2022
DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12888
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sexual passion in couple relationships: Emerging patterns from dyadic response surface analysis

Abstract: Objective The objective of this study was to explore the interrelationship between one partner's inhibited sexual passion (ISP) and the other partner's obsessive sexual passion (OSP) and how these two types of extrinsically motivated passion were associated with sexual satisfaction. Background Previous research has shown that ISP and OSP are common in many couple relationships and are associated with lower levels of sexual outcomes than harmonious sexual passion, a balanced intrinsically motivated passion. How… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 45 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another, more recent way of testing the effects of similarity and discrepancy is dyadic response surface analysis (DRSA; Schönbrodt et al, 2018), which effectively addresses the criticism of interrelatedness between variables. Recent literature on sexual desire (Busby et al, 2023) and gratitude (Park et al, 2023) in close relationships adopts DRSA to demonstrate the similarity effects between partners. Thus, it would be fruitful to validate our results using alternative methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another, more recent way of testing the effects of similarity and discrepancy is dyadic response surface analysis (DRSA; Schönbrodt et al, 2018), which effectively addresses the criticism of interrelatedness between variables. Recent literature on sexual desire (Busby et al, 2023) and gratitude (Park et al, 2023) in close relationships adopts DRSA to demonstrate the similarity effects between partners. Thus, it would be fruitful to validate our results using alternative methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%