Abstract
Traditional sexual scripts are characterized by a gendered power inequality (male dominance vs. female submission) (Sanchez, Fetterolf, & Rudman, 2012). Although gender differences in a variety of sexual behaviors have been decreasing, research into sexual scripts provides some support for the existence of traditional sexual scripts adherence. Study 1a and 1b focused on men’s evaluations of sexual script deviation in women (i.e., sexually assertive behavior) and the possible disapproval of these behaviors (backlash effects). Participants (381 and 382 self-identified heterosexual men) were presented with a randomly assigned vignette describing a hypothetical sexual scenario in which a woman behaved either sexually assertive or sexually timid. Both studies indicated that men to some extent expressed disapproval of sexually assertive women. With the aim to assess if backlash effects were due to women’s sexual script deviation or if there was an overall negative evaluation of sexually assertive behavior irrespective of the target’s gender, in Study 2 we focused on the perception of sexually assertive behavior in both women and men (N = 268). Although we found that gender role conformity was held for women, but not for men, the results suggest that the negative evaluation of sexual assertiveness was not due to script deviation, but that there is an overall conservative attitude toward sexually assertive behavior. Our study provides some insight into the motives of traditional sexual script adherence particularly for women.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Over 40 years ago, the novelist Jong (1973) wrote: “The zipless fuck is absolutely pure. It is free of ulterior motives. There is no power game. The man is not ‘taking’ and the woman is not ‘giving.’ No one is attempting to cuckold a husband or humiliate a wife. No one is trying to prove anything or get anything out of anyone. The zipless fuck is the purest thing there is. And it is rarer than the unicorn. And I have never had one.”
A casual sex scenario was chosen for two reasons: First, traditional scripts are especially prevalent in initial states of dating. Accordingly, sexual script deviation might provoke anxiety/emotional reaction rather in a less committed constellation (e.g., casual sex encounter) than in an established relationship. Further, the sexual double standard, as further theoretical construct used in the present study, refers also to the context in which the target behaviors occur (e.g., level of commitment or affection between partners) (Muehlenhard, Sakaluk, & Esterline, 2015).
The attention check consisted of two items. The first item assessed whether participants were focused (“I was focused while filling out this survey”). Responses were anchored on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Only those participants who answered six or seven were included in the analyses. The second item indirectly assessed whether participants were focused: “People vary in the amount they pay attention to these kinds of surveys. Some take them seriously and read each question, whereas others go very quickly and barely read the questions at all. If you have read this question carefully, please write the word yes in the blank box below labeled other. There is no need for you to respond to the scale below.” Participants were again presented with an ordinal scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree and with a blank text box labeled “Other.” Only those participants who wrote “Yes” into the text box were included in the analyses.
Although in order to explore the possible effect of uncertainty on the evaluation of women’s sexual (non)-assertiveness we tried to experimentally induce uncertainty by adapting van den Bos’ (2001) procedure to the sexual domain, the manipulation was not successful. Therefore, we focused on the sexual script vignettes’ main effects.
When including age, ethnicity, and relationship status into the UNIANOVAs with the respective significant dependent variables (i.e., exclusive state anxiety), the experimental condition remained as significant predictor (ps ≤ .01). Except for ethnicity, the control variables themselves did not significantly predict the dependent variables within these UNIANOVAs (with regard to age: ps ≥ .230, with regard to relationship status: ps ≥ .088). Ethnicity, in contrast, predicted friendship intention (p = .025), regarding the other dependent variables: ps ≥ .064.
When including age, ethnicity, and relationship status into the UNIANOVAs with the respective significant dependent variables (i.e., exclusive the friendship item), the experimental condition remained as significant predictor (ps ≤ .01). In contrast to age and ethnicity, relationship status did not significantly predict the dependent variables within these UNIANOVAs (ps ≥ .090). However, age predicted the positive target perception item (p = . 018) and ethnicity predicted state anxiety (p = .003), regarding the other dependent variables: ps ≥ .118.
When including age, ethnicity, and relationship status into the UNIANOVAs with the respective significant dependent variables (i.e., exclusive the sexual intention item), the experimental condition remained as significant predictor (ps ≤ .05). In contrast to relationship status, age and ethnicity did not significantly predict the dependent variables within these UNIANOVAs (ps ≥ .113). However, relationship status predicted the romantic interest evaluation item (p = . 015), regarding the other dependent variables: ps ≥ .498.
References
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552164.
Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles, 34, 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01547805.
Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for “hooking up”: How far have we come toward gender equality? Social Science Research, 42, 1191–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSRESEARCH.2013.04.006.
Bordini, G. S., & Sperb, T. M. (2013). Sexual double standard: A review of the literature between 2001 and 2010. Sexuality and Culture, 17, 686–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-012-9163-0.
Bowleg, L., Burkholder, G. J., Noar, S. M., Teti, M., Malebranche, D. J., & Tschann, J. M. (2015). Sexual scripts and sexual risk behaviors among black heterosexual men: Development of the Sexual Scripts Scale. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0193-y.
Bowleg, L., Lucas, K. J., & Tschann, J. M. (2004). “The ball was always in his court”: An exploratory analysis of relationship scripts, sexual scripts, and condom use among African American women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00124.x.
Bryant, A. N. (2003). Changes in attitudes toward women’s roles: Predicting gender-role traditionalism among college students. Sex Roles, 48, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022451205292.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.
Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v08n01_02.
Chadwick, S. B., & van Anders, S. M. (2017). Do women’s orgasms function as a masculinity achievement for men? Journal of Sex Research, 54, 1141–1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1283484.
Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022152.
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A. C. (2013). Backlash from the bedroom. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 392–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312467169.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552163.
Dworkin, S. L., & O’Sullivan, L. (2005). Actual versus desired initiation patterns among a sample of college men: Tapping disjunctures within traditional male sexual scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490509552268.
Eaton, A. A., & Rose, S. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using sex roles. Sex Roles, 64, 843–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9.
Epstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). “Anything from making out to having sex”: Men’s negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902775801.
Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2015). The costs and benefits of perceived sexual agency for men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 961–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0408-x.
Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory. Theory and Psychology, 11, 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354301112004.
Gagnon, J. H. (1990). The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1, 1–43.
Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social origins of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.
Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551996.
Hornsey, M. J., Wellauer, R., McIntyre, J. C., & Barlow, F. K. (2015). A critical test of the assumption that men prefer conformist women and women prefer nonconformist men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(6), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215577366.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.
Jonason, P. K. (2008). A mediation hypothesis to account for the sex difference in reported number of sexual partners. International Journal of Sexual Health, 19, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1300/J514v19n04_05.
Jonason, P. K., & Fisher, T. D. (2009). The power of prestige: Why young men report having more sex partners than young women. Sex Roles, 60, 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9506-3.
Jong, E. (1973). Fear of flying. New York: Signet.
Kettrey, H. H. (2016). What’s gender got to do with it? Sexual double standards and power in heterosexual college hookups. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 754–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1145181.
Kiefer, A. K., Sanchez, D. T., Kalinka, C. J., & Ybarra, O. (2006). How women’s nonconscious association of sex with submission relates to their subjective sexual arousability and ability to reach orgasm. Sex Roles, 55, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9060-9.
Kim, J. L., Lynn Sorsoli, C., Collins, K., Zylbergold, B. A., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701263660.
Lammers, J., & Imhoff, R. (2016). Power and sadomasochism: Understanding the antecedents of a knotty relationship. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615604452.
Levant, R. F. (2011). Research in the psychology of men and masculinity using the gender role strain paradigm as a framework. American Psychologist, 66, 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025034.
Levant, R. F., Rankin, T. J., Hall, R. J., Smalley, K. B., & Williams, C. M. (2012). Measurement of nontraditional sexuality in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9793-6.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701866664.
Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.
Masters, N. T., Casey, E., Wells, E. A., & Morrison, D. M. (2013). Sexual scripts among young heterosexually active men and women: Continuity and change. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.661102.
McCabe, J., Tanner, A., & Heiman, J. (2010). The impact of gender expectations on meanings of sex and sexuality: Results from a cognitive interview study. Sex Roles, 62, 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9723-4.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909552008.
Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (2002). Reconceptualizing the sexual double standard. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 13, 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v13n02_05.
Morgan, E. M., Thorne, A., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2010). A longitudinal study of conversations with parents about sex and dating during college. Developmental Psychology, 46, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016931.
Morgan, E. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2007). Wanting sex and wanting to wait: Young adults’ accounts of sexual messages from first significant dating partners. Feminism and Psychology, 17, 515–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507083102.
Morrison, D. M., Masters, N. T., Wells, E. A., Casey, E., Beadnell, B., & Hoppe, M. J. (2015). “He enjoys giving her pleasure”: Diversity and complexity in young men’s sexual scripts. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0354-7.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Double standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women’s communication about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00420.x.
Muehlenhard, C. L., Sakaluk, J. K., & Esterline, K. M. (2015). Double standard. In P. Whelehan & A. Bolin (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human sexuality (pp. 309–312). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118896877.wbiehs119.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Shippee, S. K. (2010). Men’s and women’s reports of pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 552–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903171794.
O’Sullivan, L. F. (1995). Less is more: The effects of sexual experience on judgments of men’s and women’s personality characteristics and relationship desirability. Sex Roles, 33, 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544609.
O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1993). Eroding stereotypes: College women’s attempts to influence reluctant male sexual partners. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499309551711.
Oliver, M. B., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects of sexual permissiveness on desirability of partner as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 321–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786800.
Ortiz-Torres, B., Williams, S. P., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (2003). Urban women’s gender scripts: Implications for HIV prevention. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 5, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/713804639.
Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 37–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01221.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017504.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.551851.
Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). Prejudice toward female leaders: Backlash effects and women’s impression management dilemma. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 807–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00306.x.
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629.
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018304.
Rudman, L. A., Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2013). What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212472375.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239.
Sakaluk, J. K., Todd, L. M., Milhausen, R., Lachowsky, N. J., & Undergraduate Research Group in Sex. (2014). Dominant heterosexual sexual scripts in emerging adulthood: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 516–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.745473.
Sanchez, D. T., Fetterolf, J. C., & Rudman, L. A. (2012). Eroticizing inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender role adherence in intimate relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.653699.
Seal, D. W., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (2003). Masculinity and urban men: Perceived scripts for courtship, romantic, and sexual interactions with women. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 5, 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/136910501171698.
Seal, D. W., Smith, M., Coley, B., Perry, J., & Gamez, M. (2008). Urban heterosexual couples’ sexual scripts for three shared sexual experiences. Sex Roles, 58, 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9369-z.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120.
Spielberger, C. D. (1989). State-trait anxiety inventory (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1991). The effect of current sexual behavior on friendship, dating, and marriage desirability. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499109551615.
Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Sakaluk, J. K. (2013). Premarital sexual standards and sociosexuality: Gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1395–1405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6.
Suvivuo, P., Tossavainen, K., & Kontula, O. (2010). “Can there be such a delightful feeling as this?” Variations of sexual scripts in Finnish girls’ narratives. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 669–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558410366597.
Tevlin, H. F., & Leiblum, S. R. (1983). Sex role stereotypes and female sexual dysfunction. In V. Franks & E. D. Rothblum (Eds.), The stereotyping of women: Its effects on mental health (pp. 129–150). New York: Springer.
van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.931.
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453.
Vannier, S. A., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2011). Communicating interest in sex: Verbal and nonverbal initiation of sexual activity in young adults’ romantic dating relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 961–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9663-7.
Wiederman, M. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13, 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480705278729.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Sandra Šević for her feedback on an earlier version of this article. This study was financially supported by a Ph.D. scholarship of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation awarded to Verena Klein.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix: Vignettes Describing Women’s Sexual Behavior
Appendix: Vignettes Describing Women’s Sexual Behavior
Sexually timid behavior. Please imagine yourself in the following situation. Please try to imagine the situation being as real as possible.
You are single. One night you are sitting alone in a bar. Suddenly, you make eye contact with a woman. You go up to her and start talking to her. After a while you suggest that you both leave the bar. She behaves hesitantly. You arrive at your place and you start kissing her. She doesn’t become sexually aroused easily. Overall, she seems to be sexually inexperienced and to have no idea what turns her on so you take control of the encounter. After you have engaged in sexual intercourse she says that for her the sole purpose of sex is to getting attached and forming an emotional connection through sex. She doesn’t seem to have casual sex on a regular basis.
Sexually assertive behavior. Please imagine yourself in the following situation. Please try to imagine the situation being as real as possible.
You are single. One night you are sitting alone in a bar. Suddenly, you make eye contact with a woman. The woman comes up to you and starts talking to you. After a while she suggests that both of you leave the bar. She doesn’t behave hesitantly. You arrive at her place and she starts kissing you. She becomes sexually aroused easily. Overall, she seems to be sexually experienced and to know what turns her on so she takes control of the encounter. After you have engaged in sexual intercourse she says that for her the sole purpose of sex is to have an orgasm. She seems to have casual sex on a regular basis.
Control sexual behavior. Please imagine yourself in the following situation. Please try to imagine the situation being as real as possible.
You are single. One night you are sitting alone in a bar. Suddenly, you make eye contact with a woman. This evening you engage in sexual intercourse with this woman.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klein, V., Imhoff, R., Reininger, K.M. et al. Perceptions of Sexual Script Deviation in Women and Men. Arch Sex Behav 48, 631–644 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1280-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1280-x