Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Physical Appearance and Personality on the Exhibition of the Sexual Double Standard

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Sexuality & Culture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The sexual double standard is the phenomenon whereby men are evaluated positively and women are evaluated negatively for engaging in identical sexual behavior. Although people can hold conflicting information (e.g., stereotypical vs. counterstereotypical individuating information) about other individuals, they attempt to form a consistent impression of individuals by inhibiting inconsistent information. The goal of the present study was to investigate whether individuating information about physical appearance and personality could mitigate the exhibition of the evaluations stereotypically associated with the sexual double standard. A sample of 596 participants evaluated a target person who reported having 1 or 12 sexual partners. Overall, participants evaluated highly sexually active female targets more positively than their male counterparts when the targets were either attractive and had a pleasant personality, or were unattractive and had an unpleasant personality. Results highlight the importance of the consistency of individuating information for evaluations of highly sexually active women.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. TIPI—Ten Item Personality Inventory scale (Gosling et al. 2003) was included in the study. Participants were presented with feedback on their personality (e.g., what was their average score on Extraversion and what was the average score of other participants). These scores were collected and only used as a way to compensate the participants for their participation in the study.

References

  • Agocha, V., & Cooper, M. (1999). Risk perceptions and safer-sex intentions: Does a partner’s physical attractiveness undermine the use of risk-relevant information? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 746–759. doi:10.1177/0146167299025006009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biernat, M., Kobrynowicz, D., & Weber, D. L. (2003). Stereotypes and shifting standards: Some paradoxical effects of cognitive load. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2060–2079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1996). Social adaptation and five major factors of personality. In The five-factor model of personality. Theoretical perspectives (pp. 180–207). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  • Ciarrochi, J., & Heaven, P. L. (2009). A longitudinal study into the link between adolescent personality and peer-rated likeability and adjustment: Evidence of gender differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 978–986. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.08.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Civre, Z., Knezevic, M., Baruca, P., & Fabjan, D. (2012). Facial attractiveness and stereotypes of hotel guests: An experimental research. Tourism Management, 36, 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003066X.54.6.408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangloff, B., Gozo, Z., & Zamoşteanu, A. (2011). The value of information transmitted by the Big Five. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 143–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, S. D. (1992). The influence of physical attractiveness and personality on the perceptions and behavior of individuals. Dissertation Abstracts International (Vol. 53, p. 3188).

  • Garlick, R. (1993). Trait relationships in situations of behavioral inconsistency. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 203–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greitemeyer, T., & Kunz, I. (2013). Name-valence and physical attractiveness in Facebook: Their compensatory effects on friendship acceptance. Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 257–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, A. E., & Crofton, C. (1977). What is good is beautiful. Sociometry, 40, 85–90. doi:10.2307/3033549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gute, G., & Eshbaugh, E. (2008). Personality as a predictor of hooking up among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 25, 26–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackathorn, J. J., & Harvey, R. R. (2011). Sexual double standards: Bias in perceptions of cyber infidelity. Sexuality and Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 15, 100–113. doi:10.1007/s12119-010-9082-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, J. L., Klein, J. G., & von Hippel, W. (1991). Attention allocation and impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 548–559. doi:10.1177/0146167291175010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. L., Egan, P. M., Giuliano, T. A., & Ackley, B. D. (2011). The reverse double standard in perceptions of student–teacher sexual relationships: The role of gender, initiation, and power. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 180–200. doi:10.1080/00224540903510837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z., & Thagard, P. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103, 284–308. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemay, E., Clark, M., & Greenberg, A. (2010). What is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 339–353. doi:10.1177/0146167209359700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, M., Vichesky, D., Simmons, M., Wicke, K., & Lipe, A. (2007). Physical attractiveness and sex in judgments about perceived sexually promiscuous others. Psychological Reports, 100, 1107–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo, G. L., Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood: Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psychological Science, 21, 1777–1782. doi:10.1177/0956797610388048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClintock, E. (2011). Handsome wants as handsome does: Physical attractiveness and gender differences in revealed sexual preferences. Biodemography and Social Biology, 57, 221–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McColl, R., & Truong, Y. (2013). The effects of facial attractiveness and gender on customer evaluations during a web-video sales encounter. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 33, 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J., & Inglehart, M. (2011). Malocclusions and perceptions of attractiveness, intelligence, and personality, and behavioral intentions. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 140, 669–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olszanowski, M., Pochwatko, G., Kukliński, K., Ścibor-Rylski, M., Ohme, R. (under review). Warsaw set of emotional facial expression pictures: A validation study of undirected facial display photographs. Behavioral Research Methods.

