Gender, relationship stage, and sexual behavior: the importance of partner emotional investment within specific situations.

The decision to engage in sexual behavior with another person is greatly influenced by the level of emotional investment and love felt for the individual (Christopher & Cate, 1985; Roche, 1986; Sprecher, 1989a). Although actual practice may not always follow expressed attitudes and expectations perfectly (Cohen & Shotland, 1996; Roche, 1986), attitudes in the U.S. generally indicate greater approval for sexual behavior in relationships characterized by more emotional investment or stronger commitment to the relationship (Earle & Perricone, 1986; Roche, 1986; Sprecher, 1989b). Several studies have examined the extent to which people actually initiate sexual behavior in specific emotional contexts or relationship stages (outside of the traditional distinction between premarital and marital intercourse; Christopher & Cate, 1985; Cohen & Shotland, 1996; Roche, 1986; Sprecher, Barbee, & Schwartz, 1995). This research has demonstrated that the likelihood of sexual behavior increases with increasing intimacy, commitment, and progression to later stages of relationship involvement.

Of course, not all sexual behavior is initiated in the context of developing or established relationships. Some environments are more conducive to interest in casual sexual behavior, such as with the college culture and the phenomenon of hookups. A hookup is defined as "... a sexual encounter, usually lasting only one night, between two people who are strangers or brief acquaintances" (Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000, p. 76). The two people typically have little expectation of further involvement, with the sole or primary goal being to experience the sexual encounter. A second example of sexual contexts that are not oriented toward relationship enhancement is the tradition of taking trips on spring break vacation; norms associated with spring break trips permit, and even promote, sexual encounters between strangers with little expectation of further involvement (Maticka-Tyndale, Herold, & Mewhinney, 1998). Moreover, some individuals are more likely to be interested in casual sex than are others. For example, in one study college students lower in self-esteem, higher in dispositional exhibitionism, less likely to indicate a secure attachment style, and higher in some aspects of fear of intimacy were more likely to experience hookups (Paul et al., 2000). However, the concern of the current investigation regarded factors that relate to the initiation of sexual behavior between individuals who are interested in cultivating a long-term relationship with one another. It is likely that the factors that affect the initiation process in developing relationships is different from factors affecting the process for people not interested in forming a relationship with a sexual partner.

The focus of the current study is the perception of the likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior as a result of intimacy-relevant statements and actions by a hypothetical relationship partner. The hypothesis examined in the study is that perceptions of the likelihood of sexual behavior occurs as a function of (a) the nature of the interpersonal situation affording the opportunity for sexual interaction, (b) the stage of the relationship in which the opportunity arises, and (c) gender. Following from earlier research, it was predicted that, in situations conveying a sense of emotional investment by a hypothetical relationship partner, the likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior would be perceived as greater in more established relationship stages (involved in a long-term relationship vs. involved in a dating relationship, manipulated across participants through instructions about the type of relationship in which they were asked to imagine themselves). That is, Hypothesis 1 was that, in situations conveying partner emotional investment, the likelihood of sexual behavior was expected to be greater in later relationship stages.

The Influence of Emotional Investment on Sexual Behavior

Within the framework of the investment model of relationship commitment (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), commitment is conceived to be influenced by satisfaction with the relationship, the quality of alternatives to the relationship, and investment of resources in the relationship. According to this model, satisfaction contributes to a dependence on the relationship, a state in which individuals come to rely uniquely on the relationship for desired outcomes. To the extent that others outside of the relationship are not able to provide similar levels of desired outcomes, commitment to the relationship is strengthened by the experience of greater satisfaction. Intimacy is a major component of satisfaction that is often uniquely available from a romantic relationship (Rusbult et al., 1998), and in the current study emotional investment is conceived as an aspect of dependence on the relationship for the experience of such intimacy. Because this type of unique intimacy implies a special trust and a mutual concern for romantic partners' feelings, sexual behavior generally becomes more likely with increasing intimacy and emotional investment in a relationship, given that sexual involvement is generally viewed as a highly restricted and uniquely private type of interaction.

The Influence of Specific Interpersonal Situations on Sexual Behavior

Although research has established the major role of emotional investment and relationship commitment in affecting the likelihood of sexual behavior, the specific behaviors that create the level of emotional investment relevant to initiation of sexual behavior have yet to be thoroughly examined. Closeness and intimacy have been measured in previous research on sexual behavior employing global evaluations of the level of intimacy characterizing the relationship: that is, ratings of general, subjective impressions of the overall nature of the relationship. The exception to this approach is the study by Christopher and Cate (1985); in this study, couples were asked about the types of behaviors related to maintaining the relationship in which they had engaged at various stages of the relationship. The occurrence of such behaviors was linked to the timing of the initiation of sexual behavior. However, few other studies have focused on this level of behavioral specificity. Within the investment model, satisfaction has been measured employing global assessments of overall satisfaction levels in a relationship at a particular point in time. Yet, such impressions are presumably based on individual interactions with a romantic partner over an extended period of time. Specific actions, gestures, expressions, and verbalizations combine to create rewarding emotional experiences in given situations that accumulate to create such overall perceptions of satisfaction.

Within the framework of the investment model of relationship commitment (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult et al., 1998), rewards are assumed to accumulate over time within satisfying relationships, increasing satisfaction and commitment. However, very little research has been conducted to document the process through which greater levels of satisfaction develop from rewarding interactions in the relationship. That is, research has not focused on the specific nature and type of the interpersonal transactions that constitute the rewards. In a related vein, the specific types of rewarding interactions that increase the likelihood of sexual behavior in a particular situation have not received substantial attention. Yet, a detailed and thorough understanding of exactly how emotional intimacy and commitment lead to sexual involvement is possible only by examining specific interactions and the specific factors that promote intimate interactions (c.f. Hill, 1996, 1997b; Mischel, 1999). This was the purpose of the current study--to examine the types of interactions that may occur in a relationship to enhance the possibility of sexual involvement.

Increasingly, evidence indicates that behavior occurs as a joint probability of both situational and personal factors (Vansteelandt & Van Mechelen, 1998; Wright & Mischel, 1987). That is, behaviors do not occur unconditionally (with 100% probability) given the presence of a single, albeit very important, factor, such as the development of a high level of general intimacy in a relationship. Rather, the probability of a specific behavior is determined by "if ... then ..." conditionality (Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998). This means that for a given type of personal characteristic, if a particular type of situation occurs then a specific behavior will occur.

From the conditional probability perspective, the likelihood of sexual behavior occurring within a relationship may be viewed as jointly determined by the level of emotional investment felt in the relationship and by the occurrence of a sexually instigating situation. Even given a high level of intimacy in a relationship, some specific event, condition, or interaction takes place that causes individuals to experience sexual interest, and defines sexual behavior as possible and appropriate in that situation. Individuals involved in highly intimate relationships do not behave intimately with one another all the time in all interactions; rather, they engage in intimate behaviors only in particular, intimacy-appropriate situations. This is especially true with sexual behavior, given the highly regulated and restrictive rules governing the appropriateness of this type of behavior.

Extrapolating from the conditional probability view (Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998), it is expected that the if/then relationship for sexually conducive situations and sexual behavior varies across stages of relationship involvement. Relationship stage may be expected to modify perceptions of the sexually conducive situation in terms of the degree to which it is sexually arousing and the degree to which sexual behavior is appropriate. The first aspect of the hypothesis guiding the current study, therefore, was that individuals will indicate greater likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior in response to sexually inviting behavior of a hypothetical partner (the sexually conducive situation) at more established relationship stages (i.e., involved in a long-term, committed relationship) compared to less-established relationship stages (i.e., involved in a dating relationship for a short time).

Emotional Investment Conveyed in Sexual Situations

Yet another qualification of the relationship between the sexually conducive situation and the relationship stage is the specific way in which the situation provides the opportunity for sexual behavior. An especially significant factor in determining whether behavior will occur is the nature of the rewards or positive .experiences afforded by the situation (Argyle, Furnham, & Graham, 1981; Heckhausen, 1991, Read & Miller, 1989), with situations varying in the extent to which they provide particular rewarding experiences. In the case of sexual behavior, a major factor affecting whether sexual behavior will be perceived as a rewarding experience is the degree to which it is linked to emotional investment, as indicated previously. The occurrence of a sexually conducive situation in itself may not be expected to result in sexual behavior, in some. cases even in the context of a more established relationship. To the extent that a sexually relevant situation conveys or reinforces perceptions of emotional investment, sexual behavior will be more likely to be perceived as rewarding and as less likely to involve substantial cost (c.f. Christopher & Cate, 1985; Cohen & Shotland, 1996; Sprecher et al., 1995).

To examine various types of sexually relevant situations that differ in terms of emotional investment, a recent theoretical model of factors that motivate sexual behavior (Hill, 1997a; Hill & Preston, 1996) was employed to identify dimensions that influence perceptions of investment in sexual situations. The model maintains that the availability or perceived likelihood of eight types of rewarding interpersonal experiences, called incentives (Hill, 1987; Spence & Helmreich, 1983; Veroff & Veroff, 1980), increases sexual interest and the probability of sexual behavior. These incentives are the rewards or goals of a given interpersonal situation that motivate sexual behavior (Argyle et al., 1981; Read & Miller, 1989). The emotional experiences perceived to result from interaction with a partner therefore constitute the rewarding experience or incentive available in that situation.

Within this framework, pairs of the incentives may be conceived as counterparts to one another, in that one incentive in a pair focuses on actions and emotions of an individual and the counterpart incentive focuses on actions and emotions of the partner. Specifically, one pair of sexual incentives involves a sense of affection and positive regard resulting from sexual interaction: (a) feeling valued by one's partner and (b) expressing value for one's partner.

A second pair of incentives is related to compassion: (c) providing nurturance and comfort to one's partner and (d) receiving comfort and relief from stress or negative emotional states. A third pair involves expressions of power: (e) exerting power or feeling powerful over one's partner and (f) submitting to the power of one's partner. The remaining two incentives, (g) experiencing pleasure and sensuality and (h) wanting to procreate, are not counterparts in same way as the above three pairs. However, previous research (Hill, 1997a; Hill & Preston, 1996) suggests that a pleasure orientation may be somewhat contrary to a procreation orientation, with a focus on procreation involving a negative attitude about pleasure.

Situations explicitly conveying emotional investment. Partner behaviors providing two specific pairs of incentives are hypothesized to explicitly communicate a sense of emotional investment in the individual and in the relationship: the affection incentives and the compassion incentives. This is because they focus on the individual as a unique, valuable, and worthy person. Explicitly expressing feelings of affection and attraction for a person, or focusing on positive features, implies that the partner will desire future contact and is likely to engage in similarly positive interactions in the future. Consequently, the sexual incentives of feeling valued by partner or expressing value for partner are hypothesized to enhance the sense of emotional investment, trustworthiness, and intimacy within an interaction.

Expressing concern for negative events that have happened to the partner and attempting to soothe feelings of stress, anger, and unhappiness (relevant to the nurturance sexual incentive) even more directly conveys a sense of emotional investment in the partner. The counterpart behavior of indicating a desire for support and understanding (relevant to the need for comfort sexual incentive) is also likely to bolster the perception of emotional investment because of the trust and confidence implied by the request for support (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Sarason, Shearlin, Pierce, & Sarason, 1987).

A fifth incentive, procreation, is additionally proposed to strongly communicate a sense of emotional investment. Wanting to have a child with a person explicitly indicates an interest in establishing and maintaining intimacy, and being cooperative and supportive in raising the children. Interest in having children with a partner may also imply that an individual will be concerned about the well-being of the children and the partner in the future. This goes to the heart of the phenomenon of commitment, and indicates the potential for emotional investment in the partner. Within the investment model (Rusbult et al., 1998), expressing an interest in having children would be conceptualized as an interest in investing very important resources, a major factor in increasing commitment to the relationship. In sexually relevant situations, conveying the desire to have children with a partner affords the sexual incentive of procreation.

Situations not explicitly conveying emotional investment. Partner behaviors related to the remaining three incentives (partner power, power, and pleasure) were not assumed to convey a sense of emotional investment in the absence of additional information provided by an ongoing, enduring relationship. Nonetheless, in some contexts the opportunity to express or experience power produces sexual arousal and excitement rather than fear, anger, revulsion, or other negative emotional reactions for both men and women (Breslow, Evans, & Langley, 1985; Hill, 1996, 1997a; Weinberg, Williams, & Moser, 1984). Many individuals interested in expressions of power engage in power-related forms of sexual behavior to satisfy sexual fantasies and obtain sexual gratification (Arndt, 1991; Weinberg et al., 1984), rather than to serve as a means of expressing anger toward or intimidating their partner.

Although associations between power and sex may be related to sexual aggression (Zurbriggen, 2000), other elements must come into play in order for the power-sex-aggression linkage to develop (Malamuth, 1986). These additional factors may include possession of lower levels of dispositional responsibility (Zurbriggen, 2000), biased perception by men of women's hostility toward unwanted sexual advances (Malamuth & Brown, 1994), positive attitudes of men toward violence against women, generalized hostility by men toward women (Malamuth, 1986), general acceptance of interpersonal violence in nonsexual situations, and specific attraction toward sexual coercion (Malamuth, Check, & Briere, 1986). Research has generally indicated that no single factor individually accounts for the tendency to engage in sexual coercion (Malamuth, 1986; Zurbriggen, 2000),

Nonetheless, without the existence of prior mutual understandings and experiences (Weinberg et al., 1984), behaviors involving the expression of power may suggest (a) a lack of concern for a partner, (b) a concern about gaining an advantage over the partner (Reiss, 1986), or (c) a desire to obtain something against a person's will, to embarrass or humiliate, or even to physically hurt the person (Byers & O'Sullivan, 1998; Dutton & Strachan, 1987; Mason & Blankenship, 1987; Zillman, 1984). At minimum, power-assertive behaviors typically do not actively reinforce the sense that an individual is concerned about the well-being and self-esteem of the partner; instead, power-assertive behaviors cast the partner in a low-status, potentially demeaning position. Because of the inherent message of being concerned with one's own well-being and superior status, therefore, power-assertive behaviors were hypothesized not to inherently communicate a sense of trustworthiness or emotional investment in the partner.

Even partner behaviors indicating a willingness to be controlled and dominated may involve motivations that are not necessarily based on any special investment in a romantic partner. Instead, the act of submission may be construed in more negative ways in earlier stages of a relationship, or even in the later stages if the behavior is uncharacteristic of a long-term relationship partner. However, the intentions of a partner one has known for only a short period of time will necessarily be less clear than those of a more familiar partner (Davila, Karney, & Bradbury, 1999; Klohnan & John, 1998). In this case, willingness to be submissive may be perceived as strange and bizarre, possibly indicating unstable or maladaptive tendencies; alternatively, it could be perceived as an attempt to convey a false sense of weakness for the purpose of masking a strategy to disadvantage or harm the individual. For these reasons, behaviors relevant to both the power and partner power incentives (sexual incentives e and f above) are conceived as not inherently conveying a sense of emotional investment in the relationship partner.

Likewise, without further information provided by significant experience with a relationship partner, attempts to engage in pleasure and physical sensuality suggest a self-focus with no necessary regard for the individual. Traditionally, a focus on physical, carnal aspects of sexuality has been viewed as antithetical to, and even destructive of, loftier, more spiritual elements of intimacy (Bullough & Bullough, 1995). Unless it occurs in the context of other indicators of emotional investment in a partner, the sense that an individual is strongly interested in experiencing physical stimulation and gratification with a partner conveys no intrinsic sense of emotional investment in and commitment to the maintenance of the relationship. Consequently, in potentially sexual situations, behaviors relevant to pleasure (sexual incentive g above) were hypothesized not to explicitly convey a sense of emotional investment.

The Influence of Gender

Virtually without exception, women report dramatically more negative feelings about sexual behavior between individuals who have little emotional investment in one another, although women and men express more similar and more positive feelings about sexual behavior in loving or committed relationships (Carroll, Volk, & Hyde, 1985; Cohen & Shotland, 1996; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Sprecher, 1989b). The greater emphasis by women on the importance of sexual behavior occurring within a caring, committed relationship is consistent with the demands of female gender-role norms. A central feature of such norms is a valuing of interpersonal warmth and an orientation to maintaining relationships (Wood, Christensen, Hebl, & Rothgerber, 1997).

In keeping with their more permissive sexual attitudes, men expect to engage in sexual behavior earlier in a relationship (Byers & Lewis, 1988; Cohen & Shotland, 1996) and are more likely to expect sex regardless of the physical attractiveness of the partner and in the absence of emotional closeness (Cohen & Shotland, 1996). Likewise, men report desiring more frequent sex than is actually occurring at the time in the relationship in which they are involved, particularly in its earlier stages (McCabe, 1987; McCabe & Collins, 1984).

Given the greater concern of women about emotional investment, it is logical to expect that the extent to which sexual behavior is perceived as positive and desirable will depend to a much greater extent for women than men on whether it is linked to intimacy and commitment. For this reason, men were hypothesized to indicate greater likelihood of sexual behavior than women at earlier relationship stages, when the opportunity for sexual behavior occurs in situations not explicitly conveying emotional investment (Hypothesis 2). Yet, self-reported likelihood of sexual behavior was expected to be equivalent for women and men in lower investment situations at more-involved relationship stages; this is because emotional investment and commitment are typically more established in the relationship itself at these stages. In other words, for sexual situations not intrinsically conveying emotional investment, a statistical interaction between relationship stage and gender was predicted, with self-reported likelihood of sexual behavior affected by relationship stage to a greater extent for women than men (Hypothesis 2). Again, this predicted pattern contrasts with that expected for situations conveying greater emotional investment, as indicated previously (Hypothesis 1).

Personality Differences in Interest in Sexual Incentives

Research based on the eight-dimension model of sexual motivation has supported the existence of stable differences in the value individuals place on each of the eight incentives (Hill & Preston, 1996). Enduring interest in a sexual incentive is referred to as a dispositional sexual motive, in keeping with the more general concept of dispositional motive (Heckhausen, 1991). The nature of individuals' reactions to sexual incentives afforded in a given situation will be determined, at least to some extent, by the strength of their dispositional motives. Strong interest in an available incentive is likely to lead to an increased motivational state and intensified behavior focused on experiencing the incentive, with less dispositional interest likely to be related to lower levels of motivation and behavior. For example, an individual with a strong dispositional power motive would be expected to react differently to a situation in which a partner indicated a willingness to be dominated, compared to how an individual with less of a power motive would react to such a partner. The strong-motive individual would be more likely to display signals indicating increased psychological and physical arousal in this situation, to become more alert to further signals of interest from the partner, to attempt strategies of inspiring further interest by the partner in power-related sexual behavior, and to attempt to initiate power-related sexual behaviors. In the same type of situation, the individual with less of a power motive would react to such a partner with little or no increase in arousal and few or no behaviors directed at initiating power-related sexual behaviors.

Consequently, the dispositional strength of interest in each of the eight sexual incentives was measured to control for differences in reactions to the hypothetical interpersonal situations presented to participants in the current study. To examine the effect of differences among situations in terms of the emotional investment conveyed by the hypothetical partner, participants were asked to respond to partner behaviors described in eight scenarios regarding their likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior with the partner. By controlling for individual differences in sexual motives, effects on likelihood ratings by gender and relationship stage were independent of variations due to dispositional sexual motivation. Moreover, the relationship of dispositional sexual motives to reactions to each of the situations served as a type of empirical verification of the motivational theme of each situation. For example, establishing that the nurturance sexual motive correlates with sexual behavior in the situation in which a hypothetical partner needs comfort and support provides evidence for the proposal that the situation is focused on nurturance.

The Current Study

To test the above hypotheses, participants in the current study were asked to imagine themselves in eight hypothetical scenarios, each of which portrayed different types of partner behaviors related to one of the eight sexual incentives (Hill & Preston, 1996). Five of the sexual scenarios were proposed to explicitly communicate a sense of emotional investment in the relationship, and it was proposed that the three other scenarios did not explicitly convey a sense of emotional investment. After reading each scenario, participants indicated their likelihood of engaging in various sexual behaviors with the hypothetical partner based on their feelings about the statements and actions of the partner in that particular situation.

METHODS

Participants

Participants were 322 college students (200 women and 122 men) at a moderate-size Midwestern university, who received credit in their introductory psychology class for participation in the research. However, numbers vary slightly across analyses for the scenarios due to missing responses on some ratings.

The average age of participants was 21.76 years, with 25.6% older than 21 years. The majority of participants were single (83.3%), 12.1% were legally married, 0.9% were separated, 3.4% were divorced, and 0.3% were widowed. With respect to relationship involvement, 38.0% were involved in a serious relationship, 12.1% were married, 24.8% were dating or seeing someone, and 25.1% were not dating at the time of the study. Most participants reported having engaged in sexual intercourse (88.3%). Although information about racial/ethnic background was not obtained from respondents, the vast majority of students enrolled at the university are White. Information was also not obtained regarding the sexual orientation of participants, because extremely few individuals typically identify themselves as nonheterosexual in the participant population at this university.

