Solitary pornography use b ¼ 22 t 200 ¼ 236 p ¼

This preview shows page 13 - 15 out of 22 pages.

solitary pornography use, b ¼ .22, t (200) ¼ 2.36, p ¼ .019. Tests of simple slopes indicated that when actors’ never used pornography alone, they reported lower closeness when their partners’ used pornography alone, z ¼ ± 4.43, p < .001; however, when actors engaged in solitary pornography use more than once a day, their reported closeness was not related to their partners’ solitary pornography use, z ¼ 1.185, p ¼ .236. We again followed-up with a polynomial regression model by adding squared actors’ and partners’ solitary pornography use to this model. These variables did not improve the fit of the model w 2 (2) ¼ 0.58, p ¼ .748, so they were not retained. RSA was applied to our retained model to further describe the concordance-related effects (see Figure 2(a) and 2(b)). The results of this analysis 8 indicated that closeness was lower among dis- cordant solitary pornography users, a 4 ¼ ± .22, t (400) ¼ 2.37, p ¼ .018, particularly when an actor’s use was lower than their partner’s, a 3 ¼ .17, t (400) ¼ 2.25, p ¼ .025, than among concordant pornography users or non-users. Further, closeness was also lower among participants who were in couples with concordant moderate-frequency solitary pornography use compared to couples who were concordant in no solitary pornography use or high-frequency solitary use of pornography, a 2 ¼ .22, t (400) ¼ 2.37, p ¼ .018, a 1 ¼ ± .01, t (400) ¼ ± .04, p ¼ .965. Discussion This study sought to examine the associations between solitary pornography use, shared pornography use, sexual communication, and closeness, in a sample of 200 heterosexual American couples. The results confirmed our predictions about shared pornography use by indicating that the frequency of shared pornography use was positively associated with both the openness of sexual communication and closeness. Our hypotheses regarding solitary pornography use were only partially supported. Sexual communication was more inhibited, and closeness was lower, among both solitary pornography users and their partners when one partner used pornography alone and the other did not. However, the reported openness of sexual communication and closeness was similar between partici- pants who were in couples where both partners used pornography frequently as well as participants who were in couples where neither partner used pornography. Initially, we expected that any pornography use should be associated with more uninhibited sexual communication; however, this was clearly not the case. Although unexpected, our finding that sexual communication was more inhibited among couples that were discordant in solitary pornography use is consistent with recent evidence that dyad-level communication quality may be negatively associated with differences between partners’ reported frequencies of pornography use (Willoughby et al., 2015). We were also Kohut et al. 667
Figure 2.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture