Sex Roles

, Volume 75, Issue 7–8, pp 377–392 | Cite as

The Double Standard at Sexual Debut: Gender, Sexual Behavior and Adolescent Peer Acceptance

  • Derek A. KreagerEmail author
  • Jeremy Staff
  • Robin Gauthier
  • Eva S. Lefkowitz
  • Mark E. Feinberg
Original Article


A sexual double standard in adolescence has important implications for sexual development and gender inequality. The present study uses longitudinal social network data (N = 914; 11–16 years of age) to test if gender moderates associations between adolescents’ sexual behaviors and peer acceptance. Consistent with a traditional sexual double standard, female adolescents who reported having sex had significant decreases in peer acceptance over time, whereas male adolescents reporting the same behavior had significant increases in peer acceptance. This pattern was observed net of respondents’ own perceived friendships, further suggesting that the social responses to sex vary by gender of the sexual actor. However, findings for “making out” showed a reverse double standard, such that female adolescents reporting this behavior had increases in peer acceptance and male adolescents reporting the same behavior had decreases in peer acceptance over time. Results thus suggest that peers enforce traditional sexual scripts for both “heavy” and “light” sexual behaviors during adolescence. These findings have important implications for sexual health education, encouraging educators to develop curricula that emphasize the gendered social construction of sexuality and to combat inequitable and stigmatizing peer responses to real or perceived deviations from traditional sexual scripts.


Sexual double standard Gender norms Adolescence Social networks Sexual activity 



The authors thank Rose Wesche, Wayne Osgood, and Scott Gest for comments on an earlier draft. This project is supported by grants from the W.T. Grant Foundation (8316), National Institute on Drug Abuse (RO1-DA08225), and NIH Grant 2 R24 HD041025 awarded to the population center at Pennsylvania State University. The research uses data from PROSPER, a project directed by R. L. Spoth and funded by grant RO1-DA013709 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The Double Standard at Sexual Debut: Gender, Sexual Behavior and Adolescent Peer Acceptance

Conflict of Interest


Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

Secondary Survey Data of Human Subjects.

Informed Consent

N/A, Secondary Data.


