JSPR
Full Research Report

The role of sexual passion
in romantic relationshipfunctioning: A dyadic
analysis

Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships
1–17ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0265407520972191
journals.sagepub.com/home/spr

Jessica Beaudoin
Nabil Bouizegarene
Annabelle Fortin
Frederick L. Philippe
Robert J. Vallerand
University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada

Abstract
The dualistic model of sexual passion defines sexual passion as a strong motivational
drive to engage in various types of partnered and non-partnered sexual activities anddistinguishes two types of sexual passion that lead to distinct consequences, obsessive
sexual passion (OSP) and harmonious sexual passion (HSP). The purpose of the present
research was to examine the associations between these two types of sexual passion andrelationship functioning in partners of romantic relationships using dyadic analyses.
Heterosexual participants (132 couples; n ¼ 264) completed an online survey which
included three indicators of relationship functioning: relationship quality, sexual satisfaction, and level of conflict. An actor-partner interdependence model analysis (APIM)
revealed that, for both men and women, HSP was positively associated with relationshipfunctioning, whereas OSP was negatively associated with it. In addition, results unveiled
significant partner effects, such that both men’s and women’s HSP were associated with
their partners’ perceptions of relationship functioning, but not for OSP. Finally, there
were a significant moderation between men’s HSP and women’s OSP on women’s
relationship functioning, suggesting that men’s HSP can buffer the negative effect ofwomen’s OSP. The present results provide evidence that sexual passion can either

Corresponding author:
Frederick L. Philippe, Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal, PO Box 8888, Station
Centre-Ville, Montreal (Quebec), H3C 3P8, Canada.
Email: philippe.frederick@uqam.ca

2

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

facilitate or hinder relationship functioning through multiple personal and dyadic
pathways.
Keywords
APIM, dyadic design, relationship functioning, romantic relationship, sexual passion

Research has frequently highlighted the importance of sexuality in romantic relationships and showed its strong association with key variables pertaining to the sustainability
and quality of relationships over time (Edwards & Booth, 1994; Sprecher, 2002; Yehet al., 2006). However, most indicators of couple’s sexuality have relied on a onedimensional continuum. For instance, constructs such as sexual desire, sex drive, or
sexual satisfaction focus on the strength of partners’ sex drive, arousal, or satisfaction
with respect to their sexuality and are usually assessed as ranging from low to high (butsee Shaw & Rogge, 2016). The present research departs from this more common perspective in that we used the dualistic model of sexual passion to examine the impact ofsexual passion on romantic relationship functioning. The dualistic model of sexualpassion posits that there exist two types of sexual passion, a harmonious sexual passion
and an obsessive sexual passion, which are both characterized by high interest in sex andsex drive, and frequent engagement in sexual activities. However, they strongly differ inthe consequences they have on relationship functioning (Busby et al., 2018; Guilbault
et al., 2020; Philippe et al., 2017, 2019). In the present research, we sought to examine
how each type of sexual passion relates to key indicators of relationship functioning, asreported by both partners of the relationship. Therefore, in addition to extending researchon the role of sexual passion on relationship functioning, the present research will also
examine its dyadic or partner effect, thereby highlighting how the expression of sexualityof one partner can affect the perceptions of relationship functioning of the other partner.

The dualistic model of sexual passion
The literature on passionate activities specifies that people can develop a passion toward
an activity that is liked, highly valued, and in which they engage in frequently (e.g.,
Vallerand, 2015; Vallerand et al., 2003). Drawing from this literature, Philippe and colleagues (2017) proposed to define sexual passion as the motivational inclination to engage
in sexual activities. Having a sexual passion is characterized by the display of 1) a strong
identification to sex in general, 2) a strong emotional connection to sex in general, 3) a highvaluation of sex, and 4) a frequent engagement in sexual activities. As per this definition,
sexual passion is a stable and self-defining motivational drive leading people to engage ineither partnered (e.g., sexual intercourse, oral sex) or non-partnered sexual activities (e.g.,fantasizing, masturbation) and to spend a considerable amount of time and energy in these
activities. This definition drastically departs from the lay definition of sexual passion,often conceptualized as a strong and temporary sexual desire toward a partner leading topassionate sex. It is related, but distinct from the definition of sexual desire, which istypically conceptualized as a subjective psychological state (Regan & Berscheid, 1999),

Beaudoin et al.

3most often oriented toward a partner (Birnbaum, 2018). Sexual passion as a motivational
inclination is a stable person-sexuality interface part of one’s identity (e.g., identifying as asexual person) and which drives all kind of sexual behaviors across contexts (Philippe
et al., 2017).
Of importance, sexual passion is not just a sexual motivational force or sexual incentive
motivation (Toates, 2009), but also a cognitive organization. Following the dualistic modelof passion (Vallerand, 2015; Vallerand et al., 2003), Philippe and colleagues (2017) distinguished two types of sexual passion, obsessive sexual passion (OSP) and harmonious
sexual passion (HSP). These two types of sexual passion differ in the way sexual representations have been internalized. In OSP, sexual representations have been internalized in acontrolled fashion. That is, the norms, beliefs, and values that people hold with regards tosexuality and sexual activities have been imposed onto the person by the social environment
and are therefore not fully self-endorsed (Philippe et al., 2017). They are therefore less likely
to reflect the person’s own values and preferences (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Consequently, with
OSP, individuals feel compelled to express their sexuality or to engage in sexual activities
according to what is socially prescribed or valued by certain social groups (e.g., sexualintercourses should last long), even if these assumptions do not fit with their own values(Philippe et al., 2019). As a result, cognitive sexual representations remain poorly integrated
with other mental representations, such as relational representations (Philippe et al., 2017,2019), which tends to form relatively isolated sexual cognitive networks, separated fromother interconnected networks of representations (Philippe et al., 2017). Therefore, whenever a sexual representation is activated, its activation is restricted to sexual representations
only, rather than spreading to other types of representations (e.g., relational representations).
The sphere of sexuality is therefore more likely to conflict with other life spheres, such as
relationships (e.g., Guilbault et al., 2020).
In contrast, in HSP, individuals have internalized sexual representations in an autonomous fashion (Ryan & Deci, 2017), which leads them to more readily engage in sexual
activities according to beliefs and values they freely endorse (Philippe et al., 2017). For
instance, they will be sexually attracted by people who correspond to their own personal
preferences rather than to social standards (e.g., being thin, tall, and physically fit), they
will dress according to their own taste, rather than according to socially prescribed norms,
or they will engage in sexual activities according to what they personally consider pleasurable and enjoyable rather than according to social expectations (e.g., anal intercourse).
When sexual representations have been autonomously internalized, little conflict arises
among representations and between sexuality and other life spheres (Guilbault et al.,2020). Thus, in HSP, sexual representations are more coherently interrelated with othertypes of representations. Therefore, when sexual representations are activated, non-sexual
representations, such as relational representations, can also be triggered because activation spreads to larger networks of representations that are not exclusively constrained tosexual representations (Philippe et al., 2017).

Empirical support for a dualistic model of sexual passion
Research has empirically supported the aforementioned model of sexual passion. First,
both OSP and HSP were found to be positively related to each passion criterion of loving,4

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)valuing, and engaging frequently in sexual activities (Guilbault et al., 2020; Philippe
et al., 2017, 2019) and to frequent engagement in various sexual behaviors (Philippe
et al., 2019). In addition, both types of sexual passion have been positively associatedwith high solitary (Philippe et al., 2019) and dyadic sexual desire (Busby et al., 2018;
Philippe et al., 2019) and with high arousal states during sexual activities (Philippe et al.,2017). Thus, both OSP and HSP correspond to what a sexual passion is and correlate
positively with indicators of sexual passion strength (frequent engagement in sexual
activities, sexual desire, arousal states during sexual activities). OSP and HSP represent
two different ways through which this strength of sexual passion can be expressed. Eachhas therefore distinct determinants and lead to distinct consequences.
It should be underscored that OSP and HSP are not an assessment of the level ofsexual passion (the strength), but of its type, that is, how sexual representations havebeen internalized (autonomously or in a controlled fashion) and are cognitively organized. As such, the strength of one’s sexual passion does not moderate the effect of its
type. This means that even at a low level of sexual passion (strength), HSP will havesome positive effect on relationship functioning, but this positive effect of HSP will
monotonically increase as the level of sexual passion (strength) increases. The same isexpected of OSP (see Philippe et al., 2019).
Research has shown that HSP was associated with a general autonomous internalization, that is, doing things for personal and self-determined reasons (Philippe et al.,2019). As such it was found to be unrelated to sexual contingencies, such as valuing
normative thin women or muscular men (Philippe et al., 2019). Conversely, OSP wasfound to be associated with a controlled internalization (doing things out of externalpressure) and with the endorsement of sexual contingencies relative to men and womennormative body stereotypes (Philippe et al., 2019). As a consequence of this internalization, in OSP, once sexual representations are activated, perceptions and judgments
are rigidly constrained to the sexual sphere. In HSP, once sexual representations areactivated by a situation, they spread to other types of representations than sexual ones(e.g., relational representations), which facilitates more nuanced and alternative interpretations of the situation than strict sexual interpretations and increases the capacity toinhibit sexual activation when necessary. For instance, in one study (Philippe et al., 2017,
Study 2), participants read an ambiguous scenario depicting two students interacting in a
way that could be perceived as either sexual or friendly. Results showed that OSP
predicted more attributions of sexual intentions to the protagonists in the scenario,
whereas that was not the case with HSP. Similar results have been obtained with a wordclassification task. In this task, participants had to classify neutral words (e.g., pizza),
ambiguous sexual words (e.g., uniform, heels, nurse), or unambiguous sexual words(e.g., intercourse) as quickly as possible as sexual or non-sexual words. Results showedthat OSP, but not HSP, predicted the number of ambiguous words classified as sexual,suggesting the difficulty in OSP for a stimulus to be considered alternatively once it has
acquired a sexual connotation.
Because sexual representations are not well integrated with other representations in
OSP, they are expected to conflict more often with other life spheres, whereas it should
not be the case with HSP. Indeed, OSP has been found to be positively associated with
self-reported conflict between sexuality and other life spheres (Philippe et al., 2017), andBeaudoin et al.

5

between sexuality and long-term relationships (Guilbault et al., 2020), whereas HSP wasunrelated to these types of conflict. This conflict between sexual representations andother types of mental representations was also found to exist at the cognitive level.
Philippe and colleagues (2017, Study 4) subliminally primed heterosexual participants
with photos of attractive or low-attractive opposite-sex targets while participants completed a picture classification task unrelated to sexuality. OSP predicted slower reaction
times during the classification task in the attractive-target condition compared to the
low-attractive condition, suggesting that OSP led to greater attentional disruption due tothe cognitive conflict engendered by the triggering of sexual stimuli. Furthermore, in theattractive-target condition, HSP predicted faster reaction times than in the low-attractive
condition, suggesting that HSP may help inhibiting the activation of sexual representations and goals when contexts for such an activation are inappropriate or untimely.
Because sexuality conflicts with other life spheres in OSP, particularly the relational
sphere, OSP is likely to be detrimental to relationship functioning. Conversely, because
in HSP sexuality is well integrated with other life spheres, HSP should facilitate relationship functioning. Research has indeed shown that HSP was positively related tovarious aspects of relationship functioning, like sexual satisfaction and relationshipquality (Busby et al., 2018; Philippe et al., 2017, 2019). Furthermore, HSP was found to
be unrelated to the occurrence of extradyadic sex (Guilbault et al., 2020) and to thedissolution of the relationship over time (Philippe et al., 2017). Conversely, studies haveshown that OSP was negatively associated or unrelated to relationship functioning
indices such as sexual satisfaction and relationship quality (Busby et al., 2018; Philippe
et al., 2017, 2019) and positively associated with violent jealous behaviors (Philippe
et al., 2017, 2019). Finally, OSP was found to be positively associated with difficulties
maintaining relationships because of sexuality (Guilbault et al., 2020), extradyadic sex
intentions and occurrences (Guilbault et al., 2020), and relationship dissolution over time
(Philippe et al., 2017).
Research has also gathered evidence of discriminant validity regarding this dualistic
model of sexual passion. Both HSP and OSP were found to be unrelated to self-control
and psychological distress (Philippe et al., 2017). They were also found to be both
positively associated with a willingness to engage in sex without love (sociosexuality),
erotic or passionate feelings toward one’s partner (relational or romantic passion), andsolo and dyadic sexual desire, and to be each differently associated with attachment
dimensions, self-determined motives for sex, sexual satisfaction, and sexual compulsivity, yet predicting outcomes over and above all these constructs (Busby et al., 2018;
Guilbault et al., 2020; Philippe et al., 2017, 2019).
Thus far, research has shown that the type of sexual passion one holds has importantconsequences for one’s romantic relationship (Busby et al., 2018; Guilbault et al., 2020;
Philippe et al., 2017, 2019). However, little is known on how the type of sexual passion one
partner holds can impact the other partner’s perceptions of the relationship. Since HSP
allows for sexual representations to enmesh with other types of mental representations,
including relational representations, HSP might lead to positive consequences forromantic relationships that transcend the individuals holding the sexual passion to ultimately positively affect their partners. Conversely, with OSP, sexual representations are
isolated from other representations, which prevent them from promoting relational

6

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

aspects, and thereby, from sustaining the romantic relationship. Ultimately, this shouldhave negative consequences on the other partner of the relationship. The purpose of thepresent research was to examine these potential dyadic influences that sexual passion canhave by investigating both partners of romantic relationships.

Partners’ influence as a function of genderTo fully understand the extent of dyadic influence in a romantic relationship, it isimportant to determine whether the influence partners have on each other is equivalent or
if there is an imbalance in that influence. An obvious potential source of imbalance of
dyadic influence is gender. Indeed, dyadic research has shown that partners’ influence oneach other is often moderated by gender (Blais et al., 1990; Brunell & Webster, 2013;
Campbell et al., 2001).
Research has sometimes shown that in a dyadic context, women have a greater
influence on their male partners. For instance, women’s motivation to maintain therelationship was found to predict their male partners’ couple adjustment, but men’s
motivation was not associated with women’s couple adjustment (Blais et al., 1990). Other
research has found that women’s autonomous motivation for sexuality was associatedwith men’s sexual well-being, but not the opposite (Gravel, 2017). Conversely, otherstudies have shown that men had a greater influence on their female partners. Specifically,
men’s self-determined motivation for sexual intercourse (Brunell & Webster, 2013), theirsupport (Jensen et al., 2013), and their coping strategies to reduce stress (Bodenmann et al.,2006) were linked with women’s perceptions of relationship functioning, but not viceversa. Guilbault and Philippe (2017) showed that the level of need satisfaction characterizing males’ recalled couple-related memories was related to their female partners’commitment and perceptions of need satisfaction in the relationship. Finally, someresearch uncovered mutual influences between relationship partners. For instance, correspondence of partners’ romantic ideals was found to be associated with relationshipfunctioning (Campbell et al., 2001). Similarly, the degree to which relationship goals areperceived as shared by the other partner was found to be associated with relationshipfunctioning (Avivi et al., 2009).
Overall, research suggests that both males and females could respectively influence theirpartner in their perceptions of relationship functioning. Therefore, we did not make any
specific hypothesis with regards to which gender would influence more preponderantly hisor her partner in the case of sexual passion. However, these differences will be explored.

The present research
The present research sought to examine the associations between partners’ OSP and HSP
on their perceptions of relationship functioning. To investigate these associations, we
asked both the participant and his or her partner to complete, separately from each other,scales assessing sexual passion and various relational outcomes, including perceived
relationship quality, relational conflict, and sexual satisfaction. All these outcomes wereselected because they are key relational variables that can all be affected by eachpartner’s sexual passion. Based on past research on the dualistic model of sexual passion

Beaudoin et al.

7(Busby et al., 2018; Guilbault et al., 2020; Philippe et al., 2017, 2019), it was hypothesized that OSP of both partners would be negatively associated with their own andwith their partners’ perceptions of relationship functioning. Conversely, it was hypothesized that HSP of both partners would be positively associated with their own andwith their partners’ perceptions of relationship functioning. Given that very few moderations of sexual passion by gender have been found in past research on sexual passion,
we did not make any specific hypotheses to this effect. Finally, for exploratory purposes,
we will investigate whether the type of sexual passion of one partner can moderate theeffect of the sexual passion of the other partner.

MethodParticipants and procedure
A power analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation (Muthén & Muthén, 2002) of an APIM
with distinguishable variables based on gender and two latent variables of three indicators each (loadings of .80) revealed that, with a sample size of 130 dyads, the power
was .80 to detect actor and partner effects of .235 (standardized coefficient) and above(see Mplus syntax in supplemental material).
Accordingly, we sampled 132 heterosexual dyads (total n ¼ 264) who were ina romantic relationship for at least 3 months. Females’ and males’ mean age was 25.08(SD ¼ 6.40) and 27.45 years (SD ¼ 8.33), respectively, and couples had been partneredfor 39.95 months on average (48.55 months). A similar relationship length averagehas been reported by Lantagne and Furman (2017) for a sample of young adults of
25.67 years of age (37.54 months, SD ¼ 32.87). However, the sample of the present
study has a larger standard deviation. Thus, our sample can be characterized as a sample
of adults in the end of their early adulthood. The vast majority of the participants were
Caucasian (85.6%). They were undergraduates and graduates from a Canadian university
contacted through their institutional email to take part in a study on couple relationshipwith their partners. Participants were asked after completing the questionnaire to provide
the email of their partner, who then received a link to complete a similar questionnaire. A
total of 65% of the participants accepted to provide the email of their partner and 85% of
these partners accepted to complete the study (final n ¼ 132 dyads). Instructions stressed
how important it was to respond without the presence of their partner and as a function of
their own opinion and not according to their partner’s opinion. As a compensation for
their time, both the participants and their partners were entered into a draw for one ofthree prizes of $125 CAD.

Measures
Sexual passion. The Sexual Passion scale (Philippe et al., 2017) was used to assess the two
types of sexual passion. OSP is measured using three items, which include: “Sex is the
only thing that really turns me on.” HSP is also measured with three items, such as “Sexis in harmony with the other activities in my life.” Items were responded to on a 7-point
Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree) and the same Likert scale was8Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and paired t-tests between women and men on study
variables.
Women

Men

Paired t-test

Variables

M

SD

M

SD

t(130)

Harmonious sexual passion
Obsessive sexual passion
Relationship quality
Sexual satisfaction
Relational conflict

5.31
1.79
5.99
4.82
1.54

1.50
.94
.87
1.44
.70

5.38
2.61
5.76
4.82
1.59

1.26
1.20
.91
1.50
.71

.53
6.54**
3.06**.02
.82

Note. n ¼ 132. **p < .01.

used for all scales in the present study, unless otherwise stated. Alphas were .71 and .95
for females and .70 and .90 for males for OSP and HSP, respectively.
Perceived relationship quality. The 7-item Perceived Relationship Quality Components
Inventory (Fletcher et al., 2000a, 2000b) measures seven components of romantic relationships (satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, love, and romance), eachwith one item (e.g., “How satisfied are you with your relationship?”). The passion item(“How sexually intense is your relationship?”) was not used in the prevent study to avoid
overlap with the sexual satisfaction scale. Alphas were .87 for females and .91 for males.
Sexual satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction was assessed with five items from the generalsexual satisfaction subscale of the Pinney Sexual Satisfaction Inventory (Pinney et al.,1987). Items included “I am satisfied with the frequency with which I have sexualintercourse.” This adapted version was used because it excludes all reference to what apartner does (e.g., “I am satisfied with the quality of the time my partner and I spend
together immediately after intercourse”), which could have unduly increased partner
effects in the model. Alphas were .92 and .89 for females and males, respectively.
Relational conflict. Three items from the Relationship Assessment questionnaire (Luo &Klohnen, 2005) were used to measure the frequency of interpersonal conflict in therelationship, such as “How often do you and your partner quarrel?”. These items were
responded to on a 6-point Likert scale (1 ¼ Never, 6 ¼ Always). Alphas were .82 for bothmales and females.

Results
Preliminary analyses
Paired t-tests (see Table 1) showed that men scored significantly higher on OSP than
women. Furthermore, women scored significantly higher than men on relationshipquality. However, there were no significant differences between women and men on
HSP, sexual satisfaction, and relational conflict.

Beaudoin et al.

9

Table 2. Correlations among study variables.
Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1. W HSP—
2. M HSP.36*—
3. W OSP.18* .01—
4. M OSP
.01
.14
.10 —
5. W relationship quality .40** .40** .16 .00—
6. M relationship quality.18*.52** .04 .04 .52**—
7. W sexual satisfaction.55** .43** .07 .13 .58** .34**—
8. M sexual satisfaction.41** .61** .07 .07 .43** .63** .47**—
9. W relational conflict .19* .28** .04 .12 .43** .33** .40** .29** —10. M relational conflict .21* .34** .01 .01 .35** .39** .21* .38** .55**
Note. HSP ¼ harmonious sexual passion; OSP ¼ obsessive sexual passion; W ¼ women; M ¼ men.
n ¼ 132. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Correlations among study variables are shown in Table 2. Results showed that men’s
HSP and OSP and women’s HSP and OSP were weakly correlated, reconfirming the two
orthogonal dimensions of sexual passion across gender. Both partners’ HSP werepositively and moderately correlated, whereas both partners’ OSP were unrelated. These
results suggest that partners with HSP might be more likely to find other partners
characterized by HSP or that a partner with HSP is more likely to facilitate the development of an HSP in the other partner. Another possibility, that the present research
design cannot rule out, is that romantic couples who are well adjusted might be more
likely to develop an HSP. Regardless of which of these effects is true, it seems to occur
fairly independently of OSP, as women’s HSP and men’s OSP as well as men’s HSP andwomen’s OSP were not significantly associated and their correlations were close to zero.

Main analyses
The actor-partner interdependence model (APIM: Kenny et al., 2006) with structural
equation modeling was used to model the effect of the type of sexual passion on relationship functioning, as reported by each of the two members of each dyad. APIM
controls for the non-independence of the data within the same dyad, while testing forboth actor (associations between participants’ sexual passion and their own reported
outcomes) and partner effects (associations between participants’ sexual passion andtheir partners’ reported outcomes) within the same model.
Data of each dyad were first classified as a function of gender, allowing analyses todistinguish men’s and women’s responses of each dyad. An APIM structural equation
modeling was conducted in Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) with males and females’
relationship functioning as latent dependent variables using relationship quality, sexual
satisfaction, and conflict as indicators. Males’ and females’ OSP and HSP were kept as
observed variables and served as independent variables. Covariances were freely estimated between males’ and females’ scores and among the two latent variables of males
and females functioning. Because the model separates variances related to males and10

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

Figure 1. Actor-partner interdependence model of men’s and women’s HSP and OSP associations with relationship functioning. *p < .05, **p < .01.

females and that the dependent variables also covary, each significant effect of sexualpassion on relationship functioning can be considered as an additive effect, explaining
independent parts of the variance in relationship functioning.
Analysis of this model (see Figure 1) revealed adequate fit indices, w2(21) ¼ 35.17,
p ¼ .03, CFI ¼ .96, TLI ¼ .93, RMSEA ¼ .07, SRMR ¼ .05. As hypothesized, actor
effects of men’s and women’s HSP were positively associated with relationship functioning. Moreover, actor effects of men’s and women’s OSP were negatively associatedwith relationship functioning. These results are consistent with previous researchshowing that HSP and OSP are respectively related to positive and negative relational
outcomes (e.g., Busby et al., 2018; Guilbault et al., 2020; Philippe et al., 2017, 2019).
In addition to these actor effects, there were also significant partner effects. Men’s
HSP was positively associated with women’s relationship functioning and women’s HSP
was positively associated with men’s relationship functioning. However, there was no
significant partner effect of women’s or men’s OSP to relationship functioning (ps > .60).
Controlling for relationship length did not affect any of the above results and there was no
significant moderation with this variable.
Gender contrasts of these actors or partners effects revealed no significant difference. Indeed, fit indices of the model with indistinguishable effects (i.e., actor andBeaudoin et al.

11partner effects of women HSP and OSP constrained to be equaled to those of men)were adequate, w2(25) ¼ 37.38, p ¼ .053, CFI ¼ .97, TLI ¼ .95, RMSEA ¼ .06, SRMR
¼ .06, and this constrained model was not significantly different from the unconstrained model, Dw2 ¼ 2.21 (4), p ¼ .70. This suggests that the actor and partner effectsof men’s HSP or men’s OSP on men’s or women’s relationship functioning were of thesame extent as those of women’s HSP or women’s OSP on women’s or men’s relationship functioning.
To compare the size of the actor and partner effects for HSP and OSP, we estimatedthe k parameters of both HSP and OSP. The k parameter (Kenny & Ledermann, 2010)refers to the ratio of the partner effect divided by the actor effect. Bootstrapped confidence intervals are recommended to provide unbiased estimates of this k parameter.
K parameters provide a straightforward interpretation of the partner relative to the actor
effect. If the value of the k parameter is comprised between 0 and 1 (i.e., bootstrapped
confidence intervals do not include 0), it suggests a couple effect, that is, equivalent actor
and partner effects, with k ¼ .50 suggesting an actor effect twice as large as a partner
effect (Kenny et al., 2006). If the value of k is comprised between 0 and 1, it suggeststhat the partner and actor effects are in opposite directions. Finally, if the bootstrapped
confidence intervals of the k parameter includes 0, it suggests that there is an actor effectonly (provided that the actor effect does not equal zero).
Estimation of k parameters suggested that HSP led to a couple effect for both men,
k ¼ .61, 95% bootstrapped CI [.18; 1.27], and women, k ¼ .28, 95% bootstrapped CI[.02; .66], whereas OSP led to actor effects only in both men, k ¼ .19, 95% bootstrapped CI [1.78; .92] and women, k ¼ .22, 95% bootstrapped CI [2.53; 1.64]. The
point estimate of each k parameter suggests that the partner effect was about half the sizeof the actor effect for HSP for both men and women and the negative k parameter for
OSP suggests that the partner effect was slightly in the opposite direction of the actor
effect, although this latter partner effect was not statistically significant.

Exploratory moderations
The same APIM SEM with the same relational outcomes examined above was conducted, this time adding interaction terms between women’s HSP and men’s HSP and
between men’s OSP and women’s OSP. None of the four interaction terms reachedsignificance (all ps > .30). The same APIM was conducted again, this time adding
interaction terms between women’s HSP and men’s OSP and between men’s HSP andwomen’s OSP. Results showed that there was only one significant interaction, between
men’s HSP and women’s OSP on women’s relationship functioning, B ¼ .088, SE ¼ .045,t(125) ¼ 1.97, p ¼ .049. Simple effects (see Figure 2) revealed that women’s OSP was
negatively associated with women’s reported relationship functioning when men’s HSP
was low (1 SD), B ¼ .23, SE ¼ .073, t(125) ¼ 3.17, p < .01, but this negative
association was mitigated when men’s HSP was high (þ1 SD), B ¼ .056 SE ¼ .073,
t(125) ¼ 0.77, p ¼ .44. This result suggests that men’s HSP may buffer the negative
effect of women’s OSP on their perceptions of relationship functioning. However, thiseffect was not found for women’s HSP on men’s OSP (p ¼ .37).

12

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

0.4

Relationship functioning

0.2

Harmonious
sexual passion

0

-1SD
-0.2

Mean
+1SD

-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1SD

Mean

+1SD

Obsessive sexual passion

Figure 2. Interaction between women’s OSP and men’s HSP associations with women’s reported
relationship functioning. Error bars are standard errors. X and Y axes were standardized.

General discussion
The purpose of the present research was to examine the existing dyadic associations thatsexual passion can have on romantic relationships functioning. Results of the present
research showed that both types of sexual passion, HSP and OSP, were an importantcomponent of romantic relationships and were differently associated with relationshipfunctioning. HSP was positively associated with one’s own perceptions of relationshipfunctioning, whereas OSP was negatively associated with them. On top of that, there
were significant dyadic associations from sexual passion of one partner to the otherpartner’s perceptions of relationship functioning, from both men and women. Indeed,
men’s HSP was positively and significantly associated with relationship functioning as
perceived by the female partners. Women’s HSP also had a positive dyadic association
with men’s relationship functioning. However, contrary to what was hypothesized, OSP
had no significant partner effect. These results suggest that HSP, more so than OSP,
seems to yield consequences beyond the individuals holding the HSP to also affect theirpartners. The effect of OSP seems to be more restricted to one’s own perceptions ofrelationship functioning.
The present research extends the range of sex constructs that have been shown totranscend the individual to impact the other partner of the relationship. Indeed, several
other studies have shown that motivational constructs such as self-determined sexualmotivation (Brunell & Webster, 2013), sexual growth beliefs (Maxwell et al., 2017), or
sexual approach motivations (Muise et al., 2013) affect the other partners’ perceptions ofrelationship functioning. The present findings are in line with the dualistic model ofsexual passion, which stipulates that HSP allows sexual representations to intertwine
with other types of representations, such as relational representations. Therefore,
whenever sexual representations are activated, they also activate and nourish relational

Beaudoin et al.

13

representations, which help to build the romantic relationship and ultimately lead topositive and constructive partner effects. In contrast, in OSP, sexual representations are
isolated from other representations (i.e., relational and other types), which prevents these
representations from sustaining the romantic relationship and the partner. The present
study shows that sexual passion is an additional key sexual and motivational construct toconsider when investigating dyadic relationship functioning.
Relatedly, the present research could be a fresh starting point to extend past researchon the role of sexual desire on romantic relationship quality by clarifying what type ofsexual passion is fueled by one’s sexual desire. Some past romantic relationship studies
have shown that there is an association between women’s sexual desire and theirreported relationship quality, but not for men’s, and that greater relationship quality
increases women’s sexual desire (Dewitte & Mayer, 2018). Such findings have led to theformulation of the gender-based hypothesis that female sexual desire is more closely
related to relationship quality than male sexual desire (Basson, 2000). However, recent
research has rather suggested that male sexual desire may also be strongly affected byrelationship quality (Murray et al., 2017; Nimbi et al., 2020). The findings of the present
study provide one possible explanation for these mixed findings. Past research has
typically measured sexual desire without investigating what type of sexual passion was
associated with it. Since, both HSP and OSP have been found to be associated withsolitary and dyadic sexual desire (Philippe et al., 2017, 2019), the use of one-dimensional
sexual desire measures, which can be tainted by masculine cultural scripts (e.g., sexualdesire should be strong in men; Murray et al., 2017), may obscure its relationship withrelationship functioning in men. The present findings clearly showed that HSP, an
expression of sexuality that is not characterized by controlled cultural scripts (Philippe
et al., 2019), was as importantly associated with relationship functioning in men as it was
in women. OSP, which is more strongly associated with social sexual contingencies(Philippe et al., 2019), was found to be negatively associated with relationship functioning in both men and women. There were also clear partner effects of HSP on relationship functioning for both men and women, but none from OSP. Thus, when sexualpassion is harmoniously organized in people’s lives, it seems to sustain relationshipfunctioning in both men and women, but to harm it when it is obsessive. Thus, disregarding sexual passion by just investigating sexual desire may obfuscate the results bycombining both the respective positive and negative correlations of HSP and OSP withrelationship functioning. This issue can be avoided by the use of sexual passion as amediator variable. For example, Philippe and colleagues (2019) showed that sexualdesire was indirectly but positively related to couple adjustment through HSP, but thatthe same sexual desire was unrelated to couple adjustment through OSP. Future research
could clarify the effect of sexual desire in men and women on relationship quality andfunctioning as mediated by the type of sexual passion one holds.
Thus, overall, our results weakly conform to the idea that females’ perceptions are
more conditioned by relationship and partner-related dynamics than males (Basson,
2000). However, men’s HSP did buffer the effect of women’s OSP on their perceptionsof relationship functioning, while women’s HSP did not buffer the effect of men’s OSP
on their perception of relationship functioning. Given that these moderations were
exploratory and that the study lacked power to test the statistical difference between the

14

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

two interactions, this result should be interpreted with caution. However, this finding
may suggest that women could be more influenced by men’s HSP consequences or may
be more attuned to perceive these consequences than men are. Although we did not
examine mediators of the associations among sexual passion and relationship functioning in the present study, potential mediators could be greater self-disclosure andcommunication (Rehman et al., 2011), greater partners’ need satisfaction (La Guardia
et al., 2000), and greater display of engagement, all afforded by HSP and weakened by
OSP. Future research is needed to examine the adequacy of those mediators in explaining
the associations between men’s HSP and women’s perceived relationship functioning
and the potentially better capacity of women to perceive these cues or to be affected bythese cues.
A number of limitations need to be underscored regarding the present research. First,
all results were cross-sectional, making it impossible to determine the direction of theeffect. In consequence, the present research is only suggestive of associations among theexamined constructs and it is not possible to know whether sexual passion leads torelational outcomes or whether relational outcomes influence sexual passion. Future
research is needed to investigate the dyadic effect of sexual passion on relational outcomes within longitudinal designs. In addition, the current sample only included heterosexual dyads (necessary to examine distinguishable dyads by gender), which were
mostly composed of educated adults (undergraduate and graduate students) in the end of
their early adulthood. There is therefore no evidence that the present findings would holdsimilarly with community-dwelling couples who have been partnered for a longer timeor with homosexual dyads. In addition, younger adults might be more likely to havehigher levels of sexual desire and sexual passion, which could have increased thestrength of certain associations. Therefore, studies replicating the present results withdifferent sample characteristics are needed before the present findings can be generalizedwith confidence to the entire population. Another limitation related to the sample is its
size. We have shown that with the current sample size, the study was powered to detect
medium effect sizes. However, smaller effect sizes, potentially partner effects or genderdifferences in those partner effects, may remain undetected given the sample size of thepresent study. Therefore, null results should be interpreted with caution, especially thoseof the moderations of one partner’s sexual passion on the other partner’s sexual passion.
Another limitation is that only self-reported outcomes were assessed. This methodology
remains limited by potential biases and social desirability issues. The use of moreobjective measures of relationship functioning (e.g., observed conflict resolution strategies, relationship dissolution) are needed to rule out this limitation. Finally, as mentioned above, no mediators that could potentially explain the associations among sexualpassion and relational outcomes were assessed in the present study. This represents afruitful future research avenue to investigate.
In sum, the present research shows that sexual passion has important implications for
one’s own perceived romantic relationship functioning, but also for the other partner’s
perceived relationship outcomes. Each partner’s type of sexual passion also seems to beof importance and, in certain cases, HSP might mitigate the negative effect of OSP. The
concept of sexual passion might be useful in explaining the role sexuality plays inromantic relationships and existing gender differences.

Beaudoin et al.

15

Ethics approval
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was
granted by the Ethics Committee of the University of Quebec at Montreal.

Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a team grant from the Fonds deRecherche du Québec Société et Culture # 283171.

ORCID iD
Frederick L. Philippe

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6997-8072

Open research statement
As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided thefollowing information: This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the
research are available. Both can be obtained by emailing: Frederick L. Philippe atphilippe.frederick@uqam.ca.

Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References
Avivi, Y. E., Laurenceau, J. P., & Carver, C. S. (2009). Linking relationship quality to perceived
mutuality of relationship goals and perceived goal progress. Journal of Social and ClinicalPsychology, 28, 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.2.137
Basson, R. (2000). The female sexual response: A different model. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 26, 51–65.
Birnbaum, G. (2018). The fragile spell of desire: A functional perspective on changes in sexualdesire across relationship development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(2),101–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317715350
Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Toward a motivational model ofcouple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1021–1031. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1021
Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping andmarital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 485–493.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485
Brunell, A. B., & Webster, G. D. (2013). Self-determination and sexual experience in dating
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 970–998. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0146167213485442
Busby, D. M., Chiu, H. Y., Leonhardt, N. D., & Iliff, E. (2018). Sexual passion in committed
relationships: Measurement and conceptual issues. Family Process, 58, 734–748. https://doi.
org/10.1111/famp.12385

16

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships XX(X)

Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Fletcher, G. J. (2001). Ideal standards, the self, andflexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
447–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201274006
Dewitte, M., & Mayer, A. (2018). Exploring the link between daily relationship quality, sexualdesire, and sexual activity in couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1675–1686. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10508-018-1175-x
Edwards, J. N., & Booth, A. (1994). Sexuality, marriage, and well-being: The middle years. In A.
S. Rossi (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on mental healthand development: Studies on successful midlife development. Sexuality across the life course(pp. 233–259). University of Chicago Press.
Fletcher, G., Simpson, J., & Thomas, G. (2000a). The measurement of perceived relationshipquality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007
Fletcher, G., Simpson, J., & Thomas, G. (2000b). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early
relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.933
Gravel, E. (2017). On the benefits of being sexually autonomous and costs of being sexuallypressured: The contributions of different motives for sex to experiences of sexual well-being[Doctoral dissertation, Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa]. https://www.ruor.uottawa.
ca/bitstream/10393/36445/1/Gravel_Emilie_2017_thesis.pdf
Guilbault, V., Bouizegarene, N., Philippe, F. L., & Vallerand, R. J. (2020). Understanding extradyadic
sex and its underlying motives through a dualistic model of sexual passion. Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 37(1), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519864446
Guilbault, V., & Philippe, F. L. (2017). Commitment in romantic relationships as a function ofpartners’ encoding of important couple-related memories. Memory, 25, 595–606. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1197943
Jensen, J. F., Rauer, A. M., & Volling, B. (2013). A dyadic view of support in marriage: The critical roleof men’s support provision. Sex Roles, 68, 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0256-x
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
Kenny, D., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in theactor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359–366. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0019651
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation insecurity of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384. https://doi.
org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.3367
Lantagne, A., & Furman, W. (2017). Romantic relationship development: The interplay between
age and relationship length. Developmental Psychology, 53(9), 1738–1749. https://doi.org/10.
1037/dev0000363
Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A
couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304–326.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.304
Maxwell, J., Muise, A., MacDonald, G., Day, L., Rosen, N., & Impett, E. (2017). How implicit
theories of sexuality shape sexual and relationship well-being. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 112, 238–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000078

Beaudoin et al.

17

Muise, A., Impett, E., & Desmarais, S. (2013). Getting it on versus getting it over with. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1320–1332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490963
Murray, S. H., Milhausen, R. R., Graham, C. A., & Kuczynski, L. (2017). A qualitative explorationof factors that affect sexual desire among men aged 30 to 65 in long-term relationships. The
Journal of Sex Research, 54(3), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1168352
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Author.
Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size anddetermine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1207/s153
28007sem0904_8
Nimbi, F. M., Tripodi, F., Rossi, R., Navarro-Cremades, F., & Simonelli, C. (2020). Male sexualdesire: An overview of biological, psychological, sexual, relational, and cultural factors influencing desire. Sexual Medicine Reviews, 8(1), 59–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.12.002
Philippe, F. L., Vallerand, R. J., Beaulieu-Pelletier, G., Maliha, G., Laventure, S., & Ricard-St-Aubin, J.-S. (2019). Development of a dualistic model of sexual passion: Investigating determinants and consequences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 2537–2552. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-019-01524-w
Philippe, F. L., Vallerand, R. J., Bernard-Desrosiers, L., Guilbault, V., & Rajotte, G. (2017).
Understanding the cognitive and motivational underpinnings of sexual passion from a dualistic
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pspp0000116
Pinney, E. M., Gerrard, M., & Denney, N. W. (1987). The Pinney Sexual Satisfaction Inventory.
Journal of Sex Research, 23, 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498709551359
Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1999). Sage series on close relationships. Lust: What we know abouthuman sexual desire. Sage Publications, Inc.
Rehman, U. S., Rellini, A. H., & Fallis, E. (2011). The importance of sexual self-disclosure tosexual satisfaction and functioning in committed relationships. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8, 3108–3115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02439.x
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs inmotivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.
Shaw, A. M., & Rogge, R. D. (2016) Evaluating and refining the construct of sexual quality withitem response theory: Development of the Quality of Sex Inventory. Archives Sexual Behavior,
45(2), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0650-x
Sprecher, S. (2002). Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: Associations with satisfaction,
love, commitment, and stability. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 190–196. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00224490209552141
Toates, F. (2009). An integrative theoretical framework for understanding sexual motivation,
arousal, and behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 46(2–3), 168–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224490902747768
Vallerand, R. J. (2015). The psychology of passion: A dualistic model. Oxford University Press.
Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Leonard, M., Gagné, M., &Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de l’Âme: on obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 756–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.756
Yeh, H. C., Lorenz, F. O., Wickrama, K. A. S., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. Jr. (2006). Relationships among sexual satisfaction, marital quality, and marital instability at midlife. Journal of
Family Psychology, 20, 339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.2.339