You are on page 1of 7

Psychology of U~ufrienQuarterly, 22 (1998), 505511. Printed in the United States of America.

THE SEXUAL DOUBLE STANDARD


The Influence of Number of
Relationships and level of Sexual
Activity on Judgments of Women
and Men

Margaret Gentry
Hamilton College

To explore the operation of the sexual double standard, 11 1 men and


143 women evaluated either a male or female target, described in a
fictitious interview as involved in either monogamous or multiple hetero-
sexual relationships and depicted as engaged in either above average,
average, or below average levels of sexual activity. Targets described
as involved in multiple relationships or depicted as engaged in above
average levels of sexual activity were evaluated less positively than
targets in other conditions. Women presented as more sexually active
were seen as more liberal and more assertive than other female targets.
In this study the sexual double standard was not operating in the forrna-
tion of overall evaluations of individuals, but it did exert influence on
other judgments that people make about men and women.

The sexual double standard posits that men have greater sexual freedom than
women, and that society accepts and tolerates from men certain sexual behaviors,
such as premarital or extramarital sex, that it does not from women. After predicting
the demise of the sexual double standard following liberalization of sexual attitudes
and behaviors in the 1960s and 1970s, researchers are still debating the status of
the sexual double standard. Has the sexual double standard disappeared in the
United States? If it continues to operate, does it do so in its traditional form or in
a more subtle form? Empirical support can be found for a variety of answers to

The author thanks Elizabeth Breay for her work on a pilot version of this study.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Margaret Gentry, Womens Studies, Hamilton
College, 198 College Hill Road, Clinton, NY 13323. Email: mgentry@hamilton.edu.

Published by Cambridge University Press 0361-6843/98 $9.50 505


506 GENTRY
these questions (e.g., Hynie & Lydon, 1995; Oliver & Sedikides, 1992; OSullivan,
1995; Sprecher, McKinney, & Orbuch, 1991); however, most of the studies have
failed to provide strong evidence for the operation of a traditional sexual double
standard.
Despite the lack of strong empirical support for the contemporary operation of
the sexual double standard, it is important to continue investigation into its existence.
There is strong anecdotal evidence for the presence of a double standard. In
addition, public and political framing of social issues such as illegitimate births,
teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS, and rape are framed
using gendered perceptions of sexual behaviors. For example, much of the political
discourse on family values, particularly issues of teenage pregnancy and illegitimate
births, includes pejorative portrayals of sexually active teenage women while ignor-
ing men exhibiting the same sexual behaviors. This brief report explores whether
the sexual double standard continues to operate in making judgments about hetero-
sexual young adults (consistent with an original formulation that evaluated identical
sexual behavior more negatively for women than it did for men). It also examines
whether the sexual double standard has shifted to more subtle or conditional forms
in which female sexual behavior is viewed in the same manner as male behavior
under certain limited conditions, such as within the context of an ongoing relation-
ship or in certain domains of judgment.

METHOD

Participants

Participants included 254 undergraduates (111 men, 143 women) enrolled in


five different introductory level courses at an eastern liberal arts college who
volunteered to take part in this study. The sample was predominantly European
American (92%), with 3.5% self-identifying as African American, 3% as Asian
American, and 1.5% as Hispanic American. Of the sample 98% identified them-
selves as heterosexuals. Although five participants identified as gay men, lesbians,
or bisexual women or men, four of these participants data were not used because
of missing values on one or more variables. The mean age of the participants was
19.6 years.

Procedure

Participants were informed that the purpose of this study was to examine the
judgments people make when they have only limited information about individuals.
In order to ensure random assignment to conditions, they were randomly given
what appeared to be a portion of an interview with a heterosexual college student
(target). The excerpt focused on relationships and sexuality, and the material in
the excerpt was created for the purpose of this study. The wording of all interview
transcripts was identical except for the gender of the target, the number of hetero-
sexual relationships in which the target was involved (one partner exclusively or
Sexual Double Standard 507
multiple partners), and information about whether the targets level of sexual activity
was above average, below average, or average.
In the transcripts read by participants, the female or male target told the inter-
viewer that she or he was either in an exclusive, monogamous sexual relationship
or had sexual relationships with multiple partners. Level of sexual activity was
clearly defined in the text as heterosexual intercourse. In the interview excerpt the
interviewer asked the target to look at a graph of frequency of sexual intercourse
with the national average for college students clearly marked. The targets then
indicated that they thought they were either a lot below average, average, or a
lot above average. The graph was not presented as part of the excerpt, so partici-
pants rating the target had only the targets response as an indication of level
of activity. Pilot testing found that the wording of the interview was believable.
Manipulation checks showed that individuals in the one-partner condition were
rated as significantly more monogamous than those in the multiple-partner condi-
tion, F (1,248) = 391.03, p < ,0001, and that significant differences in ratings of
sexual activity existed among all three sexual activity levels in appropriate directions,
F (2,246) = 63.96, p < ,001.
After reading one of the transcripts, participants rated the target on 30 7-point
semantic differential scales. Twenty-five items were slightly modified versions of
the scales used in Janda, OGrady, and Barnharts (1981) study of sexual attitudes
and person perception. Five additional items were added (social-asocial, ambitious-
unambitious, faithful-unfaithful, sexual-asexual, and insightful-noninsightful). Fol-
lowing completion of their session, participants heard a full explanation of the
study.

