Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to determine whether males and females have different views about the partner behaviors that constitute positive, negative, and typical dating experiences. Undergraduate students (50 males, 70 females; primarily Caucasian) were asked to rate the likelihood of sexually suggestive and nonsexual events in “good,” “bad,” and “typical” date contexts. For good and typical dates, men and women identified many of the same events as likely to occur. However, sexually charged events were more salient for men in these contexts, as shown by the higher mean likelihood ratings men gave to items describing sexually suggestive partner behaviors. For bad dates, there was a striking gender difference in the behaviors judged likely to occur. Women gave higher mean likelihood ratings to sexually charged events in bad dates. Furthermore, women incorporated sexually charged events in their scripts whereas men did not. These findings have implications for our understanding of how males and females view the development of sexual intimacy in dating.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept.American Psychologist, 36, 715–729.
Bentler, P. M. (1968a). Heterosexual behavior assessment—I. Males.Behavior Research and Therapy, 6, 21–25.
Bentler, P. M. (1968b). Heterosexual behavior assessment—II. Females.Behavior Research and Therapy, 6, 27–30.
Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text.Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–220.
Brown, B. B. (1982). The extent and effects of peer pressure among high school students: A retrospective analysis.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 121–133.
Carroll, J., Volk, K., & Hyde, J. (1985). Differences between males and females in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 131–139.
DeKeseredy, W., & Kelly, K. (1993). The incidence and prevalence of woman abuse in Canadian university and college dating relationships.Canadian Journal of Sociology, 18, 137–159.
Fichten, C. S., Tagalakis, V., Judd, D., Wright, J., & Amsel, R. (1992). Verbal and nonverbal communication cues in daily conversations and dating.The Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 751–769.
Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire.Harvard Educational Review, 58, 29–53.
Gross, A. E. (1978). The male role and heterosexual behavior.Journal of Social Issues, 34, 87–107.
Hansen, S. L. (1977). Dating choices of high school students.The Family Coordinator, 26, 133–138.
Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality.American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 563–577.
Humphreys, T., & Desmarais, S. (1992).Gender differences in the perception of rape. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Quebec, Canada.
Knox, D., & Wilson, K. (1981). Dating behaviors of university students.Family Relations, 30, 255–258.
Koss, M. P. & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and validity.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422–423.
Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170.
Marsiglio, W. (1988). Adolescent male sexuality and heterosexual masculinity: A conceptual model and review.Journal of Adolescent Research, 3, 285–303.
McCabe, M. P. (1984). Toward a theory of adolescent dating.Adolescence, 19, 159–170.
McCabe, M. P., & Collins, J. K. (1979). Sex role and dating orientation.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 407–425.
McCaw, J., & Senn, C. (1993).Sex differences in perceptions of dangerous sexual behavior: The case of acquaintance rape. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada.
McCormick, N. B. (1987). Sexual scripts: Social and therapeutic implications.Sexual and Marital Therapy, 2, 3–27.
McCormick, N. B., & Jones, A. J. (1989). Gender differences in nonverbal flirtation.Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 15, 271–282.
Muehlenhard, C., Koralewski, M., Andrews, S., & Burdick, C. (1986). Verbal and nonverbal cues that convey interest in dating: Two studies.Behavior Therapy, 17, 404–419.
Oliver, M. B, & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.
Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relationships.Journal of Social Issues, 33, 86–109.
Pryor, J. B., & Merluzzi, T. V. (1985). The role of expertise in processing social interaction scripts.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 362–379.
Reed, D., & Weinberg, M. S. (1984). Premarital coitus: Developing and established sexual scripts.Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 129–138.
Reiss, I. (1986).Journey into sexuality: An exploratory voyage. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Rice, F. P. (1984).The adolescent: Development, relations, and culture (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Roscoe, B., Diana, M. S., & Brooks, R. H. (1987). Early, middle, and late adolescents' views on dating and factors influencing partner selection.Adolescence, 22, 59–68.
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). Young singles' scripts for a first date.Gender and Society, 3, 258–268.
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles' contemporary dating scripts.Sex Roles, 28, 499–509.
Ryan, K. M. (1988). Rape and seduction scripts.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 237–245.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977).Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Wilfrid Laurier University
This work is based on a master's thesis conducted by Christine Alksnis under the direction of Serge Desmarais and Eileen Wood. We gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S. & Wood, E. Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles 34, 321–336 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01547805
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01547805