Validation of the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction With Women in a Same-Sex Relationship

Abstract

We examined the validity of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction for sexual-minority women (SMW) with a range of sexual identities (lesbian, bisexual, queer, unlabeled, questioning). Participants, 898 (192 who were dating, 439 who were cohabitating) SMW in a romantic relationship of at least 3 months, completed an online survey that included the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire. The results provide support for the validity of the model for SMW in that all the model components (relationship satisfaction, balance of sexual rewards and costs, balance of relative sexual rewards and costs, equality of rewards, equality of costs) were significantly associated with sexual satisfaction. All of the components, except equality of sexual costs, contributed uniquely to the prediction of sexual satisfaction. Neither relationship stage (dating vs. cohabiting) nor sexual identity (lesbian vs. other sexual-minority identity) moderated these associations. Women daters reported a significantly higher level of sexual rewards, sexual costs, and sexual satisfaction than did women cohabiters. The interpersonal exchange model may be used by clinicians as a framework for exploring experiences of low sexual satisfaction with a couple. The results also add to an emerging positive picture of the sexual relationships of SMW at both stages; this information can be used to counter negative stereotypes. Online supplemental files are available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684316679655 .

Keywords

human sexuality same-sex couples sexual satisfaction lesbianism

Although there is considerable research examining the non-sexual aspects of women’s same-sex relationships, less is known about the sexual aspects of the relationship in general, and about sexual satisfaction specifically (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000; Cohen & Byers, 2014; Peplau, Fingerhut, & Beals, 2004). Sexual satisfaction is important because it is closely linked to overall relationship satisfaction and stability, psychological well-being, physical health, and quality of life, although most of this research was conducted with mixed-sex (male–female) couples (Apt, Hurlbert, Pierce, & White, 1996; Charnetski & Brennan, 2004; Christopher & Sprecher, 2000; Davison, Bell, LaChina, Holden, & Davis, 2009; Ebrahim et al., 2002; Karney & Bradbury 1995; Laumann et al., 2006). Most sexual-minority women (SMW) who are in a romantic relationship report that their sex life is satisfying (Cohen & Byers, 2014; Matthews, Tartaro, & Hughes, 2003; Peplau, Cochran, & Mays, 1997; Roberts, Sorenson, Patsdaughter, & Grindel, 2000). However, we do not have a comprehensive understanding of factors influencing SMW’s sexual satisfaction (Byers & Rehman, 2013; Rehman, Fallis, & Byers, 2013). The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction provides a theoretical framework for understanding sexual satisfaction in relationships (Lawrance & Byers, 1995) but has not been used with individuals in a same-sex relationship. Thus, we sought to establish the validity of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction for women with a range of sexual identities (lesbian, bisexual, queer, unlabeled, questioning) who are in a same-sex relationship. This knowledge is important to education and interventions aimed at enhancing the sexual satisfaction of SMW (Byers, 1999).

Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction

According to Lawrance and Byers (1995), sexual satisfaction is a person’s overall affective appraisal of the positive and negative dimensions of their sexual relationship—that is, their sexual rewards and costs. Sexual rewards are exchanges between partners that are positive and pleasurable to the individual; sexual costs are exchanges that cause physical or mental effort or pain, embarrassment, anxiety, or other negative affect (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959). Any sexual exchange (e.g., level of affection during sexual activity, use of sex toys) can be experienced as a reward, a cost, neither a reward nor a cost, or both a reward and a cost depending on the nature of the interaction and the individual’s appraisal of it (Lawrance & Byers, 1995).

In the current study, we examined the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction, which hypothesizes that individuals in a romantic relationship are more sexually satisfied if (1) they appraise the nonsexual aspects of the relationship more positively, (2) they experience a more favorable balance of the overall level of sexual rewards and the level of sexual costs in the relationship (i.e., they experience high sexual rewards and low sexual costs), (3) this balance compares favorably to their expected level of sexual rewards and sexual costs (i.e., they experience relatively high sexual rewards and relatively low sexual costs), and (4) they perceive greater equality between their own and their partner’s sexual rewards and costs. Lawrance and Byers (1995) developed the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire (IEMSSQ) as a measure of the four components of the model as well as to correct methodological problems associated with existing measures of sexual satisfaction (e.g., they included items that are more accurate predictors of sexual satisfaction). Researchers have used the IEMSSQ to demonstrate the validity of the model for identifying factors associated with the sexual satisfaction of individuals in mixed-sex married and cohabiting relationships in Canada, Spain, and China (Lawrance & Byers 1995; Renaud, Byers & Pan, 1997; Sánchez-Fuentes & Santos-Iglesias, 2016); individuals in mixed-sex dating relationships in Canada and the United States (Byers, Demmons & Lawrance, 1998; Peck, Shaffer, & Williamson, 2005); and individuals with autism spectrum disorder (Byers & Nichols, 2014). In these studies, the components accounted for between 58% and 79% of the variance in sexual satisfaction. Researchers also have used the IEMSSQ to demonstrate that an individual’s sexual satisfaction is influenced by dyadic factors (e.g., the partner’s experience) and by the history of sexual rewards and costs in the relationship (Byers & MacNeil, 2006).

Researchers have not investigated the validity of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction for explaining the sexual satisfaction of sexual-minority women (SMW) or sexual-minority men. It is possible that the model is not appropriate or that it works differently for individuals in a same-sex relationship than for individuals in a mixed-sex relationship because of differences in the social climate in which these relationships develop and are expressed (Cohen, Byers, & Walsh, 2008). That is, same-sex relationships have little societal legitimization or institutional support, are subject to societal prejudice, involve two individuals who have had similar gender socialization, and lack explicit or clear models for interaction. It may be that one or more of the components in the exchange model are not associated with, or that the components account for little variance in, the sexual satisfaction of sexual-minority individuals, necessitating the development of a revised model specific to SMW. Therefore, we examined whether the four components were associated with sexual satisfaction as hypothesized in the model. We chose to focus on sexual-minority women for two main reasons (Cohen & Byers, 2014; Cohen et al., 2008; Peplau et al., 2004). The relationship context strongly influences the sexual well-being of SMW, making it important to identify contextual factors affecting the sexual well-being of SMW specifically. Also, there has been less research on the sexual well-being of sexual-minority women than of sexual-minority men, in part because SMW are often depicted as less sexual than other couple types (Cohen & Byers, 2014; Peplau et al., 2004).

Specific Sexual Rewards and Costs

We have proposed that an individual’s sexual satisfaction is a result of their overall appraisal of all of the exchanges experienced as sexual rewards and sexual costs, rather than their appraisal of any specific sexual exchanges (Lawrance & Byers, 1995). Nonetheless, individuals differ in whether they find specific sexual exchanges to be rewarding or costly or both. For example, in their sample of 143 married and cohabiting individuals, Lawrance and Byers (1995) found that only four sexual exchanges were identified as sexual rewards by more than 90% of the women. These were all related to the interpersonal/affective aspects of the sexual relationship (e.g., “how comfortable you feel with your partner”). Although none of the sexual exchanges were endorsed as sexual costs by more than 70% of the women, six were identified as sexual costs by between 43% and 65% of the women. Endorsed costs were mostly related to the enactment of sexual activity (e.g., “frequency of sexual activities”). Of note, Lawrance and Byers used a checklist of sexual rewards and costs developed from open-ended responses collected from mostly heterosexual students. Based on qualitative research, Cohen and her colleagues (2008) subsequently revised and expanded the checklist to be inclusive of the sexual exchanges that sexual-minority individuals find rewarding and costly. Researchers have not to date examined the likelihood that SMW identify each of these exchanges as sexual rewards and sexual costs.

Sexual Satisfaction of Women Daters Versus Women Cohabiters

Byers and Rehman (2013) called for research investigating whether sexual satisfaction and sexual exchanges vary at different relationship stages. For most individuals, the decision to live with their romantic partner (whether married or not) constitutes an important milestone, signifying a higher level of commitment and greater relationship stability (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000; Joyner, Manning, & Bogle, 2013; Rose & Zand, 2000). For SMW, the nonsexual aspects of the relationship (including intimacy, trust, commitment, and relationship satisfaction) are strong determinants of sexual satisfaction and tend to be higher in more committed relationships (Armstrong & Reissing, 2013; Bridges & Horne, 2007; Henderson, Lehavot, & Simoni, 2009; Joyner et al., 2013). In addition, living together typically provides opportunities for more frequent and spontaneous sexual activity (Joyner et al., 2013; Shaw, Rhoades, Allen, Stanley, & Markman, 2013). In the current study, we examined the effects of relationship stage (dating vs. cohabiting) on SMW’s sexual satisfaction in two ways. First, we compared the sexual satisfaction and sexual exchanges of women who were in a dating relationship to women who were in a cohabiting relationship. Researchers have found that cohabiting individuals report higher sexual satisfaction than do “single” individuals (Biss & Horne, 2005; Smith & Horne, 2008; Tracy & Junginger, 2007). However, some of the single individuals in these studies did not have a romantic partner. Thus, their lower reported sexual satisfaction may have reflected the absence of a sexual partner and consequent lower than desired sexual frequency, rather than their affective appraisal of their sexual relationships. Researchers have not compared the sexual exchanges reported by individuals in dating and cohabiting relationships, as we did in the current study.

Second, we examined whether relationship stage moderated the associations between the components of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. We have argued that individual and relationship characteristics (e.g., sexual identity, relationship stage) may affect the components of the model but do not affect the associations between these components and sexual satisfaction (Lawrance & Byers, 1995). For example, even if women in a cohabiting relationship report higher sexual satisfaction and more favorable sexual exchanges than do women in a dating relationship, we would not expect the two groups to differ in the strength of the associations between the interpersonal exchange model components and sexual satisfaction. In keeping with this prediction, we have demonstrated that, for individuals in mixed-sex relationships, length of relationship and other participant characteristics do not moderate the associations between the interpersonal exchange model components and sexual satisfaction (Byers et al., 1998; Byers & Nichols, 2014; Lawrance & Byers, 1995). However, Byers (1999) hypothesized that relationship stage may moderate the sexual exchange model. Specifically, she argued that in fairly new relationships, there is an overall appraisal of the relationship that influences affective responses along a number of dimensions, including sexual satisfaction, such that appraisal of the overall relationship contributes more, and appraisals of sexual exchanges contribute less, to the sexual satisfaction of individuals in dating relationships than in long-term relationships. We tested whether this is, in fact, the case for SMW.

The Current Study

The overall goal of the current study was to enhance the understanding of factors associated with the sexual satisfaction of SMW, using the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction as a theoretical framework. We sought to add to the theoretical basis of this model by demonstrating that it is not specific to understanding the sexual satisfaction of individuals in mixed-sex relationships; it also applies to women with a range of sexual identities in a same-sex relationship. We also sought to add to theory by examining whether the strength of the association between the interpersonal exchange model components and sexual satisfaction was similar for women in dating and cohabiting relationships.

In keeping with the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction, and based on our previous research with women in a relationship with a man (Byers et al., 1998; Byers & MacNeil, 2006; Lawrance & Byers, 1995; Renaud et al., 1997), we predicted that higher sexual satisfaction would be associated with a more favorable balance of sexual rewards and sexual costs, a more favorable balance of relative sexual rewards and costs, greater equality of sexual rewards and costs, and higher relationship satisfaction. Based on research which has found that length of relationship and other participant characteristics did not moderate the associations between the model components and sexual satisfaction for women in mixed-sex relationships (Byers et al., 1998; Byers & Nichols, 2014; Lawrance & Byers, 1995), we did not expect to find that either relationship stage or sexual identity moderated these associations. We also sought to identify how likely SMW are to identify specific exchanges as sexual rewards and sexual costs. Finally, we predicted that, compared to women in a dating relationship, women in a cohabiting relationship would report high sexual satisfaction and more favorable sexual exchanges, including more favorable exchanges on the primary elements of the model (e.g., level of sexual rewards), components of the model (e.g., balance of sexual rewards and sexual costs), number of sexual rewards and costs, and specific sexual rewards and costs. We did not make any predictions with respect to the differences between the groups on specific sexual exchanges.

The current study used data that were part of a larger research project. Other components of the larger study have previously been published (see Cohen & Byers, 2014, 2015). Although these previous publications included two of the variables used in the current study, the research questions and goals of the current study are distinct from those in the previous publications.

Method

Participants

Participants were 898 women who were 18 years old or older and in an exclusive same-sex relationship of 3 months or longer. They ranged in age from 18 to 72 (M = 32.8, SD = 10.6); 471 (52%) indicated that they lived in Canada and 402 (45%) in the United States. In terms of education, 584 (65%) had an undergraduate or graduate degree; 155 (17%) had a college, trade school, or technical school education; and 158 (18%) had high school or less. In terms of race/ethnicity, most participants (776 [86%]) identified as White/Caucasian/European; the remainder identified as biracial/multicultural (43 [5%]), Asian/Pacific Islander (25 [3%]), Hispanic (21 [2%]), African American/African Canadian/Black (14 [2%]), Native American/Native Canadian (8 [1%]), or other (10 [1%]). Most participants (624 [70%]) were in a married, common-law, or cohabiting relationship; 274 (30%) were in an exclusive dating relationship. Relationship duration ranged from 3 months to 36 years (M = 4.0 years, SD = 4.7). In terms of sexual identity, 600 (67%) identified as lesbian, 101 (11%) as bisexual, 137 (15%) as queer, 46 (5%) as unlabeled, and 13 (1%) as not sure. With regard to sexual attraction, 420 (47%) described themselves as attracted to women only, 414 (46%) as attracted more to women than to men, 52 (6%) as attracted equally to women and men, 11 (1%) as more attracted to men than to women, and none as attracted only to men.

Measures

Demographic questionnaire

Participants provided demographic information including their age, race/ethnicity, level of education, country of residence, relationship stage (married or common-law, living together, dating exclusively, dating not exclusively) and duration, and sexual identity (lesbian, bisexual, queer, unlabeled, not sure). Participants also indicated their current feelings of sexual attraction (attracted only to women, attracted more to women than to men, attracted equally to both sexes, attracted more to men than to women, attracted only to men).

Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire

The Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire (IEMSSQ; Lawrance, Byers, & Cohen, 2011) includes four stand-alone measures: Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction, Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction, Sexual Exchanges Questionnaire, and Sexual Rewards/Costs Checklist–Revised. The first three of these measures were used in testing the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction.

The Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction was used to assess satisfaction with the overall relationship. Participants are asked, “Describe your overall relationship with your partner.” Responses are on five 7-point bipolar scales (e.g., good–bad, pleasant–unpleasant). Total scores range from 5 to 35, with higher scores indicating greater relationship satisfaction. Researchers (Lawrance et al., 2011; Sánchez-Fuentes, Santos-Iglesias, Byers, & Sierra, 2015) have demonstrated that this measure has high internal consistency (α = .91–.96) and good test–retest reliability at 4 weeks (r = .72–.90), 6 weeks (r = .60–.78), and 3 months (r = .70). Evidence for the concurrent and construct validity of scores on the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction has been demonstrated through significant correlations with scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), Sexual Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (Byers & Demmons, 1999), Primary Communication Inventory (Navran, 1967), and Mutual Communal Behaviors Scale (Williamson & Schulz, 1995) with mixed-sex couples (Lawrance et al., 2011; Peck et al., 2005; Sánchez-Fuentes et al., 2015). Internal consistency was high in the current study (α = .95).

The Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction was used to assess global sexual satisfaction. Respondents are asked, “Describe your sexual relationship with your partner” on the same five scales as for the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction (e.g., good–bad, pleasant–unpleasant). Total scores range from 5 to 35, with higher scores indicating greater sexual satisfaction. This measure has been shown to have high internal consistency (α = .90–.96) and good test–retest reliability at 3 months (r = .78; Lawrance et al., 2011). Researchers (Lawrance & Byers, 1995; MacNeil & Byers, 2009; Mark, Herbenick, Fortenberry, Sanders, & Reece, 2014; Renaud & Byers, 2001; Sánchez-Fuentes et al., 2015) have provided evidence for the concurrent and construct validity of the scale by demonstrating significant correlations in the expected direction of scores on the Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction with scores on the Index of Sexual Satisfaction (Hudson, Harrison, & Crosscup, 1981), single-item measures of sexual satisfaction, Sexual Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (Byers & Demmons, 1999), Sexual Cognition Checklist (Renaud & Byers, 2001), Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (Fava, Rankin, Alpert, Nierenberg, & Worthington, 1998), and Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (Renaud & Byers, 2001) in mixed-sex samples. Henderson, Lehavot, and Simoni (2009) reported high internal consistency in a sample of sexual-minority women (α = .94). Internal consistency was high in the current study (α = .95).

The 6-item Sexual Exchanges Questionnaire was used to assess sexual exchanges in the relationship. On Item 1, participants are asked, “How rewarding is your sexual relationship with your partner?” On Item 2, participants are asked, “Based on your own expectation about how rewarding your sexual relationship with your partner ‘should be,’ how does your level of rewards compare to that expectation?” On Item 3, they are asked, “How does the level of rewards that you get from your sexual relationship with your partner compare to the level of rewards that your partner gets from the relationship?” Responses are on 9-point scales with end points not at all rewarding/extremely rewarding (level of rewards, REW), much less rewarding in comparison/much more rewarding in comparison (comparison level or relative level of rewards, CL_REW), and my rewards are much higher/my partner’s rewards are much higher (perceived equality of rewards). Items 4–6 assessed level of sexual costs (CST), relative level of sexual costs (CL_CST), and perceived equality of sexual costs, respectively, using the same wording and response format as for sexual rewards. We calculated scores for the four components of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction using the scoring instructions recommended by the authors. First, to calculate the balance of sexual rewards to sexual costs (REW − CST), we subtracted Item 4 from Item 1. Next, to calculate the balance of relative sexual rewards to relative sexual costs (CL_REW − CL_CST), we subtracted Item 5 from Item 2. The possible range of scores for both REW − CST and CL_REW − CL_CST is −8 to +8. Finally, to calculate the equality of sexual rewards (EQ_REW) and equality of sexual costs (EQ_CST), Items 3 and 6 (perceived equality of rewards and costs) were recoded to represent the absolute value of the differences (e.g., the midpoint [5 on the original scale], representing perfect equality, was assigned a score of 4, both endpoints were assigned scores of 0, representing low equality). Thus, higher scores represent greater equality of sexual rewards and costs between partners regardless of which partner is underbenefited or overbenefited. As predicted, test–retest reliabilities for the exchange components have been shown to be moderate to high at 4 weeks (r = .55–.82), 6 weeks (r = .49–.87), 3 months (r = .43–.67), and 18 months (r = .25–.56; Lawrance et al., 2011; Sánchez-Fuentes et al., 2015). Sánchez-Fuentes and colleagues (2015) also found that, with a few exceptions, scores on the exchange components were correlated in the expected directions with scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), the Index of Sexual Satisfaction (Hudson et al., 1981), and the Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (Fava et al., 1998), providing evidence for the construct validity of the scores.

We used the 58-item Sexual Rewards/Costs Checklist–Revised to assess specific sexual rewards and costs. Cohen et al. (2008) added 12 items to the original Sexual Rewards/Costs Checklist (Lawrance & Byers, 1998) and revised some of the existing items in order to make the scale more appropriate for individuals in a same-sex relationship. Each item represents a sexual exchange (e.g., level of affection expressed during sexual activity; oral sex). Participants are first instructed about the meanings of the terms “reward” and “cost” using oral sex as an example. We then had them complete the checklist twice—first participants indicated whether each sexual exchange constituted a sexual reward for them and then they indicated whether it constituted a sexual cost for them. The instructions indicated that, “This is a list of possible rewards and costs in your sexual relationship. Please indicate whether each item in this list is generally a reward [cost] in your sexual relationship with your partner or not a reward [cost]” [bolded in original]. We used responses to each of the items to determine the types of sexual rewards and costs experienced by participants. We also computed the total number of items endorsed as sexual rewards and sexual costs. An item was considered a sexual reward if participants indicated it was only a sexual reward or both a sexual reward and a sexual cost; an item was considered a sexual cost if the participants indicated it was only a sexual cost or both a sexual reward and a sexual cost. Researchers have shown that the Sexual Rewards/Costs Checklist has high internal consistency for sexual rewards and sexual costs, respectively (α = .86 and .87; Lemieux & Byers, 2008); one study showed good test–retest reliability for number of rewards and number of costs, respectively, at 4 weeks (r = .62–.87 and .32–.86) and 6 weeks (.74–.92 and .75–.86; Sánchez-Fuentes et al., 2015). Number of sexual rewards and number of sexual costs have been shown to be significantly associated with scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976); Index of Sexual Satisfaction (Hudson et al., 1981), a single-item measure of sexual satisfaction; and the Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (Fava et al., 1998), and to distinguish women who have and have not experienced child sexual abuse (Lemieux & Byers, 2008; Sánchez-Fuentes et al. 2015), providing support for the construct and concurrent validity of the scores. Internal consistency was high in the current study (α = .92 for number of rewards and α = .92 for number of costs).

Procedure

Participants in the current study were recruited for a larger research project, titled “Lesbian and Bisexual Women’s Sexual Well-Being,” investigating predictors of a range of aspects of SMW’s sexual well-being. To participate in the larger study, women had to be in a current same-sex relationship of 3 months or longer and complete an online study. The announcements indicated that the research was being conducted by a lesbian/bisexual affirmative research team. They were posted on social and academic lesbian- and bisexual-related listservs as well as in community-based bookstores and community centers, placed in community newspapers and magazines, and distributed at community events in a number of locations throughout Canada and the United States. All of the recruitment materials directed interested women to the study website. Participants first read an informed consent page that reaffirmed that all women in a same-sex relationship of 3 months or longer were invited to participate and described the nature of the questions on the survey, confidentiality, and freedom to withdraw. Women who agreed to participate were linked to the main survey consisting of the Demographic Questionnaire and three of the four measures included in the IEMSSQ—Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction, Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction, and the Exchanges Questionnaire. They also completed a number of other measures that do not assess components of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction and, thus, are not relevant to the current study (see Cohen & Byers, 2014, 2015 for publications using these other measures).

Because we were concerned that participants would not volunteer for the study if the estimated time to complete the survey was excessively long, we separated our measures into two separate surveys. After completing the main survey, participants were asked whether they were willing to complete a few additional measures; additional measures included the Sexual Rewards/Costs Checklist–Revised and other measures not included in the current analyses. If they agreed, participants were linked to those measures. Next, all participants were directed to a separate page where they could provide their name and e-mail address to be entered into a lottery for CAN$100; participants who completed the additional set of measures were entered into the lottery twice. Finally, all participants were directed to a debriefing page that included information about the purpose of the study as well as hyperlinks to support organizations in Canada and the United States.

Results

Descriptive statistics for the variables in the study are reported in Table 1 for both sexual-minority women daters and cohabiters.¹ Overall, participants reported a high level of sexual rewards and a moderately high level of relative sexual rewards. They reported a low level of sexual costs and a moderately low level of relative sexual costs. This resulted in a favorable balance of sexual rewards and sexual costs and relative sexual rewards and relative sexual costs. Participants also reported a high degree of equality between their own and their partner’s sexual rewards and sexual costs. Finally, participants reported high relationship and sexual satisfaction (mean scores on the measures of sexual and relationship satisfaction, but not the other measures used in this study, were previously reported in Cohen & Byers, 2014, and/or, 2015). The zero-order correlations among the exchange model variables are presented in Table 2. All of the model components were significantly correlated with each other and with sexual satisfaction in the expected directions.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Variables.

		Overall		Dating Women		Cohabiting Women		Relationship Stage^a
Variable	Range	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F(1, 896)	$η_{p}^{2}$
Level of rewards (REW)	1 to 9	7.0	2.1	7.4	1.9	6.8	2.2	18.88***	.02
Level of costs (CST)	1 to 9	3.1	2.2	3.5	2.3	2.9	2.2	13.18***	.01
REW − CST	−8 to +8	3.9	3.6	3.9	3.5	3.9	3.6	0.10	.00
Relative reward level (CL_REW)	1 to 9	6.0	2.3	6.5	2.1	5.7	2.4	20.68***	.02
Relative cost level (CL_CST)	1 to 9	4.1	2.1	4.2	2.1	4.0	2.1	1.25	.00
CL_REW − CL_CST	−8 to +8	1.9	3.6	2.3	3.5	1.7	3.7	5.03	.01
Equality of rewards (EQ_REW)	0 to 4	3.1	1.2	2.3	1.3	3.1	1.2	4.90	.01
Equality of costs (EQ_CST)	0 to 4	3.3	1.1	3.2	1.2	3.3	1.1	3.62	.00
Relationship satisfaction	5 to 35	31.0	4.9	30.4	4.9	31.2	4.9	4.53	.01
Sexual satisfaction	5 to 35	29.2	6.5	30.8	5.5	28.5	6.7	23.59***	.03

Note. N = 898 (274 women daters and 624 women cohabiters). REW − CST = balance of sexual rewards and sexual costs; CL_REW − CL_CST = balance of relative sexual rewards and relative sexual costs.

^aResults of the follow-up analyses of variance to the significant multivariate analysis of variance testing differences between the women daters and cohabiters.

***p < .001.

Table 2.

Correlations Among Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Variables.

Variables	CL_REW − CL_CST	EQ_REW	EQ_CST	Relationship Satisfaction	Sexual Satisfaction
REW − CST	.74***	.20***	.41***	.57***	.74***
CL_REW − CL_CST		.12***	.28***	.46***	.63***
EQ_REW			.40***	.18***	.20***
EQ_CST				.26***	.27***
Relationship satisfaction					.58***
Sexual satisfaction

Note. N = 898 for all variables except number of rewards and number of costs for which N = 647. REW − CST = balance of sexual rewards and sexual costs; CL_REW − CL_CST = balance of relative sexual rewards and relative sexual costs; EQ_REW = equality of rewards; EQ_CST = equality of costs.

***p < .001.

Comparing Women in a Dating Relationship to Women in a Cohabiting Relationship

We compared the demographic characteristics (age, education, relationship length, sexual identity [lesbian women vs. other sexual-minority women], and sexual attraction) of the women daters (participants who reported they were dating exclusively or dating not exclusively) and cohabiters (those who reported that they were married, common-law, or living together) using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). It was significant, F(5, 883) = 32.37, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .16. Follow-up analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated that, compared to women who were in a cohabiting relationship, women in a dating relationship were significantly younger (28.9 vs. 34.4 years), had less education (27% vs. 13% had completed high school or less), and had been in their relationship for a shorter time (1.3 vs. 5.3 years). The two groups did not differ in terms of their sexual identity (lesbian vs. other sexual-minority identity) or their level of sexual attraction to men and women.

To test our prediction that women in a cohabiting relationship would experience their sexual relationship more favorably than would women in a dating relationship, we compared the two groups on the Sexual Exchange Questionnaire primary elements (level of sexual rewards, sexual costs, relative sexual rewards, relative sexual costs), exchange model components (relationship satisfaction, balance of sexual rewards to sexual costs, balance of relative sexual rewards to relative sexual costs, equality of rewards, equality of costs), and sexual satisfaction using a one-way MANOVA. Due to the large sample size and to avoid interpreting small effects, α was set at p < .001 for this and all other analyses. The MANOVA was significant, F(8, 889) = 12.73, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .10. Contrary to predictions, the women daters reported significantly higher levels of sexual rewards, sexual costs, and relative sexual rewards and significantly higher sexual satisfaction than did the women cohabiters. The two groups did not differ significantly on the other model variables or components (see Table 1 for the ANOVA results and the group means).

Testing the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction

We used a hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting sexual satisfaction to test the extent to which the components of the interpersonal exchange model were associated with sexual satisfaction. Because the women in dating and cohabiting relationships differed significantly in terms of the age, education, and relationship length, we controlled for these variables in this analysis by entering them at Step 1. The control variables were significantly associated with sexual satisfaction at Step 1 and accounted for 6% of the variance, F(3, 894) = 19.08, p < .001. Only relationship length contributed uniquely to the prediction of sexual satisfaction. Participants who were in relationships of shorter duration reported higher sexual satisfaction. To test the validity of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction, we added the model components (relationship satisfaction, balance of sexual rewards to sexual costs, balance of relative sexual rewards to relative sexual costs, equality of sexual rewards, equality of sexual costs) at Step 2. The model components accounted for an additional 58% of the variance in sexual satisfaction, F _change(5, 889) = 281.31, p < .001. In keeping with our prediction, all model components were significantly associated with sexual satisfaction on a bivariate basis (see Table 2). As shown in Table 3 Model 1 (Column 1), all of the predictors except EQ_CST (p = .006) were uniquely associated with sexual satisfaction.

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Sexual Satisfaction From the Components of the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction.

	Model 1			Model 2^a			Model 3^b
Predictors	β	sr	R ²-change	β	sr	R ²-change	β	sr	R ²-change
Step 1			.06***			.06***			.06***
Age	−.05	−.04		−.05	−.04		−.05	−.04
Education	.03	.03		.03	.03		.03	.03
Relationship length	−.22	−.19***		−.22	−.19***		−.22	−.19***
Step 2			.58***			.58***			.58***
Relationship satisfaction (rel. sat.)	.25	.20***		.25	.20***		.25	.20***
REW − CST	.49	.29***		.49	.29***		.49	.29***
CL_REW − CL_CST	.14	.09***		.14	.09***		.14	.09***
EQ_REW	.07	.07***		.07	.07***		.07	.07***
EQ_CST	−.07	−.06		−.07	−.06		−.07	−.06
Step 3 (Model 2)						.01***
Relationship stage (rel. stage)				−.11	−.10***
Step 4 (Model 2)						.01
Rel. Stage × Rel. Sat.				.04	.03
Rel. Stage × REW − CST				−.03	−.02
Rel. Stage × CL_REW − CL_CST				.06	.03
Rel. Stage × EQ_REW				−.03	−.03
Rel. Stage × EQ_CST				.05	.04
Step 3 (Model 3)									.00
Sexual identity (sexual ID)							−.02	−.02
Step 4 (Model 3)									.00
Sexual ID × Rel. Sat.							−.01	−.01
Sexual ID × REW − CST							.00	.00
Sexual ID × CL_REW − CL_CST							.04	.03
Sexual ID × EQ_REW							.04	.03
Sexual ID × EQ_CST							−.05	−.04

Note. N = 898. REW − CST = balance of sexual rewards and sexual costs; CL_REW − CL_CST = balance of relative sexual rewards and relative sexual costs; EQ_REW = equality of sexual rewards; EQ_CST = equality of sexual costs; relationship stage: 1 = dating, 2 = cohabiting/married.

^aModel 2 tests the contribution of the interactions between relationship stage and the model components over and above the contributions of the predictors included in Model 1. ^bModel 3 tests the contribution of the interactions between sexual identity and the model components over and above the contributions of the predictors included in Model 1.

***p ≤ .001.

We tested whether relationship stage (dating vs. cohabiting) moderated the strength of the associations between the exchange model components and sexual satisfaction using two hierarchical multiple regression analyses. First, relationship stage was added to the above analysis (i.e., Model 1) at Step 3, and the interaction terms between relationship stage and each of the five model components (using partialed products based on centered variables) were added at Step 4 (the results are reported in Table 3 Column 2, Model 2). Relationship stage added significantly to the equation over and above the model components, but only accounted for 1% additional variance, F _change(1, 888) = 25.83, p < .001. Consistent with the results of the MANOVA, the women daters reported higher sexual satisfaction than did the women cohabiters. The interaction terms did not add significantly to the equation, $R_{change}^{2}$ = .01, F(5, 883) = 3.02, p = .010. This indicates that the model worked similarly for women in dating and cohabiting relationships.

Next, we used a similar procedure to determine whether the model worked equally well for the 600 women who identified as lesbian compared to the 297 women who identified as some other sexual-minority identity. That is, sexual identity was added to the Model 1 hierarchical multiple regression analysis at Step 3, and the interaction terms between sexual identity and each of the exchange model components were added at Step 4 (these results are reported in Table 3 Column 3, Model 3). Sexual identity neither added to the equation nor moderated the associations between the model components and sexual satisfaction, each step accounting for less than 1% additional variance, F _change(1, 888) = 1.31, p = .252 and F _change(5, 883) = 1.37, p = .232, respectively. This indicates that the model worked similarly for women with different sexual-minority identities.

Specific Sexual Rewards and Costs

Our investigation of specific sexual rewards and costs was based on the 647 (72%) participants who completed the optional Sexual Rewards/Costs Checklist–Revised. We compared participants who did and did not complete the checklist on age, education, relationship stage, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction using a MANOVA. The two groups did not differ significantly, F(5, 885) = 1.75, p = .120. On average, the participants who completed the Sexual Rewards/Costs Checklist endorsed 43.5 of the 58 sexual exchanges as sexual rewards and 11.3 as sexual costs. We used a one-way MANOVA to compare the number of sexual rewards and number of costs reported by the women daters and cohabiters. It was not significant, F(2, 628) = 2.30, p = .101, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 01.

Nine items were identified as sexual rewards by more than 90% of participants.² Six of these items were related to their interpersonal relationship—how their partner treats them, comfort with each other, level of affection expressed, emotional intimacy during and after sex, and fun during sex. The other 3 items referred to sexual responses and activities: sexual desire for their partner, physical sensations during sexual activity, and their partner’s nudity. All but four of the sexual exchanges were identified as sexual rewards by more than half the sample. In contrast, none of the exchanges were identified as sexual costs by more than half the sample. The most frequent sexual costs, identified by 41–47% of the sample, were related to frequency and duration of sexual activities and amount of spontaneity.

χ² comparisons were used to compare the proportion of women daters and cohabiters reporting each sexual reward. The same procedure was followed for sexual costs. The two groups differed significantly on 4 items as sexual rewards and 6 items as sexual costs (see Table 4). Significantly more women in a dating relationship than in a cohabiting relationship endorsed the frequency, duration, spontaneity, and nature of sexual activities as sexual rewards; conversely, significantly more women in a cohabiting relationship than in a dating relationship identified these items as sexual costs. The women cohabiters also were significantly more likely to identify the variety in activities, times, and locations and the enacted sexual script, and less likely to identify privacy, as sexual costs.

Table 4.

Specific Sexual Rewards and Costs Showing Differences Between Daters and Cohabiters.

	Sexual Rewards			Sexual Costs
Item	Daters (%)	Cohabiters (%)	χ²	Daters (%)	Cohabiters (%)	χ²
Frequency of sexual activities	71	49	26.41***	32	54	27.91***
How much time you and your partner spend engaging in sexual activities	73	55	18.06***	27	48	23.35***
Amount of spontaneity in your sex life	72	51	26.43***	33	51	19.61***
Sexual activities you and your partner engage in to arouse each other	91	80	13.30***	10	23	15.27***
Variety in sexual activities, locations, times				27	41	11.97***
How much privacy you and your partner have for sex				34	19	16.15***

Note. N = 647 (197 women daters and 449 women cohabiters).

***p < .001.

Discussion

The results of this study provide strong support for the validity of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction for sexual-minority women with a range of sexual identities. This extends the theory by demonstrating that the model is not specific to individuals in mixed-sex relationships, as has been shown in past research (Byers et al., 1998; Lafrance, 2010; Lawrance & Byers, 1995; Peck et al., 2005). Thus, the findings demonstrate that the model can be used as a framework for future theoretically derived research aimed at capturing the distinct sexual experiences of SMW. The finding that neither relationship stage nor sexual identity moderated the strength of the associations between the exchange model components and sexual satisfaction also adds to theory. That is, these findings are consistent with the theoretical argument that individual characteristics affect the components of the model but do not affect the associations between these components and sexual satisfaction (Lawrance & Byers, 1995). Findings do not support more recent theorizing that the overall affective appraisal of the relationship makes a larger contribution to the sexual satisfaction of individuals in short-term than in long-term relationships (Byers, 1999; Byers & Rehman, 2013).

The results also add to our understanding of factors associated with the sexual satisfaction of SMW. As predicted, for women both in dating and in cohabiting relationships as well as for both lesbians and women with other sexual-minority identities, women who reported a more favorable balance of sexual rewards and sexual costs, a more favorable balance of relative sexual rewards and relative sexual costs, greater equality of sexual rewards and costs between partners, and higher relationship satisfaction reported greater sexual satisfaction. Together, the model components accounted for 58% of the variance in sexual satisfaction. This is similar to the percentage of variance found in studies with women in a mixed-sex relationship (58–79%). These results suggest that the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction works equally well for women in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships despite the different social climate in which these relationships develop and are expressed—that is, same-sex relationships have little societal legitimization or institutional support, are subject to societal prejudice, involve two individuals who have had similar gender socialization, and lack explicit or clear models for interaction (Cohen et al., 2008; Peplau et al., 2004).

Consistent with the findings of Lawrance and Byers (1995), all of the components of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction except the equality of sexual costs contributed uniquely to the prediction of sexual satisfaction. It may be that equality of costs did not contribute uniquely because, on average, our participants reported a high degree of equality between their own and their partner’s sexual costs. That is, for SMW who are high in sexual and relationship satisfaction and experience a favorable balance of sexual rewards to sexual costs, as in our sample, small differences in equality may not have much influence on sexual satisfaction. Research is needed to determine the role of equality of costs in the sexual satisfaction of individuals experiencing relationship or sexual distress.

Women Daters Versus Women Cohabiters

Compared to the women in a cohabiting relationship, the women in a dating relationship reported significantly higher levels of sexual rewards, sexual costs, and relative sexual rewards as well as greater sexual satisfaction. However, the differences between the groups were fairly modest, accounting for only 1–3% of the variance. Furthermore, the two groups did not differ on the exchange model components (e.g., balance of sexual rewards to sexual costs) and/or on the total number of sexual rewards and costs. That is, we found that SMW’s experiences of their sexual relationship are, for the most part, very positive both early in the relationship when they are dating their partner and after they begin living with their partner. This is in keeping with recent research that has found that, even in long-term relationships, most SMW regularly engage in sexual activity and find such activity satisfying (Cohen & Byers, 2014; Henderson et al., 2009; Matthews et al., 2003). Nonetheless, it appears that the sexual relationships of SMW may become somewhat less positive after partners begin cohabiting, rather than more positive due to a higher level of commitment, as we hypothesized.

Most of the specific sexual rewards and sexual costs were endorsed by similar percentages of women daters and cohabiters. Nonetheless, analysis of group differences in the likelihood of reporting specific sexual rewards and costs provides some insight into the types of sexual exchanges that may change when women partners live together. Specifically, the women daters were significantly more likely to identify sexual frequency, duration, spontaneity, and engaging in arousing sexual activities as sexual rewards and significantly less likely to identify them as sexual costs; they were also less likely to identify sexual variety as a sexual cost. Because this is the first study to compare individuals in dating and cohabiting relationships on their experience of sexual exchanges, it is not known whether these differences also are characteristic of other couple types.

As expected, the women who identified themselves as cohabiters had been in their relationship significantly longer than the women daters. Thus, the differences between these two groups may reflect a process of sexual habituation that occurs as partners become more familiar with each other and novelty decreases. This explanation aligns with research which has found that SMW tend to engage in sexual activity less frequently over the course of the relationship (Cohen & Byers, 2014) as well as with the findings that relationship length and sexual satisfaction are negatively correlated (Armstrong & Reissing, 2013; Bridges & Horne, 2007; Tracy & Junginger, 2007). It also is possible that women daters (or participants new to their relationship) were affected by social desirability or defensiveness about being in a relationship more than were the women cohabiters. That is, given that most people adhere to the committed relationship ideology (Day, Kay, Holmes, & Napier 2011), the women in a dating relationship may have knowingly or unknowingly felt more pressure to characterize their sexual relationship in positive terms to justify to themselves that it is “worth it” to be in the relationship. According to the committed relationship ideology, individuals with a partner are seen as better than single individuals and a committed romantic relationship is seen as more important than other relationship types. This speculation warrants further empirical investigation.

Types of Sexual Rewards and Costs

The results also provide information about the specific aspects of the sexual relationship that SMW are most likely to experience as positive and negative (i.e., as sexual rewards or sexual costs). Participants reported a broad range of sexual rewards—on average, 75% of the 58 sexual exchanges listed on the Sexual Rewards/Costs Checklist were endorsed as sexual rewards. Participants were particularly likely to identify sexual exchanges related to interpersonal and emotional connection (e.g., level of affection, emotional intimacy, how their partner treats them, level of comfort) as sexual rewards. However, they also frequently identified the physical and behavioral aspects of the sexual script (e.g., sensations arising from sexual activity) as sexual rewards. Similarly, Cohen and Byers (2014) found, using a subsample of participants in the current study, that SMW in long-term relationships who engage both in more frequent non-genital and in more frequent genital sexual activity report higher sexual satisfaction. Taken together, these results suggest that emotional intimacy is necessary but not sufficient for SMW to experience their sexual relationship as satisfying.

Our participants also reported experiencing few sexual exchanges as costs—19% of the items on the Sexual Rewards/Costs Checklist on average. Indeed, there were no exchanges that were endorsed as sexual costs by more than 50% of the sample. Participants most frequently identified sexual exchanges associated with the sexual script (e.g., frequency of sexual activity, spontaneity, duration of sexual activity, sexual variety, and negotiating desire discrepancies) as sexual costs. The women reporting these sexual costs may be those for whom the frequency of sexual activity with their partner had declined markedly over time—between 8% and 15% of women in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships report never or seldom engaging in sexual activity (Bibby, 1995; Cohen & Byers, 2014; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). Of note, however, many participants identified these same aspects of the sexual script as sexual rewards—indeed, more participants identified them as sexual rewards than as sexual costs. This suggests that, whereas maintaining ongoing and rewarding sexual activities is problematic for some SMW, for most it is a positive aspect of the sexual relationship.

Comparison of the Current Results and Results With Women in a Mixed-Sex Relationship

We only sampled sexual-minority women; therefore, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about similarities and differences between the sexual experiences of women in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships. Nonetheless, it is interesting to compare the current results with those of previous research with women in a mixed-sex relationship, while being cautious about drawing firm conclusions because of possible differences in characteristics of the samples other than partner gender.

Byers and MacNeil (2006) provided mean scores for men and women separately on the components of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction for their sample of 104 mixed-sex couples. The results for the women in the Byers and MacNeil study and in the current study are similar in that the women in both studies provided positive appraisals of their sexual relationship. However, it appears that participants in the current study may have reported a somewhat lower balance of sexual rewards to sexual costs, balance of relative sexual rewards to sexual costs, and equality of sexual rewards, although these differences are not large. Reports of the equality of costs and sexual satisfaction are similar in the two studies. The somewhat more negative experiences of SMW may be a result of minority stress. For example, Cohen and Byers (2015) have shown that SMW in a long-term relationship who are higher in internalized heterosexism (an internal minority stressor) report poorer sexual functioning. Although these authors did not find that the external minority stressors that they included (e.g., criminal victimization, child sexual abuse, adult sexual victimization) were associated with sexual functioning in their sample, future research might explore the relation between minority stress and sexual functioning further.

Lawrance and Byers (1995) identified the most frequent sexual rewards and costs reported by their sample of 143 women in long-term mixed-sex relationships. Because they used an earlier, less comprehensive version of the Sexual Rewards/Costs Checklist (Lawrance & Byers, 1998), it is impossible to compare the number of sexual rewards and costs found for the women in the two studies. Nonetheless, consistent with the current results, Lawrance and Byers found that the women in their sample were most likely to identify the interpersonal aspects of the relationship as sexual rewards. The sexual costs that were endorsed most frequently in that study also were similar to those reported in the current study—for example, frequency of sexual activity, spontaneity, duration of sexual activity, having sex when you are not in the mood.

The similarities between the current results and those of previous research with women in mixed-sex relationships suggest women may share the experience of specific rewards and costs, based on their own gender rather than the gender of their partner. Nonetheless, to examine similarities and differences between the experiences of women in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships in terms of the components of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction and specific sexual rewards and costs, researchers need to compare the two groups directly.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The findings need to be interpreted in light of the limitations of the study. The extent to which the results can be generalized to all SMW in romantic relationships is not known. We attempted to recruit participants who were diverse in multiple respects and did recruit a large community sample with a range of sexual identities and ages. However, participants primarily identified as White/Caucasian/European, were living in Canada or the United States, were highly educated, and reported high relationship and sexual satisfaction. Research is needed with SMW who are more diverse in these respects. Research is also needed with sexual-minority men. In addition, although we collected data using an anonymous online survey and advertised the study widely, it is likely that women with certain characteristics were underrepresented. This includes SMW who would be less likely to see the advertisements because they are more closeted or not connected with the sexual-minority community, do not identify as lesbian or bisexual (given the name of the study, although the announcement invited all SMW to participate), have negative sexual attitudes, or are no longer engaging in sexual activity with their partner (Otis, Rostosky, Riggle, & Hamrin, 2006; Strassberg & Lowe, 1995; Wiederman, Weis, & Allgeier, 1994). It also may be that socially desirable responding affected participants’ highly positive reports about their sexual lives. That is, some respondents may have been motivated to describe their relationship in an overly positive light either because of their personal characteristics (e.g., adherence to a committed relationship ideology that privileges romantic relationship over other relationships; Day et al., 2011) or for ideological reasons (e.g., to counter common negative stereotypes about sexuality in women’s same-sex relationships).

The large sample size is both a strength and a limitation. On the one hand, the large sample size enhances confidence in the reliability of the findings. On the other hand, although we adopted a conservative α (p < .001), some of our significant findings (e.g., group differences) had small effect sizes and thus may have little practical significance. Others (e.g., correlations of the exchange components with sexual satisfaction) accounted for more variance. Thus, the significant findings should be interpreted in light of the effect sizes. In addition, although multiple researchers have investigated sexual satisfaction and many of them have used the measures included in the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire, most of the research on the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction itself has been conducted by one lab (see Peck, Shaffer, & Williamson, 2005; Sánchez-Fuentes & Santos-Iglesias, 2016 for exceptions). It is important that other groups of researchers replicate the current findings. Finally, we studied individuals rather than couples. To fully understand factors affecting SMW’s sexual satisfaction, it is important that future research includes dyadic factors by including both couple members (Byers & Rehman, 2013; Rehman et al., 2013). Because this study was cross-sectional, it is impossible to draw firm conclusions about the impact of living with a partner on SMW’s experiences of their sexual relationship. Thus, it is also important that researchers determine the trajectory of these experiences over the course of the relationship by conducting longitudinal research.

Practice Implications

Building on research with individuals in mixed-sex relationships, we examined factors associated with the sexual satisfaction of a community sample of sexual-minority women (SMW) in a romantic relationship using the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction as a theoretical framework (Lawrance & Byers, 1995). According to Lawrance and Byers (1995), sexual satisfaction is a person’s overall affective appraisal of the positive and negative dimensions of their sexual relationship—that is, their sexual rewards and costs. Sexual rewards are exchanges between partners that are positive and pleasurable; sexual costs are exchanges between partners that cause physical or mental effort or negative affect.

Although most of the women in our study were satisfied with their romantic and sexual relationship, the results have implications for education and interventions aimed at enhancing the sexual satisfaction of SMW. First, we found that the women in both dating and cohabiting relationships described their sexual relationships very positively. That is, they reported high sexual satisfaction, a high level of sexual rewards, a low level of sexual costs, and a high degree of equality between their own and their partner’s sexual rewards and costs. A number of researchers have argued that both some SMW and some professionals hold negative stereotypes about sexuality in same-sex relationships (Cohen & Byers, 2014; Matthews et al., 2003; Roberts et al., 2000). Thus, it is important to disseminate this finding widely in order to counter such negative stereotypes. Countering negative societal messages that can lead to internalized homonegativity and heterosexism also is likely to result in higher sexual satisfaction for SMW (Cohen & Byers, 2015). Second, our findings demonstrate that the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction is useful for understanding factors affecting the sexual satisfaction of SMW in both dating and cohabiting relationships, and with a range of sexual identities. Thus, the interpersonal exchange model may be used by clinicians as a framework for exploring with a couple, experiences of low sexual satisfaction. That is, the results demonstrate that it is important for clinicians to assess (using the IEMSSQ as in the current study or a clinical interview) whether a couple’s low sexual satisfaction is likely related to low relationship satisfaction, an unfavorable balance of sexual rewards to sexual costs, sexual rewards and sexual costs not meeting expectations, and/or inequality of sexual rewards and costs between partners. Third, clinicians can then use this information to design targeted therapeutic interventions aimed at enhancing the sexual satisfaction of both couple members. Specifically, the results suggest a number of ways in which therapists can assist couples in enhancing their sexual satisfaction, including by helping them improve the quality of the nonsexual aspects of the relationship; increase the level of sexual rewards in the relationship and decrease the level of sexual costs in the relationship; alter unrealistic sexual expectations that affect partners’ relative level of, or comparison level for, sexual rewards and sexual costs; and develop a sexual script that results in more equal sexual rewards and sexual costs between them (Byers, 1999). In addition, SMW seeking to enhance their sexual satisfaction without professional help can use the results to explore the changes in their romantic and sexual relationship that are most likely to enhance the sexual satisfaction of both partners. It is important that researchers determine the efficacy of use, by both clinicians and SMW, of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction to enhance couple sexual satisfaction.

Conclusions

The results of this study add to theory by demonstrating that the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction is useful for understanding the sexual satisfaction of a new population—SMW. As such, the model may be useful in developing a comprehensive understanding of factors influencing the sexual satisfaction of SMW in both dating and cohabiting relationships among women with a range of sexual identities. This opens the door to a range of research possibilities including capturing the distinct experiences of SMW due to the intersectional nature of their position as women and sexual minorities, identifying the mechanisms affecting SMW’s sexual satisfaction, and determining the extent to which women’s sexual experiences are influenced by their own and their partner’s gender. The results demonstrate the importance of the exchange model components (e.g., the balance of sexual rewards and sexual costs) to SMW’s sexual satisfaction. The results also point to the aspects of the sexual relationship that SMW are most likely to find rewarding and costly. They provide evidence for the validity of the IEMSSQ for use with SMW. Finally, they extend theory by demonstrating not only the validity of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction for SMW but also that the strength of the association between the model components and sexual satisfaction is similar for women in different relationship stages and with different sexual identities.

Our results suggest that SMW experience high sexual satisfaction, a favorable balance of sexual rewards and sexual costs, and significantly more sexual rewards than sexual costs. Thus, they add to an emerging body of research that challenges negative conceptions of the sexual relationships of SMW (Farr, Forssell, & Patterson, 2010; Matthews et al., 2003; Roberts et al., 2000) by documenting, at both relationship stages—dating and cohabiting—a positive picture of their sexual and relationship functioning.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The data are available from the first author by request.

Acknowledgments

We thank the women who participated in this study as well as Drs. Carmen Poulin, Enrico DiTomasso, Shannon Glenn, and Angela Weaver for their assistance with the methodology; Jessica Carfagnini, Carolyn Moffatt, and Shelley Taylor for their assistance with data collection; and Pablo Santos-Iglesias for his comments on an earlier version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported in part by a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first author.

Notes

References

Apt

Hurlbert

D. F.

Pierce

A. P.

White

L. C.

(1996). Relationship satisfaction, sexual characteristics and the psychosocial well-being of women. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 5, 195–210.

Armstrong

H. L.

Reissing

E. D.

(2013). Women who have sex with women: A comprehensive review of the literature and conceptual model of sexual function. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 28, 364–399. doi:10.1080/14681994.2013.807912

Bibby

R. W.

(1995). The Bibby report: Social trends Canadian style. Toronto, Canada: Stoddart.

Biss

W. J.

Horne

S. G.

(2005). Sexual satisfaction as more than a gendered concept: The roles of psychological well-being and sexual orientation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 25–38. doi:10.1080/10720530590523044

Bridges

S. K.

Horne

S. G.

(2007). Sexual satisfaction and desire discrepancy in same sex women’s relationships. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 33, 41–53. doi:10.1080/00926230600998466

Byers

E. S.

(1999). The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction: Implications for sex therapy with couples. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 33, 95–111.

Byers

E. S.

Demmons

(1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 180–189. doi:10.1080/00224499909551983

Byers

E. S.

Demmons

Lawrance

(1998). Sexual satisfaction in dating relationships: A test of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 257–267. doi:10.1177/0265407598152008

Byers

E. S.

MacNeil

(2006). Further validation of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 32, 53–69. doi:10.1080/00926230500232917

10.

Byers

E. S.

Nichols

(2014). Sexual satisfaction of high-functioning adults with autism spectrum disorder. Sexuality and Disability, 32, 1–18. doi:10.1007/s11195-014-9351-y

11.

Byers

E. S.

Rehman

(2013). Sexual well-being. In Tolman

Diamond

(Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology. Washington, DC: APA Books.

12.

Charnetski

C. J.

Brennan

F. X.

(2004). Sexual frequency and salivary immunoglobulin A (IgA). Psychological Reports, 94, 839–844. doi:10.2466/pr0.94.3.839-844

13.

