Gendered-based power affects heterosexual relationships, with beliefs in the U.S. prescribing that men dominate women sexually. We draw on social dominance theory to examine whether women’s and men’s level of support for group-based hierarchy (i.e., social dominance orientation; SDO) helps explain gender-based power beliefs and dynamics in heterosexual relationships. We conducted a laboratory study at a Northeastern U.S. university among 357 women and 126 men undergraduates who reported being heterosexual and sexually active, testing three sets of hypotheses. First, as hypothesized, women endorsed SDO and the belief that men should dominate sexually less than men did. Second, as hypothesized, among women and men, SDO was positively correlated with the belief that men should dominate sexually, and negatively correlated with sexual self-efficacy (confidence in sexual situations) and number of female condoms (a woman-controlled source of protection) taken. Third, structural equation modeling, controlling for age, family income, number of sexual partners in the past month, and perceived HIV/AIDS risk, supported the hypothesis that among women and men, the belief that men should dominate sexually mediates SDO’s association with sexual self-efficacy. The hypothesis that the belief that men should dominate sexually mediates SDO’s association with number of female condoms taken was supported for women only. The hypothesis that sexual self-efficacy mediates SDO’s association with number of female condoms taken was not supported. Results suggest SDO influences power beliefs and dynamics in heterosexual relationships. Although female condoms are an important woman-controlled source of protection, power-related beliefs may pose a challenge to their use.
Female condoms Gender Power Sexual risk behavior Sexual self-efficacy Social dominance orientation Women
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Dr. Rosenthal’s and Dr. Earnshaw’s efforts were supported by The Aetna Foundation and the training grant T32MH020031.
Biello, K. B., Sipsma, H. L., Ickovics, J. R., & Kershaw, T. (2010). Economic dependence and unprotected sex: The role of sexual assertiveness among young urban mothers. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 87, 416–425. doi:10.1007/s11524-010-9449-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00124.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabral, R. J., Posner, S. F., Macaluso, M., Artz, L. M., Johnson, C., & Pulley, L. (2003). Do main partner conflict, power dynamics, and control over use of male condoms predict subsequent use of the female condom? Women & Health, 38, 37–52. doi:10.1300/J013v38n01_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, S., Bruce, J., & Dude, A. (2006). Protecting young women from HIV/AIDS: The case against child and adolescent marriage. International Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 79–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cupitt, C. (1998). Sexual History Questionnaire. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. E. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 106–108). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hollander, D. (2002). Female condom use rises if women receive good instruction and training. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34, 169–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J., & Muehlenhard, C. (1990). Using education to prevent rape on college campuses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M. R., Henson, K. D., & Longshore, D. (1997). Rethinking perceived risk and health behavior: A critical review of HIV prevention research. Health Education & Behavior, 24, 313–325. doi:10.1177/109019819702400305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratto, F., & Walker, A. (2004). The bases of gendered power. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 242–268). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160–172. doi:10.1177/0146167206294745.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)/United Nations Population Fund/United Nations Development Fund for Women. (2004). Women and HIV/AIDS: Confronting the crisis. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.Google Scholar
United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). (2010). Global Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010.Google Scholar
Weeks, M. R., Li, J., Coman, E., Abbott, M., Sylla, L., Corbett, M., & Dickson-Gomez, J. (2010). Multilevel social influences on female condom use and adoption among women in the urban United States. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 24, 297–309. doi:10.1089/apc.2009.0312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (2000). Application of the theory of gender and power to examine HIV-related exposures, risk factors, and effective interventions for women. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 539–565. doi:10.1177/109019810002700502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar