Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:17:33.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing a Transactional Model of Romantic Sensory Interactions in Male and Female Romantic Intimates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2018

Anca M. Miron ,
Lixin Jiang ,
Kenneth Weisensel ,
Megan S. Patterson  and
Fabiola Rizo
Anca M. Miron*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA
Lixin Jiang
Affiliation:
University of Auckland, New Zealand
Kenneth Weisensel
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA
Megan S. Patterson
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA
Fabiola Rizo
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Anca Miron, 800 Algoma Blvd., University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, WI 54901, USA. Email: mirona@uwosh.edu
Get access

Abstract

We propose a transactional model of romantic sensory interactions, according to which male and female intimates adapt to the specific context of their romantic relationships by adopting different sensory domains of interactions with their partners. To test this model, we measured romantic couples’ orientations toward using sensory modalities of romantic relating, and the importance of these modalities (N = 137 couples). Although not all hypotheses were supported, the findings suggest that men's relationship satisfaction, passionate love, and liking were driven by a stronger orientation toward touch, whereas women's relationship satisfaction, passionate love, liking, and commitment were predicted by a stronger preference for hearing. Higher differential valuing of touch and bodily sensations predicted higher passionate love for both men and women, suggesting that these sensory modalities have similar functions for both genders — to maintain sexual desire and passionate love for the partner. These findings underscore the importance of romantic couples’ differential sensory orientations in maintaining satisfying relationships.

Keywords

romantic couplessensory modalitiestransactional processesloverelationship satisfactiongender differences
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Relationships Research , Volume 9 , 2018 , e2
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acitelli, L.K. (1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness and marital satisfaction among young married couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acitelli, L.K., Rogers, S., & Knee, C.R. (1999). The role of identity in the link between relationship thinking and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 591–618.Google Scholar
Adams, J.M. & Jones, W.H. (1999). Interpersonal commitment in historical perspective. In Adams, J.M. and Jones, W.H. (Eds). Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 3–33). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systematic-transactional conceptualization of stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 34–49.Google Scholar
Buss, D.M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616–628.Google Scholar
Buss, D.M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, 15, 239–260.Google Scholar
Canary, D.J., & Wahba, J. (2006). Do women work harder than men at maintaining relationships? In Canary, D.J. & Dindia, K. (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 359–377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Collins, N.L., Kane, H.S., Metz, M.A., Cleveland, C., Khan, C., Winczewski, L., . . . Prok, T. (2014). Psychological, physiological, and behavioral responses to a partner in need: The role of compassionate love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 1–29.Google Scholar
Crane, D.R., Middleton, K.C., & Bean, R.A. (2000). Establishing criterion scores for the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 53–60. doi:10.1080/019261800261815 Google Scholar
Cross, S.E., Bacon, P.L., & Morris, M.L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808.Google Scholar
Cupach, W.R., & Metts, S. (1995). The role of sexual attitude similarity in romantic heterosexual relationships. Personal Relationships, 2, 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.Google Scholar
Debrot, A., Schoebi, D., Perrez, M., & Horn, A.B. (2013). Touch as an interpersonal emotion regulation process in couples’ daily lives: The mediating role of psychological intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1373–1385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dion, K., & Dion, K. (1973). Correlates of romantic love. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 51–56.Google Scholar
Ditzen, B., Neumann, I.D., Bodenmann, G., von Dawans, B., Turner, R.A., Ehlert, U., & Heinrichs, M. (2007). Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and heart rate responses to stress in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 565–574. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.03.011 Google Scholar
Dworkin, S.L., & O'Sullivan, L. (2005). Actual versus desired initiation patterns among a sample of college men: Tapping disjunctures within traditional male sexual scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 150–158.Google Scholar
Emmers, T.M., & Dindia, K. (1995). The effect of relational stage and intimacy on touch: An extension of Guerrero and Andersen. Personal Relationships, 2, 225–236. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00088.x Google Scholar
Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 246–259. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.10.004 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guerrero, L., & Andersen, P. (1991). The waxing and waning of relational intimacy: Touch as a function of relational stage, gender, and touch avoidance. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 147–165.Google Scholar
Guerrero, L., & Andersen, P. (1994). Patterns of matching and initiation: Touch behavior and touch avoidance across romantic relationship stages. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 137–153.Google Scholar
Guerrero, L.K., Jones, S.M., & Burgoon, J.K. (2000). Responses to nonverbal intimacy change in romantic dyads: Effects of behavioral valence and degree of behavioral change on nonverbal and verbal reactions. Communication Monographs, 67, 325–346.Google Scholar
Gulledge, A., Gulledge, M., & Stahmannn, R. (2003). Romantic physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J., & Veccia, E. (1990). More ‘touching’ observations: New insights on men, women, and interpersonal touch. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1155–1162.Google Scholar
Harrison, M.A., & Shortall, J.C. (2011). Women and men in love: Who really feels it and says it first? The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 727–736.Google Scholar
Hendrick, S.S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N.L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love, satisfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 980–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, D., & Blair, K.L. (2009). Sexual desire, communication, satisfaction, and preferences of men and women in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 57–66.Google Scholar
Jurkane-Hobein, I. (2015). When less is more: On time work in long-distance relationships. Qualitative Sociology, 38, 185–203.Google Scholar
Karandashev, V., Zarubko, E., Artemeva, V, Neto, F., Surmanidze, L., & Feybesse, C. (2016). Sensory values in romantic attraction in four Europeans countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 50, 478–504.Google Scholar
L'Abate, L. (2001). Hugging, holding, huddling and cuddling (3HC): A task prescription in couple and family therapy. Journal of Clinical Activities, Assignments & Handouts in Psychotherapy Practice, 1, 5–18.Google Scholar
Laurenceau, J.P., & Bolger, N. (2005). Using diary methods to study marital and family processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 86–97. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.86 Google Scholar
Leaper, C., & Ayres, M.M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 328–363.Google Scholar
Light, K.C., Grewen, K.M., & Amico, J.A. (2005). More frequent partner hugs and higher oxytocin levels are linked to lower blood pressure and heart rate in premenopausal women. Biological Psychology, 69, 5–21.Google Scholar
Markey, P.M., & Markey, C.N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and relationship experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 517–533.Google Scholar
McBurney, D.H., Shoup, M.L., & Streeter, S.A., (2006). Olfactory comfort: Smelling a partner's clothing during periods of separation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2325–2335.Google Scholar
Miron, A.M., Rauscher, F.H., Reyes, A., Gavel, D., & Lechner, K.K. (2012). Full-dimensionality of relating in romantic relationships. Journal of Relationships Research, 3, 67–80. doi:10.1017/jrr.2012.8.Google Scholar
Miron, A.M., & Wicklund, R.A., Diestelmann, M., Moore, T., & Schroeder, H. (2015). Perspective taking and specificity of sensory contact, Journal of Relationships Research, 6, 1–13. doi:http://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2015.10.Google Scholar
Mongeau, P.A., Carey, C.M., & Williams, M.L. (1998). First date initiation and enactment: An expectancy violation approach. In Canary, D., & Dindia, K. (Eds.), Sex differences and dissimilarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 413–426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rupp, H.A., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex differences in responses to visual sexual stimuli: A review, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 206–218.Google Scholar
Shoup, M.L., Streeter, S.A., & McBurbey, D.H. (2008). Olfactory comfort and attachment within relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2954–2963.Google Scholar
Smith, E.R., Becker, M.A., Byrne, D., & Przybyla, D.P. J. (1993). Sexual attitudes of males and females as predictors of interpersonal attraction and marriage compatibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1011–1034.Google Scholar
Sullivan, L.J., & Baucom, D.H. (2005). Observational coding of relationship-schematic processing. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 31–43.Google Scholar
Taylor Enochson, J.A., & Wiseman, R.L. (1999). Married couples’ perceptions of touch behavior and marital satisfaction. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Meeting, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Vedes, A., Hilpert, P., Nussbeck, F.W., Randall, A.K., Bodenmann, G, & Lind, W.R. (2016). Love styles, coping, and relationship satisfaction: A dyadic approach. Personal Relationships, 23, 84–97. doi:10.1111/pere.12112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, F.N. Jr., & Briggs, L.F. (1992). Relationship and touch in public settings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 55–63.Google Scholar
Willis, F., & Dodds, R. (1998). Age, relationship, and touch initiation. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 115–123.Google Scholar