Content uploaded by Rachel Cultice
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rachel Cultice on Nov 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Sexual Growth Mindsets and Rejection Sensitivity in Sexual Satisfaction
Rachel A. Culticea*, Diana T. Sancheza, and Analia F. Albujab
aDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States,
bDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
*Corresponding author: rachel.cultice@rutgers.edu, Department of Psychology, Rutgers
University, 50 Joyce Kilmer Ave, Piscataway, NJ 08854
Author information
Rachel A. Cultice
rachel.cultice@rutgers.edu, ORCID: 0000-0001-7345-022X
Diana T. Sanchez
disanche@psych.rutgers.edu, ORCID: 0000-0002-8684-6183
Analia F. Albuja
analia.albuja@duke.edu, ORCID: 0000-0002-9156-2628
Key words: sexuality, romantic relationships, growth mindset, rejection sensitivity
Cultice, R. A., Sanchez, D. T., & Albuja, A. F. (2021). Sexual growth mindsets and rejection
sensitivity in sexual satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211054390
2
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Abstract
Research suggests that having a sexual growth mindset (SGM), or believing that a person can
become a better sexual partner over time, may improve sexual relationships. The present
research investigated the impact of SGMs on a new sexual outcome: sexual rejection sensitivity.
In Study 1, adults in romantic relationships completed measures of SGM and sexual rejection
sensitivity from their own and from their partner’s perspective (N = 377; 49.9% women; Mage =
29.1 years, SDage = 12.2 years). Findings show that perceived partner, but not own, SGM is
associated with lower sexual rejection sensitivity, and sexual rejection sensitivity mediated the
link between perceived partner SGM and own sexual satisfaction. In Study 2, we replaced
perceived partner SGM with actual partner SGM by recruiting both members of 104 different-
sex romantic couples (Mage = 43.9 years, SDage = 14.5 years). Study 2 finds that partner, but not
own, SGM was negatively associated with sexual rejection sensitivity. Further, sexual rejection
sensitivity was negatively associated with sexual satisfaction in Study 1 and for women in Study
2. This work demonstrates the importance of sexual partners’ implicit beliefs about sexuality
(perceived or reported) in understanding sexual outcomes.
Key words: sexuality, romantic relationships, growth mindset, rejection sensitivity
3
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Sexual Growth Mindsets and Rejection Sensitivity in Sexual Satisfaction
Greater sexual satisfaction among couples has long been linked to better relationship
outcomes. For example, greater sexual satisfaction is associated with increased emotional
intimacy (Štulhofer et al., 2014; Yoo et al., 2014), greater relationship satisfaction (McNulty et
al., 2016; Sprecher, 2002; for a review, see Christopher & Sprecher, 2000), greater fidelity and
commitment (Sprecher, 2002; Yucel & Gassanov, 2010), and greater physical and psychological
health (e.g., Holmberg et al., 2010). Moreover, it is widely documented that sexual satisfaction
ebbs and flows in relationships, with sexual satisfaction shifting across the duration of
relationships (e.g., Heiman et al., 2011; Schmiedeberg & Schröder, 2015). Yet, people vary in
their underlying belief that they can learn to be better sexual partners, or the extent to which they
hold a sexual growth mindset (Böthe et al., 2017; Maxwell et al., 2017). These mindsets may
even influence how people react to sexual feedback. In the present research, we explore, for the
first time, the role of sexual growth mindset and sexual rejection sensitivity in sexual
satisfaction, and test sexual rejection sensitivity as a potential mediator of the association
between sexual growth mindset and sexual satisfaction. Moreover, we examine the role of
perception of one’s partner’s mindset (Study 1) and the actual mindset reported by partners
(Study 2).
Sexual Growth Mindsets
Growth mindsets, also referred to as incremental mindsets, are lay theories that influence
perceptions of the self and others in a variety of performance domains (Dweck et al., 1995).
While entity theorists perceive traits as fixed and rooted in personality, growth theorists attribute
traits to situational influence, perceive traits to be malleable, and are more likely to adopt a
mastery-oriented (as opposed to a helpless-oriented) approach to problem solving (Dweck et al.,
4
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
1995; Robins & Pals, 2002). Growth mindsets have largely been studied in the domain of
intelligence. Findings suggest that adopting a growth mindset of intelligence predicts higher
mathematics scores in adolescents (Blackwell et al., 2007), increased self-esteem in
undergraduate students (Robins & Pals, 2002), and may be particularly beneficial to the
performance of academically underserved students (Sisk et al., 2018; see meta-analysis by Costa
& Faria, 2018). While most of this initial work on intelligence mindsets focused on how
possessing growth mindsets improved individual performance, more recent work has shown that
the mindsets of important others (e.g., teachers) can influence the performance of their students
(Rattan et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2018). For example, students who perceived their STEM
instructor as having a growth mindset increased their interest in STEM (Fuesting et al., 2019).
This body of work suggests growth mindsets held by the self and others may facilitate better
performance and less avoidance in intellectually-relevant domains.
Researchers have also examined growth mindsets in the contexts of romantic
relationships and sexuality. People who hold romantic destiny beliefs (an entity theory) believe
relationships simply are or are not meant to be (i.e., soulmate theories; Franiuk et al., 2002). In
contrast, romantic growth beliefs (an incremental theory) recognize that successful relationships
require effort (for a review, see Knee & Canevello, 2006). This work finds that endorsing a
relationship growth mindset predicts increased positivity and relationship maintenance (Weigel
et al., 2016), higher tolerance for partner’s shortcomings (e.g., Knee et al., 2001), lower levels of
relationship violence (Cobb et al., 2013), and an increased likelihood to engage in constructive
disagreements (Kammrath & Dweck, 2006). After the discussion of relationship problems, those
with relationship growth mindset felt more positivity towards their partners while those with
destiny beliefs felt more hostility towards their partners (Knee et al., 2001). Indeed, growth
5
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
mindsets are believed to be associated with less negative reactions to relationship conflict and
feedback (see Knee et al., 2003 for review).
In the context of sexual relationships, research has also found that compared to sexual
destiny beliefs, sexual growth beliefs about relationships are better predictors of higher sexual
and relationship satisfaction and lower attachment avoidance (Böthe et al., 2017; Maxwell et al.,
2017). Growth beliefs about sexual desire, specifically the belief that sexual desire is malleable
over the life course rather than fixed, reduced women’s likelihood of engaging in negative
coping when faced with a problem related to sexual desire (Sutherland & Rehman, 2018).
Given the research suggesting that growth mindsets are beneficial to relationships and
facilitate positive reactions to feedback, the present research explores the relationship between
sexual growth mindsets and sexual satisfaction by considering the influence of one such reaction
to feedback: sexual rejection sensitivity, or the inclination to anxiously anticipate and react to
perceived interpersonal rejection. Because our research investigates sexual growth mindsets in
the specific context of a relationship, we have adapted the original, one-dimensional mindset
scale (Dweck et al., 1995) in a way that assesses beliefs about the stability of a person’s quality
as a sexual partner (e.g., “Everyone is a certain kind of sexual partner and there is not much that
they can do to really change that”). Other researchers have taken a similar but different approach
by developing measures assessing the quality of a person’s sexual life more broadly (e.g., “You
have a certain type of sexual life and you can’t do much to change it,” Böthe et al., 2017) or
referencing a couple’s sexual and romantic relationship beliefs (e.g., “An unsatisfying sex life
suggests that the relationship was never meant to be,” Maxwell et al., 2017). In the present
research, we are interested specifically in perceptions of the malleability of a person’s quality as
a sexual partner, and how that may be associated with a person’s sensitivity to sexual rejection.
6
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Sexual Rejection Sensitivity
A robust literature shows that rejection sensitivity, is associated with lower relationship
quality and satisfaction (Downey & Feldman 1996) and an increased likelihood of breaking up
(Downey et al., 1998). High rejection sensitivity is also associated with increased depressive
symptoms in women who have recently been romantically rejected (Ayduk et al., 2001).
Research has also found that rejection sensitivity was associated with negative relationship
emotional processes when controlling for other potential predictors, such as attachment style and
self-esteem (Downey & Feldman, 1996). The rejection sensitivity framework has been expanded
to other domains: appearance-based rejection sensitivity (Appearance-RS) is associated with
increased symptoms of disordered eating and lower self-esteem (Park, 2007), and gender-based
rejection sensitivity (Gender-RS) is associated with lower perceived academic self-efficacy for
women (London et al., 2012).
Importantly, research suggests that higher growth mindsets are related to less rejection
sensitivity. For example, those primed with fixed mindsets related to language learning
demonstrated higher language-based rejection sensitivity and subsequent intergroup anxiety
toward native speakers (Lou & Noels, 2019), while growth language mindsets reduced these
concerns (Lou & Noels, 2020). Further, undergraduates with fixed mindsets and class-based
rejection sensitivity are more likely to experience lower academic performance (Rheinschmidt,
& Mendoza-Denton, 2014). Moreover, in the context of relationships, research demonstrates
people with greater sexual growth mindsets engage in more positive coping strategies to deal
with sexual difficulties (Sutherland & Rehman, 2018), suggesting that they rely on their partner
being receptive to such actions (i.e., are lower in rejection sensitivity). In addition, people who
believe they can work to improve their sex life might be less sensitive to sexual rejection as they
7
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
may harbor more optimism about future sexual encounters including their partner’s sexual
reactions, given that they recognize their own ability to change.
Based on the aforementioned literature, we will test the relationship between sexual
growth mindsets and rejection sensitivity in the domain of sexuality in the present research.
Partner sexual growth mindset may be especially relevant to a person’s sexual rejection
sensitivity because of the relational context of sexuality. If one has a partner (or perceives
themselves to have a partner) who believes that people can become better lovers, this may
facilitate seeing your partner as receptive to your sexual efforts and reduce a person’s own fear
of trying something new (i.e., sexual rejection sensitivity).
In sum, this body of work demonstrates the maladaptive nature of rejection sensitivity in
pursuit of healthy relationships and performance in a variety of domains, and the potential for
growth mindsets to facilitate less rejection sensitivity. To our knowledge, the present studies are
the first to adapt the rejection sensitivity framework to sexuality. Specifically, this work
investigates the association between sexual growth mindsets and sexual rejection sensitivity in
predicting sexual satisfaction, and tests sexual rejection sensitivity as a potential mediator.
The Present Research
In two studies, the present research tests models of sexual growth beliefs, sexual rejection
sensitivity, and sexual satisfaction. In Study 1, participants completed measures of sexual
rejection sensitivity and sexual growth beliefs both from their own and from their partner’s
perspective. Though no work to date has studied perceptions of a partner’s sexual growth beliefs
or sexual rejection sensitivity, prior research suggests that perceptions of growth mindsets are
important predictors of individual performance in relevant domains (Fuesting et al., 2019).
Moreover, higher perceived partner sexual satisfaction has been linked to higher sexual
8
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
satisfaction for the self (Øverup & Smith, 2017), suggesting that metaperceptions related to sex
play an important role in sexual satisfaction among couples.
We expected own sexual growth mindset to be associated with lower sexual rejection
sensitivity and, based on previous research by Maxwell and colleagues (2017), higher sexual
satisfaction. Further, we hypothesized that perceived partner sexual growth mindset would also
be associated with lower sexual rejection sensitivity and higher sexual satisfaction (see Figure 1
of hypothesized model with key variables).
We also hypothesized that own sexual rejection sensitivity would be negatively
associated with sexual satisfaction. Sexual rejection sensitivity was tested as a potential mediator
between sexual growth mindset and sexual satisfaction. We had no prediction with regards to
how perceived partner sexual rejection sensitivity would be associated with sexual satisfaction,
though we considered that people who think their partners view them as defensive or less open
may have other negative perceptions about their sexual relationship (e.g., Gottman et al., 1998).
Figure 1: Hypothesized Model Tested in Study 1
[Figure 1 here]
In addition, we will test whether this model holds equally well for men and women in
heterosexual relationships. Previous work finds inconsistent patterns of gender differences in
sexual growth and destiny beliefs (Maxwell et al., 2017). Men and women may behave
differently during sexual encounters, perhaps to their own detriment, in accordance with
heterosexual scripts (Sanchez et al., 2005; Wiederman, 2005) or other social factors. Therefore,
we also planned to test participant gender as a moderator in our analyses. Moreover, we included
sex frequency as a covariate of sexual satisfaction throughout our analyses by adding pathways
from sex frequency to both sexual rejection sensitivity and sexual satisfaction. Sex frequency is
associated with sexual satisfaction (Frederick et al., 2017). Thus, researchers often control for
9
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
sex frequency to better isolate relationships between sexual satisfaction and other key variables
that cannot be solely attributed to frequency (see Sanchez et al., 2011 and Sanchez et al., 2012
for similar approaches). In Study 2, we administered the same measures to a sample of mixed-
sex (i.e., one man and one woman) romantic couples to conceptually replicate Study 1 findings,
replacing perceived partner beliefs with actual partner beliefs. These models provide consistent
and unique insight into sexual rejection sensitivity and sexual satisfaction among U.S. adults in
mixed-sex romantic relationships.
Study 1
Method
Participants and Procedure
A sample of 381 participants in romantic relationships was recruited using online
sampling methods. We had originally based our sample size stop point on regression models
before we decided that path analyses would be more parsimonious test of our hypotheses. The
power analysis was conducted using G*Power software (Fault et al., 2007) based on multiple
regression using the variables of interest and calculated for an effect size of .25, suggesting that
we would be powered above 90% with a sample of 400. Given that path modeling was later
decided to be the most parsimonious test of our hypotheses, we attempted to replicate our
findings in Study 2, and provide a lengthy discussion of power and sample size for the given
studies in our discussion.
To participate, participants had to be at least 18 years of age, be in a romantic
relationship, and have prior sexual experience within that romantic relationship. Participants who
did not identify as cisgender (n = 2), and participants who failed all attention checks (n = 2) were
removed.1 The final sample consisted of 377 cisgender individuals. 46.7% of this sample (n =
10
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
176) were undergraduate students in the U.S. enrolled in an introductory psychology course who
were required to participate in research for course credit. The remaining 53.3% (n = 201) of the
convenience sample were adults living in the U.S. recruited online using Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk. The sample was 50.1% cisgender men and 49.9% cisgender women, ranging in age from
18 to 100 years old (Mage = 29.1 years, SDage = 12.2 years, Mdnage = 26 years). The lengths of
participants’ relationships ranged from 1 month to 49.17 years (M = 4.9 years, SD = 6.4 years).
The sample was mostly (89.4%) heterosexual (7.4% bisexual, 2.7% gay or lesbian, and 1
participant identified as queer) and mostly (54.6%) White (12.2% multiracial/biracial, 8.8%
South Asian, 8.8% East Asian, 5.8% Hispanic/Latinx, 5.3% Black, 1.9% Southeast Asian, 1.3%
Middle Eastern/North African, <1% Native American/Alaska Native, and <1% selected “other”).
The analyses were conducted on a subset of measures included in the survey and are presented
below in the order that they appeared to participants.2
Measures
Sexual Growth Mindset
Sexual growth mindset was assessed using a three-item measure scored on a scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) adapted from Dweck et al. (1995). The
items were, “The kind of sexual partner someone is, is something basic about them, and it can’t
be changed very much”; “People can do things differently, but the important part of who they are
as a sexual partner can’t really be changed”; and “Everyone is a certain kind of sexual partner
and there is not much that they can do to really change that.” Items were reverse scored and
averaged (α = .90; M = 4.6, SD = 1.5). Participants were also asked to complete this measure
from the perspective of their current romantic partner; items were reverse scored and averaged
11
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
such that higher scores indicated greater sexual growth mindset beliefs (α = .92; M = 4.5, SD =
1.5; see supplement for additional measure validation).
Sexual Satisfaction
Sexual satisfaction was measured using the Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction
(GMSEX; Lawrance & Byers, 1998). Participants were asked to describe their sexual
relationship with their partner using 7-point semantic differential scales with the following
endpoints: good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, positive/negative, satisfying/unsatisfying, and
valuable/worthless. Scores were reversed and averaged (α = .95; M = 6.1, SD = 1.1).
Sexual Rejection Sensitivity
Sexual rejection sensitivity was assessed using a measure adapted from Downey and
Feldman (1996). Participants read a series of six scenarios involving their romantic partner (e.g.
“Imagine that you were to ask your partner to explore a new sexual activity with you”). After
each scenario, participants responded to the following two statements on a scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree): 1) “I would be anxious and concerned about my
partner’s response,” and 2) “My partner would be open to that feedback” (see supplement for the
full measure). Following the scoring of traditional rejection sensitivity measures (Downey &
Feldman, 1996), the latter was reverse scored and multiplied by the former for each scenario,
producing six scenario-specific sexual rejection sensitivity scores.3 These scores were averaged
to create one index of sexual rejection sensitivity with possible scores ranging from one to 49 (α
= .90; M = 7.6, SD = 6.1; see supplement for additional measure validation). Participants were
also asked to complete the first item for each scenario from their partner’s perspective (i.e., “I
think that my partner would be anxious and concerned about my response) on a scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); scores were averaged (α = .93; M = 3.3, SD =
12
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
1.6; see supplement for full scale). When comparing the mean scores and effects of sexual
rejection sensitivity and perceived partner sexual rejection sensitivity, note that the ranges of
possible scores for each measure differ.
Sex Frequency
Participants were asked to report how often they engage in sexual activity with their
partner each week. Responses ranged from 0 to 20 times a week (M = 4.4, SD = 3.5).
Statistical Analysis
We tested the hypothesized model with path analysis on Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén,
2017) using maximum likelihood estimation. Mediation was analyzed using bias-corrected 95%
confidence intervals from 10,000 bootstrapped samples of the indirect effects (Preacher &
Hayes, 2008). Models demonstrated good fit if the results indicated null chi-square test of model
fit, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) < 0.06, comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.95,
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > 0.95, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < 0.08
(Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2011).
Results
Data and code for Studies 1 and 2 can be found at https://osf.io/btcn2/. Bivariate
correlations and descriptive statistics for all measures can be found in Table 1. As we expected,
own sexual growth mindset was significantly associated with lower sexual rejection sensitivity.
Own sexual growth mindset was not significantly associated with sexual satisfaction, but greater
perceived partner growth mindset was significantly associated with both greater sexual
satisfaction and lower own sexual rejection sensitivity (effect sizes for significant correlations
ranged from small to medium; see Table 1). As hypothesized, sexual rejection sensitivity was
significantly negatively associated with sexual satisfaction, as was perceived partner rejection
13
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
sensitivity. Additionally, own sexual growth mindset was significantly positively related to
perceived partner’s sexual growth mindset; sexual rejection sensitivity and perceived partner’s
sexual rejection sensitivity were also positively related (effect sizes for significant correlations
ranged from medium to large; see Table 1).
Table 1: Bivariate Correlations and Descriptive Statistics (Study 1)
[Table 1 here]
Gender Comparisons
We conducted a series of independent sample t-tests to determine if the men and women
in our sample scored differently on the focal outcome measures. Men and women did not differ
in their sexual growth mindsets, t(373) = 1.69, p = .10, d = .18, or in their perceptions of their
partner’s sexual growth mindsets, t(372) = 1.14, p = .26, d = .12. Men (M = 8.98, SD = 6.33)
reported higher sexual rejection sensitivity than women (M = 6.20, SD = 5.63), t(375) = 4.51, p <
.001, d = .46, but there was no gender difference in perception of a partner’s sexual rejection
sensitivity, t(375) = 1.74, p = .08, d = .18. Additionally, men and women did not differ in their
reported sexual satisfaction, t(373) = 0.93, p = .35, d = .10, or weekly sex frequency, t(362) =
1.40, p = .16, d = .15.
Path Analysis Model
Next, we tested the hypothesized model. The model indicated good fit, χ2 (2, N = 361) =
1.88, p = .39, CFI = 1.0, TLI = 1.0, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .01, AIC = 8888.78 (see Figure 2).
Greater perceived partner sexual growth mindset was associated with lower (own) sexual
rejection sensitivity (β = -.24, p = .002) and lower perceptions of partner’s rejection sensitivity (β
= -.21, p = .02). However, there was no relationship between participants’ own sexual growth
mindset and own or perceived partner’s sexual rejection sensitivity. Further, the indirect effect
from own sexual growth mindset to sexual satisfaction through rejection sensitivity was not
14
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
significant, β = 0.03, p = .31, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.08]; however, the indirect effect from perceived
partner sexual growth mindset to sexual satisfaction through rejection sensitivity was significant,
β = 0.09, p = .006, 95% CI [0.02, 0.15]. This suggests that when both participants’ own and their
perceived partner’s sexual growth mindset is considered, a person’s sexual rejection sensitivity is
associated more strongly with how they perceive their partner’s sexual growth mindset, and less
strongly with their own sexual growth mindset. Higher (own) sexual rejection sensitivity
significantly predicted lower sexual satisfaction (β = -.35, p < .001); however, the path from
perceived partner’s sexual rejection sensitivity to sexual satisfaction did not. Finally, sexual
frequency was associated with lower sexual rejection sensitivity and greater overall sexual
satisfaction.
Figure 2: Path Estimates for Hypothesized Model
[Figure 2 here]
Moderation by Gender
We used multigroup path analysis to examine whether the model was moderated by
participant gender. We examined fit for the constrained and unconstrained models. In the
constrained model, the path coefficients were constrained to be equal between men and women,
while they were free to differ between gender groups in the unconstrained model. The
correlations between variables were free to vary in both models. Both the constrained model,
χ2(13, N = 361) = 18.41, p = .14, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.05, AIC =
8863.53, and the unconstrained model, χ2(4, N = 361) = 2.03, p = .73, CFI = 1.0, TLI = 1.0,
RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = 0.01, AIC = 8865.14 indicated good fit. The chi-square difference test
did not reach conventional standards for significance suggesting that the model was not
moderated by participant gender, χ2(9, N = 361) = 16.38, p = .06. Thus, we concluded the model
fit similarly for men and women.
15
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
In sum, Study 1 findings demonstrate the importance of perceptions of a partner’s sexual
growth mindset in predicting one’s own sexual rejection sensitivity. Further, this study
demonstrated for the first time that sexual rejection sensitivity was a significant predictor of
sexual satisfaction. Importantly, however, perceptions of a sexual partner’s beliefs or desires are
not guaranteed to be accurate. Past research has found that men underperceive their female
partners’ sexual desire (Muise et al., 2016), and women underperceive their male partners’ desire
to engage in behaviors such as foreplay (Miller & Byers, 2004). Therefore, our goal for Study 2
was to investigate the relationship between a person’s sexual rejection sensitivity and their
partner’s actual sexual growth mindset by surveying a dyadic sample of mixed-sex couples.
Sexual rejection sensitivity will again be tested as a potential mediator between sexual growth
mindset and sexual satisfaction.
Study 2
Method
Participants and Procedure
A convenience sample of 104 sexually active, cisgender mixed-sex couples (50%
cisgender men, 50% cisgender women) who have been in a heterosexual relationship for at least
four months was recruited using an online Qualtrics panel. Most participants (92.4%) identified
as heterosexual (4.8% bisexual, and 2 identified as gay or lesbian) and 76.4% of the sample was
White (7.7% Hispanic/Latinx, 5.8% Black, 4.3% Multiracial/Biracial, 2.9% South Asian, 1.4%
selected “other”, 1% East Asian, and < 1% Native American/Alaska Native). Sample size was
determined considering the financial feasibility of recruiting dyadic data without compromising
statistical integrity. See discussion for further explanation.
16
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Participants had to reside in the United States and be at least 18 years of age to
participate. Ages of participants ranged from 20 to 81 years (Mage = 43.9 years, SDage = 14.5
years, Mdnage = 40 years). The couples were in relationships ranging from 0.5 to 61.92 years in
length (M = 17.7 years, SD = 14.0 years). 99% of the couples in our sample cohabitated, 85.6%
were married, and 71.2% had children. Participants were instructed to complete survey measures
independently, without input from their partner, and without knowledge of their partner’s
responses. Participants provided their partners’ initials at the beginning of the study; these initials
were piped into the survey to increase comprehension. The measures were presented to
participants in the same order that they were presented in Study 1.
Measures
Participants individually completed the same measures of sexual growth mindset
(adapted from Dweck et al., 1995); α = .91; M = 3.86, SD = 1.54), and sexual rejection
sensitivity (adapted from Downey & Feldman, 1996; α = .91; M = 7.87, SD = 5.21) that were
administered in Study 1.
Sexual Satisfaction
Sexual satisfaction was measured using the 12 positively-worded items of the Index of
Sexual Satisfaction (ISS; Hudson et al., 1981, as used by Babin, 2013). Participants responded to
statements such as “I feel that my sex life with my partner really adds a lot to our relationship”
and “I think that my sex life with my partner is wonderful” on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); responses were averaged (α = .96; M = 5.90, SD = 0.99). When
compared in a single sample, the ISS and GMSEX (used in Study 1) have similar psychometric
properties and are strongly correlated (Mark et al., 2014), but we used a different scale to
17
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
replicate the model with more generalizability (i.e., ensure our results were not a function of the
sexual satisfaction measure).
Sex Frequency
Based on similar measures of sexual frequency with more standardized ranges (e.g.,
Muise et al., 2015), participants were asked to report the frequency of their sexual activity with
their partner using the following scale: 1 = I have not had sex in the past year; 2 = Less than once
a month; 3 = Less than once a week; 4 = 1-2 times a week; 5 = 3 or more times a week (M = 4.0,
SD = 0.93).
Statistical Analysis
The hypothesized model was tested using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model
(APIM) using Mplus 8 (Fitzpatrick et al., 2016). Dyadic analyses using the APIM and maximum
likelihood estimation account for the interdependence within couples, and estimate actor effects
(the association between a participant’s own sexual growth mindset and sexual satisfaction)
separately from partner effects (the association between a partner’s sexual growth mindset and
participant’s sexual satisfaction). As in Study 1, mediation was tested using bias-corrected 95%
confidence intervals from 10,000 bootstrapped samples of the indirect effects. Because all
couples were mixed-sex, we employed the model for distinguishable dyads with gender as the
distinguishing variable. Dyad distinguishability was determined through the theoretical rational
driving the research question (Fitzpatrick et al. 2016; Gonzalez & Griffin, 1999). A chi square
difference test further confirmed the distinguishability of the dyads, χ2(12, N = 104) = 243.79, p
< .001 (Kenny, 2015; Olsen & Kenny, 2006).
Results
Within-Couple Comparisons
18
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Paired samples correlations for all measures can be found in Table 2, and correlations
split by gender can be found in Table 3. Within couples, there were strong, positive associations
between men’s and women’s sexual growth mindsets, sexual rejection sensitivity, and sexual
satisfaction. Paired samples t-tests revealed that men and women within the romantic dyads in
our sample reported similar sexual growth mindsets, t(103) = 1.79, p = .08, d = .16, and sexual
rejection sensitivity, t(103) = 1.74, p = .09, d = .16. Men’s sexual satisfaction (M = 6.00, SD =
0.91) was higher than their female partners’ sexual satisfaction (M = 5.80, SD = 1.06), t(103) =
2.86, p = .005, d = .20 (see descriptive statistics in Table 4).
Table 2: Paired Samples (Within-Dyad) Correlations Among Variables (Study 2)
[Table 2 here]
Table 3: Bivariate Correlations Split by Gender (Study 2)
[Table 3 here]
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics (Study 2)
[Table 4 here]
Dyadic Analysis
Next, we tested the model using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM). As in
Study 1, sex frequency was a predictor of sexual rejection sensitivity and sexual satisfaction.4 All
exogenous variables were correlated. This model demonstrated good fit, χ2 (4, N = 104) = 5.05, p
= .28, CFI = 1.0, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .03, AIC = 2703.79 (see Figure 3).5
Figure 3: Path Estimates for Hypothesized Model
[Figure 3 here]
As in Study 1, partner growth mindset predicted one’s own sexual rejection sensitivity.
Uniquely, in Study 2, perceived partner growth mindset was replaced with actual partner growth
mindsets. For both men (β = -.24, p = .04) and women (β = -.24, p = .02), having a partner who
had a greater sexual growth mindset predicted less sexual rejection sensitivity for oneself. For
19
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
women, their own sexual rejection sensitivity was associated with lower sexual satisfaction for
themselves (β = -.23, p = .03) but men’s sexual rejection sensitivity was not a significant
predictor of their own sexual satisfaction. For men and women, sexual frequency was associated
with lower sexual rejection sensitivity for themselves and their partners and overall greater
sexual satisfaction in both members of the couple.
Finally, no indirect effects were significant in Study 2. For women, neither the indirect
paths from own sexual growth mindset, β =.05, p = .17, 95% CI [0.00, 0.14], nor partner’s sexual
growth mindset, β = .06, p = .12, 95% CI [0.01, 0.15], to sexual satisfaction through rejection
sensitivity were significant. The same pattern emerged for men: neither the indirect paths from
own sexual growth mindset, β = .02, p = .41, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.10], nor partner’s sexual growth
mindset, β = .04, p = .24, 95% CI [0.00, 0.14], to sexual satisfaction through rejection sensitivity
were significant.
Discussion
The goal of this research was to better understand the associations between sexual growth
mindsets, sexual rejection sensitivity, and sexual satisfaction among adults in mixed-sex
romantic relationships. Importantly, this work makes two important contributions to the
literature: this work expands the rejection sensitivity framework to the domain of sexuality, and
tests the association of both perceived and actual partner sexual growth mindsets with sexual
outcomes.
In both studies, partner’s sexual growth mindsets were associated with own sexual
rejection sensitivity. This suggests that partner’s implicit beliefs (perceived or reported) are
important to the sexual anxieties that people have about communicating about sexual activities.
This is consistent with work demonstrating that growth mindsets can influence feedback
20
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
sensitivity (Lou & Noels, 2019; Lou & Noels, 2020; Rheinschmidt, & Mendoza-Denton, 2014),
but uniquely shows the interpersonal dynamics that contribute to couples’ sexual rejection
sensitivity. In addition, as we would expect given previous findings (Downey & Feldman, 1996),
higher sexual rejection sensitivity significantly predicted lower sexual satisfaction in Study 1 and
for women in Study 2.
These sexual rejection findings contribute a unique perspective to the rejection sensitivity
literature and provide a new framework through which researchers can study sexual behaviors,
beliefs, and their outcomes. For example, sexual rejection sensitivity may be associated with sex
avoidance or disinterest in sexual activity to avoid opportunities for rejection. In addition, sexual
rejection sensitive men and women may perceive ambiguous sexual behaviors as indicators of
rejection in their partners, because prior research suggests that rejection-sensitive adults are
prone to perceive rejection cues even in ambiguous situations (e.g., Downey & Feldman, 1996).
This work also expands our field’s current understanding of sexual growth mindsets.
Previous research finds that sexual growth mindsets are associated with increased sexual
satisfaction (Böthe et al., 2017; Maxwell et al., 2017). However, across both samples, we find
support for the greater predictive utility of perceived (Study 1) and actual (Study 2) partner
sexual growth mindsets compared to one’s own sexual growth mindset. Research has shown that
perceived (e.g., Fuesting et al, 2019) and actual (e.g., Smith et al., 2018) growth mindsets of
others can influence one’s performance. Our work extends this work by investigating the impact
of perceived and actual partner sexual growth mindsets on a person’s own sexual rejection
sensitivity (directly) and sexual satisfaction (indirectly). Of course, when we use the word actual,
it is important to note that people may report mindsets that they aspire to have, rather than those
21
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
they currently hold. Nonetheless, the additional replication with partner reports was an important
corroboration of Study 1.
Notably, sexual rejection sensitivity mediated the effect on sexual satisfaction of
perceived partner sexual growth mindset (Study 1) but not actual partner sexual growth mindset
(Study 2). This difference highlights the relational importance of partner perceptions for
individuals, and how these (potentially inaccurate) perceptions have an impact on sexual
outcomes such as sexual satisfaction. Further, Study 2 demonstrates the high degree of
interdependence that mixed-sex couples report with regards to their sex lives. We found positive,
significant associations between sexual growth mindset, sexual rejection sensitivity, and sexual
satisfaction scores for men and women in romantic relationships. Considered in tandem, this
suggests the potential for sexual growth mindset interventions to help reduce sexual rejection
sensitivity and indirectly have downstream consequences for couples’ joint sexual satisfaction.
Limitations and Future Directions
These findings should be interpreted considering three main limitations. First, sexual
satisfaction and sex frequency were measured differently in Studies 1 and 2; however, because
these two models behaved very similarly, there is no substantial reason to doubt the theoretical
consistency between them. In fact, the alternative measurement could be viewed as a strength in
a conceptual replication project. Second, given the recruitment and survey methods used in both
Studies 1 and Study 2, we acknowledge the potential for self-selection and self-report biases to
have influenced our outcomes. Third, this work is correlational. Therefore, no conclusions can be
made regarding cause and effect. Future work will consider the impact of sexual communication,
which predicts higher sexual satisfaction (Jones et al., 2018) and may be hampered by sexual
rejection sensitivity. Future research should also explore other sources of sexual rejection
22
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
sensitivity other than growth mindsets (e.g., early sexual rejection experiences, inexperience, and
attachment styles).
Further, sexual rejection sensitivity mediated the effect of perceived partner sexual
growth mindset on sexual satisfaction in Study 1 but not the effect of actual partner growth
mindset on sexual satisfaction for either men or women in Study 2. We speculate that because
rejection sensitivity measures the fear of facing rejection (rather than responses to actual
rejection), perceptions of partner mindsets may be more influential than partners’ actual
mindsets. Similarly, past work has shown that perceived similarity with a relationship partner is
more predictive of marital well-being (Acitelli et al., 1993) and attraction (Montoya, 2008)
compared to actual similarity. Therefore, future work will assess the accuracy of partner
perceptions and the potential for the degree of (in)accuracy to affect sensitivity to sexual
rejection and sexual satisfaction.
Finally, we will briefly address the limitation of our sample sizes. Scholars have varied in
their recommended sample sizes for path models. For example, one recommendation is to have
15 participants per variable or indicator (Stevens, 2002). Some researchers recommended at least
100 participants (Loehlin, 1992; Nassar & Wisenbaker, 2003) while others have argued that 200
participants (or 5 to 10 cases per parameter) should be the minimum (Kline, 2011; Marsh et al.,
1988). Both standards were met in Study 1 and Study 2. For Study 2, which involves multi-level
modeling to assess actor-partner interdependence models, we used the 200 participants standard
despite some researchers suggesting that APIM requires fewer dyads (e.g., Lederman & Kenny,
2017). In sum, our sample sizes were adequate based on the outlined suggestions. In addition, we
did not collect demographic information from participants regarding disability, socioeconomic
status, or educational status, and we hope that future research on this topic will be conducted to
23
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
examine the generalizability of these models (e.g., applicability to LGBT populations, married
vs. unmarried cohabitating partners).
Conclusion
Because sexual satisfaction contributes to overall well-being (e.g., Holmberg et al., 2010)
and is associated with many positive relationship outcomes (e.g., relationship satisfaction;
Christopher & Sprecher, 2000), understanding the factors that are associated with sexual
satisfaction is important for researchers and practitioners. Adding to a large literature on the
power of growth mindsets, the present work suggests that partner’s sexual growth mindset may
facilitate sexual openness, which may have important downstream consequences for sexual
satisfaction. Further, these studies are a first step in understanding the dyadic association of
sexual growth mindsets and rejection sensitivity in couples’ sexual relationships.
Declaration of Conflicting Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
24
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
References
Acitelli, L. K., Douvan, E., & Veroff, J. (1993). Perceptions of conflict in the first year of
marriage: How important are similarity and understanding? Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 10, 5-19.
Ayduk, O., Downey, G., & Kim, M. (2001). Rejection sensitivity and depressive symptoms in
women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 868-877.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277009
Babin, E. A. (2013). An examination of predictors of nonverbal and verbal communication of
pleasure during sex and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 30(3), 270–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512454523
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and in
intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2007.00995.x
Bőthe B., Tóth-Király, I., Demetrovics, Z., & Orosz, G. (2017). The pervasive role of sex
mindset: Beliefs about the malleability of sexual life is linked to higher levels of
relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction and lower levels of problematic
pornography use. Personality and Individual Differences, 117(15), 15-22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.030
Christopher, F. S., & Sprecher, S. (2000). Sexuality in marriage, dating, and other relationships:
25
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 999-1017.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00999.x
Cobb, R. A., DeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). Implicit theories of
relationships and close relationship violence: Does believing your relationship can grow
relate to lower perpetration of violence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
39(3), 279-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212473159
Costa, A., & Faria, L. (2018). Implicit theories of intelligence and academic achievement: A
meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(829).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327-1343.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in
close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 545-560. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.75.2.545
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and theory role in judgements and
reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267-285.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Feather, N. T. (1988). From values to actions: Recent applications of the expectancy-value
26
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
model. Australian Journal of Psychology, 40(2) 105-124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049538808259076
Fitzpatrick, J., Gareau, A., & Lafontaine, M. F. (2016). How to use the actor-partner
interdependence model (APIM) to estimate different dyadic patterns in Mplus: A step-by-
step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 21(1), 74-86.
https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.1.p074
Franiuk, R., Cohen, D., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2002). Implicit theories of relationships:
Implications for relationship satisfaction and longevity. Personal Relationships, 9, 345-
367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.09401
Frederick, D. A., Lever, J., Gillespie, B. J., & Garcia, J. R. (2017). What keeps passion alive?
Sexual satisfaction is associated with sexual communication, mood setting, sexual
variety, oral sex, orgasm, and sex frequency in a national U.S. study. The Journal of Sex
Research, 54(2), 186-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1137854
Fuesting, M. A., Diekman, A. B., Boucher, K. L., Murphy, M. C., Manson, D. L., & Safer, B. L.
(2019). Growing STEM: Perceived faculty mindset as an indicator of communal
affordances in STEM. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 260-281.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000154
Gonzalez, R. & Griffin, D. (1999). The correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the
distinguishable case. Personal Relationships, 6(4), 449-469.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00203.x
Gottman, J., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and
stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(1), 5-22.
https://doi.org/10.2307/353438
27
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Heiman, J. R., Long, J. S., Smith, S. N., Fisher, W. A., Sand, M. S., & Rose, R. C. (2011).
Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness in midlife and older couples in five
countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 741-753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-
9703-3
Holmberg, D., Blair, K. L., & Phillips, M. (2010). Women's sexual satisfaction as a predictor of
well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships. The Journal of Sex
Research, 47(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902898710
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hudson, W. W., Harrison, D. F., & Crosscup, P. C. (1981). A short‐form scale to measure sexual
discord in dyadic relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 17(2), 157-174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498109551110
Jones, A. C., Robinson, W. D., & Seedall, R. B. (2018). The role of sexual communication in
couples’ sexual outcomes: A dyadic path analysis. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 44(4), 606-623. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12282
Kammrath, L. K., & Dweck, C. (2006). Voicing conflict: Preferred conflict strategies among
incremental and entity theorists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(11),
1497-1508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206291476
Kenny, D. A. (2015, January). An interactive tool for testing distinguishability and
nonindependence in dyadic data [Computer software]. Available from
https://davidakenny.shinyapps.io/Dingy/.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford
28
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Press.
Knee, C. R., & Canevello, A. (2006). Implicit Theories of Relationships and Coping in Romantic
Relationships. In K. D. Vohs & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting
intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (p. 160-176). Guilford Press.
Knee, C. R., Nanayakkara, A., Vietor, N. A., Neighbors, C., & Patrick, H. (2001). Implicit
theories of relationships: Who cares if romantic partners are less than ideal? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 808–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277004
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations
toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 41–55.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0701_3
Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1998). Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction
Questionnaire. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauman, G. Scherer, & S. L. Davis
(Eds.), Sexuality related measures: A compendium (2nd ed, p. 514-519). Gage.
Ledermann, T. & Kenny, D. A. (2017). Analyzing dyadic data with multilevel modeling versus
structural equation modeling: A tale of two methods. Journal of Family Psychology,
31(4), 442-452. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000290
Loehlin, J. C., (1992). Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path and Structural
Analysis (2nd ed). Hillsdale, New Jersey.
London, B., Downey, G., Romero-Canyas, R., Rattan, A., & Tyson, D. (2012). Gender-based
rejection sensitivity and academic self-silencing in women. Interpersonal Relations and
Group Processes, 102(5), 961-979. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026615
Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2019). Sensitivity to language-based rejection in intercultural
29
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
communication: The role of language mindsets and implications for migrants’ cross-
cultural adaptation. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 478-505.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx047
Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2020). Breaking the vicious cycle of language anxiety: Growth
language mindsets improve lower-competence ESL students’ intercultural interactions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101847
Mark, K. P., Herbenick, D., Fortenberry, J. D., Sanders, S., & Reece, M. (2014). A psychometric
comparison of three scales and a single-item measure to assess sexual satisfaction. The
Journal of Sex Research, 51(2), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.816261
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory
factor index: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391
Maxwell, J. A., Muise, A., MacDonald, G., Day, L. C., Rosen, N. O., & Impett, E. A. (2017).
How implicit theories of sexuality shape sexual and relationship well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 238-279.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000078
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, 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0444-6
Miller, S. A., & Byers, E. S. (2004). Actual and desired duration of foreplay and intercourse:
Discordance and misperceptions within heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research,
41, 301-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552237
30
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for
attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889-922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700
Muise, A., Schimmack, U., & Impett, E. A. (2015). Sexual frequency predicts greater well-being,
but more is not always better. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(4), 295-
302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615616462
Muise, A., Stanton, S. C. E., Kim, J. J., & Impett, E. A. (2016). Not in the mood? Men under
(not over-) perceive their partner’s sexual desire in established intimate relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 725-742.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000046
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). 1998–2017. Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
Nassar, F. & Wisenbaker, J. (2003). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of
item parceling on measures of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 63(5), 729-757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258228
Olsen, J. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads.
Psychological Methods, 11(2), 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.127
Øverup, C. S., & Smith, V. (2017). Considering attachment and partner perceptions in the
prediction of physical and emotional sexual satisfaction. The Journal of Sexual Medicine,
14, 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.11.310
Park, L. (2007). Appearance-based rejection sensitivity: Implications for mental health and
physical health, affect, and motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
33(4), 490-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206296301
31
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods,
40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Rattan, A., Savani, K., Komarraju, M., Morrison, M. M., Boggs, C., & Ambady, N. (2018).
Meta-lay theories of scientific potential drive underrepresented students’ sense of
belonging to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000130
Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2014). Social class and academic achievement in
college: The interplay of rejection sensitivity and entity beliefs. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 107(1), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036553
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002) Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications
for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1(4),
313-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106805
Sanchez, D. T., Crocker, J., & Boike, K. R. (2005). Doing gender in the bedroom: Investing in
gender norms and the sexual experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
31(10), 1445-1455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205277333
Sanchez, D. T., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Crocker, J. (2011). Relationship
contingency and sexual motivation in women: Implications for Sexual satisfaction.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 99-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9593-4
Sanchez, D. T., Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Good, J. J. (2012). The gender role
motivation model of women’s sexually submissive behavior and satisfaction in
heterosexual couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4), 528-539.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211430088
32
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Schmiedeberg, C., & Schröder, J. (2015). Does sexual satisfaction change with relationship
duration? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-
0587-0
Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent
and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic
achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29(4), 549-571.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704
Smith, T., Brumskill, R., Johnson, A., & Zimmer, T. (2018). The impact of teacher language on
students’ mindsets and statistics performance. Social Psychology of Education, 21, 775-
786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9444-z
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with
satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 190-196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552141
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied Multivariate Statistics for Social Science (4th ed). Hillsdale, New
Jersey.
Štulhofer, A., Ferreira, L. C., & Landripet, I. (2014). Emotional intimacy, sexual desire, and
sexual satisfaction among partnered heterosexual men. Sexual and Relationship Therapy,
29(2), 229-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2013.870335
Sutherland, S., & Rehman, U. S. (2018). Viewing sexual desire as stable versus fluid: The impact
of implicit beliefs on women’s coping with sexual desire problems. Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 44(4), 410-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2017.1405306
Weigel, D. J., Lalasz, C. B., & Weiser, D. A. (2016). Maintaining relationships: The role of
33
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
implicit relationship theories and partner fit. Communication Reports, 29(1), 23-34).
https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2015.1017653
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal:
Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13(4), 496-502.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480705278729
Yoo, H., Bartle-Haring, S., Day, R. D., & Gangamma, R. (2014). Couple communication,
emotional and sexual intimacy, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital
Therapy, 40(4), 275-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2012.7510
Yucel, D., & Gassanov, M. A. (2010). Exploring actor and partner correlates of sexual
satisfaction among married couples. Social Science Research, 39(5), 725-
738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.09.002
34
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Notes
1. Given the sexual nature of the survey, data collection was anonymous. Therefore, MTurk
Worker IDs were not linked to survey data, and we were unable to delete two participants with
repeat Worker IDs after data collection was complete. Because this represented less than .006%
of the data, we proceeded with analysis. To ensure a higher standard of data quality in Study 2,
we recruited participants using an online Qualtrics panel and worked closely with a specialized
Qualtrics project management team.
2. The additional measures included in both Study 1 and Study 2 surveys include sexual growth
and sexual destiny beliefs (Maxwell et al., 2017), orgasm frequency, sexual desire, and
relationship satisfaction. Alternative models including the sexual growth and destiny subscales
from Maxwell et al. (2017) were included; although these models did not reach the standards for
good fit, sexual growth was associated with lower sexual rejection sensitivity, and sexual destiny
was associated with higher sexual rejection sensitivity. Alternative models including relationship
satisfaction similarly resulted in worse fitting models. Also, perceived partner sexual growth
mindset and sexual rejection sensitivity were measured in Study 2, but were not used in analyses
given the ability to measure actual partner beliefs. A full list of measures and alternate models
for both studies can be found at https://osf.io/btcn2/.
3. As explained by Downey and Feldman (1996), the second item is reverse scored to represent
expected rejection, rather than expected acceptance, in each scenario. Then, because the rejection
sensitivity framework was conceptualized using an expectancy-value model (Bandura, 1986),
this expectancy score is multiplied by the attitude score (the first item) for each scenario, giving
more weight to scenarios that are more highly anticipated. See Feather (1988) for a review of the
significance and statistical benefit of including this product in expectancy-value models.
35
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
4. Because the sex frequencies reported by each member of the couples in our sample were
strongly correlated, r(102) = .91, p < .001, we used one sex frequency variable (men’s) as a
covariate in this model.
5. Given the large variation in relationship length, we ran a model including moderation by
relationship length on each path. Because the relationship lengths reported by each member of
the couples in our sample were almost perfectly correlated r(102) = .9997, p < .001, we
calculated the interaction terms using only one relationship length variable (women’s). The
model did not fit the data well, χ2 (60, N = 104) = 1946.47, p < .001, CFI = 0.02, RMSEA = .55,
SRMR = .31, AIC = 4114.34. Further, the relationship length interaction was not significant for
any path in the model (ps > .16).
36
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Table 1: Bivariate Correlations and Descriptive Statistics (Study 1)
M (SD)
Range
Skewness (SE)
Kurtosis (SE)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. SGM
4.56 (1.48)
1-7
-0.29 (0.13)
-0.72 (0.25)
--
2. Perceived Partner’s SGM
4.47 (1.53)
1-7
-0.24 (0.13)
-0.95 (0.25)
.77***
3. Sexual-RS
7.59 (6.14)
1-49
1.65 (0.13)
5.03 (0.25)
-.26***
-.30***
4. Perceived Partner’s Sexual-RS
3.29 (1.64)
1-7
0.26 (0.13)
-1.06 (0.25)
-.22***
-.26***
.54***
5. Sexual Satisfaction
6.12 (1.14)
1-7
-1.79 (0.13)
3.42 (0.25)
.08
.14**
-.38***
-.23***
6. Sex Frequency
4.36 (3.54)
0-20
1.68 (0.13)
3.71 (0.26)
-.11*
-.09
-.11*
.00
.17**
--
Note. N = 361-377 (due to missing data). SGM = Sexual Growth Mindset. Sexual-RS = Sexual Rejection Sensitivity.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
37
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Table 2: Paired Samples (Within-Dyad) Correlations Among Variables (Study 2)
Men’s
SGM
Men’s
Sexual-RS
Men’s Sexual
Satisfaction
Men’s
Sex Frequency
Women’s SGM
.59***
-.25**
-.05
-.19*
Women’s Sexual-RS
-.34***
.54***
-.40***
-.19
Women’s Sexual Satisfaction
-.02
-.39***
.77***
.48***
Women’s Sex Frequency
-.05
-.23*
.45***
.91***
Note. N = 104 mixed-sex couples. SGM = Sexual Growth Mindset. Sexual-RS = Sexual Rejection Sensitivity.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
38
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Table 3: Bivariate Correlations Split by Gender (Study 2)
SGM
Sexual-RS
Sexual Satisfaction
Sex Frequency
SGM
--
-.24*
.02
-.08
Sexual-RS
-.30**
--
-.42***
-.23*
Sexual Satisfaction
.01
-.40***
--
.46***
Sex Frequency
-.15
-.18
.51***
--
Note. Men (n = 104) above the diagonal; women (n = 104) below the diagonal. SGM = Sexual Growth Mindset. Sexual-
RS = Sexual Rejection Sensitivity.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
39
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics (Study 2)
Men (n = 104)
Women (n = 104)
Range
M (SD)
Skewness (SE)
Kurtosis (SE)
M (SD)
Skewness (SE)
Kurtosis (SE)
SGM
1-7
3.74 (1.56)
0.37(0.24)
-0.88(0.47)
3.98(1.51)
0.15(0.24)
-0.61(0.47)
Sexual-RS
1-49
8.29 (5.28)
0.70(0.24)
0.55(0.47)
7.45(5.12)
0.70(0.24)
-0.18(0.47)
Sexual Satisfaction
1-7
6.00 (0.91)
-1.21(0.24)
1.39(0.47)
5.80(1.06)
-0.95(0.24)
0.19(0.47)
Sex Frequency
0-20
4.02(0.92)
-0.79(0.24)
0.25(0.47)
4.06(0.93)
-0.78(0.24)
0.10(0.47)
Note. SGM = Sexual Growth Mindset. Sexual-RS = Sexual Rejection Sensitivity.
40
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Figure 1: Hypothesized Model Tested in Study 1
41
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Figure 2: Path Estimates for Hypothesized Model
Figure 2. Correlations are not shown in this figure for parsimony but were included between all exogenous variables including
between sexual growth mindset and perceived partner sexual growth mindset, r = .77, p < .001, and between sexual rejection
sensitivity and perceived partner sexual rejection sensitivity, r = .51, p < .001.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
42
SEXUAL GROWTH MINDSETS
Figure 3: Path Estimates for Hypothesized Model
Figure 3. Correlations are not shown in this figure for parsimony but were included between all exogenous variables including
between women’s sexual growth mindset and men’s growth mindset, r = .59, p < .001. In addition, the correlation between women’s
rejection sensitivity and men’s rejection sensitivity, r = .46, p < .001, and men’s and women’s satisfaction, r = .65, p < .001, were also
estimated in the model.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