Procedure

Self-reported likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior as a function of type of sexual situation was assessed employing a series of written scenario descriptions. One scenario was constructed to portray each of the eight sexual incentives hypothesized to motivate sexual behavior. All participants received booklets containing all eight scenarios; therefore, participants evaluated eight different scenarios. Examples of the scenario descriptions are presented in the appendix. Participants were asked to imagine themselves with a partner who is generally physically attractive to them, and to try to experience the settings, atmosphere, and feelings described as vividly as possible, as if they were actually happening. The questionnaires were administered in small classrooms with approximately 10 to 20 participants per session. Individuals were seated far enough apart to assure confidentiality while responding to the questionnaires.

Each story presented an interaction that participants imagined occurring between them and a hypothetical romantic partner. Behaviors engaged in by each individual were described in the scenario, as well as reactions of the other individual to the behaviors. Of specific focus was the nature of the feelings and emotions described as being experienced by participants in reaction to partner behaviors. The emotional reactions were intended to constitute the type of sexual incentive available from the partner in a given situation relevant to the presence or absence of emotional investment. In the situation affording the sexual incentive of expressing value for one's partner, one example of the way in which a sense of valuing the partner was conveyed is presented in the following excerpt.

   As she (or he) begins to talk about what she hopes for, you become
   engrossed in her ideas and become enthralled and excited about them, too.
   You feel the urge to reinforce her enthusiasm and compliment her on what
   she hopes to accomplish. You feel a rising surge of emotions for her, maybe
   even a passion, as you feel like you need to tell her how wonderful and
   beautiful she seems at the moment. It is as if you have this great,
   overwhelming urge to make love to her right then and them, to let her know
   that you have begun to bare for her and want to become more intimate with
   her.

Three versions of the scenario booklets were constructed to manipulate relationship stage across participants. This was accomplished by placing an instruction page before the presentation of the scenarios. The instructions requested that participants imagine they were involved with a partner (a) whom they had been dating 1 month, but with whom they could theoretically become involved in a serious relationship; (b) whom they had been dating for 6 months and with whom they could theoretically become involved in a serious relationship; or (c) who was their spouse or someone with whom they had been involved in a serious, permanent relationship for 6 months. However, across the eight scenarios, consistent differences did not occur between the condition in which participants were asked to imagine a partner whom they had been dating 1 month and the condition in which they were asked to imagine a partner whom they had been dating 6 months. Consequently, the participants for the two conditions were combined for all analyses.

Only one instruction sheet was included in each booklet, such that participants conceived of themselves in a single type of relationship for all eight scenarios they read. They were asked to view the person in each scenario as a different person from those in the other scenarios. Participants were told that they were not being asked to imagine they were involved with a group of different individuals, but that the scenarios were meant to obtain reactions to different types of people. Individuals responded to scenarios presenting the gender of the partner appropriate for them.

Finally, different versions of the booklets were also constructed so that each scenario was presented first in the series, and the order of the remaining scenarios was determined randomly. The version that participants received was a matter of chance, although approximately equal proportions of all eight versions were administered to different participants. This procedure was intended to eliminate the possibility of an effect on behavioral ratings related to the order in which the scenarios were presented to participants.

Measures

Self-reported likelihood of sexual behavior. After reading each scenario, participants were requested to indicate their feelings and reactions to the person and the sentiments expressed in the scenario on a series of self-report ratings. Three ratings focused on the likelihood, based on their feelings about the person and situation, that respondents would engage in each of the following behaviors with the person on that particular evening: (a) intimate kissing (e.g., on the lips, face or neck); (b) sexually intimate touching (e.g., caressing breasts or genitals or allowing it to be done to them); and (c) having sex (i.e., oral-genital sex or penile-vaginal intercourse). The behaviors were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all likely) to 3 (moderately likely) to 5 (extremely likely).

The above examples of each behavior were actually included in the stem of the ratings to ensure that participants were evaluating the same specific type of intimate behavior. This was done to avoid problems with individuals employing different definitions of sexual behavior, as has been shown to occur with respect to having sex (Bogart, Cecil, Wagstaff, Pinkerton, & Abramson, 2000; Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). Although having sex may often be used to refer exclusively to penile-vaginal intercourse, the phrase was defined in this study as comprising either oral-genital or penile-vaginal sex to allow for individual differences in preferred or typical sexual activity. Given that substantial proportions of college students (approximately 40%) believe that individuals have had sex if they engage in oral-genital sexual behavior (Bogart et al., 2000; Sanders & Reinisch, 1999), and that some individuals may prefer to engage in oral-genital behavior rather than penile-vaginal intercourse, the third rating was intended to assess sexual behavior that may be perceived as somewhat more intimate than that of the other two ratings.

The three separate ratings were employed to allow for the possibility of different levels of interest in intimacy with the partner. However, because of the large correlations among the three ratings, they were summed for each scenario to create a single composite measure of likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior in that situation. The means and alpha coefficients are presented in Table 1. Alpha coefficients ranged between .86 and .94, indicating substantial internal consistency.

Sexual motives. Dispositional sexual motives were measured employing The Affective and Motivational Orientation Related to Erotic Arousal Questionnaire (AMORE; Hill & Preston, 1996). The AMORE is a 62-item self-report questionnaire measuring eight dispositional sexual motives: the desire to (a) feel valued by one's partner, (b) express value for one's partner, (c) obtain relief from stress or negative psychological states, (d) provide nurturance to one's partner, (e) express one's power, (f) experience the power of one's partner, (g) experience pleasure, and (h) procreate. Respondents are requested to indicate how true or descriptive each statement is of them on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 3 (moderately true) to 5 (completely true). Values for the ratings within a given subscale were summed to create a total score for each subscale. Internal consistency coefficients (alphas) for most of the scales are generally greater than .85 (Hill, 1997a; Hill & Preston, 1996). Alpha coefficients in the current study were: .88 for the Valued by Partner Scale, .87 for the Value for Partner Scale, .92 for the Stress Relief Scale, .87 for the Nurturance Scale, .90 for the Power Scale, .94 for the Partner Power Scale, .77 for the Pleasure Scale, and .77 for the Procreation Scale.

Other personal characteristics. Information about other personal characteristics was obtained from a questionnaire presented at the beginning of the scenario booklets. These data included (a) gender; (b) age; (c) legal marital status (never married, legally married, separated, divorced, and widowed); (c) relationship status (not seeing or dating anyone, seeing or dating someone, and involved in a serious relationship or legally married); (e) whether the participant had had sex before (either oral-genital, penile-vaginal, or penile-anal); and (f) sexual relationship status (not involved in a sexual relationship, involved in a sexually exclusive relationship, or involved in a sexually nonexclusive relationship with a primary romantic partner). Only gender affected self-reported likelihood of sexual behavior and therefore is presented in subsequent analyses.

RESULTS

The means and alpha coefficients for the sexual likelihood ratings are presented in Table 1. Between-subjects ANOVAs were conducted on these ratings, with participant gender (female, male) and two levels of manipulated relationship stage (dating, in a serious relationship) as independent variables. The interaction between participant gender and relationship stage was also tested. Significant effects for these analyses are presented in Table 2, with the mean values for the significant effects presented in Table 3. The AMORE sexual motive scale most relevant to a given scenario was included as a covariate to control for individual differences in desire for each type of sexual incentive (e.g., the AMORE Valued By Partner Scale was included as a covariate in the analysis of ratings for the scenario focused on the opportunity to feel valued by the partner).

Relationship Stage and Participant Gender

Scenarios conveying greater emotional investment. Consistent with predictions, relationship stage significantly affected the sexual behavior ratings in four of the five scenarios hypothesized to convey a sense of greater partner emotional investment: in the need to be valued by one's partner scenario, in the express value for one's partner scenario, in the need for comfort scenario, and in the procreation scenario (see Table 2). Examination of mean values (presented in Table 3) indicates that participants reported greater likelihood of sexual behavior for more established relationships (involved in a serious relationship versus dating). The exception to predictions was the lack of a significant effect for relationship stage for the nurturance scenario.

Although not predicted, gender was significantly related to sexual behavior ratings for the nurturance and need for comfort scenarios (see Table 2). Specifically, women reported greater likelihood of sexual behavior than men in both scenarios as indicated by the mean ratings (Table 3). One other finding that was not predicted was the significant interaction between participant gender and relationship stage for the need for comfort scenario. In the dating relationship condition, the average rating for women (M = 10.88) was similar to that for men (M = 10.40); however, in the serious relationship condition, women rated the likelihood of sexual behavior as substantially greater (M = 12.65) than did men (M = 10.43).

Scenarios not explicitly conveying emotional investment. Consistent with predictions, the interaction between participant gender and relationship stage was significant for the scenario in which the partner behaved submissively (the partner submissive scenario), as well as for the scenario in which the partner expressed interest in pleasure and sensuality (the pleasure scenario; see Table 2). With respect to the nature of the interaction for the partner submissive scenario, women perceived sexual behavior as more likely in a serious relationship (M = 10.81; Table 3) compared to a dating relationship (M = 8.41), whereas men viewed sexual behavior as relatively more likely for both types of relationship (Ms = 11.01 and 10.99, respectively). Moreover, a significant simple effect occurred for participant gender, with men on average rating sexual behavior as more likely regardless of relationship stage (M = 11.00) compared to women (M = 9.61). Finally, the effect for relationship manipulation was significant, with sexual behavior perceived as more likely in serious relationships (M = 10.90) than in dating relationships (M = 9.71).

Regarding the significant interaction for the pleasure scenario, women rated sexual behavior as more likely in a serious relationship (M = 12.60) than in a dating relationship (M = 11.38); however, men viewed the likelihood of sexual behavior as equally highly likely at both relationship stages (M = 11.91 and 12.30 for serious relationship and dating, respectively).

The exception to the hypothesized interaction between participant gender and relationship stage was for the scenario in which the partner behaved powerfully (the partner powerful scenario). The interactive effect was not significant, although a significant gender difference did occur; on average, men rated sexual behavior as substantially more likely (M = 11.73) than did women in this scenario (M = 9.51).

Dispositional Sexual Motives

In addition to relationships with participant gender and relationship stage, it was expected that likelihood ratings would be related to scores on the AMORE subscale theoretically most relevant to the incentive involved (e.g., ratings in the express value for partner situation would be most highly related to scores on the Value For Partner motive subscale), independent of the other significant effects. Without exception, the relevant subscale was a significant covariate in all ANOVAs (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the study was to test the hypothesis that self-reported likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior occurs as a function of (a) the specific interpersonal situation providing the opportunity for sexual behavior, (b) the stage of the relationship in which the opportunity arises, and (c) gender. In large part, the hypotheses were supported. The few exceptions are consistent with aspects of gender roles that were not fully addressed in the initial hypotheses focusing on emotional investment; such issues will be considered in a later section. Overall, however, the results support the position that gender differences in likelihood of sexual behavior are related to the degree to which specific sexually relevant situations convey a sense of emotional investment in the individual. Ratings in role-played sexual situations in which partner behaviors explicitly indicated emotional investment were greater in the serious relationship condition compared to the dating condition, regardless of gender (supporting Hypothesis 1).

In contrast, role-played situations involving partner behaviors not directly communicating emotional investment resulted in likelihood ratings that differed for women and men as a function of the stage of the relationship (supporting Hypothesis 2). Women indicated greater likelihood in situations emphasizing partner submissiveness or pleasure-seeking when they occurred in the later relationship stage; men reported equivalent sexual interest for the two relationship stages. The overall pattern is consistent with earlier research indicating that women tend to consider the degree of intimacy and relationship involvement to a greater extent than men when evaluating the appropriateness of sexual behavior (Cohen & Shotland, 1996; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Sprecher, 1989b).

Previous research on attitudes about the appropriateness and likelihood of sexual behavior has not considered the effect of different types of partner behaviors and emotional contexts occurring just prior to sexual behavior. Most certainly, the focus on a global, holistic perception of relationship intimacy is necessary and important. The overall level of closeness that develops in a relationship has been shown to affect willingness to engage in further intimacy with a romantic partner (Christopher & Cate, 1985; Cohen & Shotland, 1996; Sprecher et al., 1995). Furthermore, within research on the investment model, general intimacy as a component of satisfaction has been shown to enhance commitment to the relationship (Rusbult et al., 1998). However, social exchange theories, of which the investment model is a specific instance, historically have not been extremely concerned with the identification of specific types of rewards or costs. These theories typically maintain that various classes of rewards and costs are virtually interchangeable and substitutable for one another (Aron & Aron, 1991; Foa & Foa, 1974; Hatfield, Utne, & Traupmann, 1979; Sprecher, 1998). From this traditional perspective, as long as sufficient levels of rewards in general relative to costs in general are received in the relationship, satisfaction is maintained, and the nature of the individual rewards has been assumed to be unimportant. Nonetheless, this assumption has remained largely untested in empirical research.

Modest exceptions to the lack of focus on the importance of specific rewards are found in the investment model approach. Rusbult et al.(1998) developed an instrument to measure the various components of the model, in which the rewards associated with a relationship were specifically operationalized in terms of intimacy and emotional involvement; however, no other types of rewards were measured. Similarly, Lawrance and Byers (1992, 1995) developed an exchange theory model of sexual satisfaction that focuses on the general rewarding nature of sexual interaction in a relationship.

The current study suggests, however, that an even greater level of detail contributes substantially to the understanding of the way in which specific sexual rewards may affect interest in sexual behavior in a relationship. Different types of role-played sexual situations or opportunities, as determined by different partner behaviors (e.g., indicating a desire for affection vs. a desire for power expression), produced different patterns of likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior. This suggests that the opportunity for intimate interaction with a romantic partner is perceived as differentially rewarding depending on the perceived nature of the intimate interaction, consistent with the eight-factor model of sexual motivation (Hill & Preston, 1996; see also Hill, 1997a, although the degree to which sexual behavior was perceived to be rewarding was not directly assessed in the current study). In other words, not all opportunities for intimacy or sexual interaction may be perceived as equally desirable or rewarding.

