Skip to main content

Has Dating Become More Egalitarian? A 35 Year Review Using Sex Roles

Abstract

In this selective review, we examined research on heterosexual dating published in Sex Roles since its inception to determine if dating practices have become more egalitarian over the past 35 years. An analysis of current best-selling dating advice books suggests that gender roles continue to be institutionalized in cultural scripts. A sexual scripts framework was used to categorize research findings to determine if the empirical evidence confirmed the durability of gender roles over time or revealed that dating has become less gender-typed. Research in Sex Roles suggests that heterosexual dating among young adults in the U. S. remains highly gender-typed in terms of cultural scripts (e.g., beliefs, ideals, and expectations), as well as interpersonal scripts (e.g., actual interpersonal emotions, interpersonal behaviors, or behaviors aimed at achieving or signaling a partner). Some variability was observed in interpersonal scripts in terms of occasional initiation of dates by women, for instance, but was not sufficiently widely used to challenge the dominant script. Functional reasons for the persistence of gender stereotypes in dating are presented. In addition, a friendship script is proposed as an alternative, egalitarian model of dating that might fulfill the same functions.

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

References

  1. Abelson, R. P. (1981). The psychological status of the script concept. The American Psychologist, 36, 715–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Acitelli, L. K., & Young, A. M. (1996). Gender and thought in relationships. In G. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures and interactions in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 147–168). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Adams, J. (1984). Women at west point: A three-year perspective. Sex Roles, 11, 525–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Afifi, W. A., & Lucas, A. A. (2008). Information seeking in initial stages of relational development. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 197–215). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles, 34, 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Angelo, M. (2010, April). Fortune 500 Women CEOs. Fortune 500, April 22, 2010. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1004/gallery.fortune500_women_ceos.fortune/index.html.

  7. Bailey, B. L. (1988). From front porch to back seat: Courtship in twentieth-century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Belsey, C. (1994). Desire: Love stories in western culture. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bentley, C. G., Galliher, R. V., & Ferguson, T. J. (2007). Associations among aspects of interpersonal power and relationship functioning in adolescent romantic couples. Sex Roles, 57, 483–495.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bergen, D. J., & Williams, J. E. (1991). Sex stereotypes in the United States: Revisited 1972–1988. Sex Roles, 24, 413–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. G. (1992). An integrative model of friendship. In R. Blieszner & R. G. Adams (Eds.), Adult friendship (pp. 1–27). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1990). Intimate relationships and the creation of sexuality. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 307–320). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A. S., & Saville, B. K. (2010). To hook up or date: Which gender benefits? Sex Roles, 62, 661–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bredow, C. A., Cate, R. M., & Huston, T. L. (2008). Have we met before? A conceptual model of first romantic encounters. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 3–28). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bridges, J. S. (1991). Perceptions of date and stranger rape: A difference in sex role expectations and rape-supportive beliefs. Sex Roles, 24, 291–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bridges, J. S., & McGrail, C. A. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for date and stranger rape. Sex Roles, 21, 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brown, A. L., & Testa, M. (2008). Social influence on judgments of rape victims: The role of negative and positive social reactions of others. Sex Roles, 58, 490–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Browne, J. (2006). Dating for dummies (2nd ed.). New York: Hungry Minds.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2008 (Report 1017). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2008.pdf

  22. Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cann, A. (2004). Rated importance of personal characteristics across four relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 322–334.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Carroll, J. L., Volk, K. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences between males and females in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 131–139.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Casey, W. (2009). The man plan: Drive men wild… not away. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Catalyst (2009). Women MBAs. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/publication/250/women-mbas.

  27. Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). The history of courtship. In R. M. Cate & S. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Courtship (pp. 13–32). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chrisler, J. (2010). In honor of Sex Roles: Reflections on the history and development of the journal. Sex Roles, 63, 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Connolly, C. M., & Sicola, M. K. (2005). Listening to lesbian couples: Communication competence in long-term relationships. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1, 143–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cowan, G. (2000). Beliefs about the causes of four types of rape. Sex Roles, 42, 807–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dasgupta, S. D. (1998). Gender roles and cultural continuity in the Asian Indian immigrant community in the U.S. Sex Roles, 38, 953–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Deaux, K., & Hanna, R. (1984). Courtship in the personals column: The influence of gender and sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 11, 363–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. DeLucia, J. L. (1987). Gender role identity and dating behavior: What is the relationship? Sex Roles, 17, 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. DePaulo, B. (2006). Singled out: How singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored, and still live happily ever after. New York: St Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Diamond, L. M., Savin-Williams, R. C., & Dubé, E. M. (1999). Sex, dating, passionate friendships, and romance: Intimate peer relations among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 175–210). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ehrmann, W. (1959). Premarital dating behavior. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Eldridge, N. S., & Gilbert, L. A. (1990). Correlates of relationship satisfaction in lesbian couples. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Elkins, L. E., & Peterson, C. (1993). Gender differences in best friendships. Sex Roles, 29, 497–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Epstein, J., Klinkenberg, W. D., Scandell, D. J., Faulkner, K., & Claus, R. E. (2007). Perceived physical attractiveness, sexual history, and sexual intentions: An internet study. Sex Roles, 56, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Eshbaugh, E. M., & Gute, G. (2008). Hookups and sexual regret among college women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 77–89.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fehr, B. (2008). Friendship formation. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 29–54). New York: Psychology Press of Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Fehr, B., Sprecher, S., & Underwood, L. (Eds.). (2009). Compassionate love: Theory, research, and applications. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Felmlee, D. H. (1994). Who’s on top? Power in romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 31, 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Matthews, J. (2007). Speed-dating as an invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: A methodological primer. Personal Relationships, 14, 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fischer, G. J. (1987). Hispanic and majority student attitudes toward forcible date rape as a function of differences in attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 17, 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Flannagan, D., Marsh, D., & Fuhrman, R. (2005). Judgments about the hypothetical behaviors of friends and romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 797–815.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Forbes, G. B., Jobe, R. L., White, K. B., Bloesch, E., & Adams-Curtis, L. E. (2005). Perceptions of dating violence following a sexual or nonsexual betrayal of trust: Effects of gender, sexism, acceptance of rape myths, and vengeance motivation. Sex Roles, 52, 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Forleo, M. (2008). Make every man want you: How to be so irresistible you’ll barely keep from dating yourself! New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Franzoi, S. L. (2001). Is female body esteem shaped by benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 44, 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Fuhrman, R. W., Flannagan, D., & Matamoros, M. (2009). Behavior expectations in cross-sex friendships, same-sex friendships, and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 16, 575–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism: Theory and research (pp. 61–89). Orlando: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Galician, M. (2004). Sex, love, & romance in the mass media: Analysis & criticism of unrealistic portrayals & their influence. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Gershon, A., Gowen, L. K., Compian, L., & Hayward, R. C. (2004). Gender-stereotyped imagined dates and weight concerns in sixth grade girls. Sex Roles, 50, 515–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Gilbert, L. A., Walker, S. J., McKinney, S., & Snell, J. L. (1999). Challenging discourse themes reproducing gender in heterosexual dating: An analog study. Sex Roles, 41, 753–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ginsburg, G. P. (1988). Rules, scripts and prototypes in personal relationships. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 23–39). Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Glasser, C. L., Robnett, B., & Feliciano, C. (2009). Internet daters’ body type preferences: Race–ethnic and gender differences. Sex Roles, 61, 14–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right: College women on dating and mating today. New York: Institute for American Values.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2004). Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good for? Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(2), 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Gonzalez, J. T. (1988). Dilemmas of the high-achieving Chicana: The double-bind factor in male/female relationships. Sex Roles, 18, 367–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Goode, E. (1996). Gender and courtship entitlement: Responses to personal ads. Sex Roles, 34, 141–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169–197.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W., Swanson, C., Swanson, K., Tyson, R., & Yoshimoto, D. (2003). Observing gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples’ relationships: Mathematical modeling of conflict interaction. Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 65–91.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Grauerholz, E. (1987). Balancing the power in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 563–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 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 

  69. Grote, N. K., & Frieze, I. H. (1994). The measurement of friendship-based love in intimate relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, 275–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Hamby, S., & Jackson, A. (2010). Size does matter: The effects of gender on perceptions of dating violence. Sex Roles, 63, 324–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Hammersla, J. F., & Frease-McMahan, L. (1990). University students’ priorities: Life goals vs. relationships. Sex Roles, 23, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Hannon, R., Hall, D. S., Kuntz, T., Van Laar, S., & Williams, J. (1995). Dating characteristics leading to unwanted vs. wanted sexual behavior. Sex Roles, 33, 767–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hannon, R., Kuntz, T., Van Laar, S., Williams, J., & Hall, D. S. (1996). College students’ judgments regarding sexual aggression during a date. Sex Roles, 35, 765–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Hannon, R. K., Hall, D. S., Nash, H., Formati, J., & Hopson, T. (2000). Judgments regarding sexual aggression as a function of sex of aggressor and victim. Sex Roles, 43, 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Hansen, G. L. (1985). Dating jealousy among college students. Sex Roles, 12, 713–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Hansen, M., Ibarra, H., & Peyer, U. (2010). The best performing CEOs in the world. Harvard Business Review, 88, 104–113.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Harrison, L. A., & Abrishami, G. (2004). Dating violence attributions: Do they differ for in-group and out-group members who have a history of dating violence? Sex Roles, 51, 543–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Haworth-Hoeppner, S. (1998). What’s gender got to do with it: Perceptions of sexual coercion in a university community. Sex Roles, 38, 757–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Heesacker, M., Smith, M., & Lawrence, A. (1998). The desired loving behavior scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Scheer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 452–453). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Hegewisch, A., Liepmann, H., Hayes, J., & Hartmann, H. (2010). Separate and not equal? Gender segregation in the labor market and the gender wage gap. Briefing paper from The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR). Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350.pdf.

  81. Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1993). Lovers as friends. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 459–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., & Valde, K. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions of women’s sexual interest during cross-sex interactions: An application and extension of cognitive valence theory. Sex Roles, 54, 821–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Hetsroni, A. (2000). Choosing a mate in television dating games: The influence of setting, culture and gender. Sex Roles, 42, 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Johnson, J. D., Adams, M. S., Ashburn, L., & Reed, W. (1995). Differential gender effects of exposure to rap music on African American adolescents’ acceptance of teen dating violence. Sex Roles, 33, 597–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Katz, D., & Allport, F. H. (1931). Student attitudes. Syracuse: Craftsman.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Katz, J., & Tirone, V. (2009). Women’s sexual compliance with male dating partners: Associations with investment in ideal womanhood and romantic well-being. Sex Roles, 60, 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Katz, J., Moore, J. A., & Tkachuk, S. (2007). Verbal sexual coercion and perceived victim responsibility: Mediating effects of perceived control. Sex Roles, 57, 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Kenig, S., & Ryan, J. (1986). Sex differences in levels of tolerance and attribution of blame for sexual harassment on a university campus. Sex Roles, 15, 535–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Klinkenberg, D., & Rose, S. (1994). Dating scripts of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 26, 23–35.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., & Staneski, R. A. (1986). Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratings by men and women. Sex Roles, 15, 585–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Kowalski, R. M. (1993). Inferring sexual interest from behavioral cues: Effects of gender and sexually relevant attitudes. Sex Roles, 29, 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Kurdek, L. A. (1993). The allocation of household labor in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married couples. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Laner, M. R. (1989). Competitive vs. noncompetitive styles: Which is most valued in courtship? Sex Roles, 20, 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Laner, M. R., & Russell, J. N. (1998). Desired characteristics of spouses and best friends: Do they differ by sex and/or sex? Sociological Inquiry, 68, 186–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Laws, J. L., & Schwartz, P. (1977). Sexual transactions. In J. L. Laws & P. Schwartz (Eds.), Sexual scripts: The social construction of female sexuality (pp. 103–132). Washington: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., Glick, P., & Chen, Z. (2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Libby, R. (1976). Social scripts for sexual relationships. In S. Gordon & R. Libby (Eds.), Sexuality today and tomorrow: Contemporary issues in human sexuality (pp. 172–173). N. Scituate: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Littleton, H., Breitkopf, C. R., & Berenson, A. (2007). Rape scripts of low-income European American and Latina women. Sex Roles, 56, 509–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Littleton, H., Tabernik, H., Canales, E. J., & Backstrom, T. (2009). Risky situation or harmless fun? A qualitative examination of college women’s bad hook-up and rape scripts. Sex Roles, 60, 793–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Lottes, I. L. (1993). Nontraditional gender roles and the sexual experiences of heterosexual college students. Sex Roles, 29, 645–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Mahoney, A. R., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2009). Gender equality in intimate relationships. In C. Knudson-Martin & A. R. Mahoney (Eds.), Couples, gender, and power: Creating change in intimate relationships (pp. 3–16). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Margolin, L. (1989). Gender and the prerogatives of dating and marriage: An experimental assessment of college students. Sex Roles, 20, 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Margolin, L., Miller, M., & Moran, P. B. (1989). When a kiss is not just a kiss: Relating violations of consent in kissing to rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 20, 231–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Maurer, T. W., & Robinson, D. W. (2008). Effects of attire, alcohol, and gender on perceptions of date rape. Sex Roles, 58, 423–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. McCormick, N. B., Brannigan, G. G., & LaPlante, M. N. (1984). Social desirability in the bedroom: Role of approval motivation in sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 11, 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. McDaniel, A. K. (2005). Young women’s dating behavior: Why/Why not date a nice guy? Sex Roles, 53, 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. McGraw, P. (2005). Love smart: Find the one you want–fix the one you got. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Mensinger, J. L., Bonifazi, D. Z., & LaRosa, J. (2007). Perceived gender role prescriptions in schools, the superwoman ideal, and disordered eating among adolescent girls. Sex Roles., 57, 557–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Milburn, M., Mather, R., & Conrad, R. (2000). The effects of viewing R-rated movie scenes that objectify women on perceptions of date rape. Sex Roles, 43, 807–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Miller, R. (2004). Understanding women: The definitive guide to meeting, dating and dumping, if necessary. New York: The Book Factory.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Miller, E., Smith, J., & Trembath, D. (2001). The ‘skinny’' on body size requests in personal ads. Sex Roles, 43, 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Monsour, M., Harris, B., Beard, C., & Kurzwil, N. (1994). Challenges confronting cross-sex friendships: Much ado about nothing? Sex Roles, 31, 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Morr, M. C., & Mongeau, P. A. (2004). First-date expectations: Impact of sex of initiator, alcohol consumption, and relationship type. Communication Research, 31, 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Morr Serewicz, M. C., & Gale, E. (2008). First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship. Sex Roles, 58, 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Nardi, P. M. (1999). Gay men’s friendships: Invincible communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Nevid, J. (1984). Sex differences in factors of romantic attraction. Sex Roles, 11, 401–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Noland, V. J., Daley, E. M., Drolet, J. C., Fetro, J. V., McCormack Brown, K. R., Hassell, C. D., et al. (2004). Connotative interpretations of sexuality-related terms. Sex Roles, 51, 523–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Offman, A., & Matheson, K. (2004). The sexual self-perceptions of young women experiencing abuse in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 51, 551–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. O’Dougherty Wright, M., Norton, D. L., & Matusek, J. A. (2010). Predicting verbal coercion following sexual refusal during a hookup: Diverging gender patterns. Sex Roles, 62, 647–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. O’Meara, D. (1989). Cross-sex friendships: Four basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21, 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Orlofsky, J. L. (1982). Psychological androgyny, sex-typing, and sex-role ideology as predictors of male–female interpersonal attraction. Sex Roles, 8, 1057–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Park, S. Y., Yun, G. W., McSweeney, J. H., & Gunther, A. C. (2007). Do third-person perceptions of media influence contribute to pluralistic ignorance on the norm of ideal female thinness? Sex Roles, 57, 569–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The causalities of “casual” sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Paxton, S. J., Norris, M., Wertheim, E. H., Durkin, S. J., & Anderson, J. (2005). Body dissatisfaction, dating, and importance of thinness to attractiveness in adolescent girls. Sex Roles, 53, 663–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Pedersen, W. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A., & Miller, L. C. (2010). Are men and women really that different? Examining some of Sexual Strategies Theory (SST)’s key assumptions about sex-distinct mating mechanisms. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9811-5.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Peplau, L. A. (1979). Power in dating relationships. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (2nd ed., pp. 106–121). Palo Alto: Mayfield Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Peplau, L. A. (1991). Lesbian and gay relationships. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 177–196). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405–424.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Perrin, P. B., Heesacker, M., Tiegs, T. J., Swan, L. K., Lawrence, A. W., Smith, M. B., et al. (2010). Aligning mars and Venus: The social construction and instability of gender differences in romantic relationships. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9804-4.

