Skip to main content
Log in

The Costs and Benefits of Perceived Sexual Agency for Men and Women

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Women are less likely than men to engage in sexually agentic behavior (e.g., initiating sexual encounters), despite the benefits associated with sexual agency (Kiefer & Sanchez, 2007). Two studies examined possible explanations, related to person perception, for gender differences in sexually agentic behavior. In Study 1, participants viewed the dating profiles of targets who were either high or low on sexual agency and rated sexually agentic targets as more desirable but also riskier sexual partners (i.e., having more previous sexual partners), as well as more selfish partners overall. Participants believed the agentic female targets to be the most desirable but also to have the highest number of previous sexual partners. In Study 2, female participants weighed the importance and consequences of sexual agency differently than male participants. Based on the two studies, we suggest that although men and women are judged similarly for sexual agency, women may refrain from sexual agency because they view the traits and characteristics that are perceived to go hand in hand with sexual agency more negatively.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abele, A., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751–763.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline toexamine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. B., & Aymami, R. (1993). Reports of female initiation of sexual contact: Male and female differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 335–343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. B., & Sorenson, W. (1999). Male and female differences in reports of women’s heterosexual initiation and aggression. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 243–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baele, J., Dusseldorp, E., & Maes, S. (2001). Condom use self-efficacy: Effect on intended and actual condom use in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28, 421–431.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cislak, A., & Wojciszke, B. (2008). Agency and communion are inferred from actions serving interests of self or others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1103–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 309–329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Zieglar, A., & Valentine, B. A. (2011). Women, men, and the bedroom: Methodological and conceptual insights that narrow, reframe, and eliminate gender differences in sexuality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 296–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, S. L., & O’Sullivan, L. (2005). Actual versus desired initiation patterns among a sample of college men: Tapping disjunctures within traditional male sexual scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 150–158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eder, D., Evans, C. C., & Parker, S. (1995). School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, M. A., & Meston, C. M. (2006). Predictors of condom use self-efficacy in an ethnically diverse sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 313–326.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromme, R. E., & Emihovich, C. (1998). Boys will be boys: Young males’ perceptions of women, sexuality, and prevention. Education and Urban Society, 30, 172–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, J. H. (1990). The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, K., & Faulkner, S. L. (2005). Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles, 53, 239–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hundhammer, T., & Mussweiler, T. (2012). How sex puts you in gendered shoes: Sexuality-priming leads to gender-based self-perception and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 176–193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, A. K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2007). Scripting sexual passivity: A gender role perspective. Personal Relationships, 14, 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, A., Sanchez, D. T., Kalinka, C. J., & Ybarra, O. (2006). How women’s nonconscious association of sex with submission relates to their subjective sexual arousability and ability to orgasm. Sex Roles, 55, 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreager, D. A., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 143–164.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laan, E., & Rellini, A. H. (2011). Can we treat anorgasmia in women? The challenge to experiencing pleasure. Sexual & Relationship Therapy, 26, 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Confirmation bias and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 54, 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, K. A. (1996). Puberty, sexuality, and the self: Girls and boys at adolescence. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, N. T., Casey, E., Wells, E. A., & Morrison, D. M. (2013). Sexual scripts among young heterosexually active men and women: Continuity and change. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 409–420.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (2001). Reconceptualizing the sexual double standard. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 13, 63–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, E. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2007). Young adults narrate gendered sexual scripts in messages from first significant dating partners. Feminism & Psychology, 17, 516–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Forster, J. (2000). The sex-aggression link: A perception-behavior dissociation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 507–520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1992). College students’ incorporation of initiator and restrictor roles in sexual dating interactions. Journal of Sex Research, 29, 435–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 406–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, L., Levy, S. R., & Earnshaw, V. A. (2012). Social dominance orientation relates to believing men should dominate women sexually, sexual self-efficacy, and taking free female condoms among undergraduate men and women. Sex Roles, 67, 659–669.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakaluk, J. K., Todd, L. M., Milhausen, R., Lachowsky, N. J., & Undergraduate Research Group in Sexuality (URGiS). (2013). Dominant heterosexual sexual scripts in emerging adulthood: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 516–531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, D. T., Fetterolf, J. C., & Rudman, L. R. (2012a). Eroticizing inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender role adherence in intimate relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 168–183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, D. T., Kiefer, A., & Ybarra, O. (2006). Sexual submissiveness in women: Costs for autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 512–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, D. T., Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Good, J. J. (2012b). The gender role motivation model of women’s sexually submissive behavior and satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 528–539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simms, D. C., & Byers, E. S. (2013). Heterosexual daters’ sexual initiation behaviors: Use of the theory of planned behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 105–116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. V. (2007). In pursuit of ‘good’ sex: Self-determination and the sexual experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1987). Has the double standard disappeared? An experimental test. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterk, C. E., Klein, H., & Elifson, K. W. (2003). Perceived condom use self-efficacy among at-risk women. AIDS and Behavior, 7, 175–182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L., Conley, T. D., Snipes, D. J., & Patel, D. A. (2012). Safer sex as the bolder choice: Testosterone is positively correlated with safer sex behaviorally relevant attitudes in young men. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 727–734.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vannier, S. A., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2011). Communicating interest in sex: Verbal and nonverbal initiation of sexual activity in young adults’ romantic dating relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 961–969.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janell C. Fetterolf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fetterolf, J.C., Sanchez, D.T. The Costs and Benefits of Perceived Sexual Agency for Men and Women. Arch Sex Behav 44, 961–970 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0408-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0408-x

Keywords

Navigation