RESULTS

A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation reduced the 30 items
into five factors. Scores approximating the five factors were created by summing
scale items loading over .50 exclusively on one factor. The sums were then divided
by the number of items in each factor to return the composite scores to their
original scales (+3 to -3, with 0 as the midpoint). The first factor, labeled Overall
Evaluation, was composed of the bad-good, immature-mature, immoral-moral,
and maladjusted-adjusted items. The positive end of the scale represented positive
evaluations, and the negative end represented negative evaluations (M = 1.04, SD
= .94, Cronbachs coefficient alpha = .77). The second factor, labeled Sexual De-
meanor, consisted of the modest-immodest, chaste-promiscuous, faithful-faithless,
and responsible-irresponsible items. Positive numbers represented evaluations of
sexually indiscriminate demeanor, and negative scores reflected judgments of mod-
est or chaste demeanor ( M = -.30, SD = .81, Cronbachs coefficient alpha = .70).
The third factor, labeled Subordination, included the domineering-submissive,
active-passive, individualistic-conforming, ambitious-unambitious, and outgoing-
shy items. For this factor the positive end of the scale represented evaluations of
the target as submissive and conforming, and the negative end reflected evaluations
of the target as assertive and active (M = -.07, SD = .83, Cronbachs coefficient alpha
= 94). The fourth Factor, Iabeled Traditionality, contained the liberal-conservative,
508 GENTRY
liberated-traditional, and open-minded-narrow-minded items. For this factor the
positive end represented evaluations of the target as traditional, and the negative
end reflected judgments of the target as liberal and nontraditional ( M = -.95, SD
= 233, Cronbachs coefficient alpha = .76). The final factor, labeled Physical and
Social Appeal, included the undesirable-desirable, unattractive-attractive, homely-
pretty, unpopular-popular, unromantic-romantic, unfriendly-friendly, unlikable-
likable, and antisocial-social items. More positive scores represented evaluations
of the target as more socially desirable and attractive ( M = .79, SD = .40, Cronbachs
coefficient alpha = 234).
Following creation of the scores for the five factors, 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 (participant
gender x target gender x number of relationships x level of sexual activity) ANO-
VAs were run, followed by post-hoc tests of the means when significant effects
were found. The ANOVA procedure used unique sums of squares because of the
unequal number of participants in conditions. An alpha level of .05 was used for
all statistical tests.
For Overall Evaluation, there were no significant effects for gender of the
participant, F (1,209)= .26, or gender of the target, F (2,209) = 3.20, p < .lo. Tar-
gets in multiple relationships ( M = 3 3 ) were viewed significantly less positively
than targets in only one relationship ( M = 1.25), F (1, 209) = 4.38, p < .05. Targets
with above average levels of sexual activity ( M = 232) were evaluated significantly
less positively than those with below average levels of sexual activity ( M = 1.28),
F (2,209) = 3.73, p < .05.
On the Sexual Demeanor factor, there were significant main effects for number
of relationships, F (1,216)= 39.05, p < ,0001, and level of sexual activity, F (2, 21.6)
= 16.66, p < .dOOl, but none for gender of participant, F (1,216)= .02, or gender
of target, F (1,216)= 33. Individuals in monogamous relationships ( M = -.61) were
seen as significantly more modest and sexually discriminating than those in multiple
relationships ( M = -.01). Individuals at each level of sexual activity were viewed as
significantly different from one another: those at the above average level were seen
as immodest and sexually indiscriminating ( M = .97), whereas those at the average
level ( M = -.30) and below average level ( M = -.62) were rated as more discrimi-
nating.
There was a significant main effect for level of sexual activity in the analysis of
the Subordmation factor, F (2, 219) = 12.82, p < ,0001; individuals at the low ( M =
.15) and average ( M = .09) levels were seen as slightly submissive, whereas those
in the high level (M=-.45) were seen as more assertive and active. There was
