Sexuality & Culture (2022) 26:1452–1476

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-022-09953-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity

Gaps on Sexual and Relational Outcomes in Diverse
Relationships

Valerie Rubinsky1

Accepted: 4 February 2022 / Published online: 2 March 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
2022

Abstract
Framed through the Communication Theory of Identity (CTI), the present study
explored how CTI’s construct of identity gaps, or discrepancies between different
aspects of the self, interact with the relationship between sexual self-disclosure and
sexual satisfaction, relational satisfaction, and sexual communication satisfaction for
people in non-normative relationships. Participants included 687 people in a vari-
ety of LGBTQ, polyamorous, or BDSM relational dynamics. Results of hierarchical
regression analyses suggest that identity gaps explain additional variation in sexual
satisfaction, relational satisfaction, and sexual communication satisfaction compared
to sexual self-disclosure alone. The effects are more pronounced for sexual commu-
nication and relational satisfaction compared to sexual satisfaction. Implications and
avenues for future research are addressed.

Keywords Communication theory of identity · Sexual self-disclosure · Diverse

relationships · Sexual communication

Introduction

Communication about sex between and among intimate partners has important
implications for relationship quality and sexual satisfaction, which are themselves
related. Constructive sexual communication predicts behaviors that may improve
relational quality (MacNeil & Byers, 2005) and sexual quality (Byers & Demmons,
1999), and increase relational stability (Yeh et al., 2006). Alternatively, poor or
ineffective sexual communication has been associated with sexual dissatisfaction

* Valerie Rubinsky
[email protected]
1
Social Science Program, University of Maine at Augusta, 46 University Drive, Augusta,
ME 04330, USA

1Vol:.(1234567890)
3
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity… 1453

(MacNeil & Byers, 2009) and relational dissatisfaction or deterioration (Byers,

2011; Montesi et al., 2011; Noland, 2010).
Despite its unique significance as a factor in predicting relational quality (Mon-
tesi et al., 2011), a plethora of previous research establishes that engaging in pro-
ductive sexual communication is difficult. Constructive sexual communication
poses challenges for even long-term relational partners to engage because it is face-
threatening (Cupach & Metts, 1994; Noland, 2010; Rubinsky & Hosek, 2019), risky
(Petronio, 2002), and taboo (Anderson et al., 2011; Noland, 2010). Revealing sexual
desires, initiating safety discussions, or setting boundaries exposes an individual
to feelings of vulnerability and risks rejection from important others. In addition,
sex implicates social group identities in ways that can result negatively in other- or
self-stereotyping, even within close relationships (Byers, 2011; Green & Faulkner,
2005; Rubinsky, 2021a, 2021b). Although discussions about sex between relational
partners improve relational quality, sexual quality, and sexual health (Sprecher &
Cate, 2004), adults generally do not feel well prepared to discuss sexual desire or
sexual health with their relational partners, which can lead to problems like conflict
(Noland, 2010; Rubinsky & Cooke-Jackson, 2018; Sprecher & Cate, 2004), and reli-
ance on socially-ascribed and often unsatisfying roles in a sexual script (Green &
Faulkner, 2005). These factors may be amplified in relationships that cannot rely on
normative scripts, or otherwise deviate from normative relational models (Rubinsky,
2021a, 2021b). As such, explaining the factors underlying constructive sexual com-
munication that account for its face-threatening and identity-laden nature may equip
scholars and practitioners to recommend strategies for improving communication
about sex. The present study aims to investigate how identity-laden communication
processes predict relational outcomes amid sex talk in non-normative relationships.

Sex Talk: Sexual Disclosure, Satisfaction, & Identity

Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Sexual, Relational, and Communication Satisfaction

Sexual communication is a challenging but important component of close romantic

relationships (Mallory, 2021). Although much of sexual communication is nonver-
bal (Horan, 2016), sexual self-disclosure, a component and frequent operationaliza-
tion of sexual communication, is typically defined as the process of revealing one’s
intimate attitudes, feelings, and experiences (Byers, 2011; Sprecher & Hendrick,
2004). Sexual self-disclosure has a variety of dimensions by the content of the dis-
closure (e.g., fantasy disclosures, affective disclosures). Sexual self-disclosure has
been found to influence a variety of forms of relational quality, often operational-
ized as sexual satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with the sexual parts of a relationship),
relationship satisfaction (i.e., overall satisfaction with the romantic relationship),
and sexual communication satisfaction, which refers to satisfaction with the quality
of sexual communication within a relationship (Byers, 2011; Byers & Demmons,
1999). A recent meta-analysis examining how different dimensions of sexual com-
munication correlate with sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction found

13
1454 V. Rubinsky

sexual self-disclosure to be a significant variable predicting sexual and relationship

satisfaction (Mallory, 2021). However, the same analysis suggested that sexual com-
munication quality and other factors like culture are significantly influential as well
(Mallory, 2021).
Sexual communication’s relationship to sexual and relationship satisfaction in
prior research has been somewhat murky (Mallory, 2021). Sexual self-disclosure
predicts sexual satisfaction (Rehman et al., 2011) and sexual communication satis-
faction in heterosexual dating partners (Byers & Demmons, 1999). Reciprocal sex-
ual self-disclosure is associated with relationship satisfaction, which in turn leads to
greater sexual satisfaction in heterosexual couples (McNeil & Byers, 2005, 2009).
Some scholars have proposed that one partner’s sexual self-disclosure may also
lead to greater partner understanding of sexual preferences and more favorable per-
ceptions of sexual costs and rewards, thereby leading to greater sexual satisfaction
(McNeil & Byers, 2005). For LGBTQ people, sexual disclosure is also correlated
with relational and sexual satisfaction, and they often position it as especially essen-
tial for their more diverse sexual relationships (Rubinsky & Hosek, 2019). In sum,
sexually self-disclosing seems to improve relational quality by improving relation-
ship and sexual satisfaction.
While sexual self-disclosure appears to predict positive sexual and relational
outcomes, sexual communication quality has a larger effect size in a meta-analysis
(Mallory, 2021). I argue that the relationship may be more fully explained when
accounting for identity as a factor influencing sexual communication quality.
Describing the relationship between sexual self-disclosure and relational satisfaction
linearly may be an oversimplification without accounting for other factors. Because
sexual communication can be face-threatening (Anderson et al., 2011; Cupach &
Metts, 1994; Noland, 2010), and implicates group-based categorizations (Green &
Faulkner, 2005; Rubinsky & Cooke-Jackson, 2018; Wiederman, 2005), I argue that
the resulting satisfaction may be better explained by how a relational partner affirms
or challenges important aspects of one’s identity in communication, which may
vary by identity and warrants specific attention in relationally and sexually diverse
populations.

Relational Diversity & Sexual Communication

Sexual activity, relationships, and sexual communication may not be experienced

uniformly across a diversity of types of relationships typically underrepresented
among the sexual self-disclosure literature, namely those that are not heteronorma-
tive and/or mononormative, as well as a variety of other types of relationships that
may be less common or accepted than others. For instance, several less normative
relational identities, including LGBTQ people, polyamorous people, and BDSM/
kink practitioners with disabilities, share several communication experiences that
emphasize boundary setting and the influence of identity in sexual communication
(Kattari, 2015). People who are LGBTQ, polyamorous, and who practice BDSM
also report sexual identity gaps that include both normative issues (e.g., sexual con-
flict) and specific issues related to their group identities (e.g., tensions around BDSM
language; Rubinsky, 2021a), as well as strategies for managing sexual conflict that