Christopher

F. S.

Sprecher

(2000). Sexuality in marriage, dating, and other relationships: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 999–1017. doi:10.1155/2014/964087

14.

Cohen

J. N.

Byers

E. S.

(2014). Beyond lesbian bed death: Enhancing our understanding of the sexuality of sexual-minority women in relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 893–903. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.795924

15.

Cohen

J. N.

Byers

E. S.

(2015). Minority stress, protective factors, and sexual functioning of women in a same-sex relationship. Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 391–403. doi:10.1037/sgd0000108

16.

Cohen

J. N.

Byers

E. S.

Walsh

L. P.

(2008). Factors influencing the sexual relationships of lesbians and gay men. International Journal of Sexual Health, 20, 162–246. doi:10.1080/19317610802240105

17.

Davison

S. L.

Bell

R. J.

LaChina

Holden

S. L.

Davis

S. R.

(2009). The relationship between self-reported sexual satisfaction and general well-being in women. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 2690–2697. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01406.x

18.

Day

M. V.

Kay

A. C.

Holmes

J. G.

Napier

J. L.

(2011). System justification and the defense of committed relationship ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 291–306. doi:10.1037/a0023197

19.

Ebrahim

May

Shlomo

Y. B.

McCarron

Frankel

Yarnell

Smith

G. D.

(2002). Sexual intercourse and risk of ischaemic stroke and coronary heart disease: The Caerphilly study. Journal of Epidemiology Community Health, 56, 99–102. doi:10.1136/jech.56.2.99

20.

Farr

R. H.

Forssell

S. L.

Patterson

C. J.

(2010). Gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adoptive parents: Couple and relationship issues. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 199–213. doi:10.1080/15504281003705436

21.

Fava

Rankin

M. A.

Alpert

J. E.

Nierenberg

A. A.

Worthington

J. J.

(1998). An open trial of oral sildenafilin antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 67, 328–331. doi:10.1159/000012299

22.

Henderson

A. W.

Lehavot

Simoni

J. M.

(2009). Ecological models of sexual satisfaction among lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 50–65. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9384-3

23.

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. doi:10.1080/00224498109551110

24.

Joyner

Manning

W. D.

Bogle

R.H.

(2013). The stability and qualities of same-sex and different-sex couples in young adulthood. CCPR Working Papers (PWP-BGSU-2013-002). Retrieved from http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/abstract.php?preprint=976

25.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3

26.

LaFrance

B. H.

(2010). Predicting sexual satisfaction in interpersonal relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 75, 195–214. doi:10.1080/10417940902787939

27.

Laumann

E. O.

Gagnon

J. H.

Michael

R. T.

Michaels

(1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

28.

Laumann

E. O.

Paik

Glasser

D. B.

Kang

J. H.

Wang

Levinson

… Gingell

(2006). A cross-national study of subjective sexual well-being among older women and men: Findings from the global study of sexual attitudes and behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 143–159. doi:10.1007/s10508-005-9005-3

29.

Lawrance

Byers

E. S.

(1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2, 267–285. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00092.x

30.

Lawrance

Byers

E. S.

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

Yarber

W. L.

Bauserman

Schreer

Davis

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

31.

Lawrance

Byers

E. S.

Cohen

(2011). Interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction questionnaire. In Fisher

T. D.

Davis

C. M.

Yarber

W. L.

Davis

(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (2nd ed., pp. 525–530). New York, NY: Routledge.

32.

Lemieux

S. R.

Byers

E. S.

(2008). The sexual well-being of women who have experienced child sexual abuse. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 126–144. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00418.x

33.

MacNeil

Byers

E. S.

(2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of long-term heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 1–12. doi:10.1080/00224490802398399

34.

Mark

K. P.

Herbenick

Fortenberry

J. D.

Sanders

Reece

(2014). A psychometric comparison of three scales and a single-item measure to assess sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 159–169. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.816261

35.

Matthews

A. K.

Tartaro

Hughes

T. L.

(2003). A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual women in committed relationships. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 101–114. doi:10.1300/J155v07n01_07

36.

Navran

(1967). Communication and adjustment in marriage. Family Process, 6, 173–184. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1967.00173.x

37.

Otis

M. D.

Rostosky

S. S.

Riggle

E. D. B.

Hamrin

(2006). Stress and relationship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 81–99. doi:10.1177/0265407506060179

38.

Peck

S. R.

Shaffer

D. R.

Williamson

G. M.

(2005). Sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction in dating couples: The contributions of relationship communality and favorability of sexual exchanges. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 16, 17–37. doi:10.1300/J056v16n04_02

39.

Peplau

L. A.

Cochran

Mays

V. M.

(1997). A national survey of the intimate relationships of African American lesbians and gay men: A look at commitment, satisfaction, sexual behavior, and HIV disease. In Greene

(Ed.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues (pp. 11–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

Peplau

L. A.

Fingerhut

Beals

K. P.

(2004). Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. In Harvey

Wenzel

Sprecher

(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 350–369). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

41.

Rehman

U. S.

Fallis

E. E.

Byers

E. S.

(2013). Sexual satisfaction in heterosexual women. In Castaneda

(Ed.), The essential handbook of women’s sexuality (Vol. 1, pp. 25–45). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

42.

Renaud

C. A.

Byers

E. S.

(2001). Positive and negative sexual cognitions: Subjective experience and relationships to sexual adjustment. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 252–262. doi:10.1080/00224490109552094

43.

Renaud

Byers

E. S.

Pan

(1997). Sexual and relationship satisfaction in Mainland China. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 399–410. doi:10.1080/00224499709551907

44.

Roberts

S. J.

Sorensen

Patsdaughter

C. A.

Grindel

(2000). Sexual behaviors and sexually transmitted diseases of lesbians: Results of the Boston Lesbian Health Project. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 4, 49–70. doi:10.1300/J155v04n03_03

45.

Rose

Zand

(2000). Lesbian dating and courtship from young adulthood to midlife. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 11, 77–104. doi:0.1300/J155v06n01_09

46.

Sánchez-Fuentes

M. M.

Santos-Iglesias

(2016). Sexual satisfaction in Spanish heterosexual couples: Testing the Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 42, 223–242. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2015.1010675

47.

Sánchez-Fuentes

M. M.

Santos-Iglesias

Byers

E. S.

Sierra

J. C.

(2015). Validation of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction questionnaire in a Spanish sample. The Journal of Sex Research, 52, 1028–1041. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.989307

48.

Shaw

A. M.

Rhoades

G. K.

Allen

E. S.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2013). Predictors of extradyadic sexual involvement in unmarried opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 598–610. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.666816

49.

Smith

B. L.

Horne

S. G.

(2008). What’s faith got to do with it? The role of spirituality and religion in lesbian and bisexual women’s sexual satisfaction. Women & Therapy, 31, 73–87. doi:10.1300/02703140802145243

50.

Spanier

G. B.

(1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38, 15–28. doi:10.2307/350547

51.

Strassberg

D. S.

Lowe

(1995). Volunteer bias in sexuality research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 369–382. doi:10.1007/BF01541853

52.

Thibaut

J. W.

Kelly

H. H.

(1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.

53.

Tracy

J. K.

Junginger

(2007). Correlates of lesbian sexual functioning. Journal of Women’s Health, 16, 499–509. doi:10.1089/jwh.2006.0308

54.

Wiederman

M. W.

Weis

D. L.

Allgeier

E. R.

(1994). The effect of question preface on response rates to a telephone survey of sexual experience. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 203–215. doi:10.1007/BF01542099

55.

Williamson

G. M.

Schulz

(1995). Caring for a family member with cancer: Past communal behavior and affective reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 93–116. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01586.x

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

0.11 MB