Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability.

American culture gives emphasis to sexual expression in marriage. For example, people are expected to base their choice of a marriage partner on sexual attraction. In addition, sexual satisfaction is considered to be a barometer for the quality of marriage. Indeed, research shows that how married individuals feel about the sex in their relationship is related to how they feel about their entire relationship (e.g., Henderson-King & Veroff, 1994). Less is known, however, about the connection between sexual satisfaction and relationship quality in premarital relationships, despite the fact that most couples who eventually marry begin their sexual activity prior to marriage. In addition, there is little information about how change in sexual satisfaction is associated with change in relationship quality, in either marital or premarital relationships. The purpose of this investigation was to examine how sexual satisfaction, including its change over time, is associated with the relationship quality and stability of premarital relationships.

Social Exchange Theory and Sexuality

The social exchange perspective provides a lens through which we can examine why sexual satisfaction might be associated positively with general relationship quality (for a discussion of exchange theory applications to sexuality, see Sprecher, 1998). To some degree, sexual satisfaction represents a favorable balance of rewards and costs in the sexual aspect of the relationship. For example, according to Lawrance and Byers' (1992, 1995) Interpersonal Model of Sexual Satisfaction, sexual satisfaction is increased to the degree that within the sexual relationship, rewards are high, costs are low, the difference between rewards and costs compares favorably with a comparison level, and there is equality between partners in the exchange of rewards and costs (see also Byers, Demmons, & Lawrance, 1998). A rewarding sexual relationship can then lead to overall relationship quality (satisfaction, love, and commitment). In general, the more rewards in an important area of the relationship (e.g., the sexual relationship), the more the overall relationship quality. In addition, the more equitable the exchange in the relationship, including in sexual behaviors and feelings, the more likely the partners are to be satisfied with the relationship (e.g., Hatfield, Greenberger, Traupmann, & Lambert, 1982; Hatfield, Utne, & Traupmann, 1979).

The Association Between Sexual Satisfaction and Relationship Quality

Several studies have shown an association between sexual satisfaction and overall relationship satisfaction in marriage. More specifically, husbands and wives who say they are sexually satisfied in their marriage are also likely to report high levels of overall satisfaction with their relationship (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Cupach & Comstock, 1990; Edwards & Booth, 1994; Henderson-King & Veroff, 1994). The few studies that have examined this association in dating relationships have also found a link between sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction (Byers et al., 1998; Davies, Katz, & Jackson, 1999). Sexual satisfaction and related subjective measures of sexuality (e.g., sexual intimacy) also have been found to be associated positively with other indicators of relationship quality, including love (Aron & Henkemeyer, 1995; Grote & Frieze, 1998; Sprecher & Regan, 1998; Yela, 2000) and commitment or the likelihood that the relationship will last (Pinney, Gerrard, & Denney, 1987; Sprecher, Metts, Burleson, Hatfield, & Thompson, 1995; Waite & Joyner, 2001). For a more thorough review of this literature, see Christopher and Sprecher (2000) and Sprecher and Regan (2000).

Most of the research demonstrating the association between sexual satisfaction and relationship quality has been cross-sectional. In one exception, Henderson-King and Veroff (1994) analyzed data from the Early Years of Marriage Project (see Veroff, Douvan, & Hatchett, 1995, for more detail), and found positive associations between sexual satisfaction (joy and excitement during sex, absence of upset with sex) and measures of relationship quality during both the first and third years of the couples' marriage. They also conducted cross-lagged correlations, which indicated no significant differences in strength between the correlations Of measures of sexual feelings at Year 1 with measures of relationship quality at Year 3 and the correlations of measures of relationship quality at Year 1 with measures of sexual feelings at Year 3. Another longitudinal study that included measures of both sexual satisfaction and marital satisfaction at multiple times is The Longitudinal Study of Marital Instability. With their data, Edwards and Booth (1994) examined the association between change in sexual happiness and change in marital well-being by correlating change scores; in other words, they correlated scores created from the difference between Wave 1 (1980) and Wave 3 (1988)sexual satisfaction with scores created from the difference between Wave 1 and Wave 3 marital satisfaction. These correlations were positive and significant, leading the researchers to conclude, "Although we cannot sort out the causal direction of these changes, it is clear that changes in sexual behavior are generally related to changes in psychological well-being and marital quality" (Edwards & Booth, 1994, p. 247). Overall, though, almost no longitudinal studies have been conducted that include measures of both sexual satisfaction and relationship quality at two or more times, and to my knowledge, no such longitudinal research has been conducted with premarital couples.

