Sex Roles

, Volume 65, Issue 11–12, pp 840–853 | Cite as

Sexism and Assertive Courtship Strategies

Original Article

Abstract

The popularity of speed-seduction techniques, such as those described in The Game (Strauss 2005) and advocated in the cable program The Pickup Artist (Malloy 2007), suggests some women respond positively to men’s assertive mating strategies. Drawing from these sources, assertive strategies were operationalized as involving attempts to isolate women, to compete with other men, and to tease or insult women. The present investigation examined whether hostile and benevolent sexism and sociosexuality, the degree to which individuals require closeness and commitment prior to engaging in sex, were associated with the reported use of assertive strategies by men and the reported positive reception to those strategies by women. It was predicted men and women who were more sexist and had an unrestricted sociosexuality would report using more and being more receptive to assertive strategies. Study 1 (N = 363) surveyed a Midwestern undergraduate college student sample, and regression results indicated that sociosexuality was associated with assertive strategy preference and use, but sexism only predicted a positive reception of assertive strategies by women. Study 2 (N = 850) replicated these results by surveying a larger, national U.S. volunteer sample via the internet. In addition to confirming the results of Study 1, regression results from Study 2 indicated that hostile sexism was predictive of reported assertive strategy use by men, suggesting that outside of the college culture, sexism is more predictive of assertive strategy use. Implications for courtship processes and the dating culture are discussed.

Keywords

Ambivalent sexism Assertive behaviors Courtship Relationship initiation Sociosexuality 

References

  1. Bale, C., Morrison, R., & Caryl, P. G. (2006). Chat-up lines as male sexual displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 655–664. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohner, G., Ahlborn, K., & Steiner, R. (2010). How sexy are sexist men? Women’s perception of male response profiles in the ambivalent sexism inventory. Sex Roles, 62, 568–582. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9665-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boswell, A. A., & Spade, J. Z. (1996). Fraternities and collegiate rape culture: Why are some fraternities more dangerous places for women? Gender and Society, 10, 133–147. doi:10.1177/089124396010002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brady, S. (2007). 360 AM: Sept. 7 programming, online news and more. Retrieved from http://www.cable360.net/360AM/25525.html.
  5. Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2007). How ambivalent sexism toward women and men support rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 57, 131–136. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9196-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper, M., O’Donnell, D., Caryl, P. G., Morrison, R., & Bale, C. (2007). Chat-up lines as male displays: Effects of content, sex, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1075–1085. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cunningham, M. R., & Barbee, A. P. (2008). Prelude to a kiss: Nonverbal flirting, opening gambits, and other communication dynamics in the initiation of romantic relationships. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 97–120). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286–299. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & White, K. B. (2004). First and second generation measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and hostility toward women: Their interrelationships and association with college students’ experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion. Violence Against Women, 10, 236–261. doi:10.1177/1077801203256002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fowers, A. F., & Fowers, B. J. (2010). Social dominance and sexual self-schema as moderators of sexist reactions to female subtypes. Sex Roles, 62, 468–480. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9607-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69–96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall, J. A., Cody, M. J., Jackson, G., & Flesh, J. O. (2008). Beauty and the flirt: Attractiveness and opening lines in date initiation. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference in Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, J. A., Carter, S., Cody, M. J., & Albright, J. M. (2010). Individual differences in the communication of romantic interest: Development of the flirting styles inventory. Communication Quarterly, 58, 365–393. doi:10.1080/01463373.2010.524874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hawes, A. (2005). New York times best seller list 2005. Retrieved from http://www.hawes.com/2005/2005.htm.
  19. Herold, E., & Milhausen, R. (1999). Dating preferences of university women: An analysis of the nice guy stereotype. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 25, 333–343. doi:10.1080/00926239908404010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87–100. doi:10.1080/00224490309552169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: The effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 322–328. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, A. (2005). Passing on ‘foolproof’ pick-up tips. Is this ‘grooming’ for adults? The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/passing-on-foolproof-pickup-tips-is-this-grooming-for-adults-504589.html.
  23. Kilianski, S. E., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333–352. doi:10.1023/A:1018814924402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., & Staneski, R. A. (1986). Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratings by men and women. Sex Roles, 15, 585–600. doi:10.1007/BF00288216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. La France, B. H. (2010). What verbal and nonverbal communication cues lead to sex? An analysis of the traditional sexual script. Communication Quarterly, 58, 297–318. doi:10.1080/01463373.2010.503161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lannutti, P. J., & Monahan, J. L. (2002). When the frame paints the picture: Alcohol consumption, relational framing, and sexual communication. Communication Research, 29, 390–421. doi:10.1177/0093650202029004002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., Glick, P., & Chen, Z. X. (2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583–601. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9770-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malloy, A. (2007). The pickup artist [Television broadcast]. USA: 3Ball Productions.Google Scholar
  29. Masser, B., Viki, G. T., & Power, C. (2006). Hostile sexism and rape proclivity amongst men. Sex Roles, 54, 565–574. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9022-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McDaniel, A. K. (2005). Young women’s dating behavior: Why/why not date a nice guy? Sex Roles, 53, 347–359. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-6758-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mongeau, P. A., Serewicz, M. C. M., Henningsen, M. L. M., & Davis, K. L. (2006). Sex differences in the transition to a heterosexual romantic relationship. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 337–358). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Moya, M., Glick, P., Exposito, F., de Lemus, S., & Hart, J. (2007). It’s for your own good: Benevolent sexism and women’s reactions to protectively justified restrictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 1421–1434. doi:10.1177/0146167207304790.Google Scholar
  33. Paul, E. L. (2006). Beer goggles, catching feelings, and the walk of shame: The myths and realities of the hookup experience. In D. C. Kirkpatrick, S. Duck, & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: The process of constructing and managing difficult interaction (pp. 141–160). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The casualties of ‘casual’ sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639–661. doi:10.1177/0265407502195006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2009). The social psychology of gender. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rudman, L. A., & Heppen, J. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women’s interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1357–1370. doi:10.1177/0146167203256906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646. doi:10.1177/014616702237645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and nonverbal social behavior: An ethological perspective of relationship initiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 434–461. doi:10.1006/jesp.1993.1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Barrett, H. C. (2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? Personal Relationships, 15, 425–444. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00208.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. St. John, W. (2006). Dude, here’s my book. New York Times, D16.Google Scholar
  44. Strauss, N. (2005). The game: Penetrating the secret society of pickup artists. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  45. Travaglia, L. K., Overall, N. C., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). Benevolent and hostile sexism and preferences for romantic partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 599–604. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Urbaniak, G. C., & Kilmann, P. R. (2003). Physical attractiveness and the ‘nice guy paradox’: Do nice guys really finish last? Sex Roles, 49, 413–426. doi:10.1023/A:1025894203368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Urbaniak, G. C., & Kilmann, P. R. (2006). Niceness and dating success: A further test of the nice guy stereotype. Sex Roles, 55, 209–224. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9075-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The ‘true’ romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533–537. doi:10.1023/A:1025888824749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Communication StudiesThe University of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Dept of PsychologyThe University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations