 

 

 

 

lllllllllllllll

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Impact of Satisfaction with Conflict

Management Behavior and Expressions of

Affect on Sexual and Relational Satisfaction
presented by

Monique Marie Mitchell

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for ‘

Masters degree in Communication

 

 

Wm

M or professor

Date 8/13/96

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN 30X to remove this Checkout from your record.
TO AVOID F INES rotum on or Moro dot. duo. a

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Afﬂrmotlvo MONEquol Opportunity Institution
Wan-9.1

 

 

 

THE IMPACT OF SATISFACTION WTH CONFLICT MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR
AND EXPRESSIONS OF AFFECT ON SEXUAL AND RELATIONAL
SATISFACTION
By

Monique Marie Mitchell

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF COMMUNICATION

Department of communication

1 996

ABSTRACT
THE IMPACT OF SATISFACTION WITH CONFLICT MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR
AND EXPRESSIONS OF AFFECT ON SEXUAL AND RELATIONAL
SATISFACTION
By
Monique Marie Mitchell
Research has indicated that a clear relationship exists between conﬂict management

style, affect, relational satisfaction and sexual satisfaction (Constantine, 1986; Denney &
Quadagno, 1992). This study examines these variables and predicts a causal model.
Speciﬁcally, it is hypothesized that discrepancies between real and ideal affect and conﬂict
management of Sexual Activity Preferences (SAP) are antecedents to relational satisfaction,
which is a direct antecedent to sexual satisfaction. It is suggested that with both aﬂ'ect and
conﬂict management, satisfaction with one’s expressions in these contexts is a signiﬁcant
predictor of relational satisfaction. Surveys including measures for conﬂict management
style, affect, relational satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction were administered to 391
participants. Discrepancies in conﬂict management was found to be a direct antecedent to

relational satisfaction, as predicted, although affect did not ﬁt the hypothesized model.

Relational satisfaction, as predicted, was a direct antecedent to sexual satisfaction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the help of many people. I would like
to explicitly send thanks to the following people.
To my family: I thank you for your support and love through the beginning of my graduate
career. The things you do never go unnoticed.
To Molly, Faith, and Tina: Thank you for all the wonderful memories. I will always
cherish our fn’endship.
To all the wonderful friends I’ve made at Michigan State, including Maria, Shelly, Janet,
Marge, Stef, and many others: thank you for helping me make it through those ﬁrst few
courses, I could’nt have made it without you!
To the professors I’ve had at MSU, especially Ron, Sandi, and Chuck. You are like family
to me, my thanks is not enough.
To my committee members, David Irnig and Bill Donohue, and my research assistants,
David and Joanne: This thesis would not have been possible without you. THANK YOU!
To Frank, you are the best advisor I could ever wish for. Thank you for not teaching me
what to think, but m.
Finally, to the best friend I’ve ever had, Kimo. Thank you for being you and for making

my masters program phenomenal. I love you.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... v
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
METHODS .............................................................................................................................. l3
Participants ......................................................................................................................... 13
Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 13
Procedures .......................................................................................................................... 15
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 15
DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 19
Limitations ......................................................................................................................... l9
Implications of the Study ................................................................................................... 21
Directions for Future Research. ......................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX A: Items of the Conﬂict Management Scale .................................................... 24
APPENDD( B: Items of the Affect Scale .............................................................................. 27
APPENDIX C: Items of the Relational Satisfaction Scale ................................................... 28
APPENDIX D: Items of the Sexual Satisfaction Scale ......................................................... 30
LIST OF REFERENCES ................... 31

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1
Correlations between the
variables in the path model ..................................................................................................... l7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1
The Hypothesized Path Model ................................................................................................ 12
Figure 2
The path model before correcting for attenuation due to error of measurement ................... 17
Figure 3
The path model with corrected path coefﬁcients .................................................................... 18
Figure 4
Reduced path model with uncorrected path coefﬁcients ........................................................ 18
Figure 5
Reduced path model with corrected path coefﬁcients ............................................................ 18

vi

Introduction

More than one halfof all marriages end with divorce. Approximately 75 percent of
those divorced remarry, and at least 50 percent of those remarried divorced again. Only 54
percent of those who many each year are doing so for the ﬁrst time, in another 23 percent of
marriages both the bride and groom have been married previously, and in the remaining 23
percent it is the ﬁrst marriage for one partner and a remaniage for the other (Olson &
Defrain, 1994).

Scholars have been exploring predictors of divorce for decades. A plethora of
variables ranging from sexual compatibility to religiosity have been studied in order to
understand the dynamics of marriage. In recent years research has more frequently focused
on understanding the dynamics of conﬂict management and sexual satisfaction as predictors
of relational longevity. According to F owers and Olson (1989) among the top 10 reasons
why people divorce in America, communication, conﬂict management, and sexual
satisfaction were all listed. When asked, even the distressed couple could see the
breakdown of communication and conﬂict resolution in their marriage (F owers & Olson,
1989)

The relationship between a satisfying marriage and communication is
straightforward. Communication is vital at every level of a committed romantic

relationship. A committed romantic relationship refers to one in which the partners are

romantically involved to the exclusion of other partners, and in which the couple has been
dating for longer than three months. When close relationships succeed couples are likely to
cite effective, positive communication as an important element leading to this success
(Olson & DeF rain, 1994). One study assessing the importance couples place on
communication revealed that couples scoring low on communication were more likely to be
dissatisﬁed in their marriage or divorced three years later (Larsen & Olson, 1989).

