Download preprint - Open Science Framework

Gender Conventions, Sexual Self-Efficacy, and Sexual Frequency
ABSTRACT
Some studies suggest that gender conventions increase couples’ sexual frequency by enacting
sexual scripts tied to heterosexuality. Other studies suggest gender egalitarianism increases
sexual intimacy by enhancing communication in couples. We tested these competing hypotheses
by examining the underlying processes that link gender attitudes to sexual activity. We also
examined the association between gender egalitarian attitudes and women’s and men’s sexual
self-efficacy and examined how sexual self-efficacy in turn shapes gendered patterns of sexual
initiation and sexual frequency. An actor-partner interdependence model based on data from the
National Couples Survey provided support for both perspectives. Women’s gender egalitarian
attitudes decreased couples’ sexual frequency by negatively affecting men’s sexual control, but
gender egalitarian attitudes surrounding the scripting of sexual activity among women were
positively associated with sexual frequency. Moreover, egalitarian attitudes about domestic roles
were positively associated with partner communication which in turn enhanced partners’ sexual
self-efficacy and sexual frequency. Yet, while sexual self-efficacy was positively associated with
sexual frequency for men it was negatively associated for women. The findings show that
whereas gender conventional attitudes increase sex through male empowerment and female
disenfranchisement, egalitarian beliefs lead to greater sexual intimacy – not only more sex, but
also mutual partner decision-making.
INTRODUCTION
Research on the links between gender and couples’ sexual intimacy has produced conflicting
findings. On one hand, some studies suggest that conventional gender behavior is associated with
increased sexual frequency and satisfaction among couples by activating the sexual scripts
necessary for arousal (Kornrich, Brines and Leupp 2013; Schwartz 1995; Udry and Chantala
2004). On the other hand, more recent research suggests that gender egalitarianism increases
sexual intimacy by promoting a sense of fairness, cooperation, and communication in couples
(Carlson, Hanson, and Fitzroy 2016; Carlson, Miller, Sassler, and Hanson 2016; Johnson,
Galambos, and Anderson 2015). Although these disparate patterns may be due to several factors,
including cohort differences, data limitations have inhibited researchers’ ability to test the
proposed mechanisms linking gendered practices and attitudes to sexual intimacy.
Who controls when and how sexual encounters proceed and how partners feel about their
ability to achieve their sexual desires is central not only to couples’ sexual frequency but also to
partners’ satisfaction with sexual relationships. Moreover, sexual self-efficacy—or one’s ability
to advocate for one’s interests within sexual settings (Cheng et al. 2014; Lamb 2010)—likely
depends on a couples’ degree of gender egalitarianism since conventional gender norms in
Western society emphasize men’s sexual control and self-determination and female
subordination. Despite this, we know very little empirically about the specific way gendered
attitudes and behaviors are associated with sexual decision making and sexual self-efficacy.
This study examines how gender egalitarian attitudes—both in terms of the division of
unpaid labor in the home and roles in sexual encounters—are associated with sexual frequency,
sexual decision making, and sexual self-efficacy of heterosexual partners. Using an ActorPartner Interdependence Model (APIM) and data from the 2005-2006 National Couples Survey,
we test the association between couples’ endorsement of gender egalitarian attitudes, their
individual sexual self-efficacy, gendered control over the initiation and scripting of sexual
activity, and sexual frequency among couples. Importantly, our modeling strategy allows us to
examine how gender attitudes held by a respondent and his or her partner shape sexual selfefficacy, as well as gender balance in the control over sexual scripting within relationships. We
are also able to uncover the underlying processes that relate gender attitudes to the frequency
with which couples have sexual intercourse. Our findings suggest that gender attitudes are
associated with men’s and women’s sexual self-efficacy, but in both expected and unexpected
ways. Our results suggest that sexual frequency increases among couples in which women have
conventional attitudes, low sexual self-efficacy, and the male partner dominates the sexual
decision making but that sexual frequency is also positively related to egalitarianism and couple
communication.
BACKGROUND
Gender and Sexual Intimacy
In his 1992 book The Transformation of Intimacy, Anthony Giddens notes that sexual
relations in the modern era have moved from a focus on marriage, childbearing, and normative
role performance to identity projects of disclosure, trust, and self-fulfillment. While pre-modern
sexual relationships were formed largely through marriage, many sexual relationships today
transcend the bonds of marriage and often last only as long as they remain mutually gratifying.
Perhaps what separates sexual relations today from prior epochs is the emergent centrality of
confluent love and intimacy over romantic love and everlasting partnership. For many couples
today, a successful relationship depends on the existence of confluent love and a satisfying sex
life. Indeed, confluent love “introduces the ars erotica into the core of the conjugal relationship
and makes the achievement of reciprocal sexual pleasure a key element in whether the
relationship is sustained or dissolved” (Giddens 1992:62). A recent Pew study indicated that a
good sex life was the second most important requirement of a relationship for both men and
women behind only faithfulness (Pew 2007). Confluent love is based on open communication,
trust, cooperation, and a presumed “equality in emotional give and take” (Giddens 1992:62),
which stands in contrast to romantic love, which is often rooted in “domestic subjection”
(Giddens 1992:62). It should come as little surprise then that the rise of confluent love and
sexual intimacy in couples coincides strongly with decreases in gender inequality since the mid20th century.
Although gender equality would seem to portend sexual intimacy in heterosexual couples,
research on the association of gendered behaviors with sexual intimacy is mixed. Using data
from the 1994 wave of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), a recent high
profile study demonstrated that sexual frequency in married couples, and sexual satisfaction
among wives, was highest when spouses performed traditional housework tasks—routine
housework (e.g., cleaning, dishes, cooking) for women and non-routine housework (e.g., home
maintenance, bill pay) for men (Kornrich, Brines, and Leupp 2013). As men and women’s
performance of non-traditional housework increased, sexual frequency and satisfaction
decreased. This study supports qualitative research suggesting that couples in peer marriages
struggle with sexual attraction (Schwartz 1995). Yet, research using more recent data focusing
on routine housework shows that sexual frequency and satisfaction are not associated with the
division of housework (Johnson et al. 2015) or childcare (Carlson, Hanson, and Fitzoy 2016), or
that sexual intimacy only declines when men are primarily responsible for routine housework
tasks (Carlson et al. 2016).
These disparate findings likely stem from two things. The first is variation in sample
composition. For instance, the Johnson et al. study employs a German sample, while the findings
from Carlson et al. come from a sample of low to moderate income parents. Second, cohort
differences may be at play. Carlson et al. (2016) found shifts over time from the early 1990s to
mid-2000s in the consequences of the division of housework for sexual intimacy, which they
attributed in part to changes in feelings of equity associated with conventional and egalitarian
divisions of housework. Studies have shown feelings of equity to be an important predictor of
couples’ sexual intimacy (Johnson et al. 2016; Carlson et al. 2016).
The link between gendered attitudes and behavior and sex is complex and likely forged by
numerous factors. Perceived equity plays a role because of its association with relationship
quality and satisfaction (Frisco and Williams 2003). Couples who are closer and happy with their
relationship have more sex (Call, et al. 1995; Schwartz 2007; Sprecher and Cate 2004). This,
nonetheless, is a very different mechanism linking gendered behavior to sexual intimacy than
that suggested by Kornrich and colleagues who argue that conventional divisions of housework
increase sexual frequency by activating the sexual scripts necessary to illicit arousal. Thus, if
true, the positive effect of gender conventionalism on sexual arousal may cancel out the positive
effect of gender egalitarianism for sexual frequency.
According to Simon and Gagnon (1986) most of social life is scripted in the sense that social
behavior requires operating instructions. Scripts occur at three levels—cultural scenarios that are
akin to institutionalized rules and regulations for specific roles, interpersonal scripts constructed
by actors to adapt cultural scripts to context specific requirements, and intrapsychic scripts that
are comprised of internal dialogue used to organize and prepare one’s behavior. Sexual scripts
have been argued to operate largely at the level of cultural scenarios (Kornrich, Brines, and
Leupp 2013) as they are highly institutionalized. In this way, cultural rules determine not only
how sexual encounters proceed from beginning to end but also what cues may inspire sex in the
first place. Gender is such a cue. For instance, Udry and Chantala (2004) found that teen couples
comprised of masculine boys and feminine girls have the greatest likelihood of engaging in sex
and are the quickest to initiate a sexual relationship. The authors argue that this is due to higher
degrees of “fascination” and “emotional heat” in these pairings compared to other couples that
are comprised of more gender androgynous youth.
Although gender cues may arouse sexual thoughts and impulses, sex is also an expression of
gender itself. Indeed, sex is a way of doing gender for both men and women (West and
Zimmerman 1987) that is not necessarily about the expression of love between partners or even
about turning each other on. Beyond passion, sexual interactions are about initiation, decisionmaking, and sexual roles—all of which are conventionally gendered (Campbell 1995; Gerrard,
Breda, and Gibbons 1990; Vanderdrift, Agnew, Harvey, and Warren 2013). Yet, studies rarely if
ever contain information on these processes. Hence, claims about the association between gender
and sexual scripts, and the factors linking them, though compelling, remain under-investigated
and unsubstantiated.
Sex as a Gendered Performance
Gender and sexuality are closely intertwined components of one’s identity (Butler 2011),
demonstrated not only through personality, tastes, and preferences, but also through behavior.
Indeed, gender and sexuality are social performances enacted, defined, and reinforced through
our interaction with others (West and Zimmerman 1987; Butler 2011). More than performance
and personality, gender and sexuality are cultural phenomenon which shape, and are shaped by,
behaviors and interactions (Connell 1987). Although gender inequality is declining, and
masculinities and femininities vary temporally, culturally, and geographically, Western societies
remain patriarchal (Connell 1998). In these societies, hegemonic masculinity is defined by
dominance, autonomy, economic success and breadwinning, risk-taking, and aggression while
emphasized femininity consists of submissiveness, dependence, empathy, passivity, and
nurturing (Connell 2005).
In a conventional sense, masculinity and femininity are expressed and defined through
heterosexual behaviors and interactions (Butler 2011; Cameron 1997). As Donaldson
(1993:645) notes “Heterosexuality and homophobia are the bedrock of hegemonic masculinity
and any understanding of its nature and meaning is predicated on the feminist insight that in
general the relationship of men to women is oppressive.” Gender conventions, then, portend
heterosexual interactions of male control and domination over women. In close relationships
adherence by partners to conventional gender ideologies manifests as male control over sexual
decision making (e.g., when, what, and how sexual behavior is performed), adversarial sexual
relationships, the centrality of sex to male identity and relationship happiness, the deemphasizing
of intimacy among men, and an increased likelihood of sexual violence (Pleck, Somenstein, and
Ku 1993).
Scholars have sought to assess the role of gender conventions for sexual scripts by examining
the association between gender ideology and sexual intimacy, but this approach has proved
problematic. Arguably, if gender conventions increase sexual intimacy then those with more
conventional gender attitudes would have more sex and more satisfying relationships. Research,
however, has found no association of gender ideology with sexual frequency (Kornrich et al.
2013; Gager and Yabiku 2010). Nevertheless, scholars have used regression based methods that
do not parse direct and indirect effects to estimate these associations and their statistical models
of gender ideology have also universally included a measure of couples’ housework
arrangements, which likely mediate the effect of gender attitudes on couples’ sexual activity.
Still, demonstration of an association between adherence to gender conventions and sexual
intimacy does not identify key factors linking gender to sexual frequency which is essential for
substantiating theories surrounding the links between gender and control over sexual scripting.
Gender conventions may be associated with greater sexual frequency for a number of
reasons. As noted above, initiation and direction of (heterosexual) sexual behavior are key
components of hegemonic masculinity. From a scripting standpoint, sexual decision making—
both in terms of when and how sex occurs—is likely male-dominated within heterosexual
couples who maintain conventional gender attitudes. Conversely, gender-egalitarian attitudes
likely result in greater equality in the scripting of couples’ sexual activity. Furthermore, gender
egalitarian attitudes may be negatively associated with couples’ sexual frequency due to
decreased male control over sexual behavior. Thus we hypothesize that men’s and women’s
gender egalitarian attitudes are negatively associated with male sexual control among couples
and men’s and women’s gender egalitarian attitudes are negatively associated with sexual
frequency.
Importantly, sexual frequency does not necessarily translate to pleasurable sexual
experiences. This may be particularly true for women lacking sexual subjectivity, or ownership
over their sexual desire/pleasure (Lamb 2010; Cheng et al. 2014). Paradoxically, conventional
gender ideologies—which may increase sexual frequency in some couples—may also limit
partner communication and women’s ownership over their sexuality (Impett et al. 2006). As we
elaborate below, endorsement of egalitarian gender beliefs potentially enhances women’s sexual
self-efficacy and couples’ sexual intimacy.
Gender Egalitarianism and Sexual Self-Efficacy
Gender scholars are increasingly focusing on sexuality development throughout the life
course (Tolman and McClelland 2011). Diverging from a risk paradigm—which emphasizes the
association between early sexual behavior and adverse outcomes (e.g., sexually transmitted
infections, depression, etc.)—these perspectives emphasize the development and healthy
expression of sexual desire (Cheng et al. 2014). One central concept of this emerging paradigm
is sexual self-efficacy, which represents one’s perceived ability to achieve physical and
psychological pleasure within sexual experiences. Sexual self-efficacy is an important precursor
of sexual subjectivity (Martin 1996) and informs’ confidence in one’s ability to maintain control
over sexual decision making and their sexuality more broadly. As we elaborate below, gender
conventions may constrain girls’ and women’s sexual self-efficacy (Pearson 2006) and limit
women’s power to shape sexual decision making processes within couples. Conversely, women
and their who partners endorse gender egalitarian ideals may have enhanced sexual self-efficacy.
Additionally, women with higher sexual self-efficacy are likely more active in couples’ sexual
decision-making, both in terms of the initiation of sex and the scripting of sexual activity.
Current understandings of sexual self-efficacy are rooted in Bandura’s (1997) theory of
agency. More broadly, self-efficacy relates to individuals’ beliefs regarding their capacities to
achieve given outcomes. Individuals with high self-efficacy perceive an enhanced capacity to
execute a particular task or achieve a desired outcome. Compared to broader concepts like
personal mastery or locus of control, self-efficacy is domain specific; one may be efficacious in
one realm (e.g., athletics) but lack efficacy in another (e.g., education). Like other forms of selfefficacy, sexual self-efficacy is shaped by individual and social factors. For instance, Bandura
argues prior instances of personal success signal that one can achieve desired outcomes. Beyond
personal success, external factors like social persuasion also signal to individuals that they too
can achieve desired outcomes, even in the face of adversity.
Scholars note sex differences in self-efficacy, with boys and men tending to report greater
senses of self-efficacy than girls and women (Gecas 1989). Reflecting gender theories that
emphasize the adverse consequences of gender conventions, Block (1983) argues that male selfimages more frequently emphasize control and a strong sense of power and agency, while female
self-concepts, emphasize communion, consideration of others’ needs, wants, and desires, and
downplay personal agency. Furthermore, scholars argue that sex differences in self-efficacy are
rooted in cultural factors, including traditional sex-role socialization (Gecas 1989), which reflect
gender conventions.
Importantly, gender conventions threaten girls’ and women’s sexual self-efficacy. Impett et
al. (2008) authors argue that early on, patriarchal ideologies pressure girls to silence their
thoughts, feelings, and desires and behave in inauthentic ways. These pressures—coupled with
patriarchal notions that define sex in terms of male desire (Holland, Ramanzanoglu, Sharpe and
Thomsom 1998; Impett et al. 2006) jeopardize female sexual subjectivity by encouraging girls
and women to make their own sexual needs and desires secondary to those of their male partners.
Conversely, girls and women who express more sexual self-efficacy are empowered within
romantic and sexual contexts and maintain more active roles in sexual decision making.
Gender conventions may also reduce sexual self-efficacy and sexual encounters indirectly
through reduced partner communication. As noted earlier, confluent love requires open
communication and cooperation as well as equality in emotional support among partners.
However, patriarchal attitudes stifle women’s communication by discouraging their selfexpression and the disclosure of one’s true thoughts and feelings (Impett, Schooler, and Tolman
2006). Related, women may be more empowered to communicate their sexual desires in
relationships characterized by more gender egalitarianism (e.g., Anderson et al. 2011).
Inadequate communication among couples likely discourages one from making one’s sexual
needs and desires known to one’s partner (Impett et al. 2006), thereby limiting sexual selfefficacy.
In sum, women’s internalization of gender conventions likely reduce their sexual selfefficacy. As gender conventions prescribe male heterosexual domination, women who adhere to
more traditional gender attitudes may perceive less self-efficacy across a variety of domains,
including the sexual sphere. Therefore, we hypothesize that women who endorse gender
egalitarian attitudes will exhibit higher levels of sexual self-efficacy. We also expect that women
who feel more empowered within their sexual relationships will be more active in the decision
making surrounding when sex occurs and the scripting of the sexual activity. Therefore we
hypothesize that women’s sexual self-efficacy is negatively associated with male control over
couples’ sexual activity. Notably, sexual self-efficacy is distinct from other types of self-efficacy
(e.g., academic, occupational, etc.) in that it is highly dyadic. Meaning, apart from skills and
mastery experiences, sexual self-efficacy that is rooted in relational sexual experiences (versus
masturbation) requires the cooperation of one or more partners. Importantly, the characteristics
of one’s partner(s) are important for shaping sexual self-efficacy beliefs. As noted earlier, gender
egalitarianism enhances confluent love. We argue further that sexual self-efficacy—particularly
among women—represents a key mechanism that links gender egalitarianism to confluent love.
Because self-efficacy is also rooted in social relationships, we hypothesize that male partners’
endorsement of gender egalitarian attitudes is positively associated with women’s sexual selfefficacy. Finally, communication among partners—which is enhanced in more gender egalitarian
couples—may promote couples’ sexual self-efficacy and enhance their sex lives. Thus, we
hypothesize that partner communication mediates the associations of men’s and women’s gender
egalitarian attitudes with their sexual self-efficacy and frequency of sexual intercourse.
Summary
Traditional gender conventions, we argue, are at odds with the ideals of confluent love
and sexual intimacy. Since couples increasingly value equality and believe that it is central to
relationships, conventional gender beliefs may undermine relationship quality and satisfaction,
despite positively affecting sexual frequency. It is therefore important to note that conventional
gender attitudes and behavior may affect sexual frequency and sexual self-efficacy, both
components of sexual relationships, quite differently than gender egalitarian beliefs and
arrangements. Sexual frequency may be more important to men than women, and may matter
more for their sexual satisfaction. Indeed, conventional women may downplay the value of sex
and sexual satisfaction. Egalitarian men and women likely value sex a great deal, but that
valuation may not be tied to sexual frequency, but rather in both partners’ ability to craft
personally-desirable sexual experiences. Given its association with male dominance, it is
important to not conflate a positive association of conventional thinking and behavior with
sexual frequency as an indication of sexual health in couples. We therefore test the unique effects
of women’s and men’s gender attitudes on 1) couples’ sexual frequency, 2) gendered patterns of
sexual scripting, and 3) sexual self-efficacy.
METHODS
Data
Data are drawn from the National Couples Survey (hereafter NCS). Data collection for
the NCS occurred between 2005-2006 and was based on a probability sample of households in
four cities—Baltimore, MD, Durham, NC, Saint Louis, MO, and Seattle, WA—and their
adjacent county subdivisions. The sample includes 2,018 individuals from 1,009 heterosexual
(413 married, 261 cohabiting, and 335 dating) couples. The sample was restricted to couples
comprised of a female partner between the ages of 20 to 35 and a male partner 18 years or older
as the primary objective of the initial study was to examine contraceptive decision-making
among couples of childbearing age. Additionally, couples in which the female partner was
pregnant, postpartum, or trying to get pregnant were excluded, as were couples in which one or
both partners were sterile. Interviews were separately conducted with each partner using
computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI), which reduced the likelihood of response bias due
to the presence of one’s partner or sensitive topics. Our analytic sample includes all 2,018
respondents from the NCS sample. Descriptive statistics for our sample are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Measures
Sexual Frequency. We measure past month sexual frequency using each partners’ responses to
the following question: “How many times have you had sexual intercourse with [PARTNER’S
NAME] during the last four weeks?” Responses were entered as whole numbers. To measure
sexual frequency, we calculated the mean response for each couple. As sexual frequency was
highly skewed, we transformed sexual frequency by first adding one to each couple’s sexual
frequency score and then taking the natural log of the value.
Sexual self-efficacy. We measured sexual self-efficacy using responses to three items asked
of each partner that tap respondents’ sense of efficacy regarding the use of birth control and
ability to achieve satisfaction during sexual acts. The first item assesses self-efficacy regarding
one’s ability to achieve sexual satisfaction: “If my sexual activity is not satisfying, there is little I
can do to improve the situation.” The second and third items tap respondents’ self-efficacy
regarding the use of birth control and include: “I feel that it is difficult to get my [PARTNER] to
cooperate in using the birth control method that I prefer” and “If our birth control choice is not
satisfactory, there is little I can do to improve the situation.” Responses to all sexual self-efficacy
items were ordinal and ranged from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.” We reversecoded responses to items to indicate higher sexual self-efficacy (alpha=.686). Women’s and
men’s sexual self-efficacy are measured as latent variables in our structural equation model.
Gender egalitarian attitudes. We constructed two measures taping respondents’ genderegalitarian attitudes. The first measure—sexual equality attitudes—taps respondents’ views
regarding gender equality in the scripting of sexual encounters within marriage and is based on
responses to the following two items: “It is best when wives initiate sexual encounters as often as
husbands” and “A wife should have the same opportunity as her husband in choosing the
couple’s sexual activity.” Responses were ordinal and ranged from 1 “very strongly disagree”
and 5 “very strongly agree” (alpha=.685). The second measure—domestic equality attitudes—
assess respondents’ attitudes regarding the division of childcare and housework and is based on
the following items: “Husbands and wives should spend equal time raising the children” and
“When both husband and wife work outside the home, housework should be equally shared.”
Ordinal responses ranged from 1 “very strongly disagree” and 5 “very strongly agree”
(alpha=.651). We measure men’s and women’s gender egalitarian attitudes as the means of the
items for the respective scales.
Male Sexual Control. Our measure of gendered control over sexual decision making among
the couples captures the relative imbalance with regard to the frequency of decision making of
couple’s sexual activity. Each partner was asked the following two items: “Who usually makes
the final decision about when to have sex?” and “Who usually makes the final decision about
what the two of you do when you have sex?” Responses to those items were ordinal and ranged
from 1 “I always decide” to 5 “he/she always decides” (with 3 indicating “we decide about
equally”). To measure male sexual control, we first reverse-coded responses for the male
partners so that higher responses indicate that the male partner more frequently controls the
couple’s sexual decisions. Our final measure comprises four items, with each partner reporting
on the frequency regarding 1) when sex occurs and 2) what occurs during sex (alpha=.718). Male
sexual control is modeled as a couple-level latent variable in our structural equation model.
Partner Communication. We included measures of communication, which were based on
responses to the following item asked of each partner: “When you and [PARTNER] are both
home at the end of the day, how many days of the week would you say [he/she] tells you about
what has happened during [his/her] day?” Ordinal responses ranged from 0 (never) to 7
(“everyday”). Each individual’s communication level was based on the other partner’s
assessment of his or her communication frequency.
Control Variables. We include a number of individual- and couple-level control variables. At
the individual level, we control for age (in years), race/ethnicity with dummy variables
indicating black, Latino/a, and other (white is reference), and respondent socioeconomic status
(which is based on the standardized mean of each respondents’ education and personal income).
At the couple-level we controlled for relationship status with two dummy variables indicating
cohabiting and dating (married is the reference category), relationship length (in years), and
children in home, which indicates the number of children currently residing in the home. Finally,
we included binary variables indicating the study site, including Seattle, Durham, and St. Louis
(Baltimore is the reference category).
Analysis
Our study focuses on the effects of couples’ gender egalitarianism on both couple-level
and respondent-level outcomes. Therefore, we utilize an actor-partner interdependence model
(APIM) for which the couple serves as the unit of analysis and adjusts for the statistical
dependence of the partnership (Kenney, Kashy, and Cook 2006). Importantly, the APIM we
estimate captures both actor and partner effects of gender egalitarian attitudes on individual
communication, self-efficacy, male sexual control, and sexual frequency. Because we are also
interested in examining the indirect and simultaneous effects of gender attitudes on these
outcomes, we utilize a structural equation (versus multilevel) APIM. Missing values were
imputed using multiple imputation through chained equations (ICE), and the model was
estimated in Mplus version 7.4 (based on 20 imputed datasets).
RESULTS
Results from our actor-partner interdependence model can be found in Table 2. We also
present a visual depiction of the model in Figure 1, which includes estimated paths and the
standardized coefficients for significant effects (exogenous variables are omitted from the figure
for the sake of presentation). Fit indices indicate that our model is a good fit to the data.
Although the Chi-Square statistic does not allow us to reject the null hypothesis of a perfectly
fitting model (χ2=259.561; p<.01) other fit indices suggest good to excellent model fit. The root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is .018, the standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR) is .018, while the comparative fit index (CFI) is .977 and the Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI) is .958.
TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
Examining the effects of the couple-level control variables, union type and relationship
duration were associated with couples’ sexual activity. Compared to married couples, cohabitors
had sex more frequently and relationship length was negatively associated with sexual
frequency. Women in dating relationships reported lower sexual self-efficacy compared to
married women. This finding reflects prior research that suggests relationship length and
seriousness enhance women’s sexual empowerment (Armstrong et al. 2012). The number of
children in the home was positively associated with women’s sexual self-efficacy.
Women and men in dating couples also exhibited greater partner communication than those
in married couples, while relationship length was negatively associated with men’s
communication. Nonetheless, longer relationship duration is directly associated with more sexual
self-efficacy for men. Examining the effects of research sites, women in Seattle report more
partner communication than women in Baltimore, while men in Durham and St. Louis report less
communication than men in Baltimore. Finally, couples in Durham exhibit higher levels of
sexual control than Baltimore couples.
Among personal characteristics, we found that men report less communication and sexual
self-efficacy as they aged. Additionally, partner age was negatively associated with women’s
communication and their sexual self-efficacy. Conversely, women’s age was negatively
associated with couple’s sexual frequency, but not associated with communication, sexual selfefficacy, or male sexual control.
Male and female partners’ communication and sexual self-efficacy varied by race. White
female respondents report more communication with their partners than black female and Latina
respondents. The race of the male partner did not matter for women’s communication.
Conversely, men with Latina and other race/ethnicity partners reported less communication, and
black men reported less communication compared to their white male counterparts. Black
women report more sexual self-efficacy than white women, however female partners of black
and Latino men reported less sexual self-efficacy than women partnered with white men.
Similarly, black men reported more sexual self-efficacy, but men who were partnered with black
and Latina women reported less sexual self-efficacy than men partnered with white women.
Couples with Latina women report higher sexual frequency than couples with white women.
Women’s socioeconomic status was positively associated with men’s communication and both
men’s and women’s sexual self-efficacy. Finally, men’s socioeconomic status is positively
associated with both partners’ communication and sexual self-efficacy.
Turning to the associations between partners’ gender attitudes with the endogenous variables
of interest, women’s (but not men’s) egalitarian attitudes about unpaid domestic work, were, as
expected, negatively associated with sexual frequency (β=-.08; p<.05). This indicates the more
conventional a woman’s views on gendered family roles the more sex she had with her partner.
Women’s egalitarian attitudes about equal sex roles, however, were positively related to sexual
frequency (β=.10; p<.01), though men’s attitudes were not. It appears that women’s belief that
wives should also initiate and choose a couples’ sexual activity leads to more frequent sexual
intercourse between partners.
Beyond its direct effect on sexual frequency, women’s domestic attitudes also affected
couples’ sex lives through male sexual control within the couple. Women’s egalitarian attitudes
about domestic labor were negatively related to male sexual control (β=-.17; p<.01) which in
turn was positively related to sexual frequency (β=.21; p < .01). A decomposition of the indirect
effect of women’s domestic equality attitudes on sexual frequency (results not shown, available
upon request) indicated that women’s domestic attitudes had a negative indirect association with
sexual frequency that operated in part through reduced male sexual control (β=-.04; p<.05). This
suggests female rejection of gender conventions indirectly reduced the frequency of sex in
relationships through reduced male sexual control. Additionally, men’s sexual equality attitudes
were negatively associated with male sexual control (β=-.11; p<.10), suggesting female partners
yield more control over couples’ sexual scripting when their male partners hold more gender
egalitarian sexual attitudes.
Women’s communication was negatively associated with male-dominated sexual scripting
(β=-.18; p<.01). Importantly, although men’s domestic equality attitudes were not directly
associated with male sexual control, they were indirectly and negatively associated with male
sexual control through women’s communication (β=-.02; p<.05). These results suggest men’s
gender egalitarianism increases couples’ sexual egalitarianism through enhanced communication
among female partners.
While domestic equality attitudes reduced sexual frequency overall, domestic and sexual
equality attitudes tended to enhance men’s and women’s sexual self-efficacy. In particular,
women reported more sexual self-efficacy as their male partner’s domestic equality attitudes
increased (β=.07; p<.05). Moreover, men’s own sexual self-efficacy increased with their
domestic (β=.07; p<.10) and sexual equality attitudes (β=.09; p<.05). Additionally, women’s
sexual equality attitudes were positively associated with men’s sexual self-efficacy (β=.07;
p<.10). Gender egalitarian attitudes also enhanced sexual self-efficacy indirectly through
enhanced communication. In particular, women’s communication was positively associated with
sexual self-efficacy (β=.09; p<.05) as well as their male partner’s sexual self-efficacy (β=.14;
p<.01). Likewise, men’s communication was positively associated with women’s sexual selfefficacy (β=.23; p<.01) and their own sexual self-efficacy (β=.08; p<.05). Decomposing the
indirect effects of egalitarian attitudes on sexual self-efficacy revealed that women’s domestic
equality attitudes enhanced their own sexual self-efficacy through increases in male partner’s
communication (β=.02; p<.05), while men’s domestic equality attitudes enhanced their own
(β=.02; p<.05) and their female partners’ sexual self-efficacy (β=.01; p<.05) through greater
communication among female partners. These results suggest that while women’s egalitarian
gender attitudes decreased sexual frequency, gender egalitarian attitudes tended to enhance
sexual self-efficacy directly and indirectly through enhanced communication.
We hypothesized that egalitarian attitudes would also portend more sex by increasing partner
communication. We find support for this hypothesis. We found that men’s domestic equality
attitudes were positively associated with women’s communication (β=.11; p<.01), while
women’s domestic equality attitudes were positively associated with men’s communication
(β=.07; p<.05). Both partners’ communication in turn were positively associated with sexual
frequency (βWomen=.15; p<.01; βMen=.10; p<.01). Decomposing the indirect effects of domestic
equality attitudes on sexual frequency revealed that men’s domestic equality attitudes had a
positive indirect effect on sexual frequency that operated through women’s communication
(β=.02; p<.05), while women’s domestic equality attitudes had a positive indirect effect on
sexual frequency that operated through men’s communication (β=.01; p<.10). These results
suggest that men’s and women’s domestic equality attitudes have indirect positive effects on
sexual frequency via greater communication that offset some of the direct negative effect of
women’s domestic equality attitudes on couples’ sexual frequency.
Finally, we found that women’s sexual self-efficacy was negatively associated with maledominated sexual scripting (β=.15; p<.10), suggesting women’s sexual efficacy reduces male
control over couples’ sexual activity. Conversely, men’s sexual self-efficacy was positively
associated with male-dominated sexual scripting (β=.18; p<.05), but negatively associated with
sexual frequency (β=-.13; p<.01).
DISCUSSION
Recent studies have produced conflicting findings regarding the association between gender
conventions and couples’ sexual behavior. Research indicates that conventional gendered
behavior is positively associated with couples’ sexual frequency while other studies suggest
gender egalitarianism enhances couples’ sexual intimacy. This study tested the association
between gender attitudes and sexual frequency, focusing on the underlying processes that link
gender attitudes to sexual activity. We also examined the association between couples’ gender
attitudes and women’s and men’s sexual self-efficacy and how sexual self-efficacy in turn shapes
sexual frequency and gendered control of sexual behavior. Apart from understanding the
individual- and couple-level precursors of sexual self-efficacy, this study helps clarify why
conventional gender attitudes might increase sexual frequency but reduce sexual self-efficacy,
particularly among women.
Our actor partner interdependence model based on data from the National Couples Study
indicated that women’s domestic equality attitudes were negatively associated with male sexual
control and couples’ sexual frequency. We also found that male sexual control was positively
associated with sexual frequency and mediated part of the effect of women’s domestic equality
attitudes on sexual frequency. These findings reflect those from prior studies that suggest
conventional gender attitudes and behavior among couples increase their sexual frequency
through activation of heterosexual scripts, particularly male sexual control and decision-making.
Conversely, we also found that men’s and women’s domestic equality attitudes increased
sexual frequency to the extent that it enhanced couples’ communication. Although the indirect
positive effect of women’s domestic equality attitudes on sexual frequency operating through
communication only partially offset its direct negative effect on sexual frequency, domestic
equality attitudes also enhanced sexual self-efficacy, primarily through enhanced partner
communication. Women’s sexual equality attitudes also had a direct positive association with
couples’ sexual frequency and enhanced men’s sexual self-efficacy. Importantly, we also found
that women’s sexual self-efficacy was negatively associated with male sexual control. This
finding suggests that women’s sexual self-efficacy enhances their control over the scripting of
couples’ sexual activity.
Our study contributes to sociological debates about whether it is gender conventions or
gender egalitarianism that enhances couples’ sexual activity and provides support for both
perspectives. Gender conventions enhance sexual activity by privileging men’s sexual desires,
but egalitarianism is also a boon to couples’ sex lives through its effects on communication and
mutual sexual empowerment. This finding therefore may explain why recent research
demonstrates no significant difference in sexual frequency between couples with conventional
and egalitarian divisions of labor (Carlson, Hanson, and Fitzroy 2016; Carlson et al. 2016;
Johnson et al. 2015).
Our study suggests gender egalitarian attitudes about domestic roles —particularly among
women—reduce sexual frequency, in part by decreasing male control over the timing and
makeup of couples’ sexual activity. However, the residual, direct, negative association between
women’s domestic equality attitudes and sexual frequency suggests traditional gender attitudes
among women increase sexual frequency through processes beyond the control of sexual
activity. We also found that women’s sexual equality attitudes were positively associated with
couples’ sexual frequency, suggesting that women who perceive that they should be as active as
male partners in the scripting of sexual behavior have sex more often. This later finding
questions the notion of gendered sexual scripts as necessary to produce arousal among partners.
Our study also contributes to the understanding of how gendered attitudes shape men’s and
women’s sexual self-efficacy. Beyond sexual frequency, we argued that it is important to
consider what makes individuals feel empowered in their sexual lives when assessing men’s and
women’s sexual wellbeing. We found that domestic equality attitudes enhanced communication,
which in turn lead to increased sexual self-efficacy among men and women. These findings
support insights from recent research on sexual subjectivity, which highlights the adverse effects
of conventional gender attitudes on sexual empowerment, while highlighting the importance of
open communication for enhancing couples’ sexual well-being. Additionally, the positive
associations between men’s domestic equality attitudes and women’s sexual self-efficacy and
women’s sexual equality attitudes and men’s sexual self-efficacy underscore the dyadic nature of
sexual self-efficacy.
Apart from contributing to current debates surrounding gender traditionalism and sexual selfefficacy and sexual frequency among couples, our study opens up avenues for future research on
gender and sexuality. Sexuality development scholars suggest girls’ sexual subjectivity is
integral to their self-esteem during adolescence (Martin 1996) and shapes sexual well-being
during adulthood. Women’s sexual self-efficacy may be linked to higher self-esteem by
increasing their control over sexual decision making and sexual satisfaction. Future research that
considers how sexual self-efficacy affects self-esteem and mental health more broadly may
advance the understanding of how sexual activity shapes wellbeing during adulthood.
Additionally, longitudinal research that examines how sexual self-efficacy develops throughout
the life course may help understand how early romantic and sexual experiences shape sexual
wellbeing during adulthood.
While our study contributes to the understanding of gender and sexuality, it is not without
limitations. First, our study relies on cross-sectional data, which limits our ability to make causal
claims regarding the processes examined in our study. Future data collection efforts that include
longitudinal samples and build on the scope and focus of the NCS may help assess how the
associations between gender egalitarian attitudes, sexual self-efficacy, male sexual control, and
sexual frequency vary over time. Due to sample limitations, we were also unable to examine how
gender attitudes shape sexual self-efficacy and sexual activity within casual or non-exclusive
relationships. Importantly, recent research suggests linkages between sexual double standards
and women’s sexual pleasure within hookups among women attending college (Armstrong et al.
2012). Thus future research that is based on a broader sample may help determine whether our
results extend to non-exclusive dating or sexual relationships. Another limitation is that the first
wave of the NCS was collected more than 10 years ago. While we have no reason to suspect that
the processes examined in our study are period-specific, more recent data collection efforts may
help assess whether the processes examined in our study continue to operate today. Finally, our
data only includes respondents from 4 cities in the United States. Thus we are unable to
generalize our findings to the larger population of the United States. Although we do not expect
that our findings are geographically limited, future research based on samples that include
respondents from across the United States may help determine whether our findings generalize to
all couples in the United States.
Despite these limitations, our study contributes to the understanding gender and sexual
frequency and self-efficacy. We hope future research expands on our study to better understand
how gendered processes shape couples’ sexual well-being today.
REFERENCES
Albert Bandura. 1997. Self‐efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
Armstrong, Elizabeth A., Paula England, and Alison C. K. Fogarty. 2012. “Accounting for
Women’s Orgasm and Sexual Enjoyment in College Hookups and Relationships.” American
Sociological Review 77:435–62.
Block, Jeanne H. 1983. “Differential Premises Arising from Differential Socialization of the
Sexes: Some Conjectures.” Child Development 54:1335–54.
Butler, Judith. 2011. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Call, V., Sprecher, S., and Schwartz, P. 1995. The incidence and frequency of marital sex in a
national sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family, :639-652.
Cameron, D. 1997 ‘Performing Gender Identity: Young Men’s Talk and the Construction of
Heterosexual Masculinity’, in S. Johnson and U.H. Meinhof (eds) Language and Masculinity,
pp. 47–64. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Campbell, Carole A. 1995. "Male gender roles and sexuality: Implications for women's AIDS
risk and prevention." Social Science & Medicine 41:197-210.
Carlson, Daniel L., Sarah Hanson, and Andrea Fitzroy. 2016. ““The Division of childcare and
sexual intimacy in low to moderate income couples.” Gender & Society 30(3): 442-466.
Carlson, Daniel L., Amanda J. Miller, Sharon Sassler, and Sarah Hanson. 2016. "The Gendered
Division of Housework and Couples' Sexual Relationships: A Reexamination." Journal of
Marriage and Family.
Cheng, Simon, Laura Hamilton, Stacy Missari, and Josef (Kuo-Hsun) Ma. 2014. “Sexual
Subjectivity among Adolescent Girls: Social Disadvantage and Young Adult Outcomes.”
Social Forces 93:515–44.
Connell, Robert William. 1998. "Masculinities and globalization." Men and masculinities 1:3-23.
Connell, Robert William, and Raewyn Connell. 2005. Masculinities. Univ of California Press.
Donaldson, Mike. 1993. "What is hegemonic masculinity?." Theory and society 22:643-657.
Frisco, Michelle L., and Kristi Williams. 2003. "Perceived housework equity, marital happiness,
and divorce in dual-earner households." Journal of Family Issues 24:51-73.
Gager, Constance. T., & Yabiku, S.T. 2010. Who has the time? The relationship between
household labor time and sexual frequency." Journal of Family Issues 31:135-163.
Gecas, Viktor. 1989. “The Social Psychology of Self-Efficacy.” Annual Review of Sociology
15:291–316.
Gerrard, Meg, Cheri Breda, and Frederick X. Gibbons. 1990. "Gender effects in couples' sexual
decision making and contraceptive use." Journal of applied social psychology 20:449-464.
Giddens, Anthony. 1992. The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in
modern societies. John Wiley & Sons.
Holland, Janet, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Sue Sharpe, and Rachel Thomson. 2004. The Male in the
Head: Young People, Heterosexuality and Power.
Impett, Emily A., Deborah Schooler, and Deborah L. Tolman. 2006. “To Be Seen and Not
Heard: Femininity Ideology and Adolescent Girls’ Sexual Health.” Archives of Sexual
Behavior 35:129–42.
Impett, Emily A., Lynn Sorsoli, Deborah Schooler, James M. Henson, and Deborah L. Tolman.
2008. “Girls’ Relationship Authenticity and Self-Esteem across Adolescence.”
Developmental Psychology 44:722–33.
Kenny, David A., Deborah A. Kashy, and William L. Cook. 2006. Dyadic Analysis. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kornrich, Sabino, Julie Brines, and Katrina Leupp. 2013. "Egalitarianism, housework, and
sexual frequency in marriage." American Sociological Review 78:26-50.
Johnson, Matthew D., Nancy L. Galambos, and Jared R. Anderson. 2016. "Skip the dishes? Not
so fast! Sex and housework revisited." Journal of Family Psychology 30, no. 2 (2016): 203.
Lamb, Sharon. 2010. “Feminist Ideals for a Healthy Female Adolescent Sexuality: A Critique.”
Sex Roles 62(5–6):294–306.
Martin, Karin A. 1996. Puberty, Sexuality, and the Self: Boys and Girls at Adolescence.
Psychology Press.
Pearson, Jennifer. 2006. “Personal Control, Self-Efficacy in Sexual Negotiation, and
Contraceptive Risk among Adolescents: The Role of Gender.” Sex Roles 54(9–10):615–25.
Pew Research. 2007. Modern Marriage. “I Like Hugs. I Like Kisses. But What I Really Love is
Help with the Dishes.” Pew Research Center. Washington DC. First published July 18, 2007.
Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2007/07/18/modern-marriage/
Pleck, Joseph H., Freya L. Sonenstein, and Leighton C. Ku. 1993. "Masculinity ideology: Its
impact on adolescent males' heterosexual relationships .Journal of Social issues 49: 1-29.
Schwartz, Pepper. 1995. Love between equals: How peer marriage really works. Simon and
Schuster.
--------------- 2007. What sexual scientists know about... sexual satisfaction in committed
relationships. Allentown, PA: The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality.
Simon, W., and Gagnon, J. H. 1986. Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 15(2):97-120.
Sprecher, S. and Cate, R.M. 2004. Sexual satisfaction and sexual expression as predictors of
relationship satisfaction and stability. In Sprecher, S., Cate, R. M., Harvey, J. H., & Wenzel,
A. (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 235-256). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Tolman, Deborah L. and Sara I. McClelland. 2011. “Normative Sexuality Development in
Adolescence: A Decade in Review, 2000–2009.” Journal of Research on Adolescence
21(1):242–55.
Udry, J. Richard, and Kim Chantala. 2004. "Masculinity-femininity guides sexual union
formation in adolescents." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30:44-55.
VanderDrift, L.E., Agnew, C.R., Harvey, S.M. and Warren, J.T., 2013. Whose intentions
predict? Power over condom use within heterosexual dyads. Health Psychology, 32(10),
p.1038.
West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. "Doing gender." Gender & Society 1:125-151.