Abstract
Although many young adults are interested in mixed-gender threesomes (MGTs), little research has assessed attitudes toward them. Yet, MGTs offer a rare context to investigate how consensually nonmonogamous sexual encounters and involvement with same-sex others influence attitudes. Thus, by adopting sexual script theory as a framework, the current study compared three dimensions of character judgments (cognitive abilities, morality, partner quality) and assumptions about the sexual history of hypothetical males and females who initiated a MGT (two females and one male; two males and one female) or mixed-sex dyadic sexual activity with a casual or committed partner. To do so, a between-subject design was adopted in which 690 U.S. adults (405 women, 285 men) evaluated a hypothetical initiator described in one of 12 vignettes. On average, participants made neutral judgments about the initiator, yet those initiating dyadic sexual behavior were judged more favorably and as having a less extensive sexual history than MGT initiators. Male initiators were judged more favorably than female initiators, particularly by men. Those initiating in the context of a committed relationship were judged as more moral and as higher-quality partners than those initiating within a casual relationship; female (but not male) initiators in the committed context were judged as having a less extensive sexual history than female initiators in the casual context. These results confirm the presence of mononormativity biases and the sexual double standard and have implications for educators and practitioners related to stigma reduction and the promotion of inclusive sexual education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aubrey, J. S. (2004). Sex and punishment: An examination of sexual consequences and the sexual double standard in teen programming. Sex Roles, 50, 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000023070.87195.07.
Balzarini, R. N., Shumlich, E., Kohut, T., & Campbell, L. (2018). Dimming the “halo” around monogamy: Re-assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships as a function of personal relationship orientation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01432.
Bergstrand, C. R., & Sinski, J. B. (2010). Swinging in America: Love, sex, and marriage in the 21st century. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Bersamin, M. M., Paschall, M. J., Saltz, R. F., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2012). Young adults and casual sex: The relevance of college drinking settings. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.548012.
Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191–228. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/79.1.191.
Blanc, A., Byers, E. S., & Rojas, A. J. (2018). Evidence for the validity of the Attitudes Toward Sexual Behaviours Scale (ASBS) with Canadian young people. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2017-0024.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? 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? Review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v08n01_02.
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009.
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v02n01_04.
Cohen, M. T., & Wilson, K. (2017). Development of the Consensual Non-Monogamy Attitude Scale (CNAS). Sexuality and Culture, 21, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-016-9395-5.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013a). The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x.
Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A. C. (2013b). Backlash from the bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. 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.
Dermer, S. B., Smith, S. D., & Barto, K. K. (2010). Identifying and correctly labeling sexual prejudice, discrimination, and oppression. Journal of Counseling and Development, 88, 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00029.x.
Earp, B. D., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 621. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621.
Emens, E. F. (2004). Monogamy’s law: Compulsory monogamy and polyamorous existence. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 29, 277–376.
England, P., & Bearak, J. (2014). The sexual double standard and gender differences in attitudes toward casual sex among US university students. Demographic Research, 30, 1327–1338. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.46.
Farvid, P., Braun, V., & Rowney, C. (2017). ‘No girl wants to be called a slut!’: Women, heterosexual casual sex and the sexual double standard. Journal of Gender Studies, 26, 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2016.1150818.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: North American edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory: Developing a discursive psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory and Psychology, 11, 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354301112004.
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social origins of human sexuality. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027911.
Grunt-Mejer, K., & Campbell, C. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1010193.
Hald, G. M., & Štulhofer, A. (2016). What types of pornography do people use and do they cluster? Assessing types and categories of pornography consumption in a large-scale online sample. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 849–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1065953.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Herek, G. M. (2009). Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual framework. In D. A. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities (pp. 65–111). New York, NY: Springer.
Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826.
Jackson, S., & Scott, S. (2004). Sexual antinomies in late modernity. Sexualities, 7, 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460704042166.
Jonason, P. K., & Marks, M. J. (2009). Common vs. uncommon sexual acts: Evidence for the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 60, 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9542-z.
Joyal, C. C., Cossette, A., & Lapierre, V. (2015). What exactly is an unusual sexual fantasy? Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 328–340.
Kaestle, C. E., & Evans, L. M. (2018). Implications of no recent sexual activity, casual sex, or exclusive sex for college women’s sexual well-being depend on sexual attitudes. Journal of American College Health, 66, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2017.1369090.
Kiefer, A. K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2007). Scripting sexual passivity: A gender role perspective. Personal Relationships, 14, 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00154.x.
Kim, J. L., 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.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley Jr., B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights a metaanalysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296224002.
Lehmiller, J. J. (2018). Tell me what you want: The science of sexual desire and how it can help you improve your sex life. New York, NY: Da Capo Press.
Louderback, L. A., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1997). Perceived erotic value of homosexuality and sex-role attitudes as mediators of sex differences in heterosexual college students’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499709551882.
MacDonald, K. B. (1995). The establishment and maintenance of socially imposed monogamy in Western Europe. Politics and the Life Sciences, 14, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0730938400011679.
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. E., & Heiman, J. R. (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.
Morrison, T. G., Beaulieu, D., Brockman, M., & Beaglaoich, C. Ó. (2013). A comparison of polyamorous and monoamorous persons: Are there differences in indices of relationship well-being and sociosexuality? Psychology and Sexuality, 4, 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2011.631571.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250.
Papp, L. J., Hagerman, C., Gnoleba, M. A., Erchull, M. J., Liss, M., Miles-McLean, H., & Robertson, C. M. (2015). Exploring perceptions of slut-shaming on Facebook: Evidence for a reverse sexual double standard. Gender Issues, 32, 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-014-9133-y.
Penhollow, T. M., Young, M., & Nnaka, T. (2017). Alcohol use, hooking-up, condom use: Is there a sexual double standard? American Journal of Health Behavior, 41, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.41.1.10.
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.111.
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.
Richardson, J. T. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001.
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.
Sakaluk, J. K., Todd, L. M., Milhausen, R., Lachowsky, N. J., & Undergraduate Research Group in Sexuality (URGiS). (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.
Schneider, I. K., Veenstra, L., van Harreveld, F., Schwarz, N., & Koole, S. L. (2016). Let’s not be indifferent about neutrality: Neutral ratings in the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) mask mixed affective responses. Emotion, 16, 426–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000164.
Scoats, R. (2019). ‘If there is no homo, there is no trio’: Women’s experiences and expectations of MMF threesomes. Psychology and Sexuality, 10, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2018.1546766.
Scoats, R., Joseph, L. J., & Anderson, E. (2018). ‘I don’t mind watching him cum’: Heterosexual men, threesomes, and the erosion of the one-time rule of homosexuality. Sexualities, 21, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716678562.
Selterman, D., Garcia, J. R., & Tsapelas, I. (2019). Motivations for extradyadic infidelity revisited. Journal of Sex Research, 56, 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1393494.
Sheeran, P., Spears, R., Abraham, C. S. S., & Abrams, D. (1996). Religiosity, gender, and the sexual double standard. Journal of Psychology, 130, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1996.9914985.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02701260.
Sizemore, K. M., & Olmstead, S. B. (2018). Willingness of emerging adults to engage in consensual non-monogamy: A mixed-methods analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1423–1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1075-5.
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.
Świątkowski, W., & Dompnier, B. (2017). Replicability crisis in social psychology: Looking at the past to find new pathways for the future. International Review of Social Psychology, 30, 111–124. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.66.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Thompson, A. E., & Byers, E. S. (2017). Heterosexual young adults’ interest, attitudes, and experiences related to mixed-gender, multi-person sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0699-1.
Thompson, A. E., Hart, J., Stefaniak, S., & Harvey, C. A. (2018). Exploring heterosexual adults’ endorsement of the sexual double standard among initiators of consensually nonmonogamous relationship behaviors. Sex Roles, 79, 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0866-4.
Thompson, A. E., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2013). The relationship between men’s facial masculinity and women’s judgments of mate quality. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 22, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.929.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663.
Tolman, D. L., Kim, J. L., Schooler, D., & Sorsoli, C. L. (2007). Rethinking the associations between television viewing and adolescent sexuality development: Bringing gender into focus. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, e9–84.e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.08.002.
Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2015). Changes in American adults’ sexual behavior and attitudes, 1972–2012. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 2273–2285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0540-2.
Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2016). Changes in American adults’ reported same-sex sexual experiences and attitudes, 1973–2014. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1713–1730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0769-4.
Vrangalova, Z., & Bukberg, R. E. (2015). Are sexually permissive individuals more victimized and socially isolated? Personal Relationships, 22, 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12076.
Vrangalova, Z., Bukberg, R. E., & Rieger, G. (2014). Birds of a feather? Not when it comes to sexual permissiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513487638.
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13, 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480705278729.
Yost, M. R., & Thomas, G. D. (2012). Gender and binegativity: Men’s and women’s attitudes toward male and female bisexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9767-8.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the help of Serenity Baker, Melinda Dertinger, Katie Haus, Abbie Hennig, and Taylor Schultz throughout the entire research process.
Funding
This study received no funding or financial support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Ashley E. Thompson and E. Sandra Byers declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thompson, A.E., Byers, E.S. An Experimental Investigation of Variations in Judgments of Hypothetical Males and Females Initiating Mixed-Gender Threesomes: An Application of Sexual Script Theory. Arch Sex Behav 50, 1129–1142 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01729-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01729-4