Research has also indicated that communication is a vital part of a satisfying sex
life (Denney & Quadagno, 1992; Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 1986). Nevertheless, due
to cultural or personal orientation many people ﬁnd it difﬁcult to discuss their sexual
preferences. Even people who feel free to discuss certain aspects of their sexual behavior
feel intimidated by discussing their likes and dislikes about sex (Denney & Quadagno,
1992). Failing to discuss these important issues, however, can have detrimental effects on a
relationship. For example, one college student writes,

My girlﬁiend used to not talk to me when we were messing around. When I was

going down on her, if she liked the way I was doing it she'd breathe heavily and

move her pelvis around with what I was doing. But when she squirmed a certain
way, I thought it was because she felt good, when in fact she did that when I was

hurting her (Denney & Quadango, 1992).

Another study tested the relationship between relational satisfaction (the extent to

which each individual perceives overall satisfaction with the relationship) and

communication of sexual activity preferences (SAP). Again, discussion of SAP was found
to be correlated signiﬁcantly with relational satisfaction. SAP refers to the kinds and details
of sexual activity from which an individual receives the most satisfaction, and therefore
prefers. These activities can refer to sexual positions, times of day, places to engage in
sexual activity, foreplay, and intercourse, as well as other sexual activities. The results of
this research show clearly that relationships exist among the variables conﬂict management,
sexual satisfaction and relational satisfaction.

Although many studies have examined the relationships among relational
satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and conﬂict management none has attempted to articulate
the relationships among these constructs. Furthermore, no study has assessed the impact of
affect on these constructs. In subsequent paragraphs the causal relationships among these
variables will be speciﬁed.

One form of communication crucial to an intimate relationship is conﬂict
management. Conﬂict is a situation is which interdependent people express (latent or
manifest) differences in satisfying their individual needs and interests, and they experience
interference from each other in accomplishing these goals (Donahue & Kolt, 1992). People
tend to believe that conﬂict is detrimental to a relationship, but careful examination
challenges this common belief. Many times the absence of relational conﬂict results from
one or both partners being afraid to do so. Therefore they either avoid the conﬂict or

dismiss it. According to Millar, Rogers, and Bavelas (1984) the lack of conﬂict, oﬁen

interpreted as relational harmony, is actually detrimental to the relationship. In fact,
research has revealed that with greater than 90% accuracy the success of a relationship can
be predicted based on analysis of ho_w the couple ﬁghts (Schmitz, 1995).

Traditionally, the research on conﬂict management has not been applied to the ways
in which couples discuss SAP. According to Metz and Dwyer (1993) couples who have
experienced sexual dysfunction in their relationship, such as inhibitions of sexual desire or
physiological changes in the sexual response cycle, are less relationally satisﬁed and
experience more conﬂict than couples who are non troubled. Exploring the ways in which
couples discuss this area of their relationship could be informative.

Research has indicated that individuals have a personal style of managing conﬂict
(Lewicki & Litterer, 1985). According to Lewicki and Litterer (1985) there are ﬁve
fundamentally different perspectives, or orientations, that people can employ when in a
conﬂict: (a) contending, (b) accommodating, (c) compromising, (d) collaborating and, (e)
avoiding.

Contending occurs when the negotiators are competing with each other, or when
one negotiator is competing against the other. Successful contenders apply persuasion,
manipulation, concealment of true position, and the use of threats and pressure tactics

(Lewicki & Litterer, 1985).

Accommodation is employed when the negotiator is focused on meeting the
partner’s objectives. Negotiators make the other the top priority and do nothing for
themselves until the other’s needs are met (Lewicki & Litterer, 1985).

Compromising is employed when the parties focus on splitting the difference rather
than winning or losing (Lewicki & Litterer, 1985). Parties typically agree to compromise
when they see the issue as a ﬁxed sum or “mythical ﬁxed pie” (Fisher & Ury, 1981).
Persons who think there is only one perfect answer to a situation may not want to generate
additional solutions to resolve conﬂict because they believe that those options only prevent
them from reaching their desired solution.

Avoiding is applied when the content of the conﬂict is not addressed. Avoiding is
used when individuals fear conﬂict, or when the issues are seen as insigniﬁcant (Lewicki &
Litterer, 1985).

Collaboration occurs when both parties work together to maximize the joint
outcome (Lewicki & Litterer, 1985). During collaboration the parties understand that they
share a problem, and deﬁne their problem in terms of goals and interests. The parties state
their needs, and they work together to invent options that will optimally fulﬁll those needs.

Although it is important to understand individual conﬂict management styles, it
would be erroneous to propose that using one style over another leads to greater relational
satisfaction. For example, it would be untrue to claim that only those who collaborate on a

conﬂict laden topic are satisﬁed. Rather, examining the extent to which the couple are

satisﬁed with their conﬂict management style would prove more enlightening. In this case
it is the amount of discrepancy in conﬂict management that affect relational satisfaction
individuals experience. That is, to tap into what conﬂict management style individuals are
currently using and compare that score with the conﬂict management style they would
ideally use. For example, currently I may avoid conﬂict about my sexual activities, in fear
that discussing it with my mate may upset him. Ideally, I would collaborate on the issue.
This discrepancy indicates that the current style of managing conﬂict is unsatisfactory, or is
not working.

Studying discrepancies in this manner is not a novel idea. Thibaut and Kelly (1959)
discussed the issue in terms of rewards and costs in dyadic relationships. The terms Thibaut
and Kelley employ are current outcome, one’s comparison level (CL), and one’s
comparison level for an alternate relationship (CLALT). Here, outcome is deﬁned as the
consequences for an individual participant of any interaction (Thibaut & Kelley, p. 13). CL
is deﬁned as the standard against which the member evaluates the “attractiveness” of the
relationship or how satisfactory it is (Thibaut & Kelley, p. 21). CLALT is the standard the
member uses in deciding whether to remain in or to leave that relationship (Thibaut &
Kelley, p. 21). These scholars proposed that the satisfaction a person receives for a
relationship is a function of the difference between their current outcomes and their

comparison level. Speciﬁcally, to the extent outcomes exceed one’s CL, one is satisﬁed in

the relationship. Conversely, to the extent CL exceeds outcomes one is dissatisﬁed in the
relationship.

Thibaut and Kelley’s logic can be extrapolated to the context of conﬂict
management. That is, in order for relational satisfaction to occur, the current conﬂict
management style needs to be more satisfactory than the alternative conﬂict management
styles. In this context current conﬂict management style and Thibaut and Kelley’s outcome
are similar terms, just as ideal conﬂict management and CL are. The amount of discrepancy
found between current and ideal conﬂict management styles will lead to the magnitude of
relational satisfaction one experiences. Therefore, by calculating the actual difference
between the current and ideal conﬂict management styles one could predict the individual’s
level of relational satisfaction.

By examining this discrepancy a new construct is developed. This construct can be
labeled conﬂict management satisfaction. Indeed, it is logical to conclude that if one is
satisﬁed with her/his style of handling conﬂict, it is indicative that the style is effective. If
the couple’s conﬂict managing is successful, it is likely that the relationship will not be
stressful, or dissatisfying. Hence, the evidence suggests a ﬁrst hypothesis.

H1: As the discrepancy between real and ideal conﬂict management style increases,
relational satisfaction will decrease.
Relational origin inﬂuences what people communicate about and how they

communicate within a speciﬁc relationship. For example, a family’s desires, expectations,

and goals aﬂ'ect an individual’s actions and choices (Constantine, 1986). Constantine
(1986) developed a paradigmatic approach to understanding these family dynamics. It is
based on four paradigms which can be distinguished on the basis of their goal directed
behavior over time. Families differ in how they are oriented to the fundamental duality of
continuity and change over time (Constantine, 1986). Kantor and Lehr (1975) distinguished
the ﬁrst three paradigms; open, closed, and random, and Constantine (1986) distinguished
the fourth, synchronous. These paradigms have guiding images which aid tmderstanding
the paradigm. The guiding image of the closed system is stability, security, and belonging.
The random system is guided by novelty, creativity, and individuality. The open paradigm
is an image of adaptability, efficacy, and participation. Finally, the synchronous family is
guided by images of harmony, tranquillity, and mutual identiﬁcation (Constantine, 1986).
The family paradigm may be conceived as a system comprised of four levels: (a)
three interrelated levels of analysis (image, structure, behavior), (b) a co-textual family ﬁeld
consisting of eight elements (time, energy, space, material, control aﬂ’ect, meaning,
content), (c) four behavioral categories called player parts (mover, opposer, follower,
bystander), and ((1) three types of subsystems (family-unit, interpersonal, personal) (Imig,
1994). Human beings can experience different paradigm types for each of the eight
elements. For example, people can be extremely closed within the element of time having a
structured work schedule. At the same time they may have an open affectual paradigm,

being very willing to discuss matters of affection and willing to negotiate behaviors within

this realm. This study will examine the relationship between the affect component and
relational satisfaction.

Kantor and Lehr (1975) deﬁned affect as the patterns family members engage in to
acquire an affirmative sense of intimacy and nm'turance. Constantine (1986) conceptualized
intimacy as an attribute of warmth, closeness, or engagedness. Affect also includes how
feelings are expressed and how they are received (Constantine,l986). Individuals have
specialized ways to express affect depending on the paradigm with which they are
associated with. For example, those who are open will express affect candidly. They will
share feelings, and not feel constrained by rules or tradition. Those who are closed express
affect based on tradition. Their expressions are limited, reserved, and regulated. Random
persons express aﬁ‘ect in a spontaneous, enthusiastic, and public fashion. Finally, those
who express affect in a synchronous manner do so in a limited, and reserved fashion
(Constantine, 1986). his proposed that expression of affect is a precursor to relational
satisfaction. One reason why. this is hypothesized is the effect affect has on people.
Behavioral therapists have been utilizing this knowledge for decades (e.g. Bartz, 1970).
Research has indicated that attributes such as positive reinforcement and love has resulted
in successful behavior (Bartz, 1970). Bernstein (1992) found that psychiatric patients are
more willing to express themselves openly when given positive reinforcement, empathy,
and unconditional acceptance. It is important in any intimate relationship to express

concern and support for one another. For the satisfaction experienced in the relationship to

10

be signiﬁcant the parties involved need to believe they are cared for, given affection, and
nurtured.

Understanding the relational paradigm system provides a window into the
intricacies of relationships. For one to say, however, that one speciﬁc paradigm will lead to
greater relational satisfaction than another would be erroneous. In order for one to assess
the effect of affect paradigm system on relational satisfaction it is necessary to examine
discrepancies. Discrepancy in this context is deﬁned as the extent to which individuals
expresses affect in ways that they desire to express affect, or current affect style minus the
ideal affect style. A large discrepancy between the way one expresses affect and the way
one desires to express affect is indicative of low relational satisfaction. Thibaut and
Kelley’s (1959) argument applies here as well. If the ways in which one expresses aﬂ‘ect
(outcome) is more satisfactory than the alternative (CLALT), the standards (CL) or both
that the individual has developed, then the relationship will be satisfactory. If a person’s
standards for expressing affect or the alternative (a different relationship, for example) is
more favorable than the affect received, then it is more likely that satisfaction will be low.
In fact, research has revealed that the larger this discrepancy, the more stress relational
partners will experience (Constantine, 1986). For a relationship to continue satisfactorily
under a great deal of stress, increased amounts of effort become necessary (Constantine,
1986; Imig, 1993). One study (Imig, 1993) examining the discrepancies couples experience

in their relationship revealed that as discrepancies increased, so did stress. Families

11

indicating that they had low stress in the relationship also had very little discrepancy in
their real and ideal images of the relationship (Imig, 1993). By calculating the amount of
discrepancy between real and ideal conﬂict management styles a second new construct is
developed, aﬂ’ect satisfaction. The amount that people are satisﬁed with their expressions
of affect will determine the amount they are satisﬁed relationally. Hence, the evidence
suggests a second hypothesis.

H2: As the individual’s discrepancy between real and ideal expressions of affect
increases, relational satisfaction will decrease.

As proposed previously, this thesis is aimed at understanding the relationships
among conﬂict management, affect, relational satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction.
Therefore, it is important to explicate the relationship between relational satisfaction and
sexual satisfaction. Relational satisfaction is deﬁned as the extent to which couples
experience or perceive their relationship as rewarding. Sexual satisfaction is deﬁned as the
extent to which couples experience or perceive their sexual relations as rewarding.
Relational satisfaction and sexual satisfaction are positively and highly correlated
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Denney & Quadagno, 1992). It is proposed here that
relational satisfaction is an antecedent of sexual satisfaction. Research has indicated that,
especially for females, in order for sexual intercourse to be satisfying there need to be
emotional bonds between members of the dyad (Hurlbert, Apt, & Rabehl, 1993). Other

research has revealed that people equate good sexual relations with feelings of love and

12

bondedness (Hurlbert, Apt, & Rabehl, 1993). It is not surprising that for individuals to
report very high sexual satisfaction they need to feel a certain amount of love and
bondedness. Thus, relational satisfaction is likely a precursor to sexual satisfaction.
Similarly, when couples experience stress or dissatisfaction in their relationship (as
indicated by high amounts of discrepancies) sexual satisfaction decreases. Invariably, when
stress is overwhelming, and the relationship suffers, so does sexual relations (Denney &
Quadagno, 1992). Hence, the evidence suggests a third hypothesis.

H3: As relational satisfaction increases, so will sexual satisfaction.

Given this knowledge about the proposed relationships among affect
discrepancies, conﬂict management discrepancies, relational satisfaction and sexual
satisfaction, the following model is proposed (see ﬁgure 1). Subsequent paragraphs will

describe the experiment designed to test the model.

Affect Satisfaction\
Relational Satisfaction '———’ Sexual Satisfaction

Conﬂict Manage. Satisfaction

Figure 1. The hypothesized path model.

13

Methods
Participants

Students (n=3 1 9) in communication courses at Michigan State University were
recruited to participate in this study. Of the subjects recruited, 135 (41.9% of the sample)
were male and 185 (57.1% of the sample) were female. The vast majority of this sample
was unmarried (98%). The mean age was 20 years. Students in the communication
undergraduate courses were offered extra course credit for participating in the study.
mm.

Respondents were given a hypothetical conﬂict about a sexual issue, and asked to
answer questions about how they would deal with it. The questions were those items
forming the Rahim Organizational Conﬂict Inventory II (ROCI II) (see Appendix A)
(Rahim, 1983); a 35-item measure of ﬁve styles of handling interpersonal conﬂict. The
' styles are the ﬁve outlined by Lewicki and Litterer (1985) previously discussed:
collaboration, accommodation, competing, avoiding, and compromising (Rahim refers to
these as integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising respectively).
Internal consistency reliabilities were satisfactory, and are as follows: collaboration (alpha
= .77), accommodation (alpha = .72), competing (alpha = .72), avoiding (alpha = .75), and
compromising (alpha = .72). Participants were asked to indicate both their ideal and current
styles of managing conﬂict. The absolute value of the difference between the real and ideal

scores was calculated and used as an indicator of conﬂict management satisfaction.

l4

Affect was measured using the Family Regime Assessment Scale (F RAS). The
F RAS is a 40-item questionnaire (see Appendix B) that quantiﬁes a person’s perception of
attributes describing family regime (closed, random, open, and synchronous), and family
target dimensions (control, affect, meaning, and content). The four regime types are
crossed with all eight dimensions to create a total of 32 diﬂ’erent regime-dimension
combinations. Individuals are asked to provide real and ideal responses regarding their
perceptions about the importance of the regime-dimension combinations. Only the aﬁ‘ect
component was assessed in this experiment. The absolute value of the difference between
the real and ideal scores was calculated and used as an indicator of aifect satisfaction.

To measure relational satisfaction the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Locke & Wallace,
1959), a 15-item scale (alpha = .90) which asked participants to indicate their agreement on
a seven point scale ranging from always agree to always disagree, was used (see Appendix
C). Items on this scale reﬂected degrees of relational harmony such as demonstrating
affection, discussing divorce, and philosophy of life. Locke and Wallace claim that by
using the known groups technique they found that the well-adjusted groups scored
signiﬁcantly higher than the poorly adjusted groups. Only 17 percent of the poorly adjusted
group had scores over 100, whereas the well-adjusted group had 96 percent scoring over

100. Hence, this scale is argued to be highly valid (Locke & Wallace, 1959).

15

To measure sexual satisfaction Hudson’s (1981) sexual satisfaction inventory was
employed. The reliability of this scale was tested in three different environments and the
alphas ranged from .90 to .92. The test-retest reliability was found to be .93.

Procedures

The participants were asked to read and sign a consent form prior to taking part in
the study. The consent form detailed the participant’s complete conﬁdentiality and
anonymity in the study. They were given the last 15 minutes of a class period to complete
the questionnaire; all participants found this amount of time ample.

Any participant who answered 39 to being in a sexual relationship was not used in
this study. This number was not substantial. Further, any participant whose relationship
was less than three months or who did not ﬁll out a signiﬁcant portion of the survey was not
included in the data analysis. Again, this number was not substantial.

Results

A conﬁrmatory factor analysis was performed on the conﬂict management scale.
An eight item unidimensional solution was found in which both checks internal consistency
and parallelism yielded small errors (see Appendix A). Paring down of the original scale
yielded an adequately reliable scale (alpha=.77). The mean conﬂict score was 8.97 with a
standard deviation of 5.9. Scores were distributed normally although slightly leptokurtic.

A conﬁrmatory factor analysis was also performed on the affect scale. Internal

consistency and parallelism checks on the four items produced small errors (see Appendix

16

B). This scale was found to be acceptably reliable (alpha=.68). The mean score on the
affect scale was 3.17 with a standard deviation of 2.8. The scores on the affect scale were
skewed positively and leptokurtic.

A conﬁrmatory factor analysis performed on the relational satisfaction scale
indicated that both internal consistency and parallelism errors were trivial Four items were
retained (see Appendix C), although the reliability of this index was modest (alpha=.54).
The mean score on relational satisfaction was 20.4 with a standard deviation of 3.7. The
scores on the relational satisfaction scale were skewed negatively and leptokurtic.

Finally, a conﬁrmatory factor analysis performed on the sexual satisfaction survey
yielded trivial errors. Six items were retained (see Appendix D), and the resulting index-
was highly reliable (alpha=.88). The mean score on sexual satisfaction was 24.00 with a
standard deviation of 5.00. The scores on the sexual satisfaction scale were skewed
negatively and leptokurtic.

Hypotheses one, two, and three were consistent with these data. The original model
hypothesized that affect satisfaction and conﬂict management satisfaction are direct
antecedents to relational satisfaction which is an antecedent to sexual satisfaction (see
Figure l). The correlations between each variable (see Table l) are presented below. This
model failed. Although affect and relational satisfaction are correlated negatively, as

predicted, affect does not ﬁt in the path model. Speciﬁcally, its correlation with sexual

l7

satisfaction is much stronger than would be predicted by this model. Uncorrected and
conected path coeffecients are presented in ﬁgures 2 and 3.

Table 1. Correlations between the variables in the path model. The upper triangle in this
matrix includes the correlations corrected for attenuation due to error of measurement. The

bottom triangle includes the uncorrected correlations.

Affect Conﬂict Management Relational Satisfaction Sexual Satisfaction

Affect 1.00 .50 -.57 -.47
Conﬂict .36 1.00 -.53 -.29
Rel Sat -.31 -.35 1.00 ~ .58

Sex Sat -.36 -.24 .41 1.00

Affect Satisfaction (-.21)
\ (.41)
(.36)

Relational Satisfaction—' Sexual Satisfaction

Conﬂict Manage. Satisfaction (-.27)

Figure 2. Path model before correcting for attenuation due to error of measurement.

18

Affect Satisfactio (-.35)
"\ (.58)
(.50)

Relational Satisfaction—_’ Sexual Satisfaction

/4,)

Conﬂict Manage. Satisfaction (-.

Figure 3. Path model with corrected path coefficients.
Although the hypothesized model does not ﬁt, a reduced model was tested. This
model is a simple causal string in which conﬂict management is a direct cause of relational

satisfaction which is a direct cause of sexual satisfaction. The data are consistent with the

reduced model (see Figures 4 and 5).
, -.35 , .41 , ,
Conﬂict Sat.———r Relational Sat.——> Sexual Satrsfactron

Figure 4. Reduced model with uncorrected path coeﬂicients.

-.53 .58
Conﬂict Sat—v Relational Sat. ———> Sexual Satisfaction

Figure 5. Reduced model with corrected path coefﬁcients.

To test the ﬁt of this reduced model two operations were performed. First, the size
of the path coeffecients was considered. The path coefficients as labeled in Figures 4 and 5
are substantial. Second, the difference between the predicted and the obtained correlations

was considered. The chi-square for the uncorrected path coefﬁcients was 1.36 (p>.05). The

19

error was -.10. Given the sample size, this error is not substantial. The chi-square for the

corrected correlations was .91 (p>.05) with a corrected error of -.07.

Discussion

This study was an examination of the relationships among discrepancies in conﬂict
management styles, affect, relational satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction. Although the
obtained correlations were in the directions hypothesized, the proposed model (see Figure
1) did not ﬁt. When aﬁ‘ect was deleted ﬁ'om the model the reduced model was consistent
with these data. There are several reasons for this outcome. First, affect is likely related to
relational satisfaction. When people feel that they are cared for and supported, they will
feel satisﬁed relationally, hence the substantial correlation (r’=-.57). On the other hand, the
data were not consistent with a model in which affect directly lead to relational satisfaction.
This relationship may be mediated by other variables not explored in this study. For
instance, research has revealed that the three leading reasons why people divorce are
money, religion, and sex. It is reasonable to assume that if persons feel support from others
they may be more open about conﬂict due to money matters, religion, or sex.
Limitations

Several limitations of this research must be acknowledged. First, limitations due to

the available population should be recogrized. Ninety-seven percent of this sample was

20

unmarried with a mean age of 20 years. Given the nature of this study, it would have been
ideal to have additional subjects who were older and married. In addition, the unit of
analysis was the individual. Futme research might proﬁt ﬁum examining dyads. Research
examining a sample of older married persons would be more generalizable to relational
satisfaction. It can be erroneous to purport that young college students who have never
manied, divorced, had children, or dealt with marital conﬂict have truly experienced a
serious relationship, and the satisfaction found therein. Furthermore, such research would
proﬁt ﬁ'om examining married people since they have to contend with variables such as
money management, children, and in-laws which can hamper relational satisfaction. In
addition, using dyads as the unit of analysis would prove gainful. In such an analysis one
could examine discrepancies between the spouses’ said satisfaction. Moreover,
examinations of the differences among conﬂict management styles between spouses could
'be performed. For example, if a couple scores low on relational satisfaction it could be due
to one spouse avoiding conﬂict while the other attempts to compete. Finally, using dyadic
analysis one could examine the differences between reported ideal conﬂict management
styles and relational satisfaction.

A second limitation to this study was the low amount of variance in aﬂ‘ect, relational
satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction. It would be advantageous to attain a sample with
greater variance in affect, relational satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction. Likely, this goal

could be attained by studying a more heterogeneous sample.

21

Implicatiog of the Study

The results of this research have several implications. First, much conﬂict
management research has concentrated on recommending speciﬁc conﬂict mamgement
strategies for individuals (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Although recommendations certainly have
merit, it may also be proﬁtable to examine individuals’ satisfaction with their current
conﬂict management style. Furthermore, the factor analyses performed on these data gave
no indication of ﬁve distinct conﬂict management styles, rather the scale was
tmidimensional. This may have occurred for a few reasons. First, there may have been
problems with the scale. Rahim (1983) desigred his conﬂict management scale with
organizations in mind. The ROCI H was not designed for utilization within an interpersonal
domain. It is feasible that this change in context caused problems. Second, it could also be
the case that the ﬁve independent styles of managing conﬂict do not exist. This is also
feasible since it is recognized that people change their styles of managing conﬂict
constantly, depending on the context. For example, one could be accommodating on issues
of ﬁnances and competitive on issues of religion. Finally, conﬂict management styles were
not tapped into by the questionnaire administered. Although the questions on the
instrument were taken directly from the ROCI II, the participants were asked to reply to
each question with both their ideal and current conﬂict management styles. As mentioned
previously this created a new construct, conﬂict management satisfaction, which is

unidimensional.

22

A second implication of this study is that although discrepancies in expressions of
affect did not ﬁt the causal model, it is reasonable to conclude that affect plays a large role
in relational satisfaction because the correlation between aﬂ‘ect and relational satisfaction
was substantial (r’=-.57). This result suggests that the relationship between aﬁ’ect and
relational satisfaction is mediated by other variables. One potential mediating variable is
self disclosure. When people are given positive forms of affect they are more likely to
disclose personal information about themselves (Bartz, 1970; Bernstein, 1992), because this
reinforcement increases feelings of not being judged. Research has indicated a positive
linear relationship between levels of self disclosure and relational satisfaction (Jorgenson &
Gandy, 1980; Shapiro & Swenson, 1969; Tolstedt & Stokes, 1983). It is likely that positive
affect leads one to feel comfortable about self disclosing, which in turn leads to geater
marital satisfaction. A second potential variable mediating the relationship between affect
and relational satisfaction is reciprocation of affect. That is, when one partner gives
positive affect, this may cause the other partner to give positive affect as well. This positive
cycle could generate increased levels of relational satisfaction.

Directions for Future Research

This thesis provides many ideas for future research. First, these data presented were
consistent with the hypothesis that discrepancies in their conﬂict management style predicts
relational satisfaction. It might also be proﬁtable to examine with which conﬂict

management styles the majority was dissatisﬁed. Likewise, examinations of which conﬂict

23

management styles most persons found ideal should be conducted. Results ﬁ'om such a
study would be interesting and helpful for family and marital counseling sessions. For
example, if the research determined that the majority of persons were dissatisﬁed with the
avoiding style of managing conﬂict, and wished to move to a collaborative method,
counselors could utilize this information to guide subsequent therapy sessions.

A second study that could develop out of this study is the examination of other
communication variables as predictors of relational and sexual satisfaction. This study
showed that the extent to which satisfaction with one’s conﬂict management style predicts
relational satisfaction is ample. Perhaps communication satisfaction is indicative of
relational satisfaction. Previous research has indicated that self disclosure is positively
correlated with relational satisfaction. One might ﬁnd larger eﬂect sizes if communication
satisfaction is analyzed. As this study indicated with conﬂict management, communication
satisfaction discrepancy might cause relational satisfaction. That is, the amount that one
discloses might not be as strong an antecedent to relational satisfaction as disclosing one’s
desired amount. In this regard it would be interesting to determine the extent to which the
discrepancy between real and ideal communication affects satisfaction.

Third, one’s satisfaction with expressions of affect is correlated with relational
satisfaction. Other research should attempt to uncover variables mediating this proposed

relationship as discussed previously.

APPENDICES

24

Appendix A: Items of the Conﬂict Management Scale
At times, couples may have incompatibilities, disageements, differences or conﬂict about
his/her sexual relationship with his/her partner. Rank each of the following statements, as if
the following hypothetical argument is one you have had with your current (or past) partner
by circling a number on the scale provided after each statement. For the purposes of this
survey, consider how you would handle the following situation with your partner: For you
to enjoy sexual activity, it ’s important that you are intimate 3 or 4 times a week at varying
times and places (spontaneously). Your partner wants to engage in sexual activity once a
week, always at the same time and place. Frustrated with this situation, think about how
you would handle such a dilemma.
F1 F2 F3 F4
* 1. Generally, I would try to satisfy the needs of my partner. .28 .48 -.14 .33
2. I would attempt to avoid being “put on the spot” and try to
keep conﬂict with my partner to myself.
3. I would try to work with my partner to ﬁnd solutions to the
problem that would satisfy our expectations.
4. I usually avoid open discussions of my differences with my partner.
5. I would try to ﬁnd a middle course to resolve an impasse.
6. I would use my inﬂuence to get my ideas accepted.

7. I would use my authority to make decisions in my favor.

25

F1 F2 F3 F4

8. I usually accommodate the wishes of my partner.

* 9. I would give in to the wished of my partner. ‘ -.09 .38 -.11 .24

10. I would exchange accurate information with my partner

‘11.

* 12.

"' 13.

* 14.

* 15.

16.

* 17.

18.

19.

so that we could solve the problem together.

If we reached a deadlock, I would propose a middle gound. -.40 .55 -.21 .39

I would negotiate with my partner so that a compromise -.31 .46 -.27 .24
could be reached.

I would try to stay away from disagreement with my partner. -.22 .62 -.12 .20
I would use my expertise to make a decision in my favor. -.35 .65 -.25 .31
I would “give and take” so that a compromise could be made. -.43 .72 -.10 .23
I would try to bring all our concerns out in the open so that
the issues could be resolved in the best possible ways.

I would try to satisfy the expectations of my partner. -.27 .46 -.08 .28
I would use my power to win in that competitive situation.
I would try to keep my disagreement with my partner to

myself in order to avoid hard feelings.

26

20. I would try to work with my partner for a proper understanding

of a problem.

"‘ Indicates items used in the ﬁnal analysis. Factor loadings (F) of these items are provided.

27

Appendix B: Items of the Affect scale

In what manner do you and your mate express caring and support for each other?

F1 F2 F3 F4

* l. Expressive, responsive and given willingly. -.30 .31 -.25 .60
* 2. Private, formal, and regulated. -.37 .27 -.27 .59
* 3. Spontaneous, public and enthusiastic. -.32 .20 -.33 .60
* 4. Limited, reserved and rarely expressed because -.29 .42 -.26 .57

we know how deeply we care for each other.

* Indicates items used in the ﬁnal analysis. Factor loadings (F) for these items are provided.

28

Appendix C: Items of the Relational Satisfaction survey
Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the
approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each
item on the following list.
F1 F2 F3 F4

1. Matters of recreation.

2. Demonstrations of affection.
* 3. Friends. .41 -.21 .29 --.18
* 4. Goals that are believed to be important. .46 -.29 .20 -. 14

5. Making major decisions.

* 6. Interests. .65 -.27 .34 -.34

 

For the following questions, use this scale
7=All of the time 4 =More often than not 1 =Never
7. How oﬁen do you discuss or have you considered
divorce, separation, or terminating your relationship.
8. In general, how often do you think that things between
you and your partner are going well?

9. Do you ever regret that you are in this relationship?

29

F1 F2 F3
* 10. How often do you and your mate “get on each .38 -.27 .29
other’s nerves?”
"' Indicates items used in the ﬁnal analysis. Factor loadings (F) for these items are

provided.

F4

-.34

30

Appendix D: Items of the Sexual Satisfaction survey

"‘ 1. My sex life with my partner is very exciting.
"' 2. Sex is fun for my partner and me.
3. I feel that my partner sees little in me except for the
sex I can give.
4. My sex life is monotonous.
* 5. I feel that my sex life is lacking in quality.
* 6. My partner is very exciting sexually.
* 7. I feel that our sex life adds a lot to our relationship.
* 8. My partner is very sensitive to my sexual needs

and desires.

Fl

.45

.50

.45

.42

.33

.47

F2

-.25

-.23

-.29

-.21

-.10

-.25

F3

.87

.85

.56

.82

.67

F4

-.37

-,44

-.33

-.31

-.22

-.39

* Indicates the items used in the ﬁnal analysis. Factor loadings (F) for these items are

provided.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Bartz, W. R (1970). Using love in behavior therapy. Hospital and Communiﬂ

Pyohiag, 21, 333-334.

Bemstein, A. (1992). Beyond Countertransference: The love that cmes. M24312
Psychoanalysis, 17, 15-21.

Blumstein, P. W., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American Couples. New York: Morrow.

Constantine, L. L. (1986). Family Paradigm: The Practice of Theog in Family
Th_erapy New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Denney N. W., & Quadagro D. (1992). Hm Sexuality St. Louis, MS: Mosbyn
Year Book, Inc.

Donohue, W. A., & Kolt, R. K., M_an_agipgln_termr_al;§9pﬂ_§_t_, Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Fisher, R. & Ury W. (1981).Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agrppment Without
Giving In. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1989). ENRICH marital inventory: A discriminate
validity study. Journal of Marital and Family Thegpy, 15, 65-79.

Galvin, K. M. & Brommel, B. J. (1986). Family Communication: Cohesion and

Change (2nd ed.) Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

31

32

Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L., (1985). Sex diﬁ'erences in type of extramarital

involvement and marital dissatisfaction. Sex Roles 12, 1 101-1 1 l8.

 

Hudson, W. W., Harrison, D. F., & Crosscup, P. C., (1981). A short-form scale to
measure sexual discord in dyadic relationships. The qurnal of Sex Rm 17, 157-174.

Hurlbert, D. F., Apt, C., & Rabehl, S. (1993). Key variables to understanding
female sexual satisfaction: An examination of women in nondistressed marriages. 191-111—31
of Sex and Marital Thegpy, 19, 154-165.

Irnig, D. R. & Phillips, R. G. (1992). Operationalizing Paradignatic Family Theory:
The Family Regime Assessment Scale (F RAS). ley’ Sciw Revipw, 5, 217-228.

Irnig, D. R. (1993). Family Stress: Paradigns and Perceptions. Family Scienpg

Review 6, 125-136.

 

Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975) Inside the Family: Toward a Theog of Family
fPrLceyss, San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Larsen, A. S., & Olson, D. H. (1989). Predicting marital satisfaction using
PREPARE: A replication study. Journal of Marital and Family Thmpy, 15, 311-322.

Lewicki, R. J ., & Litterer, J. A., (1985). Negotiatiop, Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Locke, H.. J ., &Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction
tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, August, 251-254.

Masters, W. H., Johnson, V., & Kolodny, R. C. (1986). Masters & Johnson on Sex

and Human Loving. Boston: Little Brown.

33

Metz, M. E., & Dwyer, M., (1993). Relationship conﬂict management patterns
among sex dysfunction, sex offender, and satisﬁed couples. Journal of Sex and Marital
Imam. 19. 104-122,

Millar, F. E., Rogers, L. E., & Bavelas, J. B., (1984). Identifying patterns of verbal

conﬂict in interpersonal dynamics. The Western Joumalof Smh Communicatiop, 48,
23 1-246.

Olson, D. H. & DeFrain, J. (1994). Marriage and the Family Mountain View, CA:
Mayﬁeld Publishing Co.

Rahim, M. A., (1983). A measure of handling interpersonal conﬂict. Acadamy of
Mmement Journal, 26, 368-376.

Schmitz, A. (1995). The secret to a good maniage. m 51-56.

Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Pachology of @ups.

Minneapolis, MN.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.