Skip to main content
Original Article

The Sexual Double Standard in the Real World

Evaluations of Sexually Active Friends and Acquaintances

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000362

Abstract. The sexual double standard (SDS) has traditionally been studied by examining evaluations of hypothetical targets. Although much knowledge has been gained regarding the SDS by using this methodology, the literature thus far has suffered from a lack of ecological validity. The goal of the present study was to determine whether the SDS emerged in evaluations of participants’ real-life friends and acquaintances. Participants (n = 4,455) evaluated a single, randomly assigned male or female friend or acquaintance whose sexual history they were familiar with. Women were evaluated more negatively as their number of sexual partners increased, whereas number of partners was not related to evaluations of men. The SDS was not moderated by the closeness of the relationship between the participant and the target person.

References

  • Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 128–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.1.129 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Allen, L. (2003). Girls want sex, boys want love: Resisting dominant discourses of (hetero)sexuality. Sexualities, 6, 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460703006002004 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Allport, G. W. (1954/1979). The nature of prejudice (25th anniversary ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Amrhein, V. & Greenland, S. (2018). Remove, rather than redefine, statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0224-0 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bates, S. (2017). Revenge porn and mental health: A qualitative analysis of the mental health effects of revenge porn on female survivors. Feminist Criminology, 12, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116654565 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bordini, G. S. & Sperb, T. M. (2013). Sexual double standard: A review of the literature between 2001 and 2010. Sexuality & Culture, 17, 686–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-012-9163-0 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S. & Roets, A. (2018). Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science, 29, 1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617752640 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124396010002003 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Camerer, C. & Mobbs, D. (2017). Differences in behavior and brain activity during hypothetical and real choices. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.001 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Citron, D. K. & Franks, M. A. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 345–391. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Coutinho, S. A., Hartnett, J. L. & Sagarin, B. J. (2007). Understanding promiscuity in strategic friend selection from an evolutionary perspective. North American Journal of Psychology, 9, 257–274. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Crawford, M. & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552163 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Danube, C. L., Norris, J., Stappenbeck, C. A., Cue Davis, K., George, W. H., Zawacki, T. & Abdallah, D. A. (2016). Partner type, sexual double standard endorsement, and ambivalence predict abdication and unprotected sex intentions in a community sample of young women. The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 601–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1061631 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Doise, W., Csepeli, G., Dann, H. D., Gouge, C., Larsen, K. & Ostell, A. (1972). An experimental investigation into the formation of intergroup representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 202–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420020208 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • England, P. & Bearak, J. (2014). The sexual double standard and gender differences in attitudes toward casual sex among US university students. Demographic Research, 30, 1327–1338. https://doi.org/10.4054DemRes.2014.30.46 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Farvid, P., Braun, V. & Rowney, C. (2017). “No girl wants to be called a slut!”: Women, heterosexual casual sex and the sexual double standard. Journal of Gender Studies, 26, 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2016.1150818 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fichman, M. (1999). Variance explained: Why size does not (always) matter. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 295–331. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fielder, R. L. & Carey, M. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of sexual “hookups” among college students: A short-term prospective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1105–1119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9448-4 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C. & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Agreement among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 656–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.656 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L. & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents’ working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Development, 73, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00403 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hamilton, L. & Armstrong, E. A. (2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23, 589–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243209345829 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hayes, R. M., Abbott, R. L. & Cook, S. (2016). It’s her fault student acceptance of rape myths on two college campuses. Violence Against Women, 22, 1540–1555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216630147 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hudson, N. W., Fraley, R. C., Chopik, W. J. & Heffernan, M. E. (2015). Not all attachment relationships develop alike: Normative cross-sectional age trajectories in attachment to romantic partners, best friends, and parents. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.10.001 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hynie, M. & Lydon, J. E. (1995). Women’s perceptions of female contraceptive behavior: Experimental evidence of the sexual double standard. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00093.x First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ickes, W. (1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of personality, 61, 587–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00783.x First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V. & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730–742. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jackson, S. M. & Cram, F. (2003). Disrupting the sexual double standard: Young women’s talk about heterosexuality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603763276153 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Keener, E. & Strough, J. (2017). Having and doing gender: Young adults’ expression of gender when resolving conflicts with friends and romantic partners. Sex Roles, 76, 615–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0644-8 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kettrey, H. H. (2016). What’s gender got to do with it? Sexual double standards and power in heterosexual college hookups. The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 754–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1145181 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Klement, K. R., Sagarin, B. J. & Lee, E. M. (2017). Participating in a culture of consent may be associated with lower rape-supportive beliefs. The Journal of Sex Research, 54, 130–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1168353 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kreager, D. A. & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250907200205 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Langlois, G. & Slane, A. (2017). Economies of reputation: The case of revenge porn. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 14, 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2016.1273534 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lee, J., Kim, J. & Lim, H. (2010). Rape myth acceptance among Korean college students: The roles of gender, attitudes toward women, and sexual double standard. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1200–1223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509340536 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Louderback, L. A. & Whitley, B. E. Jr. (1997). Perceived erotic value of homosexuality and sex-role attitudes as mediators of sex differences in heterosexual college students’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499709551882 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marks, M. J. (2008). Evaluations of sexually active men and women under divided attention: A social cognitive approach to the sexual double standard. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701866664 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marks, M. J. & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marks, M. J. & Fraley, R. C. (2007). The impact of social interaction on the sexual double standard. Social Influence, 2, 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510601154413 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Miller, S. A. (2016). “How you bully a girl” sexual drama and the negotiation of gendered sexuality in high school. Gender & Society, 30, 721–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216664723 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Milnes, K. (2004). What lies between romance and sexual equality? A narrative study of young women’s sexual experiences. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 6, 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616660412331325169 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Peets, K., Hodges, E. V. & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Forgiveness and its determinants depending on the interpersonal context of hurt. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.05.009 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Penke, L. (2011). Revised sociosexual orientation inventory. In T. D. FisherC. M. DavisW. L. YarberS. L. DavisEds., Handbook of sexuality-related measures (3rd ed., pp. 622–625). New York, NY: Routledge. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Prentice, D. A. & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.160 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rosenblatt, A. & Greenberg, J. (1991). Examining the world of the depressed: Do depressed people prefer others who are depressed? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 620–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.620 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rosenthal, R. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology. American Psychologist, 45, 775–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.6.775 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sakaluk, J. K. & Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Factors influencing university students’ explicit and implicit sexual double standards. The Journal of Sex Research, 49, 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.569976 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Savitsky, K., Keysar, B., Epley, N., Carter, T. & Swanson, A. (2011). The closeness-communication bias: Increased egocentrism among friends versus strangers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.005 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schafer, M. H. (2014, March). Schema via structure? Personal network density and the moral evaluation of infidelity. Sociological Forum, 29, 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12072 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Szucs, D. & Ioannidis, J. (2017). When null hypothesis significance testing is unsuitable for research: A reassessment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 390. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00390 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tanenbaum, L. (2015). I am not a slut: Slut-shaming in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Tiedens, L. Z. & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81, 973–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Trafimow, D. & Earp, B. D. (2017). Null hypothesis significance testing and the use of p-values to control the Type I error rate: The domain problem. New Ideas in Psychology, 45, 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.01.002 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • van der Wal, R. C., Karremans, J. C. & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2016). Interpersonal forgiveness and psychological well-being in late childhood. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 62, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.62.1.0001 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vrangalova, Z., Bukberg, R. E. & Rieger, G. (2014). Birds of a feather? Not when it comes to sexual permissiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513487638 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • White, E. Fast girls: Teenage tribes and the myth of the slut.New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Young, M., Cardenas, S., Donnelly, J. & Kittleson, M. (2016). Perceptions of peer sexual behavior: Do adolescents believe in a sexual double standard? Journal of school health, 86, 855–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12455 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zaikman, Y. & Marks, M. J. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 71, 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0417-1 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zaikman, Y. & Marks, M. J. (2017). Promoting theory-based perspectives in sexual double standard research. Sex Roles, 76, 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0677-z First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zaikman, Y., Marks, M. J., Young, T. M. & Zeiber, J. A. (2016). Gender role violations and the sexual double standard. Journal of Homosexuality, 63, 1608–1629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1158007 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar