Sex Roles

, Volume 68, Issue 7–8, pp 401–414 | Cite as

Gender Roles and Pressure to be Truthful: The Bogus Pipeline Modifies Gender Differences in Sexual but Not Non-sexual Behavior

Original Article

Abstract

Previous studies have indicated that the research context has an influence on whether gender differences are found in sexual behavior, likely due to adherence to different gender norms for men and women. The present study utilized bogus pipeline methodology to help determine if the purported use of a lie detector would influence gender differences in reports of other types of behaviors considered more suitable for one gender or the other. Participants consisted of General Psychology students attending a regional campus of a major Midwestern university in the United States. Approximately half of 293 participants completed a questionnaire while connected to non-functioning lie detection equipment and the other half completed the questionnaire after the equipment had been disconnected. There were interactions between gender of participant and testing condition for sexual behavior but not for other types of common behaviors considered more appropriate for one gender or the other. This suggests that there is something specific to sexual behavior with regard to a differential willingness between men and women to report behavior unless there is pressure to be honest. Hypergender ideology was related to reports of sexual behavior (but not nonsexual behavior) only for men in the bogus pipeline condition, lending further support to the idea that gender role expectations influence reports of sexual behavior more than reports of other types of behavior.

Keywords

Gender roles Sex roles Sexual behavior Bogus pipeline Gender differences 

References

  1. 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. doi:10.1080/00224490309552164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, A. L. (1999). Lying to protect privacy. Villanova Law Review, 44, 161–188.Google Scholar
  3. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, N. R., & Sinclair, R. C. (1999). Estimating number of lifetime sexual partners: Men and women do it differently. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 292–297. doi:10.1080/00224499909551999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31. doi:10.1080/00224499809551914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A. C. (2012). Backlash from the bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly. doi:10.1177/0361684312467169. Advance online publication.
  9. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowan, G. (1984). The double standard in age-discrepant relationships. Sex Roles, 11, 17–23. doi:10.1007/BF00287436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. doi:10.1037/h0047358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cubbins, L. A., & Tanfer, K. (2000). The influence of gender on sex: A study of men’s and women’s self-reported high-risk sex behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 229–257. doi:10.1023/A:1001963413640.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta- analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306–315. doi:10.1177/0146167291173011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher, T. D. (2007). Sex of experimenter and social norm effects on reports of sexual behavior in young men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 89–100. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9094-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher, T. D. (2009). The impact of socially conveyed norms on the reporting of sexual behavior and attitudes by men and women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 567–572. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamburger, M. E., Hogben, M., McGowan, S., & Dawson, L. J. (1996). Development and initial validation of a gender-neutral measure of adherence to extreme gender-role beliefs. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 157–178. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1996.0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hertzberg, H. (2011, June 8). Anthony Weiner comes clean. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2011/06/anthony-weiner-comes-clean.html.
  19. 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. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9506-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kauffman, A. S. (2010). Coming of age in the Kisspeptin Era: Sex differences, development, and puberty. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 324, 51–63. doi:10.1016/1j.mce.2010.01.017.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kite, M. E., Deaux, K., & Haines, E. (2008). Gender stereotypes. In F. Denmark & M. Paludi (Eds.), Handbook on the psychology of women (2nd ed., pp. 205–236). Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  22. Knox, D., Schacht, C., Holt, J., & Turner, J. (1993). Sexual lies among university students. College Student Journal, 27, 269–272.Google Scholar
  23. Leitenberg, H., & Saltzman, H. (2003). College women who had sexual intercourse when they were underage minors (13-15): Age of their male partners, relation to current adjustment, and statutory rape implications. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 135–147. doi:1079-0632/03/0400-0135/0.Google Scholar
  24. Millham, J., & Kellogg, R. W. (1980). Need for social approval: Impression management or self-deception? Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 445–457. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(80)90003-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263–280. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. doi:10.1037/a0017504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2007). What is sex and why does it matter? A motivational approach to exploring individuals’ definitions of sex. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 256–268. doi:10.1080/00224490701443932.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roese, N. J., & Jamieson, D. W. (1993). Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: A critical review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 363–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rudman, L. A., Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2013). What motivates the double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 121–143.Google Scholar
  31. Sakaluk, J. K., & Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Factors influencing university students’ explicit and implicit sexual double standards. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 464–476. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.569976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sanchez, D. T., Kiefer, A. K., & Ybarra, O. (2006). Sexual submissiveness in women: Costs for sexual autonomy and arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 512–524. doi:10.1177/0146167205282154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05000051.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31, 1–22. doi:10.1007/BF01560274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197204)28:2<191::AID-JCLP2270280220>3.0.CO;2-G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tate, C. (2011). The “problem of number” revisited: The relative contributions of psychosocial, experiential, and evolutionary factors to the desired number of sexual partners. Sex Roles, 64, 644–657. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9774-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tourangeau, R., Smith, T. W., & Rasinski, K. A. (1997). Motivation to report sensitive behaviors on surveys: Evidence from a bogus pipeline experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 209–222. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00629.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiederman, M. W. (1997). The truth must be in here somewhere: Examining the gender discrepancy in self-reported lifetime number of sex partners. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 375–386. doi:10.1080/00224499709551905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62, 635–646. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9761-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523–535. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zentner, M., & Mitura, K. (2012). Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences. Psychological Science, 23, 1176–1185. doi:10.1177/0956797612441004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe Ohio State University at MansfieldMansfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations