Content uploaded by Gurit E Birnbaum
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gurit E Birnbaum on Nov 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY 1
What Fantasies can do to Your Relationship: The Effects of Sexual Fantasies on Couple
Interactions
Gurit E. Birnbaum, Yaniv Kanat-Maymon, Moran Mizrahi, May Recanati, and Romy Orr
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya
Word count: 10,950
June 8, 2018
Authors' Note. The first two authors contributed equally to this article. We would like to thank
Bar Shargal for her assistance in the collection of the data and Omri Sass for his methodological
assistance.
This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grants 86/10 and 1210/16
awarded to Gurit E. Birnbaum).
Send Correspondence:
Gurit E. Birnbaum, Ph.D.
Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya
P.O. Box 167
Herzliya, 46150, Israel
Email address: birnbag@gmail.com
2 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Abstract
Research addressing the underlying functions of sexual fantasies has mainly focused on
variables associated with frequency and content of fantasies. Relatively less is known about how
sexual fantasizing affects the relationship. Four studies examined the contribution of fantasizing
about one's partner ("dyadic fantasies") to relationship outcomes. In Studies 1 and 2, participants
fantasized either about their partner or about someone else and rated their desire to engage in sex
and other non-sexual relationship-promoting activities with their partner. In Studies 3 and 4,
romantic partners recorded their fantasies and relationship interactions each evening for a period
of 21 and 42 days, respectively. In Study 4, partners also provided daily reports on relationship
perceptions. Overall, dyadic fantasizing was associated with heightened desire and increased
engagement in relationship-promoting behaviors. Relationship perceptions explained the link
between dyadic fantasies and relationship-promoting behaviors, suggesting that such fantasies
benefit the relationship by enhancing partner and relationship appeal.
Key words: extradyadic; fantasies; relationship quality; sexual desire; sexuality
3 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
What Fantasies can do to Your Relationship: The Effects of Sexual Fantasies on
Relationship Quality
Sexual desire is among the strongest forces in human nature, one that can induce ecstatic
pleasure and profound connection (Birnbaum & Finkel, 2015; Birnbaum, Mikulincer,
Szepsenwol, Shaver, & Mizrahi, 2014). Unfortunately, desire tends to diminish gradually over
time when the novelty and mystery that fuel it fade away (e.g., Birnbaum, Cohen, & Wertheimer,
2007; McNulty, Wenner, & Fisher, 2016). A decrease in frequency of sexual fantasies about
existing partners ("dyadic fantasies") and an increase of frequency of fantasies about other
people ("extradyadic fantasies") are typical manifestations of this process (Hicks & Leitenberg,
2001), as partners seek other sources of novelty and variety, at least in the fantasy realm. These
fantasies may satisfy the need for novelty and variety without threatening the relationship. Still,
some of them may make relationship deficiencies more salient, leading to further relationship
dissatisfaction.
Surprisingly, research addressing the underlying functions of sexual fantasies has mainly
focused on variables associated with frequency and content of sexual fantasy (see Leitenberg &
Henning, 1995; Ziegler & Conley, 2016, for reviews). Relatively less is known about how
sexual fantasizing affects the relationship. Scholars did acknowledge that the use of fantasies
might act as an aphrodisiac that increases sexual desire (e.g., Newbury, Hayter, Wylie, & Riddell,
2012; Trudel et al., 2001). However, the relevant literature has been largely based on clinical
impressions rather than systematic research and offered conflicting views about whether and why
"fantasies training" (i.e., guiding partners to generate arousing sexual imagery) promotes
relationship well-being (Newberry et al., 2012). To address these concerns, the present research
relied on complementary methods while examining the contribution of dyadic and extradyadic
4 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
sexual fantasies to relationship outcomes as well as the mechanisms underlying this connection.
Sexual Fantasies and their Underlying Functions
Sexual fantasies are experienced privately in an imaginary world. And yet, these
fantasies do not exist in a relationship vacuum; the quality of interactions between partners can
affect their content and frequency (Birnbaum, Mikulincer, & Gillath, 2011; Birnbaum,
Svitelman, Bar-Shalom, & Porat, 2008) as much as the fantasies themselves may affect the
relationship. Scholars exploring the nature of fantasies, however, tend to disagree as to whether
sexual fantasies compensate for relational and sexual deficiencies (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995).
In support of the compensatory view of fantasies, research has demonstrated that people
habitually use mental imagery to regulate stress by creating an alternative reality (e.g., being in a
powerful position). This alternative reality may counteract the initial stress-provoking event and
restore the threatened self-esteem (e.g., Harder et al., 1984; Zelin et al., 1983). Nevertheless,
studies that have focused specifically on sexual themes challenged the compensatory view,
showing that sexual difficulties are associated with low rather than with high frequency of
fantasizing (e.g., Arndt, Foehl, & Good, 1985; Lentz & Zeiss, 1983).
Still, both frequency and content of sexual fantasizing may compensate for overall
relational distress rather than for sexual dissatisfaction per se. This possibility is corroborated by
studies showing that, compared to happily married people, people in distressed marriages
fantasize more frequently about sexual themes and particularly about extradyadic sex (Davidson
& Hoffman, 1986; Trudel, 2002), possibly making up for relationship burnout. Other studies,
though, yielded conflicting results about the association between relationship satisfaction and
frequency of sexual fantasies. In one of these studies, for example, frequent sexual fantasizing
was associated with relationship dissatisfaction in men, but with sexual satisfaction in women
5 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
(e.g., Alfonso, Allison, & Dunn, 1992). These inconsistencies are difficult to resolve due to
methodological problems in past studies, such as correlational designs that preclude conclusions
about causal connections between fantasizing and relationship quality. For example, it is not
clear whether relationship difficulties encourage extradyadic fantasizing or whether extradyadic
fantasizing contributes to relationship dissatisfaction.
Regardless of whether sexual fantasies emanate from relationship difficulties, most
scholars agree that fantasies are typically used to promote sexual arousal and enjoyment
(Newbury et al., 2012; Ziegler & Conley, 2016). To be sure, more frequent fantasizing is
associated with more frequent orgasms as well as greater sexual desire, arousal, and satisfaction
(Leitenberg & Henning, 1995; Purifoy, Grodsky, & Giambra, 1992). Relying on the potential
beneficial effects of fantasies, therapists often use fantasy training in the treatment of couples
with sexual dysfunctions, claiming that fantasies can promote couple intimacy and improve
sexual functioning. More specifically, they argue that sexual imagination offers mental
alternatives to current discomfort that facilitates planning of a positive future course of action
(Newbury et al., 2012; Person, 1996).
This approach is echoed in more general research on the relational benefits of social
daydreaming (see review by Poerio & Smallwood, 2016). Specifically, daydreams about
interacting with close others have been found to increase feelings of love and connection for
them that presumably foster pleasant future interactions. This effect was particularly pronounced
in participants who scored low on these feelings before daydreaming (Poerio, Totterdell,
Emerson, & Miles, 2015), suggesting that engaging in constructive forms of offline social
cognition regulates negative social emotions and facilitates the pursuit of relationship-promoting
goals (Poerio & Smallwood, 2016). Indeed, reflecting on how other people think, feel, and
6 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
behave during daydreaming may enhance empathetic understanding (Decety & Jackson, 2006)
and translate into responsive interpersonal behavior (Poerio & Smallwood, 2016), which is
essential to maintaining intimate relationships (Birnbaum et al., 2016).
In this sense, the functional significance of sexual fantasies may be similar to that of non-
sexual mental imagery. Research on nostalgic reverie, for example, has indicated that
sentimental longing for one’s past fosters feelings of social connectedness (e.g., experiencing
less relationship insecurity as well as feeling more loved, protected, and socially supported) and
facilitates approach-oriented behavior (e.g., wishing to interact with others, showing empathy,
seeking physical proximity; see review by Sedikides & Wildschut, 2018). Sexual fantasizing
may thus be a specific form of mental imagery that serves a similar function of coping with an
unpleasant reality (e.g., relationships that are no longer exciting in the case of sexual fantasies
and homesickness in the case of nostalgic reverie).
Unfortunately, no research has thus far investigated the relationship consequences of
either dyadic or extradyadic fantasizing. This lack of research is surprising, given that although
people do not necessarily act on their desires or even interested in carrying them out (e.g.,
Critelli & Bivona, 2008), sexual fantasies may lead to action with real-life consequences
(Stockwell & Moran, 2014). For example, participants who had undergone sexual fantasy
induction were more likely than participants in a control group to report higher levels of sexual
behaviors one week after the experimental manipulations (Eisenman, 1982).
Several studies have indicated that fantasizing about certain sexual themes may
encourage the enactment of corresponding sexual behavior (e.g., Eisenman, 1982; Visser,
DeBow, Pozzebon, Boegart, & Book, 2015). Nevertheless, the contribution of fantasies to
relationship-based behaviors has not been examined yet. Most of the studies that did associate
7 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
sexual fantasizing with relationship outcomes focused on global perceptions of relationship
satisfaction instead of assessing specific behavioral aspects of the relationship (e.g., Alfonso et
al., 1992; Davidson & Hoffman, 1986). Moreover, these studies used one-time, retrospective
surveys and did not examine the dynamic interplay of fantasizing and relationship perceptions in
their natural context, thereby overlooking important sources of variability (e.g., fluctuations in
the quality of couple interactions). The methodological limitations of these studies preclude
drawing valid conclusions as to whether and why dyadic and extradyadic sexual fantasizing
affects the relationship with current partners. Putting sexual fantasies within a relational context
may therefore shed light on how fantasizing influences the relationship dynamics as well as
elucidate the psychological mechanisms that regulate the behavioral expressions of sexuality in
romantic relationships.
The Present Research
The present research sought to deepen the current understanding of whether and why
sexual fantasizing affects sexual and non-sexual relationship outcomes. Building on the idea that
the sexual system evolved to promote enduring bonds between romantic partners by eliciting
relationship-promoting tendencies (Birnbaum, 2018; Birnbaum & Finkel, 2015), we predicted
that activation of the sexual system through dyadic fantasizing would yield beneficial effects on
sexual and non-sexual relationship outcomes. Prior research has already demonstrated that
gratifying sex facilitates engagement in relationship-promoting behaviors (e.g., providing
support, expressing love; Birnbaum, Reis, Mikulincer, Gillath, & Orpaz, 2006; Debrot, Meuwly,
Muise, Impett, & Schoebi, 2017). Relying on the literature that social daydreaming can serve a
relationship-promoting means of achieving feelings of social connection (Poerio & Smallwood,
2016), we examined the possibility that fantasizing about sex with one's partner would have
8 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
similar effects through enhancing positive relationship perceptions. Specifically, the rewarding
aspects of fantasizing might become associated with the partner and the relationship, coloring
them in a more appealing light. This improved appeal, in turn, might motivate people to create
an even more positive relationship atmosphere by actively engaging in behaviors that help build
the relationship.
The literature is less conclusive about the potential relational effects of extradyadic
fantasizing. In particular, although sexually fantasizing is generally considered favorable for
increasing sexual arousal (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995), therapists debate as to whether
fantasizing specifically about someone other than the partner proves useful in compensating for
relational and sexual difficulties and in heightening desire for the current partner (Newbury et al.,
2012). Some scholars assert that extradyadic fantasies help maintain desire within the context of
current relationships by regulating tensions between autonomy and union and increasing the
sense of differentiation between partners (Newbury et al., 2012; Schnarch, 1997). Others
contend that such fantasies may remove the focus from shared intimacy to individual personal
gratification or even be perceived as mental infidelity (Kahr, 2008; Ziegler & Conley, 2016). As
such, they may arouse insecurities and have detrimental effects on the relationship (Newbury et
al., 2012). Given the current state of the fantasy literature, it is difficult to predict whether
extradyadic fantasizing would have beneficial effects on partner and relationship perceptions or
whether they would exacerbate relationship difficulties. We therefore made no specific a priori
hypotheses regarding the extradyadic fantasies-relationship linkage, beyond hypothesizing that
dyadic fantasizing would have more favorable effects on the relationship than extradyadic
fantasizing.
9 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Four studies employed complementary methodologies to examine the contribution of
sexual fantasizing to sexual desire directed toward one's partner as well as to other non-sexual
relationship outcomes. In all studies, participants who were currently involved in a romantic
relationship described their fantasies in narrative form or rated their frequency, and then reported
on sexual and non-sexual aspects of their relationship. In Study 1, we instructed participants to
fantasize either about their partner or about someone else and then to rate their desire for sex and
for doing something that would make their partner happy. In Study 2, we crossed the fantasy
manipulation used in Study 1 with a second manipulation of non-sexual fantasizing, such that
participants from a new sample imagined one of four scenarios that involved engaging in sexual
or non-sexual activity with either their partner or someone else. Then, participants rated their
desire to have sex and to engage in positive non-sexual activities with their partner.
Studies 3 and 4 employed a daily experience methodology in order to explore whether
the expected effects of sexual fantasizing generalized to everyday life and were manifested in
actual engagement in relationship-promoting behaviors. Study 4 also investigated the processes
by which dyadic fantasizing affected engagement in such behaviors. Specifically, in Studies 3
and 4, we asked both members of romantic couples to complete daily measures of their fantasies
and relationship interactions over a span of 23 and 42 consecutive days, respectively. In Study 4,
partners also provided daily reports on positive and negative relationship perceptions.
In all studies, all data were collected before any analyses were conducted; all data
exclusions, manipulations, and variables analyzed are reported. Our specific predictions were as
follows:
1. Dyadic fantasizing would have more beneficial effects on sexual and non-sexual
aspects of the relationships compared with extradyadic fantasizing.
10 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
2. Dyadic fantasizing would be associated with increased desire for sex with one's partner
and for engaging in other non-sexual relationship-promoting behaviors.
3. Relationship perceptions would explain the link between dyadic fantasizing and
engaging in relationship-promoting behaviors, such that participants would be more
likely to perceive their relationship positively and less likely to view them in a negative
light following fantasizing about their partner. These perceptions, in turn, would
predict engagement in relationship-promoting behaviors.
Study 1
Study 1 was designed to firm up a causal link between dyadic fantasizing and the desire
to have sex with one's partner and to engage in relationship-promoting behavior. To do so, we
employed an experimental design in which romantically involved participants were provided
with a definition of sexual fantasy and were instructed to fantasize sexually about either their
partner (a dyadic fantasy condition) or someone else (an extradyadic fantasy condition) and then
to describe in narrative form this fantasy. Following this procedure, participants completed a
questionnaire indicating their desire to have sex with their partner as well as their desire to do
something that would make their partner happy.
Method
Participants. Eighty students (40 women, 40 men) from a university in central Israel
volunteered for the study. Sample size was determined via a priori power analysis using
G*Power software package (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) to ensure 80% power to
detect effect size, d, of 0.50 at p < .05. This hypothesized effect size was based on the findings
of previous research examining the association of relationship insecurity with sexual fantasies
(Birnbaum, Simpson, Weisberg, Barnea, & Assulin-Simhon, 2012). Potential participants were
11 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
included in the sample if they were in a steady heterosexual, monogamous relationship of longer
than 4 months (only one member of the couple participated in the study). Participants ranged
from 20 to 33 years of age (M = 25.14, SD = 2.64). Relationship length ranged from 4 to 135
months (M = 42.65, SD = 31.71). No significant differences were found between the
experimental conditions for any of the socio-demographic variables.
Measures and procedure. Participants who agreed to participate in a study of
expressions of intimacy were individually scheduled to attend a single half-hour laboratory
session. Prior to each session, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
Sexually fantasizing about one's partner or about someone else. Upon arrival at the laboratory,
participants were greeted by a research assistant and were presented with the definition of the
term sexual fantasy (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995). Then, participants were instructed to
fantasize sexually about either their partner (a dyadic fantasy condition) or someone else (an
extradyadic fantasy condition). We asked participants to describe in narrative form their fantasy
when they had this fantasy in mind.
Instructions for the dyadic fantasy condition were adapted from Birnbaum (2007) to
reflect a dyadic fantasy: "Please think of a sexual fantasy about your current relationship
partner and write about the first one that comes to mind in the space below. Please describe in
detail the specific scene, series of events, the figures, wishes, sensations, feelings, and thoughts
that are experienced by you and the other figures in your fantasy. At this point, we wish to note
that you are writing anonymously, so feel free to write anything you like." Instructions for the
extradyadic fantasy condition were similar, except that the participants were asked to think of a
sexual fantasy about someone who is not their current partner.
12 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
After describing their fantasy, participants were instructed to think about how they felt
right then and to complete three items assessing their sexual desire for their partner (e.g., "I feel a
great deal of sexual desire for my partner"; "I am passionately attracted to my partner"). These
items were adapted from the sexual desire scale used by Birnbaum and her colleagues (Study 3;
2016) to reflect current experiences of desire. The three items were internally reliable (α = .70)
and were thus averaged to form a global sexual desire index. Participants also completed two
items assessing their desire to do something that would make their partner happy (e.g., "I desire
to do something that would make my partner happy"; "I desire to do things with my partner that
my partner really enjoys"; r = .25, p = .03). These items were intermixed with fillers assessing
positive and negative feelings (e.g., "I feel relaxed"; "I experience negative feelings for my
partner") to mask the nature of these questionnaires. All items were rated on a seven-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Finally, participants provided demographic
information (e.g., age, relationship length) and were then carefully debriefed.