13
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity… 1455

are unique to their relational diversity (Rubinsky, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c). According
to this research, marginalized communities’ sexual behaviors may both support and
enhance productive sexual communication (Kattari, 2015). However, marginalized
sexual communities may also experience difficulty in identifying a common lan-
guage to talk about their bodies (Kosenko, 2011a, 2011b) or relationships (Ritchie
& Barker, 2006).
The term non-normative may be used to describe relationships that are less preva-
lent and/or less broadly accepted, or deviating from the commonality or acceptance
that characterizes normativity (Emmers-Sommer, 2005). This definition focuses on
the perception of normativity to the individual or ascription of non-normativity by
interpersonal others or society at large. While many relationship types are included
in that broad definition, research often includes LGBTQ relationships, interracial
relationships, relationships characterized by visible disability, polyamorous relation-
ships, and BDSM relationships, but may also include other types of relationships
(e.g., interfaith, visible age differences). For the present study, the defining feature
of a non-normative relationship is perception by either members of the relation-
ship, or ascription by individuals outside the relationship as less common and/or less
accepted than other kinds of relationships.
While all sexual communication may be face-threatening (Cupach & Metts, 1994;
Rubinsky & Hosek, 2019), within non-normative relationships, sexual communica-
tion also holds the potential for conversations characterized by stigma, which would
result in higher risk sexual disclosures (Petronio, 2002; Rubinsky & Hosek, 2019).
However, many people in non-normative relationships identify that their partnered
sexual communication is unavoidable (Rubinsky & Hosek, 2019) or can be more
beneficial (Kattari, 2015). For example, explicit verbal sexual communication would
be a requirement to engage in fulfilling sexual activity for sexual identities that may
be primarily enacted in partnered activity, as is the case for many people who prac-
tice BDSM (Rubinsky, 2018). For people in non-normative relationships, the conse-
quences of disclosure may also be more severe, involving not just social and emo-
tional risk, but physical danger (Kosenko, 2011a, 2011b). For example, transgender
individuals may be required to manage or negotiate multiple levels of their safety
when sexually self-disclosing to intimate partners, which can include psychological
needs like identity validation, or balancing those needs with the potential for risk
of gender-related violence (Kosenko, 2011a, 2011b). Attention to both sexual iden-
tity and relational type enables exploration of both the opportunities and challenges
faced by individuals in non-normative relationships. This is important because pre-
vious research suggests these relationships may both enhance (Kattari, 2015; Rubin-
sky & Hosek, 2019) and impede (Kosenko, 2011a, 2011b) sexual and relational sat-
isfaction. Thus, identity is an important component of sexual communication.

Theoretical Perspective: Communication Theory of Identity

This study conceptualizes identity through the Communication Theory of Iden-

tity (CTI), which proposes four interconnected layers or frames of identity (Hecht,
1993). These four layers include personal, enacted, relational, and communal layers

13
1456 V. Rubinsky

of identity (Hecht, 1993). CTI asserts that identity is inherently a communicative

process, proposing the enacted layer, which involves the all of the other ways in
which people perform the self and enact the self in communication (Hecht, Jackson,
et al., 2005; Hecht, Jackson, et al., 2005; Hecht, Warren, et al., 2005; Hecht, War-
ren, et al., 2005), as a site of identity. Hecht (1993) argues that individuals enact
identities in social interaction through communication. CTI emphasizes multiple,
shifting, and interrelated layers of identity (Hecht, 1993). In addition to the enacted
layer, identity loci include personal, relational, and communal frames of identity.
The personal layer of identity per CTI locates identity within our sense of self
(Hecht, 1993). The relational layer of identity involves relational ascriptions, learn-
ing identity through relating, and relationships as units of identity (Jung & Hecht,
2004). Lastly, the communal identity locates identity within the social group (Jung
& Hecht, 2004). As individuals strive for consistency among aspects of the self,
identity gaps manifest through discrepancies between and among the four layers of
identity (Jung & Hecht, 2004).
Identity gaps, or discrepancies, tensions, or contradictions between an individ-
ual’s self-concept, relational or normative ascriptions made by others, how iden-
tity occurs in communication or performances, and/or collective identities, occur
to some extent in most interactions (Jung & Hecht, 2004). Drawing from the most
empirically studied identity gaps, and those that occur at the interpersonal rather
than intergroup level (Jung, 2013), the present study considers personal-enacted,
personal-relational, and enacted-relational identity gaps. The personal-relational
identity gap describes the experience of inconsistencies between one’s view of the
self and how they perceive others’ relational appraisals (Jung & Hecht, 2004). The
personal-enacted identity gap describes inconsistencies that may emerge between
a person’s view of themselves and the identity that they express or that emerges in
communication (Hecht & Choi, 2012; Jung & Hecht, 2004). The enacted-relational
identity gap refers to discrepancies between expression and relational ascriptions
(Kam & Hecht, 2009), and may be especially common amid face-threatening com-
munication (Jung, 2013).
Previous research establishing a typology of the kinds of sexual identity gaps
people in non-normative relationships might experience (Rubinsky, 2021a) sug-
gests that people in diverse relationships experience sexual identity gaps both for
reasons common across most relationships (e.g., sexual conflict, sex drive discrep-
ancies, taboo nature of sex talk) and reasons that are unique to their relationship type
(e.g., sexual or gender identity stigma, transitioning). While these qualitative studies
are useful at describing what identity gaps might look like, they do not explain the
relationship between identity gaps and relational outcomes, which previous research
suggests is meaningful to consider. Others have identified identity gaps emerge in
a variety of non-normative identities and relationships including those who are
transgender (Nuru, 2014; Wagner et al., 2016), LGBTQ (Faulkner & Hecht, 2011),
and polyamorous (Rubinsky, 2019).
Identity gaps predict a number of individual and relational outcomes, including
conversation inappropriateness and ineffectiveness (Jung & Hecht, 2004), and nega-
tive health outcomes (e.g., including depression; Wadsworth et al., 2008; and stress;
Jung & Hecht, 2008; Jung et al., 2007). For polyamorous people, personal-enacted

13
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity… 1457

and personal-relational identity gaps and communicative response to jealousy pre-

dict relational and communication satisfaction (Rubinsky, 2019). Personal-enacted
identity gaps are negatively related to both communication and relationship satisfac-
tion (Kam & Hecht, 2009). Importantly, identity gaps may also mediate the rela-
tionship between a number of communication phenomena and relational and health
outcomes (Jung, 2011).
The integration of CTI to help explain, describe, and predict issues related to
sexual communication is noteworthy because sex is an intergroup arena (Rubinsky
& Cooke-Jackson, 2018). Applying CTI to non-normative sexual relationships may
more fully explain sexual quality and relational outcomes. Given that identity gaps
can emerge in sexual communication (Rubinsky, 2021a), this paper explores to what
extent identity gaps manifest in ways that explain the relational and sexual outcomes
associated with sexual communication. Although personal-enacted, personal-rela-
tional, and enacted-relational identity gaps predict a multitude of outcomes indicat-
ing relational quality, personal-enacted identity gaps appear to provide the strongest,
and most consistent predictor compared to personal-relational and enacted-relational
identity gaps. Personal-enacted identity gaps may precede personal-relational iden-
tity gaps in some path analyses (Jung & Hecht, 2004, 2008). Jung and Hecht (2004,
2008) suggest this is because personal-enacted identity gaps emerge in the instance
of communication, and personal-relational identity gaps may be a cause of the com-
munication outcome. The present study continues to clarify the nature of these gaps
in relational contexts by including all three in a regression model to consider their
specific effects.
Sexual activity is an important relational and communicative avenue that CTI
research is only beginning to explore. Sexual activity is an identity-laden arena in
which identity gaps are likely to emerge because identity is implicated in all sexual
communication (Manning, 2014; Rubinsky & Cooke-Jackson, 2018). Exploring the
nature of identity gaps in sexual communication both expands the theory by extend-
ing it into a new communicative arena, advances the analytic utility of the identity
gap construct by further clarifying the nature of identity gaps, and offers avenues
to better explain the processes by which intimate communication affects individ-
ual wellbeing and relational quality. Thus, the present study poses the following
hypothesis:

H1: Adding personal-enacted, personal-relational, and relational-enacted identity

gaps into regression models will provide more explanatory power in predicting (a)
sexual communication satisfaction, (b) relationship satisfaction, and (c) sexual satis-
faction than sexual disclosure alone.

Methods

Recruitment and Sample

As part of a larger study on sexual communication in diverse relationships, the

present study employed a survey method by utilizing an online survey, hosted on

13
1458 V. Rubinsky

Qualtrics.com. Prior to completing the online survey, participants were taken to an

informed consent page once approved by the author’s Institutional Review Board at
the time research was conducted. Informed consent explained participants’ rights as
participants. Through internal funding, to incentivize participation, 75 participants,
randomly chosen using a random number generator, were offered $10 Amazon gift-
cards for participating in the research. To preserve anonymity, a separate Qualtrics.
com link collected identifying information (i.e., names, mailing addresses, and email
addresses) to send gift card winners their compensation. Because the link recorded
information in a separate survey, participant responses were not associated with any
identifying information at any stage in the research process.
Following IRB approval, participants were recruited from a variety of social
media spaces and email listservs, and the recruitment call asked for anyone who was
over 18 years old, in a relationship for at least 3 months, and felt their relationship(s)
were less common or less accepted than other kinds of relationships. Data collection
took place during the summer of 2018. Because demographic questions were placed
on the last page of the questionnaire to minimize priming effects, there is a higher
number of total participants than those who provided demographic information. As
a result of this, demographic controls (e.g., age and relationship length) were not
included in the model despite prior evidence that they are relevant considerations
(Mallory, 2021). This is discussed further in the limitations section of the paper.
In total, 687 participants were included in the analyses described in the next sec-
tion. Relational lengths ranged from three months to 684 months (57 years), with
the average length of approximately three years (M = 37.52, SD = 54.82). Partici-
pants ranged in age from 18 to 75 (M = 26.55, SD = 8.97). Participants were predom-
inantly white (n = 420, 82.8%), followed by two or more races (n = 26, 5.1%), Asian
or Pacific Islander (n = 21, 4.1%), or Black or African American (n = 19, 3.7%). Par-
ticipants reported a range of gender identities, including cisgender women (n = 272,
55.9%), cisgender men (n = 104, 21.4%), nonbinary (n = 22, 4.5%), transgender
women (n = 17, 3.5%), transgender men, (n = 17, 3.5%), genderqueer (n = 15, 3.1%),
or otherwise under the transgender or gender non-conforming umbrellas (n = 40,
8.1%). Just over half of participants identified their sexuality under the LGBQ
umbrella (53.7%), including gay (n = 22, 4.1%), lesbian (n = 35, 6.6%), bisexual
(n = 108, 20.3%), pansexual (n = 61, 11.5%), and asexual spectrum (n = 20, 3.8%) or
otherwise under the LGBQ umbrella (n = 39, 7.3%), with the remainder identifying
as heterosexual (n = 247, 46.4%). Of the sample who provided demographic infor-
mation, 22% identified as polyamorous, and 37.5% identified as practicing BDSM.

Instrumentation

The questionnaire included five sections. The questions included in this manuscript
were presented in the first section of the questionnaire. Data from other sections
of the survey has been reported elsewhere (Rubinsky, 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c).
Unless noted otherwise, all scale response formats are measured on Likert-type
scales (one = lowest levels of the construct; seven = highest levels of the construct)

13
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity… 1459

after any reverse coding. Individuals with multiple partners were asked to think of
one partner (with whom their relationship otherwise met the recruitment criteria)
throughout their participation for quantitative measures. Prior research has found
that while identity gaps tend to be highly correlated, they do not constitute a latent
construct, but rather comprise unique constructs (Kam & Hecht, 2009).

Sexual disclosure

The Revised Sexual Self-Disclosure Scale (SSDS-R) consists initially of 72-items

measuring people’s willingness to discuss the following sexual topics with an inti-
mate partner: Sexual behaviors, sexual sensations, sexual fantasies, sexual prefer-
ences, meaning of sex, sexual accountability, distressing sex, sexual dishonesty,
sexual delay preferences, abortion and pregnancy, homosexuality, rape, AIDS, sex-
ual morality, sexual satisfaction, sexual guilt, sexual calmness, sexual depression,
sexual jealousy, sexual apathy, sexual anxiety, sexual happiness (Snell et al., 1989).
The response format ranges from (1) “I am not at all willing to discuss this topic
with my partner” to (5) “I am totally willing to discuss this topic with my partner.”
Higher scores indicate a higher willingness to sexually self-disclose. The present
study employed the SSDS-R with minor adaptations (i.e., removing questions per-
taining to homosexuality due to overlap with aspects of identity salience). The pre-
sent study’s version of the SSDS-R included 20 sub-scales for sexual disclosure.
Sexual behaviors consist of three items (e.g., “My past sexual experience”) and was
reliable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.805 (M = 3.97, SD = 1.06). Sexual sensations
consist of three items (e.g., “The kinds of touching that sexually arouse me”) and
was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90 (M = 4.04, SD = 1.04). Sexual fantasies consist
of three items (e.g., “My private sexual fantasies”), and was reliable, Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.90 (M = 3.46, SD = 1.26). Sexual preferences also consist of three items
(e.g., “The sexual preferences that I have”) and was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87
(M = 3.98, SD = 1.08). Meanings of sex consist of three items (“What sex in an
intimate relationship means to me”), and was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86
(M = 3.96, SD = 1.12). Attitudes toward sexual accountability consists of three items
(e.g., “My private beliefs about sexual responsibility”), and was reliable, Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.86 (M = 3.86, SD = 1.21). Distressing sexual experiences consists of three
items (e.g., “Times when sex was distressing for me”), and was reliable, Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.81 (M = 3.35, SD = 1.30). Sexual dishonesty consists of three items (e.g.,
“The times I have pretended to enjoy sex”), and was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 74
(M = 3.14, SD = 1.26). Sexual delay preferences consist of three items (e.g., “Times
when I prefer to refrain from sexual activity”), and was reliable, Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.88 (M = 3.67, SD = 1.28). Safer sex beliefs, an adaptation from the previ-
ous “AIDS beliefs” in the SSDS-R, consist of two items (e.g., “My beliefs about safe
sex”), and was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83 (M = 4.11, SD = 1.17). Sexual satis-
faction consists of three items (e.g., “How satisfied I feel about the sexual aspects of
my life”) was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88 (M = 3.83, SD = 1.18). Sexual guilt
consists of three items (e.g., “How guilty I feel about the sexual aspects of my life”),
and was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85 (M = 2.82, SD = 1.18). Sexual calmness
consists of three items (e.g., “How calm I feel about the sexual aspects of my life”),

13
1460 V. Rubinsky

and was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87 (M = 0.87, SD = 1.37). Sexual depression
consists of three items (e.g., “How depressed I feel about the sexual aspects of my
life), and was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90 (M = 2.62, SD = 1.47). Sexual jeal-
ousy consists of three items (e.g., “How jealous I feel about the sexual aspects of
my life”), was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83 (M = 2.72, SD = 1.42). Sexual apa-
thy consists of three items (e.g., “How apathetic I feel about the sexual aspects of
my life”), and was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89 (M = 2.55, SD = 1.45). Sexual
anxiety consists of three items (e.g., “How anxious I feel about the sexual aspects of
my life”), and was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87 (M = 2.80, SD = 1.41). Sexual
happiness consists of three items (e.g., “How cheerful If eel about the sexual aspects
of my life”), and was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91 (M = 3.72, SD = 1.29). Sexual
anger consists of three items (e.g., “How mad I feel about the sexual aspects of my
life”) and was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93 (M = 2.49, SD = 1.53). Sexual fear
consists of three items (e.g., How fearful I feel about the sexual aspects of my life”),
was reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92 (M = 2.69, SD = 1.50). Although dimensions
of sexual disclosure also tend to by highly correlated (see Table 1), the present study
is the first to consider the relationships between identity gaps and dimensions of
sexual disclosure. Thus, each dimension is considered separately to examine unique
contributions that disclosing particular types of content might have in the present
study.

Personal‑enacted identity gaps

Personal-enacted identity gaps are discrepancies between the personal frame of

identity in CTI (i.e., sense of self), and the enacted frame of identity (i.e., the self in
communication) (Jung & Hecht, 2004, 2008). There is a short (six-items with four
reverse coded-item) and long (11-item scale with five reverse-coded items) version
of the scale. Both are valid and reliable, but the short-version is more parsimonious
and has been validated more frequently (Jung, 2011, 2013; Jung & Hecht, 2008;
Jung et al., 2007). Example items include, “I feel there are differences between the
‘real me’ and the impressions I give my partner,” and “I often hide some aspects of
myself in communication with my partner.” Identity gaps are measured on 5-item
scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with larger scores representing
larger identity gaps. In the present study, personal-enacted identity gaps were reli-
able, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84 (M = 1.77, SD = 0.76).

Personal‑relational identity gaps

Personal-relational identity gaps are discrepancies between the personal frame of

identity in CTI and the ascribed relational layer (Jung & Hecht, 2004, 2008). Like
personal-enacted identity gaps, there is a long (11-items, five reverse-coded items)
and short version (seven-items, 5 reverse-coded items) of this scale. Again, both
long and short versions appear reliable and valid, but the short-version has been
validated more frequently and is more parsimonious, thus it will be employed in the
present study. Example items include, “I feel there are differences between who I

13
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity… 1461

think I am and who my partner thinks I am,” and “I feel that my partner stereotypes
me.” Identity gaps are measured on 5-item scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree), with larger scores representing larger identity gaps. In the present study,
personal-relational identity gaps were reliable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82
(M = 2.03, SD = 0.71).

Enacted‑relational identity gaps

Although validated less frequently than personal-enacted and personal-relational

identity gaps, there have been efforts to improve the operationalization of enacted-
relational identity gaps with success (Jung, 2011, 2013; Kam & Hecht, 2009).
Enacted-relational identity gaps describe discrepancies between ascribed relational
identity and the self in communication (Jung, 2011). Enacted-relational identity gaps
are measured with a six-item scale, with two items reverse-coded. Example ques-
tions include, “I often feel that my partner portrays me not based on the information
I provide, but instead, on the information from other sources,” and “I often wonder
why my partner has different images of me from what I tried to give them.” Iden-
tity gaps are measured on 5-item scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree),
with larger scores representing larger identity gaps. In the present study, enacted-
relational identity gaps were reliable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85 (M = 1.97,
SD = 0.85).

Relational satisfaction1

Relational satisfaction was measured with Byers and Lawrence’s (1998) Global
Measure of Relational Satisfaction (GMRS). This scale using a seven-point bipo-
lar scale, to assess overall satisfaction with the relationship. Participants respond to
the question, “In general, how would you describe your overall relationship with
your partner?” (emphasis in original measure). Bipolar adjectives include good-bad,
pleasant-unpleasant, positive–negative, satisfying-unsatisfying, valuable-worthless.
After reverse-coding, higher scores indicate higher relational satisfaction. Higher
scores reflect greater relationship satisfaction. In the present study, relational satis-
faction was reliable, with Cronbach’s alpha = 0.929 (M = 6.26, SD = 1.04).

Sexual satisfaction

Sexual satisfaction was measured with the New Sexual Satisfaction Scale Short
Form (NSSS-S; Štulhofer et al., 2010), which is a 12-item, composite measure of
sexual satisfaction. The response format ranges from (1) not at all satisfied to (5)
extremely satisfied, with higher scores reflecting greater sexual satisfaction. Partici-
pants are instructed to think about their sex life during the last month with their
current partner when describing their satisfaction which each item. Sample items

1
The data in this paper for the variable “relationship satisfaction” is also reported in a different analysis
published elsewhere (Rubinsky, 2020). No other data in this paper is published elsewhere.

13
1462 V. Rubinsky

include, “My focus/concentration on sexual activity,” and “The way I sexually react
to my partner.” For the present study, sexual satisfaction was reliable, Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.91 (M = 3.80, SD = 0.86).

Sexual communication satisfaction

The Global Measure of Sexual Communication Satisfaction measures the overall

satisfaction with sexual communication within a relationship (Byers & Demmons,
1999). It follows the same seven-point bipolar scale as Byers and Lawrence (1998)’s
Global Measure of Relational Satisfaction. Participants are asked to consider all
the sexual activities about which they and their partner might communicate, and to
address the question “Overall, how would you describe your sexual communication
in your relationship with your partner?” Bipolar adjectives include good-bad, pleas-
ant-unpleasant, positive–negative, satisfying-unsatisfying, valuable-worthless. After
reverse-coding, higher scores indicate more sexual communication satisfaction.
In the present study, sexual communication satisfaction was reliable, Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.95 (M = 5.97, SD = 1.32).

Data Analysis

To test the hypothesis, three hierarchical regressions were run using IBM SPSS 28,
with relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and sexual communication sat-
isfaction entered respectively as the dependent variables. In the first step of each
regression model, all dimensions of sexual self-disclosure were included. In the sec-
ond step, the three identity gaps, personal-enacted, personal-relational, and enacted-
relational, were added. Table 1 presents the bivariate correlations among all var-
iables in the present study. Tables 2, 3 and 4 present the complete results of the
hierarchical regression analyses.

Results

Addressing H1a, the model examining the effects of sexual self-disclosure and iden-
tity gaps on sexual communication satisfaction found that at stage one, the hierar-
chical regression suggests that sexual disclosure does predict sexual communica-
tion satisfaction, F(20, 666) = 17.80, p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.329. Examining
the dimensions of sexual disclosure, only sexual jealousy disclosure, sexual happi-
ness disclosures, and sexual fear disclosures significantly contributed to the model
at p < 0.05. In the second stage, adding the three types of identity gaps to sexual
disclosure does still significant predict sexual communication satisfaction, F(23,
663) = 23.711, p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.451, R2change = 0.103, p < 0.001. All three
identity gaps contribute significantly to the model. In the complete model, sexual
fear disclosure and sexual happiness disclosure remain significant predictors, but
sexual jealousy disclosure does not. Thus, H1a was supported.

13
 Table 1  Bivariate Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Relationship Satisfaction 1 .697** .515** .286** .333** .317** .340** .406** .338** .294** .282** .332** .224** .402**
2. Sexual Communication .697** 1 .633** .376** .489** .458** .506** .482** .420** .380** .335** .397** .332** .533**
Satisfaction
3. Sexual Satisfaction .515** .633** 1 .338** .482** .466** .495** .487** .379** .355** .344** .338** .294** .537**
4. Sexual Behavior .286** .376** .338** 1 .652** .593** .652** .530** .550** .558** .540** .501** .441** .545**
Disclosure
5. Sexual Sensations .333** .489** .482** .652** 1 .793** .849** .671** .617** .519** .472** .540** .524** .710**
Disclosure
6. Sexual Fantasy Disclosure .317** .458** .466** .593** .793** 1 .831** .620** .558** .522** .507** .492** .428** .657**
7. Sexual Preferences .340** .506** .495** .652** .849** .831** 1 .710** .639** .568** .533** .586** .502** .705**
Disclosure
8. Meaning of Sex Disclosure .406** .482** .487** .530** .671** .620** .710** 1 .739** .659** .601** .714** .558** .748**
9. Sexual Accountability .338** .420** .379** .550** .617** .558** .639** .739** 1 .690** .649** .739** .637** .680**
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity…

Disclosure
10. Distressing Sex .294** .380** .355** .558** .519** .522** .568** .659** .690** 1 .810** .782** .514** .601**
Disclosure
11. Sexual Dishonesty .282** .335** .344** .540** .472** .507** .533** .601** .649** .810** 1 .719** .470** .575**
Disclosure
12. Sexual Delay Preferences .332** .397** .338** .501** .540** .492** .586** .714** .739** .782** .719** 1 .546** .637**
Disclosure
13. Sexual Safety Disclosure .224** .332** .294** .441** .524** .428** .502** .558** .637** .514** .470** .546** 1 .578**
14. Sexual Satisfaction .402** .533** .537** .545** .710** .657** .705** .748** .680** .601** .575** .637** .578** 1
Disclosure
15. Sexual Guilt Disclosure .190** .272** .247** .413** .373** .416** .382** .480** .534** .606** .622** .548** .392** .535**
16. Sexual Calmness .339** .459** .484** .490** .593** .566** .591** .676** .634** .630** .609** .624** .526** .829**
Disclosure
17. Sexual Depression .168** .232** .171** .373** .340** .392** .354** .451** .472** .599** .616** .539** .351** .485**
1463

13
Disclosure
 Table 1  (continued)
1464

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

13
18. Sexual Jealousy Disclo- .166** .252** .274** .388** .407** .446** .419** .470** .505** .558** .596** .518** .368** .551**
sure
19. Sexual Apathy Disclosure .147** .225** .184** .344** .319** .376** .340** .426** .460** .553** .590** .503** .329** .451**
20. Sexual Anxiety Disclo- .174** .241** .163** .382** .329** .374** .353** .437** .481** .581** .589** .536** .321** .465**
sure
21. Sexual Happiness Dis- .388** .516** .528** .490** .645** .625** .662** .707** .628** .576** .565** .589** .519** .905**
closure
22. Sexual Fear Disclosure .194** .277** .192** .373** .322** .366** .344** .450** .477** .600** .583** .533** .328** .467**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
23. Sexual Anger Disclosure .144 .218 .191 .370 .339 .384 .343 .423 .466 .555 .590 .479 .329 .468**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
24. Enacted-Relational Iden- − .500 − .462 − .388 − .222 − .295 − .249 − .317 − .329 − .265 − .250 − .205 − .298 − .164 − .326**
tity Gaps
25. Personal-Relational − .517** − .460** − .399** − .232** − .281** − .256** − .294** − .327** − .269** − .253** − .237** − .273** − .165** − .331**
Identity Gaps
26. Personal-Enacted Identity − .507** − .517** − .403** − .318** − .400** − .326** − .404** − .399** − .339** − .290** − .263** − .340** − .248** − .415**
Gaps
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1. Relationship Satisfaction .190** .339** .168** .166** .147** .174** .388** .194** .144** − .500** − .517** − .507**
2. Sexual Communication Satisfaction .272** .459** .232** .252** .225** .241** .516** .277** .218** − .462** − .460** − .517**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
3. Sexual Satisfaction .247 .484 .171 .274 .184 .163 .528 .192 .191 − .388 − .399 − .403**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
4. Sexual Behavior Disclosure .413 .490 .373 .388 .344 .382 .490 .373 .370 − .222 − .232 − .318**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
5. Sexual Sensations Disclosure .373 .593 .340 .407 .319 .329 .645 .322 .339 − .295 − .281 − .400**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
6. Sexual Fantasy Disclosure .416 .566 .392 .446 .376 .374 .625 .366 .384 − .249 − .256 − .326**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
7. Sexual Preferences Disclosure .382 .591 .354 .419 .340 .353 .662 .344 .343 − .317 − .294 − .404**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
8. Meaning of Sex Disclosure .480 .676 .451 .470 .426 .437 .707 .450 .423 − .329 − .327 − .399**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
9. Sexual Accountability Disclosure .534 .634 .472 .505 .460 .481 .628 .477 .466 − .265 − .269 − .339**
V. Rubinsky
 Table 1  (continued)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

10. Distressing Sex Disclosure .606** .630** .599** .558** .553** .581** .576** .600** .555** − .250** − .253** − .290**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
11. Sexual Dishonesty Disclosure .622 .609 .616 .596 .590 .589 .565 .583 .590 − .205 − .237 − .263**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
12. Sexual Delay Preferences Disclosure .548 .624 .539 .518 .503 .536 .589 .533 .479 − .298 − .273 − .340**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
13. Sexual Safety Disclosure .392 .526 .351 .368 .329 .321 .519 .328 .329 − .164 − .165 − .248**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
14. Sexual Satisfaction Disclosure .535 .829 .485 .551 .451 .465 .905 .467 .468 − .326 − .331 − .415**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * **
15. Sexual Guilt Disclosure 1 .622 .848 .806 .796 .851 .550 .847 .800 − .085 − .152 − .184**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
16. Sexual Calmness Disclosure .622 1 .595 .645 .598 .554 .839 .563 .587 − .269 − .308 − .355**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
17. Sexual Depression Disclosure .848 .595 1 .827 .856 .892 .492 .853 .878 − .066 − .133 − .159**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
18. Sexual Jealousy Disclosure .806 .645 .827 1 .841 .819 .580 .799 .852 − .063 − .136 − .173**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
19. Sexual Apathy Disclosure .796 .598 .856 .841 1 .851 .497 .809 .862 − .035 − .109 − .125**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
20. Sexual Anxiety Disclosure .851 .554 .892 .819 .851 1 .489 .906 .854 − .046 − .122 − .156**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
21. Sexual Happiness Disclosure .550 .839 .492 .580 .497 .489 1 .495 .500 − .303 − .320 − .370**
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity…

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
22. Sexual Fear Disclosure .847 .563 .853 .799 .809 .906 .495 1 .848 − .074 − .134 − .178**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
23. Sexual Anger Disclosure .800 .587 .878 .852 .862 .854 .500 .848 1 − .043 − .137 − .147**
* ** ** **
24. Enacted− Relational Identity Gaps − .085 − .269 − .066 − .063 − .035 − .046 − .303 − .074 − .043 1 .686 .686**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
25. Personal− Relational Identity Gaps − .152 − .308 − .133 − .136 − .109 − .122 − .320 − .134 − .137 .686 1 .625**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
26. Personal− Enacted Identity Gaps − .184 − .355 − .159 − .173 − .125 − .156 − .370 − .178 − .147 .686 .625 1

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

**Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
1465

13
1466 V. Rubinsky

Table 2  Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Sexual Communication
Satisfaction
β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2

Step 1 .590 .348 .348

Sexual behavior disclosure .024 .520 .000
Sexual sensations disclosure .078 1.157 .001
Sexual fantasy disclosure .045 .730 .001
Sexual preferences disclosure .132 1.789 .003
Meaning of sex disclosure .058 .983 .001
Sexual accountability disclosure .014 .250 .000
Distressing sex disclosure .023 .351 .000
Sexual dishonesty disclosure − .033 − .551 .003
Sexual delay preferences disclosure .022 .370 .000
Sexual safety disclosure − .019 − .447 .000
Sexual satisfaction disclosure .161 1.832 .003
Sexual guilt disclosure − .039 − .547 .000
Sexual calmness disclosure .048 .710 .000
Sexual depression disclosure − .050 − .570 .000
Sexual jealousy disclosure − .150 − 2.095 .004
Sexual apathy disclosure .037 .494 .000
Sexual anxiety disclosure − .061 − .652 .000
Sexual happiness disclosure .166 2.020 .004
Sexual fear disclosure .269 3.223 .010
Sexual anger disclosure − .100 − 1.218 .001
Step 2 .672 .451 .103
Sexual behavior disclosure .008 .189 .000
Sexual sensations disclosure .050 .798 .001
Sexual fantasy disclosure .069 1.219 .001
Sexual preferences disclosure .088 1.292 .001
Meaning of sex disclosure .013 .232 .000
Sexual accountability disclosure .011 .200 .000
Distressing sex disclosure .026 .436 .000
Sexual dishonesty disclosure − .036 − .670 .000
Sexual delay preferences disclosure − .021 − .371 .000
Sexual safety disclosure .019 .496 .015
Sexual satisfaction disclosure .109 1.340 .000
Sexual guilt disclosure − .033 − .502 .000
Sexual calmness disclosure .002 .034 .000
Sexual depression disclosure − .054 − .670 .000
Sexual jealousy disclosure − .107 − 1.623 .002
Sexual apathy disclosure .080 1.150 .001
Sexual anxiety disclosure − .033 − .387 .000
Sexual happiness disclosure .153 2.026 .003
Sexual fear disclosure .236 3.076 .007

13
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity… 1467

Table 2  (continued)
β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2

Sexual anger disclosure − .112 − 1.481 .002

Personal− enacted identity gaps − .180 − 4.134 .014
Enacted− relational identity gaps − .093 − 2.051 .003
Personal− relational identity gaps − .142 − 3.397 .009

Addressing H1b, the same two-step hierarchical regression model was run with
the dependent variable of relationship satisfaction. In this model, with the first step
including all dimensions of sexual self-disclosure, sexual self-disclosure does sig-
nificantly predict relationship satisfaction, F(20, 666) = 9.07, p < 0.001, R = 0.464,
adjusted R2 = 0.191. In the first step, only meaning of sex disclosures significantly
contribute to the model, although happiness and fear disclosures are approaching
significance. In the second step, adding the three identity gaps to the model improves
overall model fit, F(23, 663) = 18.582, p < 0.001, R = 0.625, adjusted R2 = 0.379,
R2change = 0.176, p < 0.001. All three identity gaps significantly contribute to the
model, and with their inclusion, meaning of sex disclosures still significantly con-
tribute to the model. Thus, H1b was supported.
Lastly, addressing H1c, the same two-step hierarchical regression model was run
for the dependent variable of sexual satisfaction. In the first step of the model includ-
ing all dimensions of sexual self-disclosure, sexual self-disclosure does significantly
predict sexual satisfaction, F(20, 666) = 19.771, p < 0.001, R = 0.610, adjusted
R2 = 0.354. In the first step, only meaning of sex disclosures, sexual calmness disclo-
sures, and sexual depression disclosures significantly contribute to the model. In the
second step, adding the three identity gaps to the model improves overall model fit,
F(23, 663) = 20.879, p < 0.001, R = 0.648, adjusted R2 = 0.400, R2 change = 0.048,
p < 0.001. In the second step, enacted-relational identity gaps and personal-rela-
tional identity gaps both significantly contribute to the model, but personal-enacted
identity gaps do not. Sexual jealousy disclosures and sexual delay preferences dis-
closures become significant in the second step of the model; and sexual depression
and meaning of sex disclosures remain significant, but sexual calmness disclosures
do not. Thus, H1c was supported, although the R2 change was smaller in magnitude
than in the models considering sexual communication satisfaction and relationship
satisfaction.

Discussion

The present study aimed to explore how the inclusion of identity gaps from CTI
accounts for variance in sexual satisfaction, relational satisfaction, and sexual com-
munication satisfaction often attributed to sexual disclosure alone, positioning sex-
ual disclosure as a site of enacted, relational, and personal identity. To achieve this,
three hierarchical regression models were run that entered each dimension of sexual

13
1468 V. Rubinsky

Table 3  Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Relationship Satisfaction
β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2

Step 1 .463 .214 .214

Sexual behavior disclosure .067 1.330 .002
Sexual sensations disclosure .014 .192 .000
Sexual fantasy disclosure .061 .903 .001
Sexual preferences disclosure − .064 − .790 .001
Meaning of sex disclosure .189 2.932 .010
Sexual accountability disclosure .052 .826 .001
Distressing sex disclosure − .054 − .764 .001
Sexual dishonesty disclosure .055 .842 .001
Sexual delay preferences disclosure .068 1.022 .001
Sexual safety disclosure − .078 − 1.663 .003
Sexual satisfaction disclosure .124 1.279 .002
Sexual guilt disclosure − .073 − .929 .001
Sexual calmness disclosure .011 .152 .000
Sexual depression disclosure .019 .195 .000
Sexual jealousy disclosure − .131 − 1.666 .003
Sexual apathy disclosure − .029 − .355 .000
Sexual anxiety disclosure .005 .049 .000
Sexual happiness disclosure .155 1.716 .003
Sexual fear disclosure .164 1.716 .004
Sexual anger disclosure − .105 − 1.172 .002
Step 2 .625 .390 .176
Sexual behavior disclosure .048 1.092 .001
Sexual sensations disclosure − .016 − .244 .000
Sexual fantasy disclosure .087 1.462 .002
Sexual preferences disclosure − .116 − 1.609 .002
Meaning of sex disclosure .130 2.271 .005
Sexual accountability disclosure .047 .840 .001
Distressing sex disclosure − .055 − .878 .001
Sexual dishonesty disclosure .048 .847 .001
Sexual delay preferences disclosure .012 .204 .000
Sexual safety disclosure − .026 − .628 .000
Sexual satisfaction disclosure .064 .744 .000
Sexual guilt disclosure − .067 − .959 .001
Sexual calmness disclosure − .049 − .736 .001
Sexual depression disclosure .013 .155 .000
Sexual jealousy disclosure − .072 − 1.033 .001
Sexual apathy disclosure .025 .338 .000
Sexual anxiety disclosure .043 .474 .000
Sexual happiness disclosure .130 1.623 .002
Sexual fear disclosure .130 1.600 .002
Sexual anger disclosure − .126 − 1.591 .002

13
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity… 1469

Table 3  (continued)
β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2

Personal− enacted identity gaps − .161 − 3.516 .012

Enacted− relational identity gaps − .142 − 2.967 .008
Personal− relational identity gaps − .235 − 5.323 .026

disclosure in the first step, and the three identity gaps into the second step. Findings
suggest that sexual disclosure predicts sexual communication satisfaction, relation-
ship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction for people in non-normative relationships.
Further, adding identity gaps into the second stage of the model accounts for addi-
tional variance of each outcome than disclosure alone. Thus, both sexual disclosure
and identity gaps predict sexual satisfaction, relational satisfaction, and sexual com-
munication satisfaction. However, these findings are more pronounced for sexual
communication satisfaction and relationship satisfaction than sexual satisfaction.
In the present study, I proposed identity gaps from CTI as a method through
which to operationalize how personal and social identities manifest in and influence
sexual communication. Identity gaps did largely predict each form of satisfaction.
Given a plethora of previous research that suggests sexual disclosure predicts sexual,
relational, and sexual communication satisfaction (Byers, 2011), and identity gaps
predict relational and communication satisfaction (Jung, 2011, 2013; Jung & Hecht,
2004, 2008, among others), it was predicted that both sexual disclosure and identity
gaps contribute to satisfaction. Revealing sexual fears, fantasies, likes, dislikes, his-
tories, and safety measures may lead directly to changes in the relationship because
in addition to reflecting a communication climate in which that type of vulnerability
is permitted, it allows the communication partners to make changes in their sex-
ual relationship, which affects the overall quality of the relationship (Byers, 2011;
Montesi et al., 2011; Noland, 2010). In addition, cognitive, behavioral, and affective
dimensions of discrepancy or tension between parts of the self that occur in commu-
nication relate to satisfaction with the relationship and communication because they
reflect relational partners’ ability to affirm or undermine salient aspects of the self
in communication. While this finding was predicted, it is important to note because
the extensive literature on sexual communication and satisfaction proposes multiple
pathways through which communication may affect satisfaction with largely atheo-
retical explanations (Byers, 2011; Sprecher & Cate, 2004). Thus, the present study
not only supports previous literature concerning what would happen (i.e., sexual dis-
closure and identity gaps predict satisfaction), but extends this literature and offers a
theoretical explanation, supported by the data in the present study, for how commu-
nication contributes to relational and sexual satisfaction in non-normative relation-
ships through attention to identity discrepancy.
Findings support that identity gaps are a consequential variable to consider in
relational and sexual outcomes attributed to sexual disclosure. Previous scholars
have argued that because certain identity gaps predict different outcomes (e.g., only
personal-enacted identity gaps were related to topic avoidance in one study; Kam &

13
1470 V. Rubinsky

Table 4  Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Sexual Satisfaction
β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2

Step 1 .610 .373 .373

Sexual behavior disclosure − .031 − .700 .001
Sexual sensations disclosure .076 1.157 .001
Sexual fantasy disclosure .072 1.197 .001
Sexual preferences disclosure .098 1.347 .002
Meaning of sex disclosure .171 2.965 .008
Sexual accountability disclosure − .063 − 1.112 .001
Distressing sex disclosure .058 .910 .008
Sexual dishonesty disclosure .085 1.463 .002
Sexual delay preferences disclosure − .093 − 1.566 .002
Sexual safety disclosure − .061 − 1.460 .002
Sexual satisfaction disclosure .135 1.564 .002
Sexual guilt disclosure .094 1.328 .002
Sexual calmness disclosure .154 2.314 .005
Sexual depression disclosure − .208 − 2.439 .005
Sexual jealousy disclosure .120 1.701 .002
Sexual apathy disclosure − .052 − .706 .000
Sexual anxiety disclosure − .151 − 1.641 .003
Sexual happiness disclosure .126 1.566 .003
Sexual fear disclosure .043 .525 .000
Sexual anger disclosure − .018 − .229 .000
Step 2 .648 .420 .048
Sexual behavior disclosure − .039 − .913 .001
Sexual sensations disclosure .064 1.004 .001
Sexual fantasy disclosure .083 1.437 .002
Sexual preferences disclosure .074 1.047 .001
Meaning of sex disclosure .141 2.534 .005
Sexual accountability disclosure − .066 − 1.207 .001
Distressing sex disclosure .054 .890 .001
Sexual dishonesty disclosure .082 1.460 .002
Sexual delay preferences disclosure − .122 − 2.129 .004
Sexual safety disclosure − .033 − .818 .000
Sexual satisfaction disclosure .108 1.293 .001
Sexual guilt disclosure .096 1.420 .002
Sexual calmness disclosure .124 1.928 .003
Sexual depression disclosure − .212 − 2.575 .005
Sexual jealousy disclosure .152 2.232 .004
Sexual apathy disclosure − .025 − .356 .000
Sexual anxiety disclosure − .129 − 1.456 .002
Sexual happiness disclosure .109 1.400 .002
Sexual fear disclosure .028 .359 .000
Sexual anger disclosure − .030 − .393 .000

13
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity… 1471

Table 4  (continued)
β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2

Personal− enacted identity gaps − .048 − 1.073 .001

Enacted− relational identity gaps − .092 − 1.966 .003
Personal− relational identity gaps − .135 − 3.129 .009

Hecht, 2009), and they may operate in a structurally different sequence (e.g., per-
sonal-relational identity gaps may precede personal-enacted identity gaps accord-
ing to another study; Jung, 2013), they may not indicate the same overall construct
(Jung & Hecht, 2008; Kam & Hecht, 2009). Specifically, two studies have found that
international students’ personal-enacted identity gaps strongly impact depression
level, but personal-relational identity gaps did not have as strong of an impact (Jung
& Hecht, 2008; Jung et al., 2008). Thus, previous research suggests that expression
of the self (personal-enacted identity gaps) may be more significant in determining
mental health status than others’ appraisals of the self (personal-relational identity
gaps) (Jung et al., 2008). The present study supports meaningful differences in the
behavior of identity gaps in the context of sexual communication.
Interestingly, in the present study, while all three models for each dependent vari-
able were significant and the inclusion of identity gaps improved model fit for each,
the change was far more pronounced for sexual communication and relationship sat-
isfaction compared to sexual satisfaction. Although sexual satisfaction and relation-
ship satisfaction tend to share a reciprocal relationship (Byers, 2011), they remain
distinct constructs. Research considering the nature of the relationship between
these two variables may benefit from including a consideration of identity gaps, as
the present study suggests identity gaps, particularly personal-enacted identity gaps,
may operate differently between the two outcomes, or that relational identity may be
more important to sexual satisfaction than personal and enacted identity, but more
research is needed to explore these ideas. Unlike previous CTI research, when con-
sidering sexual satisfaction, a new variable under consideration in CTI research,
personal-enacted identity may actually be less consequential than personal-relational
and enacted-relational identity.
Sexual communication affirms, validates, dismisses, or challenges important parts
of social, personal, and relational identities. According to the present study’s find-
ings, the process of identity validation or invalidation may contribute to an individu-
al’s satisfaction with their overall and sexual relationship. Personal and social identi-
ties are implicated in sexual communication (Kattari, 2015; Kosenko, 2011a, 2011b;
Wiederman, 2005). The present study supports this, with identity gaps appearing
more highly correlated with each indicator of satisfaction than disclosure even in
zero order correlations. Identity gaps are clearly a relevant construct to consider in
exploring the process and dimensions of satisfying sexual partner communication.
Given these findings, identity gaps may also be an important component of con-
ceptualizing sexual communication, or the relationship between types of sexual dis-
closures and sexual communication quality or satisfaction. This may also warrant

13
1472 V. Rubinsky

revisiting how we measure sexual communication, since considering sexual disclo-

sure alone was less useful than disclosure and identity-based implications. Sexual
communication as a uniquely vulnerable site of partner communication (Montesi
et al., 2011) is interpersonally (Cupach & Metts, 1994; Noland, 2010) and socially
(Kosenko, 2011a, 2011b; Rubinsky & Cooke-Jackson, 2018) risky. The nature of
certain disclosures as stigmatized may further the already identity-laden process of
sexual communication and make the process of sexual communication as identity
affirming or challenging all the more consequential.

Limitations and Future Research

While the present study makes significant contributions toward extending CTI into
the landscape of sexual communication, and increases our knowledge about the
nature of sexual communication in a variety of diverse relationships typically under-
represented in survey research, the cross-sectional nature of the study and several
characteristics of the data present limitations that should filter interpretation of these
study results. The present study was not an experimental design, and only represents
one point in time, so no causal conclusions can be drawn. Future research should
attend to these limitations with experimental studies and repeated time measures.
Further, participants who were in multiple-partner relationships were asked
to focus on one relational partner who met the participation requirements while
answering all scale items for the sake of interpretability of the data. While this
resulted in being able to meaningfully examine that data along with monogamous
relationships, it may minimize the important effects one relationship has on others
within a multiple-partner relationship, or ask people with multiple partners to prior-
itize one relationship over another. Similarly, while including a broad range of rela-
tionally and sexually diverse people who share similarities in their personal or social
ascriptions of normativity was part of the goal of this study, there are many mean-
ingful differences among LGBQ, transgender and gender non-conforming, BDSM,
and polyamorous people and relationships. Examining the effects of these differ-
ences was outside the scope of the current study, but future research should consider
the way that identity might manifest differently in partnered sexual communication
among different groups.
Relatedly, because demographic questions were placed on the last page of the
survey to minimize priming effects, fewer participants filled out demographic infor-
mation compared to responding to the measures included in the analyses. Thus, I
was unable to control for relational length or relational type without significantly
shrinking the sample size. Relationship length and age, specifically, are meaning-
ful controls to consider in research on sexual communication and satisfaction (Mal-
lory, 2021), which makes this a significant limitation of the study design. The pre-
sent study featured a wide variation of both ages and relationship lengths. Future
research should consider asking these questions earlier in a questionnaire separate
from demographic variables that might elicit priming effects to ensure they can be
meaningfully interpreted. Results of the present study should be interpreted in light
of this limitation.

13
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity… 1473

In addition, as is common in relationship research, there was some positive skew

on relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. Although the distribution of
both variables was relatively normal, enough to have not violated the assumptions
embedded the analyses, it is worth noting as regression-based analyses are sensitive
to non-normality in distribution (Meyers et al., 2016).
Lastly, while the demographics represented in the present study were intention-
ally diverse to represent a range of relational types that deviate from normative mod-
els, there was less racial diversity than desired. This may be due to recruiting from
spaces in which the polyamorous community is highly present, which is a largely
white community (Sheff & Hammers, 2011). Thus, while this may represent the
population of interest, future research should attend to racial minorities within non-
normative sexual communities where intergroup relations may manifest in important
ways.
These findings extend the intergroup theoretical landscape to sexual communica-
tion in a way that is both theoretically and practically constructive. Identity gaps
offer an entry point into a conversation about how intergroup communication influ-
ences and filters sexual partner communication. In addition to extending the inter-
group theoretical landscape, the present study supports and extends research on sex-
ual communication and CTI.

Funding Internal funding for this project was provided by Ohio University’s School of Communication
Studies.

Data availability The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available
because they represent research still in progress but are available from the corresponding author on rea-
sonable request.

Declarations

Conflict of interest The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and animal rights All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in
accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (Ohio University IRB Com-
mittee—Reference # 18-E-226) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or com-
parable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of its
authors.

Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.

References
Anderson, M., Kunkel, A., & Dennis, M. R. (2011). “Let’s (not) talk about that”: Bridging the past sexual
experiences taboo to build healthy romantic relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 48(4), 381–
391. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00224​499.​2010.​482215
Byers, E. S. (2011). Beyond the birds and the bees and was it good for you?: Thirty years of research
on sexual communication. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 52(1), 20–28. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1037/​a0022​048

13
1474 V. Rubinsky

Byers, E. S., & Demmons, S. (1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relation-
ships. The Journal of Sex Research, 36(2), 180–189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00224​49990​95519​83
Cupach, W., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework (Vol. 7). Sage.
Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2005). Non-normative relationships: Is there a norm of (non)normativity? West-
ern Journal of Communication, 69, 1–4. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10570​31050​00339​09
Faulkner, S. L., & Hecht, M. L. (2011). The negotiation of closetable identities: A narrative analysis of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered queer Jewish identity. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 28(6), 829–847. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02654​07510​391338
Greene, K., & Faulkner, S. L. (2005). Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk
in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles, 53(3–4), 239–251. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11199-​005-​5682-6
Hecht, M. L. (1993). 2002—a research odyssey: Toward the development of a communication theory of
identity. Communication Monographs, 60(1), 76–82. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03637​75930​93762​97
Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R., & Pitts, M. J. (2005). Culture: Intersections of intergroup and identity theories.
In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup Communication: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 21–42).
Peter Lang.
Hecht, M. L., Warren, J. R., Jung, E., & Krieger, J. (2005). The communication theory of identity. In W.
Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication (pp. 257–278). Sage.
Hecht, M. L., & Choi, H. (2012). The communication theory of identity as a framework for health mes-
sage design. In H. Cho (Ed.), Health Communication Message Design: Theory and Practice (pp.
137–152). Sage.
Horan, S. M. (2016). Further understanding sexual communication: Honesty, deception, safety, and risk.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(4), 449–468. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02654​07515​
578821
Jung, E. (2011). Identity gap: Mediator between communication input and outcome variables. Communi-
cation Quarterly, 59(3), 315–338. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01463​373.​2011.​583501
Jung, E. (2013). Delineation of a threefold relationship among communication input variables, identity
gaps, and depressive symptoms. Southern Communication Journal, 78(2), 163–184. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​10417​94X.​2012.​741652
Jung, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2004). Elaborating the communication theory of identity: Identity gaps and
communication outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 52(3), 265–283. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
01463​37040​93701​97
Jung, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2008). Identity gaps and level of depression among Korean immigrants. Health
Communication, 23, 313–325. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10410​23080​22296​88
Jung, E., Hecht, M. L., & Wadsworth, B. C. (2007). The role of identity in international students’ psycho-
logical well-being in the United States: A model of depression level, identity gaps, discrimination,
and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 605–624. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​ijint​rel.​2007.​04.​001
Kam, J. A., & Hecht, M. L. (2009). Investigating the role of identity gaps among communicative and rela-
tional outcomes within the grandparent–grandchild relationship: The young-adult grandchildren’s
perspective. Western Journal of Communication, 73(4), 456–480. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10570​
31090​32790​67
Kattari, S. K. (2015). “Getting It”: Identity and sexual communication for sexual and gender minori-
ties with physical disabilities. Sexuality & Culture, 19(4), 882–899. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12119-​015-​9298-x
Kosenko, K. A. (2011a). Contextual influences on sexual risk-taking in the transgender community. The
Journal of Sex Research, 48(2–3), 285–296. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00224​49100​37216​86
Kosenko, K. A. (2011b). The safer sex communication of transgender adults: Processes and problems.
Journal of Communication, 61(3), 476–495. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1460-​2466.​2011.​01556.x
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2005). Dyadic assessment of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction in
heterosexual dating couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(2), 169–181. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02654​07505​050942
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of long-term
heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research, 46(1), 3–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00224​49080​
23983​99
Mallory, A. B. (2021). Dimensions of couples’ sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and
sexual satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​fam00​
00946

13
Sex Talk: The Effects of Sexual Self‑Disclosure and Identity… 1475

Manning, J. (2014). Communication and healthy sexual practices: Toward a holistic communicology
of sexuality. In M. H. Eaves (Ed.), Applications in health communication: Emerging trends. Ken-
dall-Hunt: Dubuque, IA.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and inter-
pretation. Sage.
Montesi, J. L., Fauber, R. L., Gordon, E. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (2011). The specific importance
of communicating about sex to couples’ sexual and overall relationship satisfaction. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 28(5), 591–609. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02654​07510​386833
Noland, C. M. (2010). Sex talk: The role of communication in intimate relationships. United States:
Praeger.
Nuru, A. K. (2014). Between layers: Understanding communicative negotiation of conflicting identities
by transgender individuals. Communication Studies, 65(3), 281–297. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10510​
974.​2013.​833527
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. State University of New York
Press.
Rehman, U. S., Rellini, A. H., & Fallis, E. (2011). The importance of sexual self-disclosure to sexual
satisfaction and functioning in committed relationships. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(11),
3108–3115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1743-​6109.​2011.​02439.x
Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2006). “There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to make
them up”: Constructing polyamorous languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy. Sexualities,
9(5), 584–601. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​13634​60706​069987
Rubinsky, V. (2018). “Sometimes it’s easier to type things than to say them”: Technology in BDSM
sexual partner communication. Sexuality & Culture, 22(4), 1412–1431. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12119-​018-​9534-2
Rubinsky, V. (2019). Identity gaps and jealousy as predictors of satisfaction in polyamorous relation-
ships. Southern Communication Journal. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10417​94X.​2018.​15319​16
Rubinsky, V. (2020). Sexual compliance in understudied relationships. Communication Studies, 71(5),
879–895. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10510​974.​2020.​18073​74
Rubinsky, V. (2021a). Sources and strategies for managing sexual conflict in diverse relationships.
Sexuality & Culture. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12119-​020-​09800-x
Rubinsky, V. (2021b). Exploring the relational nature of identity gap management in sexual commu-
nication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17475​759.​
2021.​18937​94
Rubinsky, V. (2021c). Toward a typology of identity gaps in “non-normative” sexual partner commu-
nication. Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10508-​020-​01870-0
Rubinsky, V., & Cooke-Jackson, A. (2018). Sex as an intergroup arena: How women and gender
minorities conceptualize sex, sexuality, and sexual health. Communication Studies, 69(2), 213–
234. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10510​974.​2018.​14375​49
Rubinsky, V., & Hosek, A. (2019). “We have to get over it”: Navigating sex talk through the lens
of sexual communication comfort and sexual self-disclosure in LGBTQ intimate partnerships.
Sexuality & Culture. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12119-​019-​09652-0
Sheff, E., & Hammers, C. (2011). The privilege of perversities: Race, class and education among pol-
yamorists and kinksters. Psychology & Sexuality, 2(3), 198–223. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19419​
899.​2010.​537674
Snell, W. E., Belk, S. S., Papini, D. R., & Clark, S. (1989). Development and validation of the Sexual
Self-Disclosure Scale. Annals of Sex Research, 2(4), 307–334. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF008​
49749
Sprecher, S., & Cate, R. M. (2004). Sexual satisfaction and sexual expression as predictors of relationship
satisfaction and stability. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wentzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexu-
ality in close relationships (pp. 235–256). Erlbaum.
Sprecher, S., & Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations with indi-
vidual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(6),
857–877.
Štulhofer, A., Busko, V., & Brouilard, P. (2010). Development and bicultural validation of the new sexual
satisfaction scale. Journal of Sex Research, 47(4), 257–268.
Wadsworth, B. C., Hecht, M. L., & Jung, E. (2008). The role of identity gaps, discrimination, and accul-
turation in international students’ educational satisfaction in American classrooms. Communication
Education, 57(1), 64–87. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03634​52070​16684​07

13
1476 V. Rubinsky

Wagner, P. E., Kunkel, A., & Compton, B. L. (2016). (Trans)lating identity: Exploring discursive strate-
gies for navigating the tensions of identity gaps. Communication Quarterly, 64(3), 251–272. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01463​373.​2015.​11032​86
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13(4), 496–502.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10664​80705​278729
Yeh, H. C., Lorenz, F. O., Wickrama, K. A. S., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (2006). Relationships
among sexual satisfaction, marital quality, and marital instability at midlife. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 20(2), 339–343. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0893-​3200.​20.2.​339

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13