Content uploaded by Kristen P Mark
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kristen P Mark on Oct 02, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
The impact of daily sexual desire and daily sexual desire
discrepancy on the quality of the sexual experience in couples
Kristen P. Mark, PhD, MPH
1
1
Department of Kinesiology & Health Promotion, College of Education, University of Kentucky
Recent research has found associations between sexual desire, desire discrepancy, and satisfaction
outcomes in individuals and couples on a broad level. The present study aimed to extend these findings
to the event level through examining daily experiences of sexual desire, sexual desire discrepancy, and
quality of the sexual experience in a sample of 87 mixed-sex couples (174 individuals) over a 30-day
period through daily electronic report. Participants were in their relationships for an average of 9.3 years.
Data were analyzed using over-time Actor Partner Interdependence Models (APIM). For women and men,
higher actor daily sexual desire predicted higher actor quality of the sexual experience. In addition, higher
partner daily sexual desire predicted higher actor quality of the sexual experience. Event-level desire dis-
crepancy between the couple was also a significant predictor of actor quality of the sexual experience for
women, though not for men. These results confirm that day-to-day sexual desire and desire discrepancy
are important indicators of quality of the sexual relationship and emphasize the importance of considering
event-level characteristics when examining sexual behaviour and couple dynamics. Implications and sugges-
tions for future research are also discussed.
KEY WORDS: sexual desire; sexual desire discrepancy; quality of sexual experience; sexual satisfaction;
couples; APIM; dyadic; daily diary; daily electronic report; sexual satisfaction
INTRODUCTION
Sexual desire is conceptualized as the experience of sexual
thoughts, fantasies, and urges to engage in sexual activity
(Basson, 2000) and is suggested to be the most universal sex-
ual response experienced by both men and women (Regan &
Atkins, 2006). Research indicates sexual desire is typically
highest at the beginning of a relationship with declines as
relationship length increases (Murray & Milhausen, 2012;
Sprecher & Regan, 1998). However, some research suggests
that sexual desire may ebb and flow rather than decline over
time (Acevedo & Aron, 2009; Ridley, Cate, Collins, Reesing,
Lucero, Gilson, & Almeida, 2006), and this ebb and flow of
sexual desire has not necessarily been captured in cross-
sectional examinations of sexual desire.
When couples within a romantic relationship experience
different levels of sexual desire relative to their partner, a sexual
desire discrepancy is thought to exist (Zilbergeld & Ellison,
1980). This has been shown in the literature to be related to
negative sexual and relationship outcomes (Bridges & Horne,
2007; Davies, Katz, & Jackson, 1999; Mark, 2012; Mark &
Murray, 2012). These negative outcomes may be more pro-
nounced in relationships with longer duration than those
with shorter duration (Willoughby & Vitas, 2012). They may
also impact women and men differently. For example, Davies
et al. (1999) found that women who had lower desire than
their partner were less relationally satisfied than women who
had similar or higher desire compared to their partner; not
found in men. Similarly, Mark and Murray (2012) found
that higher desire discrepancies were related to lower relation-
ship satisfaction in women, but lower sexual satisfaction in
men. Desire discrepancy can arise for a variety of reasons in-
cluding relationship factors, hormonal levels, medical issues,
stress, and conflicting schedules (Ellison, 2001). Desire dis-
crepancy is the most common sexual complaint from women
(Ellison, 2001) with consistent evidence to suggest it nega-
tively impacts sexual and relationship satisfaction (Bridges &
Horne, 2007; Davies et al., 1999, Mark, 2012; Mark & Murray,
2012).
Acknowledgements: The Patty Brisben Foundation for Women’s Sexual Health and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada supported this research. I would also like to acknowledge Dominique Zephyr from the Applied Statistics Lab at University of Kentucky for
data analysis assistance.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristen P Mark, PhD, MPH, Department of Kinesiology & Health Promotion,
College of Education, 122 Seaton Building, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 Email: kristen.mark@uky.edu
Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 23(1), 2014, pp. 27–33; doi:10.3138/cjhs.23.1.A2 27
Sexual satisfaction in long-term relationships has been a
growing area of inquiry, in part due to its positive association
to relationship satisfaction (Byers, 2005; Byers, Demmons, &
Lawrance, 1998; Schwartz & Young, 2009; Sprecher, 2002)
and overall well-being (Apt, Hurlbert, Pierce, & White, 1996;
Davison, Bell, LaChina, Holden, & Davis, 2009), but also due
to the increase in attention paid to sexual health issues (e.g.,
pharmacological innovations) and public health initiatives
(Higgins, Mullinax, Trussell, Davidson, & Moore, 2011). In-
creasingly, clinical research and interventions are turning to
measures of sexual satisfaction as important clinical outcome
variables (McClelland, 2011). Sexual satisfaction has been con-
ceptualized as both evaluative and affective (Lawrance & Byers,
1992), with an emphasis on positive affect, expectations, or a
balance between positive and negative dimensions of satisfac-
tion (McClelland, 2011). A recent study conducted by Pascoal,
Narciso, and Pereira (2014) examined coupled heterosexual lay
persons definitions of sexual satisfaction found that a crucial
component of sexual satisfaction was mutual pleasure and
the quality of the sexual experiences were primary to sexual
satisfaction. The quality of individual sexual events over time
may therefore be aggregated to form one’s overall sexual sat-
isfaction. In addition, McClelland (2011) found that partner’s
level of sexual satisfaction was sometimes used as a proxy to
determine their own sexual satisfaction, further emphasizing
the importance of couple dynamics.
Research has successfully integrated the links between
individual sexual desire, desire discrepancy, and sexual satis-
faction (Mark, 2012; Willoughby, Farero, & Busby, in press;
Willoughby & Vitas, 2012). For example, Mark (2012) found
that individual sexual desire for one’s partner significantly pre-
dicted sexual satisfaction for women and men, whereas sexual
desire discrepancy significantly predicted sexual satisfaction
for men only in a sample of college-age heterosexual couples.
Willoughby and Vitas (2012) examined dating couples and
found higher discrepancy between desired frequency of sex
and actual frequency of sex was associated with lower relation-
ship stability. Negative relationship outcomes were particularly
salient in couples with longer relationship length. In a sample
of married couples, Willoughby et al. (in press) found higher
desire discrepancy related to negative relationship outcomes
including lower relationship satisfaction, lower stability, and
more conflict; these findings did not change based on relation-
ship length.
The sexual desire discrepancy literature to date has been
confined to measuring constructs as a whole or over a period
of specified time (e.g., over the previous four weeks) limiting
our understanding of the individual experiences that combine
to create our overall level of satisfaction. Taking an event-level
approach is especially interesting in the context of findings
from event-level prospective daily diary research that have
demonstrated the variability of pleasure and satisfaction both
within the person and across events with the same partner
(Hensel, Stupiansky, Herbenick, Dodge, & Reece, 2012; Reece,
Mark, Herbenick, Hensel, Jawed-Wessel, & Dodge, 2012;
Ridley, Cate, Collins, Reesing, Lucero, Gilson, & Almeida,
2006). In addition, some event-level research has pointed to
a potential link between satisfaction and sexual goals related
to sexual desire. For example, Muise, Impett, and Desmarais
(2013) examined dating couples and long-term couples using
a 21-day diary study to examine the link between sexual goals
and satisfaction. They found that sexual desire mediated the
significant relationships between sexual goals and satisfaction.
These findings indicate there may be something worthwhile
to be learned from studying an event-level experience. How-
ever, still unknown is the impact of daily levels of sexual
desire for partner or sexual desire discrepancy on the quality
of the specific sexual experience.
As much of the desire discrepancy research conducted
thus far has done, taking an interpersonal approach to examine
sexual desire and satisfaction offers benefits to taking an intra-
personal perspective in which one partner’s sexual desire is
linked to his or her own sexual or relationship outcomes
(Kane, Jaremka, Guichard, Ford, Collins, & Feeney, 2007).
The context for understanding couple dynamics is greatly in-
creased when collecting both individual and partner percep-
tions of the variable of interest. This dyadic approach allows
for a shift in the diagnostic process from the level of the indi-
vidual to the level of the couple to allow for the individual
with the lower level of desire to be understood within the
context of the relationship rather than deemed pathological
and dysfunctional (Davies et al., 1999).
Given the evidence suggesting sexual desire and sexual
desire discrepancy impact sexual satisfaction on a broad level,
it seems plausible this would translate to the event level.
Therefore, the current study aims to understand how sexual
desire and sexual desire discrepancy impact the quality of the
sexual experience on the event level. Specifically, the current
paper seeks to answer the following three research questions:
RQ
1
: Does daily sexual desire impact event-level quality of
sexual experience?
RQ
2
: Does partner daily sexual desire impact event-level
quality of sexual experience?
RQ
3
: Does daily sexual desire discrepancy impact event-level
quality of sexual experience?
METHOD
Procedure
Participants were recruited to the study through online social
media (Facebook and Twitter), email listservs, and fliers
posted around a college town in the Midwestern United
States. Interested participants who visited the study website
were provided additional information about the study. If the
participant was still interested, eligibility criteria were assessed
through a series of questions that ensured the participant was
in a long-term relationship (3+ years) with someone of the
opposite gender, not currently pregnant or with child under
the age of one, and currently living with their partner. If they
met the eligibility criteria, the potential participant was asked
Kristen P. Mark
28 Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 23(1), 2014, pp. 27–33; doi:10.3138/cjhs.23.1.A2
to provide a valid email address for their partner. The partner
was then sent an email by study personnel inviting them to
learn more about the study and complete the same eligibility
criteria checks the first member of the couple completed. If
the partner also met the eligibility criteria, both members of
the couple were sent individual emails with a link to the study
that required them to enter their email address and create a
password, which served as their login to the study. Once par-
ticipants provided informed consent, they completed an online
baseline survey that took approximately 30 minutes to com-
plete. Participants were informed that they would receive an
email the following morning to initiate the 30-day daily elec-
tronic report portion of the study. The next morning, partic-
ipants were emailed a link to complete the first of 30 daily
surveys. Each daily electronic report took the participant ap-
proximately three to five minutes to complete, depending on
whether they engaged in sexual activity in the previous 24
hours. Both members of the couple were instructed to com-
plete the daily electronic report independently of one another
each morning. All participants received a $40 Amazon gift
card for participating in the study. All responses were kept
confidential and the Indiana University IRB approved all pro-
cedures.
Measures
At the outset of the study, participants were asked to complete
a general demographic and relationship questionnaire. These
measures incorporated questions on age, sexual orientation, re-
lationship length, geographic location, and education, among
others. In addition, participants were administered questions
regarding relationship dynamics such as sexual satisfaction,
relationship satisfaction, and sexual behaviours engaged in
during the previous week, month, and year. The measures
collected every day for the 30-day daily electronic reports
were as follows:
Sexual Desire. To assess sexual desire on the event level,
participants were asked to answer the following question:
‘‘During the past day, did you feel sexual desire for your part-
ner?’’ on a 5-point scale ranging from 1(not at all)to5(ex-
tremely). Scale scores ranged from 1 to 5 (M¼3.14, SD ¼
1.21; M
women
¼2.93, SD
women
¼1.26; M
men
¼3.36, SD
men
¼
1.12).
Sexual Desire Discrepancy. The daily measure of sexual
desire discrepancy was calculated using the absolute differ-
ence between the partners’ daily sexual desire scores. That is,
a larger discrepancy score indicated more difference in desire
within each couple for each day. Couples with matching sex-
ual desire on a given day received a discrepancy score of zero.
Scores ranged from 0 to 4 (M¼1.05, SD ¼.94).
Quality of Sexual Experience. The measure of quality
of sexual experience for each sexual event that occurred in
the previous 24 hours was measured with a modified version
of the Quality of Sexual Experience Scale (QSE; Sanders,
Herbenick, Reece, Schick, Mullinax, Dodge, et al., 2013), a 7-
item scale created to measure sexual quality on an event-
specific basis. All questions began with the base question of
‘‘Thinking about this sexual experience that you just described,
would you say that it was’’: and participants chose from a 9-
point scale ranging from ‘‘extremely bad’’ to ‘‘extremely
good,’’ or ‘‘extremely unpleasurable’’ to ‘‘extremely pleasur-
able,’’ or ‘‘extremely good physically’’ to ‘‘extremely good
physically,’’ etc. with higher scores indicative of higher quality
of sexual experience. Based on a representative sample of the
United States, this scale has demonstrated strong psychomet-
ric properties, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .96 and split-half
reliabilities at .89 or higher (Sanders et al., 2013). In the cur-
rent sample, the Cronbach’s alpha was .86 for men and .88
for women. Scores ranged from 2 to 9 (M¼7.44, SD ¼.96;
M
women
¼7.35, SD
women
¼1.06; M
men
¼7.54, SD
men
¼.83).
Participants
A total of 93 couples created login information and provided
informed consent. However, five of the couples dropped out
of the study before the end of the first week and their data
was incomplete. Therefore, the analytic sample consisted of
87 mixed-sex couples from the United States (n¼71 couples;
82%), Canada (n¼14 couples; 16%), and the United Kingdom
(n¼2 couples; 2%). The average age of participants was 32.46
years (SD ¼10.25) for women and 33.67 years (SD ¼9.36)
for men. Participants were in a relationship with one another
for a minimum of three years and a maximum of 31 years
(M¼9.33, SD ¼6.95) at the time of their participation. The
majority of participants were White (88.5%), though 3.4%
identified as multi-racial, 2.9% as Asian or Asian-American,
1.7% as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 1.2% as
Black or African American, and 1.0% as American Indian or
Native. All participants reported being in exclusive long-term
relationships with someone of the opposite gender, though
not all orientation was reported as heterosexual: 90.1% of
women and 98.5% of men identified as heterosexual; 6.9%
of women and 1.5% of men identified as bisexual; and 2.5%
of the women identified as uncertain or questioning.
Analysis
The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny,
Kashy, & Cook, 2006) considers both the effect that a person’s
independent variable has on their own dependent variable
(actor effect) and the effect that a person’s independent vari-
able has on their partner’s dependent variable (partner effect),
and was used to guide the analysis. The APIM assumes that
the data from two members of a couple are not independent
and treats the dyad as the unit of analysis allowing the re-
searcher to estimate actor and partner effects simultaneously.
Data from romantic couples are not independent because
there are strong correlations between variables of both male
and female partners; the acts and characteristics of one partner
are likely to affect those of the opposite partner (Yucel &
Gassanov, 2010). To anticipate unbiased statistical variances,
the current analyses followed Kenny and colleagues’ (2006)
suggestions to use the APIM in a two-level cross model with
random intercepts where persons are nested within dyads,
and days are crossed with persons to account for both members
The Impact of Daily Sexual Desire and Daily Sexual Desire Discrepancy on the Quality of the Sexual Experience in Couples
Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 23(1), 2014, pp. 27–33; doi:10.3138/cjhs.23.1.A2 29
of the couple completing the surveys on the same days. All
daily-level predictors in the models were person-mean centred
to reflect associations between deviations from a person’s mean
score on daily sexual desire and the outcome measure, quality
of sexual experience. To answer the first two research questions
of interest, an over-time APIM using multi-level modelling was
run. To answer the third research question of interest, an
over-time APIM without measurement of the partner effects
(due to the couples-based discrepancy score) was run. All
analyses were run using SAS 9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Inc.).
RESULTS
The 87 couples (174 participants) reported engaging in a total
of 2,328 partnered sexual events (oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal
sex) over the course of the 30 days. Sexual behaviour reports
yielded a 98.6% consistency rate between members of the
couple across the 30 days. Overall, there was variation on the
sexual desire, sexual desire discrepancy, and the quality of
sexual experience measures across the 30 days. On average,
across all days, women’s ratings of daily sexual desire (M¼
2.93, SD ¼1.26) were lower than men’s (M¼3.36, SD ¼
1.12), t(4783) ¼12.53, p<.001. In addition, on average,
across all days, women’s ratings of quality of sexual experience
(M¼7.35, SD ¼1.06) were lower than men’s (M¼7.54,
SD ¼.83), t(1061) ¼3.26, p<.01. However, the effect size
for these differences was small to medium for sexual desire
(Cohen’s d¼.36) and small for the quality of sexual experi-
ence (Cohen’s d¼.20) (Cohen, 1988).
An over-time standard APIM was conducted to analyze
the first and second research questions of interest; the impact
of individual sexual desire and partner sexual desire on the
quality of sexual experience over time (see Figure 1). The in-
tercept was significant for women (Estimate ¼3.06, t(357) ¼
28.19, p<.001) and men (Estimate ¼2.83, t(267) ¼24.48,
p<.001). The actor effect was significant for women
(Estimate ¼.52, t(83) ¼12.55, p<.001), such that for every
one unit increase in daily sexual desire, women’s quality of
the sexual experience increased by .52 units. The actor effect
was also significant for men (Estimate ¼.49, t(77) ¼12.64,
p<.001), such that for every one unit increase in daily sexual
desire, men’s quality of the sexual experience increased by .49
units. The partner effect was also significant for women
(Estimate ¼.13, t(66) ¼4.44, p<.001), such that for every
one unit increase in her partner’s daily sexual desire, women’s
quality of the sexual experience increased by .13 units. In
addition, the partner effect was significant for men
(Estimate ¼.25, t(82) ¼7.75, p<.001), such that for every
one unit increase in his partner’s daily sexual desire, men’s
quality of sexual experience increased by .25 units. See Table
1 for all model coefficients.
An over-time APIM without measurement of the partner
effects (due to the couples-based discrepancy score) was con-
ducted to analyze the third research question of interest: the
impact of couple sexual desire discrepancy on quality of the
sexual experience at the event level (see Figure 2). The inter-
cept was significant for women (Estimate ¼3.21, t(303) ¼
22.12, p<.001) and men (Estimate ¼3.03, t(314) ¼21.02,
p<.001). The actor effect was significant for women
(Estimate ¼.10, t(79) ¼2.44, p<.05), such that with
every one unit increase in daily desire discrepancy, women’s
quality of sexual experience decreased by .10 of a unit. The
actor effect for men was non-significant ( p¼.89). See Table
2 for all desire discrepancy model coefficients.
DISCUSSION
This study provided insights into sexual desire and desire dis-
crepancy on an event level as it relates to the quality of sexual
experience in a sample of couples. This extension of previous
research, which has generally examined sexual desire and
desire discrepancy as a whole or over a period of specified
time, indicates that event-level links between these constructs
are significant and potentially important indicators for overall
desire and satisfaction. In addition, this study indicates that
Figure 1. Conceptual model of actor-partner effects between
sexual desire and quality of sexual experience
Table 1. Over-time APIM fixed actor and partner effects
predicting quality of sexual experience with individual sexual
desire
Estimate
Standard
Error DF t
Women
Actor Effect .52 .04 83 12.55***
Partner Effect .13 .03 66 4.44***
Men
Actor Effect .49 .04 77 12.64***
Partner Effect .25 .03 82 7.75***
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Figure 2. Conceptual model of actor effects between sexual
desire discrepancy and quality of sexual experience
Kristen P. Mark
30 Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 23(1), 2014, pp. 27–33; doi:10.3138/cjhs.23.1.A2
daily sexual desire and desire discrepancy are important indi-
cators for the event-level quality of the sexual experience and
partner effects point to the interdependent impact desire has
on quality of the sexual experience.
First, the findings of this study indicated that on days when
women and men had greater sexual desire for their partner, the
quality of their sexual experience was also greater. This finding
was true for women and men and is consistent with research
from studies that examined constructs as a whole or over a
period of specified time (Davies et al., 1999; Mark, 2012;
Mark & Murray, 2012). Daily sexual desire impacted the
quality of the sexual experience for both men and women at
a similar rate (for every one unit increase in daily sexual
desire, women and men’s quality improved by around half of
a unit). Interpreted in the other direction, this finding indi-
cated that on days when desire for partner was lower but a
sexual event occurred, the quality of that sexual event suffered.
Scholars have suggested that sexual desire does not have to
precede sexual arousal (Basson, 2001), and couples may prac-
tice sexual compliance by willingly engaging in sex with their
partner in the absence of desire (Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010).
Although the work of these scholars implies that a lack of
desire may not negatively impact the couple relationship, the
current findings indicate that although low desire on one day
will not drastically impact your quality of the experience (in
this sample, the sacrifice was approximately half of a unit in
quality), if sexual desire is routinely low and sex is engaged
in anyway, this may add up over time to have a more drastic
negative impact on quality. It would be interesting to examine
the additive impact of low sexual desire in combination with
regular frequency of sex with a long-term partner and its
impact on quality of the sexual experience and overall sexual
satisfaction.
Second, this study provided insight into partner effects that
have been less frequently studied in the literature. Willoughby
and Vitas (2012) and Willoughby and colleagues (in press)
have examined partner effects and provided information on
perceived sexual desire discrepancy and its link to relational
outcomes such as relationship satisfaction and conflict as a
whole. The current study was the first to link sexual desire to
quality of sexual experience on an event level and found that
on days when a partner’s sexual desire is greater, the quality
of the sexual experience for the self (or, the actor) was also
greater. Alternately, on days when a partner’s sexual desire
was lower, the quality of the sexual experience for the self
suffered. It could be that when a partner has not felt sexual
desire on a given day but engages in compliance sex anyway,
perhaps they are less enthusiastic during the sexual experience,
in turn impacting the quality of the sexual experience for both
self and partner. Alternately, if a partner does feel high sexual
desire for their partner that day, their enthusiasm for sex may
be emphasized and perhaps manifest itself through a higher
quality experience for the partner.
Third, the current study found that on days when the desire
discrepancy was greater between individuals within a couple,
the female partner expressed lesser quality of the sexual experi-
ence, whereas on days when both members of the couple had
similar levels of sexual desire to one another, women’s quality
of the sexual experience was greater. However, on greater dis-
crepant desire days, men’s quality of the sexual experience
was not impacted. This is inconsistent with cross-sectional
research that has found desire discrepancy to be a significant
predictor of sexual satisfaction in men, but not women
(Mark, 2012), but consistent with other research that has
demonstrated this link in women (Bridges & Horne, 2007;
Mark & Murray, 2012). Perhaps men are less attuned than
women to the ebb and flow of sexual desire within couple
relationships, thereby not allowing these daily fluctuations
(or perhaps not even being aware of these daily fluctuations)
to impact their sexual quality on an event-level.
Interestingly, the current study found significant gender
differences in sexual desire and quality of sexual experience.
As a whole, women rated their daily sexual desire for their
partner and the quality of their sexual experience with their
partner significantly lower than men. To my knowledge, this
is the first study to report gender differences in sexual desire
and quality of sexual experience on a daily level. In terms of
previous research that has examined these constructs as a
whole or over a period of specified time, this is consistent
with some findings (Willoughby & Vitas, 2012; Willoughby
et al., in press) and inconsistent with others (Davies et al.,
1999; Mark, 2012; Mark & Murray, 2012). Traditionally,
women have often been constructed as the member of the
couple with lower sexual desire relative to their male partner
(see Baumeister, Catanese, and Vohs (2001) for a review of the
research) and this has also been adopted as a cultural stereo-
type. There may be nuances with daily sexual desire and spe-
cific to event-level quality of sexual experiences that resonate
with women and men differently. In addition, perhaps these
event-level ratings are used as an indication for more broad
ratings of overall desire and satisfaction differently for women
and men. It is important to note that these significant gender
differences should be taken in the context of their small to
medium effect sizes and additional research should be done
to examine both gender differences and similarities on these
constructs. This should be a future area of inquiry and further
points to the need to consider gender differences and similar-
ities by acknowledging that there may be as much variation
within each gender as there are between the genders when it
comes to sexual desire.
Some additional considerations should be made when
deliberating these findings. Participants reported on their
sexual desire after the sexual event occurred (recall that
Table 2. Over-time APIM fixed actor effects predicting quality
of sexual experience with sexual desire discrepancy
Estimate
Standard
Error DF t
Women
Actor Effect .10 .04 79 2.44*
Men
Actor Effect .01 .04 70 .13
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
The Impact of Daily Sexual Desire and Daily Sexual Desire Discrepancy on the Quality of the Sexual Experience in Couples
Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 23(1), 2014, pp. 27–33; doi:10.3138/cjhs.23.1.A2 31
participants reported on their previous 24 hours of sexual
activity). Research has shown that sexual desire does not
always come before sexual activity but is often intertwined
with arousal (Basson, 2001), potentially creating a perception
of sexual desire and desire discrepancy less notable after the
fact. However, significant findings were detected, so if desire
and desire discrepancy were less notable after the fact, the
strength of these associations may be stronger than reported
in the current study. In addition, these findings should only
be generalized to a population similar to the sample itself; a
primarily White, middle to upper class, primarily heterosexual,
long-term, mixed-sex couple sample. Further, these results gen-
eralize based on 30 days of data across 87 couples and there
may be interesting nuances that go undetected using this
approach. For example, there may be instances where women
have higher desire and higher quality than their male partners
that are obscured by taking the average across the 30 days.
Two methodological strengths of this research are the data
collection from dyads and the daily event-level collection of
data. The dyadic approach is especially important since an
overwhelming majority of sexual experiences take place within
the context of a partner (Impett, Muise, & Peragine, 2013).
The daily event-level collection of data offers more contextual
information that previous research examining the constructs
of interest have been unable to provide (e.g., Mark, 2012;
Mark & Murray, 2012; Willoughby & Vitas, 2012; Willoughby
et al., in press). Collecting sexual behavioural data on a daily
basis offers a valid approach to obtaining data about a specific
event by nearly eliminating recall bias.
These research findings inspire several ideas for future
research. For example, the current study examined sexual de-
sire and desire discrepancy during days when sexual activity
between partners occurred. It would be interesting to consider
days when sexual activity did not occur, particularly related to
desire discrepancy and the overall satisfaction of the individ-
uals within the couple. Based on findings from Impett and
colleagues (2008) that engaging in sex for approach goals pro-
tected against declines in desire over time and predicted higher
sexual desire during a sexual event, it would also be interesting
to understand how the quality of the sexual event the day be-
fore impacts the desire for partner the next day. In addition,
it would be beneficial to examine whether high quality of the
sexual experience for both members of the couple results in
less desire discrepancy the following day.
Feelings of sexual desire have important implications for
sexual and relational quality. People who report higher sexual
desire and lower desire discrepancy tend to be more satisfied
sexually and relationally (Apt et al., 1996; Davies et al., 1999;
Mark & Murray, 2012) and these individuals with high sexual
desire are less likely to leave their relationship (Regan, 2000).
The current study extends the literature in an important way
that emphasizes the day-to-day components of sexual desire
and sexual satisfaction. Researchers are increasingly demon-
strating that sexual desire ebbs and flows within a relationship
(Acevedo & Aron, 2009; Ridley et al., 2006). Examining sexual
desire on an event level is one valuable way to contribute to
that line of research. The findings of the current study indicate
that although sexual desire ebbs and flows, on days when sex-
ual desire for partner is expressed, it can strengthen the quality
of the sexual experience for self and partner, and there may
be benefits to learning how to improve daily sexual desire.
REFERENCES
Apt, C., Hurlbert, D.F., Pierce, A.P., & White, C.L. (1996). Relation-
ship satisfaction, sexual characteristics and the psychological
well-being of women. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,5,
195–210.
Acevedo, B.P., & Aron, A. (2009). Does a long-term relationship kill
romantic love? Review of General Psychology,13(1), 59–65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014226
Basson, R. (2000). The female sexual response: a different model.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy,26(1), 51–65. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/009262300278641 Medline:10693116
Basson, R. (2001). Human sex-response cycles. Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy,27(1), 33–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00926230152035831 Medline:11224952
Baumeister, R.F., Catanese, K., & Vohs, K. (2001). Is there a gender
difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual
distinction, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and
Social Psychology Review,5(3), 242–273. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5
Bridges, S.K., & Horne, S.G. (2007). Sexual satisfaction and desire
discrepancy in same sex women’s relationships. Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy,33(1), 41–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00926230600998466 Medline:17162487
Byers, E.S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: a
longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships.
Journal of Sex Research,42(2), 113–118. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00224490509552264 Medline:16123841
Byers, E.S., Demmons, S., & Lawrance, K. (1998). Sexual satisfaction
within dating relationships: A test of the interpersonal exchange
model of sexual satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships,15(2), 257–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0265407598152008
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davies, S., Katz, J., & Jackson, J.L. (1999). Sexual desire discrepan-
cies: effects on sexual and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual
dating couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior,28(6), 553–567.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018721417683 Medline:10650441
Davison, S.L., Bell, R.J., LaChina, M., Holden, S.L., & Davis, S.R.
(2009). The relationship between self-reported sexual satisfaction
and general well-being in women. Journal of Sexual Medicine,
6(10), 2690–2697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-
6109.2009.01406.x Medline:19817981
Ellison, C.R. (2001). A research inquiry into some American
women’s sexual concerns and problems. Women & Therapy,
24(1–2), 147–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J015v24n01_17
Hensel, D.J., Stupiansky, N.W., Herbenick, D., Dodge, B., & Reece,
M. (2012). Sexual pleasure during condom-protected vaginal sex
among heterosexual men. Journal of Sexual Medicine,9(5), 1272–
1276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02700.x
Medline:22781082
Kristen P. Mark
32 Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 23(1), 2014, pp. 27–33; doi:10.3138/cjhs.23.1.A2
Higgins, J.A., Mullinax, M., Trussell, J., Davidson, J.K., Sr., & Moore,
N.B. (2011). Sexual satisfaction and sexual health among univer-
sity students in the United States. American Journal of Public
Health,101(9), 1643–1654. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/
AJPH.2011.300154 Medline:21778509
Impett, E.A., Muise, A., & Peragine, D. (2013). Sexuality in the con-
text of relationships. In L.M. Diamond & D.L. Tolman (Eds.),
APA handbook of sexuality and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 269–316).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Impett, E.A., Strachman, A., Finkel, E.J., & Gable, S.L. (2008). Main-
taining sexual desire in intimate relationships: the importance of
approach goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
94(5), 808–823. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.808
Medline:18444740
Kane, H.S., Jaremka, A.C., Guichard, M.B., Ford, N.L., Collins, B.C.,
& Feeney, B.C. (2007). Feeling supported and feeling satisfied:
How one partner’s attachment style predicts the other partner’s
relationship experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships,24(4), 535–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0265407507079245
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (2006). Dyadic data
analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1992). Development of the Interpersonal
Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction in long-term relationships.
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,1(4), 123–128.
Mark, K.P. (2012). The relative impact of individual sexual desire
and couple desire discrepancy on satisfaction in heterosexual
couples. Sexual and Relationship Therapy,27(2), 133–146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2012.678825
Mark, K.P., & Murray, S.H. (2012). Gender differences in desire dis-
crepancy as a predictor of sexual and relationship satisfaction in a
college sample of heterosexual romantic relationships. Journal of
Sex & Marital Therapy,38(2), 198–215. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/0092623X.2011.606877 Medline:22390532
McClelland, S. (2011). Who is the ‘‘self’’ in self reports of sexual
satisfaction? Research and policy implications. Sexuality Research
& Social Policy,8(4), 304–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13178-
011-0067-9
Muise, A., Impett, E.A., & Desmarais, S. (2013). Getting it on versus
getting it over with: sexual motivation, desire, and satisfaction in
intimate bonds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
39(10), 1320–1332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490963
Medline:23812928
Muise, A., Impett, E.A., Kogan, A., & Desmarais, S. (2013). Keeping
the spark alive: Being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs
sustains sexual desire in long-term romantic relationships. Social
Psychological and Personality Science,4(3), 267–273.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550612457185
Murray, S.H., & Milhausen, R.R. (2012). Sexual desire and relation-
ship duration in young men and women. Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy,38(1), 28–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
0092623X.2011.569637 Medline:22268980
Pascoal, P.M., Narciso, I.S., & Pereira, N.M. (2014). What is sexual
satisfaction? Thematic analysis of lay people’s definitions. Journal
of Sex Research,51(1), 22–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00224499.2013.815149 Medline:24070214
Reece, M., Mark, K.P., Herbenick, D., Hensel, D.J., Jawed-Wessel, S.,
& Dodge, B. (2012). An event-level analysis of adding exogenous
lubricant to condoms in a sample of men who have vaginal sex
with women. Journal of Sexual Medicine,9(3), 672–678. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02605.x Medline:22239955
Regan, P.C. (2000). The role of sexual desire and sexual activity in
dating relationships. Social Behavior and Personality,28(1), 51–
59. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2000.28.1.51
Regan, P.C., & Atkins, L. (2006). Sex differences and similarities in
frequency and intensity of sexual desire. Social Behavior and
Personality,34(1), 95–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/
sbp.2006.34.1.95
Ridley, C.A., Cate, R.M., Collins, D.M., Reesing, A.L., Lucero, A.A.,
Gilson, M.S., & Almeida, D.M. (2006). The ebb and flow of
marital lust: a relational approach. Journal of Sex Research,43(2),
144–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552309
Medline:16817061
Sanders, S.A., Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Schick, V., Mullinax, M.,
Dodge, B., & Fortenberry, J.D. (2013). The development and
validation of a brief Quality of Sexual Experience (QSE) scale:
results from a nationally representative sample of men and
women in the United States. Journal of Sexual Medicine,10(10),
2409–2417. http://dx.doi.org/10.111/jsm.12198
Medline:23679190
SAS Institute Inc., SAS Online Doc 9.1.3, Cary, NC: SAS Institute
Inc., 2002–2005.
Schwartz, P., & Young, L. (2009). Sexual satisfaction in committed
relationships. Sexuality Research & Social Policy,6(1), 1–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2009.6.1.1
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships:
associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability.
Journal of Sex Research,39(3), 190–196. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00224490209552141 Medline:12476266
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P.C. (1998). Passionate and companionate
love in courting and young married couples. Sociological Inquiry,
68(2), 163–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
682X.1998.tb00459.x
Vannier, S.A., & O’Sullivan, L.F. (2010). Sex without desire: charac-
teristics of occasions of sexual compliance in young adults’ com-
mitted relationships. Journal of Sex Research,47(5), 429–439.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490903132051 Medline:19662565
Willoughby, B.J., Farero, A.M., & Busby, D.M. (2013) (in press).
Exploring the effects of sexual desire discrepancy among married
couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-013-0181-2 Medline:24045904
Willoughby, B.J., & Vitas, J. (2012). Sexual desire discrepancy: the
effect of individual differences in desired and actual sexual
frequency on dating couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior,41(2),
477–486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9766-9
Medline:21573707
Yucel, D., & Gassanov, M.A. (2010). Exploring actor and partner
correlates of sexual satisfaction among married couples. Social
Science Research,39(5), 725–738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssresearch.2009.09.002
Zilbergeld, B., & Ellison, C.R. (1980). Desire discrepancies and
arousal problems in sex therapy. In S.R. Leiblum & L. Pervin
(Eds.), Principles and practice of sex therapy (pp. 65–106). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
The Impact of Daily Sexual Desire and Daily Sexual Desire Discrepancy on the Quality of the Sexual Experience in Couples
Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 23(1), 2014, pp. 27–33; doi:10.3138/cjhs.23.1.A2 33