  132. Rainville, R. E., & Gallagher, J. G. (1990). Vulnerability and heterosexual attraction. Sex Roles, 23, 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. Hawthorne: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Regis, P. (2003). A natural history of the romance novel. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Reilly, M. E., & Lynch, J. M. (1990). Power-sharing in lesbian partnerships. Journal of Homosexuality, 19, 1–30.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Rhode, D. L., & Kellerman, B. (2007). Women and leadership: The state of play. In B. Kellerman & D. L. Rhode (Eds.), Women and Leadership: The state of play and strategies for change (pp. 1–62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Rickard, K. M. (1989). The relationship of self-monitored dating behaviors to level of feminist identity on the Feminist Identity Scale. Sex Roles, 20, 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Rose, S. (1985). Same- and cross-sex friendships and the psychology of homosociality. Sex Roles, 12, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Rose, S. (2000). Heterosexism and the study of women’s romantic and friend relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). Young singles’ scripts for a first date. Gender & Society, 3, 258–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Rose, S., & Zand, D. (2000). Lesbian dating and courtship from young adulthood to midlife. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 11, 77–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Rose, S., Zand, D., & Cini, M. (1993). Lesbian courtship scripts. In E. Rothblum & K. A. Brehony (Eds.), The Boston marriage today: Romantic but asexual relationships between lesbians (pp. 70–85). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Ross, L. E., & Davis, A. C. (1996). Black-White college student attitudes and expectations in paying for dates. Sex Roles, 35, 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Rothman, E. K. (1984). Hands and hearts: A history of courtship in America. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Ryan, K. M., & Mohr, S. (2005). Gender differences in playful aggression during courtship in college students. Sex Roles, 53, 591–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Ryan, K. M., Weikel, K., & Sprechini, G. (2008). Gender differences in narcissism and courtshipviolence in dating couples. Sex Roles, 58, 802–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Schwartz, P. (1994). Peer marriage: How love between equals really works. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Shechory, M., & Ziv, R. (2007). Relationships between gender role attitudes, role division, and perception of equity among heterosexual, gay and lesbian couples. Sex Roles, 56, 629–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Sheldon, K. M. (2007). Gender differences in preferences for singles ads that proclaim extrinsic versus intrinsic values. Sex Roles, 57, 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Siavelis, R., & Lamke, L. (1992). Instrumentalness and expressiveness: Predictors of heterosexual relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 26, 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Simonson, K., & Subich, L. M. (1999). Rape perceptions as a function of gender-role traditionality and victim-perpetrator association. Sex Roles, 40, 617–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Sinclair, H. C. (2010). Stalking myth-attributions: Examining the role of individual, cultural, and contextual variables on judgments of unwanted pursuit scenarios. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9853-8.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). When courtship persistence becomes intrusive pursuit: A comparison of rejecter and pursuer perspectives of unrequited attraction. Sex Roles, 52, 839–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Skomorovsky, A., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2006). The buffering role of social support perceptions in relation to eating disturbances among women in abusive dating relationships. Sex Roles, 54, 627–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Smith, C. A., Konik, J. A., & Tuve, M. V. (2010). In search of looks, status, or something else? Partner preferences among butch and femme lesbians and heterosexual men and women. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9861-8.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Smith, J. E., Waldorf, V. A., & Trembath, D. L. (1990). Single white male looking for thin, very attractive.... Sex Roles, 23, 675–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Snell, W. E., & Godwin, L. (1993). Social reactions to depictions of casual and steady acquaintance rape: The impact of AIDS and stereotypical beliefs about women. Sex Roles, 29, 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Spindel, J. (2007). How to date men: Dating secrets from America’s top matchmaker. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Sprecher, S. (1985). Sex differences in bases of power in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 12, 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and riendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463–481.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Sprecher, S., & Sedikides, C. (1993). Gender differences in perception of emotionality: The case of close heterosexual relationships. Sex Roles, 28, 511–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Stake, J., & Lauer, M. L. (1987). The consequences of being overweight: A controlled study of gender differences. Sex Roles, 17, 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Stephen, T. D., & Harrison, T. M. (1985). A longitudinal comparison of couples with sex-typical and non-sex-typical orientations to intimacy. Sex Roles, 12, 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Struckman-Johnson, D., & Struckman-Johnson, C. (1991). Men and women’s acceptance of coercive sexual strategies varied by initiator gender and couple intimacy. Sex Roles, 25, 661–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Summers, R. J., & Myklebust, K. (1992). The influence of a history of romance on judgments and responses to a complaint of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27, 345–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Taylor, L. D. (2005). All for him: Articles about sex in American lad magazines. Sex Roles, 52, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Thompson, E. H., Jr. (1991). The maleness of violence in dating relationships: An appraisal of stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Titus, M., & Fadal, T. (2008). Why hasn’t he called? How guys really think and how to get the right one interested in you. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Triandis, H. C., Marin, G., Lisansky, J., & Betancourt, H. (1984). Simpatu’a as a cultural script of Hispanics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1363–1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Urbaniak, G., & Kilmann, P. R. (2003). Physical attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do nice guys really finish last? Sex Roles., 49, 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Urbaniak, G. C., & Kilmann, P. R. (2006). Niceness and dating success: A further test of the nice guy stereotype. Sex Roles, 55, 209–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Veniegas, R. C., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). Power and the quality of same-sex friendships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  178. Vogel, D. L., Wester, S. R., Heesacker, M., & Madon, S. (1999). Dating relationships & the demand/withdraw pattern of communication. Sex Roles, 41, 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Vorauer, J., & Ross, M. (1996). The pursuit of knowledge within close relationships: An informational goals analysis. In G. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 369–396). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  180. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 13–37). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Whyte, M. K. (1990). Dating, mating, and marriage. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Willis, F. N., & Carlson, R. A. (1993). Singles ads: Gender, social class, and time. Sex Roles, 29, 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., & Rose, S. (1997). Gender and close relationships. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  184. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, vol 1 (5th ed., pp. 629–667). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Workman, J. E., & Freeburg, E. W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41, 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  186. Wright, M., Norton, D., & Matusek, J. (2010). Predicting verbal coercion following sexual refusal during a hookup: Diverging gender patterns. Sex Roles, 62, 647–660.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Yeater, E. A., Lenberg, K. L., Avina, C., Rinehart, J. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2008). When dating situations take a turn for the worse: Situational and interpersonal risk factors for sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 59, 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Zurbriggen, E. L., & Morgan, E. M. (2006). Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes toward sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asia Anna Eaton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eaton, A.A., Rose, S. Has Dating Become More Egalitarian? A 35 Year Review Using Sex Roles . Sex Roles 64, 843–862 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gender roles
  • Dating
  • Gender differences
  • Personal relationships
  • Romantic relationships
  • Social dating
  • Scripts
  • Interpersonal script
  • Cultural script
  • Sexual script