Sex Roles

, Volume 76, Issue 7–8, pp 407–420 | Cite as

Promoting Theory-Based Perspectives in Sexual Double Standard Research

  • Yuliana ZaikmanEmail author
  • Michael J. Marks
Feminist Forum Review Article


The sexual double standard (SDS) has been a focus of research for several decades. Numerous anecdotal accounts of the double standard exist, detailing its consequences and impact on women’s, as well as men’s, sexual behavior and identities. Empirical research, however, has yet to completely corroborate the degree to which the double standard pervades everyday life. The disparity between anecdotal accounts and empirical evidence related to the SDS may be the result of the partially atheoretical approach with which the SDS has traditionally been examined. The goal of the present paper is to encourage researchers to take a more theory-oriented approach to understanding the double standard. Our goal is not to provide another comprehensive literature review or an argument for the “best” theory, but rather to promote theory-based perspectives in future SDS research. In the current paper, three theoretical perspectives—evolutionary theory, social role theory, and cognitive social learning theory—and their relevance to the SDS are discussed. We discuss four hypotheses, one related to the core tenet of the SDS itself, and three related to moderating factors, including characteristics of evaluators (i.e., gender, gender roles beliefs, and sexual history), characteristics of targets (i.e., relationship type engaged in, sexual activities participated in, and power status), and social factors (i.e., cultural background, historical era, and socialization agents). Existing research is also interpreted in light of one or more of the theoretical perspectives in the hopes of guiding future research.


Sexual double standard Evolutionary theory Social role theory Cognitive social learning theory Sex differences Sexual behavior Gender roles 



We thank Collin Scarince, as well as the editor and reviewers for reading earlier drafts of this article and providing us with feedback and suggestions.


