowball sampling. Eligibility criteria for participation in the study was to be (a) at least 18 years of age, (b) currently engaging in partnered sexual activities (c) with a committed partner (d) of at least 3 months (e) and who resided in the same city as the participant. Interested participants were invited to an initial interview at the researchers’ laboratory to be screened for eligibility and provided with the instructions for participation in the study. Specifically, participants were asked to complete a 30-min online baseline survey on the first day of their participation and a short 2- to 5-min online diary survey for the subsequent 21 consecutive days each night prior to going to sleep. Emails were sent every morning at 9:00 am to remind participants to complete the diary from the day before if they had not done so already. Students recruited through the participant pool were offered two course credits in compensation – one for completing the baseline survey and the other for completing the daily diary procedure. Participants recruited through other methods were offered the chance to participate in a draw for one of two cash prizes of CAN$50 or CAN$100.

Initially, 140 participants met the eligibility criteria and completed the baseline survey; three participants were turned away because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. We also excluded the data from participants who they did not submit any of the diaries (n = 19) or who engaged in sexual activities fewer than three times during the study (n = 8). The final sample consisted of 113 university students (women = 100, men = 13) aged between 18 and 35 (M _age = 20.48, SD = 3.23). The ethnic heritage composition of the sample was as follows: 1% First Nations, 4% Asian, 3% Hispanic, 3% Middle Eastern, 5% mixed ethnic heritage, 80% European; 4% did not report their ethnic heritage. In terms of sexual orientation, 1% was gay, 2% were lesbian, 7% were bisexual, 87% were heterosexual, 2% reported “other”; 1% did not report a sexual orientation. Average relationship duration was 24.45 months (SD = 30.90). In total, participants submitted 2697 diaries, each participant completing an average of 18.59 diaries (out of 21; SD = 7.16) and engaged in sexual activities on average 6.50 (SD = 3.34) times over the course of the study.

Measures

Baseline measure (Level 2 variables)

The baseline survey contained the following measures along with demographic variables.

Relational satisfaction

The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick et al., 1998) was used to evaluate relational satisfaction as a control variable. Participants were asked to rate seven statements regarding their general relationship satisfaction using a rating scale ranging from 1 (low satisfaction) to 5 (high satisfaction). Sample items include “How much do you love your partner?” and “How good is your relationship compared to most?” In a validation study of the RAS, principal component analysis revealed a one-factor structure and results from a reliability analysis suggested an α coefficient of .86 (Hendrick et al., 1998). In this study, the RAS had a reliability coefficient of .87.

Daily-level measures (Level 1 variables)

Sexual activity

Participants indicated whether they had engaged in sexual activity on a given day by answering the following question using a yes/no response scale: “Did you engage in partnered sex today? By partnered sex, we mean any interaction in which you engage in one or many of the following activities with your partner: manual sex, oral sex, penile-vaginal sex, anal sex, and the use of sex toys.”

Basic needs satisfaction in relationships

We used an abbreviated version of the Basic Needs Satisfaction in Relationships Scale (BNSRS; La Guardia et al., 2000) to measure the extent to which participants experienced satisfaction of their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness from their partner during daily interactions. The original version of the BNSRS consists of 9 items, three for each basic psychological need, and measures needs satisfaction during partnered interactions in general. For the abbreviated version of the BNSRS, the instructions and items were slightly modified to reflect daily interactions rather than interactions in general. Participants were given the following instructions: “Please indicate to what extent each statement describes your overall interaction with your partner today by indicating how true it is for you.” We included 1 item for each basic psychological need, for a total of 3 items (i.e., autonomy: “when I was with my partner, I felt free to be who I am”; competence: “when I was with my partner, I felt like a competent person”; relatedness: “when I was with my partner, I feel loved and cared about”). We abbreviated the BNSRS and the other measures in the daily questionnaire to minimize participant burden and attrition (Bolger & Lauranceau, 2013). In this study, results from a principal component analysis of these items revealed a one-factor solution explaining 70.36% of the measure’s variance. The reliability coefficient for our adaptation of the BNSR was .79. Both principal component analysis and reliability coefficients were computed using residuals from participants’ means on the study variables across days, such that the mean item score for a given participant was subtracted from item scores for each day for that participant. This procedure isolates the relationships between the items of the scale for a given participant from the variation in item scores between participants, providing within-participant scale reliability and validity across days (Bolger & Lauranceau, 2013). This procedure was performed with the measures described below.

Sexual motivation

The Sexual Motivation Scale (SexMS; Gravel et al., 2016) was used to measure autonomous and controlled reasons to engage in daily sexual activities. This 24-item instrument measures the three types of motivation proposed by SDT in the context of sexual activities: intrinsic motivation, four types of extrinsic motivation (i.e., two autonomous types: integrated and identified regulation, and two controlled types: introjected and external regulation), and amotivation (for a detailed discussion, see Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). We abbreviated this scale by selecting 2 items for each type of autonomous and controlled sexual motivations. Instructions were also slightly modified as to ask participants to reflect on the reasons why they engaged in partnered sexual activity on a specific day as opposed to in general: “There are many reasons why people have sex. Please indicate to what extent each of the statements below corresponds to the reason(s) why you had sex today.” Items for each type of motivation were as follows and answered using a rating scale ranging from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds completely): “because I enjoy sex” and “because sex is exciting” (intrinsic motivation), “because sexuality brings so much to my life” and “because sexuality is a meaningful part of my life” (integrated regulation), “because sex is important to me” and “because I feel it’s important to experiment sexually” (identified regulation), “to show to myself that I am sexually competent” and “to prove to myself that I am sexually attractive” (introjected regulation), and “to avoid conflicts with my partner” and “because I didn’t want to be criticized by my partner” (external regulation). We generated autonomous and a controlled sexual motivation measures by averaging autonomous and controlled items into two different scales (for a discussion, see Pelletier & Sarrazin, 2007). Results from a principal component analysis using a varimax rotation suggested a two-factor solution in which the autonomous and controlled items of these measures loaded on separate factors. Explained variance for the Autonomous Sexual Motivation Factor and the Controlled Sexual Motivation Factor was 32.27% and 16.12%, respectively. The reliability coefficients for this daily SexMS measure were .78 for the autonomous sexual motivation measure and .67¹ for the controlled sexual motivation measure.

Sexual well-being

Following classical definitions of subjective well-being (Diener, 1984), we operationalized sexual well-being by measuring sexual satisfaction, positive sexual affect, and negative sexual affect. Our aim in using this definition was to achieve a more comprehensive view of sexual well-being by capturing both its cognitive and affective component as well as positive and negative indicators. Five items were developed for the purpose of this study through a consultation with sexuality and well-being researchers: one measuring sexual satisfaction (“Overall, sex was satisfying”), two measuring positive sexual affect (“I felt positive emotions during sex” and “I felt positive emotions after sex”), and two measuring negative sexual affect (“I felt negative emotions during sex” and “I felt negative emotions after sex”). We measured affects during and after sex were because these experiences may not always be concordant. Participants were given the following instruction: “The following statements describe different aspects related to the quality of a sexual interaction. Thinking about the sexual interaction you engaged in today, please indicate to what extent you agree with each statement.” They then indicated their level of agreement with the items using a rating scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (totally). Positive and negative sexual affect measures were created by averaging the items in separate scales. The reliability coefficient for an aggregate of all 5 items was .85.

Analytical strategy

Since the goal of this study was to investigate the quality of sexual experiences, only the data from days on which participants engaged in a partnered sexual encounter were included in the analyses. Given the nested structure of the data (i.e., days, or Level 1 data, nested within participants, or Level 2 data; see Measures section), main analyses were performed using multilevel modeling with HLM 7. Preliminary analyses and data preparation were conducted using SPSS 22 and HLM 7. The data were first cleaned and prepared following general requirements of multivariate and multilevel statistics (Garson, 2013; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Then, we conducted the main analyses in three stages. First, we examined the respective contribution of daily basic needs satisfaction and daily sexual motivation to daily sexual well-being. These models were first analyzed with slopes modeled as random, meaning that slopes could vary between participants. When random effects were nonsignificant, the models were then re-specified and these paths were modeled as fixed to simplify estimation. We then tested the mediating effect of daily sexual motivation in the associations between daily basic needs satisfaction and daily sexual well-being. Because the mediation effects involved only Level 1 predictors and we were interested in isolating the predictors of within-person variations in sexual well-being, we performed a 1-1-1 mediation analysis (for details, see Zhang et al., 2009). In 1-1-1 mediation analysis, within-person variance must be partitioned from between-person variance to prevent a confounding of their respective contributions. Thus, we used person-mean centering of Level 1 predictors in our model. With person-mean centering, the person’s mean score across days for a given variable is subtracted from their score for each day for that variable. This procedure allows us to determine whether a person’s daily deviation from their mean score across days for a given predictor is associated with their daily score on an outcome variable. The means across days for all predictors were also entered in the model as Level 2 predictors to account for between-person variations in the outcomes. Next, we derived a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mediation effect with the Monte Carlo Method for Assessing Mediation with 20,000 repetitions (Selig & Preacher, 2008) using the values from the regression coefficients obtained from the multilevel analyses. Lastly, we added gender, relational well-being, relationship length, and frequency of sexual activities to the model to determine if the associations held beyond the contributions of these variables.

Results

Data preparation and cleaning procedures are presented in Online Appendix A. Descriptive statistics and correlations for the study’s variables are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Descriptive results suggest that on average, participants reported enjoying highly positive experiences with respect to their sexuality and relationship. Correlational analyses showed that for the most part, associations between the study’s variables were in the direction predicted by SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Contrary to expectations, controlled motivation was not significantly and negatively correlated with basic needs satisfaction, positive sexual affect, and sexual satisfaction.

Table 1.
Descriptive statistics.

Variable Mean SD Range

Basic needs satisfaction 6.42 0.76 1.67–7.00

Autonomous sexual motivation 5.48 1.12 1.17–7.00

Controlled sexual motivation 2.48 1.08 1.00–6.50

Sexual satisfaction 6.08 1.13 1.00–7.00

Positive sexual affect 6.18 1.04 1.00–7.00

Negative sexual affect 1.38 0.88 1.00–7.00

Relational well-being 4.39 0.57 1.00–7.00

Note. N = 113. Means represent the means of group means across days, except for relational well-being, which is a baseline measure.

Table 2.
Correlations between study variables.

Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. Basic needs satisfaction 1

2. Autonomous sexual motivation .36* 1

3. Controlled sexual motivation .15 −.11 1

4. Sexual satisfaction .54* .60* −.12 1

5. Positive sexual affect .58* .63* −.14 .89* 1

6. Negative sexual affect −.48* −.30 .23* −.61* −.64* 1

Note. N = 113. Correlations are between the means of group means across days.

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

The main results are summarized in Figure 1. Direct effects of daily basic needs satisfaction and sexual motivation on daily sexual well-being are presented in Table 3. As expected, on days when participants reported higher basic needs satisfaction during partnered interactions and higher autonomous sexual motivation, they experienced higher levels of sexual well-being (i.e., higher sexual satisfaction, more positive, and less negative sexual affect). In contrast, on days when participants reported higher controlled sexual motivation, they experienced lower sexual satisfaction, less positive sexual affect, and more negative sexual affect. In addition, we found that the effects of basic needs satisfaction on all sexual well-being indicators were best modeled as random, meaning that the strength of these effects varied across participants. Finally, the variance explained by these models varied between 23% and 38% (see Table 3), suggesting that basic psychological needs satisfaction and autonomous and controlled sexual motivation accounted for a non-negligible proportion of daily variations in sexual well-being.

Figure 1.
Associations between daily basic needs satisfaction, daily sexual motivation, and daily sexual well-being, controlling for gender, sexual frequency, relationship length, and relational well-being. Regression coefficients are unstandardized and significant at p < .01.

Table 3.
Associations between needs satisfaction, motivation, and daily sexual well-being.

Outcome Hypothesized models

BNSP BNSP-ASM ASM CSM

B [95% CI] (SE) [95% CI] B [95% CI] (SE) B [95% CI] (SE) VE

Sexual satisfaction .33 [.17, .49] (.08) [.08, .25] .51 [.35, .67] (.08)* −.18 [−.32, −.04] (.07) .23

Positive sexual affect .31 [.15, .47] (.08)* [.08, .24] .50 [.36, .64] (.07)* −.22 [−.36, −.08] (.07)* .38

Negative sexual affect −.26 [−.42, −.10] (.08) [−.14, −.03] −.21 [−.35, −.07] (.07) .21 [.07, .35] (.05) .24

Models with control variables

BNSP BNSP-ASM ASM CSM

Outcome B [95% CI] (SE) [95% CI] B [95% CI] (SE) B [95% CI] (SE) VE

Sexual satisfaction .32 [.10, .52] (.10)* [.09, .24] .52 [.36, .68] (.08)* −.18 [−.32, −.04] (.07) .24

Positive sexual affect .30 [.14, .46] (.08)* [.09, .23] .50 [.36, .64] (.07)* −.22 [−.32, −.12] (.05)* .38

Negative sexual affect −.24 [−.40, −.08] (.08) [−.12, −.02] −.21 [−.35, −.07] (.07)** .17 [.03, −.17] (.07)* .29

Note. N =113. Regression coefficients are unstandardized; bolded coefficients are random while those that are not bolded are fixed. BNS = daily basic needs satisfaction; BNSP-ASM = 95% confidence interval of the mediation effect involving basic needs satisfaction and autonomous sexual motivation; ASM = daily autonomous sexual motivation; CSM = daily controlled sexual motivation; VE = variance explained. Control variables were frequency of sexual activities over the period of the study, relational satisfaction, relationship length, and gender.

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

We then tested the mediating effect of sexual motivation to identify a potential mechanism linking relational processes to sexual well-being. We found partial support for our hypotheses. The association between daily basic needs satisfaction and autonomous sexual motivation was significant and best modeled as random, B = .31, SE = .07, p < .001, meaning that there was variability in the strength of this effect across participants. In turn, daily autonomous sexual motivation mediated the association between daily basic needs satisfaction and all three sexual well-being indicators (see Table 3). This finding suggested that on days when participants experienced more needs satisfaction during partnered interactions, their reasons for engaging in sexual activities were more autonomous, which in turn was associated with higher sexual well-being. Contrary to predictions, daily basic needs satisfaction was not associated with daily controlled sexual motivation, B = .05 SE = .05, p = .29, and none of the indirect effects involving daily controlled sexual motivation were significant; sexual satisfaction: 95% CI = [−.03, .01]; positive affect: 95% CI = [−.03, .01]; negative affect: 95% CI = [−.04, .01].

Finally, we conducted a series of analyses to rule out potential confounding effects of gender, relationship length, relationship satisfaction, and frequency of sexual activities. We modeled each of these variables as Level 2 predictors. Statistical significance among the model’s associations did not change following the inclusion of the control variables (see Table 3).

Discussion

This study was the first to examine the associations between daily variations in basic psychological needs, autonomous and controlled sexual motivation, and sexual well-being. We showed that autonomous and controlled motivation each made a distinct contribution to within-person variations in the quality of sexual experiences. Specifically, sexual experiences were more enjoyable on days when people engaged in sexual activities for autonomous reasons and they were less enjoyable and even potentially unpleasant on days they engaged in sexual activities for controlled reasons. Importantly, the results held beyond the contributions of gender, relationship length, relationship well-being, and frequency of sexual activities.

These findings converge with those from prior studies suggesting that autonomous sexual motivation may entail benefits for well-being, whereas controlled sexual motivation may entail costs (Boislard-Pépin et al., 2002; Brunell & Webster, 2013; Gravel et al., 2016; Gravel et al., 2017; Vrangalova, 2015). More broadly, these results contribute to a growing body of literature suggesting that the quality of a person’s reasons to engage in sexual activities is a critical factor in determining why and when they experience either positive or negative sexual experiences (for a review, see Muise, 2017). We extend this literature by demonstrating that autonomous and controlled motivation are key dimensions of the quality of sexual motivation because they capture distinct processes underlying the determination of positive and negative sexual experiences.

From a broader perspective, the findings from this study converge with an extensive body of SDT research suggesting that autonomous and controlled motivation capture optimal and nonoptimal forms of self-regulation, respectively (Gagné & Deci, 2005 ; Guay et al., 2008 ; Knee et al., 2016 ; Ng et al., 2012; Standage & Ryan, 2012). Additionally, our study contributes to an emerging body of research demonstrating the value of SDT as a framework to identify the circumstances in which close relationships thrive or deteriorate (Knee et al., 2016). Given that positive sexual experiences have the potential to enhance quality of life and relationships (e.g., Diamond & Huebner, 2012; George et al., 2014; Muise et al., 2016), our findings extend this literature by indicating that autonomous and controlled motivational orientations matter for the quality of sexual experiences in committed relationships.

Another key contribution of this study was to highlight the contribution of broader relationship processes to the quality of sexual motivation and sexual well-being. So far, much of the research on the quality of sexual motivation has focused on outcomes, with less attention devoted to antecedents (Muise, 2017). In this study, we sought to address this gap by determining whether satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, as a quality appraisal of daily partnered interactions, explained variations in autonomous and controlled sexual motivation. The findings suggested that on days when participants experienced better needs satisfaction during partnered interactions, their sexual motivation was more autonomous. Moreover, the quality of daily partnered interactions was directly associated with sexual well-being, such that on days when participants experienced better need satisfaction, their sexual encounters were more pleasurable and satisfying. Autonomous sexual motivation was a mechanism involved in this association, suggesting that positive partnered interactions were linked to better sexual experiences in part because these interactions were associated with more autonomous sexual motivation in the first place.

Additionally, these results converge with previous research showing that satisfaction of basic psychological needs during partnered interactions is a key determinant of daily positive functioning in committed relationships (Patrick et al., 2007). In the context of sexual activities, SDT research has focused on the extent to which basic needs were met during sexual encounters and their associations with sexual, relational, and global well-being (Brunell & Webster, 2013; Smith, 2007). We extend this work by suggesting that basic psychological needs satisfaction during nonsexual everyday interactions with one’s partner may support optimal sexual motivation and sexual well-being. By focusing on broader relationship processes, this study contributes to building bridges between close relationships research and sexuality research, two areas of scientific inquiry that have largely evolved independently (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000; Impett et al., 2014).

Contrary to predictions, we did not find a significant association between basic needs satisfaction and controlled sexual motivation. One explanation is that need frustration (i.e., feeling controlled, incompetent, and rejected), which was not measured in this study, may be more important in explaining variations in controlled sexual motivation than need satisfaction. Researchers are increasingly measuring need frustration to adequately capture nonoptimal or maladaptive motivational processes, such as controlled motivation (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2011). Controlled motivation often emerges as a compensation mechanism in response to need frustration (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and this process appears to be fundamentally different than what is captured by low scores on needs satisfaction measures (Bartholomew et al., 2011). More comprehensive measurements of both need satisfaction and frustration have recently been developed (Rocchi et al., 2017) and may be useful in future research on basic psychological needs and sexual well-being.

Limitations and future directions

The results from this study must be interpreted in the light of some limitations. First, we cannot be confident about the direction of the effects because all measurements were taken at the same time. Manipulating the saliency of basic needs satisfaction and autonomous and controlled sexual motivation in future studies may clarify potential causal relations to daily variations in sexual well-being. Second, all items used in the questionnaire were self-report and the similarity in the wording for some of the items may have contributed to a common method bias. Using partner reports and developing scales with more varied item wording may help mitigating this issue. Recall bias is another issue because some participants may have postponed completion of their dairy to the following day.

Reactivity to participation in sex research may have biased the results. Reporting on basic needs satisfaction and sexual motivation after engaging in sexual activities may have created a halo effect surrounding the partner and the relationship, potentially biasing the reports toward more positive appraisals. Closely monitoring one’s sexual activities may have also increased sexual thoughts, which in turn could have increased frequency of sexual activities and influenced sexual well-being reports.

Composition of the sample was an issue as we relied on a convenience sample of privileged emerging adult women (i.e., educated, heterosexual, and of European descent). Notably, a limited number of men participated in the study and as such, results may have differed with a larger sample. However, to the best of our knowledge, this was the first study to examine daily variations in autonomous and controlled sexual motivation, and our primary goal was to validate associations between these two motivational orientations and daily experiences of sexual well-being. The results our study emerged from data from 692 sexual encounters, offering initial insights on the motivational underpinnings of daily variations in sexual well-being using an SDT lens. Given the complexity of the associations between gender and sexual behavior (e.g., Petersen & Hyde, 2011; Sanchez et al., 2012), gender differences and similarities in autonomous and controlled sexual motivation, and importantly the mechanisms that underlie them, deserve to be the primary focus of a separate investigation. Age is another limitation of the sample’s composition. Indeed, the high averages we observed on the study variables may reflect participants’ younger age. Previous studies have found that younger adults tend to report higher levels of sexual well-being in comparison to older adults (for a review, see Byers & Rehman, 2014).

Finally, although the focus of this study was on partnered sexual activities, responses of the partner were not measured. The use of dyadic frameworks in future research will be necessary to clarify whether and how basic needs satisfaction and autonomous and controlled sexual motivation in one partner influence experiences of sexual well-being in the other partner.

Some important directions for future research emerge from this study. First, future studies should aim to clarify the mechanisms linking autonomous and controlled sexual motivation to sexual well-being. SDT research on broader relationship functioning demonstrates that autonomous relational motivation is associated with a more flexible and less defensive interpersonal style (for a review, see Knee et al., 2016), suggesting that autonomous motivation may be linked to better communication skills. Investigating whether autonomous and controlled sexual motivation are associated with differences in the quality of negotiations surrounding sexual likes and dislikes and whether better dyadic communication fosters more autonomous and less controlled sexual motivation may provide insights on this question. Another direction for future research is to further investigate the connections between daily sexual activities and broader relationship functioning. One interesting avenue is to determine whether reasons to maintain a relationship with a partner influence the extent to which daily sexual motivation are autonomous or controlled, and the magnitude of their variations from one sexual encounter to the other. Finally, another avenue for future investigation is to explore whether people experience changes in daily relationship satisfaction as a result of the extent to which their reasons to engage in daily sexual activities are autonomous or controlled.

Implications for sexual well-being

Because sexual well-being contributes to thriving in relationships and overall quality of life (e.g., Diamond & Huebner, 2012; George, et al., 2014; Muise et al., 2016), key implications for enhancing daily sexual well-being arise from this study. First, developing a better awareness of one’s reasons to engage in sexual activities may foster conditions that are more conducive to positive sexual experiences. Specifically, it may be preferable to engage in sexual activities for autonomous reasons exclusively; for instance, to experience pleasure or express a meaningful connection to the partner. Conversely, it may be preferable to avoid engaging in sexual activities when one feels pressured. It may be tempting to think that engaging in sexual activities albeit for pressuring reasons is better than not engaging in sexual activities at all. After all, an association between higher controlled sexual motivation and lower sexual satisfaction does not necessarily entail sexual dissatisfaction. However, given that our study and others suggest that higher scores on negative sexual well-being indicators such as negative sexual affect and sexual distress are associated with higher controlled sexual motivation (Gravel et al., 2016; Gravel et al., 2017), some types of sexual motives may increase unpleasant sexual experiences, and not simply decrease positive ones. We could speculate that over time, daily controlled sexual motivation may deteriorate long-term sexual and relational well-being due to an accumulation of repeated negative sexual experiences.

Our findings also support the intuitive notion that sex starts well before a couple enters the proverbial bedroom. Positive interactions between partners may be critical in fostering both optimal sexual motivation and more satisfying sexual encounters. Our findings illuminate key characteristics of interpersonal interactions that may set the stage for positive sexual experiences, which may ultimately increase the likelihood of future sexual encounters. Specifically, letting one’s partner be the architect of their decisions, celebrating their strengths, and engaging in daily gestures that communicate caring and kindness are concrete strategies that can help create an interpersonal climate that sustains sexual well-being in long-term committed relationships.

One concrete behavioral pathway that may contribute to setting the stage for quality sexual encounters through basic needs satisfaction is the division of domestic labor. Some studies have shown that a more egalitarian division of domestic labor is associated with higher sexual frequency and satisfaction (e.g., Carlson et al., 2016; Maas et al., 2018). The extent to which this division is perceived as fair may be especially relevant for appraisals of autonomy fulfilment. For instance, a partner may experience autonomy frustration if they perceive that they are responsible for the bulk of household chores. This imbalance may leave them feeling as if they have little control over a critical dimension of their daily life, ultimately dampening the quality of their sexual motivation and partnered sexual activities. Exploring the role of division of household labor may provide insights on daily relationship behaviors that foster optimal versus nonoptimal forms of sexual motivation through experiences of basic needs satisfaction.

Conclusion

Because sexual activities are associated in important ways with fulfilling relationships and quality of life, it is critical that we understand the factors that support or hinder sexual well-being. In this study, we showed that basic psychological needs satisfaction and autonomous and controlled sexual motivation provide insights on the circumstances shaping daily variations in sexual well-being. People may experience more satisfying sexual experiences on days when their reasons to engage in sexual activities are genuinely in line with the self, values, and identity. In contrast, sexual experiences may be less satisfying and even unpleasant on days when reasons to engage in sexual activities result from pressures. Furthermore, the quality of nonsexual partnered interactions set the stage for the quality of sexual experiences. People may derive higher well-being from their sexual activities when they feel more autonomous, competent, and connected during their daily partnered interactions, in part because these interactions may foster more autonomous sexual motivation.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, Appendix_A - The ebb and flow of sexual well-being: The contributions of basic psychological needs and autonomous and controlled sexual motivation to daily variations in sexual well-being

Supplemental Material, Appendix_A for The ebb and flow of sexual well-being: The contributions of basic psychological needs and autonomous and controlled sexual motivation to daily variations in sexual well-being by Emilie E. Gravel, Elke D. Reissing and Luc G. Pelletier in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Variable	Mean	SD	Range
Basic needs satisfaction	6.42	0.76	1.67–7.00
Autonomous sexual motivation	5.48	1.12	1.17–7.00
Controlled sexual motivation	2.48	1.08	1.00–6.50
Sexual satisfaction	6.08	1.13	1.00–7.00
Positive sexual affect	6.18	1.04	1.00–7.00
Negative sexual affect	1.38	0.88	1.00–7.00
Relational well-being	4.39	0.57	1.00–7.00

Variable	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.
1. Basic needs satisfaction	1
2. Autonomous sexual motivation	.36***	1
3. Controlled sexual motivation	.15	−.11	1
4. Sexual satisfaction	.54***	.60***	−.12	1
5. Positive sexual affect	.58***	.63***	−.14	.89***	1
6. Negative sexual affect	−.48***	−.30**	.23*	−.61***	−.64***	1

Outcome		Hypothesized models
Sexual satisfaction	.33 [.17, .49] (.08)**	[.08, .25]	.51 [.35, .67] (.08)***	−.18 [−.32, −.04] (.07)**	.23
Positive sexual affect	.31 [.15, .47] (.08)***	[.08, .24]	.50 [.36, .64] (.07)***	−.22 [−.36, −.08] (.07)***	.38
Negative sexual affect	−.26 [−.42, −.10] (.08)**	[−.14, −.03]	−.21 [−.35, −.07] (.07)**	.21 [.07, .35] (.05)**	.24
		Models with control variables
	BNSP	BNSP-ASM	ASM	CSM
Outcome	B [95% CI] (SE)	[95% CI]	B [95% CI] (SE)	B [95% CI] (SE)	VE
Sexual satisfaction	.32 [.10, .52] (.10)***	[.09, .24]	.52 [.36, .68] (.08)***	−.18 [−.32, −.04] (.07)**	.24
Positive sexual affect	.30 [.14, .46] (.08)***	[.09, .23]	.50 [.36, .64] (.07)***	−.22 [−.32, −.12] (.05)***	.38
Negative sexual affect	−.24 [−.40, −.08] (.08)**	[−.12, −.02]	−.21 [−.35, −.07] (.07)**	.17 [.03, −.17] (.07)*	.29

Footnotes

Authors’ note

The data from this research were presented in a doctoral thesis authored by Emilie E. Gravel.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank their research assistants Lina Berrada, Nathalie Long Hei Ho, Maude Lévesque, Lydia Mundygio, Maya Pilin, Raphaëlle Robidoux, Julia Smith, and Heba Watfa Wehbe for their assistance in conducting orientation sessions with participants. The authors would also wish to thank Veronika Huta, Nafissa Ismail, Martin Lalumière, and Frédérick Philippe for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Emilie E. Gravel

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered.

The data used in the research are not available. The materials used in the research are available and can be obtained at egrav037@uottawa.ca.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

References

Bartholomew

K. J.

Ntoumanis

Ryan

R. M.

Bosch

J. A.

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

(2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1459–1473. https://doi.org/101,177/0146167211413125

Boislard-Pépin

M.-A.

Green-Demers

Pelletier

Chartrand

Séguin Lévesque

C. S.

(2002). L’impact du style interpersonnel du partenaire sur la compétence, la motivation et la satisfaction sexuelle. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 23, 105–119

Bolger

Laurenceau

J. P.

(2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.

Brunell

A. B.

Webster

G. D.

(2013). Self-determination and sexual experience in dating relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 970–987. https://doi.org/101,177/0146167213485442

Byers

S. E.

Rehman

U. S.

(2014). Sexuality and health. In Tolman

D. L.

Diamond

L. M.

Bauermeister

J. A.

George

W. H.

Pfaus

J. G.

Ward

M. L.

(Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Person-based approaches (Vol. 1., pp. 317–337). American Psychological Association.

Carlson

D. L.

Miller

A. J.

Sassler

Hanson

(2016). The Gendered division of housework and couples’ sexual relationships: A reexamination. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 975–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12313

Christopher

F. S.

Sprecher

(2000). Sexuality in marriage, dating, and other relationships: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 999–1017. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00999.x

Deci

E. L.

(1975). Intrinsic motivation. Plenum.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press.

10.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https://doi.org/101,207/S15327965PLI1104_01

11.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2014). Autonomy and need satisfaction in close relationships: Relationships motivation theory. In Weinstein

(Ed.), Human motivation and interpersonal relationships (pp. 53–73). Springer.

12.

Diamond

L. M.

Huebner

D. M.

(2012). Is good sex good for you? Rethinking sexuality and health. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 54–69. https://doi.org/0.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00408.x

13.

Diener

(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.95.3.542

14.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

(2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362. https://doi.org/101,002/job.322

15.

Garson

G. D.

(2013). Preparing to analyze multilevel data. In Garson

G. D.

(Ed.), Hierarchical linear modelling: Guide and applications (pp. 27–55). Sage.

16.

George

W. H.

Norris

Nguyen

H. V.

Masters

N. T.

Davis

K. C.

(2014). Sexuality and health. In Tolman

D. L.

Diamond

L. M.

Bauermeister

J. A.

George

W. H.

Pfaus

J. G.

Ward

M. L.

(Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Person-based approaches (Vol. 1., pp. 655–696). American Psychological Association.

17.

Gravel

E. E.

Pelletier

L. G.

Reissing

E. D.

(2016). “Doing it” for the right reasons: Validation of a measurement of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation for sexual relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 164–173. https://doi.org/101,016/j.paid.2015.12.015

18.

Gravel

E. E.

Reissing

E. D.

Pelletier

L. G.

(2017). Global, relational, and sexual motivation: A test of hierarchical versus heterarchical effects on well-being. Manuscript submitted for publication.

19.

Guay

Ratelle

C. F.

Chanal

(2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012758

20.

Hadden

B. W.

Baker

Z. G.

Knee

C. R.

(2017). Let it go: Relationship autonomy predicts pro-relationship responses to partner transgressions. Journal of Personality. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12362

21.

Hendrick

S. S.

Dicke

Hendrick

(1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598151009

22.

Impett

E. A.

Muise

Peragine

(2014). Sexuality in the context of relationships. In Tolman

D. L.

Diamond

L. M.

Bauermeister

J. A.

George

W. H.

Pfaus

J. G.

Ward

L. M.

(Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Person-based approaches (Vol. 1, pp. 269–315). Washington: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://content.apa.org/books/14193-010

23.

Kindt

Vansteenkiste

Loeys

Goubert

(2016). Helping motivation and well-Being of chronic pain couples: A daily diary study. Pain, 157, 1551–1562. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000550

24.

Knee

C. R.

Hadden

B. W.

Baker

(2016). Optimal relationships as mutual fulfilment of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs. In Knee

C. R.

Reis

H. T.

(Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships: Positive approaches to optimal relationship development (Vol. 1., pp. 30–55). Cambridge University Press.

25.

La Guardia

J. G.

Ryan

R. M.

Couchman

C. E.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfilment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.79.3.367

26.

Loewenstein

Krishnamurti

Kopsic

McDonald

(2015). Does increased sexual frequency enhance happiness? Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 116, 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.04.021

27.

Maas

C. J. M.

Hox

J. J.

(2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.85

28.

Maas

M. K.

McDaniel

B. T.

Feinberg

M. E.

Jones

D. E.

(2018). Division of labor and multiple domains of sexual satisfaction among first-time parents. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X15604343

29.

Muise

(2017). When and for whom is sex most beneficial? Sexual motivation in romantic relationships. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 58, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000094

30.

Muise

Kim

J. J.

McNulty

J. K.

Impett

E. A.

(2016). The positive implications of sex for relationships. In Knee

Reis

(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Positive approaches to optimal relationship development (Vol. 1., pp. 124–147). Cambridge University Press.

31.

Muise

Schimmack

Impett

E. A.

(2016). Sexual frequency predicts greater well-being, but more is not always better. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615616462

32.

Nezlek

J. B.

(2016). A Practical guide to understanding reliability in studies of within-person variability. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.020

33.

J. Y. Y.

Ntoumanis

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

Duda

J. L.

Williams

G. C.

(2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612447309

34.

Patrick

Knee

C. R.

Canevello

Lonsbary

(2007). The Role of need fulfilment in relationship functioning and well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 434–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.434

35.

Pelletier

L. G.

Sarrazin

(2007). Measurement issues in self-determination theory and sport. In Hagger

M. S.

Chatzisarantis

N. L. D.

(Eds.), Self-determination theory in exercise and sport (pp. 143–152). Human Kinetics.

36.

Petersen

J. L.

Hyde

J. S.

(2011). Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors: A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.551851

37.

Ratelle

C. F.

Guay

Vallerand

R. J.

Larose

Senécal

(2007). Autonomous, controlled, and a motivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of educational psychology, 99, 734. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734

38.

Reis

H. T.

Sheldon

K. M.

Gable

S. L.

Roscoe

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002

39.

Rocchi

Pelletier

L. G.

Cheung

Baxter

Beaudry

(2017). Assessing need-supportive and need-thwarting interpersonal behaviours: The interpersonal behaviours questionnaire (IBQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.034

40.

Ryan

R. M.

(1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x

41.

Sanchez

D. T.

Fetterolf

J. C.

Rudman

L. A.

(2012). Eroticizing inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender role adherence in intimate relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.653699

42.

Schoenfeld

E. A.

Loving

T. J.

Pope

M. T.

Huston

T. L.

Štulhofer

(2017). Does sex really matter? Examining the connections between spouses’ nonsexual behaviors, sexual frequency, sexual satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0672-4

43.

Selig

J. P.

Preacher

K. J.

(2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. http://quantpsy.org/

44.

Sheldon

K. M.

Ryan

Reis

H. T.

(1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270–1279. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212007

45.

Smith

V. C.

(2007). In pursuit of “good” sex: Self-determination and the sexual experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 69–85. https://doi.org/101,177/0265407507072589

46.

Standage

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Self-determination theory and exercise motivation: Facilitating self-regulatory processes to support and maintain health and well-being. In Roberts

G. C.

Treasure

(Eds.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (3rd ed., pp. 233–270). Human Kinetics. https://doi.org/101,080/00224490903100561

47.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

48.

Vallerand

R. J.

(1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60019-2

49.

Vrangalova

(2015). Does casual sex harm college students’ well-being? A longitudinal investigation of the role of motivation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 945–959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0255-1

50.

Zhang

Zyphur

M. J.

Preacher

K. J.

(2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 695–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108327450

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

0.12 MB