also a significant target gender x level of sexual activity x number of relationships
interaction, F (2, 219) = 3.07, p < .05. The pattern for female targets reflected a
simple effect for sexual activity level: highly active females ( M = -.61) were seen
as significantly different from those at below average ( M = 21) or average ( M =
.02) levels of sexual activity. Number of relationships did not have a significant
impact on perceptions of subordination for female targets, but it did for male
targets. There were no mfferences in how male targets in monogamous relationships
were viewed, but in multiple relationships highly active males ( M = -.54) were
seen as more assertive than males at below average ( M = -.08) or average ( M =
.25) sexual activity levels. Some significant simple effects for gender of target were
also found. Male targets ( M = -.03) were viewed as significantly less assertive than
Sexual Double Standard 509
female targets ( M = -.52) at above average levels of sexual activity in monogamous
relationships, and female targets ( M = .44) were seen as more submissive than
males ( M = -.08) at below average levels of activity in multiple relationships.
On the Traditionality factor, there was a significant main effect for level of sexual
activity, F (2, 223) = 6.34, p < .01, and a significant interaction between target sex
and level of sexual activity, F (2, 223) = 7.34, p < ,001. Male targets with different
levels of sexual activity were viewed as similar to one another on this factor. Female
targets in the three levels of sexual activity differed significantly from each other.
Female targets at the above average level of sexual activity ( M = -1.47) were tliought
to be more liberal than those at average levels (M=-1.11) and those at below
average levels of activity ( M = -.57).
For the Physical and Social Appeal factor, there was a significant main effect
for participant gender, F (1,211) = 4.31, p < .05, a significant participant gender x
target gender interaction, F (1,211) = 4.67, p < .05, a significant participant gender
x level of sexual activity interaction, F (2,211) = 4.01, p < .01), and a significant
interaction of subject gender, target gender, number of relationships, and level of
sexual activity, F (2,211) = 4.15, p < .01. Given the complexities of trying to inter-
pret four-way interactions, the results from the significant four-way interaction will
not be discussed separately; however, findings that elaborate and contribute to the
interpretation of significant two-way interactions will be briefly mentioned. In the
two-way interactions, there were no significant differences in the appeal of the
target for female participants based on either target gender or level of sexual
activity, although female participants found targets at below average levels of sexual
activity ( M = .94) significantly more appealing than did male participants ( M = .42).
The four-way interaction, however, suggests that female raters found female targets
in the below average levels of sexual activity in monogamous relationships ( M =
1.22) by far the most appealing group of women, whereas they found men at high
levels of sexual activity in multiple relationships particularly appealing (A4= 1.18).
In the participant gender x target gender interactions, male participants saw
female targets ( M = .83) as significantly more appealing than they did male targets
( M = .58), and they rated inale targets ( M = .58) as generally less appealing than
did female participants ( M = .93). In the participant gender x level of activity inter-
action, male participants generally found individuals at average ( M = .77) or above
average ( M = .80) levels of sexual activity to be more appealing than those at below
average levels of sexual activity ( M = .42).The four-way interaction suggests that
this finding holds when men evaluate male targets, but is not the case when
evaluating female targets. Male raters did report men to be the most appealing at
high levels of sexual activity whether in single ( M = .78) or multiple relationships
( M = .71). Female targets, however, were reported as unappealing at high levels
of sexuality when in multiple relationships ( M = -.22) as well as at low levels of
sexual activity in monogamous relationships ( M = -.70).

DISCUSSIO N

This study provided little evidence for the operation of a traditional version of the
sexual double standard. When asked to make evaluative judgments or judgments
about sexual demeanor, participants in this study showed no evidence of using a
51 0 GENTRY
sexual double standard. Perceptions of the targets as good or bad and as sexually
indiscriminating or not apparently were based on information about level of sexual
activity and relationship type rather than the targets gender. Raters judged both
male and female targets in monogamous relationships and at below average levels
of sexual activity more positively and as more sexualIy discriminating indwiduals.
These results are consistent with other recent studies that have found less effect
for target gender and greater effect for level of sexual experience or activity and
type of relationship on ratings of evaluation or morality in recent years (Mark &
Miller, 1986; Oliver & Sedikides, 1992; OSullivan, 1995; Robinson, Ziss, Ganza, &
Katz, 1991; Sprecher et al., 1991). Perhaps a national focus on safer sexual behavior
for both men and women, paired with changes in beliefs about the equality of
women, explain why level of sexual activity and relationship type are used in making
such judgments about both women and men and why these standards appear to
apply equally to women and men.
When making judgments about perceptions less drectly linked to evaluative
judgments, however, this study did find evidence for the operation of a sexual
double standard. Clearly, for women, the level of sexual activity was used in making
judgments about how liberal the target was: the higher the level of sexual activity,
the more liberal and the more assertive the female target was rated. In a society
with a sexual double standard restricting and negatively evaluating female sexual
behavior, it may be that information about womens violation of the double standard
(i.e., women being at higher levels of sexual activity) is used as a basis of judgments
about women in other domains of behavior, especially areas involving other stereo-
types of women such as those surrounding traditionality and assertiveness. For
men, level of sexual activity was not generalIy related to such perceptions. The
information about mens level of sexual activity may be less useful in generalizing
to other domains because men have more flexibility in their sexual behavior in the
first place.
In addition, the ratings of physical and social appeal suggest that women and
men use information about sexual behavior differently when assessing how desirable
or appealing a person is. In general, male participants tended to rely more on
information about sexual behavior and gender than did women to draw such
conclusions. Men, but not women, clearly found the opposite-gender targets to be
significantly more appealing than the same-gender targets. Men also generally
found below average levels of sexual activity to be significantly less appealing than
average or above average levels for both female and male targets. If a key component
to the construction of masculinity is compulsory heterosexuality, emphasized
through a sexual double standard allowing and expecting greater sexual activity
and freedom for men, then these findings make sense. Men should find the opposite-
gender targets more appealing and should also find the same-gender targets with
above average or average levels of sexual activity more appealing because these
conditions reinforce their construction of masculinity. Female raters, on the other
hand, found women in the below average sexual activity conditions the most appeal-
ing of any group perhaps because they accept the traditional double standard
perspective that values women more under conditions of restricted sexual activity.
Recent changes in attitudes about sexuality, sexual behavior, and gender may have
modified and limited the operation of the sexual double standard. It is important to
Sexual Double Standard 51 1
note, however, that almost all published studes of the sexual double standard have
been quantitative studies involving judgments made about hypothetical situations
witla pencil and paper type rating scales. The empirical support for the demise of
the double standard in terms of overall evaluation of individuals, which this study
reinforces, does not necessarily coincide with the anecdotal stories and reports of
the presence of a double standard actively operating in the daily lives of at least
some college students. For example, on the campus where this research took place,
there is a phrase-walk of shame-used to refer exclusively to female students
walking back to their residence halls the morning after having spent the night with
a male student. This is a phrase not applied to male students. There is also clear
evidence in studies of the use of sexual slang that women are demeaned through
the use of sexual language more than are men, and that terms referring to parallel
sexual behaviors in men and women are not represented comparably (for a review,
see Richardson, 1997). Empirical studies in a more traditional format may have
difficulty identifying the operation of the double standard because the methods
used strip much of the context from the judgments being made. Stimuli being
evaluated are typically constructed as hypothetical or unknown targets, depicted
in situations with minimal description, presented at one point in time rather than
across time, and generally evaluated by White college students. Before proclaiining
the death of the double standard, it would seem prudent for researchers to conduct
more qualitative and open-ended studies to examine if the sexual double standard
still operates in contexts or ways that are not being captured in the more traditional
methodological approaches to this topic.

Initial subndssion: June 23, 1997


Initial acceptance: Septeniber 28, 1997
Final acceptance: Februny 1, 1998

REFERENCES

Hynie, M., & Lydon, J. E. (1995). Womens perceptions of female contraceptive behavior. P.sycho1-
ogy of Women Quarterly, 19, 563-581.
Janda, L., OGrady, K. E., & Barnhart, S. A. (1981). Effects of sexual attitudes and physical
attractiveness on person perception of men and women. Sex Roles, 7, 189-199.
Mark, M., & Miller, M. (1986). The effects of sexual permissiveness, target gender, subject gender,
and attitude toward women on social perception: In search of the double standard. Sex Roles,
15, 311-322.
Oliver, M. B., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects of sexual permissiveness on desirability of partner
as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Social Psychology Quarlerly, 55,
321333.
OSullivan, L. F. (1995). Less is more: The effects of sexual experience on judgments of mens
and womens personality characteristics and relationship desirability. Sex RoZes, 33, 159-181.
Richardson, L. (1997). Gender stereotyping in the English language. In L. Richardson, V. Taylor, &
N. Whittier (Eds.), Feminist frontiers IV (pp. 115-122). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Robinson, I., Ziss, K., Ganza, B., & Katz, S. (1991).Twenty years ofthe sexual revolution, 1965-1985:
An update. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 216-220.
Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1991). The effect of current sexual behavior on
friendship, dating, and marriage desirability.Joiirnal of Sex Research, 28, 387408.

You might also like