PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate actor and partner effects of sexual attitude and marital intimacy on sexual satisfaction in pregnant couples.
Methods
Data were collected from 176 pairs of the pregnant couples visiting for prenatal care at hospitals from June 18 to September 24, 2016. The collected data were analyzed by paired t-test and Pearson's correlation coefficients using SPSS 18.0 and interdependent effect (Actor-Partner Interdependence Model analysis) through AMOS 18.0.
Results
The sexual attitude and marital intimacy of the pregnant woman did not have a partner effect on the sexual satisfaction of her husband, respectively(β=.12, p=.141), (β=.01, p=.938). The sexual attitude of the husband had a partner effect on the sexual satisfaction of the pregnant woman (β=.13, p=.021), but the marital intimacy of the husband did not show a partner effect (β=.07, p=.202).
Conclusion
Study suggests that the sexual attitude and marital intimacy of pregnant couples should be considered as factors when developing an intervention to improve sexual satisfaction in couples. Moreover, pregnant couples should participate in intervention together because the sexual satisfaction has conceptual view of interdependence in two-person relationships.
REFERENCES
1. Lee KO, Kim YH. Sexuality and marital satisfaction of married women. Family and Environment Research. 2003; 41(7):39–58.
2. Kim HJ. A study on the development of the marital relationship enhancement program for early married couples based on positive psychotherapy. Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy. 2005; 17(4):877–906.
3. Waring EM, Tillman MP, Frelick L, Russell L, Weisz G. Concepts of intimacy in the general population. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1980; 168(8):471–474.
4. Matthias RE, Lubben JE, Atchison KA, Schweitzer SO. Sexual activity and satisfaction among very old adults: Results from a community-dwelling medicare population survey. Gerontologist. 1997; 37(1):6–14.
5. von Sydow K. Sexuality during pregnancy and after childbirth: A metacontent analysis of 59 studies. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 1999; 47(1):27–49.
6. Aslan G, Aslan D, Kizilyar A, Ispahi C, Esen A. A prospective analysis of sexual functions during pregnancy. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2005; 17(2):154–157.
7. Eryilmaz G, Ege E, Zincir H. Factors affecting sexual life during pregnancy in eastern Turkey. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 2004; 57(2):103–108.
8. Mims FH, Brown L, Lubow R. Human sexuality course evaluation. Nursing Research. 1976; 25(3):187–191.
9. Shin HC. Sexuality during pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science. 1991; 34(7):905–909.
10. Kim YM, Park YS. A study on sexual life during pregnancy. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 1997; 3(1):41–57.
11. Kim JK. Sexual life of husband and wife after hysterectomy [master's thesis]. Daegu: Keimyung University;2000. p. 68.
12. Lee YP, Km SJ, Jeong GH. Pregnant women's attitude and satisfaction for sexuality. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2000; 30(5):1292–1302.
13. McCloskey JC. How to make the most of body image theory in nursing practice. Nursing. 1976; 6(5):68–72.
14. Moon EJ. The relationship between sexual satisfaction and marital satisfaction in married couples: Focusing on the mediating effect of intimacy and self-esteem [master's thesis]. Seoul: Sungshin Women's University;2009. p. 42.
15. Haning RV, O'Keefe SL, Randall EJ, Kommor MJ, Baker E, Wilson R. Intimacy, orgasm likelihood, and conflict predict sexual satisfaction in heterosexual male and female respondents. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2007; 33(2):93–113.
16. Kim YG, Han SY, Han M. The relation between married couples' self-esteem and sexual satisfaction. The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology. 2008; 13(2):103–119.
17. Derogatis LR. Psychological assessment of psychosexual functioning. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 1980; 3(1):113–131.
18. Bagarozzi DA. Marital power discrepancies and symptom development in spouses: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Family Therapy. 1990; 18(1):51–64.
19. Kenny DA. Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1996; 13(2):279–294.
20. Moon SB. Basic concepts and applications of structural equation modeling. 1st ed.Seoul: Hakjisa;2009. p. 723.
21. Hudson WW, Murphy GJ. Sexual attitude scale. Fisher TD, Davis CM, Yarber WL, Davis SL, editors. editors.Handbook of sexuality-related measures. 3nd ed.New York, NY: Routledge;2010. p. 75–76.
22. Waring EM, Reddon JR. The measurement of intimacy in marriage: The waring intimacy questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1983; 39(1):53–57.
23. Kim SN. A structural model for quality of life in women having hysterectomies. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 1999; 29(1):161–173.
24. Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N. The DSFI: A multidimensional measure of sexual functioning. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 1979; 5(3):244–281.
25. Chang SB, Lee KH. An analytic study on influencing factors for sexual satisfaction in women who have had a hysterectomy. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 1989; 19(2):160–172.
26. Woo KM, Jee YJ, Kim BR. Influencing factor of maternal-fetal attachment on preparing for childbirth class. Asia-Pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology. 2015; 5(2):81–88.
27. Lee KH. Marriage types classified by wives' perception of marital conflict and intimacy [dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University;1998. p. 83.
28. Hagedoorn M, Sanderman R, Buunk BP, Wobbes T. Failing in spousal caregiving: The "identity-relevant stress" hypothesis to explain sex differences in caregiver distress. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2002; 7(4):481–494.
29. Kiefer AK, Sanchez DT. Scripting sexual passivity: A gender role perspective. Personal Relationships. 2007; 14(2):269–290.
Table 1.
Characteristics of Pregnant Couples (N=176 couples)
| Characteristics | Categories | Pregnant woman | Husband |
|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Age (year) | ＜30 | 34 (19.3) | 15 (8.5) |
| 30~34 | 105 (59.7) | 85 (48.3) | |
| 35~39 | 33 (18.8) | 62 (35.2) | |
| ≥40 | 4 (2.3) | 14 (8.0) | |
| Education | ≤High school | 9 (5.1) | 22 (12.5) |
| ≥Junior college | 167 (94.9) | 154 (87.5) | |
| Job | No | 68 (38.6) | 1 (0.6) |
| Yes | 108 (61.4) | 175 (99.4) | |
| Type of family | Nuclear | 170 (96.6) | - |
| Extended | 6 (3.4) | - | |
| Monthly income | ＜200 | 12 (6.8) | - |
| (10,000 won) | 200~399 | 89 (50.6) | - |
| 400~599 | 59 (33.5) | - | |
| ≥600 | 16 (9.1) | - | |
| Gestational age (week) | 22.0±5.7† | - | |
| Parity | No | 123 (69.9) | - |
| Yes | 53 (30.1) | - | |
| Abortion | No | 145 (82.4) | - |
| Yes | 31 (17.6) | - | |
| Sex education received | No | 133 (75.6) | 137 (77.8) |
| Yes | 43 (24.4) | 39 (21.6) |
Table 2.
Differences in Study Variables between Pregnant Couples (N=176 couples
| Variables | Pregnant woman | Husband | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M±SD | M±SD | |||
| Sexual attitude | 3.36±0.41 | 3.32±0.38 | 1.03 | .305 |
| Marital intimacy | 3.46±0.44 | 3.52±0.31 | -1.37 | .171 |
| Sexual satisfaction | 3.43±0.47 | 3.62±0.34 | -5.00 | ＜.001 |
Table 3.
Relationships among Study Variables (N=176 couples)
Table 4.
Model Fit Indices of Hypothetical Model
| Index | x2 (p) | df | NC | SRMR | GFI | NNFI | CFI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1.097 (.295) | 1 | 1.097 | 0.010 | 0.998 | 0.995 | 0.998 | 0.024 |
| Criteria | ≥.05 | 2~3 | ≤.05 | ＞.90 | ＞.90 | ＞.90 | ≤.05 |
Table 5.
Impact of Pregnant Couple's Sex Attitude and Marital Intimacy on Pregnant Couple's Sexual Satisfaction (N=176 couples)
XML Download