Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Heterosexual Dating Double Standards in Undergraduate Women and Men

  • 3424 Accesses

  • 10 Citations

Abstract

Traditional heterosexual dating and courtship scripts (e.g., men pay for date, women take partner’s last name in marriage) reflect different standards of desirable behavior for women and men. Analogous to sexual double standards, dating double standards reflect the greater agency and power traditionally accorded to men in society. In the present study, we investigated factors related to young heterosexual adults’ endorsement of dating double standards. Participants were 330 female and male U.S. undergraduates at a California public university (57 % female, ages 18–25 years-old) from diverse ethnic backgrounds. In the Heterosexual Dating Double-Standards Scale, respondents rate the desirability of five dating and courtship behaviors (initiate date, hold door open, pay for date, propose marriage, take spouse’s last name) separately for women and men. Preliminary analyses revealed participants generally expressed double standards by rating the desirability of behaviors differently for female and male characters in the traditional direction (e.g., paying for a date rated more desirable for a man than for a woman). We predicted dating double standards would be positively related to factors previously found to predict traditional gender roles (viewing popular media, religious attendance) as well as attitudes that reflect traditional views (conservative political beliefs, benevolent and hostile sexism, disavowing a feminist identity). These hypotheses were generally supported. Among these correlations, dating double standards were strongly associated with benevolent sexism (among women and men) and with hostile sexism (among men). Implications for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Axinn, W. G., Young-DeMarco, L., & Ro, M. C. (2011). Gender double standards in parenting attitudes. Social Science Research, 40, 417–432. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.08.010.

  2. Backus, F. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2011). The masculinity of Mr Right: Feminist identity and heterosexual women’s ideal romantic partners. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 318–326. doi:10.1177/0361684310392357.

  3. Bang, E., Hall, M. E., Anderson, T. L., & Willingham, M. M. (2005). Ethnicity, acculturation, and religiosity as predictors of female college students’ role expectations. Sex Roles, 53, 231–237. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-5681-7.

  4. Bay-Cheng, L., & Zucker, A. N. (2007). Feminism between the sheets: Sexual attitudes among feminists, nonfeminists, and egalitarians. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 157–163. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00349.x.

  5. Bermúdez, J. M., Sharp, E. A., & Taniguchi, N. (2015). Tapping into the complexity: Ambivalent sexism, dating, and familial beliefs among young Hispanics. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 1274–1295. doi:10.1177/0192513X13506706.

  6. Bordini, G. S., & Sperb, T. M. (2013). Sexual double standard: A review of the literature between 2001 and 2010. Sexuality and Culture An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 17, 686–704. doi:10.1007/s12119-012-9163-0.

  7. Brooks, C., & Bolzendahl, C. (2004). The transformation of US gender role attitudes: Cohort replacement, social-structural change, and ideological learning. Social Science Research, 33, 106–133. doi:10.1016/S0049-089X(03)00041-3.

  8. Brown, J. D., Steele, J. R., & Walsh-Childers, K. (Eds.). (2002). Sexual teens, sexual media: Investigating media’s influence on adolescent sexuality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  9. Burleson, B. R., Holmstrom, A. J., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2005). “Guys can’t say that to guys”: Four experiments assessing the normative motivation account for deficiencies in the emotional support provided by men. Communication Monographs, 72, 468–501. doi:10.1080/03637750500322636.

  10. Burn, D. M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 412–418. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00241.x.

  11. Casad, B. J., Salazar, M. M., & Macina, V. (2015). The real versus the ideal: Predicting relationship satisfaction and well-being from endorsement of marriage myths and benevolent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 119–129. doi:10.1177/0361684314528304.

  12. Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223–230. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00284.x.

  13. Collins, R. L. (2011). Content analysis of gender roles in media: Where are we now and where should we go? Sex Roles, 64, 290–298. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5.

  14. Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87–105. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920.

  15. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol 2 (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  16. Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & Koenig, A. M. (2004). Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 796–816. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.796.

  17. Eaton, A. A., & Matamala, A. (2014). The relationship between heteronormative beliefs and verbal sexual coercion in college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(7), 1443–1457. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0284-4.

  18. Eaton, A. A., & Rose, S. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using sex roles. Sex Roles, 64, 843–862. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9.

  19. Eggermont, S. (2006). Television viewing and adolescents’ judgment of sexual request scripts: A latent growth curve analysis in early and middle adolescence. Sex Roles, 55, 457–468. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9099-7.

  20. Farkas, T., & Leaper, C. (2016). Chivalry’s double-edged sword: How girls’ and boys’ paternalistic attitudes relate to their possible family and work selves. Sex Roles, 74, 220–230. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0556-z.

  21. Fischer, A. R. (2006). Women’s benevolent sexism as reaction to hostility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 410–416. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00316.x.

  22. Forste, R., & Fox, K. (2012). Household labor, gender roles, and family satisfaction: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43, 613–631. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23267837.

  23. Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21–42. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.21.

  24. Fugère, M. A., Escot, C., Cousins, A. J., Riggs, M. L., & Haerich, P. (2008). Sexual attitudes and double standards: A literature review focusing on participant gender and ethnic background. Sexuality and Culture, 2008(12), 169–182. doi:10.1007/s12119-008-9029-7.

  25. Gaunt, R. (2013). Breadwinning moms, care giving dads: Double standard in social judgments of gender norm violators. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 3–24. doi:10.1177/0192513X12438686.

  26. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 43–67). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  27. 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.

  28. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change (pp. 70–88). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  29. Hackel, L. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1992). Changes in the marital relationship after the first baby is born: Predicting the impact of expectancy disconfirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 944–957. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.944.

  30. Hall, J. A., & Canterberry, M. (2011). Sexism and assertive courtship strategies. Sex Roles, 65, 840–853. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0045-y.

  31. Hammond, M. D., Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2014). The allure of sexism: Psychological entitlement fosters women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism over time. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 422–429. doi:10.1177/1948550613506124.

  32. Harvey, S. M., Beckman, L. J., Browner, C. H., & Sherman, C. A. (2002). Relationship power, decision making, and sexual relations: An exploratory study with couples of Mexican origin. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 284–291. doi:10.1080/00224490209552152.

  33. Hatoum, I. J., & Belle, D. (2004). Mags and abs: Media consumption and bodily concerns in men. Sex Roles, 51, 397–407. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000049229.93256.48.

  34. Henley, N. M., Spalding, L. R., & Kosta, A. (2000). Development of the short form of the Feminist Perspectives Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 254–256. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00207.x.

  35. Jaramillo-Sierra, A., & Allen, K. R. (2013). Who pays after the first date? Young men’s discourses of the male-provider role. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 389–399. doi:10.1037/a0030603.

  36. Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  37. Katz-Wise, S., Priess, H. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). Gender-role attitudes and behavior across the transition to parenthood. Developmental Psychology, 46, 18–28. doi:10.1037/a0017820.

  38. Kaufman, G., & Taniguchi, H. (2006). Gender and marital happiness in later life. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 735–757. doi:10.1177/0192513X05285293.

  39. Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993). Fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, and intrinsic religious orientation as predictors of discriminatory attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 256–268. doi:10.2307/1386664.

  40. Klein, M. (2006). America’s war on sex: The attack on law, lust and liberty. Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood.

  41. Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 553–568. doi:10.2307/353528.

  42. Lai, Y., & Hynie, M. (2011). A tale of two standards: An examination of young adults’ endorsement of gendered and ageist sexual double standards. Sex Roles, 64, 360–371. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9896-x.

  43. Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (2000). Dating scripts revisited. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 488–500. doi:10.1177/019251300021004004.

  44. Leaper, C., & Arias, D. M. (2011). College women’s feminist identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for coping with sexism. Sex Roles, 64, 475–490. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9936-1.

  45. Levant, R. F., & Philpot, C. L. (2002). Conceptualizing gender in marital and family therapy research: The gender role strain paradigm. In H. A. Liddle, D. A. Santsteban, R. F. Levant, & J. H. Bray (Eds.), First national conference on marital and family therapy process and outcome research (pp. 301–329). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10438-015.

  46. McCarty, M. K., & Kelly, J. R. (2015). Perceptions of dating behavior: The role of ambivalent sexism. Sex Roles, 72, 237–251. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0460-6.

  47. McNamara, J. R., & Grossman, K. (1991). Initiation of dates and anxiety among college men and women. Psychological Reports, 69, 252–254. doi:10.1080/03630242.2014.996723.

  48. Muehlenhard, C. L., & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Double standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women’s communication about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447–461. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00420.x.

  49. Orenstein, P. (2001). Sluts and studs. In A. Banaman (Ed.), Self and society (pp. 36–37). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

  50. Richmond, K., Levant, R., Smalley, B., & Cook, S. (2015). The Femininity Ideology Scale (FIS): Dimensions and its relationship to anxiety and feminine gender role stress. Women & Health, 55, 263–279. doi:10.1080/03630242.2014.996723.

  51. Rivadeneyra, R., & Lebo, M. J. (2008). The association between television-viewing behaviors and adolescent dating role attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 291–305. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.06.001.

  52. Robnett, R. D., & Leaper, C. (2013). “Girls don’t propose! Ew”.: A mixed-methods examination of marriage tradition preferences and benevolent sexism in emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28, 96–121. doi:10.1177/0743558412447871.

  53. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499–509. doi:10.1007/BF00289677.

  54. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  55. 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. doi:10.1177/0146167212472375.

  56. Sarlet, M., Dumont, M., Delacollette, N., & Dardenne, B. (2012). Prescription of protective paternalism for men in romantic and work contexts. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 444–457. doi:10.1177/0361684312454842.

  57. Schweingruber, D., Cast, A. D., & Anahita, S. (2008). “A story and a ring”: Audience judgments about engagement proposals. Sex Roles, 58, 165–178. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9330-1.

  58. Sheeran, P., Spears, R., Abraham, S. C., & Abrams, D. (1996). Religiosity, gender, and the double standard. Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 130, 23–33. doi:10.1080/00223980.1996.9914985.

  59. Signorielli, N. (2012). Television’s gender-role images and contribution to stereotyping: Past, present, future. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (2nd ed., pp. 321–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  60. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. F. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

  61. Stankiewicz, J. M., & Rosselli, F. (2008). Women as sex objects and victims in print advertisements. Sex Roles, 58, 579–589. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9359-1.

  62. Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.

  63. Strauss, S. (2008). Aggressive men and witchy women: The double standard. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), The psychology of women at work: Challenges and solutions for our female workforce (Vol. 3, pp. 1–20). Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood.

  64. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199.

  65. Szymanski, D. M. (2004). Relations among dimensions of feminism and internalized heterosexism in lesbians and bisexual women. Sex Roles, 51, 145–159. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000037759.33014.55.

  66. 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–e16. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.08.002.

  67. van Well, S., Kolk, A. M., & Arrindell, W. A. (2005). Cross-cultural validity of the masculine and feminine gender role stress scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 271–278. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_06.

  68. Wade, J. C., & Donis, E. (2007). Masculinity ideology, male identity, and romantic relationship quality among heterosexual and gay men. Sex Roles, 57, 775–786. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9303-4.

  69. Ward, L. M. (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults’ attitudes and assumptions about sexual relationships? Correlational and experimental confirmation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 1–15. doi:10.1023/A:1014068031532.

  70. Ward, L. M., Reed, L., Trinh, S. L., & Foust, M. (2014). Sexuality and entertainment media. In D. L. Tolman, L. M. Diamond, J. A. Bauermeister, W. H. George, & J. G. Pfaus (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 373–423). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14194-012.

  71. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55–123). San Diego, CA: Academic.

  72. Woodberry, R. D., & Smith, C. S. (1998). Fundamentalism et al.: Conservative Protestants in America. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 25–56. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.25.

  73. Yoder, J. D., Hogue, M., Newman, R., Metz, L., & LaVigne, T. (2002). Exploring moderators of gender differences: Contextual differences in door-holding behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1682–1686. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02769.x.

  74. Yoder, J. D., Perry, R. L., & Saal, E. I. (2007). What good is a feminist identity?: Women’s feminist identification and role expectations for intimate and sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 57, 365–372. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9269-2.

  75. Zaikman, Y., & Marks, M. J. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 71(9–10), 333–344. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0417-1.

  76. Zucker, A. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist, but…”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 423–435. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00159.x.

  77. Zurbriggen, E. L., & Morgan, E. M. (2006). Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes toward sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-8865-2.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by a grant from the Academic Senate Committee on Research of the University of California, Santa Cruz. The authors thank Timea Farkas, Rachael Robnett, Antoinette Wilson, Christy Starr, Veronica Hamilton, and Melissa Smith for their suggestions and comments. Preliminary findings from this study were presented at the 2014 Conference of the Association for Psychological Science in San Francisco.

Both authors collaborated in the design of the study and the writing of the article. AP was responsible for initially proposing a study on gender-based double standards. Also, AP identified relevant behaviors to include in the scale. CL was responsible for creating the difference-score format for the scale and conducting the statistical analyses. Also, CL was primarily responsible for revisions of the manuscript.

Author information

Correspondence to Campbell Leaper.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants

The Institutional Review Board at the authors’ university reviewed and approved the research protocol.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was secured from all participants.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paynter, A., Leaper, C. Heterosexual Dating Double Standards in Undergraduate Women and Men. Sex Roles 75, 393–406 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0628-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sex role attitudes
  • Dating
  • Sexism
  • Feminism
  • Heterosexual relationships
  • Double standards
  • Political attitudes
  • Religiosity
  • Mass media