Abstract How do women respond to being valued for sex bytheir partners? Although research supporting objectificationtheorysuggeststhat women’s reactionsto sexual valuation are primarilynegative, a separate body of researchindicatesthat women expendsignificant effort to enhance their sexual appeal. Evolutionary perspectives suggest that whether women are more or less satisfiedwith partnerswho valuethem for sexmay depend on how committedthosepartnersare.Being sexuallyvaluedbya relativelyuncommitted partner may violate women’s desire to avoid short-termsexual relationships and thus may be negatively associated withrelationship satisfaction. In contrast, being sexually valued by ahighly committed partner may positively influence women’s relationship satisfaction because it signals to them that they have successfully attracted a long-term relationship partner. Two studies ofnewlymarriedcouplessupportedthesepredictions.InStudy1(N=109), husbands’ sexual valuation was positively associated withmarital satisfaction among wives who perceived that those husbandswere highlycommitted, but negativelyassociatedwithmarital satisfaction among wives who perceived that those husbandswere relativelylesscommitted.Study2 (N=99) revealedthe samepattern for wives (but not husbands) using alikelymanifestation ofsexual valuation—engaging in frequent sex. These findings joinothers to demonstrate thatinterpersonal processes do not have universally positive or negative implications for relationships; rather,theirimplications depend onthecontextinwhichthey occur,including contextsthatwere reproductively beneficial or costlythroughoutevolutionary history.
Descriptive statistics and correlations are shown in Table 3. As in Study 1, both husbands and wives reported relatively high levels of marital satisfaction, on average. Second, both husbands and wives reported relatively high condence that their partners were committed to long-term relationships, on average. Nevertheless, the standard deviations indicated variability in reports of satisfaction and commitment. Third, couples reported having sex an average of almost 32 times over the prior 4 months, or approximately once every 4 days. Nevertheless, there was substantial variability in those reports as well. Fourth, as would be expected, the two measures of marital satisfaction were positively associated with one another among both husbands and wives. Fifth, as in Study 1, husbands and wives reports of marital satisfaction were positively associated with one another, again highlighting the need to examine whether any effects hold controlling partner satisfaction. Inaddition,husba
id: 887cdd2ffcbdfed73bce4f7d7fe1c271 - page: 7
Finally, sexual frequency was unrelated to both partners satisfaction and perceptions of partner commitment, on average.
id: 2d762191a9b3b05c8fbbea786060d6a0 - page: 7
123 482 Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlations for Study 2 1 2 1. Sexual frequency 2. Wives perceived commitment .02 3. Wives marital satisfaction (QMI) .12 .56*** 4. Wives marital satisfaction (SMD) .04 .57*** 5. Husbands perceived commitment .06 .35*** 6. Husbands marital satisfaction (QMI) .10 .33** 7. Husbands marital satisfaction (SMD) .15 .26* N = 99 for all variables except husbands SMD, in which N = 98 QMI Quality Marriage Index measure, SMD Semantic Differential measure * p\.05; ** p\.01; *** p\.001 a Scores can range from 1 to 7 b Scores can range from 6 to 45 c Scores can range from 15 to 105 Effects of Sexual Frequency and Wives Perceived Partner Commitment on Wives Marital Satisfaction
id: 4cb5a22920cad1312080ddc5700381f7 - page: 7
We rst attempted to replicate the ndings of Study 1, using sexual frequency as an extension of sexual valuation. We predicted that wives perceived partner commitment would moderate the link between couples reports of sexual frequency and wives marital satisfaction. To test this prediction, we conducted four regression analysestwo for each measure of wives marital satisfaction, one of which controlled partner satisfaction and one of which did not. Specically, we regressed wives marital satisfaction onto the mean-centered score of couples reports of sexual frequency, the mean-centered score of wives perceived partner commitment, and the Sexual Frequency 9 Partner Commitment interaction, not controlling (Model 1) and controlling (Model 2) for the corresponding mean-centered score of husbands marital satisfaction. Results are shown in the top half of Table 4. As can be seen, the Sexual Frequency 9 Partner Commitment interaction emerged as signicant in all four analyses. To view
id: 6e8fc3dcb30f002de0b79c1034147377 - page: 8