Sexual Satisfaction as a Predictor of Relationship Stability vs. Instability

A related issue to address is whether sexual satisfaction contributes to relationship longevity. Does satisfying sex help sustain a relationship? Two of the above longitudinal studies have relevant data. Oggins, Leber, and Veroff (1993), using data from the Early Years of Marriage project, reported that measures of sexual satisfaction at Year 1 predicted (negatively) marital dissolution by the fourth year of marriage (also see Veroff et al., 1995). Furthermore, Edwards and Booth (1994) reported that a decline in sexual satisfaction between 1980 and 1983 was associated with the probability of divorce by 1988. White and Keith (1990), using a national sample of married individuals first interviewed in 1980 and again in 1983, reported that a measure of sexual problems (dissatisfaction) at Time 1 was associated positively with the likelihood of divorce by Time 2.

Although no longitudinal study has been conducted that examines whether sexual satisfaction predicts premarital relationship breakups, the associations of more objective aspects of sexuality and premarital relationship stability have been studied. In the Boston Dating Couples Study, Hill, Rubin, and Peplau (1976) found that whether or not the dating couple was sexually intimate at the time of the initial contact had no effect on the status of the relationship two years later. Furthermore, no difference was found in relationship stability between the couples who had sex early in their relationship and couples who had sex later (Peplau, Rubin, & Hill, 1977). However, in a 3-month longitudinal study of dating individuals, Simpson (1987) found that whether or not the couple had engaged in sexual intercourse had a significant and positive effect on relationship stability. The significant effect for sexual involvement was found even when other variables (e.g., satisfaction, closeness, length of relationship) were controlled. Furthermore, Felmlee, Sprecher, and Bassin (1990) found that an index representing sexual intimacy was a positive predictor of the stability of premarital relationships, although it was not significant when included in a model with several other predictors. Additional longitudinal research is needed with premarital couples to examine whether sexual satisfaction is predictive of relationship stability.

Purposes of This Investigation

This study combines cross-sectional analyses with longitudinal analyses conducted with a sample of romantic couples (all dating at Time 1), who were surveyed multiple times, for the purpose of extending our understanding of the role of sexual satisfaction in contributing to the quality and stability of the relationship. I present two research hypotheses and two research questions:

1. Research Hypothesis 1 (RH1): Sexual satisfaction is associated positively with relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment.

2. Research Hypothesis 2 (RH2): Changes in sexual satisfaction are associated with changes in relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment.

3. Research Question 1 (RQ1): Does sexual satisfaction at Time 1 predict an increase in relationship quality (satisfaction, love, and commitment) by Time 2; and/or does relationship quality (satisfaction, love, and commitment) at Time 1 predict an increase in sexual satisfaction by Time 2?

4. Research Question 2 (RQ2): Is sexual satisfaction a predictor of later relationship stability?

I examine the above associations for men and women separately because considerable prior research (e.g., Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, 2001) suggests that sex may be more important or at least have different meanings to men than to women.

METHOD

Overview of the Data

The data are from a longitudinal study conducted at a Midwestern university with a sample of romantic couples. The original sample consisted of both partners of 101 dating couples who completed a self-administered questionnaire in the Fall of 1988. Follow-ups were conducted in the Spring and Summer of 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. The sample size decreased with each wave primarily because couples who experienced their relationship terminate ended their participation in the study. By Wave 5, 59% (n = 60) of the couples had ended their relationship.

Participants

The sample at Time 1 consisted of 101 dating couples (202 individuals), most of whom were students at a large Midwestern university. The-participants were volunteers who were recruited through announcements in classes, advertisements in the student newspaper, and posters placed around campus. The average age of the participants at Time 1 was approximately 20 years (20.3[SD = 2.51] for men and 19.75[SD = 1.37] for women). Most of the sample was White (97.5%) and of the middle or upper-middle class (86.6%). The mean number of months the couples had been dating at Time 1 was 18.6[SD = 13.73]; the range was 1 month to 55 months.

Procedure

At Time 1, participants who responded to the announcement of the study completed a self-administered questionnaire in a university office. The partners completed the questionnaire at the same time but independently of each other.

At each of the four follow-ups (Times 2-5), participants who were still attending the university or living in the vicinity came to the researcher's office to complete another questionnaire (partners from couples who broke up arrived at different times). Participants who had moved away were mailed the questioonaire, with a stamped, self-addressed return envelope. Among the couples whose relationship remained intact over the entire study (n = 41), there was very little nonresponse. (1)

Measurement

All participants at Time 1 and all participants in the follow-ups whose relationships were intact completed a lengthy questionnaire about various aspects of their relationship. The variables analyzed in this study were measured in the following ways (each scale or index was represented by the mean of the items).

Sexual satisfaction. A two-item index was formed to measure sexual satisfaction. One item was the global question, "How sexually satisfying is the relationship to you?" (1 = not at all to 7 = very). A similar global question has been used in several other studies on sex (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Edwards & Booth, 1994; Greeley, 1991). The second item, which appeared in a different section of the questionnaire, asked how unrewarding or rewarding the partner's contributions were in the area of sex (meeting needs and preferences) on a 1 (very unrewarding) to 7 (very rewarding) response scale. Cronbach's alpha was relatively high for a 2-item measure (.82 for men and .70 for women at Time 1, and ranged from .77 to .93 at the follow-ups).

Relationship quality measures. The Hendrick Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; 1988) was used to assess satisfaction in the relationship. Example items of this 7-item scale are "In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?" and "To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?" A 5-point response scale followed each item (anchors varied depending on the item, but a higher score always indicated greater satisfaction). Cronbach's alpha at Time 1 was .81 for men and .75 for women, and ranged from .65 to .87 at the follow-ups.

The Braiker and Kelley (1979) love scale was used to measure love. The original version consisted of 10 items that assessed feelings of belonging, closeness, and attachment (examples: "To what extent do you love--at this stage?" and "To what extent do you feel that your relationship is special compared with others you have been in?"). However, a sexual intimacy item was deleted from this scale because of possible measurement overlap with the sexual satisfaction item. The responses to the items ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal). Cronbach's alpha for the 9-item version of the love scale at Time 1 was .88 for men and .82 for women, and ranged from .71 to .93 at the follow-ups.

Five items were included to measure relationship commitment. Four of these items were from the commitment scale developed by Lund (1985) and included "How likely is it that your relationship will be permanent?" and "How likely are you to pursue another relationship or single life in the future?" Each of these items was followed by a 7-point response scale, ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). The final item was the general question, "How committed are you to your partner?" (1 = not at all committed to 7 = very committed). Cronbach's Alpha at Time 1 was .89 for men and .78 for women, and ranged from .52 to .97 at the follow-ups.

RESULTS

Descriptive Information on the Sexual Satisfaction Index

Overall, the participants reported being sexually satisfied in their relationship. For example, the mean to the 2-item sexual satisfaction index was 6.06 (SD = 1.16) for men and 6.34 (SD = .79) for women (on a 7-point scale) at Time 1. At each wave of the study, women's sexual satisfaction was higher than men's, and this difference was significant (p < .05) at every wave except Wave 3. A trend was found for sexual satisfaction to decrease over the five waves of the study. A repeated measures MANOVA conducted with the respondents (n = 35 men and 36 women) who stayed in their relationship throughout the study and participated at every wave indicated a linear decrease in sexual satisfaction scores over the waves of the study; this decrease was significant (p < .05) for men and borderline significant (p = .06) for women.

The partners' sexual satisfaction scores were moderately correlated (r was .37 [p < .001] at Time 1 and ranged from .30 to .46 [all p < .01] at the follow-ups). (2)

Association of Sexual Satisfaction with Relationship Quality

I had hypothesized (RH1) that sexual satisfaction would be associated positively with relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment. As the results in Table 1 indicate, the participants' sexual satisfaction was correlated positively and significantly with their relationship satisfaction, love for partner, and commitment to the relationship, at each wave of the study (the only nonsignificant correlation was between sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction for women at Time 5, and this correlation was borderline significant; p <. 10). Overall, the correlations were moderate to strong in strength (the mean r was = .45), although the correlations were generally stronger for men than for women (mean r was .54 for men and .37 for women). The men's correlations were compared to women's correlations by means of the z test. The correlations were significantly different between the genders at both Time 1 and Time 2 (and for satisfaction at Time 5). In sum, the results indicate that sexual satisfaction is associated with variables referring to the general quality of the relationship, the associations exist for all three indicators of relationship quality (satisfaction, love, and commitment), the associations remain quite consistent over time, and the associations are stronger for men than for women. (3)

Association of Change in Sexual Satisfaction With Change in Relationship Quality

Next, I tested RH2, which states that change in sexual satisfaction over time is associated with change in relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment. Similar to the analyses conducted by Edwards and Booth (1994), the difference score between Wave 1 and Wave 2 sexual satisfaction scores was correlated with the difference scores between these two waves for relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment. These correlations of difference scores are presented in the first row of Table 2. For both men and women, these correlations were positive and significant, indicating that increases in sexual satisfaction between Time 1 and Time 2 are associated with increases in relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment between the same waves. Although the sample size diminished over time, similar change scores were calculated for the periods from Time 2 to Time 3, Time 3 to Time 4, and Time 4 to Time 5. Changes in sexual satisfaction were generally not related to changes in the relationship quality variables at the follow-ups for women, but for men, these correlations were significant with the exception of those between Time 4 and Time 5.

Does Sexual Satisfaction Contribute to a Change in Relationship Quality?

Next, I examined whether there was any evidence for a causal relationship, of either direction, between sexual satisfaction and each relationship quality variable (RQ1). More specifically, regressions (for men and women separately) were first conducted in which the Time 2 score of relationship satisfaction, love, or commitment, one at a time, was regressed on the Time 1 score of sexual satisfaction, controlling for the Time 1 score of relationship satisfaction, love, or commitment, respectively. In these regressions, relationship satisfaction at Time 1 was a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction at Time 2 (6 months later), commitment at Time 1 was a significant predictor of commitment at Time 2, and love at Time 1 was a significant predictor of love at Time 2 ([beta]s ranged from .45 to .66, all p < .001). However, sexual satisfaction at Time 1 did not explain unique variance in any of the relationship quality variables at Time 2, controlling for the respective relationship quality measure at Time 1 ([beta]s ranged from -.07 to. 10, all ns). The percent of variance accounted for by the variables in these analyses ranged from 24% to 42%.

In a second set of regressions conducted to examine the reverse causal direction, sexual satisfaction at Time 1 was found to be a significant predictor of sexual satisfaction at Time 2 for both men and women ([beta]s ranged from .39 to .58, p < .01). However, the relationship quality measure (relationship satisfaction, love, commitment) at Time 1 did not explain unique variance in sexual satisfaction at Time 2, controlling for sexual satisfaction at Time 1([beta]s ranged from .00 to. 15). The percent of variance accounted for by the variables in these analyses ranged from 29% to 34%. Thus, no evidence was found to indicate that sexual satisfaction leads to change in relationship quality, or, conversely, that relationship quality leads to change in sexual satisfaction.

Does Sexual Satisfaction Predict Later Relationship Breakups?

The next issue examined with the longitudinal data is whether sexual satisfaction was associated with relationship stability versus termination over time. I first compared the couples who broke up by Time 2 (n = 17) with those couples who stayed together (n = 84) on sexual satisfaction measured at Time 1. Both the male partner's sexual satisfaction score and the female partner's sexual satisfaction score (at Time 1) were significantly higher in the couples who remained together over the 6 month period than in the couples who broke up (male satisfaction: 6.17[SD = 1.01] vs. 5.44[SD = 1.59], t(98) = 2.43, p < .05; female satisfaction: 6.43[SD = .74] vs. 5.97[SD = .93], t(97) = 2.22, p < .05). A follow-up one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine the amount of variance in relationship status at Time 2 accounted for by sexual satisfaction at Time 1. For men, the [[eta].sup.2] was .06; for women, it was .05.

To determine the robustness of these findings, I next compared the couples who broke up between Time 2 and Time 3 (n = 22) with those couples who stayed together (n = 62) on sexual satisfaction measured at Time 2. Male sexual satisfaction was higher among the couples who stayed together than among those who broke up (6.03[SD = 1.16] vs. 5.33[SD = 1.98], t(78) = 1.96, p = .05; [[eta].sup.2] was .05). Female sexual satisfaction was also higher among those who stayed together than among those who broke up, although the difference was only marginally significant (6.31[SD = .80] vs. 5.88 [SD = 1.06], t(78) = 1.94, p = .06; [[eta].sup.2] was .05). (4)

I also examined whether sexual satisfaction explained any unique variance in dissolution beyond what might be explained by a general measure of relationship quality. To explore this, logistic regression was conducted for each gender, in which Time 2 relationship status (together vs. broken-up) was regressed on Time 1 sexual satisfaction and Time 1 relationship satisfaction. For men, relationship satisfaction at Time 1 had no effect on the likelihood of breaking up by Time 2 (the odds ratio, or exp(B) was 1.20; Wald test was not significant); however, sexual satisfaction had a negative effect on dissolution (the odds ratio, or exp(B) was .60; Wald test was significant, p < .05). For women, just the opposite results were found: General relationship satisfaction had a negative effect on dissolution by Time 2 (the odds ratio, or exp(B) was. 15; Wald test was significant, p < .01); however, sexual satisfaction had no effect (the odds ratio, or exp(B) was .64; Wald test was not significant).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study indicate that sexual satisfaction is linked to relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment, for both men and women. Those participants who were most sexually satisfied were those who tended to report high levels of relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment. In addition, change in sexual satisfaction was associated with change, in the same direction, in relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment, although especially between Waves 1 and 2. While prior research had documented an association between sexual satisfaction and relationship quality (e.g., relationship satisfaction) primarily in married and other committed couples (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983), this study demonstrated that sexual satisfaction is also linked to satisfaction, love, and commitment in dating couples, including at different times in the development of their relationship. Furthermore, the associations did not reduce in strength over time. While it may not seem surprising that satisfaction in a specific area of the relationship (sex) is associated with overall relationship satisfaction, the associations found between sexual satisfaction and love and commitment indicate that sexual satisfaction also has implications for how partners feel about each other and how committed they are to staying in the relationship. These results are consistent with the exchange perspective (e.g., Rusbult, 1983; Sprecher, 1998), which argues that positive and balanced sexual exchanges are associated with love, satisfaction, and the desire to stay committed to the relationship.

However, no evidence was found that sexual satisfaction scores at one time predicted change in relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment over time (i.e., between Times 1 and 2), or that relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment at one time predicted change over time (i.e., between Times 1 and 2) in sexual satisfaction. Thus, it cannot be stated, unequivocally, that people increase their love, satisfaction, or commitment in the relationship because they first experience sexual satisfaction, or vice versa. However, sexual satisfaction and relationship quality may influence each other almost simultaneously, which cannot be determined from these data. As noted many years ago by Henderson-King and Veroff (1994), "The relationship between sex and affection, in particular, would seem so reciprocal that the question of causation appears futile" (p. 521). In addition, and as noted elsewhere (see Sprecher, 1999), the scale scores of satisfaction, love, and commitment in this longitudinal study reached ceiling effects early in the study (at Time 1), which limits the amount of change over time in these variables that can be explained by another variable.

Another issue examined with the longitudinal data was whether sexual satisfaction predicted the likelihood of relationship dissolution over time. The partners in couples who stayed together between Times 1 and 2 had higher sexual satisfaction scores (at Time 1) than partners in couples who broke up. Although the difference between the two groups on sexual satisfaction was significant, it was not large in magnitude, probably because most of the couples (including those who eventually broke up) experienced relatively high levels of sexual satisfaction. These results extend previous studies on sexuality in premarital relationships (Felmlee et al., 1990; Simpson, 1987), which found that level of sexual involvement was a positive predictor of relationship stability.

Although sexual satisfaction was associated with relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment in the contemporaneous analyses for both genders, the associations were generally stronger for men than for women. I would speculate that men are more likely than women to use the quality of their sexual relationship as a barometer for the quality of the entire relationship. The logistic regression results in which sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction (at Time 1) were compared in their relative ability to predict breakup status by Time 2 also demonstrated the greater importance of sex to men than to women. Sexual satisfaction (but not relationship satisfaction) was negatively associated with the likelihood of a breakup for men, whereas relationship satisfaction was the significant predictor for women.

There were several strengths to this study, including data collected over time and from both members of couples. Very little prior research has examined sexual satisfaction and other subjective measures of sexuality at multiple times in the relationship, particularly in premarital relationships. A limitation was the homogeneous sample, which consisted primarily of college-educated young adults. Further longitudinal research, including with daily diaries, is needed to examine how daily and weekly changes in sexual satisfaction are associated with overall relationship quality.

Table 1. Associations of Sexual Satisfaction With Relationship
Satisfaction, Love, and Commitment at Five Waves of Longitudinal Study

                           Men

         Satisfaction     Love      Commitment

Time 1     .54 ***       .52 ***      .46 ***
Time 2     .64 ***       .64 ***      .57 ***
Time 3     .54 ***       .34 **       .28 *
Time 4     .66 ***       .60 ***      .50 ***
Time 5     .68 ***       .53 **       .55 ***

                         Women

         Satisfaction     Love      Commitment

Time 1     .24 *         .31 **       .22 *
Time 2     .30 **        .33 **       .27 *
Time 3     .38 **        .26 *        .34 **
Time 4     .63 ***       .56 ***      .54 ***
Time 5     .30           .45 **       .35 *

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

Table 2. Associations of Change in Sexual Satisfaction With Change in
Relationship Satisfaction, Love, and Commitment Over Five Waves of
Longitudinal Study

                                                 Men

                                Satisfaction     Love       Commitment

Change from Time 1 to Time 2       .46 ***      .50 ***      .43 ***
Change from Time 2 to Time 3       .33 *        .24 *        .26 *
Change from Time 3 to Time 4       .45 **       .52 ***      .43 **
Change from Time 4 to Time 5       .05          .09          .16

                                                Women

                                Satisfaction     Love      Commitment

Change from Time 1 to Time 2       .42 ***       .27 *       .30 **
Change from Time 2 to Time 3      -.06           .05         .08
Change from Time 3 to Time 4       .20           .12         .12
Change from Time 4 to Time 5       .39 *         .06         .01

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

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 62nd Annual Conference for the National Council on Family Relations, Nov. 10-13, 2000, Minneapolis, MN. The author would like to thank Scott Christopher and two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier version of this paper. The data collection for this longitudinal study was funded by several small grants from Illinois State University and the paper was written during a research sabbatical granted the author from Illinois State University.

(1) Six participants from five different relationships could not participate in one of the waves and one couple (2 participants) were missing at two waves.

(2) As a comparison, the inter-partner correlations were .26 (p = .01) for relationship satisfaction, .47 (p < .001) for love, and .54 (p < .001) for commitment.

(3) Because data were collected from both partners, it was also possible to examine how one's sexual satisfaction was associated with partner's relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment. This was explored with Time 1 data. Men's sexual satisfaction was modestly associated with their partner's love (r = .22, p < .05), satisfaction (r = .17, p < .10), and commitment (r = .25, p < .05). Women's sexual satisfaction was positively correlated with their partners' love (r = .20, p < .05), although unrelated to their satisfaction (r = .09, ns), and commitment (r = .16, ns).

(4) However, when I compared those who broke up at any point during the study (n = 60) with those who remained together throughout the study (n = 41) on sexual satisfaction and sexual desire at Time 1, no significant differences were found between the two groups. However, it would be unlikely that relationship variables would predict relationship outcomes almost 5 years later.

REFERENCES

Aron, A., & Henkemeyer, L. (1995). Marital satisfaction and passionate love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 139-146.

Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242-273.

Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William Morrow.

Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135-168). New York: Academic Press.

Byers, E. S., Demmons, S., & Lawrance, K. (1998). Sexual satisfaction within dating relationships: A test of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 257-267.

Christopher, F. S., & Sprecher, S. (2000). Sexuality in marriage, dating, and other relationships: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 999-1017.

Cupach, W. R., & Comstock, J. (1990). Satisfaction with sexual communication in marriage. Links to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 179-186.

Davies, S., Katz, J., & Jackson, J. L. (1999). Sexual desire discrepancies: Effects on sexual and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 553-567.

Edwards, J. N., & Booth, A. (1994). Sexuality, marriage, and well-being: The middle years. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Sexuality across the life course (pp. 233-259). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Bassin, E. (1990). The dissolution of intimate relationships: A hazard model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 13-30.

Greeley, A. M. (1991). Faithful attraction: Discovering intimacy, love, and fidelity in American marriage. New York: Doherty.

Grote, N. K., & Frieze, I. H. (1998). Remembrance of things past: Perceptions of marital love from its beginnings to the present. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 91-109.

Hatfield, E., Greenberger, D., Traupmann, J., & Lambert, P. (1982). Equity and sexual satisfaction in recently married couples. The Journal of Sex Research, 17, 18-32.

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. 91-171). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Henderson-King, D. H., & Veroff, J. (1994). Sexual satisfaction and marital well-being in the first years of marriages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 509-534.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98.

Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147-168.

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.

Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting continuity of personal relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 101-112.

Oggins, J., Leber, D., & Veroff, J. (1993). Race and gender differences in Black and White newlyweds' perceptions of sexual and marital relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 152-160.

Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 86-109.

Pinney, E. M., Gerrard, M., & Denney, N. W. (1987). The Pinney sexual satisfaction inventory. The Journal of Sex Research, 23, 233-251.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.

Simpson, J. A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Factors involved in relationship stability and emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 683-692.

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

Sprecher, S. (1999). "I love you more today than yesterday": Romantic partners' perceptions of changes in love and related affect over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 46-53.

Sprecher, S., Metts, S., Burleson, B., Hatfield, E., & Thompson, A. (1995). Domains of expressive interaction in intimate relationships: Associations with satisfaction and commitment. Family Relations, 44, 203-210.

Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1998). Passionate and companionate love in courting and young married couples. Sociological Inquiry, 68, 163-185.

Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2000). Sexuality in a relational context. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 217-227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Veroff, J., Douvan, E., & Hatchett, S. J. (1995). Marital instability: A social and behavioral study of the early years. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Waite, L. J., & Joyner, K. (2001). Emotional satisfaction and physical pleasure in sexual unions: Time horizon, sexual behavior, and sexual exclusivity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 247-264.

White, L., & Keith, B. (1990). The effect of shift work on the quality and stability of marital relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 453-462.

Yela, C. (2000). Predictors of and factors related to loving and sexual satisfaction for men and women. European Review of Applied Psychology, 50, 235-243.

Manuscript accepted February 18, 2002

Susan Sprecher Illinois State University

Address correspondence to Susan Sprecher, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-4660; e-mail: [e-mail].