  1. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselmi, D. L., & Law, A. L. (1998). Questions of gender: Perspectives and paradoxes. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Aubrey, J. S. (2004). Sex and punishment: An examination of sexual consequences and the sexual double standard in teen programming. Sex Roles, 50, 505–514. doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000023070.87195.07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). The impact of sexual orientation and gender role on evaluations of men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10, 160–173. doi: 10.1037/a0014583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  8. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Buss, D. M. (2003). Sexual strategies: A journey into controversy. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 219–226. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290. doi: 10.1037/h0033731.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google 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: 10.1037/0003066X.54.6.408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Escoffery, D. S. (Ed.). (2006). How real is reality TV?: Essays on representation and truth. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.Google Scholar
  17. Fink, B., Neave, N., Manning, J. T., & Grammer, K. (2006). Facial symmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(3), 491–499. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fugère, M. A., Escoto, 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: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 12, 169–182. doi: 10.1007/s12119-008-9029-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaunt, R. (2012). Breadwinning moms, caregiving dads: Double standard in social judgments of gender norm violators. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 1–22. doi: 10.1177/0192513X12438686.Google Scholar
  20. Gentry, M. (1998). The sexual double standard: The influence of number of relationships and level of sexual activity on judgments of women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 505–511. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00173.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodwin, R. L. (2001). Perceptions of female physical attractiveness in African American and Caucasian populations: Testing evolutionary and sociocultural theories. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 1642.Google Scholar
  22. Hird, M. J., & Jackson, S. (2001). Where “angels” and “wusses” fear to tread: Sexual coercion in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Sociology, 37, 27–43. doi: 10.1177/144078301128756184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Higgins, J. A., Trussell, J., Moore, N. B., & Davidson, J. K. (2010). Virginity lost, satisfaction gained? Physiological and psychological sexual satisfaction at heterosexual debut. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 384–394. doi: 10.1080/00224491003774792.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Hogben, M., & Byrne, D. (1998). Using social learning theory to explain individual differences in human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 58–71. doi: 10.1080/00224499809551917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howell, J. L., Egan, P. M., Giuliano, T. A., & Ackley, B. D. (2011). The reverse double standard in perceptions of student-teacher sexual relationships: The role of gender, initiation, and power. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 180–200. doi: 10.1080/00224540903510837.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Iwawaki, S., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sexual attitudes among British and Japanese students. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 98, 289–298. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1978.9915973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacoby, A. P., & Williams, J. D. (1985). Effects of premarital sexual standards and behavior on dating and marriage desirability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 1059–1065. doi: 10.2307/352351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Katz, J., & Farrow, S. (2000). Discrepant self views and young women’s sexual and emotional adjustment. Sex Roles, 42, 781–796. doi: 10.1023/A:1007051131544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klinkenberg, D., & Rose, S. (1994). Dating scripts of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 26, 23–35. doi: 10.1300/J082v26n04_02.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–172). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Koon-Magnin, S., & Ruback, R. (2012). Young adults’ perceptions of non-forcible sexual activity: The effects of participant gender, respondent gender, and sexual act. Sex Roles, 67, 646–658. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0201-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. L’Armand, K., & Pepitone, A. (1982). Judgments of rape: A study of victim-rapist relationship and victim sexual history. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 134–139. doi: 10.1177/014616728281021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marks, M. J. (2008). Evaluations of sexually active men and women under divided attention: A social cognitive approach to the sexual double standard. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 84–91. doi: 10.1080/01973530701866664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Confirmation bias and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 54, 19–26. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-8866-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). The impact of social interaction on the sexual double standard. Social Influence, 2, 29–54. doi: 10.1080/15534510601154413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 361–368. doi: 10.1080/00224499909552008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (2001). Reconceptualizing the sexual double standard. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 13, 63–83. doi: 10.1300/J056v13n02_05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mischel, W. (1966). A social-learning view of sex differences in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 56–81). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mohipp, C., & Senn, C. Y. (2008). Graduate students’ perceptions of contrapower sexual harassment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1258–1276. doi: 10.1177/0886260508314299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). “Nice women” don’t say yes and “real men” don’t say no: How miscommunication and the sexual double standard can cause sexual problems. Women and Therapy, 7, 95–108. doi: 10.1300/J015v07n02_08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Oliver, M. B., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects of sexual permissiveness on desirability of partner as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 321–333. doi: 10.2307/2786800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Sullivan, L. F. (1995). Less is more: The effects of sexual experience on judgments of men’s and women’s personality characteristics and relationship desirability. Sex Roles, 33(3–4), 159–181. doi: 10.1007/BF01544609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 86–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb02007.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Reinholtz, R. K., Muehlenhard, C. L., Phelps, J. L., & Satterfield, A. T. (1995). Sexual discourse and sexual intercourse: How the way we communicate affects the way we think about sexual coercion. In P. Kalbfleisch & M. Cody (Eds.), Gender, power, and communication in human relationships. LEA’s communication series (pp. 141–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Reiss, I. L. (1960). Premartial sexual standards in America. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Reiss, I. L. (1964). The scaling of premarital sexual permissiveness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 26, 188–198. doi: 10.2307/349726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  51. Richardson, L. (1997). Gender stereotyping in the English language. In L. Richrdson, V. Taylor, & N. Whittier (Eds.), Feminist frontiers V (pp. 112–116). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  52. Ringrose, J., Harvey, L., Gill, R., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Teen girls, sexual double standards and ‘sexting’: Gendered value in digital image exchange. Feminist Theory, 14, 305–323. doi: 10.1177/1464700113499853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Sahl, D., & Keene, J. (2010). The sexual double standard and gender differences in predictors of perceptions of adult-teen sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 62, 264–277. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9727-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000051.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Shapurian, R., & Hojat, M. (1985). Sexual and premarital attitudes of Iranian college students. Psychological Reports, 57, 67–74. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1985.57.1.67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of individuals. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 232–248. doi: 10.1080/00224498909551508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sprecher, S., & Hatfield, E. (1996). Premarital sexual standards among U.S. college students: Comparison with Russian and Japanese students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 261–288. doi: 10.1007/BF02438165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1987). Has the double standard disappeared? An experimental test. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 24–31. doi: 10.2307/2786887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1991). The effect of current sexual behavior on friendship, dating, and marriage desirability. Journal of Sex Research, 28(3), 387–408. doi: 10.1080/00224499109551615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., Walsh, R., & Anderson, C. (1988). A revision of the Reiss Premarital Sexual Permissiveness Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 821–828. doi: 10.2307/352650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sprecher, S., Regan, P. C., McKinney, K., Maxwell, K., & Wazienski, R. (1997). Preferred level of sexual experience in a date or mate: The merger of two methodologies. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 327–337. doi: 10.1080/00224499709551901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Sakaluk, J. K. (2013). Premarital sexual standards and sociosexuality: Gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1395–1405. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Tanenbaum, L. (2000). Slut! Growing up female with a bad reputation. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  65. Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1009–1037. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01009.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  67. Waggett, G. J. (1989). A plea to the soaps: Let’s stop turning rapists into heroes. TV Guide, 10–11.Google Scholar
  68. Ward, L. M. (2003). Understanding the role of entertainment media in the sexual socialization of American youth: A review of empirical research. Developmental Review, 23, 347–388. doi: 10.1016/S0273-2297(03)00013-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Whyte, M. K. (1978). Cross-cultural studies of women and the male bias problem. Behavior Science Research, 13, 65–80. doi: 10.1177/106939717801300111.Google Scholar
  70. Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13, 496–502. doi: 10.1177/1066480705278729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115–124. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(92)90021-U.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  73. Williamson, L. M., Parkes, A., Wight, D., Petticrew, M., & Hart, G. J. (2009). Limits to modern contraceptive use among young women in developing countries: A systematic review of qualitative research. Reproductive Health, 6, 1–12. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-6-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilson, J. B., Tripp, D. A., & Boland, F. J. (2005). The relative contributions of waist-to-hip ratio and body mass index to judgements of attractiveness. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 7(3), 245–267. doi: 10.1080/14616660500238769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zaidel, D. W., Aarde, S. M., & Baig, K. (2005). Appearance of symmetry, beauty, and health in human faces. Brain and Cognition, 57(3), 261–263. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Zaikman, Y., & Marks, M. J. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 71, 333–344. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0417-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zaikman, Y., & Marks, M. J. (2016). The influence of physical appearance and personality on the exhibition of the sexual double standard. Sexuality and Culture, 20(2), 255–276. doi: 10.1007/s12119-015-9319-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zaikman, Y., Marks, M. J., Young, T. M., & Zeiber, J. A. (2016a). Gender role violations and the sexual double standard. Journal of Homosexuality. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2016.1158007. Advance online publication.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Zaikman, Y., Vogel, E. A., Vicary, A. M., & Marks, M. J. (2016b). The influence of early experiences and adult attachment on the exhibition of the sexual double standard. Sexuality and Culture. doi: 10.1007/s12119-015-9332-z.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, MSC-3452New Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations