* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download preprint - Open Science Framework
Father absence wikipedia , lookup
Sexual assault wikipedia , lookup
Sexual slavery wikipedia , lookup
Adolescent sexuality wikipedia , lookup
Human sexual activity wikipedia , lookup
Hookup culture wikipedia , lookup
Human mating strategies wikipedia , lookup
Exploitation of women in mass media wikipedia , lookup
Sexual objectification wikipedia , lookup
Incest taboo wikipedia , lookup
Sexual fluidity wikipedia , lookup
Sexual addiction wikipedia , lookup
Sexual abstinence wikipedia , lookup
Heterosexuality wikipedia , lookup
Erotic plasticity wikipedia , lookup
Penile plethysmograph wikipedia , lookup
Sexual reproduction wikipedia , lookup
Sexual dysfunction wikipedia , lookup
Sexual selection wikipedia , lookup
Age of consent wikipedia , lookup
Ages of consent in South America wikipedia , lookup
Ego-dystonic sexual orientation wikipedia , lookup
Sexual stimulation wikipedia , lookup
Human male sexuality wikipedia , lookup
Sexual racism wikipedia , lookup
Sex and sexuality in speculative fiction wikipedia , lookup
Sex in advertising wikipedia , lookup
Sexological testing wikipedia , lookup
Human female sexuality wikipedia , lookup
Human sexual response cycle wikipedia , lookup
Sexual ethics wikipedia , lookup
Lesbian sexual practices wikipedia , lookup
Rochdale child sex abuse ring wikipedia , lookup
History of human sexuality wikipedia , lookup
Female promiscuity wikipedia , lookup
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.