Skip to main content

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

Sex Roles volume 34, pages 337–357 (1996)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Allgeier, E. R. (1981). The influence of androgynous identification on heterosexual relations.Sex Roles, 7, 321–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Barbach, L., & Levine, L. (1980).Shared intimacies: Women's sexual experiences. New York: Anchor Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. (1968a). Heterosexual behavior assessment—I Males.Behavior Research and Therapy, 6, 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. (1968b). Heterosexual behavior assessment—II. Females.Behavior Research and Therapy, 6, 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983).American couples: Money, work, sex. New York: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Byrne, D., & Kelley, K. (1992).Exploring human sexuality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers.Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darling, C., & Davidson, J. K. (1986). Coitally active university students: Sexual behaviors, concerns, and challenges.Adolescence, 21, 403–419.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farber, N. (1992). Sexual standards and activity: Adolescents' perceptions.Child and Adolescent Social Work, 9, 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Halpern, J., & Sherman, M. A. (1979).Afterplay: A key to intimacy. New York: Pocket Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hiller, D., & Philliber, W. (1985). Internal consistency of the Bem Sex Role Inventory.Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 373–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hite, S. (1976).The Hite report. New York: Dell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hite, S. (1981).The Hite report on male sexuality. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalin, R., & Tilby, P. J. (1978). Development and validation of a sex-role ideology scale.Psychological Reports, 42, 731–738.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lewin, M. (1985). Unwanted intercourse: The difficulty of saying no.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 184–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Miller, B., & Marshall, J. C. (1987). Coercive sex on the university campus.Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 38–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Peplau, L., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relationships.Journal of Social Issues, 32, 86–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche, J. P. (1986). Premarital sex: Attitudes and behaviors by dating stage.Adolescence, 21, 107–121.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. (1978).Masculinity and feminity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of individuals.The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 232–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uleman, J. S., & Weston, M. (1986). Does the BSRI inventory sex roles?Sex Roles, 15, 43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Zilbergeld, B. (1992).The new male sexuality. Toronto: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Kelli-an Lawrance

    Present address: Windsor-Essex County Health Unit, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Bag Service No. 45444, University of New Brunswick, E3B 6E4, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

    Kelli-an Lawrance, David Taylor & E. Sandra Byers

Authors
  1. Kelli-an Lawrance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Sandra Byers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This research was conducted in partial fulfillment of the first author's Ph.D. requirements at the University of New Brunswick, under the supervision of Dr. E. Sandra Byers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lawrance, Ka., Taylor, D. & Byers, E.S. Differences in men's and women's GLOBAL, SEXUAL, and IDEAL-SEXUAL expressiveness and instrumentality. Sex Roles 34, 337–357 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01547806

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01547806

Keywords

  • Young Woman
  • Personality Attribute
  • Sexual Interaction
  • Ideal Behavior
  • Traditional Gender Role