Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Perceptions of Slut-Shaming on Facebook: Evidence for a Reverse Sexual Double Standard

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gender Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although there is a widespread belief that women are judged more harshly for sexual activity than men, research on the existence of the sexual double standard has been mixed. We investigated the sexual double standard and “slut-shaming” by asking participants to provide perceptions of both a target of “slut-shaming” and a “shamer.” Male and female participants viewed a blinded Facebook conversation in which the male or female target, or “slut,” was shamed by either a male or female “shamer.” We found evidence for a reverse sexual double standard; male “sluts” were judged more harshly. Furthermore, the “shamer” was negatively evaluated, especially when shaming a woman. Our participants also indicated a belief in a societal sexual double standard. They perceived the “shamer” to be more judgmental and less congratulatory when the “slut” was female. Furthermore, qualitative data indicated that female “sluts” were believed to be labeled as such for lower levels of sexual behavior (e.g., sexy clothing or dancing), than was the case for male “sluts” (e.g., sex with multiple partners). Our data indicate that individual beliefs are changing more quickly than social perceptions.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for “hooking up”: How far have we come toward gender equality. Social Science Research, 42, 119–1206. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Attwood, F. (2007). Sluts and riot girls: Female identity and sexual agency. Journal of Gender Studies, 16, 233–247. doi:10.1080/09589230701562921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bamberg, M. (2004). Form and functions of ‘slut bashing’ in male identity constructions in15-year-olds. Human Development, 47, 331–353. doi:10.1159/000081036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6, 166–203. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.6.2.166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Clayton, K. D., & Trafimow, D. (2007). A test of three hypotheses concerning attributions toward female promiscuity. The Social Science Journal, 44, 677–686. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2007.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Erchull, M. J., Liss, M., Axelson, S. J., Staeball, S. E., & Askari, S. F. (2010). Well…she wants it more: Perceptions of social norms about desires for marriage and children and anticipated chore participation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 253–260. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01566.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Janda, L. H., O’Grady, K. E., & Barnhart, S. A. (1981). Effects of sexual attitudes and physical attractiveness on person perception of men and women. Sex Roles, 7, 189–199. doi:10.1007/BF00287805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jonason, P. K., & Marks, M. J. (2009). Common vs. uncommon sexual acts: Evidence for the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 60, 357–365. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9542-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 513–520. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kreager, D. A., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 143–164. doi:10.1177/019027250907200205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kwan, G. C. E., & Skoric, M. M. (2013). Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in school. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 16–25. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kelly, J., & Bazzini, D. G. (2001). Gender, sexual experience, and the sexual double standard: Evaluations of female contraceptive behavior. Sex Roles, 45, 785–799. doi:10.1023/A:1015640419862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mahalik, J. R., Morray, E. B., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Ludlow, L. H., Slattery, S. M., & Smiler, A. (2005). Development of the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory. Sex Roles, 52, 417–435. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3709-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mark, M. M., & Miller, M. L. (1986). The effects of sexual permissiveness, target gender, subject gender, and attitude toward women on social perception: In search of the double standard. Sex Roles, 15, 311–322. doi:10.1007/BF00288320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marks, M. J. (2008). Evaluations of sexually active men and women under divided attention: A social cognitive approach to the sexual double standard. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 84–91. doi:10.1080/01973530701866664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 361–368. doi:10.1080/00224499909552008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (2001). Reconceptualizing the sexual double standard. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 13, 63–83. doi:10.1300/J056v13n02_05.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Muehlenhard, C. L., & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Double standard/double bind. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447–461. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00420.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. O’Sullivan, L. F. (1995). Less is more: The effects of sexual experience on judgments of men’s and women’s personality characteristics and relationship desirability. Sex Roles, 33, 159–181. doi:10.1007/BF01544609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Oliver, M. B., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects of sexual permissiveness on desirability of partner as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 321–333. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00052.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ringrose, J., & Renold, E. (2012). Slut-shaming, girl power and ‘sexualisation’: Thinking through the politics of the international SlutWalks with teen girls. Gender and Education, 24, 333–343. doi:10.1080/09540253.2011.645023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rudman, L. A., & Fetterolf, J. C. (2014). Gender and sexual economics: Do women view sex as a female commodity? Psychological Science, 25, 1438–1447. doi:10.1177/0956797614533123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rudman, L. A., Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2013). What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 250–263. doi:10.1177/0146167212472375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sagebin Bordini, G., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sakaluk, J. K., & Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Factors influencing university students’ explicit and implicit sexual double standards. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 464–476. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.569976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sourander, A., Klomek, A. B., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., Koskelainen, M., et al. (2010). Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents: A population-based study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67, 720–728. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1987). Has the double standard disappeared? An experimental test. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 24–31. doi:10.2307/2786887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1991). The effect of current sexual behavior on friendship, dating, and marriage desirability. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 387–408. doi:10.1080/00224499109551615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Sakaluk, J. K. (2013). Premarital sexual standards and sociosexuality: gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1395–1405. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stein, D. (1966). The influence of belief systems on interpersonal preference: A validation study of Rokeach’s theory of prejudice. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–29. doi:10.1037/h0093907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tanenbaum, L. (2000). Slut! Growing up female with a bad reputation. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Vaillancourt, T. (2013). Do human females use indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy? Philosophical Transitions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0080

  41. Vaillancourt, T., & Sharma, A. (2011). Intolerance of sexy peers: Intrasexual competition among women. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 569–577. doi:10.1002/ab.20413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S.-Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 28–49. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00312.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, VA, USA

    Leanna J. Papp, Charlotte Hagerman, Michelle A. Gnoleba, Mindy J. Erchull, Miriam Liss, Haley Miles-McLean & Caitlin M. Robertson

Authors
  1. Leanna J. Papp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlotte Hagerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michelle A. Gnoleba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mindy J. Erchull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Miriam Liss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Haley Miles-McLean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Caitlin M. Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mindy J. Erchull.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Papp, L.J., Hagerman, C., Gnoleba, M.A. et al. Exploring Perceptions of Slut-Shaming on Facebook: Evidence for a Reverse Sexual Double Standard. Gend. Issues 32, 57–76 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-014-9133-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-014-9133-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation