Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Premarital Sexual Standards and Sociosexuality: Gender, Ethnicity, and Cohort Differences

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we present results from a “cohort-longitudinal” analysis of sexual attitudes and behaviors based on a large sample of young adults (N = 7,777) obtained from a university setting over a 23-year period. We investigated gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences in sexual permissiveness, endorsement of the double standard, and sociosexuality. Compared to women, men had more permissive attitudes, particularly about sex in casual relationships, endorsed the double standard to a greater degree, and had a more unrestricted sociosexuality. Black men were generally more permissive than White, Hispanic, and Asian men, whereas ethnic differences were not found among women. Participants from the 1995–1999 cohort were slightly less permissive than those from the 1990–1994 and 2005–2012 cohorts. Although prior meta-analytic studies (e.g., Petersen & Hyde, 2010) found reduced gender differences in sexuality over time, our cohort analyses suggest that gender differences in sexual permissiveness have not changed over the past two decades among college students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although the university, particular class, and survey remained constant across the 23 years, there were a few changes that occurred. In fall of 1997, the survey was modified to include directions and wording (for some items) that would be more applicable to homosexual participants. Second, the course was initially one of several electives in a University Studies program but then became an elective without being connected to the General Education program that replaced the University Studies program at this university.

  2. We had no reason to believe that two underlying components were responsible for differential responses of sexual permissiveness for casual versus committed relationships. Rather, all five items were part of a general component of sexual standards with two linear components.

  3. Our very large sample size allocated us very high statistical power to detect the smallest of effects (see Cohen, 1992). Thus, many of the p values in the effects described below were inflated towards high statistical significance (i.e., under p = .001), even for very small effects. Thus, our interpretations of each effect were based on the relative effect size.

  4. We performed an additional test of the sex × ethnicity MANOVA in which we examined socioeconomic status and religiosity as covariates. We operationalized socioeconomic status as an aggregate of standardized scores in the following variables: mother’s education (less than 12 years, high school graduate, technical-vocational degree, some college, bachelor’s degree, some graduate work, master’s degree, advanced degree), father’s education (identical measure as mother’s education), and self-reported social status (lower class, working class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, upper class); thus, higher scores reflect higher socioeconomic status. We operationalized religiosity as an aggregate of standardized scores in the number of religious services attended each month (0–4 or more) and reverse-coded self-reported religiosity (not religious, slightly religious, somewhat religious, very religious); thus, higher scores reflect greater degrees of religiosity. Neither socioeconomic status nor religiosity were significant covariates. Specifically, although socioeconomic status did not interact with gender and race, it did not uniquely predict the collective dependent variables. Religiosity was a significant predictor of the collective dependent variables (partial η2 = .04) but it interacted with race (albeit very weakly; partial η2 = .002), which thus prohibited it from being a covariate in this model.

  5. In a separate analysis, we analyzed cohort differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors using multilevel modeling. We found no evidence of a nested structure (students nested in years of data collection) in all five of our dependent measure, all intraclass correlations (ICC) < .01. Likewise, in another related analysis, we correlated our five dependent measures, as well as the squares of these measures (to test for curvilinear effects), with the year of data collection (treated as a continuous variable). None of these correlations were significant, all rs ≤ .013, all ps > .26.

  6. We also analyzed the effect of cohort on the endorsement of the DS by including cohort as a between-subjects variable in the mixed-measures analysis of the DS described earlier. This test revealed that cohort did not interact with the gender × gender of target person × stage of relationship interaction, F(3, 7716) < 1, partial η 2 = 0.

References

  • Ahrold, T. K., & Meston, C. M. (2010). Ethnic differences in sexual attitudes of U.S. college students: Gender acculturation, and religiosity factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 190–202.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bermudez, M. P., Castro, A., Gude, F., & Buela-Casal, G. (2010). Relationship power in the couple and sexual double standard as predictors of the risk of sexually transmitted infections and HIV: Multicultural and gender differences. Current HIV Research, 8, 172–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, P. D., & Lipsitz, A. (1991). Sexual behavior among college students in the AIDS era: A comparative study. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 3, 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brotto, L. A., Chik, H. M., Ryder, A. G., Gorzalka, B. B., & Seal, B. N. (2005). Acculturation and sexual function in Asian women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 613–626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. P. (2006). Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women? Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1321–1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Das, A., & Nairn, S. (2013). Race differentials in partnering patterns among older U.S. men: Influence of androgens or religious participation? Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0096-y.

  • Davidson, J. K., Moore, N. B., Earle, J. R., & Davis, R. (2008). Sexual attitudes and behavior at four universities: Do region, race, and/or religion matter? Adolescence, 43, 189–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeLamater, J. (1989). The social control of human sexuality. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal context (pp. 30–62). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. M. (2006). The evolution of plasticity in female–female desire. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18, 245–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. M. (2007). A dynamical systems approach to female same-sex sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 142–161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Earle, J. R., Perricone, P. J., Davidson, J. K., Moore, N. B., Harris, C. T., & Cotten, S. R. (2007). Premarital sexual attitudes and behaviors at a religiously-affiliated university: Two decades of change. Sexuality and Culture, 11, 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenman, R., & Dantzker, M. L. (2006). Gender and ethnic differences in sexual attitudes at a Hispanic-serving university. Journal of General Psychology, 133, 153–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa-Hernandez, G., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2009). Sexual behaviors and attitudes and ethnic identity during college. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 471–482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S. S., Turner, R. A., & Araujo, K. (1999). Interpersonal context as an influence on sexual timetables of youths: Gender and ethnic effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 25–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, M. Z., Tolone, W. L., & Walsh, R. H. (1977). Maturational and societal changes in the sexual double-standard: A panel analysis (1967–1971; 1970–1974). Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 255–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, A. M. (2013). The wages of sin: How the discovery of penicillin reshaped modern sexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 5–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fugère, M. A., Escoto, C., Cousins, A. J., Riggs, M. L., & Haerich, P. (2008a). Sexual attitudes and double standards: A literature review focusing on participant gender and ethnic background. Sexuality and Culture, 12, 169–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fugère, M. A., Escoto, C., Cousins, A. J., Riggs, M. L., & Haerich, P. (2008b, February). Sexual attitudes and double standards in two ethnically and religiously diverse samples. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Albuqurque, NM.

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greeley, A. M. (1991). Faithful attraction: Discovering intimacy, love, and fidelity in American marriage. New York: Doherty.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, D. T., & Jencks, C. (2003). Changing attitudes toward premarital sex: Cohort, period, and aging effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., & Marks, M. J. (2009). Common vs. uncommon sexual acts: Evidence for the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 60, 357–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., Teicher, E. A., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). The TIPI’s validity confirmed: Associations with sociosexuality and self-esteem. Individual Differences Research, 9, 52–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J., & Bazzini, D. G. (2001). Gender, sexual experience, and the sexual double standard: Evaluations of female contraceptive behavior. Sex Roles, 45, 785–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T. (2001). Evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, and dynamical systems: Building an integrative paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D. T., Maner, J. K., Butner, J., Li, N. P., Becker, D. V., & Schaller, M. (2002). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Mapping the domains of the new interactionist paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, K., Balswick, J. O., & Robinson, I. E. (1977). The continuing premarital sexual revolution among college females. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 455–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 631–651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, E. R. (1978). Gender and social class differences in changes in attitudes toward premarital coitus. Sociology and Social Research, 62, 279–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of ‘non-relationship’ sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 459–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mark, M. M., & Miller, M. L. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meston, C. M., & Ahrold, T. (2010). Ethnic, gender, and acculturation influences on sexual behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 179–189.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meston, C. M., Trapnell, P. D., & Gorzalka, B. B. (1998). Ethnic, gender, and length of residency influences on sexual knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 176–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L., & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 872–879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, J., Fincham, F. D., & Moore, J. (2011). Short-term prospective study of hooking up among college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 331–341.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, E. R., & O’Grady, K. E. (1987). Sexuality among Mexican Americans: A case of sexual stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 5–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, E. L., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. (2008). Hookups: A facilitator or a barrier to relationship initiation and intimacy development? In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 375–390). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2011). Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors: A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 149–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, I. L. (1960). Premarital sexual standards in America. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, I. L. (1964). The scaling of premarital sexual permissiveness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 26, 188–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risman, B., & Schwartz, P. (2002). After the sexual revolution: Gender politics in teen dating. Contexts, 1, 16–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, I., & Jedlicka, D. (1982). Change in sexual attitudes and behavior of college students from 1965–1980: A research note. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 237–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, I., Ziss, K., Ganza, B., & Katz, S. (1991). Twenty years of the sexual revolution, 1965–1985: An update. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 216–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, M. J., & Kim, B. (2005). The independence of young adults and the rise of interracial and same-sex unions. American Sociological Review, 70, 541–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakaluk, J. K., & Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Factors influencing university students’ explicit and implicit sexual double standards. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 464–476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherwin, R., & Corbett, S. (1985). Campus sexual norms and dating relationships: A trend analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 21, 258–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, B. K. (1980). Trends in attitudes toward premarital sexual relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 387–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., & Hatfield, E. (1996). Premarital sexual standards among U.S. college students: Comparisons with Russian and Japanese students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 261–288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., Walsh, R., & Anderson, C. (1988). A revision of the Reiss Premarital Sexual Permissiveness Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 821–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, R. (1989). Premarital sex among teenagers and young adults. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal context (pp. 162–186). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, B. E., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Changes in young people’s sexual behavior and attitudes, 1943–1999: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 9, 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, 61790-4660, USA

    Susan Sprecher

  2. Department of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Stanislav Treger

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    John K. Sakaluk

Authors
  1. Susan Sprecher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stanislav Treger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John K. Sakaluk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Sprecher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sprecher, S., Treger, S. & Sakaluk, J.K. Premarital Sexual Standards and Sociosexuality: Gender, Ethnicity, and Cohort Differences. Arch Sex Behav 42, 1395–1405 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation