Abstract
Men, versus women, face more doubts about their heterosexuality based on a single same-gender sexual experience, a phenomenon known as the precarious sexuality effect. This phenomenon has thus far only been examined with sexually explicit same-gender acts (e.g., kissing, oral sex). Here, we conducted secondary data analyses of five large datasets of US adults (total N = 9770) to examine the replicability and robustness of the precarious sexuality effect across a range of same-gender acts varying in sexual explicitness. Using cross-classified hierarchical linear modeling, we replicated the precarious sexuality effect across all samples and demonstrated—in preregistered exploratory and confirmatory tests—that this effect was moderated by sexual explicitness. Consistent with our predictions, same-gender acts that were merely flirtatious (e.g., blowing a kiss) elicited stronger precarious sexuality (i.e., target gender) effects than same-gender acts that were explicitly sexual (e.g., oral sex), presumably because the former acts are more ambiguous and thereby allow more room for interpretation. Further, we found no consistent evidence that the precarious sexuality effect was moderated by perceiver characteristics including gender, sexual orientation, age, race, gender role beliefs, religiosity, or political orientation. Discussion considers possible explanations for the precarious sexuality effect and identifies important avenues for future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data, Materials, and Code
This study was preregistered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/w8b6n/). All study materials and data are freely available at https://osf.io/bnq5j/. Code is freely available at https://osf.io/w8b6n/.
Notes
This effect has several labels including the one-time rule of homosexuality (Anderson, 2008) and the “one and done” rule (Swan & Habibi, 2017). Here, we used Mize and Manago’s (2018) term, the precarious sexuality effect. Note that this effect differs from the fragile heterosexuality effect (West et al., 2021), which is the tendency for people to view heterosexual status as more fragile than sexual minority status (regardless of gender).
APA recommends against use of the term “homosexual,” but we use it here to reflect the original researchers’ terminology.
References
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
Anderson, E. (2008). “Being masculine is not about who you sleep with...:” Heterosexual athletes contesting masculinity and the one-time rule of homosexuality. Sex Roles, 58(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9337-7
Anderson, E., Adams, A., & Rivers, I. (2012). “I kiss them because I love them”: The emergence of heterosexual men kissing in British institutes of education. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(2), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9678-0
Anderson, E., & McCormack, M. (2015). Cuddling and spooning: Heteromasculinity and homosocial tactility among student-athletes. Men and Masculinities, 18(2), 214–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X14523433
Anderson, E., Ripley, M., & McCormack, M. (2019). A mixed-method study of same-sex kissing among college-attending heterosexual men in the U.S. Sexuality & Culture, 23, 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9560-0
Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E., & Epprecht, M. (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(2), 45–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616637616
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., K., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1506.04967
Bettinsoli, M. L., Suppes, A., & Napier, J. L. (2020). Predictors of attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women in 23 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(5), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619887785
Blanchard-Fields, F., Hertzog, C., Stein, R., & Pak, R. (2001). Beyond a stereotyped view of older adults’ traditional family values. Psychology and Aging, 16(3), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.16.3.483
Bosson, J. K., Jurek, P., Vandello, J. A., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Olech, M., Besta, T., ... Van Laar, C. (2021). Psychometric properties and correlates of precarious manhood beliefs in 62 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 52(3), 231–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022121997997
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Denise, E. J. (2017). Sexual orientation differences in attitudes about sexuality, race, and gender. Social Science Research, 61, 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.05.002
Derlega, V. J., Lewis, R. J., Harrison, S., Winstead, B. A., & Costanza, R. (1989). Gender differences in the initiation and attribution of tactile intimacy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.241
Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110(1), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.173
Diamond, L. M. (2016). Sexual fluidity in males and females. Current Sexual Health Reports, 8, 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-016-0092-z
Drummond, M. J., Filiault, S. M., Anderson, E., & Jeffries, D. (2014). Homosocial intimacy among Australian undergraduate men. Journal of Sociology, 51, 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313518251
Finch, J. (1987). The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038587021001008
Flanders, C., & Hatfield, E. (2014). Social perception of bisexuality. Psychology & Sexuality, 5(3), 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2012.749505
Floyd, K. (2000). Affectionate same-sex touch: The influence of homophobia on observers’ perceptions. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(6), 774–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600516
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R companion to applied regression (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Green, P., & MacLeod, C. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504
Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826
Horgan, T. G., Hall, J. A., & Grey, M. J. (2022). The verbal and nonverbal communication of romantic interest. In R. J. Sternberg & A. Kostić (Eds.), Nonverbal communication in close relationships (pp. 137–163). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94492-6_6
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Hoy, A., & London, A. S. (2018). The experience and meaning of same-sex sexuality among heterosexually identified men and women: An analytic review. Sociology Compass, 12(7), e12596. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12596
Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2017). Affectionate touch to promote relational, psychological, and physical well-being in adulthood: A theoretical model and review of the research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316650307
Johnson, P. O., & Fay, L. C. (1950). The Johnson–Neyman technique, its theory and application. Psychometrika, 15(4), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288864
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 219–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60107-0
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
Kimmel, M. (2008). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. Understanding the critical years between 16 and 26. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Kimmel, M. S., & Aronson, A. (Eds.). (2003M). Men & masculinities: A social, cultural, and historical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Kinnish, K. K., Strassberg, D. S., & Turner, C. W. (2005). Sex differences in the flexibility of sexual orientation: A multidimensional retrospective assessment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-1795-9
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. B. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kowalski, B. M., & Scheitle, C. P. (2020). Sexual identity and attitudes about gender roles. Sexuality & Culture, 24(3), 671–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09655-x
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Larsen, K. S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex-roles: Traditional or egalitarian? Sex Roles, 19(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00292459
Long, J. (2019). Interactions: Comprehensive, user-friendly toolkit for probing interactions (1.1.0) [R package]. https://cran.r-project.org/package=interactions
Lorah, J. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0061-2
Lüdecke, D. (2021). sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science (2.8.10) [R package]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot
McCormack, M., & Anderson, E. (2014). The influence of declining homophobia on men’s gender in the United States: An argument for the study of homohysteria. Sex Roles, 71, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0358-8
Mize, T. D., & Manago, B. (2018). Precarious sexuality: How men and women are differentially categorized for similar sexual behavior. American Sociological Review, 83(2), 305–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418759544
Morgan, E. M., Bosson, J. K., & Davis-Delano, L. R. (2022). The roles of gender and sexual orientation in predicting reactions to suitors: Revealing intersectional complexities. Journal of Homosexuality. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2022.2092805
Nagoshi, J. L., Adams, K. A., Terrell, H. K., Hill, E. D., Brzuzy, S., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex Roles, 59, 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7
Protzko, J., Krosnick, J., Nelson, L. D., Nosek, B. A., Axt, J., Berent, M., ... & Schooler, J. (2020). High replicability of newly-discovered social-behavioral findings is achievable. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/n2a9x
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (4.2.1). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
Reigeluth, C. S., & Addis, M. E. (2016). Adolescent boys’ experiences with policing of masculinity: Forms, functions, and consequences. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(1), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039342
Scariano, S. M., & Davenport, J. M. (1987). The effects of violations of independence assumptions in the one-way ANOVA. The American Statistician, 41(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/2684223
Schnabel, L. (2018). Sexual orientation and social attitudes. Socius, 4, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118769550
Sjoberg, D. (2020). hablar: Non-astonishing results in R. R package version 0.3.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=hablar
Stark, L. P. (1991). Traditional gender role beliefs and individual outcomes: An exploratory analysis. Sex Roles, 24, 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288419
Swan, D. J., & Habibi, S. (2017). When is a bisexual really bisexual? Testing the “one and done” rule of male same-sex behaviour. Psychology of Sexualities Review, 8(2), 41–54.
Twenge, J. M., Carter, N. T., & Campbell, W. K. (2015). Time period, generational, and age differences in tolerance for controversial beliefs and lifestyles in the United States, 1972–2012. Social Forces, 94(1), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov050
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453
Vandello, J. A., Upton, R. A., Wilkerson, M., Kubicki, R. J., & Kosakowska-Berezecka, N. (2023). Cultural beliefs about manhood predict anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes and policies. Sex Roles, 88(9), 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01365-x
Vilanova, F., Koller, S. H., & Costa, Â. B. (2021). Mediational effects of right-wing authoritarianism factors in the path religiosity—Prejudice towards sexual and gender diversity. Psychology & Sexuality, 12(4), 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2019.1688379
West, K., Borras-Guevara, M. L., Morton, T., & Greenland, K. (2021). Fragile heterosexuality. Social Psychology, 52(3), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000444
Weston, S. J., Ritchie, S. J., Rohrer, J. M., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). Recommendations for increasing the transparency of analysis of preexisting data sets. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(3), 214–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919848684
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Bache, S., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
Wilkinson, W. W. (2004). Religiosity, authoritarianism, and homophobia: A multidimensional approach. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1401_5
World Health Organization. (2006). Defining sexual health: Report of a Technical Consultation on Sexual Health, 28–31 January 2002. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Worthen, M. G. (2013). An argument for separate analyses of attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual men, bisexual women, MtF and FtM transgender individuals. Sex Roles, 68, 703–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0155-1
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Brian Nosek and Charlie Ebersole for sharing these data with us and to Dr. Eun Sook Kim for consulting with us about cross-classified multilevel models.
Funding
We received no funding to support this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conceptualization, design, and interpretation of results. Data collection (the Pilot Study) was performed by GR and MW. Primary data analyses were conducted by GR. Tables and figures were prepared by GR and MW. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JB and GR, and all authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
We have no known competing interests, financial or non-financial, to declare.
Ethics Approval
All research procedures (for the Pilot Study) were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of South Florida. Research procedures for Studies 1–5 were approved by the original researchers’ IRBs. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed Consent
All participants gave their informed consent prior to participation.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Bosson, J.K., Rousis, G. & Wilkerson, M. From Flirting to F*cking: Examining the Robustness of the Precarious Sexuality Effect. Arch Sex Behav 52, 3097–3112 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02651-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02651-1