The implication of this finding is that the specific characteristics of relationships that increase the likelihood of sexual behavior must be examined more thoroughly if a complete understanding of relationship development and sexual involvement is to be achieved. The foundations for relationship progression are presumably specific, critical transactions between romantic partners relevant to emotional investment that accumulate over time. In this regard, the current study, although not examining actual romantic relationships, has provided evidence suggesting that the likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior does not occur solely as a function of increasing relationship stage. Rather, relationship status, and by extension commitment, may provide an emotional and motivational context within which specific interactions and interpersonal situations are evaluated in terms of the potential for providing rewarding experiences. Interactions that explicitly indicate an emotional investment in the romantic partner are consistent with a perception of commitment to the relationship, and therefore may contribute additively to the effect of commitment on the likelihood of sexual behavior. In contrast, interactions that do not explicitly convey a sense of emotional investment may affect individuals based on their attitudes about the appropriateness and desirability of sexual behavior, as suggested by differences between women and men in the current study.

The results indicate that women may view sexual behavior as more appropriate and desirable in newer, dating relationships largely when their romantic partner engages in behavior that inspires an intense sense of trust and confidence. In three of the five scenarios in which partner behaviors were hypothesized to communicate emotional involvement and commitment, gender differences did not occur, indicating that women reported a likelihood of sexual behavior at least equivalent to men, even in a less involved dating relationship. In fact, for two scenarios--the nurturance and comfort scenarios--women reported that they would be more likely to engage in sexual behavior than men, independent of any other effects. Furthermore, the simple effect of gender for the nurturance scenario was not qualified by an interaction with relationship status; therefore, the gender difference also means that women were as likely to indicate that they would engage in sexual behavior in the dating condition as they were in the serious relationship condition. This finding runs contrary to most previous research in which men have consistently expressed more positive sentiments about sexual behavior in newer, less-established relationships than women.

In addition to the departure of the nurturance scenario from the original hypotheses of the study (i.e., the lack of a simple effect for relationship stage), ratings for one other scenario also did not conform to predictions. Men were expected to report greater interest in sexual behavior than women in the partner powerful situation when it occurred in less-established relationships; however, women were expected to indicate interest equivalent to that of men when the situation occurred in more-established relationships. Instead, men reported a greater likelihood of sexual behavior than women at all levels of relationship involvement, with no effect at all for relationship status. That is, men were equally interested in sexual behavior with a powerful partner regardless of the stage of the relationship, and at a consistently higher level than women. This departure from predictions may result from differences between men and women in their concerns about the use of force and power in relationships.

Assertive, forceful, or even aggressive behavior on the part of women in the context of an ongoing, romantic relationship and in a sexually suggestive situation may be more likely to be interpreted by a male partner as evidence of sexual interest and intensity, rather than as inappropriate or threatening. The more positive reaction by men may result from the activation of a sexuality schema, rather than a gender-role schema or a threat-related schema. In nonsexual interactions, forceful or assertive behavior by women is very likely to be seen as gender-inappropriate; from this perspective, aggressive behaviors would be evaluated negatively and considered unattractive when displayed by women (Zurbriggen, 2000). However, in situations with sexual overtones, the threat-related schema is relatively less likely to be activated in relation to behavior performed by women, because threat and intimidation are features opposite of those constituting the core of stereotypic expectations of women. Consequently, men may discount the possibility that women are capable of genuine aggression, or at least of aggressive behavior that will result in serious injury or harm (Zurbriggen, 2000). In contrast to the activation of a sexual schema for women's behavior, forceful behavior by men is very likely to activate more standard male gender-role schemas, and related power-based expectations (Mussweiler & Forster, 2000; Reiss, 1986). Submitting to the overtures of an aggressively acting male partner in a potentially sexual situation may seem too threatening and dangerous for many women to experience great sexual interest and arousal. Moreover, it is possible that high proportions of the women in this sample had personally experienced sexual coercion, resulting in more negative reactions to the possibility of sexual behavior with a forceful, power-assertive romantic partner. (1)

Finally, further evidence for the role of dispositional sexual motives in interest in sexual behavior was provided by the results of the current research. Support was obtained for the relationship of sexual motives with likelihood ratings in the scenario that was most theoretically relevant (e.g., the AMORE Partner Power scale was a significant predictor of the partner powerful scenario). The results are consistent with previous research demonstrating the distinctive relationship of measures of sexual motives with the theoretically most relevant types of behavior (Hill, 1997a; Hill & Preston, 1996). The study therefore contributes to a growing body of evidence supporting the theoretical and practical usefulness of the eight-dimension model of sexual motivation (Hill & Preston, 1996).

Although the importance of factors related to emotional investment, trust, and use of power was supported in the current research, evidence needs to be extended to actual, ongoing relationships. A critical issue is the comparability of the scenario descriptions presented in the current study to actual interactions in ongoing, established relationships. The scenarios provided brief, controlled parcels of information and prompted respondents regarding specific reactions. Interactions in actual relationships are much less structured, less contained, and necessarily less obvious in focusing on particular types of information. Moreover, the descriptions portray the hypothetical romantic partners in a way that makes salient the characteristics relevant to targeted incentives. The similarity of role-played responses to those in naturalistic settings is a matter of considerable importance, and future research is necessary to establish their correspondence. Additionally, research based on other more diverse types of populations beyond White heterosexual college students is necessary to further establish the generalizability of the results.

Furthermore, the results of the study did not support the distinction between the dating 1 month condition and the dating 6 months condition created within the relationship stage manipulation. Because ratings of the likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior were not consistently different for the two relationship stages across the eight scenarios, the two conditions were combined to create a unitary dating condition. The absence of differences for the two dating conditions suggests that the difference between dating 1 month and dating 6 months is not perceived as representing a substantial increase in relationship stability and commitment. Apparently, a greater period of dating beyond 6 months is necessary for a relationship to be viewed as sufficiently more intimate than 1 month of dating in order to legitimize sexual behavior.

One final issue is the additivity of the ratings constituting the measure of likelihood of sexual behavior employed in the current study. The summation of ratings ranging from intimate kissing to having sex (which combines oral-genital and penile-vaginal sex) potentially treats less intimate behaviors as more intimate and advanced than intuitively more intimate sexual behaviors. This would be the case if a respondent assigned extremely high values to intimate kissing, but low values to having sex. Such an individual could have a score equivalent to, or even greater than, another individual who assigned moderate values to all three behavioral ratings. Such a discrepancy would violate the assumption of higher scores reflecting greater likelihood of engaging in more intimate sexual behaviors. Although hypothetically this may be a significant shortcoming in the measurement format employed, empirically the problem appears not to have occurred to any great extent in the current study. The lowest alpha coefficient obtained for the likelihood of sexual behavior ratings was .86, which indicates a substantial level of similarity among the three ratings. Even though such an intimacy inversion may have occurred, it was most often the exception rather than the rule.

Despite these potential limitations, the results of the current study documented the complexity of the decision to engage in sexual behavior with a partner. Factors related to relationship stage and perceptions of the general intimacy of a relationship certainly are important influences on the likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior. Yet, the behavior of the partner and the emotional context of any given situation are also likely to be important determinants. In the framework of the sexual motivation model (Hill, 1997a; Hill & Preston, 1996), individuals' perceptions of the emotional experiences likely to result from sexual interaction function as incentives to sexual behavior, or disincentives in the case of perceived threat. Behaviors creating a perception of intense trust may overcome concerns and misgivings even at the earliest stages of relationship involvement. On the other extreme, behaviors producing a sense of threat or danger may inhibit sexual behavior even in more established long-term relationships.

APPENDIX

EXAMPLES OF SCENARIOS EMPLOYED AS STIMULUS MATERIALS

Need For Comfort Scenario with Dating Instructions

On this particular evening, you have gotten together for dinner with the man you are dating, even though you were not in a very good mood because of having a fairly rough day. A series of problems have made you feel very stressed and some what worried about how you are going to deal with the problems in the future. Your date, sensing that something may be wrong, asks you if you are feeling alright and if you want to talk about it. You really don't want to go into a lot of details about the problems, and really just want to forget about them for awhile. But, he seems to be fairly concerned and interested, so you briefly mention a few aspects of what has happened during the day.

As he listens attentively, nodding to acknowledge your anxiety and stress, you begin to feel a great, overwhelming swell of passion for him. He seems so attractive and alluring as he attempts to soothe you and lovingly brushes your face and then your neck. Suddenly, you feel that your problems are not so pressing as they were a few moments ago, as you are distracted by the soft, low, reassuring tone of his voice. You are surprised that his compassion and concern even bring a tear to your eye, not so much because of the nature of your problems as because of the feelings that he expresses for you. And, you sense a strong desire to make love with him, something you think might make you feel even better and completely forget about your problems.

Partner Submissive Scenario with Serious, Permanent Relationship Instructions

The conversation with your spouse turns very lighthearted and playful as you discuss the events of the day. She teases you about a slip of the tongue that you happen to make and you say that you are going to have to find some creative and painful way to teach her a lesson. Her eyes grow larger and begin to twinkle at the prospect, and she teases that she can hardly wait. She quips that she loves it when someone takes charge and knows how to be forceful. You are intrigued by her reaction and decide to play along with the theme. So, you say that you'll have to get ahold of her sometime and really show her who's boss, that she needs to know how bad she has been. She smiles devilishly at you and replies that she has been really bad and may require quite a lot of discipline.

At this point, you put your arm around her and squeeze her forcefully, placing a hard kiss on her lips. The intensity of the kiss forces air out of her lungs, causing her to gasp involuntarily. She seems to yield to the intensity of your hug, as if she were melting, and she very passionately returns your kiss. After a short while, you look her in the eyes and inform her that from here on out, she will need to get permission from you before she kisses you like that. As a matter of fact, you tell her that things are going to be very different in general in your relationship and that she better learn to tow the line. Again, she smiles suggestively and silently nods her acknowledgment. You reach out and grab her by the chin to pull her face even more in line with yours and in a low voice tell her that, if she doesn't want to feel any more of your wrath, she will have to show great respect and obedience to you, especially when it comes to matters of romance and pleasure. You tell her that you need to possess her, body and soul, and that she will have to prove her worthiness to you. Once again, she smiles enticingly and whispers, "Wow!"

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Alpha
Coefficients for the Likelihood of Sexual Behavior
Ratings for the Sexual Incentive Situations

Sexual incentive situation       M        SD      [alpha]

Need to be valued by partner   12.12     3.16       .89
Express value for partner      11.80     3.07       .86
Nurturance                      9.49     3.54       .86
Comfort                        11.20     3.49       .90
Procreation                     7.65     3.85       .91
Partner submissive             10.07     4.09       .92
Partner powerful               10.33     4.33       .94
Pleasure                       12.03     3.35       .89

Note. n = 322, although the number varies slightly across
scenarios due to missing data.

Table 2. Analysis of Variance of Likelihood Ratings by Participant
Gender and Manipulated Relationship Stage, with Dispositional Sexual
Motives as Covariates

                                         Variable

                                        Participant
                                          gender

Type of sexual situation             F         [[eta].sup.2]

Need to be valued by partner
Express value for partner
Nurturance                        6.87 **           .02
Need for comfort                 11.25 ***          .03
Procreation
Partner submissive               10.39 ***          .03
Partner powerful                 27.34 ****         .08
Pleasure

                                        Variable

                                       Relationship
                                         stage

Type of sexual situation             F         [[eta].sup.2]

Need to be valued by partner     12.85 ****         .04
Express value for partner         7.15 **           .02
Nurturance
Need for comfort                  5.14 *            .02
Procreation                      26.38 ****         .08
Partner submissive                7.56 **           .02
Partner powerful
Pleasure

                                         Variable

                                         Gender X
                                    relationship stage

Type of sexual situation             F          [[eta].sup.2]

Need to be valued by partner
Express value for partner
Nurturance
Need for comfort                  4.85 *            .02
Procreation
Partner submissive                7.81 **           .02
Partner powerful
Pleasure                          4.62 *            .01

                                         Variable

                                Relevant AMORE
                                    scale

Type of sexual situation             F          [[eta].sup.2]

Need to be valued by partner      6.90 **           .02
Express value for partner        40.92 ****         .11
Nurturance                       33.13 ****         .10
Need for comfort                 20.15 ****         .06
Procreation                      33.98 ****         .10
Partner submissive               54.19 ****         .15
Partner powerful                101.29 ****         .24
Pleasure                         29.63 ****         .09

                                 Variable

                                  Overall
                                 adjusted

Type of sexual situation         [R.sup.2]

Need to be valued by partner        .05
Express value for partner           .13
Nurturance                          .11
Need for comfort                    .09
Procreation                         .16
Partner submissive                  .20
Partner powerful                    .31
Pleasure                            .10

Note. Only values for significant effects are presented. N = 322,
although the number varies slightly across scenarios due to missing
data. The AMORE scale most relevant to each situation was employed
as a covariate for all analyses. [[eta].sup.2] is eta squared,
representing the amount of variance accounted for by differences
between the groups compared.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. **** p < .0001.

Table 3. Mean Likelihood Ratings by Participant Gender and
Manipulated Relationship Stage, Adjusted for Dispositional
Sexual Motives as Covariates

                                      Variable

                                Participant gender

Type of sexual situation        Women      Men

Need to be valued by partner

Express value for partner

Nurturance                      9.92      8.89
                                (3.35)    (3.47)

Need for comfort                11.72     10.41
                                (3.37)    (3.48)

Procreation

Partner submissive              9.61      11.00
                                (3.67)    (3.77)

Partner powerful                9.51      11.73
                                (3.61)    (3.72)
Pleasure

                                      Variable

                                Relationship stage

Type of sexual situation        Dating    Serious

Need to be valued by partner    11.56     12.85
                                (3.11)    (3.28)

Express value for partner       11.43     12.33
                                (2.92)    (3.04)
Nurturance

Need for comfort                10.64     11.53
                                (3.40)    (3.54)

Procreation                      6.77      8.89
                                (3.58)    (3.74)

Partner submissive               9.71     10.90
                                (3.72)    (3.87)

Partner powerful

Pleasure

                                         Variable

                                 Gender X relationship stage

Type of sexual situation                 Dating    Serious

Need to be valued by partner

Express value for partner

Nurturance

Need for comfort

                                Women    10.88      12.63
                                         (3.33)    (3.38)

                                Men      10.40      10.43
                                         (3.37)    (3.34)
Procreation

Partner submissive

                                Women     8.41      10.81
                                         (3.66)    (3.65)

                                Men      11.01      10.99
                                         (3.65)    (3.66)
Partner powerful

Pleasure                        Women    11.38      12.60
                                         (3.19)    (3.18)

                                Men      12.30      11.91
                                         (3.19)    (3.18)

Note. Only mean values for significant effects are presented:
standard deviations are in parentheses. The overall N = 322, although
the number varies slightly across scenarios due to missing data. The
values are adjusted for the theoretically most relevant AMORE scale
employed as a covariate for each analysis.

I thank Elaine Blakemore, Jay Jackson, and Carol Lawton for extremely helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. I also thank Jennifer Estep, Brenda House, Lisa McDavid, and Sharon Williams for assistance in collecting data. Portions of these data were presented at the annual meeting of The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Orlando, FL, November 2000.

REFERENCES

Argyle, M., Furnham, A., & Graham, J. A. (1981). Social situations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Arndt, W. B., Jr. (1991). Gender disorders and the paraphilias. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1991). Love and sexuality. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 25-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bogart, L. M., Cecil, H., Wagstaff, D. A., Pinkerton, S. D., & Abramson, P. R. (2000). Is it "sex"?: College students' interpretations of sexual behavior terminology. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 108-116.

Breslow, N., Evans, L., & Langley, J. (1985). On the prevalence and roles of females in the sadomasochistic subculture: Report on an empirical investigation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 303-317.

Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (1995). Sexual attitudes: Myths and realities. Amherst, NY. Prometheus Books.

Byers, E. S., & Lewis, K. (1988). Dating couples' disagreements over the desire level of sexual intimacy. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 15-29.

Byers, E. S., & O'Sullivan, L. F. (1998). Similar but different: Men's and women's experiences of sexual coercion. In P. B. Anderson & C. Struckman-Johnson (Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 144-168). New York: Guilford Press.

Carroll, J. L., Volk, K. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences between males and females in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 131-139.

Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. M. (1985). Premarital sexual pathways and relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 271-288.

Cohen, L. L., & Shotland, R. L. (1996). Timing of first sexual intercourse in a relationship: Expectations, experiences, and perceptions of others. The Journal of Sex Research, 33, 291-299.

Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053-1073.

Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Attachment change processes in the early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 783-802.

Dutton, D. G., & Strachan, C. E. (1987). Motivational needs for power and spouse-specific assertiveness in assaultive and nonassaultive men. Violence and Victims, 2, 145-156.

Earle, J. R., & Perricone, P. J. (1986). Premarital sexuality: A ten-year study of attitudes and behavior on a small university campus. The Journal of Sex Research, 22, 304-310.

Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Hatfield, E., Utne, M. K., & Traupmann, J. (1979). Equity theory and intimate relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 99-133). New York: Academic Press.

Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Hill, C. A. (1987). Affiliation motivation: People who need people ... but in different ways. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1008-1018.

Hill, C. A. (1996). Interpersonal and dispositional influences on problem-related interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 1-22.

Hill, C. A. (1997a). The distinctiveness of sexual motives in relation to sexual desire and desirable partner attributes. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 139-153.

Hill, C. A. (1997b). Relationship of expressive and affiliative personality dispositions to perceptions of social support. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 133-161.

Hill, C. A., & Preston, L. K. (1996). Individual differences in the experience of sexual motivation: Theory and measurement of dispositional sexual motives. The Journal of Sex Research, 33, 27-45.

Klohnen, E. C., & John, O. P. (1998). Working models of attachment: A theory-based prototype approach. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 115-142). New York: Guilford Press.

Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1992). Development of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction in long-term relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 123-128.

Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2,267-285.

Malamuth, N. M. (1986). Predictors of naturalistic sexual aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 953-962.

Malamuth, N. M., & Brown, L. M. (1994). Sexually aggressive men's perceptions of women's communications: Testing three explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 699-712.

Malamuth, IN. M., Check, J. V. P., & Briere, J. (1986). Sexual arousal in response to aggression: Ideological, aggressive, and sexual correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50. 330-340.

Mason, A., & Blankenship, V. (1987). Power and affiliation motivation, stress, and abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 203-210.

Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D. (1998). Casual sex on spring break: Intentions and behaviors of Canadian students. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 254-264.

McCabe, M. P. (1987). Desired and experienced levels of premarital affection and sexual intercourse during dating. The Journal of Sex Research, 23, 23-33.

McCabe, M. P., & Collins, J. K. (1984). Measurement of depth of desired and experienced sexual involvement at different stages of dating. The Journal of Sex Research, 20, 377-390.

Mischel, W. (1999). Introduction to personality (6th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.

Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229-258.

Mussweiler, T., & Forster, J. (2000). The sex-aggression link: A perception-behavior dissociation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 507520.

Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 129-151.

Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). "Hookups": Characteristics and correlates of college students' spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76-88.

Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1989). Inter-Personalism: Toward a goal-based theory of persons in relationships. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 413-472). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reiss, I. (1986). Journey into sexuality: An exploratory voyage. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Roche, J. P. (1986). Premarital sex: Attitudes and behavior by dating stage. Adolescence, 21, 107-121.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (1999). Would you say you "had sex" if. ..? Journal of The American Medical Association, 281,275-277.

Sarason, B. R., Shearin, E. IN., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1987). Interrelations of social support measures: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 813-832.

Spence, J. T, & Helmreich, R. L. (1983). Achievement-related motives and behavior. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Perspectives on achievement and achievement motivation: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 10-74). San Francisco: Freeman.

Sprecher, S. (1989a). Influences on choice of a partner and on sexual decision making in the relationship. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal context (pp. 438-462). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Sprecher, S. (1989b). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of individuals. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 232-248.

Sprecher, S. (1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 32-43.

Sprecher, S., Barbee, A., & Schwartz, P. (1995). "Was it good for you, too?": Gender differences in first sexual intercourse experiences. The Journal of Sex Research, 32, 3-15.

Vansteelandt, K., & Van Mechelen, I. (1998). Individual differences in situation-behavior profiles: A triple typology model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 751-765.

Veroff, J., & Veroff, J. B. (1980). Social incentives: A life-span developmental approach. New York: Academic Press.

Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Moser, C. (1984). The social constituents of sadomasochism. Social Problems, 31,379-389.

Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523-535.

Wright, J. C., & Mischel, W. (1987). A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: The local predictability of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 454-469.

Zillman, D. (1984). Connections between sex and aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zurbriggen, E. L. (2000). Social motives and cognitive power-sex associations: Predictors of aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 559-581.

Manuscript accepted February 19, 2002

Craig A. Hill Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne

Address correspondence to Craig A. Hill, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN 46805-1499; e-mail: [e-mail].