Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 469–500 | Cite as

Majority Rules: Gender Composition and Sexual Norms and Behavior in High Schools

Original Research


Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, we examine the relationship between the gender composition of high schools and sexual ideals, attitudes, and behaviors reported by 12,617 students. Theory predicts that a surplus of females in a dating market gives males greater bargaining power to achieve their underlying preference for avoiding committed relationships and engaging in casual sex. We find relationships between the gender composition of a high school and sexual norms and behaviors that depart from this theoretical prediction: In high schools in which girls outnumber boys, students report a less sexually permissive normative climate and girls report less casual sex compared with their counterparts at schools in which boys outnumber girls. Our results inform predictions about social consequences following from the feminization of school institutions.


Sex ratios Adolescent relationships Gender composition of high schools Sexual attitudes Sexual behavior Bargaining power Add Health 


  1. Adkins, T., England, P., Risman, B. J., & Ford, J. (2015). Student bodies: Does the sex ratio matter for hooking up and having sex at college? Social Currents, 2(2), 144–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for “Hooking Up”: How far have we come toward gender equality? Social Science Research, 42(5), 1191–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arcidiacono, P., Beauchamp, A., & Mcelroy, M. (2016). Terms of endearment: An equilibrium model of sex and matching. Quantitative Economics, 7, 117–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong, E. A., England, P., & Fogarty, A. C. (2012). Accounting for women’s orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review, 77(3), 435–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brien, M. J. (1997). Racial differences in marriage and the role of marriage markets. Journal of Human Resources, 32(4), 741–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchmann, C., & DiPrete, T. A. (2006). The growing female advantage in college completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 515–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DiPrete, T. A., & Buchmann, C. (2013). The rise of women: The growing gender gap in education and what it means for American schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  9. Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Cantú, S. M., & Tybur, J. M. (2012). Sex ratio and women’s career choice: Does a scarcity of men lead women to choose briefcase over baby? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fan, X., Miller, B. C., Park, K. E., Winward, B. W., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., et al. (2006). An exploratory study about inaccuracy and invalidity in adolescent self-report surveys. Field Methods, 18(3), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fossett, M. A., & Kiecolt, K. J. (1991). A methodological review of the sex ratio: Alternatives for comparative research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 941–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fossett, M. A., & Kiecolt, K. J. (1993). Mate availability and family structure among African Americans in US metropolitan areas. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55(2), 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giordano, P. C. (2003). Relationships in adolescence. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2006). Gender and the meanings of adolescent romantic relationships: A focus on boys. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 260–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldin, C., Katz, L. F., & Kuziemko, I. (2006). The homecoming of American college women: The reversal of the college gender gap. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. New York: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Harknett, K. (2008). Mate availability and unmarried parent relationships. Demography, 45(3), 555–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harknett, K., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in marriage among new, unwed parents. American Sociological Review, 69(6), 790–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris, K. M. (2013). The Add Health study: Design and accomplishments. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center. www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/data/guides/DesignPaperWIIV.pdf.
  20. Harrison, M. A., & Shortall, J. C. (2011). Women and men in love: Who really feels it and says it first? The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(6), 727–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heckman, J. J., & LaFontaine, P. A. (2010). The American high school graduation rate: Trends and levels. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 244–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hudson, V. M., & den Boer, A. (2005). Bare branches: The security implications of Asia’s surplus male population. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katz-Wise, S. L., Calzo, J. P., Li, G., & Pollitt, A. (2014). Same data, different perspectives: What is at stake? Response to Savin-Williams and Joyner. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(1), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kreager, D. A., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(2), 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laumann, E. O., Robert, J. H., Michael, T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Li, G., Katz-Wise, S. L., & Calzo, J. P. (2014). The unjustified doubt of Add Health studies on the health disparities of non-heterosexual adolescents: Comment on Savin-Williams and Joyner (2014). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(6), 1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lichter, D. T., LeClere, F. B., & McLaughlin, D. K. (1991). Local marriage markets and the marital behavior of Black and White women. American Journal of Sociology, 96(4), 843–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paik, A. (2011). Adolescent sexuality and the risk of marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(2), 472–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raley, R. K., Crissey, S., & Muller, C. (2007). Of sex and romance: Late adolescent relationships and young adult union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(5), 1210–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raley, R. K., & Sullivan, M. K. (2010). Social-contextual influences on adolescent romantic involvement: The constraints of being a numerical minority. Sociological Spectrum: The Official Journal of the Mid-South Sociological Association, 30(1), 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate the rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Savin-Williams, R. C., & Joyner, K. (2014a). The dubious assessment of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents of Add Health. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(3), 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Savin-Williams, R. C., & Joyner, K. (2014b). The politicization of gay youth health: Response to Li, Katz-Wise, and Calzo (2014). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(6), 1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. South, S. J., & Lloyd, K. M. (1992a). Marriage markets and nonmarital fertility in the United States. Demography, 29(2), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. South, S. J., & Lloyd, K. M. (1992b). Marriage opportunities and family formation: Further implications of imbalanced sex ratios. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(2), 440–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. South, S. J., & Lloyd, K. M. (1995). Spousal alternatives and marital dissolution. American Sociological Review, 60(1), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. South, S. J., & Trent, K. (1988). Sex ratios and women’s roles: A cross-national analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 93(5), 1096–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. South, S. J., Trent, K., & Shen, Y. (2001). Changing partners: Toward a macrostructural-opportunity theory of marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 743–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Uecker, J. E., & Regnerus, M. D. (2010). Bare market: Campus sex ratios, romantic relationships, and sexual behavior. The Sociological Quarterly, 51(3), 408–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Upchurch, D. M., Mason, W. M., Kusunoki, Y., & Kriechbaum, M. J. (2004). Social and behavioral determinants of self-reported STD among adolescents. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36(6), 276–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of education statistics, 2015. NCES 2016-014, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  44. Waller, W. (1937). The rating and dating complex. American Sociological Review, 2(5), 727–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Warner, T. D., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2011). Relationship formation and stability in emerging adulthood: Do sex ratios matter? Social Forces, 90(1), 269–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Baylor UniversityWacoUSA

Personalised recommendations