  • Perilloux, C., Cloud, J., & Buss, D. (2013). Women’s physical attractiveness and short-term mating strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 490–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, D. A., & Levine, H. (2009). Associations between the five-factor model of personality and health behaviors among college students. Journal of American College Health, 58, 73–81. doi:10.3200/JACH.58.1.73-82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raza, S. M., & Carpenter, B. N. (1987). A model of hiring decisions in real employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 596–603. doi:10.1037/00219010.72.4.596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, P. C., & Joshi, A. (2003). Ideal partner preferences among adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 13–20. doi:10.2224/sbp.2003.31.1.13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, L., & Kunda, Z. (1999). Reactions to a Black professional: Motivated inhibition and activation of conflicting stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 885–904. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenney, E. R., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2009). Being liked is more than having a good personality: The role of matching. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 579–585. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508–516. doi:10.1037/h0021188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Collin Scarince, Jacqueline A. Zeiber and Tara M. Young for their comments and suggestions on an earlier draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, MSC-3452, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM, 88003-8001, USA

    Yuliana Zaikman & Michael J. Marks

Authors
  1. Yuliana Zaikman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Marks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuliana Zaikman.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Information gathered from target individual #40:

  1. 1.

    Please describe some of your hobbies.

  • I enjoy watching movies. I go to the theater a couple times a week, and also rent lots of videos and DVDs. I also like to hike. I don’t get to go very often because it is hard to find free weekends, but I take every chance I get to go hiking.

  1. 2.

    What is something someone may not know about you?

  • I’ve had sex with [1/12 guy(s)/girl(s)]. I don’t have much to say about it. It’s just kind of the way I’ve lived my life. I don’t talk about it much with others, so most people are not aware of this.

  1. 3.

    Describe some of your fears.

  • Well, as far as tangible things, I’m scared of snakes and reptiles like snakes. As far as intangible things, I fear failing at my goals and not being a success. The thought of not being able to do the things I want scares me.

  1. 4.

    Tell us about your career aspirations.

  • I would like to become a writer someday. I feel I have pretty good ideas, and I have talent for putting those ideas on paper. I’m not sure if I’d like to be a journalist or a freelance writer, but I know I want to cover current events and how they affect things.

  1. 5.

    How do you see yourself?

  • [Pleasant Personality.

  • I am concerned with being responsible. I try to arrive on time, so I’m not usually late for things. I particularly like helping others, even if I get nothing in return. I have an easy time listening to people’s problems and giving them advice. I usually work with other people because we can fix each other’s mistakes. Most of the time, I take care of others before myself.

  • /Unpleasant Personality].

  • I’m not too worried about responsibility. I arrive whenever I’d like to, which sometimes makes me late for things. I’ll help others, as long as they do me a favor in return. I have a hard time listening to people’s problems and giving them advice. I don’t usually work with other people because I end up having to fix what others screw up. Most of the time, I take care of myself before helping others.

Appendix 2

Perceptions Scale

 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

 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

 This person often takes control of situations

 This person influences others

 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

 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

Behavioral Intentions Scale

 I want this person as a friend

 I want this person as a neighbor

 I want to spend time with this person

 I would like this person to be part of my family

 I would trust this person as a caregiver for a family member

 I want this person as a co-worker

 I want to work closely with this person

 I want this person as a boss

 I want this person as an employee

 I want this person to represent my company

  1. #Item reversed coded
  2. * Item was not included in the final scale due to programming error

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zaikman, Y., Marks, M.J. The Influence of Physical Appearance and Personality on the Exhibition of the Sexual Double Standard. Sexuality & Culture 20, 255–276 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9319-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9319-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation