New psychology research changes how we think about power in the bedroom
A new study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin suggests that having a sense of power in a relationship promotes sexual assertiveness, while perceiving a partner as powerful fosters a willingness to accommodate their needs. The findings indicate that healthy sexual dynamics are not about one person holding dominance over another. Instead, the most satisfying interactions appear to occur when both individuals feel they have influence within the relationship.
Power dynamics are frequently viewed as potential sources of conflict or exploitation within intimate relationships. A common assumption is that if one partner holds power, they might satisfy their own desires while neglecting their partner. Alternatively, the partner with less power might feel forced to comply with unwanted activities.
“Power is commonly thought of as dangerous, particularly within sexual relationships,” said study author Nickola Overall, a professor at the University of Auckland and head of the REACH Lab. ”
“People who have high power in relationships might assert their own sexual need while neglecting their partner’s desires. But lacking power is also problematic. People who have low power in relationships might inhibit their desires and comply to undesired sexual activity. Despite these negative implications of having power and lacking power, how power relates to sexual assertiveness, neglect, and compliance is unclear.”
The researchers sought to clarify how a person’s own sense of power and their perception of their partner’s power distinctly shape sexual motivations and behaviors. They applied a theoretical framework that separates power into two distinct processes.
The first is “actor power,” or the individual’s own perceived ability to influence outcomes. The second is “perceived partner power,” or the individual’s belief in their partner’s ability to influence outcomes. The researchers proposed that one’s own power drives the decision to approach or inhibit sexual desires. Simultaneously, the perception of a partner’s power drives the decision to accommodate or neglect the partner’s needs.
“Most frameworks assume that one partner higher in power will be more assertive in pursuing their sexual needs in ways that neglect the other partner who will be pressured to comply,” Overall explained. “These frameworks assume that power is zero-sum in relationships – if one person has more power, then the other person has less power.”
“But relationships can involve both people having high power (mutually influencing each other), both having low power (lacking influence over each other), or one having more power than the other. And each person’s power can influence their behavior for potential good or ill.”
“All prior studies have only focused on one type of behavior, such as sexual assertiveness or sexual compliance, making assumptions about how these behaviors are linked, such as partners high in power asserting their needs risking the other person complying to undesired sexual activity. But, these distinct behaviors may be shaped by different processes and do not provide a full picture of people’s sexual relationships.”
“So we examined various outcomes relevant to different theories of power, including sexual assertiveness (e.g., comfort initiating sex), sexual compliance (e.g., agreeing to engage in undesired sexual activity), and sexual accommodation vs. neglect (e.g., being more vs. less willing to compromise and being more vs. less understanding when partners are not in the mood),” Overall said.
The research team conducted three separate studies. The first study involved 270 participants recruited from an online platform. These individuals were in committed, mixed-gender relationships and were currently childfree. The sample included 130 women and 140 men. Participants completed the Sense of Power Scale to rate their own ability to influence their partner. They responded to statements such as “I think I have a great deal of power.” They also completed a version of the scale assessing their partner’s power.
In this first study, participants also rated their comfort with initiating and refusing sex. They responded to direct statements like “I am comfortable initiating sex.” Additionally, they reported their history of compromising on sexual frequency or activities over the past six months.
The data showed that individuals who felt they had more power reported greater comfort in both initiating and refusing sexual intimacy. In contrast, those who perceived their partners as having more power expressed a higher willingness to compromise on sexual matters. The results suggested two separate pathways. One pathway leads to personal assertiveness. The other pathway leads to responsiveness to a partner.
The second study aimed to validate these initial observations with a more detailed methodology. The researchers recruited 152 couples, totaling 304 participants. This design allowed the team to analyze data from both partners in a relationship. The study included the same power measures as the first study but added the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness. This index measures how openly participants express sexual needs. It includes items such as “I communicate my sexual desires to my partner.”
The second study also assessed sexual compliance. This construct refers to engaging in unwanted sexual activity. Participants rated items such as “I find myself having sex when I do not really want it.” Additionally, the researchers measured sexual communal strength. This is defined as the motivation to meet a partner’s needs. Participants answered questions regarding how far they would go to meet their partner’s sexual desires.
The findings from the second study reinforced the distinction between the two types of power. Participants with higher personal power scores reported higher levels of sexual assertiveness. Perhaps more importantly, those with lower personal power scores reported higher levels of sexual compliance. This suggests that engaging in unwanted sex is often driven by a lack of personal agency rather than the pressure of a powerful partner.
On the other hand, viewing a partner as powerful was linked to greater communal strength. This indicates that perceiving a partner as powerful motivates individuals to meet that partner’s needs rather than simply submit to them out of fear.
The third study expanded the scope further with a sample of 412 individuals recruited online. This iteration aimed to replicate the previous findings and introduce new measures. The researchers assessed “sexual acquiescence,” which captures participation in specific sexual acts without desire but without coercion.
They also measured reactions to sexual rejection. The team wanted to see if high power might lead to “sexual enticement,” or nagging a partner who has refused sex. They also measured “sexual understanding,” which involves accepting a partner’s lack of desire without negative feelings.
Consistent with the previous studies, high personal power predicted assertiveness. Low personal power predicted engaging in unwanted sex. Perceiving a partner as powerful predicted reacting to sexual rejection with understanding rather than persistence. The study found no evidence that high power leads to pressuring behaviors like enticement. This challenges the idea that powerful individuals inevitably use their influence to coerce partners.
Across all three studies, the researchers tested whether the effects differed between men and women. The analysis showed that the fundamental links between power and behavior were consistent regardless of gender. While men reported higher baseline levels of assertiveness and women reported higher compliance, the way power influenced these behaviors was the same for both groups. For both men and women, feeling powerful enabled them to say “no” when they wanted to. For both groups, seeing their partner as influential motivated them to be accommodating.
The researchers also examined “asymmetries,” or whether having more power than one’s partner caused specific issues. The results offered little evidence that power imbalances were the primary driver of behavior. The findings suggest that the combination of high actor power and high perceived partner power may yield the best outcomes. In this scenario, individuals feel free to express their own desires while simultaneously caring for their partner’s needs.
“Both people having power in relationships is important for people to enjoy a fulfilling sex life,” Overall told PsyPost. “When people lack power in their relationships—people feel unable to influence their partner—they are more likely to inhibit their sexual desires, such as being less comfortable in initiating sex or expressing their sexual needs and more likely to engage in sexual activity they do not desire. Sexual inhibition and compliance undermine people’s health and wellbeing, but also restrict the development of satisfying, connected relationships.”
“When partners lack power in relationships—people feel their partner is unable to influence them—they are more likely to neglect their partners’ needs, such as being less willing to compromise with their partner about when and how they have sex or being less understanding when their partner is not in the mood. Neglecting partners’ needs will harm both people in relationships because couples need to accommodate each other’s needs and desires to have fulfilling satisfying sex lives.”
“In short, healthy sexual relationships involve people being able to satisfy their own desires while accommodating their partner’s needs and desire. Hitting this sweet spot requires both partners having power in their relationship.”
These new findings align closely with recent research by Robert Körner and Astrid Schütz, which challenged the idea that power in relationships is a zero-sum game. In their studies published in The Journal of Sex Research and Social Psychological and Personality Science, Körner and Schütz established that relationship quality and sexual satisfaction hinge on an individual’s absolute sense of power rather than a perfect balance of power between partners.
The current study builds on this foundation by mapping these power dynamics to specific behavioral outcomes. While Körner and Schütz demonstrated that feeling powerful predicts positive sexual motivation, the new results explain how this functions: personal power drives the confidence to assert needs, whereas perceiving a partner as powerful drives the motivation to be generous and accommodating.
Both sets of research converge on the conclusion that high mutual power is preferable to power asymmetries or shared powerlessness. Körner and Schütz found that having a powerful partner does not diminish one’s own satisfaction, and similarly, the current study found no evidence that power imbalances are the primary driver of harmful behaviors like sexual compliance or neglect. Instead, both lines of inquiry suggest that the healthiest sexual dynamics occur when both partners feel a high sense of agency.
The new findings also offer a behavioral explanation for the profiles identified by Roxanne Bolduc and her colleagues in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. Bolduc’s research indicated that individuals with egalitarian views and flexible preferences experience greater relationship satisfaction than those adhering to rigid or conflicted gender roles.
The current study supports this by demonstrating that the psychological mechanisms of power function similarly for men and women. By showing that high actor power promotes assertiveness and high partner power promotes accommodation regardless of gender, the findings illustrate why egalitarian dynamics, where both partners exercise influence, likely lead to the superior relationship outcomes observed in Bolduc’s “flexible” profile.
While the new findings provide insight into relationship dynamics, the study relies on self-reported data. Participants may not accurately report or be fully aware of their own behaviors. This is particularly true regarding sensitive topics like compliance or enticement. The cross-sectional nature of the data also prevents drawing definitive conclusions about cause and effect. It is possible that engaging in specific sexual behaviors influences a person’s sense of power, rather than the other way around.
Future research could benefit from longitudinal designs to track these dynamics over time. The samples consisted largely of people in established, committed relationships. Power dynamics might function differently in casual dating scenarios or relationships characterized by severe conflict. In contexts with less commitment, power imbalances might carry more risk of negative outcomes than observed in this study. Additionally, experimental studies could help clarify whether shifting a person’s sense of power directly causes changes in their sexual behaviors.
“Some perspectives warn that power can be dangerous by providing the opportunity to exploit low power others,” Overall added. “Our data show that in close relationships having power is likely to be more beneficial than harmful. People who felt they had power to influence their partner were more assertive in expressing their sexual needs and less compliant to unwanted sexual activity, but they were not less willing to compromise with their partners or less understanding when their partners were not in the mood. Similarly, people who perceived their partner had high power were more willing to compromise with their partner and less likely to neglect their partner’s needs, but they were not more likely to comply to unwanted sexual activity.”
“Many perspectives also suggest that power asymmetries are critical—one person having more power than the other risks greater neglect and compliance. But testing interactions between people’s own and their partners’ power did not provide any evidence for this. Instead, the few interactions that emerged suggested that jointly holding power solidified rather than reduced the positive effects of power – greater assertiveness in expressing sexual needs and accommodation of the partners’ sexual desires and lower compliance and partner neglect.”
“That said, our investigation examined power and sexual behavior within long-term intimate relationships in which both people care about and have some power over each other,” Overall continued. “In non- intimate contexts, like the workplace, one person holding power over another who has little or no counterpower could produce particularly harmful dynamics in which the person high in power can assert their needs while neglecting the other who may be more likely to comply. The risk of these harmful outcomes could also be greater in younger samples and dating couples that are not yet committed to one another, or in contexts where greater asymmetries between men and women restrict women’s power and sexual behavior.”
The study, “Actor Power and Perceived Partner Power Differentially Relate to Sexual Behavior and Motivations,” was authored by Nickola C. Overall, Jessica A. Maxwell, Amy Muise, Nina Waddell, and Auguste G. Harrington.
Five key points from the article:
-
Distinct roles of power: The researchers identified two separate processes: “actor power” (a person’s own sense of influence), which drives sexual assertiveness and the confidence to refuse sex, and “perceived partner power” (a person’s view of their partner’s influence), which motivates a willingness to accommodate and compromise on the partner’s needs.
-
The “sweet spot” for satisfaction: Contrary to the idea that power in relationships is a zero-sum game where one person dominates the other, the findings suggest that the best sexual dynamics occur when both partners feel influential. This mutual power allows individuals to pursue their own desires while simultaneously caring for their partner’s needs.
-
Roots of sexual compliance: The study found that engaging in unwanted sexual activity (compliance) is primarily driven by a lack of personal agency (low actor power) rather than pressure from a powerful partner. Individuals who feel powerless are more likely to inhibit their own desires and agree to sex they do not want to avoid conflict.
-
Gender consistency: The link between power and sexual behavior was consistent for both men and women. Regardless of gender, feeling powerful facilitated boundary-setting and assertiveness, while perceiving a partner as influential fostered a motivation to be understanding and responsive to that partner.
-
Alignment with previous research: These findings reinforce other recent studies suggesting that relationship satisfaction depends on high absolute levels of power for both partners rather than just an equitable balance. The research supports the notion that egalitarian dynamics, where both parties exercise influence, produce better outcomes than rigid or conflicted gender roles.