Results and Brief Discussion
Manipulation check. Two judges independently indicated whether each fantasy
involved sexual activity with one's partner or not. Neither of the judges had access to additional
information about the participants while the fantasies were being read. All fantasies involved
sexual themes in which the actual target of the fantasy matched the instructed one (i.e., one's
partner vs. someone else). In addition, a t-test for independent samples on negative feelings for
current partner did not yield any significant effect (see Table 1), ruling out the possibility that
participants experienced more negativity in the extradyadic fantasies condition than in the dyadic
fantasies condition.
13 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
The effects of fantasies on desire and relationship-promoting behavior. T-tests for
independent samples on the desire to engage in sex with one's partner and on the desire to engage
in relationship-promoting behavior yielded the expected effect, such that the desire to engage in
these behaviors was greater in the dyadic fantasizing condition than in the extradyadic
fantasizing condition (see Table 1).
Study 1 demonstrated that dyadic fantasizing is causally responsible for instigating the
desire to have sex with one's partner and to do something that would make this partner happy.
These findings suggest that fantasizing about sex with one's partner, even without experiencing
such fantasies spontaneously, may increase this partner's sexual appeal and encourage the use of
strategies that allow people to get closer to their partners and improve their relationships. This
conclusion, however, should be viewed with caution, as it is not clear whether the findings
reflect the beneficial effect of dyadic fantasizing on relationship outcomes or the detrimental
effect of extradyadic fantasizing. Given that the average levels of desire and relationship-
promoting behaviors in the extradyadic fantasies condition were above the mid-point of the scale
used, it is also possible that extradyadic fantasizing benefits relationships, although to a lesser
degree than dyadic fantasizing. Furthermore, Study 1 cannot rule out the possibility that these
desires are enhanced by merely thinking about one's partner regardless of context rather than by
fantasizing about this partner sexually. These limitations were addressed in Study 2.
Study 2
Study 1 showed that dyadic fantasizing led people to experience greater sexual desire for
their partner and greater desire to engage in relationship-promoting behaviors. Study 2 aimed to
replicate and extend these findings in a couple of ways. First, we sought to clarify whether the
difference in the expressed desires between dyadic and extradyadic fantasy conditions reflects
14 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
the positive influence of dyadic fantasizing or the negative influence of extradyadic fantasizing.
To do so, we added two non-sexual conditions in which participants imagined that they discussed
a recent concern either with their partner or with someone else. The inclusion of these control
conditions also allowed us to rule out the possibility that merely thinking about one's partner
increases the desire for engaging in sex and other relationship-promoting behaviors regardless of
context (i.e., sexual vs. non-sexual). Second, we replaced the general measure of relationship-
promoting behaviors used in Study 1 with a measure that focused on certain non-sexual shared
activities (e.g., engaging in an intimate, non-sexual conversation with one's partner).
Specifically, in Study 2, partnered participants imagined one of four scenarios that
involved engaging in sexual or non-sexual activity with either their partner or someone who was
not their romantic partner. Then, they described this scenario in narrative form and rated their
desire to have sex and to engage in positive non-sexual activities with their partner. We
hypothesized that participants would experience greater desire to engage in sex and other
relationship-promoting behaviors in the dyadic sexual fantasy condition as compared with the
other conditions.
Method
Participants. One-hundred and two students (53 women, 49 men) from a university in
central Israel volunteered for the study. Originally, we sought a similar number of participants
per condition as in Study 1, based on a similar power analysis. However, recruitment difficulties
led us to end the study prematurely and we decided to analyze and report the data at that stage.
Potential participants were included in the sample if they were in a steady heterosexual,
monogamous relationship of longer than 4 months. Participants ranged from 20 to 34 years of
age (M = 24.89, SD = 2.81). Relationship length ranged from 4 to 209 months (M = 38.69, SD =
15 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
32.64). No significant differences were found between the experimental conditions for any of
the socio-demographic variables.
Measures and procedure. Participants who agreed to participate in a study of
expressions of intimacy were individually scheduled to attend a single half-hour laboratory
session. Prior to each session, participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a
2 (imagining engaging in sex: partner vs. other) × 2 (imagining engaging in a non-sexual
interaction: partner vs. other) between-subjects design. Upon arrival at the laboratory,
participants were greeted by a research assistant and were asked to imagine themselves in one of
these four scenarios. Instructions for the dyadic and extradyadic sexual scenarios were similar to
those used in Study 1. Instructions for the dyadic and extradyadic non-sexual scenarios were
similar, except that participants were asked to imagine themselves discussing recent concerns
with either an opposite-sex colleague or their partner. In all conditions, participants were
instructed to describe in detail the specific scene, wishes, sensations, feelings, and thoughts that
they and the other person experienced.
After describing the scenario in narrative form, participants were asked to think about
how they felt right then and to complete the sexual desire measure, described in Study 1 (α = .
68). Participants also completed three items assessing their desire to engage in shared activities
with their partner (e.g., "I desire to engage in a personal conversation with my partner"; "I desire
to visit a museum with my partner"; α = .64). These items were intermixed with fillers assessing
positive and negative feelings, described in Study 1. All items were rated on a five-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Finally, participants provided demographic
information and were then carefully debriefed.
Results and Brief Discussion
16 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Manipulation check. Two judges independently indicated whether each written scenario
involved one's partner or not and whether it was sexual or non-sexual. Neither of the judges had
access to additional information about the participants while the scenarios were being read. In
all written scenarios, there was a match between the instructed and actual target and content of
the scenario. In addition, a two 2 (target of fantasy) × 2 (content of fantasy) analyses of variance
(ANOVA) on negative feelings for current partner did not yield any significant effect (see Table
2), ruling out the possibility that participants experienced more negativity in the control
conditions than in the fantasy conditions.
The effects of fantasies on desire and relationship-promoting behavior. To examine
the effect of the target of fantasizing (partner vs. other) on the desire for sex and other
relationship promoting behaviors as well as the potential moderation effect of the content of
fantasy (sexual vs. non-sexual), we conducted two 2 (target of fantasy) × 2 (content of fantasy)
ANOVAs. Table 2 presents the statistics relevant to these analyses. We found a significant main
effect of the content of fantasy on the desire to engage in relationship-promoting behaviors,
F(1,98) = 6.04, p = .016, ηp2 = .058, indicating that the participants experienced greater desire to
engage in these behaviors when they fantasized about sex (M = 3.75, SD = .80) than when they
fantasized about non-sexual themes (M = 3.41, SD = .68).
We also found that the target of fantasy moderated the effect of the content of fantasy on
the desire to engage in relationship-promoting behaviors and marginally moderated the effect of
the content of fantasy on sexual desire. Simple effect tests showed that in the non-sexual
conditions, target of fantasy had no significant effect on the desire to have sex, F(1,98) = .06, p =
.940, ηp2 = .001, and the desire to engage in relationship-promoting behaviors, F(1,98) = .68, p =
.423, ηp2 = .007. However, in the sexual conditions, the target of fantasy had a significant effect
17 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
on the desire to have sex, F(1,98) = 5.56, p < .020, ηp2 = .054, and on the desire to engage in
relationship-promoting behaviors, F(1,98) = 7.33, p < .008, ηp2 = .070, such that participants
experienced greater desire to engage in these behaviors in the dyadic sexual fantasy condition
than in the extradyadic sexual fantasy condition. No other effects were significant.
Study 2 replicated and extended the findings of Study 1 by indicating that extradyadic
fantasizing did not hamper the desire to engage in sex and other relationship-promoting
behaviors. Rather, dyadic fantasizing heightened these desires. The findings also demonstrated
that the beneficial effects of dyadic fantasizing were unique to the sexual realm, such that
sexually fantasizing about one's partner led to a greater desire for sexual and non-sexual
relationship-promoting behaviors as compared with non-sexually fantasizing about one's partner.
These findings, however, are confined to the laboratory context, which may compromise their
ecological validity. Indeed, given that the fantasies were induced rather than spontaneous, the
results might reflect the effect of the verbal processing involved in writing out a fantasy rather
than visual mental imagery effects. In addition, because we did not assess whether participants
relied on a commonly used fantasy while thinking about specific fantasmatic content or created a
new fantasy, we could not examine whether the novelty inherent in such induced fantasies might
moderate their effect on relationship outcomes. Finally, the proposed causal link between
fantasizing and relationship outcomes should be viewed with caution as we did not monitor
future relational behaviors. Overall, it is not clear whether the results of Studies 1 and 2 would
generalize to a more naturalistic and longitudinal design. These limitations were addressed in
Study 3.
Study 3
18 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated the relational benefits that sexual fantasies about one's
partner may have, even when experienced briefly in an artificial lab setting. Study 3 sought to
replicate and extend these findings. For this purpose, Study 3 employed a daily experience
methodology and determined whether these effects would apply in settings that are more natural.
Furthermore, Study 3 assessed actual engagement in relationship-promoting behaviors rather
than the desire to engage in such behaviors. Study 3 also explored more directly the potentially
adverse relationship consequences of extradyadic fantasizing by including a measure of engaging
in relationship-damaging behaviors. In particular, both members of 48 romantic couples
independently described their sexual fantasies immediately after every occasion in which they
experienced a sexual fantasy. In addition, they reported on the positive and negative behaviors
that characterized their relationship on that day every evening for 21 days. We predicted that
fantasizing about one's partner would be positively associated with relationship-promoting
behaviors and negatively associated with relationship-damaging behaviors.
Method
Participants. Forty-eight heterosexual cohabiting Israeli couples1 participated in this
study in exchange for 350 NIS (about US$98). To determine sample size, we estimated the
relative power for the planned multilevel-analysis using the PinT V2.1 computer program
(Bosker, Snijders, & Guldemond, 2003). Although PinT was originally developed for power
analyses of discrete predictors, Raudenbush and Xiao-Feng (2001) noted that approximations are
possible in cases with continuous explanatory variables. Power for a random coefficient model
was estimated for a sample of 48 couples and 21 time periods, with a moderate effect size (.30 in
a correlation metric). Estimation of the standard errors assuming α = .05 yielded a power of .91.
19 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
All participants were recruited via flyers or by word of mouth from universities, colleges,
community centers, and sport clubs in the central area of Israel. Potential study participants were
included in the sample if they (a) were in a steady monogamous relationship of longer than 6
months; (b) agreed to report on their daily relationship behaviors and sexual fantasies during the
21-day study period; and (c) were currently sexually active (defined as having had vaginal sex at
least once a week in the 2 months preceding the study). Women ranged in age from 19 to 32
years (M = 24.92, SD = 4.18) and men ranged in age from 20 to 35 years (M = 26.87, SD = 2.90).
Of the couples, 76% were cohabiting and 24% were married. None had children. Relationship
length ranged from 9 to 60 months (M = 37.42, SD = 29.92). Number of reported sexual
fantasies during the 21-day study period ranged from 6 to 21 (M = 13.31, SD = 4.92) among
women and from 7 to 21 (M = 13.37, SD = 4.81) among men. Overall, the two members of the
48 couples had sexual fantasies on 32% of the days. In 68% of the days, one partner reported
having experienced sexual fantasies, whereas the other did not.
Measures and procedure. Couples who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were invited to
the laboratory, filled out a background questionnaire, and were trained to complete the diary
questionnaires. Participants were instructed to fill out forms independently and to refrain from
discussing responses with their partner until completion of the study. Participants were asked to
describe their fantasies in narrative form immediately after every occasion in which they
experienced them. In addition, participants were instructed to report on the behaviors that
characterized their relationship on that day every evening for 21 days. We contacted couples by
telephone every 2 days to improve compliance with the diary protocol. At the end of the study,
participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
20 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Daily sexual fantasies. Couples were given the same instructions used in Study 1, with
the exception that they were not asked to limit the object of their fantasies. Participants were
also asked to indicate whether each fantasy involved their relationship partner. Only fantasies
that involved sexual themes were analyzed. On average, participants reported sexual fantasies in
13 of the 21 study days (59%), with men reporting sexual fantasies in 59% of the days and
women reporting these fantasies in 60% of the days. On average, participants fantasized about
their relationship partner in 66% of their reported fantasies, with men fantasizing about their
female relationship partner in 55% of the cases and women fantasizing about their male
relationship partner in 72% of the cases. This gender difference was significant, χ2(1) = 65.68, p
< .001.
Daily Relationship-promoting and damaging behaviors. Participants reported whether
or not they had enacted each of 19 specific behaviors toward their partner on a given day and,
with a parallel item, whether their partner had enacted each of the same 19 behaviors toward
them. The list included 10 relationship-promoting behaviors (e.g., “I told my partner I loved
him/her—My partner told me he/she loved me”) and 9 relationship-damaging behaviors (e.g.,
“My partner criticized me—I criticized my partner”). These behaviors were used in previous
diary studies examining couple interactions (Birnbaum et al., 2011; Birnbaum et al., 2006).
Participants indicated a behavior’s occurrence by checking a box next to the item.
In scoring participants’ answers to the daily questionnaire, we made the following
computational steps. First, we counted the number of participants’ own and perceived partners’
relationship-promoting behaviors reported on a given day (scores ranged from 0 to 14, M = 7.48
for women, M = 8.02 for men). The sample means of within-person variance for daily reports of
relationship-promoting behaviors were 8.12 for women and 7.69 for men. Second, we counted
21 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
the number of participants’ own and perceived partners’ relationship-damaging behaviors
reported on a given day (scores ranged from 0 to 8, M = 2.17 for women, M = 2.91 for men).
The sample means of within-person variance for daily reports of relationship-damaging
behaviors were 4.55 for women and 3.90 for men. Third, for each type of behavior (promoting,
damaging), we collapsed participants' reports of what they did in the relationship and what they
reported having received from their partner into a single score because these two scores were
highly correlated, r(46) = .71 for relationship-promoting behaviors, r(46) = .65 for relationship-
damaging behaviors. The dyadic correlations between men’s daily score and women’s daily
score across the study period were strong for both promoting and damaging behaviors, rs of .64
and .77, ps < .01. No significant difference between partners was found in these scores.
Results and Brief Discussion
A two-intercept, two-level hierarchical model for dyadic diary data was used to account
for the nested structure of these data. The two-intercept approach simultaneously estimates
unique intercepts and slopes for both male and female partners (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006).
In the hierarchical model, Level-1 captures within-person variability across days, whereas Level-
2 represents between-couple variability across partners (see Laurenceau & Bolger, 2005;
Raudenbush, Brennan, & Barnett, 1995, for more details). This analytic approach allows the
error terms in Level 1 to correlate across partners and thus better estimates the error structure of
the repeated dyadic data than a 3-level model does (i.e., days nested within persons nested within
couples; Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013).
In all analyses, we controlled for potential time-related artifacts by including a linear
trend of the elapsed time in days. The time trend was centered on the middle of the time span
(i.e., 11th day). Moreover, we controlled for the previous day’s outcome variable to rule out
22 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
daily serial dependency. This variable was first grand centered on its gender mean and then
person mean-centered. Lastly, the target of fantasizing was dummy-coded into two independent
comparisons. The first comparison contrasted fantasizing about one's partner with fantasizing
about someone else, whereas the second comparison contrasted fantasizing about one's partner
with not fantasizing.
As can be seen in Table 3, for both men and women, daily fantasizing about one’s partner
(as opposed to fantasizing about someone else) was significantly linked with more relationship-
promoting behaviors. The same pattern emerged for the second dummy coded variable. For
both sexes, daily fantasizing about one’s partner (in contrast to not fantasizing) was associated
with more relationship-promoting behaviors. However, daily fantasizing about one’s partner (as
opposed to fantasizing about another person or not fantasizing at all) was not linked with daily
changes in relationship-damaging behaviors. Additional analyses indicated that fantasizing
about someone who was not the current partner (as opposed to not fantasizing) was neither
associated with changes in relationship-promoting behaviors (Women: B = .31, SE = .33, t = .91,
p = .384; Men: B = .14, SE = .27, t = .52, p = .607) nor with changes in relationship-damaging
behaviors (Women: B = -.03, SE = .21, t = .15, p = .879; Men: B = -.10, SE = .15, t = .66, p = .
520).
Study 3 replicated the findings of Study 2 in a more naturalistic context, showing that
people were more likely to engage in relationship-promoting behaviors, such as complimenting
their partners and acting considerately towards them, following sexually fantasizing about them.
Sexually fantasizing about someone else, by comparison, was not significantly associated with
engaging in either relationship-promoting or relationship-damaging behaviors. These findings
suggest that sexual fantasies can improve romantic relationships by encouraging engagement in
23 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
behaviors that are likely to increase affection between partners, as long as these fantasies involve
one's current partner. Still, fantasizing about someone who is not the current partner is not
necessarily harmful for the relationship, but it is not helpful, either.
Study 4
Study 4 sought to replicate the findings of Study 3 and extend them by exploring the
processes that underlie the link between dyadic fantasizing and engaging in relationship-
promoting behaviors. In particular, we examined whether the association between sexually
fantasizing about one's partner and engaging in relationship-promoting behaviors would be
mediated by relationship perceptions. To do so, we asked both members of 100 romantic couples
to complete a nightly diary for 6 weeks in which they recorded the quality of their relationship,
frequency of dyadic fantasies, desire to engage in sex with their partner, positive and negative
relational perceptions, and relationship-promoting behaviors.
Method
Participants. One hundred heterosexual Israeli couples2 participated in this study in
exchange for 400 NIS (about $105 U.S.). Power was determined using the PinT V2.1 computer
program (Bosker et al., 2003). Power for a random coefficient model was estimated for a sample
of 100 couples and 42 time periods, with a moderate effect size (.30 in a correlation metric).
Estimation of the standard errors assuming α = .05 yielded a power of .99. Recruitment and
inclusion criteria were similar to those described in Study 3. Women ranged in age from 21 to 31
years (M = 23.93, SD = 1.84) and men ranged in age from 21 to 35 years (M = 25.60, SD = 2.70).
Ninety-five percent of the couples were cohabiting and 5% were married. Two percent had
children. Relationship length ranged from 1 to 98 months (M = 24.80, SD = 25.67).
24 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Measures and procedure. Couples who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were invited to
the laboratory, filled out a background questionnaire, and were trained to complete the diary
questionnaires. Participants were instructed to fill out the questionnaires independently and to
refrain from discussing responses with their partner until completion of the study. Emails
containing a link to the daily-level measures were sent independently to both partners each day
for 42 days. We contacted couples by telephone every week to improve compliance with the
diary protocol. In addition, we sent reminder emails to participants who had not completed their
daily diaries by midnight each night. At the end of the study, both partners were debriefed and
thanked for their participation.
Daily-level measures. On each diary day, participants completed measures of frequency
of dyadic fantasies, positive and negative relational perceptions, relationship-promoting
behaviors, sexual desire for their partner, and relationship quality. We used measures with a
single item or a few items to minimize participant attrition (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003). All
daily items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much), unless
reported otherwise. To estimate scale reliability at the daily level, we created an additional item-
level (nested within days and person) and ran a 3-level unconditional model in HLM 7 software
(Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011), as suggested by Nezlek (2012). HLM
estimates the reliability of the item-level intercept, which is equivalent to Cronbach’s alpha.
Frequency of dyadic fantasies. Participants rated the extent to which they sexually
fantasized about their partner during that day.
Positive relational perceptions. Participants completed two items assessing the extent to
which they perceived their relationship in positive terms on that day ("I felt committed to my
relationship today"; "I felt that I have a very valuable relationship today"; α = .61).
25 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Negative relational perceptions. Participants completed two items assessing the extent to
which they perceived their relationship in negative terms on that day ("I felt frustrated in my
relationship today"; "I had doubts about the compatibility between me and my partner today"; α
= .67)
To support the distinction between positive and negative relationship perceptions, we
conducted a confirmatory factor analysis. Fit indices of a two-factor model were adequate (Chi-
square = 420.06, df = 3, p < .001, comparative fit index [CFI] = .95, root mean square error of
approximation [RMSEA] = .13). Moreover, the two-factor model fitted the data better than a
one-factor model, in which all the items loaded on a single factor (Chi-square = 1158.43, df = 2,
p < .001, CFI = .85, RMSEA = .265; model comparison ΔChi-square = 738.37, Δdf = 1, p < .
001).
Relationship-promoting behaviors. Participants completed four items assessing the
extent to which their partner behave positively towards them ("My partner behaved
affectionately and warmly toward me today"; "My partner behaved thoughtfully toward me
today"; α = .82). The outcome of interest was partners' reports on relationship promoting-
behaviors, indicating whether the participant had enacted these behaviors toward the partner.
Sexual desire. Participants completed five items assessing their sexual desire for their
partner during that day (e.g., "I felt a great deal of sexual desire for my partner today"; "I was
very interested in having sex with my partner today"; α = .86).
Relationship quality. Participants rated relationship quality with their partner on each
day. Ratings were made on a 5-point scale, ranging from (1) “poor” to (5) “excellent.”
Results and Brief Discussion
26 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
To account for the nested structure of these data, we employed the same two-intercept,
two-level hierarchical model for dyadic diary data described in Study 3. We used four sets of
control variables in all the analyses. First, to control for potential time-related artifacts, we
included a linear trend of the elapsed time in days. Second, to rule out auto-correlation (i.e.,
daily serial dependency), we controlled for the previous day’s outcome variable. For example, in
predicting today’s relationship promoting-behaviors, yesterday’s relationship promoting-
behaviors were partialed out. Third, daily relationship quality was controlled for to better
identify unique effects of fantasizing above the general affective tone of the relationship. Lastly,
as recommended by Bolger and Laurenceau (2013), to account for potential confounding
between the within-person and the between-person levels of analysis, we controlled for between-
person averages (e.g., the average relationship promoting-behaviors aggregated across all 42-
diary days) for all primary variables.
To ease coefficient interpretation, prior to analysis, all within-person predictors were first
grand centered on their gender mean and then person mean-centered. The time trend was
centered on the middle of the time span (i.e., 23rd day). For the within-person predictors,
intercepts and slopes were allowed to vary across gender, but other effects were estimated as
fixed effects. To assess mediation, we used a procedure recommended by Preacher, Zyphur, and
Zhang (2010) for testing mediation in a multilevel data structure. First, we estimated the link
between day-to-day fantasizing about one's partner (i.e., independent variable) and partner's
relationship promoting-behaviors (i.e., the outcome of interest). Second, we tested the
association between fantasizing and the mediators (i.e., positive and negative relationship
perceptions). Third, we examined the link between the mediators and the outcome variable
while controlling for the independent variable. The significance of the indirect effects of
27 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
fantasizing on relationship promoting-behaviors through positive and negative relationship
perceptions was estimated by the 95% confidence intervals of 5,000 bias-corrected and
accelerated bootstrapping analyses (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). A significant
statistical effect at α < .05 is indicated when the value zero is not included in the confidence
interval.
Results of the multilevel dyadic analyses are presented in Table 4. Section I in Table 4
presents the association between the respondent's fantasizing and partner's relationship-
promoting behaviors. The results indicated that for both sexes, daily fantasizing about one's
romantic partner was positively linked with partner's reports on relationship promoting-
behaviors. This link was found to be statistically significant above the effects of time, daily
relationship quality, yesterday's relationship promoting-behaviors, and average fantasizing. The
second and third sections of Table 4 present the associations between fantasizing and relationship
perceptions. Results indicated that for both male and female partners, daily fantasizing was
positively linked with positive relationship perceptions and negatively linked with negative
relationship perceptions. In the fourth section of Table 4, we examined the associations between
the mediators and the outcome of interest. Results showed that for both romantic partners,
positive relationship perceptions were positively linked with partners' relationship promoting-
behaviors, whereas negative relationship perceptions were reversely associated with partners'
relationship promoting-behaviors.
To test whether relationship perceptions mediated the associations between fantasizing
and partners' relationship promoting-behaviors, we calculated the 95% CI of these indirect
effects, using 5,000 bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapped samples. Results showed that
the 95% CI of the indirect effects for fantasizing as a predictor of relationship promoting-
28 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
behaviors through positive relationship perceptions (women’s 95% CI [.01, .03]; men’s 95% CI
[.01, .04]) and negative relationship perceptions (women’s 95%CI [.01, .02]; men’s 95% CI
[.01, .02]) did not include zero. These findings indicated that the associations between
fantasizing and partner's promoting-behaviors were significantly mediated by relationship
perceptions.
Further analysis examined the extent to which the primary associations, as presented in
Figure 1, differed across gender. The results indicated that gender did not moderate the
associations between fantasizing and positive (B = .013, SE = .009, t = 1.41, p = .162) and
negative (B = -.026, SE = .015, t = 1.73, p = .087) relationship perceptions. Moreover, we
neither found gender differences in the link between positive relationship perceptions and
relationship-promoting behaviors (B = -.013, SE = .022, t = 1.35, p = .178) nor between negative
perceptions and relationship promoting behaviors (B = -.001, SE = .021, t = 0.03, p = .978).
Lastly, gender did not moderate the direct path between fantasizing and relationship-promoting
behaviors (B = .0271, SE = .017, t = 1.60, p = .109)3.
Finally, we tested whether daily fantasizing about one's partner predicted sexual desire.
Results of the two-intercept, two-level hierarchical model revealed that above the effects of time,
daily quality, yesterday's desire, and average fantasizing, daily fantasizing was positively linked
with daily desire for both male (B = .663, SE = .019, t = 34.68, p < .001) and female partners (B
= .741, SE = .019, t = 38.96, p < .001).
In sum, we found that for both women and men, daily dyadic fantasizing was associated
with significantly higher levels of daily sexual desire. In addition, on days when participants
fantasized more about their partner, they also perceived the relationship more positively and less
negatively. These relationship perceptions, in turn, predicted greater engagement in relationship-
29 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
promoting behaviors. Overall, Study 4 demonstrated that the findings of Studies 1 and 2
generalized to everyday life, even when controlling for relationship quality, further illustrating
the role of dyadic fantasizing in sustaining desire in ongoing relationships. Fantasizing about
one's partner enhanced not only partner's appeal but also that of the relationship, diminishing
negative views and making the relationship seem more valuable. This enhanced appeal might
motivate partners to further invest in the relationship. These findings suggest that sexual
fantasies become translated into reality in the form of sexual and non-sexual behaviors that help
maintain satisfying intimate relationships over time. Reduced sexual fantasizing may deny the
relationship these benefits. Of course, the effects of fantasizing could be moderated by the type
of behavior that is imagined in the fantasies (e.g., romantic vs. submission themes). Follow-up
research should address this possibility.
General Discussion
Sexual fantasies exist in a private world of one's own making, where they are habitually
used for increasing sexual arousal and gratification (Newbury et al., 2012; Ziegler & Conley,
2016). These fantasies are not isolated in the bubble of the mind, though. Rather, they are an
integral part of relationship dynamics. Previous research has indeed demonstrated the role of the
relational context in shaping the thematic content of daily sexual fantasies, indicating, for
example, that people represent themselves in their fantasies as more helpless following negative
couple interactions (Birnbaum et al., 2011). The present studies add to this research by
indicating that the link between sexual fantasizing and relationship dynamics is bi-directional,
such that fantasies may affect the relational atmosphere as much as they can reflect it.
In four studies, we show that sexually fantasizing about one's partner contributes not only
to the desire to have sex with this partner but also to engaging in non-sexual relationship-
30 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
promoting behaviors. Study 1 experimentally induced either dyadic or extradyadic sexual
fantasies, and found that participants in the dyadic fantasy condition expressed greater desire to
engage in sex with their partners and to do something that would make them happy compared to
participants in the extradyadic fantasy condition. Study 2 replicated and extended these findings
by indicating that extradyadic fantasizing did not decrease the desire to engage in sex with one's
partner and other relationship-promoting behaviors. Rather, dyadic fantasizing increased these
desires. Study 2's findings also demonstrated that the beneficial effects of dyadic fantasizing
were unique to the sexual realm. Study 3 employed a daily experience methodology and showed
that these findings generalized to everyday life. Furthermore, Study 3's findings revealed that
fantasizing about someone who was not the current partner was not associated with engaging in
either relationship-promoting or relationship-damaging behaviors. Study 4 indicated that
relationship perceptions explained the link between dyadic sexual fantasies and relationship-
promoting behaviors, suggesting that such fantasies benefit the relationship by enhancing partner
and relationship appeal.
These findings extend previous results in several ways. First, most past studies have used
cross-sectional, correlational designs and therefore do not allow for causal conclusions about the
connection between fantasizing and relationship outcomes. Second, previous research examined
the association between sexual fantasizing and global perceptions of relationship satisfaction
rather than specific behaviors and shared activities. Third, prior research has not investigated
whether momentary fantasmatic expressions matter over and above relationship evaluations and
therefore could not rule out the possibility that fantasmatic representations, sexual desire, and
relationship perceptions reflect the general state of a relationship. Finally, previous research has
31 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
not investigated why sexual fantasizing translates into action with real-life relational
consequences.
Overall, our findings establish a causal connection between fantasizing about current
partners and engaging in sexual and non-sexual relationship promoting behaviors, underscoring
the importance of imagination processes to sustaining sexual desire and relationship well-being.
Research has long revealed that many couples fail to maintain sexual desire in their long-term
relationships (e.g., Birnbaum et al., 2007; McNulty et al., 2016). This documented decline in
sexual desire for one's partner may raise doubts about loving or being loved by one’s partner
(Kingsberg, 2002), often leading to relationship deterioration and breakup (e.g., Regan, 2000).
Fortunately, scholars have identified a variety of variables that can help couples sustain sexual
desire over time, including the introduction of novelty and variety to their sexual routines
(Granvold, 2001; McCarthy & Farr, 2012). The relationship-promoting effect of sexual
fantasizing found in this research suggests that fantasies may serve a key route for implementing
some of the proposed mechanisms.
Unfortunately, fantasies may be most needed and thus most beneficial to relationship
well-being at the stage in which they are least likely to be spontaneously experienced. Our
findings indicate that in this later stage of relationship development, when couples typically
experience habituation of sexual response (Baumeister & Bratslavsky, 1999), deliberately
fantasizing about sex with current partners may increase partners' sexual appeal and the
probability of acting positively toward them. In this way, dyadic sexual fantasizing may initiate
a positive cycle of desire, even if it not spontaneously experienced. Thinking about sex with
one's partner is likely to render the partner and the relationship desirable, thereby motivating the
individual to create an even more positive relationship ambiance by actively engaging in
32 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
behaviors that make the partner happy. The resulting positive ambiance, in turn, may further
heighten the desire between partners.
Of course, sexual fantasizing may also contribute to relationship well-being in earlier
stages of relationship development, when desire has not dwindled yet. A recent study has
indicated that newlywed couples experience enhanced sexual satisfaction that lingers following
sexual activity ("sexual afterglow"), which functions to sustain their emotional bonding between
acts of sex (Meltzer et al., 2017). Our findings suggest that sexual fantasizing may be involved
in this process, intensifying the beneficial effects sexual activity. Specifically, engaging in
sexual intercourse is likely to promote frequent fantasizing, which tends to be highly rewarding
(Leitenberg & Henning, 1995). This frequent fantasizing may continue to be rewarding for an
extended period after the act of sex, creating a lasting sexual afterglow, along with biological
changes that follow sexual activity and may be decoded as rewarding (e.g., Young & Wang,
2004).
Conclusions
Sex carries the potential to elicit intensely meaningful experiences. As such, it can
function as a relationship-promoting device that provides the magnetism that holds partners
together and motivates them to invest resources in the current relationship (Birnbaum, 2018).
Indeed, experiencing gratifying sex predicts a higher probability of engagement in behaviors that
strengthen the relationship (e.g., displays of intimacy and affection; Birnbaum et al., 2006;
Debrot et al., 2017). To our knowledge, the present research is the first to show that merely
thinking about sex with one's partner has similar beneficial effects, leading to experiencing
greater sexual desire for current partners as well as acting more positively toward them.
33 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
These results, however, should be interpreted in the context of several limitations. For
one, although our findings indicate that fantasizing about current partners benefits the
relationship, influences in the reverse direction, from engaging in relationship-promoting
behaviors to experiencing frequent dyadic fantasies, are also possible. Indeed, to the extent that
masturbation and sexual activity following sexual health interventions are often accompanied by
fantasizing, these behaviors are likely to increase positive relationship outcomes even further.
Future research should explore whether inducing engagement in such behaviors leads to more
frequent fantasizing about one's partner. In addition, our samples were composed of young,
sexually active individuals and thus preclude conclusions about the influence of fantasizing on
relationship outcomes in older participants. Follow-up studies should test whether the relational
consequences of fantasizing depend on these and other relevant individual differences (e.g.,
sociosexual orientation, which is associated with the tendency to engage in extradyadic affairs;
Mattingly et al., 2011).
Another limitation arises from the failure to assess whether participants had shared their
fantasies with current partners and acted on them. Whereas revealing certain fantasies (e.g.,
threesome, less socially acceptable desires) carries the risk of infusing the erotic encounter with a
potential threat (Newbury et al., 2012), being innovating with fantasies and disclosing them to
the partner may often keep sex playful (Granvold, 2001; McCarthy & Farr, 2012). Hence, we
cannot rule out the possibility that the beneficial effects of fantasizing found in our research
reflect disclosures of fantasies or acting on them rather than imagination process per se.
We also did not assess sexual desire for the extradyadic partner, interest in extradyadic
affairs, or cheating on current partners. Thus, our conclusion that extradyadic fantasizing is not
necessarily harmful for the relationship might be premature. Fantasizing about someone who is
34 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
not the current partner does not necessarily lead to engaging in damaging behaviors within the
relationships (e.g., criticizing partners' behavior or failing to provide support), as our findings
show, but it may well motivate actual infidelity. Further research is needed to examine when and
for whom disclosure of fantasies and carrying them out are conductive to the facilitation of
sexual desire and relationship well-being. To be sure, sexual fantasies may not always benefit
the relationship, even when they do involve current partners. For example, sexual fantasies may
elicit feelings of guilt and shame in people who associate sex with sin, which may hamper their
sexual and relational functioning (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995). Future studies should consider
the broader social, familial, religious context while investigating the relational consequences of
sexual fantasizing.
Despite these limitations, the present research sheds light on the underlying function of
fantasies, showing that even though fantasies are experienced in an imaginary world, they have
their favorable grip on the real world. In particular, fantasizing sexually about current partners
may serve as a relationship-maintenance mechanism that helps partners sustain satisfying
intimate relationships over the long run by boosting partner and relationship appeal and
inhibiting engagement in relationship-damaging behaviors. These findings suggest that the
implementation of fantasy training in the treatment of couples with relationship and sexual
difficulties should be further encouraged. Findings about the relational consequences of
extradyadic fantasizing are less conclusive and should be further examined, along with its
potential to inoculate partners against the allure of real-world temptations.
35 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
References
Alfonso, V. C., Allison, D. B., & Dunn, G. M. (1992). Sexual fantasy and satisfaction: A
multidimensional analysis of gender differences. Journal of Psychology and Human
Sexuality, 5(3), 19-37.
Arndt, W. B., Foehl, J. C., & Good, F. E. (1985). Specific sexual fantasy themes: A
multidimensional study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 472-480.
Baumeister, R. F., & Bratslavsky, E. (1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate love as a
function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 49–67.
Birnbaum, G. E. (2007). Beyond the borders of reality: Attachment orientations and sexual
fantasies. Personal Relationships, 14, 321-342.
Birnbaum, G. E. (2018). The fragile spell of desire: A functional perspective on changes in
sexual desire across relationship development. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 22(2), 101–127.
Birnbaum, G. E., Cohen, O., & Wertheimer, V. (2007). Is it all about intimacy? Age, menopausal
status, and women’s sexuality. Personal Relationships, 14, 167-185.
Birnbaum, G. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2015). The magnetism that holds us together: Sexuality and
relationship maintenance across relationship development. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 1, 29-33.
Birnbaum, G. E., Mikulincer, M., & Gillath, O. (2011). In and out of a daydream: Attachment
orientations, daily relationship quality, and sexual fantasies. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1398-1410.
Birnbaum, G. E., Mikulincer, M., Szepsenwol, O., Shaver, P. R., & Mizrahi, M. (2014). When
sex goes wrong: A behavioral systems perspective on individual differences in sexual
36 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
attitudes, motives, feelings, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
106, 822-842.
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When sex is more
than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and relationship quality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 929-943.
Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mizrahi, M., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Sass, O., & Granovski-Milner, C.
(2016). Intimately connected: The importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing
sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 530-546.
Birnbaum, G. E., Simpson, J. A., Weisberg, Y. J., Barnea, E., & Assulin-Simhon, Z. (2012). Is it
my overactive imagination? The effects of contextually activated attachment insecurity
on sexual fantasies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 1131–1152.
Birnbaum, G. E., Svitelman, N., Bar-Shalom, A., & Porat, O. (2008). The thin line between
reality and imagination: Attachment orientations and the effects of relationship threats on
sexual fantasies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1185-1199.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual
Review of Psychology, 54, 579-616.
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary
and experience sampling research. New York: Guilford.
Bosker, R. J., Snijders, T. A. B., Guldemond, H. (2003). PINT (Power IN Two-level designs):
Estimating standard errors of regression coefficients in hierarchical linear models for
power calculations (user’s manual, version 2.1). (http://stat.gamma.rug.nl/snijders/).
Critelli, J. W., & Bivona, J. M. (2008). Women's erotic rape fantasies: An evaluation of theory
and research. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 57-70.
37 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Davidson, J. K., & Hoffman, L. E. (1986). Sexual fantasies and sexual satisfaction: An empirical
analysis of erotic thought. The Journal of Sex Research, 22, 184-205.
Debrot, A., Meuwly, N., Muise, A., Impett, E. A., & Schoebi, D. (2017). More than just sex:
Affection mediates the association between sexual activity and well-being. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 287–299.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2006). A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 54–58.
Eisenman, R. (1982). Sexual behavior as related to sex fantasies and experimental
manipulation of authoritarianism and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 853-860.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,
41, 1149-1160.
Granvold, D. K. (2001). Promoting long-term sexual passion. Constructivism in the Human
Sciences, 6, 73–83.
Harder, D. W., Zelin, M. L., Jampel, R. M., Heijn, C., Myerson, P. G., & Bernstein, S. B. (1984).
Sustaining fantasies and self-concept among college students. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 40, 743-748.
Hicks, T. V., & Leitenberg, H. (2001). Sexual fantasies about one’s partner versus someone else:
Gender differences in incidence and frequency. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 43-50.
Kahr, B. (2008). Sex and the psyche. London: Penguin.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). The analysis of dyadic
data. New York: Guilford.
38 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Kingsberg, S. A. (2002). The impact of aging on sexual function in women and their partners.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 431-437.
Laurenceau, J. P., & Bolger, N. (2005). Using diary methods to study marital and family
processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 86–97.
Leitenberg, H., & Henning, K. (1995). Sexual fantasy. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 469-496.
Lentz, S. L., & Zeiss, A. M. (1983). Fantasy and sexual arousal in college women: An empirical
investigation. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 3, 185-202.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect
effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39, 99-128.
Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., Bullock, M., Hackathorn, J., Blankmeyer,
K. (2011). Sociosexual orientation, commitment, and infidelity: A mediation analysis.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 222–226.
McCarthy, B., & Farr, E. (2012). Strategies and techniques to maintain sexual desire. Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42, 227-233.
McNulty, J. K., Wenner, C. A., & Fisher, T. D. (2016). Longitudinal associations among
relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of sex in early marriage.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 85-97.
Meltzer, A. L., Makhanova, S., Hicks, L. L., French, J. E., McNulty, J. K., & Bradbury, T. N.
(2017). Quantifying the sexual afterglow: The lingering benefits of sex and their
implications for pair-bonded relationships. Psychological Science, 28(5), 587–598.
Newbury, R., Hayter, M., Wylie, K. R., & Riddell, J. (2012). Sexual fantasy as a clinical
intervention. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 27, 358-371.
39 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Nezlek, J. B. (2012). Diary Methods. Sage.
Person, E. (1996). Fantasy: Its power to transform our lives. London: Harper Collins.
Poerio, G. L., & Smallwood, J. (2016). Daydreaming to navigate the social world: What we
know, what we don’t know, and why it matters. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 10, 605– 618.
Poerio, G. L., Totterdell, P., Emerson, L. M., & Miles, E. (2015). Love is the triumph of the
imagination: Daydreams about significant others are associated with increased happiness,
love and connection. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 135–144.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for
assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233.
Purifoy, F. E., Grodsky, A., & Giambra, L. M. (1992). The relationship of sexual daydreaming to
sexual activity, sexual drive, and sexual attitudes for women across the life-span.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 369–385.
Raudenbush, S. W., Brennan, R. T., & Barnett, R. C. (1995). A multivariate hierarchical model
for studying sychological change within married couples. Journal of Family Psychology,
9,161–174.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & du Toit, M. (2011). HLM 7.
Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Xiao-Feng, L. (2001). Effects of study duration, frequency of observation,
and sample size on power in studies of group differences in polynomial change.
Psychological Methods, 6(4), 387.
Regan, P. C. (2000). The role of sexual desire and sexual activity in dating relationships. Social
Behavior and Personality, 28, 51-59.
40 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Schnarch, D. (1997). Passionate marriage: Keeping love and intimacy alive in committed
relationships. New York, London: Norton.
Sedikides, C., & Wildschut, T. (2018). Finding meaning in nostalgia. Review of General
Psychology, 22(1), 48-61.
Stockwell, F. M., & Moran, D. J. (2014). A relational frame theory account of the emergence of
sexual fantasy. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 40, 92-104.
Trudel, G. (2002). Sexuality and marital life: Results of a survey. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 28, 229-249.
Trudel, G., Marchand, A., Ravart, M., Aubin, S., Turgeon, L., & Fortier, P. (2001). The effect of a
cognitive-behavioral group treatment program on hypoactive sexual desire in women.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 16, 145–164.
Visser, B., DeBow, V., Pozzebon, J., Boegart, A., & Book, A. (2015). Psychopathic sexuality:
The thin line between fantasy and reality. Journal of Personality, 83, 376–388.
Young, L. J., & Wang, Z. (2004). The neurobiology of pair-bonding. Nature Neuroscience, 7,
1048-1054.
Zelin, M. L., Bernstein, S. B., Heijn, C., Jampel, R. M., Myerson, P. G., Adler, G., Buie, D. H., &
Rizzuto, A. M. (1983). The sustaining fantasy questionnaire: Measurement of sustaining
functions in psychiatric patients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 427-439.
Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2016). The importance and meaning of sexual fantasies in intimate
relationships. In K. Aumer (Ed.), The psychology of love and hate in intimate
relationships (pp. 29-45). Basel, Switzerland: Springer.
41 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Notes
1. Participants were part of a larger project (see Birnbaum et al., 2011).
2. Participants were part of a larger project (see Birnbaum et al., 2016).
3. Preliminary statistical analyses revealed that relationship length did not significantly interact
with frequency of sexual dyadic fantasies in predicting relationship outcomes. We
therefore dropped this variable from the final analyses.
42 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Statistics, and Effect Sizes of Desire for Engaging in Sex,
Relationship-Promoting Behaviors, and Negative Feelings for the Fantasy Conditions (Study 1)
Extradyadic
Fantasies
Dyadic Fantasies
95% CI for
Cohen's d
Cohen's
d
t(78)
SDMSDM
(.08, .97)
.532.36*1.194.331.174.96Sexual desire
(.13, 1.02).572.57*1.144.911.075.55Relationship-promoting
behaviors
(-.27, .61)
.17.771.181.851.121.65
Negative feelings
Note. * p < .05; Items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale.
43 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Statistics, and Effect Sizes of Desire for Engaging in Sex and
Relationship-Promoting Behaviors for the Fantasy Conditions (Study 2)
Dyadic Extradyadic F(1,98) η295% CI for η2
Sexual Non-
Sexual
Sexual Non-
Sexual
Desire 4.24a
(.97)
3.56b
(.92)
3.54b
(1.26)
3.58b
(1.14)
2.85#.03 [.00, .12]
Promoting
Behaviors
4.04a
(.67)
3.33b
(.65)
3.50b
(.84)
3.50b
(.71)
6.04* .06 [.01, .16]
Negative
Feelings
1.40
(.87)
1.60
(.91)
1.25
(.64)
1.21
(.51)
.66 .01 [.00, .07]
Note. N = 102. # p < .10, * p < .05; Standard deviations are presented in parentheses. The F-
value refers to the interaction between the target and content of the fantasies. Different subscripts
indicate groups that significantly differ from each other within each raw (p < .05). Items were
rated on a 5-point Likert scale.
44 SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Table 3
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Coecients Predicting Fluctuations in Daily Relationship-Promoting and
Damaging Behaviors from Daily Sexual Fantasizing (Study 3)
Positive behaviors Negative behaviors
B SE t p [95%CI] B SE t p [95%CI]
W_Intercept 7.272 0.472 15.40 <.000 [6.314, 8.231] 0.827 0.124 6.66 .000 [1.070, 0.583]
M_Intercept 8.088 0.473 17.11 <.000 [7.134, 9.042] 0.760 0.126 6.05 .979 [1.006, 0.514]
W_ fantasizing (partner vs. other) 0.899 0.348 2.58 .021 [0.154, 1.644] -0.193 0.217 -0.89 .384 [0.232, -0.618]
M_ fantasizing (partner vs. other) 0.984 0.284 3.46 .002 [0.397, 1.571] -0.309 0.181 -1.71 .566 [0.046, -0.665]
W_ fantasizing (partner vs. none) 1.236 0.304 4.07 <.000 [0.623, 1.850] -0.273 0.154 -1.78 .098 [0.028, -0.574]
M_ fantasizing (partner vs. none) 1.133 0.301 3.77 .001 [0.518, 1.749] -0.389 0.168 -2.31 .223 [-0.059, -0.720]
W_Time 0.002 0.016 0.13 .893 [-0.029, 0.033] -0.003 0.009 -0.31 .864 [0.014, -0.020]
M_Time 0.018 0.016 1.14 .255 [-0.013, 0.049] -0.011 0.009 -1.23 .675 [0.006, -0.028]
W_ previous day DV 0.167 0.103 1.62 .106 [-0.035, 0.368] -0.038 0.083 -0.46 .649 [0.125, -0.200]
M_ previous day DV 0.141 0.099 1.43 .154 [-0.053, 0.336] -0.033 0.082 -0.40 .691 [0.128, -0.193]
Note. W=women, M=men. Previous day DV refers to yesterday’s relationship-promoting behaviors in the equations predicting relationship-
promoting behaviors and for yesterday’s relationship-damaging behaviors in the equations predicting relationship-damaging behaviors.
Running head: SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY 1
Table 4
Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Fantasizing about Partner’s Relationship Promoting
Behaviors through Positive and Negative Relationship Perceptions: A Multilevel Mediation
Analysis (Study 4)
I. Dependent Variable Model (DV = promoting-
behaviors)
B SE t p [95%CI]
W_Intercept 4.061 .057 72.36 .000 [3.949, 4.172]
M_Intercept 4.330 .046 95.26 .000 [4.240, 4.421]
W_ fantasizing .151 .023 6.82 .000 [.106, .195]
M_ fantasizing .098 .021 4.57 .000 [.055, .140]
W_Time .003 .001 2.65 .008 [.001, .005]
M_Time .002 .001 2.11 .036 [.001, .004]
W_ promoting-behaviors
(yesterday)
-.045 .022 -2.01 .047 [-.089, -.001]
M_ promoting-behaviors
(yesterday)
-.070 .016 -4.21 .000 [-.103, -.037]
W_ Quality .227 .030 7.46 .000 [.166, .288]
M_ Quality .253 .031 8.05 .000 [.190, .315]
Mean W_ fantasizing .281 .088 3.19 .002 [.106, .456]
Mean M_ fantasizing .267 .069 3.85 .000 [.129, .404]
II.Mediator Variable Model (DV = positive perception)
B SE t p [95%CI]
W_Intercept 4.602 .032 144.61 .000 [4.539, 4.665]
M_Intercept 4.387 .039 113.60 .000 [4.311, 4.464]
W_ fantasizing .186 .017 10.62 .000 [.151, .220]
M_ fantasizing .177 .018 10.01 .000 [.142, .213]
W_Time .000 .000 -0.42 .675 [-.001, .001]
M_Time .001 .000 1.22 .224 [.000, .001]
W_ positive perception
(yesterday) .117 .019 6.03 .000 [.078, .155]
M_ positive perception
(yesterday) .180 .019 9.40 .000 [.142, .218]
W_ Quality .242 .019 12.64 .000 [.204, .280]
M_ Quality .232 .021 10.94 .000 [.190, .274]
Mean W_ fantasizing .375 .045 8.35 .000 [.286, .464]
Mean M_ fantasizing .574 .057 10.06 .000 [.461, .688]
SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY 2
III. Mediator Variable Model (DV = negative perception)
B SE t p [95%CI]
W_Intercept 1.410 .043 32.81 .000 [1.325, 1.495]
M_Intercept 1.446 .050 28.99 .000 [1.347, 1.545]
W_ fantasizing -.081 .023 -3.46 .001 [-.127, -.034]
M_ fantasizing -.072 .017 -4.19 .000 [-.106, -.038]
W_Time .000 .001 -0.29 .772 [-.001, .001]
M_Time -.001 .001 -1.87 .061 [-.002, .000]
W_ negative perception
(yesterday) .107 .018 5.90 .000 [.071, .143]
M_ negative perception
(yesterday) .114 .019 6.00 .000 [.076, .152]
W_ Quality -.469 .033 -14.21 .000 [-.534, -.403]
M_ Quality -.387 .031 -12.60 .000 [-.448, -.326]
Mean W_ fantasizing -.214 .057 -3.75 .000 [-.328, -.101]
Mean M_ fantasizing -.251 .067 -3.74 .000 [-.384, -.118]
IV. Dependent Variable Model (DV = promoting-
behaviors)
B SE t p [95%CI]
W_Intercept 4.060 .055 73.74 .000 [3.951, 4.170]
M_Intercept 4.330 .045 95.48 .000 [4.240, 4.420]
W_ fantasizing .127 .025 5.18 .000 [.078, .177]
M_ fantasizing .078 .024 3.22 .003 [.029, .127]
W_ positive perception .084 .033 2.57 .010 [.020, .148]
M_ positive perception .139 .041 3.38 .001 [.057, .222]
W_ negative perception -.153 .026 -5.93 .000 [-.205, -.100]
M_ negative perception -.121 .033 -3.69 .001 [-.188, -.054]
W_Time .002 .001 2.59 .010 [.001, .004]
M_Time .002 .001 2.36 .019 [.000, .004]
W_ promoting-behaviors
(yesterday) .100 .024 4.19 .000 [.053, .147]
M_ promoting-behaviors
(yesterday) .078 .019 4.15 .000 [.040, .116]
W_ Quality .133 .031 4.34 .000 [.072, .194]
M_ Quality .160 .032 5.03 .000 [.096, .224]
Mean W_ fantasizing .131 .110 1.18 .241 [-.090, .352]
Mean M_ fantasizing .267 .095 2.82 .007 [.077, .457]
Mean W_ positive perception .579 .168 3.45 .001 [.243, .916]
Mean M_ positive perception .214 .105 2.03 .047 [.003, .424]
Mean W_ negative perception -.250 .124 -2.02 .047 [-.497, -.003]
Mean M_ negative perception -.194 .083 -2.35 .022 [-.359, -.029]
SEXUAL FANTASIES AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY 3
Note. W=women, M=men; all daily items were rated on a 5-point scale; n = 100 couples.
Figure 1. Mediation model showing that positive and negative relationship perceptions
mediated the association between fantasizing about one's partner and partner’s relationship
promoting behaviors.
Note. W=women, M=men. Path coefficients are unstandardized, values in parentheses are total
effects. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Positive relationship
perceptions
W .186*** / M .177***
W .084* / M .139***
Partner’s relationship
promoting-behaviors
Fantasizing on partner W .127*** / M .078**
(W .151*** / M .098***)
W -.081*** / M -.072*** W -.153*** / M -.121***
Negative relationship
perceptions
