Download Ambivalent Sexism and the Sexual Double Standard

Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
DOI 10.1007/s11199-014-0417-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ambivalent Sexism and the Sexual Double Standard
Yuliana Zaikman & Michael J. Marks
Published online: 13 October 2014
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract The sexual double standard is the notion that women are evaluated negatively and men positively for engaging
in similar sexual behaviors. Because traditional, gender-based
stereotypes are reflected in the attitudes that people hold
towards men and women, it is likely that sexism plays a part
in the manifestation of the double standard. The goal of the
present study is to investigate the relationship between sexism
(prejudice against individuals based on their gender) and the
sexual double standard. There are two types of sexism: hostile
(negative prejudice) and benevolent (positive prejudice). We
hypothesized that participants displaying high levels of either
type of sexism would be most likely to exhibit the sexual
double standard. A US-sample of 232 undergraduates from a
Southwestern university completed the Ambivalent Sexism
Inventory (ASI) and the Ambivalence Towards Men
Inventory (AMI) and then evaluated a hypothetical target
individual who reported having zero, one or 12 sexual partners. Results show that participants’ sexist attitudes towards
men and women were related to their exhibition of the sexual
double standard. Specifically, men and women’s hostile attitudes towards targets of their own gender were related to
negative evaluations of highly sexually active targets of the
same gender, while men and women’s benevolent attitudes
towards the opposite gender were related to positive evaluation of highly sexually active targets of the opposite gender.
Implications of the present results and directions for future
research are discussed.
Keywords Sexual double standard . Sexism . Ambivalent
sexism . Sexist attitudes . Sexual activity . Gender norms
Y. Zaikman (*) : M. J. Marks
Department of Psychology, MSC-3452, New Mexico State
University, P.O.Box 30001, 88003-8001 Las Cruces, NM, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
The sexual double standard is the notion that women in
Western cultures are derogated and men praised for engaging
in identical sexual behaviors (Marks and Fraley 2005; all cited
empirical studies are based on U.S. samples unless noted).
Several theoretical frameworks have been used to explain the
emergence of the double standard (e.g. evolutionary psychology, Oliver and Hyde 1993; Petersen and Hyde 2010, social
role theory, Eagly et al. 2000), but the role of sexism has not
been explored. Because a) there are positive and negative
stereotypes associated with highly sexually active men and
women respectively (Marks 2008), and b) stereotypes are
often reflected in the attitudes people hold (Eagly and
Mladinic 1989), sexist attitudes are likely related to the exhibition of the double standard. The goal of the present research
is to determine whether and to what extent sexism moderates
the exhibition of the sexual double standard.
Sexism’s role in the double standard is important to understand because negative perceptions of sexually active women
can adversely affect women in many ways. Regarding sexual
health and safety, men report higher expectations for post-date
sexual activity if a woman initiates a date (Mongeau and
Carey 1996; Morr Serewicz and Gale 2008), possibly placing
women at risk of undesired consequences if sexual expectations are not met. Documented examples of negative outcomes following a woman-initiated date include perceptions
of date rape as more justifiable (Muehlenhard et al. 1985) and
greater endorsement of rape myths (Emmers-Sommer et al.
2010). Furthermore, men judged women who provided a
condom to use in a sexual encounter more negatively than
men who provided a condom in the same scenario (Young
et al. 2010). These perceptions can influence women’s behavior in ways that can have serious consequences (e.g., sexually
transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies). For example, a
woman might decide against providing a condom for a sexual
334
encounter for fear of being evaluated negatively by her
partner.
Sexist attitudes towards women can also have negative
consequences for women. Sexist attitudes towards women
are related to stigmatization of acquaintance rape victims
and more victim blame in cases of stranger rape (Yamawaki
2007). Moreover, these attitudes correlate to greater violent
treatment of women by their male partners (Allen et al. 2009),
and verbal aggression (Forbes and Adams-Curtis 2001).
Therefore, understanding whether sexism plays a role in the
exhibition of the double standard is an important preliminary
step of ultimately reducing its manifestation and its negative
health consequences for women. We begin by reviewing the
theory underlying ambivalent sexism. Next, we report an
experiment that examines the relationship between sexist attitudes and the sexual double standard. Finally, we discuss the
implications of our results.
Sexism and the Sexual Double Standard
Some studies conducted in the U.S. show little to no evidence
supporting the existence of the sexual double standard (e.g.,
Gentry 1998), whereas others were able to detect the sexual
double standard under specific circumstances (Jonason and
Marks 2009; Kreager and Staff 2009; Marks 2008; Marks and
Fraley 2006, 2007). The sexual double standard appears to be
a contextual phenomenon, so it is important to document as
many factors as possible that are related to its emergence.
One such factor, sexism, is defined as prejudice or
discrimination toward people based on their gender
(Helgeson 2009). There are two types of sexism relevant
to the present topic: Hostile sexism is defined as holding
negative and derogatory attitudes toward women, whereas
benevolent sexism is defined as holding positive yet stereotypical attitudes toward women (Glick and Fiske 1996).
Although the two types of sexism are distinct, they can
both be exhibited simultaneously (also called ambivalent
sexism). Further, both types of sexism involve conceptualizing women as the weaker gender that should be relegated
to domestic roles (Glick and Fiske 1996). Glick and Fiske
(1996) suggest that hostile sexism emerged as a consequence of societal differences between men and women,
whereas benevolent sexism emerged due to the power that
women hold in sexual reproduction. Benevolent sexism is
characterized by the view that women are responsible for
bearing children and satisfying men’s sexual and psychological needs, and consequently need to be protected and
cherished by men. Moreover, benevolent beliefs are also
related to social elements such as viewing women as fragile
and not taking them seriously professionally (Glick and
Fiske 1996). Hostile sexism towards women derives from
their perceived power over sex. It can be viewed via
discriminations and sexual harassment at the work place,
Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
and accepting women as leaders less frequently than men
(Glick and Fiske 1996). In addition, hostile sexism involves
perceiving women as incompetent in different domains (e.g.
analytical thinking; Glick and Fiske 1996).
Despite the fact that sexism is usually associated with
attitudes toward women, the concept has been applied to
men as well (Glick and Fiske 1999). It has been suggested
that hostility towards men derives from the acknowledgement
that men hold the most social power (e.g. career, sexual
freedom) and women consequentially resent them for this
(Glick and Fiske 1999; Glick and Whitehead 2010).
Women’s resistance to men’s societal power can be reflected
in negative stereotypes they attribute to men (Glick and Fiske
1999). Another reason why women might hold resentment
and hostile attitudes towards men can be explained by male
sexual aggressiveness (Glick and Fiske 1999). Similarly to
men, women also depend on the other gender for sexual
reproduction and romantic relationships and thus exhibit benevolent attitudes towards men (Glick and Fiske 1999; Glick
and Whitehead 2010). Women’s benevolence towards men
can be derived from admiration of men’s higher status.
Women justify the higher status that men hold by attributing
positive traits to them and perceiving them as more dominant,
possessing structural power and as more competent (Glick and
Fiske 1999). Women can go as far as to believe that “they are
less ambitious, intelligent, and competent than members of the
dominant group” (Glick and Fiske 1999, p. 521), thus
diminishing their own value compared to men’s.
Although hostile and benevolent attitudes can be exhibited
simultaneously, they can be expressed differently. For
example, Glick and Fiske (1996) found that both male and
female participants exhibited hostile and benevolent sexism
towards women, but men tended to score higher on both scales
than women (this gender difference was larger for benevolent
sexism). Similarly, women’s scores were higher on the hostility toward men scale and lower on the benevolence toward
men scale compared to men’s scores on both the hostility and
benevolence toward men scale (Glick and Fiske 1999; Glick
and Whitehead 2010).
Not only are hostile and benevolent sexism attitudes related
to one another, they are related to other types of attitudes as
well, such as attitudes toward romantic relationships. For
example, traditional gender beliefs influence mate choice
preferences; this pattern of results was seen across different
cultures (Eastwick et al. 2006). United States and Chinese
men and women high on benevolent sexism reported desiring
romantic partners who complied with traditional gender roles
(Chen et al. 2009). United States and Chinese men and women
scoring higher on hostile sexism were more likely to hold
traditional gender-role norms in marriages (Chen et al. 2009).
Moreover, German women who exhibit hostile sexism towards other women do so against norm-deviant women who
do not adhere to the traditional gender-role (Becker 2010).
Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
To summarize, previous research shows that sexist attitudes
influence people’s attitudes and perceptions of others.
Specifically, men and women’s sexist attitudes relate to traditional views of masculinity and femininity (e.g., men as
possessing more power than women), division of labor (e.g.,
men being career oriented, women as more domestically
oriented), and more general aspects of gender (e.g., discrimination and sexual harassment of women, views of women as
less intellectually competent). If people’s attitudes towards
men and women relate directly to attitudes about gender and
sexuality, then sexist attitudes (hostile and benevolent) should
affect the manifestation of the sexual double standard.
Overview and Hypotheses
We used the number of sex partners as the basis of comparison
for the double standard, because many theoretical perspectives
on the double standard describe it in terms of the amount of
sexual activity a person has engaged in (e.g. Gentry 1998),
and it is a clear and unambiguous descriptor. Previous double
standard research also operationalized the sexual double standard in terms of target’s number of sexual partners, because
using descriptive accounts of sexual behavior (e.g. “a lot
above average”) implies abnormality and inappropriateness
(Marks 2008; Marks and Fraley 2005, 2007). A prior, worldwide online survey of sexual attitudes participants indicated
that, worldwide, as well as in the US (i.e., the US results were
the same as in the entire sample), eight was viewed as a
“normal” amount of sex partners for men, and six for women
(Marks 2002). Accordingly, we manipulated target gender and
number of sexual partners (zero, one, or 12) in a between
subjects design. In previous studies, researchers used 12 partners as representative of a high number of sexual partners
(Marks and Fraley 2005). Therefore we decided that 12 partners would be characterized as a high yet believable number
of sex partners for both men and women. In addition, due to
the possibility of virgin stigmatization (Carpenter 2001, 2009;
Sprecher and Regan 1996), it was unclear whether zero partners or one partner would be more appropriate for the low
partner condition. There is some evidence that men are
stigmatized for being virgins more than are women (e.g.
Sprecher and Regan 1996), whereas other evidence suggests that female virginity is viewed as a valued state (e.g.,
Carpenter 2001). Thus, we tested whether people’s sexist
attitudes differed between evaluations of targets with zero
or one partners.
Based on theoretical (see literature review) and statistical
(see methods) considerations, we created two evaluative domains based on an assortment of relevant evaluative items
used in past research (Marks and Fraley 2005, 2007). The first
domain was labeled traditional positivity (TP), which represents traditional values, roles, and stereotypes (e.g. men are
perceived as more career-oriented than women, and women
335
are perceived to be more sexually conservative than men). The
second domain was labeled external positivity (EP). This
domain represents more socially-related concepts, such as
sexual intelligence and popularity.
H1a We hypothesize that male participants will score higher
on hostility and benevolence towards women and benevolence towards men, and female participants will
score higher on hostility towards men because in general men tend to be more sexist then women (Glick and
Fiske 1996) and due to theories of intergroup relations,
women, compared to men, are more likely to exhibit
more hostility and less benevolence towards men
(Glick and Fiske 1999).
H1b We hypothesize that male participants will rate highly
sexually active targets more positively than female
participants because men are more accepting of premarital, sexually-permissive behaviors than are women
(e.g. Sprecher 1989), and men are less critical of sexual
activity in general (e.g. Koon-Magnin and Ruback
2012).
H2 We hypothesize that participants high on hostility toward women will rate male targets with 12 partners
higher on TP than female targets with 12 partners,
because individuals high on hostility toward women
believe that women use their sexuality in order to control and manipulate men and obtain success, and are less
accepting of female leaders as they believe that women
are less competent than men (Glick and Fiske 1996).
H3a We hypothesize that participants high on benevolent
sexism toward women will rate male targets with 12
partners higher on TP than female targets with 12
partners, because individuals high on benevolent sexism towards women believe that women need to be
cherished, protected, and follow “purity rules”, and do
not take women seriously professionally (Glick and
Fiske 1996).
H3b We hypothesize that participants high on benevolence
toward women will rate male targets with 12 partners
higher on EP than female targets with 12 partners,
because people high on benevolence towards women
tend to hold the assumption that women are the weaker
gender (Glick and Fiske 1996) and would thus be at
greater risk of sexual victimization.
H4a We hypothesize that participants high on hostility toward men will rate male targets with 12 partners higher
on TP than female targets with 12 partners, because
individuals scoring high on hostility toward men believe that men are allowed more career opportunities
and have a higher success ceiling (Glick and Fiske
1999; Glick and Whitehead 2010).
H4b We hypothesize that participants high on hostility towards men will rate male targets with 12 partners
336
H5
Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
higher on EP than female targets with 12 partners,
because individuals scoring high on hostility towards
men resentfully believe that men are more intelligent
and hold greater societal power (Glick and Fiske 1999;
Glick and Whitehead 2010)
We hypothesize that participants high on benevolence
toward men will rate female targets with 12 partners
higher on TP than male targets with 12 partners, because individuals high on benevolence toward men
admire men and believe that men are the protectors of
women (Glick and Fiske 1999), and they could view
more sexually active men as failing at their jobs to
protect women and treat them with respect if those
men engage in sexual activity with many women.
Method
Design
We employed a 2 (target gender) by 3 (zero, one, or 12
partners) between subjects design. The independent variables
were target gender, target number of sexual partners (zero,
one, 12), and participants’ scores on the benevolent and hostile
sexism scales. The dependent variables were participants’
scores on two domains (TP and EP). The Internet-based
survey was either completed in the lab (n=126, 65.9 % female) or from home (n=172, 65.1 % female). Preliminary
analyses revealed no significant differences between the two
methods of data collection, thus we combined the two
samples.
Participants
An a-priori power analysis indicated that approximately 225
participants would be needed in order to achieve a power of .80
to detect a three-way interaction of a magnitude equivalent to
approximately 5 % of the variance explained in a dependent
measure. The original sample consisted of 298 undergraduates
from a large Southwestern university, who participated in exchange for course credit in their introduction to psychology
course. Forty-six participants were excluded from the analysis
due to failing the attention check (two questions designed to
determine whether the participants noticed the gender and the
number of sexual partners of the target person), eight were
excluded due to web browser errors, and 12 were excluded due
to falling outside the demographic of age 18–29. The final sample
contained 232 participants (65.5 % female). The median age was
19 (M=19.71, SD=2.18). Participants self-reported their ethnicity
as White/Caucasian (35.3 %), Latino (32.3 %), Chicano (9.9 %),
Black (6.0 %), Other Asian (2.6 %), Puerto Rican (1.3 %),
Chinese (1.3 %), Korean (.9 %) and Other (10.3 %). Eight
participants identified as homosexual, five as bisexual, and four
declined to report sexual orientation. See Table 1 for participant
gender frequencies in each condition, and more information about
descriptive statistics.
Measures
Sexism Attitudes Questionnaires Participants completed the
22-item Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick and
Fiske 1996) and the 20-item Ambivalence toward Men
Inventory (AMI; Glick and Fiske 1999). The ASI measures
attitudes towards women and the AMI measures attitudes
towards men. Sample hostile ASI items include, “In a disaster,
women ought not necessarily to be rescued before men,” and
“Women seek to gain power by getting control over men.”
Sample benevolent ASI items include “Many women have a
quality of purity that few men possess,” and “A good woman
should be set on a pedestal by her man”. Sample hostile AMI
items include, “Men would be lost in this world if women
weren’t there to guide them,” and “Men act like babies when
they are sick.” Sample benevolent AMI items include “Every
woman needs a male partner who will cherish her,” and
“Women are incomplete without men.” Participants rated each
statement on a six point scale, (0=Disagree Strongly, 5=
Agree Strongly). Some items were removed from the subscales because of low scale reliability. The final scales were
constructed by averaging the items of each scale. Reliability
was as follows: hostility towards women (8 items,α=.87),
benevolence towards women (8 items, α=.80), hostility towards men (9 items, α=.83) and benevolence towards men
(10 items, α=.86). See Table 2 for means and standard
deviations.
Sexual Double Standard The dependent measure consisted of
36 evaluative statements about the target person that assessed
TP and EP. Several items were removed from the two domains
due to low scale reliability. The final two domains were
constructed by adding all the statements for that domain. To
recap, Traditional Positivity (TP), represents more traditional
gender-related concepts of positivity (18 items, α=.87), while
External Positivity (EP), represents more socially-related concepts (15 items, α=.83). Examples of TP statements include,
“This person is trustworthy” and “This person is successful.”
Examples of EP statements include, “This person is intelligent” and “This person is popular.” Participants rated each
item on a five point scale, (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly
Agree). See Appendix A for the complete list of all the
statements, including those removed.
Procedure
After granting informed consent, participants completed demographic and sexism attitudes questionnaires and then
Male target
20.0 (2.7)
18–28
52 %
0%
4%
0%
0%
32 %
4%
0%
8%
96 %
4%
0%
0%
Average age of sample M (SD) 19.5 (1.7)
Age range
18–25
Ethnicity
30 %
12 %
19 %
0%
3%
30 %
0%
6%
0%
88 %
9%
3%
0%
White
Black
Chicano
Chinese
Korean
Latino
Other Asian
Puerto Rican
Other
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Homosexual
Bisexual
Prefer not to answer
95 %
0%
0%
5%
29 %
0%
5%
5%
0%
52 %
5%
0%
5%
19.4 (1.6)
18–24
86 %
0%
9%
5%
29 %
14 %
14 %
0%
0%
24 %
0%
0%
19 %
19.7 (1.5)
18–24
93 %
4%
0%
4%
56 %
7%
4%
0%
0%
22 %
0%
0%
11 %
19.7 (2.1)
18–28
96 %
0%
4%
0%
36 %
4%
8%
0%
0%
28 %
8%
0%
16 %
19.1 (1.3)
18–22
94 %
0%
6%
0%
24 %
6%
18 %
0%
0%
35 %
6%
0%
12 %
20.4 (3.4)
18–29
93 %
7%
0%
0%
40 %
7%
0%
0%
7%
40 %
0%
0%
7%
19.7 (2.8)
18–29
93 %
7%
0%
0%
20 %
7%
33 %
0%
0%
20 %
0%
0%
20 %
20.1 (2.4)
18–27
100 %
0%
0%
0%
27 %
0%
9%
0%
0%
27 %
9%
9%
18 %
20.0 (2.0)
18–24
88 %
6%
6%
0%
35 %
6%
0%
12 %
0%
35 %
0%
0%
12 %
20.1 (2.7)
18–29
100 %
0%
0%
0%
20 %
0%
0%
0%
0%
80 %
0%
0%
0%
18.8 (1.1)
18–20
Zero partners One partner 12 partners Zero partners One partner 12 partners Zero partners One partner 12 partners Zero partners One partner 12 partners
(n=33)
(n=25)
(n=21)
(n=21)
(n=27)
(n=25)
(n=17)
(n=15)
(n=15)
(n=11)
(n=17)
(n=5)
Female target
Female target
Male target
Male participants
Female participants
Table 1 Description of the sample, by participant gender and condition
Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
337
Means and standard deviations for female participants (N=152) and male participants (N=80). All sexism scale ratings were made on a 0–6 scale, and averaged for the final scales. All sexual double
standard ratings were made on a 0–5 scale, and were combined together for the final evaluative scales. Means with identical subscripts within rows are significantly different at the .05 level
52.12 (4.53) 49.20 (8.23)
59.29 (6.37) 60.00 (8.51)
60.13 (8.35) 56.87 (6.42) 60.45 (10.36)
51.73 (6.71) 51.93 (5.66) 52.63 (5.80)
51.15 (6.40) 52.04 (5.78) 50.47 (6.17)
50.95 (8.65)
53.26 (4.89)
3.17 (.39)
61.04 (7.46) 57.60 (6.38) 62.24 (6.34)
51.47 (6.55)
49.6 (4.96)
61.69 (8.85)a 62.65 (8.43)b 55.29 (10.84)a,b 58.48 (5.43)
External positivity
Evaluative scales
Traditional positivity
2.43 (.40)
3.10 (.48)
3.28 (.84)
2.58 (1.19)e 3.05 (.90)
2.90 (.72)
3.39 (.74)
2.84 (.71)
2.86 (.88)
2.83 (.73)
2.80 (.69)
2.44 (1.01)a
2.73 (.96)
3.04 (.85)
2.81 (.91)
2.52 (1.07)b
3.28 (.94)
Benevolence towards men
3.09 (.95)
2.53 (.72)c
3.07 (.81)
3.70 (.79)a,b,c,d,e 3.06 (.91)
3.38 (.92)
2.50 (1.18)d 2.74 (.78)
3.65 (.82)
2.88 (.90)
3.10 (.89)
3.27 (1.07)
3.33 (1.07)
2.98 (1.11)
2.79 (1.29)
3.11 (.86)
3.15 (1.10)
2.87 (1.08)
2.91 (.98)
2.88 (.62)
3.00 (.80)
3.13 (1.15)
2.93 (.99)
3.00 (1.13)
3.31 (1.11)
Hostility towards women 2.74 (1.14)
Benevolence
towards women
Hostility towards men
Type of sexism
3.18 (1.09)
12 partners
(n=21)
3.72 (.87)
Zero partners
(n=11)
Zero partners One partner 12 partners
(n=17)
(n=15)
(n=15)
Zero partners One partner 12 partners
(n=21)
(n=27)
(n=25)
Zero partners One partner
(n=33)
(n=25)
3.37 (.65)
Male target
Female target
Male target
Female target
Male participants
Female participants
Table 2 Descriptive table of means for each cell of the ANOVA of the between-subjects variables of participant gender, target gender, and target partners
3.04 (1.34)
Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
One partner 12 partners
(n=17)
(n=5)
338
viewed a purported Facebook application results page. We
informed participants that the computer program randomly
chose a person’s feedback screen from a Facebook study that
was conducted the previous year. Each participant viewed the
same profile (which contained feedback allegedly given to the
target person about their personality) with the exception of the
target person’s gender and the target person’s reported number
of sexual partners. The target’s gender and reported number of
sexual partners varied by condition.
After reading the Facebook screen, participants completed
the TP and EP measurements. The Facebook results page and
evaluative scales were presented on the same screen so that
participants could refer to the results page as necessary when
completing the evaluation questionnaire. Finally, participants
answered two questions to ensure that they noticed the target
person’s gender and number of sexual partners. Participants
were then debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Exploratory analyses revealed no significant differences between the online and in-person samples, thus we combined the
samples. See Table 3 for correlations between all variables.
We predicted that male participants would score higher on
hostility and benevolence towards women and benevolence
towards men, and that female participants would score higher
on hostility towards men (H1a). To test this hypothesis, we
performed a MANOVA on sexism scores. There was a marginal multivariate main effect for participant gender, Wilks’
λ=.96, F (4, 195) = 2.12, p=.080, ηp2 =.04. Given the marginal significance of the overall test, univariate effects were
examined. There was a main effect for benevolent sexism
towards men, F (1,198) = 7.48, p=.007, ηp2 =.04, whereby
male participants, compared to female participants, scored
higher on benevolence towards men scale. There were no
other main effects. Hypothesis 1a was partially supported.
We also predicted that male participants would have more
positive evaluations of highly sexually active targets than
female participants (H1b). In order to test this hypothesis,
we performed a MANCOVA on EP and TP. Target gender,
target partners, participant gender were the predictors, and the
four sexism scales were entered as continuous covariates.
There was no main effect of participant gender. There was a
marginal multivariate two way interaction between target
gender and target partners, Wilks’ λ=.95, F(4, 348) = 2.11,
p=.079, ηp2 =.02. Examination of the univariate effects revealed no significance for TP, F (2,175) = .80, p=.452,
ηp2 =.01, nor EP, F (2,175) = .90, p=.408, ηp2 =.01. There
was a marginal multivariate three way interaction between
Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
339
Table 3 Correlations between variables
1. Hostility to women
2. Benevolence to women
3. Hostility to men
4. Benevolence to men
5. Traditional positivity
6. External positivity
1
2
3
4
5
6
–
.58**
.86**
.65**
-.07
-.12
.21
–
.78**
.76**
-.08
-.08
.85**
.57**
–
.72**
-.12
-.20*
.50**
.64**
.57**
–
-.14
-.15
-.13
.05
.02
-.12
–
.74**
-.07
-.05
.00
-.22
.62**
–
Intercorrelations for male participants (n=80) is presented above the diagonal, and intercorrelations for female participants (n=152) are presented below
the diagonal
*p<.05, **p<.01
target gender, target partners and participant gender, Wilks’
λ=.96, F (4, 348) = 2.02, p=.092, ηp2 =.02. Given the marginal significance of the overall test, univariate effects were
examined. A marginal three way interaction was observed for
EP, F (2,175) = 3.03, p=.051, ηp2 =.03. Male participants
rated male targets lower on EP and female targets higher on
EP as the number of partners increased across the three conditions. Hypothesis 1b was not supported.
Hostile Sexism Towards Women
Although there were only differences between male and female participants in the EP domain on the benevolence towards men scale, all analyses were conducted separately for
each gender for exploratory reasons. Because we include
continuous variables in our model (sexism scores), we used
hierarchical regression. In order to facilitate comparisons of
individual target partners’ conditions, we performed two hierarchical regressions, one comparing targets with 12 partners
vs. targets with one partner, and the other comparing targets
with 12 partners to targets with zero partners. Only the significant and marginally significant results are reported here.
There were no multi collinearity violations; all VIF’s were
under 5.
In order to determine whether participants’ hostility towards women relates to the exhibition of the sexual double
standard, hierarchical regression was performed. The hostile
sexism towards women score was mean centered, and the
conditions were dummy coded such that the “female target”
condition was coded 1 and the “male target” condition was
coded “0.” Furthermore, the “12 partners” was coded “2”,
“one partner” was coded “1” and “zero partners” was coded
“0.” Because we conducted two sets of hierarchical regressions (12 vs. one and 12 vs. zero), the three variables were
never placed in the same hierarchical model. In any case, this
coding allows target partners to be treated as a categorical
variable (Aiken and West 1991). In Step 1, the total evaluative
score was regressed on target gender, the number of target
partners, and hostility towards women scores. In Step 2, the
interactions terms between target gender and target partners,
hostility towards women score and target gender, and hostility
towards women score and target partners were entered. In Step
3, the three way interaction between hostility towards women
score, target partners and target gender was entered. For
brevity, only the statistics of significant three-way interactions
that were hypothesized will be reported in the text.
Hypothesized interactions that were not significant are briefly
noted in the text.
We predicted that participants high on hostility toward
women would rate more sexually active male targets higher
on TP than more sexually active female targets (H2). When
comparing 12 partners vs. zero in the TP domain, the model in
step 3 was significant, ΔR2 =.03, F (7,81) = 2.33, p=.032.
There was a marginal three way interaction between target
partners, target gender and women’s hostility towards women,
b=−.34, p=.089. Simple slope analyses revealed female participants scoring high on hostility towards women rated male
targets with 12 partners higher on TP than female targets with
12 partners, t=−2.53, p=0.013. Hypothesis 2 was partially
supported. Other finding revealed that female participants
rated female targets with zero partner higher on TP than
female targets with 12; however the difference in evaluation
was greater for those scoring high on hostility towards women, t=−3.96, p<0.001.
Benevolent Sexism Towards Women
We predicted that participants high on benevolence towards
women would rate more sexually active male targets higher on
both TP and EP than more sexually active female targets (H3).
In the domain of EP, though the model in step 3 was not
significant, ΔR2 =.07, F (7,42) = 1.53, p=.185, there was a
marginal three way interaction between target partner, target
gender and men’s benevolence towards women, b=−1.52,
p=.066. Simple slope analyses revealed that male participants
scoring low on benevolence towards women rated female
targets with 12 partners higher on EP than male targets with
12 partners, whereas those scoring high on benevolence
340
towards women displayed the reverse pattern, t=−4.55,
p<0.001. Hypothesis 3a was not supported, while 3b was
partially supported. Other findings revealed that male participants scoring low on benevolence towards women rated
female targets with 12 partners higher on EP than female
targets with one partner, whereas those scoring high on benevolence towards women displayed the reverse pattern, t=
−4.22, p<0.001. There were no other three way interactions.
Hostile Sexism Towards Men
We predicted that participants high on hostility towards men
would rate more sexually active male targets higher on TP and
EP than more sexually active female targets (H4). In the
domain of EP, the model in step 3 was marginally significant,
both for 12 vs. one partners, ΔR2 =.13, F (7,42) = 2.17,
p=.057, and 12 vs. zero partners, ΔR2 =.18, F (7,38) = 1.91,
p=.095. There was a three way interaction between target
partner, target gender and men’s hostility towards men, both
for 12 vs. one partners, b=−2.25, p=.009, and 12 vs. zero
partners, b=−.97, p=.005 (see Tables 4 and 5). Simple slope
analyses revealed male participants scoring low on hostility
towards men rated female targets with 12 partners higher on
EP than male targets with 12 partners, whereas those scoring
high on hostility towards men displayed the reverse pattern,
t=−7.37, p<0.001 (see Figs. 1 and 2). Hypothesis 4a was not
supported, while 4b was partially supported. Other findings
revealed that male participants scoring low on hostility towards men rated female targets with 12 partners higher on EP
than female targets with one partner (t=−4.49, p<0.001) and
zero partners (t=−5.92, p<0.001), whereas those scoring high
on hostility towards men displayed the reverse pattern. There
were no other three way interactions.
Benevolent Sexism Towards Men
Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
Table 4 Hierarchical linear regression: predicted evaluative scores on the
external positivity domain as a function of condition and male participants’ hostility towards men score (one partner vs. 12 partners analysis)
External positivity
Predictor
Step 1
Target gender
Target partner
Hostility to men
Step 2
Target gender x target partner
Target gender x hostility to men
Target partner x hostility to men
ΔR2
.01
Step 3
Target gender x target partner x
hostility to men
Total R2
.13
B
95 % CI B
.30
-.56
-.46
[−3.48, 4.07]
[−4.32, 3.20]
[−3.12, 2.21]
3.79
-.64*
2.92
[−4.22, 11.79]
[−11.82, −.99]
[−4.94, 10.78]
−22.16**
[−38.42, −5.90]
.13
.27
N=50. CI, Confidence interval
*p<.05. ** p<.01
t = −4.30, p < 0.001. There were no other three way
interactions.
Discussion
The goal of this research was to examine the relationship
between sexist attitudes and the exhibition of the sexual
double standard. We studied this relationship by examining
Table 5 Hierarchical linear regression: predicted evaluative scores on the
external positivity domain as a function of condition and male participants’ hostility towards men score (zero partners vs. 12 partners analysis)
External positivity
We predicted that participants high on benevolence towards men would rate more sexually active female
targets higher on TP than more sexually active males
targets (H5). In the domain of TP, the model in step 3
was significant for 12 vs. one partners, ΔR2 =.04, F
(7,85) = 3.54, p=.002. There was a three way interaction between target partners, target gender and women’s
benevolence towards men, b = −.88, p = .049 (see
Table 6). Simple slope analyses revealed that female
participants scoring high on benevolence towards men
rated male targets with 12 partners higher on TP than
female targets with 12 partners, t=−3.58, p=0.001 (see
Fig. 3). Hypothesis 5 was not supported. Other findings
revealed that female participants scoring high on benevolence towards men rated female targets with one partner higher on TP than female targets with 12 partners,
Predictor
Step 1
Target gender
Target partner
Hostility to men
Step 2
Target gender x target partner
Target gender x hostility to men
Target partner x hostility to men
Step 3
Target gender x target partner x
hostility to men
Total R2
N=46. CI, Confidence interval
* p<.05. ** p<.01
ΔR2
.01
B
95 % CI B
-.93
.29
.41
[−5.06, 3.20]
[−1.64, 2.22]
[−2.34, 3.16]
.08
2.36
[−2.03, 6.75]
−3.99
.07
[−10.05, 2.07]
[−3.99, 4.13]
−12.60**
[−21.11, −4.10]
.18
.26
Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
participants’ hostile and benevolent attitudes towards men and
women and their evaluations of hypothetical target individuals. Hypothesis 1 was partially supported; male participants,
compared to female participants, had more benevolent attitudes towards men. Although gender differences were seen in
only one sexism scale, this is consistent with previous research
(Glick and Fiske 1999). The primary purpose of this hypothesis was to determine whether separate analyses for male and
female participants were needed.
Hypothesis 2 was also partially supported; female participants high on hostility towards women rated more sexually
active male targets higher on TP than more sexually active
female targets. Indicating that individuals who think that
women use their sexuality to manipulate men and gain power
evaluate highly sexually active women more negatively than
highly sexually active men. In addition, female participants’
hostile attitudes towards women align with stereotypical evaluations of men and women. Women, who display more hostility towards other women, do so primarily against normdeviant women (German sample, Becker 2010), and, accordingly, female participants rated more sexually active female
targets lower on TP than more sexually active male targets.
Hypothesis 3 was partially supported; male participants
who were low on benevolence towards women exhibited a
reverse double standard (Milhausen and Herold 1999), whereby they rated female targets with 12 partners higher on EP
than male targets with 12 partners. One possible explanation
for this effect is that men who do not hold traditional gender
roles do not perceive anything negative about women having a
high number of sexual partners; they may even view more
sexually active women as potential mates, and more sexually
active men as competition for those mates. Furthermore, male
participants with low scores on benevolence towards women
also rated more sexually active women higher on EP than less
sexually active women. A possible explanation for this is that
men high on benevolence towards women view them as less
intelligent than men and less likely to be able to take care of
themselves, whereas those low on benevolence towards women do not.
Hypothesis 4 was partially supported; we predicted that
individuals high on hostility towards men would rate more
sexually active male targets higher on TP and EP than more
sexually active female targets. Our results only showed this
predicted pattern for the EP domain. Men who score high on
hostility towards men believe in the societal power men have
in patriarchal society, and that men are more intelligent than
women. These attitudes may explain why, male participants
rated more sexually active male targets higher on EP than
more sexually active female targets. In contrast, men who
score low on hostility towards men do not believe men have
more social power, which explain why male participants low
on hostility towards men rated more sexually active female
targets higher on EP than more sexually active male targets.
341
Hypothesis 5 was not supported. We hypothesized that
individuals high on benevolence towards men would rate
more sexually active female targets higher on TP than more
sexually active male targets, because individuals high on
benevolence toward men believe that men should protect
women, and thus view more sexually active men as failing
in that duty. Our results showed that female participants with
high scores on benevolence towards men rated male targets
with 12 partners higher on TP than female targets with 12
partners. A possible explanation for this result is that women
who are high on benevolence towards men perceive themselves as “less ambitious, intelligent, and competent” (Glick
and Fiske 1999, p. 521) than men.
Implications of the Current Study
Our results revealed that sexist attitudes influence people’s
evaluations of others based on sexual behavior. This suggests
that people’s attitudes towards men and women affect whether
or not they endorse the sexual double standard, and that the
mechanisms that perpetuate the sexual double standard partially stem from people’s general views of traditional gender
roles. Future studies should explore whether the expression of
the sexual double standard can be altered by manipulating
sexist attitudes.
The results also revealed a trend whereby women’s sexist
attitudes were related to the manifestation of a traditional
double standard, whereas men’s sexist attitudes were found
to relate to both the traditional and a reversed double standard.
Moreover, hostile attitudes towards the same gender and
benevolent attitudes towards the opposite gender were found
to relate to the manifestation of the double standard. These
findings can be explained in part by the competition hypothesis (Clayton and Trafimow 2007), which suggests that women evaluate highly sexually active women more negatively,
because they represent competition for a mate. Moreover,
more sexually active women behave in a way that contradicts
traditional gender roles, and they are therefore evaluated in a
negative way. In a similar manner, men might view more
sexually active men as competition for mates, and therefore
exhibit a reversed double standard whereby they evaluate
more sexually active men in negative and derogatory ways.
This is in line with evolutionary theory, which suggests individuals compete for mates with the same gender but value the
opposite gender for their sexual and reproductive capabilities.
Furthermore, the results of this study suggest sexual behavior (number of sexual partners) influences perceptions of
women more so than perceptions of men. The majority of our
results indicate that those individuals high on either type of
sexism evaluate female targets with one partner or zero partners more positively than female targets with 12 partners,
while evaluating male targets with one partner or zero partners
similarly to male targets with 12 partners. These findings
342
Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
Male Participants
90
External Positivity
80
70
Table 6 Hierarchical linear regression: predicted evaluative scores on the
traditional positivity domain as a function of condition and female participants’ benevolence towards men score (one partner vs. 12 partners
analysis)
60
Traditional positivity
50
40
30
20
10
0
Low Hostility to Men
High Hostility to Men
Fig. 1 Male participants’ evaluations of external positivity as a function
of target gender and number of sexual partners (one vs. 12) and participants’ hostility towards men score. N=50
suggest that even when taking into account men’s and
women’s sexist attitudes, patriarchal societies still tend to
derogate the sexual behavior of women more so than men.
This supports traditional gender roles and evolutionary perspectives by which men have more sexual freedom than
women.
Predictor
Step 1
Target gender
Target partner
Benevolence to men
Step 2
Target gender x target partner
Target gender x benevolence to men
Target partner x benevolence to men
Step 3
Target gender x target partner x
benevolence to men
Total R2
ΔR2
.12
B
95 % CI B
-.12
−4.96**
−1.66
[−3.55, 3.31]
[−8.39, −1.53]
[−3.37, .06]
−5.37
-.97
−3.54*
[−12.12, 1.38]
[−4.43, 2.49]
[−7.07, −.01]
−6.96*
[−13.90, −.02]
.07
.04
.23
N=93. CI, Confidence interval
* p<.05. ** p<.01
Limitations
There are several limitations to the present research. First, past
research has revealed that sexist attitudes are somewhat experience dependent (Glick and Fiske 1996), in that sexist attitudes can change as individuals gain more experience with
different types of relationships. For example, if individuals
experience divorce in their lives, they may be more likely to
develop more hostile attitudes towards the other gender (Glick
and Fiske 1996). Therefore, our results may not generalize to a
broader population because our sample consisted primarily of
college age men and women who still may be in a transitional
period of sexist attitudes or have limited relational experience
(Glick and Fiske 1996). Examination of a more general population that includes a larger range of ages can provide more
definitive evidence on the relationship between sexism and
the double standard.
In addition, the vignettes that were used in this study may
not mirror real life evaluation of individuals. It is uncommon
for individuals to evaluate others based solely on several
written paragraphs. It is also possible that some participants
in our study did not believe the vignette was real, which could
have influenced their evaluation. Therefore, future studies
should attempt to make the vignettes to be more believable
and representative of real life scenarios.
Finally, the fact that the participants were presented with
the ASI and AMI prior to viewing the vignettes might have
influenced their evaluation of target individuals. The ASI and
AMI include several statements that may have primed some of
the participants to hold certain views about male and female
relationships, which, in turn, could have influenced participants’ evaluative scores. However, because all of the participants were presented with the same sexist statements prior to
their evaluation of a target person, there should be no
Male Participants
75
90
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
Female Participants
85
65
Traditional Positivity
External Positivity
70
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
Low Hostility to Men
High Hostility to Men
Fig. 2 Male participants’ evaluations of external positivity as a function
of target gender and number of sexual partners (zero vs. 12) and participants’ hostility towards men score. N=46
Low Benevolence to Men
High Benevolence to Men
Fig. 3 Female participants’ evaluations of traditional positivity as a
function of target gender and number of sexual partners (one vs. 12)
and participants’ benevolence towards men score. N=93
Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
systematic variation in such a process. Furthermore,
collecting participants’ sexist attitudes after they evaluated a target person could have resulted in priming by
the vignettes they saw, and because participants saw
different vignettes, their attitudes could have been influenced in different ways, which would have undermined
our experiment.
Conclusions
The present research suggests that sexist attitudes can
influence the exhibition of the sexual double standard.
Hostile and benevolent attitudes towards men and women
affected participants’ perceptions of the target individuals’
sexual behavior. This study furthered our understanding of
the double standard by offering an explanation as to why
the double standard appears in some cases but not in
others. Future research should continue exploring the different contextual settings that may result in the manifestation of the sexual double standard.
Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the reviewers of this
article for all of their helpful comments. We also thank Laura Madson,
Jeremy Schwark and Erin Vogel for reading earlier drafts of this article
and providing us with feedback and suggestions.
343
Traditional Positivity Domain:
This person often takes control of situations.
This person influences others.
External Positivity Domain:
Popularity Subscale
This person is popular.
This person has lots of friends.
This person is fun at parties.
People like this person.
This person would be fun to hang out with.
This person is physically attractive.
People listen to this person.
#No one likes this person.
*Others emulate this person.
Intelligence Subscale
This person is intelligent.
#This person is a failure.
This person performs well in everything he/she does.
#*This person makes a lot of mistakes.
This person did well in school.
#This person has a low IQ.
This person is good at analyzing situations.
This person has an ability to grasp concepts quickly.
# Item was reversed coded.
*Item was dropped in order to increase cronbach’s alphas of the
subscales.
Appendix A
References
Traditional Positivity Domain:
Values Subscale
This person is trustworthy.
This person is respectful.
This person would make someone a good boyfriend/girlfriend.
This person would make someone a good husband/wife.
#This person is immoral.
#This person is dishonest.
#This person is careless.
I could be friends with this person.
#I would not like to know this person.
Success Subscale
This person makes a lot of money.
This person will hold a job with lots of power.
This person is in charge of many people.
This person has a good job.
This person would make a good leader.
This person performs well in everything he/she does.
*This person enjoys luxurious lifestyle.
This person is successful.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Allen, C., Swan, S., & Raghavan, C. (2009). Gender symmetry, sexism,
and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24,
1816–1834. doi:10.1177/0886260508325496.
Becker, J. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The role of salient female subtypes and internalization of sexist
contents. Sex Roles, 62, 453–467. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9707-4.
Carpenter, L. M. (2001). The ambiguity of “having sex”: The subjective
experience of virginity loss in the United States. Journal of Sex
Research, 38, 127–139. doi:10.1080/00224490109552080.
Carpenter, L. M. (2009). Virginity loss in reel real life: Using popular
movies to navigate sexual initiation. Sociological Forum, 24, 804–
827. doi:10.1111/j.15737861.2009.01137.x.
Chen, Z., Fiske, S. T., & Lee, T. L. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and
power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex Roles, 60,
765–778. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9585-9.
Clayton, K. D., & Trafimow, D. (2007). A test of three hypotheses
concerning attributions toward female promiscuity. The Social
Science Journal, 44, 677–686. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2007.10.003.
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes
toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 15, 543–558. doi:10.1177/0146167289154008.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of
sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes &
H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of
gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
344
Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Glick, P., Johannesen Schmidt, M. C.,
Fiske, S. T., Blum, A. M. B., & Volpato, C. (2006). Is traditional
gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? A test
in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54, 603–614. doi:10.1007/
s111990069027-x.
Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Farrell, J., Gentry, A., Stevens, S., Eckstein, J.,
Battocletti, J., & Gardener, C. (2010). First date sexual expectations:
The effects of who asked, who paid, date location, and gender.
Communication Studies, 61, 339–355. doi:10.1080/
10510971003752676.
Forbes, G. B., & Adams-Curtis, L. E. (2001). Experiences with sexual
coercion in college males and females: Role of family conflict, sexist
attitudes, acceptance of rape myths, self esteem, and the big-five
personality factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 865–889.
doi:10.1177/088626001016009002.
Gentry, M. (1998). The sexual double standard. The influence of number
of relationships and level of sexual activity on judgments of women
and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 505–511. doi:10.
1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00173.x.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory:
Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.70.3.491.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1999). The ambivalence towards men inventory –
differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.
tb00379.x.
Glick, P., & Whitehead, J. (2010). Hostility toward men and the perceived
stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41, 177–185. doi:
10.1027/1864-9335/a000025.
Helgeson, V. S. (2009). Psychology of gender (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Jonason, P. K., & Marks, M. J. (2009). Common vs. uncommon sexual
acts: Evidence for the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 60, 357–
365. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9542-z.
Koon-Magnin, S., & Ruback, R. (2012). Young adults’ perceptions of
non-forcible sexual activity: The effects of participant gender, respondent gender, and sexual act. Sex Roles, 67, 646–658. doi:10.
1007/s11199-012-0201-z.
Kreager, D. A., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and
adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 143–
164. doi:10.1177/019027250907200205.
Marks, M. J. (2002). [Internet survey on sexual attitudes.] Unpublished
raw data.
Sex Roles (2014) 71:333–344
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.
doi:10.1080/01973530701866664.
Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or
fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.
Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Confirmation bias and the sexual
double standard. Sex Roles, 54, 19–26. doi:10.1007/s11199-0068866-9.
Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). The impact of social interaction on
the sexual double standard. Social Influence, 2, 29–54. doi:10.1080/
15534510601154413.
Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double
standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. Journal of
Sex Research, 36, 361–368. doi:10.1080/00224499909552008.
Mongeau, P. A., & Carey, C. M. (1996). Who’s wooing whom II: An
experimental investigation of date-initiation and expectancy violation. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 195–213. doi:10.
1080/10570319609374543.
Morr Serewicz, M. C., & Gale, E. (2008). First-date scripts: Gender roles,
context, and relationship. Sex Roles, 58, 149–164. doi:10.1007/
s11199-007-9283-4.
Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., & Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date
rape justifiable? The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who
paid, and men’s attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 9, 297–309. doi:10.1111/j.14716402.1985.tb00882.x.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A
meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.114.1.29.
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research
on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological
Bulletin, 136, 21–38. doi:10.1037/a0017504.
Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of
individuals. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 232–248. doi:10.1080/
00224498909551508.
Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1996). College virgins: How men and
women perceive their sexual status. Journal of Sex Research, 33,
3–15. doi:10.1080/00224499609551810.
Yamawaki, N. (2007). Rape perception and the function of ambivalent
sexism and gender-role traditionality. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 22, 406–423. doi:10.1177/0886260506297210.
Young, M., Penhollow, T. M., & Bailey, W. C. (2010). Hooking-up and
condom provision: Is there a double standard? American Journal of
Health Studies, 25, 156–164.