Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Gender Expectations on Meanings of Sex and Sexuality: Results from a Cognitive Interview Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study uses cognitive interviewing to examine individuals’ interpretations of sexuality-related questions and meanings of sex and sexuality. The sample includes 20 adults (12 women and 8 men) who were randomly selected university staff in the Midwestern United States. Using a sexual script and symbolic interactionist framework, we identify two themes in individuals’ understandings of sex and sexuality: (1) people’s talk about sexuality at the cultural level typically corresponds to traditional gender arrangements and stereotypes; however, personal experiences elicit more contradictions and (2) our relatively small sample revealed a wide range of understandings of sex and sexuality, including how gender expectations influenced their meanings. Implications for theoretical work on gender and sexuality as well as future empirical studies are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 287–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, J. G., Bozman, A. W., & Qualtrough, T. (1991). The experience of sexual desire: psychological correlates in a college sample. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, L. M. (2002). Gender and the meaning and experience of virginity loss in the contemporary United States. Gender & Society, 16, 345–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. D., & Carroll, M. H. (2008). Acquaintance rape scripts of women and men: similarities and differences. Sex Roles, 58, 616–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. M., & Coleman, E. (2004). Defining sexual health: a descriptive overview. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 189–195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Few, C. (1997). The politics of sex research and constructions of female sexuality: what relevance to sexual health work with young women? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 615–625.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory. Theory & Psychology, 11, 209–232.

    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, 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. (1987). The sexual scripting of oral genital contacts. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 1–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1986 [1974]). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

  • Herdt, G. (1999). Sambia sexual culture: Essays from the field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. A., & Preston, L. K. (1996). Individual differences in the experience of sexual motivation: theory and measurement of dispositional sexual motives. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J. M. (1997). Sex surveys in the context of survey research. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), Researching sexual behavior: Methodological issues (pp. 355–360). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. L., Sorsoli, C. L., Collins, K., Zylbergold, B. A., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2007). From sex to sexuality: exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 145–157.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M. S. (2005). The gender of desire: Essays on male sexuality. Albany: SUNY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M. S., Gagnon, J. H., & Greenblat, C. S. (2005). Bisexuality: A sociological perspective. In M. S. Kimmel (Ed.), The gender of desire: Essays on male sexuality (pp. 175–184). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhardt, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30, 411–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., & Mahay, J. (2002). The social organization of women’s sexuality. In G. M. Wingood & R. J. DiClemente (Eds.), Handbook of women’s sexual and reproductive health (pp. 43–70). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, S. B. (1995). What is clinical sexuality? The Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 18, 1–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, H. M., & Hiestand, K. R. (2004). A quest for authenticity: contemporary butch gender. Sex Roles, 50, 605–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, J. (2001). America’s liberalization in attitudes towards homosexuality. American Sociological Review, 66, 762–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longmore, M. A. (1998). Symbolic interactionism and the study of sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 44–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorber, J. (1996). Beyond the binaries: depolarizing the categories of sex, sexuality, and gender. Sociological Inquiry, 66, 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahay, J., Laumann, E. O., & Michaels, S. (2000). Race, gender and class in sexual scripts. In E. O. Laumann & R. T. Michael (Eds.), Sex, love and health in America (pp. 197–238). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H., & Morris, C. W. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muhr, R. (2004). Atlas.ti Scientific Software Development [Computer Software]. Berlin: GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perreault, W. D., & Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2007). What is sex and why does it matter? A motivational approach to exploring individuals’ definitions of sex. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 256–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. M. (2000). Flirting with danger: Young women’s reflections on sexuality and domination. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, D. T., Crocker, J., & Boike, K. R. (2005). Doing gender in the bedroom: investing in gender norms and the sexual experience. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 445–1455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (1999). Would you say you “had sex” if. .. ? JAMA, 281, 275–277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schalet, A. (2007). Adolescent sexuality viewed through two cultural lenses. In M. S. Tepper & A. F. Owens (Eds.), Sex, love, and psychology: Sexual health, Vol. III. Moral and cultural foundations. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, P., & Rutter, V. (1998). The gender of sexuality: Exploring sexual possibilities. Laham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shearer, C. L., Hosterman, S. J., Gillen, M. M., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2005). Are traditional gender role attitudes associated with risky sexual behavior and condom-related beliefs? Sex Roles, 52, 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, D. P., & Phillips, L. D. (2003). Freaks, gold diggers, divas, and dykes: the sociohistorical development of adolescent African American women’s sexual scripts. Sexuality & Culture, 7, 3–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, A. E., Fortenberry, J. D., Zimet, G. D., Reece, M., Graham, C. A., & Murray, M. (2009). Young women’s use of a microbicide surrogate: the complex influence of relationship characteristics and perceived male partners’ evaluations. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9464-4.

  • Tolman, D. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau (2009). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2009 (128th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/statab/www/

  • Vohs, K. D., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Sex in “his” versus “her” relationships. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 455–474). Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, M. S., & Williams, C. (1988). Black sexuality: a test of two theories. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittier, D. K., & Melendez, R. M. (2007). Sexual scripting and self-process: Intersubjectivity among gay men. In M. Kimmel (Ed.), The sexual self: The construction of sexual scripts (pp. 191–208). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by a grant from an anonymous private foundation. During manuscript preparation Amanda Tanner was supported by a W.K. Kellogg Community Scholars fellowship at Johns Hopkins University and by the Section of Adolescent Medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine. We thank John Bancroft, Brian Powell, Doug Schrock, and Sarah A. Smith for helpful comments on previous drafts, Orit Fisher for research assistance, and J. Scott Long and Jack K. Martin for their assistance with the research design.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Florida State University, 526 Bellamy, 113 Collegiate Loop, P.O. Box 3062270, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-2270, USA

    Janice McCabe

  2. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of North Carolina-Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Amanda E. Tanner

  3. The Kinsey Institute for Sex, Gender and Reproduction, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Julia R. Heiman

Authors
  1. Janice McCabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda E. Tanner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julia R. Heiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janice McCabe.

Appendix

Appendix

Interview Questions

  1. 1.

    One thing that we are interested in is finding out about how important sex is in people’s lives and how it compares to other important aspects of people’s lives. How important do you think sex is in people’s lives today?

  2. 2.

    Another topic that we are interested in is the role sex plays in people’s lives. What purposes do you think sex serves in people’s lives?

  3. 3.

    Now, we’d like to ask you to reflect on a couple of questions that are often used in studies about sexuality. After I read each question, I am interested in what you think the question is getting at and in what criteria you would use to answer it, not in your personal answer to this question. [Switch Question Order Each Time]

    The first question is: “In general, would you say your current sexual relationship is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” What do you think the question is asking (or getting at)? What things do you think people would think about when answering this question?

    The second question is: “In general, would you say your own sexuality is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” What do you think the question is asking (or getting at)? What things do you think people would think about when answering this question?

  4. 4.

    In designing the survey, we want to include questions about a range of sexual topics that reflect the parts of sexual life that people find important. What are some parts of sexual life that we should be sure to ask about?

  5. 5.

    What criteria would someone use to judge his/her own sexual attractiveness?

  6. 6.

    What criteria would someone use to judge another person’s sexual attractiveness?

  7. 7.

    How do you think people know when they experience sexual desire?

  8. 8.

    How do you think people can tell if their partner is experiencing sexual desire?

  9. 9.

    In what ways is sex a problem in other people’s lives?

  10. 10.

    What are some kinds of risky sexual behavior that you think people engage in?

  11. 11.

    In what ways do you think someone’s physical health might influence their sexual activity?

  12. 12.

    In what ways do you think someone’s mental health might influence their sexual activity?

  13. 13.

    Do you think people’s positive or negative moods influence their sexuality? If so, how?

  14. 14.

    In what ways do you think religion and spirituality matters for sexuality?

  15. 15.

    How do you think people’s politics influence their sexuality?

  16. 16.

    How do you think that social movements such as the feminist and gay-rights movements have influenced people sexually?

  17. 17.

    In what ways do you think the internet is an influence on sexuality?

  18. 18.

    In what ways do you think other media (such as television, movies, magazines, and music) is an important influence on sexuality?

  19. 19.

    Throughout the interview in the questions about sexual behavior and relationships, when you mentioned “having sex,” I’m curious as to what that term means to you. What does it include? In other words, how have you defined “sex” in our discussion today? [e.g., intercourse only, oral sex, kissing, etc.] What about “sexuality”?

  20. 20.

    Towards the beginning of the interview, I asked for your opinion on important parts of sexual life that we should be sure to ask about in our survey? You mentioned [list respondent’s responses to question 4]. Now that we’ve been talking about this topic for a while longer, I wondered if you would make any changes to this list.

  21. 21.

    Is there anything that we have not talked about that you think would be important for us to consider or to develop questions about for our surveys on sexuality?

  22. 22.

    Were there some topics here that you felt more or less comfortable talking about? Which one(s)?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCabe, J., Tanner, A.E. & Heiman, J.R. The Impact of Gender Expectations on Meanings of Sex and Sexuality: Results from a Cognitive Interview Study. Sex Roles 62, 252–263 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9723-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9723-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation