The Sexual Double Standard 1 Running Head: THE SEXUAL DOUBLE STANDARD The Impact of Social Interaction on the Sexual Double Standard

It is widely held that a sexual double standard exists such that women are evaluated more harshly than men for engaging in sexual activity. Previous research, however, has failed to document this sexual double standard reliably. We argue that previous research has been unable to identify the double standard because it has focused on the individual rather than the interpersonal dynamics that take place in social settings. The present study examines the hypothesis that group dynamics give rise to the sexual double standard. Participants, both individually and in small collaborative groups, evaluated a male or female target that had 1, 7, or 19 sex partners. A double standard did not emerge when individual participants evaluated targets. However, when collaborative groups of participants evaluated the targets, a double standard emerged in some domains. The results highlight the value of studying interpersonal processes in a group context. The Sexual Double Standard 3 The Impact of Social Interaction on the Sexual Double Standard In contemporary Western society, it is widely believed that men and women are evaluated differently for engaging in identical levels of sexual activity (Milhausen & Herold, 2001). Specifically, men with many sexual partners are believed to be evaluated in a positive fashion, whereas women with many partners are believed to be evaluated in a negative fashion. The differential evaluation of sexually active men and women has been called the sexual double standard. The sexual double standard has received a lot of attention from contemporary critics of Western culture (Lamb, 2002; Tanenbaum, 2000; White, 2002). Tanenbaum (2000), for example, has documented the harassment and distress experienced by teenage girls who have been branded as “sluts” by their peers. Other writers have critiqued the way the media helps to create and reinforce negative stereotypes of sexually active women (Waggett, 1989), and how these stereotypes may contribute to violence against women (Malamuth & Check, 1981). Given the potency of the sexual double standard in contemporary discourse, one would assume that behavioral scientists have documented the double standard extensively and have identified many of the mechanisms that generate and sustain it. Despite much systematic research, however, there is only weak evidence for the existence of this allegedly pervasive phenomenon. In this article we argue that previous attempts to document and explain the sexual double standard have been missing a potentially important ingredient—genuine social interaction. We also offer a new framework for conceptualizing the double standard—one that emphasizes the fundamental role of interpersonal processes in generating the double The Sexual Double Standard 4 standard—and report an experiment designed to test some hypotheses derived from this framework. We begin with a brief review of previous research on the double standard. Empirical Research on the Sexual Double Standard The sexual double standard seems to be a ubiquitous phenomenon in contemporary society. A recent survey revealed that 85% of people, regardless of their own personal values, believe that a double standard exists in Western culture (Marks, 2002). The double standard has also been a fairly popular subject for researchers over the last few decades. Since the mid 1970’s, there have been over thirty studies that in some way address the double standard. Although the sexual double standard seems pervasive, empirical research seldom shows that people evaluate sexually active men and women differently. In fact, much of the literature reveals little or no evidence of a double standard as it has traditionally been conceptualized (Gentry, 1998; Jacoby & Williams, 1985; Marks & Fraley, 2005; Oliver & Sedikides, 1992; O’Sullivan, 1995; Sprecher, 1989; Sprecher, McKinney, Walsh, and Anderson, 1988; Sprecher, Regan, McKinney, Maxwell, & Wazienski, 1997). O’Sullivan (1995), for example, conducted a person perception study in which individual participants read vignettes of a male or female target that had a high or low number of past sexual partners. Targets were then evaluated in domains such as likeability and morality. Both men and women who had more partners were evaluated more negatively than those with less partners, but a double standard was not found (i.e., both genders were derogated equally for engaging in frequent sex). Gentry (1998) also employed a person perception task and found that raters judged both male and female targets who were presented as having an above average amount of sexual activity in a more negative The Sexual Double Standard 5 fashion than targets presented as having a lower amount of sexual experience. Again, no evidence of a double standard was found. In another person perception study, Marks and Fraley (2005) found that, even in the absence of valenced sexual information (e.g., insinuating that having many partners is a negative characteristic), people tended to derogate both genders for having many sexual partners. Although many studies provide little support for the double standard, there are some studies that have reported evidence for it. For instance, Garcia (1982) found that, compared to androgynous respondents, sex-typed respondents (i.e., masculine males and feminine females) displayed a slight preference for female targets in the low-sexual experience condition, whereas sexual experience did not affect preference for highor low-experience male targets. Sprecher and Hatfield (1996) and Sprecher, McKinney, and Orbuch (1987) report that engaging in casual sex has more deleterious effects on evaluations of women than of men. However, other studies have not shown this effect (Mark & Miller, 1986; O’Sullivan, 1995). Sprecher et al. (1987) also reported a double standard conditional on target age, but again this effect has failed to manifest in other studies (Sprecher, 1989; Sprecher et al., 1988). In summary, although it appears that people do evaluate a target according to the amount of sexual activity that target has experienced, research rarely shows that people evaluate men and women differently as a function of their sexual activity. Even when interactions between target sex and sexual activity have been found, they are found in narrowly defined situations and are not easily replicated. If the sexual double standard is as pervasive and powerful as many people believe, empirical evidence for its role in person perception research should be less elusive. The Sexual Double Standard 6 Group Dynamics and Social Influence One pessimistic conclusion to draw from the existing literature is that the sexual double standard does not exist. Another possibility, however, is that behavioral scientists have failed to tap it properly. Commonly used paradigms for studying the sexual double standard may not successfully recreate situations in which the double standard manifests itself. One factor that all of the previously reviewed person perception studies have in common is a focus on evaluations made by individuals as opposed to peer groups. This may be a fundamental limitation of existing research because anecdotal accounts of the sexual double standard, such as adolescent boys bragging about their sexual conquests in locker rooms, reveal an important social component to the phenomenon. The double standard appears to emerge in the context of interactions among groups of people, such as friends and peers. The potential power of the group was articulated well by White (2002), who wrote, “bring [a sexually active woman] up among people who don’t know one another well, and instantly everyone finds themselves on common ground” (p. 13). Why should people behave in a way that is consistent with the double standard in social contexts but not in individual contexts (i.e., when evaluating a target in absence of peers, as in the case of standard person perception paradigms)? According to social psychological theory, people tend to attribute to others attitudes that are consistent with social norms (Allport, 1924; Miller & Prentice, 1994). It is widely assumed in our society that women who frequently engage in sexual activity are not held in as high esteem as sexually active men (Marks, 2002; Milhausen & Herold, 2001). Thus, when people discuss a sexually active man while in a social context, they may assume that other group members hold the man in high regard. Similarly, when discussing a sexually active The Sexual Double Standard 7 woman while in a social context, they may assume that other group members hold her in low regard. This may result in the individual using the perceived group norm as a reference point on which to base his or her evaluation (Allport, 1962). Although this framework suggests that perceived norms may lead to behavior consistent with the sexual double standard, it does not specify the precise ways in which individual attitudes are affected by group processes. It may be the case that people will adopt the double standard in social contexts in order to maintain a façade of consistency with perceived group norms. In an attempt to adhere to perceived group norms (Asch, 1955, 1956; Reitan & Shaw, 1964), people may come to behave in ways consistent with the double standard, despite the fact that their evaluations do not necessarily reflect the kinds of judgments they would have made outside of the group context. When in a group, social norms (and the rewards and punishments for acting consistently or inconsistently with those norms) are likely to be more salient than when alone. Through observational learning, people learn that publicly violating norms can lead to severe social sanctions. For example, males who do not openly acknowledge or discuss their sexual activity may be teased or given derogatory labels (e.g., “faggot”), and females whose sexual activities are made public may be labeled as “sluts.” Conversely, those who publicly act in a manner consistent with norms may be rewarded. For instance, men who have a reputation for their many sexual “conquests” may be admired or be given high status in their peer groups, whereas women who refrain from discussing their sexual activity may be seen as “good girls.” Thus, people may conform to group norms to gain rewards or avoid punishments, and, in turn, hold others to those same norms. The Sexual Double Standard 8 Consistent with this interpretation, gender differences in self-reported sexual behavior are greatest (i.e., men report high levels of sexual activity and women report low levels of sexual activity) when participants are made aware that their responses may be seen by a peer (Alexander & Fisher, 2003). This suggests that self-reports of sexual behavior reflect responses influenced by normative expectations for males and females. If people act in a manner consistent with a double standard in order to conform to a perceived norm, the attitudes expressed in a group context will not necessarily be internalized (i.e., privately accepted as being correct). It may also be the case, however, that the task of evaluating unfamiliar sexually active people is an inherently ambiguous task; one that leads people to look to other group members for relevant information. Because the way we evaluate people has important implications for our social lives (Gilbert, 1998), people want to be able to interpret ambiguous stimuli in the “right” way. In other words, person perception can be viewed as a judgmental task (McGrath, 1984), but one that people approach as an intellective one (Kaplan & Miller, 1987). While in a group, people may try to infer what others are thinking about the person being evaluated. People may then discuss possible attributes of the target consistent with what they perceive others are thinking, reinforcing other group members’ inferences. In such situations, shared consensus may provide grounds for genuine belief, leading people to internalize the consensus reached by the group (Jacobs & Campbell, 1961; Sherif, 1935). In summary, although individuals may not endorse a double standard, individuals in social groups may do so because they assume that others will use evaluative standards The Sexual Double Standard 9 in accordance with the double standard and, thus, may feel compelled to use those standards themselves. Overview of the Present Experiment Our primary objective in this research was to test the hypothesis that the sexual double standard is a function of group dynamics. In this study, we had participants both individually (i.e., by him or herself) and in groups evaluate a target that was either male or female and who reported a varying number of sexual partners. Targets were evaluated in each of four evaluative domains that, according to various theoretical perspectives, should be characterized by a sexual double standard (i.e., a domain in which sexually active men and women are evaluated differently). The first domain, values, concerns such qualities as honesty, morality, and trustworthiness. Girls and women have traditionally been severely restricted in their sexual opportunities in order to keep them “pure” and “innocent.” Boys and men, on the other hand, have usually been encouraged to engage in sex as for reasons unrelated to values (Mosher & Thompson, 1988). The second domain, dominance, concerns qualities such as assertiveness and leadership. According to social role theory (Eagly, 1987), women adopting an assertive or dominant role may be seen as violating role expectations, whereas men adopting an assertive or dominant role may be seen as acting appropriately. The third domain, success, concerns qualities such as status and monetary wealth. According to evolutionary theory, men with high status and plentiful resources are good mate choices due to their ability to provide resources for partners and offspring (see Buss, 1994). Thus, there may be evolved associations between male promiscuity and success. Promiscuous women, however, may be seen as engaging in sexual activity as to accrue resources from several men, perhaps signaling that they are The Sexual Double Standard 10 incapable of accruing their own resources. Finally, the domain of intelligence concerns qualities such as mental ability and decision making. While sexual activity can have negative outcomes for men and women (e.g., sexually transmitted diseases), the consequences for women may be more numerous than those for men (namely unwanted pregnancies and a damaged reputation). Thus, women engaging in sex with multiple partners may be seen as less intelligent than men engaging in identical behavior. In the present study, participants initially evaluated a target individually. Participants were then placed in groups of three and asked to complete evaluations of the same target collaboratively. Finally, to see if attitudes expressed in the group were internalized (i.e., accepted as correct), participants completed the evaluations again individually in a post-test condition. Based on previous research (e.g., Marks & Fraley, 2005; O’Sullivan, 1995), it was not expected that a sexual double standard would arise in the baseline condition (i.e., when the initial individual evaluations take place). However, based on the theoretical framework presented earlier, we predicted that a double standard would arise in the group portion of the experiment. Attitudes expressed in the group context, however, may or may not reflect people’s genuine beliefs. If people’s attitudes are truly being shaped by group processes, the attitudes expressed in the group should carry over to the post-group condition. If people are simply conforming to perceived group norms, however, then we should not expect them to endorse attitudes consistent with the sexual double standard in the post-group condition. It is important to note that social motives for change can result in attitude change in private as well as in public (see Wood, 2000, for a review). Therefore, we administered The Sexual Double Standard 11 several questions at the end of the experiment concerning the group interaction. These items were included to assess the general climate in the group interaction, including how influenced the participants felt and how pressured they felt to agree. Whereas publicly endorsing an evaluation that one does not privately agree with may be rather uncomfortable, publicly endorsing an evaluation one privately accepts should feel comparatively easy. Should attitudes expressed in the group carry over to the post group condition, these items should allow us to better gauge the kind of influence that took place during the group discussion.