Sex Roles

, Volume 34, Issue 5–6, pp 337–357 | Cite as

Differences in men's and women's GLOBAL, SEXUAL, and IDEAL-SEXUAL expressiveness and instrumentality

  • Kelli-an Lawrance
  • David Taylor
  • E. Sandra Byers


It has been argued that young men's and women's behavior in heterosexual sexual situations follows traditional, culturally defined gender role prescriptions, and alternatively, that expectations have shifted such that young men's and women's gender-relevant personality attributes are converging. Using the Bem Sex Role Inventory, primarily Caucasian men (n =94) and women (n =95) described their attributes globally (GLOBAL), and in a heterosexual sexual situation (SEXUAL). They also described the ideal attributes that a man and a woman should have in a heterosexual sexual situation (IDEAL-SEXUAL). The men's expressive scores were lowest for GLOBAL, intermediate for SEXUAL, and highest for IDEAL-SEXUAL. The women's expressive scores were higher for IDEAL-SEXUAL than for either GLOBAL or SEXUAL. Both the men's and the women's instrumental scores were lowest for SEXUAL, intermediate for IDEAL-SEXUAL and highest for GLOBAL. Both globally and in a sexual situation, men's instrumental scores were higher than women's, while women's expressive scores were higher than men's. These results suggest that men are more expressive in a sexual situations than they are globally because they perceive attributes reflecting expressiveness as ideal for a man in sexual situation. Women are less instrumental in sexual situations than they are globally, but may wish to be more instrumental than they are. Young women may lack the behavioral skills to enact their ideal, or may fear negative consequences for departing from gender-typed behavior in the sexual situation. There were no differences in expressiveness or instrumentality of the ideal man and the ideal woman in a sexual situation. It is concluded that, despite some convergence of attributes in sexual situations, traditional gender role prescriptions continue to guide young men's and women's behavior in sexual interactions, but not their conceptions of ideal behavior.


Young Woman Personality Attribute Sexual Interaction Ideal Behavior Traditional Gender Role 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allgeier, E. R. (1981). The influence of androgynous identification on heterosexual relations.Sex Roles, 7, 321–330.Google Scholar
  2. Allgeier, E. R., & Fogel, A. (1978). Coital positions and sex roles: Responses to cross-sex behavior in bed.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 588–589.Google Scholar
  3. Ballard-Reisch, D., & Elton, M. (1992). Gender orientation and the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A psychological construct revisited.Sex Roles, 27, 291–306.Google Scholar
  4. Barbach, L., & Levine, L. (1980).Shared intimacies: Women's sexual experiences. New York: Anchor Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bem, S. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634–643.Google Scholar
  7. Bentler, P. (1968a). Heterosexual behavior assessment—I Males.Behavior Research and Therapy, 6, 21–25.Google Scholar
  8. Bentler, P. (1968b). Heterosexual behavior assessment—II. Females.Behavior Research and Therapy, 6, 27–30.Google Scholar
  9. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983).American couples: Money, work, sex. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  10. Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research.Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 7–25.Google Scholar
  11. Byers, E. S., & Heinlein, L. (1989). Predicting initiations and refusals of sexual activities in married and cohabiting couples.The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 15–29.Google Scholar
  12. Byrne, D., & Kelley, K. (1992).Exploring human sexuality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Caron, S., Davis, C., Halteman, W., & Stickle, M. (1993). Predictors of condom-related behaviors among first year college students.The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 252–259.Google Scholar
  14. Carroll, J., Volk, K., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences between males and females in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 131–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers.Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.Google Scholar
  16. Cota, A., & Xinaris, S. (1989, June).Psychometric properties of the Sex-Role Ideology Scale. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia.Google Scholar
  17. Daley, D., & Rosenzweig, J. (1988). Variations in men's psychological sex-role self-perceptions as a function of work, social and sexual life roles.Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 14, 225–240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Darling, C., & Davidson, J. K. (1986). Coitally active university students: Sexual behaviors, concerns, and challenges.Adolescence, 21, 403–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Farber, N. (1992). Sexual standards and activity: Adolescents' perceptions.Child and Adolescent Social Work, 9, 53–76.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, W., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality.The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 123–151.Google Scholar
  21. Gagnon, J. (1990). The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. In J. Bancroft, C. Davis, & D. Weinstein (Eds.),Annual Review of Sex Research (Vol. 1). Mount Vernon, IA: The Society for the Scientific Study of Sex.Google Scholar
  22. Halpern, J., & Sherman, M. A. (1979).Afterplay: A key to intimacy. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
  23. Hatfield, E., Sprecher, S., Pillemer, J. T., Greenberger, D., & Wexler, P. (1988). Gender differences in what is desired in the sexual relationship.Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 1, 39–52.Google Scholar
  24. Hiller, D., & Philliber, W. (1985). Internal consistency of the Bem Sex Role Inventory.Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 373–380.Google Scholar
  25. Hite, S. (1976).The Hite report. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
  26. Hite, S. (1981).The Hite report on male sexuality. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  27. Kalin, R., & Tilby, P. J. (1978). Development and validation of a sex-role ideology scale.Psychological Reports, 42, 731–738.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kimlicka, T., Cross, H., & Tarnai, J. (1983). A comparison of androgynous, feminine, masculine, and undifferentiated women on self-esteem, body-image, and sexual satisfaction.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7, 291–294.Google Scholar
  29. Leary, M., & Snell, W. (1988). The relationship of instrumentality and expressiveness to sexual behavior in males and females.Sex Roles, 18, 509–522.Google Scholar
  30. Lewin, M. (1985). Unwanted intercourse: The difficulty of saying no.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 184–192.Google Scholar
  31. LoPiccolo, J., & Freidman, J. M. (1988). Broad-spectrum treatment of low sexual desire: Integration of cognitive, behavioral, and systemic therapy. In S. R. Leiblum & R. C. Rosen (Eds.),Sexual desire disorders. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Macklin, E. (1983). Effect of changing sex roles on the intimate relationships of men and women.Marriage and Family Review, 6, 97–113.Google Scholar
  33. McCabe, M. (1987). Desired and experienced levels of premarital affection and sexual intercourse during dating.The Journal of Sex Research, 23, 23–33.Google Scholar
  34. Miller, B., & Marshall, J. C. (1987). Coercive sex on the university campus.Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 38–47.Google Scholar
  35. Neugarten, B. (1973). Personality change in later life: A developmental perspective. In C. Eisdorfer & M. P. Lawton (Eds.),The psychology of adult development and aging, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  36. Obstfeld, L. S., Lupfer, M. B., & Lupfer, S. L. (1985). Exploring the relationship between gender identity and sexual functioning.Journal of Sex and Family Therapy, 11, 248–258.Google Scholar
  37. Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. O'Sullivan, L., & Byers, E. S. (1992). College students' incorporation of initiator and restrictor roles in sexual dating interactions.The Journal of Sex Research, 29, 435–446.Google Scholar
  39. Orlofsky, J. (1981). Relationship between sex role attitudes and personality traits and the Sex Role Behavior Scale—1: A new measure of masculine and feminine role behaviors and interests.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 927–940.Google Scholar
  40. Pedhazur, E., & Tetenbaum, T. (1979). Bem Sex Role Inventory: A theoretical and methodological critique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 996–1016.Google Scholar
  41. Peplau, L., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relationships.Journal of Social Issues, 32, 86–109.Google Scholar
  42. Roche, J. P. (1986). Premarital sex: Attitudes and behaviors by dating stage.Adolescence, 21, 107–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosenzweig, J., & Daley, D. (1991). Women's sex roles in their public and private lives.Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 17, 75–85.Google Scholar
  44. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Spence, J. (1984). Masculinity, feminity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. In B. A. Maher (Ed.),Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 13). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. (1978).Masculinity and feminity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of individuals.The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 232–248.Google Scholar
  48. Uleman, J. S., & Weston, M. (1986). Does the BSRI inventory sex roles?Sex Roles, 15, 43–62.Google Scholar
  49. Weis, D. L., Rabinowitz, B., & Ruckstuhl, M. F. (1992). Individual changes in sexual attitudes and behaviors within college-level human sexuality courses.The Journal of Sex Research, 29, 43–59.Google Scholar
  50. Zilbergeld, B. (1992).The new male sexuality. Toronto: Bantam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelli-an Lawrance
    • 1
  • David Taylor
    • 1
  • E. Sandra Byers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Bag Service No. 45444University of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations