Sexuality in Close Relationships

Kathleen McKinney, Susan Sprecher

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317783497
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This is one of the first volumes to examine the interface between research undertaken in sexuality and that in close relationships from a social psychological perspective. Experts from several different disciplines offer chapters that contain theory, extant literature, and their own original research on such topics as jealousy, extradyadic sexuality, communication, love, and sexual coercion. Aimed at a fairly wide audience, this book will be of interest to students, faculty, and other professionals in social psychology, sociology, communication, and family and women's studies. It is also a valuable source of information for teachers, researchers, and clinicians working in the areas of human sexuality and/or close relationships.

1 Methodological and Conceptual Issues in the Study of Sexuality in Close Relationships

Terri L. Orbuch
University of Michigan

John H. Harvey
University of Iowa

Introduction

During the 1980s, several books, articles, and chapters evaluated methodological and conceptual issues concerned with the study of sexuality (e.g., Callero & Howard, 1989; Green & Wiener, 1980; Jayne, 1986; a special issue of the Journal of Sex Research [Vol. 22, No. 1, 1986]; Weinstein, 1984). Compared to previous discussions, however, this chapter focuses on research and methodological issues arising from the study of sexuality in close relationships. Little research and theoretical emphasis have been given to the study of sexuality within close relationships. In most studies of sexuality, the relationship is implicit in the examination of the issue, yet relevant relationship aspects are not actually documented. In addition, few studies go beyond the individual as the unit of analysis.

In a poignant essay examining the social construction of sexuality, Weeks (1986) stated that sexual relations are but a form of social relations; sexuality is a product of the social environment around us. An implicit assumption in Weeks' essay, and a major theme of this chapter, is that in its most meaningful form sexuality is but another social process, much like other social and relational processes. Allport (1968) defined the study of social-psychological processes as "the attempt to understand and explain how the thought, feeling, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the real, imagined, or implied presence of others" (p. 3). Given the breadth of this definition, one may be hard pressed to imagine many instances of human behavior that do not have these features or implications (Harvey, Burgess, & Orbuch, in press). Nevertheless, one notes that the majority of sexual behavior also conforms to this definition of social processes. Most sexual activity occurs in interaction with others, whether that be real, imagined, or implied. Even those sexual activities that are conducted without the presence of others (e.g., masturbation) are usually influenced by the implied or imagined presence of others (e.g., through fantasy, erotica, or pornography). Thus, in this chapter the general emphasis in analyzing methodological and conceptual issues in the study of sexuality within close relationships is on the full social-psychological dynamics of this process.

If we define sexuality as but another social process, then the question becomes: If the key component of sexuality is that of relating closely to another human, how is the scientific study of sexuality any different from the study of other social or relational processes in general? Are there issues unique to the study of sexuality that do not arise in the study of other social phenomena? In examining these questions, the goals of this chapter are threefold. First, previous research and methods in the study of sexuality in general are examined. The first section addresses the interdisciplinary nature of the study of sexuality, an organization of the methods used to study sexuality, and the implications sexuality research and its inherent methodological issues have for research on sexuality in close relationships. Second, the chapter focuses on relevant research in the area. Lastly, after reviewing the relevant literature, we offer new directions of research in the study of sexuality and address specific issues that need to be delineated. In addition, we suggest that, where relevant, the concept of close relationships be given greater attention in research on sexuality.

Research on Sexuality in General

Interdisciplinary Topic of Study

By briefly discussing the backgrounds of scholars who have chosen to study the topic of sexuality, we can develop a broader picture of the interdi sciplinary nature of work on human sexuality. Further, the disciplinary and theoretical approach a researcher chooses in studying a phenomenon will greatly influence the type of methodology chosen in the relevant empirical work.

It is not surprising to find that scholars from a wide array of disciplines in the behavioral sciences (e.g., sociology, psychology, communication, anthropology, family studies) have studied the topic of sexuality. Reiss (1982, 1983), Moser (1983), and others have debated the issue of whether established disciplines are better able to investigate sexuality than any new discipline (sexology). Although it is not the aim of this chapter to speak to that debate, the overarching discipline of sexology should be quite helpful and fertile to the extent that it can provide integrative analysis across these disciplines.

Anytime a phenomenon is studied by scholars trained in diverse disciplines, the knowledge gained by this approach has both advantages and disadvantages to the topic as a whole. A major benefit of an inter disciplinary approach to human sexuality is that different angles of the same phenomenon (sexuality) are being examined by experts who are adept and trained at studying their own piece of the pie. Scholars in different fields also can bring to the inter disciplinary dialogue an array of theoretical and methodological approaches. Further, they may be able to provide more constructive feedback to their colleagues in other disciplines be cause: (a) they can view the others' work without the fundamental biases and assumptive systems of logic inherent in the field in question, and (b) they may be less threatened by the potential success of endeavors by scholars in other fields. Finally, such inter disciplinary foci may be truer to the nature and breadth of most complex human phenomena such as sexuality.

This hybrid approach, however, has disadvantages for the area of sexuality research as well. As Jayne (1986) suggests, "communication difficulties are generated by this diversity, constituting a further challenge to researchers who seek to transcend what has gone before" (p. 4). In other words, along with a specific language of talking about sexuality, researchers from different disciplines also bring to the study of sexuality different methods, statistical analyses, and interpretations of the phenomenon. These differences can create obstacles when researchers try to talk to or learn from one another. In addition, keeping track of developments in any one discipline can be imposing, and that fact may be enhanced exponentially for interdisciplinary work. In sum, human sexuality is being studied by scholars who are trained in various disciplines and who conduct research that often employs different methodological designs. As will be seen, this fact becomes one methodological issue in the study of human sexuality in general and sexuality within close relationships.

Organization of the Methods in Sexuality Research

Table 1.1 presents an organization of the types of research methods for use in studying sexuality. This matrix (adopted from Olson's, 1977, analysis for close relationships) is a 2 x 2 matrix, organized according to the variables of type of data (subjective data are reports of inner feelings and attitudes, whereas objective data are reports of observed events or behaviors) and the reporter's frame of reference (the insider reference is from the participant, and the outsider reference is from someone observing the participant). The matrix suggests three types of report data: subjective data collected from the respondent about thoughts and feelings (insider-subjective); data collected from the respondent about personal behavior (insider-objective); and data collected from an outsider such as a friend about the target person's feelings, attitudes, thoughts, and subjective experience in general (outsider-subjective). The matrix shows only one type of objective, nonreport data: physiological and/or behavioral observation (outsider-objective).

TABLE 1.1
Four Types of Research Methods for Studying Sexuality Within Close Relationships

	Type of Data
	Subjective	Objective
Reporter's Frame of Reference
Insider	Self-report methods (e.g., attitudes toward oral sex, masturbation)	Behavioral self-report methods (e.g., frequency of intercourse)
Outsider	Observer subjective reports (e.g., report of how meaningful sexual experience is to one member of dyad)	(Physiological and/or liehavioral methods (e.g., physiological measure of arousal, observation of kissing and foreplay)

Note. Adapted from "Insiders' and Outsiders' Views of Relationships" by D. H. Olson, 1977. In G. Levinger and H. L. Raush (Eds.), Close Relationships, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

The types of approaches used to study sexuality and close relationships have almost exclusively been those of self-report of subjective experience (insider-subjective data) and self-report of behavior (insider-objective data). These approaches parallel the First and second quadrants of Table 1.1. Unfortunately, the third quadrant (outsider-subjective data), concerning reports by outsiders, has few entries at this juncture for sexuality within close relationships. In addition, because of ethical issues, few if any behavioral/physiological studies that examine sexuality within close relationships have been carried out to date (quadrant 4, objective-outsider data). Below we review relevant literature for each of the four quadrants pertaining to Table 1.1. We wish to point out, however, that future research in the area of sexuality within close relationships might give more attention both to behavioral self-reports (which conceivably could be verified by outside observers) and to observer-subjective reports from a variety of close others.

As noted, research in the area of sexuality has been quite heavily influenced by the report methodology, generally involving self-report only (both self-report subjective experiences typified in quadrant 1 and self-report of behavior exemplified in quadrant 2). Self-administered questionnaires, interviews, and behavioral records or diaries are typical modes of administrations in these self-report approaches. Using these first two types of approaches, researchers have accumulated a comprehensive body of data that has explored and examined sexual scales. These scales have measured sexual attitudes (e.g., Athanasiou & Sarkin, 1988; Eysenck, 1988; Fisher & Hall, 1988; Hendrick, Hendrick, Slapion-Foote, & Foote, 1985; McCabe & Collins, 1983; Mahoney, 1988; Valois & Ory, 1988), emotions (Smeaton & Byrne, 1988), and sexual behaviors and experience (Bentler, 1988; Brady &...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1. Methodological and Conceptual Issues in the Study of Sexuality in Close Relationships
• 2. Love and Sexuality
• 3. Emotions and Sexuality
• 4. Personality and Sexuality: Empirical Relations and an Integrative Theoretical Model
• 5. Sexuality and Communication in Close Relationships
• 6. Factors Affecting Sexual Decisions in the Premarital Relationships of Adolescents and Young Adults
• 7. Extradyadic Relationships and Sexual Jealousy
• 8. Sexual Violence and Coercion in Close Relationships
• 9. Sexuality in Homosexual and Heterosexual Couples
• Afterword: Couples and Coupling
• Author Index
• Subject Index