The Sexual Double Standard in the Real World
Evaluations of Sexually Active Friends and Acquaintances
Abstract
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
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
(2003). Girls want sex, boys want love: Resisting dominant discourses of (hetero)sexuality. Sexualities, 6, 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460703006002004
(1954/1979). The nature of prejudice (25th anniversary ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
(2018). Remove, rather than redefine, statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0224-0
(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
(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
(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
(1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124396010002003
(1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003
(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
(2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 345–391.
(2007). Understanding promiscuity in strategic friend selection from an evolutionary perspective. North American Journal of Psychology, 9, 257–274.
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(1999). Variance explained: Why size does not (always) matter. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 295–331.
(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
(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
(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
(2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23, 589–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243209345829
(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
(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
(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
(1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of personality, 61, 587–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00783.x
(1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730–742.
(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
(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
(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
(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
(2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250907200205
(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
(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
(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
(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
(2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5
(2007). The impact of social interaction on the sexual double standard. Social Influence, 2, 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510601154413
(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
(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
(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
(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.1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.160
(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
(1990). How are we doing in soft psychology. American Psychologist, 45, 775–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.6.775
(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
(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
(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
(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
(2015). I am not a slut: Slut-shaming in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
(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
(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
(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
(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
(Fast girls: Teenage tribes and the myth of the slut.New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
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
(2014). Ambivalent sexism and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 71, 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0417-1
(2017). Promoting theory-based perspectives in sexual double standard research. Sex Roles, 76, 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0677-z
(2016). Gender role violations and the sexual double standard. Journal of Homosexuality, 63, 1608–1629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1158007
(1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
(