  1. Allen, J. P., Schad, M. M., Oudekerk, B., & Chango, J. (2014). What ever happened to the “cool” kids? Long‐term sequelae of early adolescent pseudomature behavior. Child Development, 85, 1866–1880. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12250.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for “Hooking Up”: How far have we come toward gender equality? Social Science Research, 42, 1191–1206. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L., & England, P. (2010). Is hooking up bad for young women? Contexts, 9(3), 22–27. doi: 10.1525/ctx.2010.9.3.22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating and relationships on campus. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boislard, M. A. P., Dussault, F., Brendgen, M., & Vitaro, F. (2013). Internalizing and externalizing behaviors as predictors of sexual onset in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 920–945. doi: 10.1177/0272431612472982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bordini, G. S., & Sperb, T. M. (2013). Sexual double standard: A review of the literature between 2001 and 2010. Sexuality and Culture, 17, 686–704. doi: 10.1007/s12119-012-9163-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowleg, L., Lucas, K. J., & Tschann, J. M. (2004). “The ball was always in his court”: An exploratory analysis of relationship scripts, sexual scripts, and condom use among African American women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 70–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00124.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A. S., & Saville, B. K. (2010). To hook up or date: Which gender benefits? Sex Roles, 62, 661–669. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9765-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, B. B. (1999). “You're going out with who?”: Peer group influences on adolescent romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development (pp. 291–329). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Busse, P., Fishbein, M., Bleakley, A., & Hennessy, M. (2010). The role of communication with friends in sexual initiation. Communication Research, 37, 239–255. doi: 10.1177/0093650209356393.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpenter, L. M. (2005). Virginity lost: An intimate portrait of first sexual experiences. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relationships and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical applications (pp. 23–56). Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Centers for Disease Control. (2012). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2011. MMWR, 61(SS-4). Retrieved from
  15. Cillessen, A. H., & Marks, P. E. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In A. H. N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 25–56). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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. doi: 10.1177/0361684312467169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Connolly, J., & McIsaac, C. (2011). Romantic relationships in adolescence. In M. Underwood & L. Rosen (Eds.), Social development: Relationships in infancy, childhood, and adolescence (pp. 180–203). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. 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. doi: 10.1080/00224490309552163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Eder, D., Evans, C. C., & Parker, S. (1995). School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  20. England, P., & Bearak, J. (2014). The sexual double standard and gender differences in attitudes toward casual sex among US university students. Demographic Research, 30, 1327–1338. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00173.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giordano, P. C. (2003). Relationships in adolescence. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 257–281. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2006). Gender and the meanings of adolescent romantic relationships: A focus on boys. American Sociological Review, 71, 260–287. doi: 10.1177/000312240607100205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right. New York: Council on Families.Google Scholar
  25. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  26. Guggino, J. M., & Ponzetti, J. J., Jr. (1997). Gender differences in affective reactions to first coitus. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 189–200. doi: 10.1006/jado.1996.0076.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Halpern, C. T., Kaestle, C. E., & Hallfors, D. D. (2007). Perceived physical maturity, age of romantic partner, and adolescent risk behavior. Prevention Science, 8, 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s11121-006-0046-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1981). An exponential family of probability distributions for directed graphs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 33–50. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1981.10477598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howell, J. L., Egan, P. M., Giuliano, T. A., & Ackley, B. D. (2011). The reverse double standard in perceptions of student-teacher sexual relationships: The role of gender, initiation, and power. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 180–200. doi: 10.1080/00224540903510837.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, S. M., & Cram, F. (2003). Disrupting the sexual double standard: Young women's talk about heterosexuality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 113–127. doi: 10.1348/014466603763276153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kapungu, C. T., Holmbeck, G. N., & Paikoff, R. L. (2006). Longitudinal association between parenting practices and early sexual risk behaviors among urban African American adolescents: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(5), 783–794. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-9102-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kreager, D. A., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 143–164. doi: 10.1177/019027250907200205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Laursen, B., & Hartup, W. W. (2002). The origins of reciprocity and social exchange in friendships. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 95, 27–40. doi: 10.1002/cd.35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lefkowitz, E. S., Shearer, C. L., Gillen, M. M., & Espinosa-Hernandez, G. (2014). How gendered attitudes relate to women’s and men’s sexual behaviors and beliefs. Sexuality and Culture, 18, 833–846. doi: 10.1007/s12119-014-9225-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lippold, M. A., Greenberg, M. T., Graham, J. W., & Feinberg, M. E. (2013). Unpacking the effect of parental monitoring on early adolescent problem behavior mediation by parental knowledge and moderation by parent–youth warmth. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 1800–1823. doi: 10.1177/0192513X13484120.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Lyons, H., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2011). Identity, peer relationships, and adolescent girls’ sexual behavior: An exploration of the contemporary double standard. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 437–449. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2010.506679.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2005). Adolescents’ involvement in non-romantic sexual activity. Social Science Research, 34, 384–407. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of “nonrelationship” sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 459–483. doi: 10.1177/0743558406291692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Confirmation bias and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 54, 19–26. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-8866-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). The impact of social interaction on the sexual double standard. Social Influence, 2, 29–54. doi: 10.1080/15534510601154413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Patterns of gender development. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 353–381. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100511.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 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. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2012.661102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2009). Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts across the life span. Developmental Review, 29, 201–220. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2009.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller, J. (2008). Getting played: African American girls, urban inequality, and gendered violence. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  47. Moore, S. M., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1992). The social context of adolescent sexuality: Safe sex implications. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 415–435. doi: 10.1016/0140-1971(92)90072-D.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. National Guidelines Task Force. (2004). Guidelines for comprehensive sexuality education: Kindergarten to 12th grade, 3rd edition. Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Retrieved from
  49. Osgood, D. W., McMorris, B. J., & Potenza, M. T. (2002). Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance I: Item response theory scaling. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 267–296. doi: 10.1023/A:1016008004010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ragsdale, K., Bersamin, M. M., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Kerrick, M. R., & Grube, J. W. (2014). Development of sexual expectancies among adolescents: Contributions by parents, peers and the media. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 551–560. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2012.753025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Reid, J. A., Elliott, S., & Webber, G. R. (2011). Casual hookups to formal dates: Refining the boundaries of the sexual double standard. Gender and Society, 25, 545–568. doi: 10.1177/0891243211418642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reiss, I. L. (1956). The double standard in premarital sexual intercourse: A neglected concept. Social Forces, 34, 224–230. doi: 10.2307/2574041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Risman, B., & Schwartz, P. (2002). After the sexual revolution: Gender politics in teen dating. Contexts, 1, 16–24. doi: 10.1525/ctx.2002.1.1.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rostosky, S. S., Wilcox, B. L., Wright, M. L. C., & Randall, B. A. (2004). The impact of religiosity on adolescent sexual behavior: A review of the evidence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 677–697. doi: 10.1177/0743558403260019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rulison, K., Kreager, D. A., & Osgood, D. W. (2014). Delinquency and peer acceptance in adolescence: A within-person test of Moffitt’s hypotheses. Developmental Psychology, 50, 2437–2448. doi: 10.1037/a0037966.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Schvaneveldt, P. L., Miller, B. C., Berry, E. H., & Lee, T. R. (2001). Academic goals, achievement, and age at first sexual intercourse: Longitudinal, bidirectional influences. Adolescence, 36, 767–787.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Shoveller, J. A., Johnson, J. L., Langille, D. B., & Mitchell, T. (2004). Socio-cultural influences on young people's sexual development. Social Science and Medicine, 59(3), 473–487. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.11.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22(1), 53–60. doi: 10.1007/BF02701260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120. doi: 10.1007/BF01542219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (2003). Sexual scripts: Origins, influences and changes. Qualitative Sociology, 26, 491–497. doi: 10.1023/B:QUAS.0000005053.99846.e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Snijders, T. A. B., Van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, G. E. G. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32, 44–60. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. South, S. J., Haynie, D. L., & Bose, S. (2005). Residential mobility and the onset of adolescent sexual activity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 499–514. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00131.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004). PROSPER community–university partnership model for public education systems: Capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science, 5, 31–39. doi: 10.1023/B:PREV.0000013979.52796.8b.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M., Clair, S., & Feinberg, M. (2007). Substance-use outcomes at 18 months past baseline: The PROSPER community–university partnership trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 395–402. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Sprecher, S., Barbee, A., & Schwartz, P. (1995). “Was it good for you, too?”: Gender differences in first sexual intercourse experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 3–15. doi: 10.1080/00224499509551769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Walvoord, E. C. (2010). The timing of puberty: Is it changing? Does it matter? Journal of Adolescent Health, 47, 433–439. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.05.018.
  69. Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13, 496–502. doi: 10.1177/1066480705278729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zaikman, Y. Z., & Marks, M. J. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 71, 333–344. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0417-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zaikman, Y., Vogel, E.A., Vicary, A.M., & Marks, M.J. (in press). The influence of early experiences and adult attachment on the exhibition of the sexual double standard. Sexuality and Culture, 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s12119-015-9332-z.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek A. Kreager
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeremy Staff
    • 1
  • Robin Gauthier
    • 2
  • Eva S. Lefkowitz
    • 3
  • Mark E. Feinberg
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and CriminologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  3. 3.Human Development and Family StudiesPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  4. 4.Prevention Research CenterPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations