Skip to main content

Gender Differences and Similarities in Receptivity to Sexual Invitations: Effects of Location and Risk Perception

Archives of Sexual Behavior volume 44, pages 2257–2265 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Since the publication of the seminal paper by Clark and Hatfield (1989), there has been an ongoing discussion about their finding that men accept sexual invitations from females more willingly than vice versa. We focused on two questions that have not yet been answered: First, what happens when the same request for casual sex is made in a different setting where social pressure is lower and such a request more common? To address this issue, 6 male and 8 female average looking confederates approached 162 men and 119 women either at a university campus or in a nightclub and asked for a date or for casual sex. The gender difference remained, with significantly more men than women consenting to a sexual invitation. The second issue concerned the perceived risk for women of accepting such an offer. We made up an elaborate cover story and invited 60 male and female participants into our laboratory. They were shown 10 pictures of persons of the opposite sex and led to believe that these people either consented to date or to have sex with them. The participants then could choose from the pictures who they wanted to meet to engage in a date or sex. In this subjectively safer environment, the gender difference disappeared, with the same proportion of men and women consenting to a date or sex. However, men were more liberal in their choice in either condition, compared to the female subjects. We conclude that while gender differences remained in both experiments, women were more liberal in a subjectively safer situation.

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 includes VAT (Canada)

Fig. 1

References

  • Albury, K., & Crawford, K. (2012). Sexting, consent and young people’s ethics: Beyond Megan’s story. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 26, 463–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. F. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., et al. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Catalano, S. (2007). Intimate partner violence in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. D. (1990). The impact of AIDS on gender differences in willingness to engage in casual sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 771–782.

    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 

  • Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (2003). Love in the afternoon. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 227–231.

    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., Ziegler, 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 

  • Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A. C. (2013). Backlash from the bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 392–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York City: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, W., & Stoner, S. (2000). Understanding acute alcohol effects on sexual behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 11, 92–124.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gladue, B. A., & Delaney, H. J. (1990). Gender differences in perception of attractiveness of men and women in bars. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grammer, K. (1994). Signale der Liebe: Die biologischen Gesetze der Partnerschaft [Signals of love: The biological laws of partnership]. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe.

  • Grant, S., LaBrie, J. W., Hummer, J. F., & Lac, A. (2012). How drunk am I? Misperceiving one’s level of intoxication in the college drinking environment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26, 51–58.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guéguen, N. (2011). Effects of solicitor sex and attractiveness on receptivity to sexual offers: A field study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 915–919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2009). Would you go to bed with me?: Gender differences in receptivity to sexual invitations. In H. Høgh-Olesen, H. J. Tonnesvang, & P. Bertelsen (Eds.), Human characteristics: Evolutionary perspectives on human mind and kind (pp. 366–381). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Scholars.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hald, G. M., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the opposite gender. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R. H., Fejfar, M. C., & Miller, J. D. (2000). Personality and sexual risk taking: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality, 68, 1203–1231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 247–275.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., Jonason, P. K., Byerley, G. J., Flores, S. D., Illbeck, B. E., O’Leary, K. N., & Qudrat, A. (2012). A reexamination of sex differences in sexuality: New studies reveal old truths. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 135–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schützwohl, A., Fuchs, A., Mckibbin, W. F., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). How willing are you to accept sexual requests from slightly unattractive to exceptionally attractive imagined requestors? Human Nature, 20, 282–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterne, J. A. C., White, I. R., Carlin, J. B., Spratt, M., Royston, P., Kenward, M. G., … Carpenter, J. R. (2009). Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: Potential and pitfalls. British Medical Journal, 338. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2393.

  • Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voracek, M., Fisher, M. L., Hofhansl, A., Rekkas, P. V., & Ritthammer, N. (2006). I find you to be very attractive…Biases in compliance estimates to sexual offers. Psicothema, 18, 384–391.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 55099, Mainz, Germany

    Andreas M. Baranowski & Heiko Hecht

Authors
  1. Andreas M. Baranowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heiko Hecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas M. Baranowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baranowski, A.M., Hecht, H. Gender Differences and Similarities in Receptivity to Sexual Invitations: Effects of Location and Risk Perception. Arch Sex Behav 44, 2257–2265 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0520-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0520-6

Keywords

  • Gender differences
  • Sexuality
  • Casual sex
  • Mating
  • Attractiveness