Truth and Consequences: Using the Bogus Pipeline to Examine Sex Differences in Self-Reported Sexuality

Abstract

Men report more permissive sexual attitudes and behavior than do women. This experiment tested whether these differences might result from false accommodation to gender norms (distorted reporting consistent with gender stereotypes). Participants completed questionnaires under three conditions. Sex differences in self-reported sexual behavior were negligible in a bogus pipeline condition in which participants believed lying could be detected, moderate in an anonymous condition, and greatest in an exposure threat condition in which the experimenter could potentially view participants responses. This pattern was clearest for behaviors considered less acceptable for women than men (e.g., masturbation, exposure to hardcore & softcore erotica). Results suggest that some sex differences in self-reported sexual behavior reflect responses influenced by normative expectations for men and women.

Full text

Truth and Consequences: Using the Bogus Pipeline to Examine Sex Differences in Self-
Reported Sexuality
Author(s): Michele G. Alexander and Terri D. Fisher
Source:
The Journal of Sex Research,
Vol. 40, No. 1, Gender and Sexuality (Feb., 2003), pp. 27-
35
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813768
Accessed: 06/09/2010 22:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
Sex Research.
http://www.jstor.org

Research
on self-reported sexual
attitudes and
behavior
consistently
indicates that men
are more inclined
than
women to engage
in sexual behavior
outside of
committed
relationships
and are less discnminating
with
regard to
quality and
quantity of sexual
partners (Baumeister,
Catanese,
& Vohs, 2001;
Clark & Hatfield,
1989;
Hendrick,
Hendrick, Slapion-Foote,
& Foote,
1985;
Laumann, Gagnon,
Michael,
& Michaels, 1994;
Okami &
Shackelford,
2001; Oliver &
Hyde, 1993). Recent
reviews
confirm that
men, compared
with women,
are more
approving of
casual sex and
report more frequent
and
explicit sexual
fantasies (Hyde
& Oliver, 2000;
Jones &
Barlow, 1990;
Leitenberg &
Henning, 1995;
Okami &
Shackelford,
2001). Additionally,
men report an
earlier age
of first intercourse,
a greater
number of sexual
partners
(Smith, 1992),
and a higher incidence
of intercourse
and
masturbation
(Oliver & Hyde,
1993). Women,
on the other
hand, report
more sexual caution
than do men
(Hyde &
Oliver, 2000).
Furthermore, sex
stereotypes exist
such that
men are expected
to be more
sexually permissive
than are
women (Cohen
& Shotland,
1996; Masters,
Johnson, &
Kolodny, 1995;
Oliver & Hyde,
1993).
The research
reported in this article
was supported by
a Professional
Development Grant
awarded by The
Ohio State University
at Mansfield.
Authorship on this
article was equal and
the order of authorship
determined
alphabetically. The
authors gratefully acknowledge
Elaine Bednar,
Douglas
Benavides, Ken
Kmetz, David Myers,
Tim Napier, Cindy Truex,
and Mary
Wright-Ally for their
invaluable assistance
with data collection.
We would also
like to thank Charlene
Muehlenhard and
several anonymous reviewers
for their
helpful comments
on different versions
of this article. [Editor's
note: Janet
Shibley Hyde and
Sandra Metts reviewed
this paper anonymously
and subse-
quently agreed to
be identified in the author
note.]
Address correspondence
to Michele
G. Alexander,
Department of
Psychology, 366
Little Hall, University
of Maine, Orono, ME
04469-5742;
e-mail: michelea@maine.edu
or to Terri
D. Fisher, Department
of Psychology,
The Ohio State University
at Mansfield,
1680 University Drive,
Mansfield, OH
44906; e-mail: fisher.16@osu.edu.
Several of these
well-established
sex differences
in sex-
ual behavior are
somewhat bewildering.
Researchers
have
questioned the statistical
improbability
of men
having
more heterosexual
intercourse partners
than women,
as
these
numbers should
be equivalent
for the sexes (Brown
& Sinclair, 1999;
Pedersen, Miller,
Putcha-Bhagavatula,
&
Yang, 2002; Wiederman,
1997).
Similar paradoxes
exist
with regard to
men reporting more
frequent intercourse
than women. Because
a partner is required,
it is impossible
for men to engage
in heterosexual
intercourse more
often
than their female
counterparts. Furthermore,
males
typi-
cally report an
earlier age of first
intercourse than
do
females (Oliver
& Hyde, 1993).
Although it is plausible
that males have
their first sexual
experiences with
older
females, it seems
unlikely, given
that adolescent females
prefer older sexual
partners (Elo,
King, & Furstenberg,
1999; Kenrick, Gabrielidis,
Keefe,
& Cornelius, 1996).
In
light of these illogicalities,
it is reasonable
to speculate
that
some of the sex
differences in self-reports
of sexuality
are
not due to actual
sex differences in
behavior, but rather
to
differences in reporting
as a function
of differential
nor-
mative expectations
for men and
women.
GENDER
ROLES, NORMS,
AND SEXUALITY
Gender roles and
gender-typed
expectations may
have
direct implications
for men's and
women's sexual attitudes
and behavior. In
general, men are
expected to take
agentic
roles, being assertive,
independent,
and dominant,
and
women are expected
to serve communal
roles, being
rela-
tionship oriented,
selfless, and submissive
(Cejka &
Eagly,
1999; Glick, 1991).
Such expectations
encourage and
fos-
ter role-consistent
behavior by men
and women both
pri-
vately (Wood, Christensen,
Hebl,
& Rothgerber, 1997)
and
publicly (Eagly,
Wood, & Diekrnan,
2000). If women
are
expected to be
relationship oriented,
they may
also be
The Journal of Sex
Research Volume
40, Number 1, February
2003: pp. 27-35
27
liuth
and Consequences:
Using the
Bogus Pipeline
to Examine
Sex
Differences
in Self-Reported
Sexuality
Michele G. Alexander
Universib of
Maine
Terri D. Fisher
The
Ohio State University
at Mansfield
Men report
more permissive
sexual attitudes
and behavior than
do women. This
experiment tested
whether these
differ-
ences might
result from false
accommodation
to gender norms
(distorted reporting
consistent with
gender stereotypes).
Participants
completed questionnaires
under three
conditions. Sex
diffierences in
self-reported sexual
behavior were
negli-
gible in a bogus
pipeline condition
in which participants
believed
Iying could be
detected, moderate
in an anonymous
con-
dition, and greatest
in an exposure
threat condition
in which the
experimenter could
potentially view
participants' respons-
es. This pattern
was clearest for
behaviors considered
less acceptable
for women than
men (e.g., masturbation,
exposure
to
hardcore & softcore
erotica).
Results suggest that
some sex differences
in self-reported
sexual behavior
reflect responses
influenced by
normative expectations
for men and
women.

28
Sex
Differences
in
Self-Reported
Sexuality
expected
to
disapprove
of
and
avoid
sexual
behaviors
that
are
perceived
as
being
threatening
to
relationships
or
self-
serving,
such
as
casual
sex,
masturbation,
and
use
of
hard-
core
or
softcore
erotica.
In
contrast,
frequent
and
early
recreational
sex
as
well
as
autoerotic
sexual
behaviors
are
more
socially
approved
of
and
encouraged
for
men
than
for
women.
These
behaviors
are
considered
more
agentic
and
independent
than
sexual
behavior
associated
with
long-term
commitment,
and
men
can
enhance
their
domi-
nance
and
power
by
participating
in
a
greater
number
of
short-term
rather
than
close,
long-term
relationships
(Baumeister
&
Sommer,
1997;
Gabriel
&
Gardner,
1999).
Consistent
with
this
gender
role
perspective
of
sexuality,
the
only
large
sex
differences
reported
in
Oliver
and
Hyde's
(1993)
meta-analysis
of
various
sexual
domains
were
for
attitudes
toward
casual
sex
and
reported
inci-
dence
of
masturbation.
The
potential
effects
of
these
broad
gender
expectations
on
sexuality
are
currently
evident
in
the
sexual
scripts
that
regulate
men's
and
women's
sexual
behavior.
In
sexual
encounters,
men
are
expected
to
initiate
and
women
are
expected
to
react
and
comply
(Rose
&
Frieze,
1993;
Shotland
&
Hunter,
1995).
Some
researchers
have
sug-
gested
that
differences
in
sexual
desire
between
men
and
women
could
be
attributed
to
the
social
pressures
that
are
placed
on
women
to
stifle
their
sexuality,
as
dictated
by
sexual
scripts
(Leiblum,
2002).
Furthermore,
many
people
still
accept
some
version
of
the
sexual
double
standard,
in
which
men
are
afforded
more
sexual
freedom
than
women,
and
women
are
expected
to
be
more
reluctant
than
men
to
acknowledge
their
desire
for
sex
(Gentry,
1998).
Women
and
men
can
anticipate
different
consequences
when
devi-
ating
from
their
prescribed
behavior:
Men
are
likely
to
find
their
sexual
orientation
or
potency
questioned,
while
women
risk
being
labeled
"sluts"
or
"whores."
Indeed,
societal
judgments
of
sexually
permissive
women
contin-
ue
to
be
harsher
than
those
of
sexually
permissive
men
in
certain
circumstances
(Milhausen
&
Herold,
2001;
Sprecher,
McKinney,
&
Orbuch,
1987).
Given
the
connection
between
gender
roles
and
sexual-
ity,
sex
differences
based
on
self-reports
may
partly
reflect
false
accommodation
to
gender
role
norms,
that
is,
self-
presentation
strategies
used
by
men
and
women
to
appear
consistent
with
gender
role
expectations
and
to
avoid
the
negative
consequences
associated
with
deviating
from
these
expectations.
False
accommodation
might
result
in
answers
distorted
in
opposite
directions
for
men
and
women
such
that
men
may
be
motivated
to
report
approv-
ing
of
sexual
behavior
and
to
exaggerate
the
frequency
and
variability
of
their
sexual
encounters,
whereas
women
may
be
motivated
to
understate
theirs.
These
distorted
self-pre-
sentations
could
occur
intentionally
through
biased
report-
ing
or
unintentionally
through
selective
recall.
Recent
dis-
cussions
of
the
susceptible
nature
of
self-reports
of
sexual-
ity
to
social
desirability
responding
(Meston,
Heiman,
Trapnell,
&
Paulhus,
1998)
indicate
that
it
is
not
clear
how
closely
self-reports
of
sexuality
resemble
true
attitudes
and
behavior.
The
differences
reported
in
previous
sex
research
could
reflect
actual
sex
differences,
or
they
could
merely
be
a
result
of
self-presentation
strategies
on
the
parts
of
men
and
women.
To
the
extent
that
sex
differences
in
self-
reported
sexuality
result
from
false
accommodation
to
gender
role
norms,
research
contexts
that
encourage
gen-
der-typed
self-presentation
strategies,
such
as
an
exposure
threat
situation
in
which
anonymity
is
not
guaranteed,
may
yield
larger
self-reported
sex
differences
than
contexts
in
which
such
self-presentation
strategies
are
discouraged,
as
with
the
bogus
pipeline
method.
BOGUS
PIPELINE
METHODOLOGY
The
bogus
pipeline
procedure
may
be
useful
for
identify-
ing
or
controlling
false
accommodation
to
gender
role
norms
on
self-reports
of
sexual
attitudes
and
behavior.
With
this
procedure,
participants
are
attached
to
a
non-
functioning
polygraph
and
are
led
to
believe
that
dishonest
answers
given
during
an
interview
or
on
a
survey
can
be
detected
by
the
machine
(Jones
&
Sigall,
1971).
Their
responses
are
typically
compared
with
a
control
group
not
attached
to
the
device;
those
in
the
bogus
pipeline
condi-
tion
tend
to
report
higher
frequency
of
socially
sensitive
or
socially
undesirable
behaviors
(Tourangeau,
Smith,
&
Rasinski,
1997).
A
meta-analysis
of
31
studies
using
the
bogus
pipeline
method
across
several
opinion
domains
indicated
that
the
technique
is
an
effective
means
of
reduc-
ing
biased
responding
and
shifting
self-reports
toward
veracity
(Roese
&
Jamieson,
1993).
Apparently
the
proce-
dure
eliminates
positive
self-presentation
by
evoking
a
motivational
shift
from
self-enhancement
to
self-protec-
tion
(Roese
&
Jamieson,
1993).
If
a
self-enhancing
pre-
sentation
(e.g.,
conformity
to
gender
role
norms)
is
incon-
sistent
with
one's
true
attitudes
and
behavior
(e.g.,
deviance
from
gender
role
norms),
an
individual
who
gives
self-enhancing
responses
risks
being
detected
as
lying
or
as
lacking
self-awareness.
The
bogus
pipeline
method
motivates
individuals
to
eschew
self-enhancement
in
favor
of
honest
and
accurate
answers
to
avoid
embar-
rassment
(Sabini,
Siepmann,
&
Stein,
2001).
To
our
knowledge,
there
is
only
one
published
study
in
which
a
measure
of
self-reported
sexual
behavior
was
assessed
using
the
bogus
pipeline
procedure.
Tourangeau
et
al.
(1997)
examined
men's
and
women's
reports
of
sev-
eral
sensitive
behaviors,
including
number
of
sexual
part-
ners,
using
the
bogus
pipeline
technique.
Both
men
and
women
reported
more
sexual
partners
in
the
bogus
pipeline
than
in
the
control
condition.
This
finding
is
diffi-
cult
to
interpret,
however,
because
the
authors
adminis-
tered
the
questions
in
a
face-to-face
interview,
thus
com-
bining
a
condition
likely
to
discourage
false
accommoda-
tion
(the
bogus
pipeline
condition)
with
a
condition
likely
to
encourage
false
accommodation
(a
nonanonymous
interview).
The
full
impact
of
the
pipeline
condition
on
participants'
responses
in
this
experiment
may
have
been
obscured
by
the
threat
of
exposing
their
true
responses
to
the
interviewer,
thus
limiting
the
study's
usefulness
for

Alexander
and
Fisher
29
drawing
clear
conclusions
regarding
sex
differences
in
reports
of sexual
behavior.
THE
PRESENT
RESEARCH
We
designed
a laboratory
experiment
to assess
the
effects
of false
accommodation
on
sex differences
in self-report-
ed sexual
behaviors
and attitudes.
To
manipulate
the
like-
lihood
of false
accommodation,
we
had male
and female
college
students
complete
a
sexual
attitudes
and behavior
questionnaire
under
three testing
conditions.
In the
expo-
sure
threat
condition,
participants
were
led to
believe
that
their
responses
might
be seen
by a
peer (i.e.,
a research
assistant).
We expected
participants
in this condition
to be
influenced
by gender
role
norms,
rendering
sex
differ-
ences.
In the
anonymous
condition,
in which
participants
were
given
strong assurances
of anonymity,
we expected
the
lack of
identifiability
to
reduce
the magnitude
of sex
differences
by relaxing
the
pressure
to adhere
to
gender
role
norms.
Finally,
in the
bogus
pipeline
condition,
we
expected
that
participants
would use
an honesty
self-pre-
sentation
strategy,
thus
reducing
false
accommodation
to
gender
role
norms resulting
in few
if any sex
differences.
Altogether,
we expected
the
magnitudes
of sex
differences
in reports
of
erotophilia
and
erotophobia
(i.e.,
positive
and
negative
emotional
orientation
toward
sexuality),
sexual
attitudes,
and
sexual
experience
to
vary as
a function
of
testing
condition.
We expected
this
pattern
of responses
especially
on
specific
sexual
behaviors
for
which
gender
role
expectations
diverge
for
men and
women
(e.g.,
num-
ber
of sexual
partners,
age
at first intercourse,
masturba-
tion,
exposure
to hardcore
& softcore
erotica).
A differential
impact
of
testing
context
on men's
and
women's
reported
sexuality,
evidenced
by
an interaction
between
participant
sex and
testing
condition,
would
sug-
gest
that normative
expectations
for
men and
women
play
a role
in reporting
sexual
activity.
Such
results
would
pro-
vide
support
for the
idea that
sex differences
in reports
of
sexual
behavior
and
attitudes
are at
least in
part due
to dif-
ferences
in
social expectations.
METHOD
Participants
An
initial sample
of
248 male
and
female undergraduates
at a
regional
campus
of a
Midwestern
university
partici-
pated
as partial
fulfillment
of a research
requirement
in
their
Introductory
Psychology
course.
To keep
the sample
somewhat
homogenous,
we
used only
data
from unmar-
ried,
heterosexual,
18- to 25-year-old
participants.
The 47
participants
who did
not fit
this description
were dropped,
leaving
a final
sample
of 201
participants
(96
men and
105
women),
189
of
whom were
White,
7 of
whom
were
African
American,
and 5 of
whom
were of
other
ethnic
backgrounds.
Measures
bogus
pipeline
procedure
for
reducing
social
desirability
responding,
we included
a brief
(19-item)
version
of the
Marlowe-Crowne
Social
Desirability
Scale
(Strahan
&
Gerbasi,
1972)
at the
end of
the survey
packet.
Questions
on this
scale
are answered
in
a true-false
format,
and
possi-
ble scores
range
from
0 to 19,
with higher
scores
indicating
a tendency
to
deny having
basic
human
foibles
(oc = .64
in
the present
study).
We
also gave
50
participants
who
were attached
to
the
polygraph
(see
procedures
below)
three
items
asking
how
accurate
they
thought
the machine
was
in measuring
their
true
attitudes
and
behavior,
how
much influence
they
thought
the
machine
had on
their
responses,
and
how
much
pressure
they
felt from
the lie
detector
to answer
questions
honestly.
They responded
using a
5-point
Likert
scale
(1 = not
at all to
5 = a
great deal).
Sexual
attitudes.
The 21-item
Sexual
Opinion
Survey
(Fisher,
Byrne,
& White,
1983)
was
used to
measure
ero-
tophobia-erotophilia.
Sample
items
include
"I think
it
would
be very
entertaining
to
look
at hardcore
pornogra-
phy"
and "If
people
thought
I was interested
in oral
sex, I
would
be embarrassed."
Participants
responded
using
a 7-
point
Likert
scale (1
= strongly
agree,
7 =
strongly
dis-
agree).
Possible
scores
range
from
0 to 126,
with
lower
scores
indicating
negative
emotional
responses
to sexual
matters
(erotophobia)
and higher
scores
indicating
positive
emotional
resoponses
to sexual
matters
(erotophilia).
In
the current
study,
the
Cronbach
alpha
reliability
coefficient
for this
scale
was .79.
We measured
sexual
attitudes
with
the Attitudes
Toward
Sexuality
Scale
(Fisher
& Hall,
1988).
This 13-item
instru-
ment
assesses
general
sexual
attitudes
on a
5-point
Likert
scale
(1 = strongly
disagree
to
5 = strongly
agree).
Sample
items
include
"Petting
(a stimulating
caress
of any
or all
parts
of the
body) is
immoral
behavior
unless
the couple
is
married"
and
"A person's
sexual
behavior
is
his/her
own
business
and
nobody
should
make value
judgments
about
it."
Potential
scores
on this instrument
range
from 13
to 65,
with
lower
scores indicating
greater
sexual
conservatism
and
higher scores
reflecting
more permissiveness
(ot
= .81
for this
sample).
Sexual
experience
and behavior.
Sexual
behavior
was
measured
using
the
Cowart
Pollack
scale of
sexual experi-
ence
(Cowart-Steckler
& Pollack,
1988),
which
is a pair
of
Guttman
scales
that
assesses
the breadth
of men's
and
women's
sexual
experience.
Using a
yes-no
response
for-
mat,
respondents
indicate
in
which
of 30 sexual
activities
they
have engaged
(e.g.,
oral
stimulation
of
partner's
gen-
itals).
Scores
range
from 0 to
30, with
higher
scores
indi-
cating
a broader
range
of sexual
experience
(oc = .95
for
the
present
study).
Because
we were
especially
interested
in examining
responses
to three
items
highly
relevant
to
gender
role
norms
(masturbation,
exposure
to softcore
erotica,
and
exposure
to hardcore
erotica),
we created
a
subscale
using
these
three items
(oc
= .73).
We also
asked participants
to indicate
the
age at
which
they
had first
engaged
in
consensual
sexual
intercourse
Manipulation
checks.
To assess
the
effectiveness
of the

30
Sex Differences in Self-Reported Sexuality
and the number of partners with whom they had engaged
in sexual intercourse (referred to hereafter as sexual part-
ners). One participant reported having engaged in consen-
sual sexual intercourse at age 10. To enhance homogeneity
of the variance, we excluded this participant from analyses
involving this variable.
Procedure
Overview. All participants signed up for a study on sexual
attitudes and behavior. Upon arriving at the laboratory,
participants were greeted by the experimenter, a student
research assistant, who took them to a small, private test-
ing room where they were tested individually. We exam-
ined participants' self-reported sexual attitudes and behav-
ior in three testing conditions. Two testing conditions
entailed connecting participants to a bogus pipeline appa-
ratus at some point, either while completing the sex ques-
tionnaire (bogus pipeline condition) or while completing a
filler task (anonymous condition). Participants in the
bogus pipeline condition were attached to the pipeline
apparatus while completing the sex questionnaires and
were unattached during the filler task. Participants in the
anonymous condition were attached to the apparatus dur-
ing the filler task and unattached while completing the sex
questionnaires. We attached participants to the bogus
pipeline apparatus in both testing conditions to ensure that
they were treated similarly in the two testing conditions,
controlling for potential confounds produced by the inva-
sive procedure of the bogus pipeline (i.e., contact or phys-
ical proximity with experimenter; see Ostrom, 1973). The
third condition (exposure threat) did not involve the bogus
pipeline or the filler task.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three
testing conditions. For the bogus pipeline and anonymous
conditions, participant sex, experimenter sex, and task
order were counterbalanced using all possible combina-
tions of these variables. For the exposure threat condition,
participant sex and experimenter sex were counterbal-
anced. Upon finishing the experiment, participants who
had been attached to the polygraph completed the manip-
ulation check and were debriefed and questioned for sus-
picion. No participants reported being suspicious of the
bogus recording device.
Bogus pipeline condition. The experimenter informed
participants in this condition that they would be completing
a questionnaire about their sexual attitudes and behaviors
and would view and rate a brief videotape. They were told
that during a portion of the experiment they would be con-
nected to a physiological monitor similar to a polygraph or
"lie detector" to maximize honesty in responding. The
polygraph was a Lafayette Instruments Minigraph chart
recorder reconstructed to resemble a polygraph machine. It
consisted of an electrode input box attached by a 6-foot
cable to a power supply cabinet equipped with a chart
recorder and four ink recording pins. Four inert lead wires
and disposable silver/silver-chloride electrodes were used
to ostensibly assess participants' physiological signals.
As the experimenter placed electrodes on participants'
hands, forearms, and neck, he or she told participants that
the polygraph could assess truthfulness by measuring vital
signs such as heart rate and galvanic skin response. To "cal-
ibrate the machine to ensure that it worked correctly," and to
enhance the believability of the bogus pipeline, the experi-
menter asked participants to respond "yes" to two questions,
one of which evoked a false response ("Is your name Bart
Simpson?"), and one of which evoked a true response ("Is
your name [participant's actual name?]"). As participants
responded to these questions, the paper rollers and pens on
the polygraph were activated. The experimenter showed
everyone the same bogus printout, which clearly differenti-
ated the false response from the truthful response.
Reminding them that the machine was sensitive enough to
detect dishonesty even in written responses, the experi-
menter urged participants to respond accurately, handed
them the sex questionnaire, and exited the room, closing the
door to provide privacy. When finished, participants placed
their completed surveys in a locked box in the room.
Anonymous condition. Participants in the anonymous
condition were attached to the polygraph during the filler
task (viewing a videotape depicting a student asking a pro-
fessor about a class assignment and then rating the degree
of sexual interest each had displayed), but not while com-
pleting the sexuality questionnaires. They were told that
their answers would be completely anonymous and they
were left alone in the small room with the door fully
closed. They placed their completed surveys in a locked
box before exiting the room.
Exposure threat condition. In this condition, we did not
use the polygraph. Participants were led to believe that the
experimenter, a college student peer, might view their
responses because they were instructed to directly hand the
completed questionnaire to the experimenter when fin-
ished. They completed the questionnaires in the small
room with the door open and the experimenter sitting just
outside in full view as a reminder of the impending possi-
bility of exposure. In actuality, when participants attempt-
ed to give their completed survey to the experimenter, they
were instead told to place the questionnaire in the locked
box in the testing room.
RESULTS
Manipulation Checks
Responses on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
scale for all three conditions were compared with a 2
(Participant Sex) X 3 (Testing Condition) analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA), which indicated a significant main effect
for testing condition among the three groups, F(2, 197) =
14.1, p < .001, 1]2 = .127.1 A Fisher's LSD post-hoc test
i According to Cohen (1988), an 2 Of .01 indicates a small eSect corre-
sponding to .2 of a standard deviation, an 2 Of .059 indicates a moderate eSect
corresponding to .5 of a standard deviation, and an 2 Of .138 reflects a large
effect corresponding to .8 of a standard deviation.

Table
1.
Means
and
Standard
Deviations
for
Sexual
Attitudes
and
Behaviors
by
Participant
Sex
and
Testing
Condition
Testing
condition
Instrument
Participant
sex
Pipeline
Anonymous
Exposure
threat
Sexual
Opinion
Surveya
Male
74.7
(
17.8)
73.0
(22.8)
68.7
(21.8)
Female
66.6
(27.2)
64.1
(25.5)
54.0
(19.6)
AttitudesTowardSexualityb
Male
43.7(8.5)
43.9(8.6)
40.1
(10.0)
Female
42.3
(9.3)
43.6
(11.4)
41.9
(8.6)
Sexual
ExperienceC
Male
21.3
(9
5)
22.0
(6.3)
19.0
(9
2)
Female
20.6
(7.1)
19.0
(8.8)
18.5
(7.9)
Alexander
and
Fisher
31
indicated
that,
as
predicted,
social
desirability
scores
were
lowest
in
the
bogus
pipeline
condition
(M
=
5.6,
SD
=
2.9),
intermediate
in
the
anonymous
condition
(M
=
7.0
SD =
2.9),
and
highest
in
the
exposure
threat
condition
(M
=
8.3,
SD
=
3.0).
On
average,
the
50
participants
who
responded
to
ques-
tions
about
the
bogus
pipeline
rated it
as
fairly
accurate
in
measuring
true
attitudes
and
feelings
(M
=
3.7,
SD
=
0.9)
and
as
somewhat
likely
to
influence
their
responses
(M =
2.4,
SD =
1.4)
and
to
pressure
them
to
be
honest
(M=
2.6,
SD
=
1.4). A
multivariate
analysis
of
variance
(MANOVA)
done
with
these
three
items
revealed
no
significant
effects
for
condition
or
participant
sex
and
no
significant
interac-
tions,
Fs
<
l.
Taken
together,
these
manipulation
checks
indicate
that
the
bogus
pipeline
encouraged
honest
responding
by
participants.
SexualAttitudes
and
Behaviors
To
ensure
that
the
counterbalancing
procedure
controlled
for
potential
effects
of
experimenter
sex
and
task
order,
we
first
analyzed
participants'
responses
using
a
series
of
2
(Participant
Sex)
X
3
(Testing
Condition)
X
2
(Experimenter
Sex)
X
2
(Order
of
Survey/Video
Presentation)
between-subjects
ANOVAs.
Experimenter
sex
and
task
order
did
not
affect
responses;
thus
further
dis-
cussion
of
the
results
are
restricted
to 2
(Participant
Sex)
X
3
(Testing
Condition)
ANOVAs.
The
response
means
for
sexual
attitudes
and
experiences
are
presented
in
Table
l.
Sexual
attitudes.
For
the
Sexual
Opinion
Survey,
the
ANOVA
yielded
a
significant
main
effect
for
participant
sex
with a
moderate
effect
size,
F(1,
194)
-
10.69,p =
.001
2 =
.052,
with
men
(M=
71.7,
SD =
21.1)
reporting
greater
erotophilia
than
women
(M
=
60.0,
SD
=
23.8).
There
was
also
a
main
effect
for
testing
condition,
F(2,
194)
=
3.37,
p
=
.036,
qS
=
.034,
with
participants
in
the
bogus
pipeline
condition
(M
=
71.2,
SD
=
22.6)
reporting
more
erotophilic
attitudes
than
participants
in
the
exposure
threat
condition
(M=
60.9,
SD
=
21.8).
No
significant
interaction
between
participant
sex
and
testing
condition
emerged
(F <
1).
The
2
X
3
ANOVA
for
scores
on
theAttitudes
Toward
Sexuality
Scale
revealed
no
significan
effects
(Fs
<
2).
Sexual
experience
and
behavaor.
The
2 X
3
ANOVA
on
the
overall
score
of
the
sexual
experiences
scale
yielded
no
significant
effects
Fs
<
2.
Results
on
the
composite
score
of
gender-role-relevant
sexual
behaviors
(i.e.,
mas-
turbation,
exposure
to
hardcore
and
softcore
erotica3
yielded a
significant
interaction
between
participant
sex
and
testing
condition,
F(2,
192)
=
3.2, p
=
.04,
2 =
.032.
Planned
comparisons
revealed
that
although
there
were
significant
sex
differences
(with
men
scoring
higher)
in
all
three
conditions,
the
differences
were
much
larger
in
the
exposure
threat
condition,
F(1
86) =
49.33,
p <
.001,
2
=
.365,
than
in
the
anonymous
condition,
F(1,58)
=
13.46,
p
-
.001,
2 =
.188,
or
the
pipeline
condition,
F(l
49)
=
4.96,
p
=
.03
2
=
.094.
An
analysis
of
simple
effects
further
indicated
no
significant
differences
among
the
men
as a
function
of
testing
condition,
Fs
< 2.
Among
the
women,
howeverS
those
in
the
pipeline
condition,
F( 1
68)
=
21
.16,
p
<
.01,
and in
the
anonymous
condition,
Ff 1,
78)
-
8.23,
p
<
.01,
reported
engaging
in
significantly
more
of
these
behaviors
than
did
those
in
the
exposure
threat
condition
(see
Figure
1).
Number
of
sexual
partners.
The
two-way
ANOVA
on
self-reports
of
the
number
of
sexual
partners
yielded
no
significant
effects,
F
<
1,
but
the
data
did
strongly
favor
the
predicted
pattern
(see
Figure
2).
That
is,
men
reported
more
sexual
partners
than
did
women
in
the
exposure
threat
condition
(3.7
vs.
2.6,
2
=
.03),
where
gender
expectations
are
most
salient.
The
magnitude
of
the
sex
difference
decreased
in
the
anonymity
condition
(4.2
vs.
3.4,
2
=
.0l),
and
the
direction
of
the
difference
actually
reversed
in
the
bogus
pipeline
condition,
with
men
report-
ing
fewer
partners
than
women
(4.0
vs.
4.4
2
=
.00l).
Age
offirst
intercourse.
A
two-way
ANOVA
on
partici-
pants'
reports
of
the
age
of
their
first
intercourse
indicated
no
main
effects
of
sex
of
participant
or
testing
condition,
Fs
<
1,
but
did
yield a
signif1cant
interaction,
F(2
142) =
4.72,
p
=
.0l,
2
=.062
(see
Figure
3).
Planned
comparisons
revealed
no
sex
difference
between
reported
age
of
first
intercourse
in
the
pipeline
condition,
F(1
35)
=
0.08, p
=
.77.
In
the
anonymous
condition
however,
women
reported
a
significantly
earlier
age
of
first
intercourse
than
did
men
Note.
The
ns
forthe
bogus
pipeline,
anonymous,
and
exposure
threat
conditions,
respectively,
were
29,
28,
and
42
for
men
and
22
33,
and
47
for
women.
aSexual
Opinion
Survey
scores
can
range
from
0 to
126;
higher
scores
reflect
more
positive
emotional
reactions to
sexuality.
bAttitudes
Toward
Sexuality
Scale
scores
can
range
from
13 to
65;
higher
scores
reflect
more
permissive
sexual
attitudes.
CSexual
Experience
Scale
scores
can
range
from
0
to
30;
higher
scores
reflect a
broader
range
of
sexual
experience.

Figure 1.
Mean composite score
for autonomous
sexual
behaviors as a
function of participant
sex and
testing condition.
54 +2.32
_
_2
t
I
I
Pipeline
Anonymous Exposure
Threat
F(1, 43) =
6.02, p = .018,
indicating a reversed
pattern of
typical
self-report research. In
the exposure
threat condi-
tion, men
reported an earlier
age of first
intercourse than
did women
although the
difference did not quite
reach sig-
nificance,
F(1, 64) = 3.17, p
= .08. The effect
of testing
condition
was significant for
the women, F(2, 75)
= 3.92, p
= .024, 2 =
.095, but not for
ffie men, F < 2.
DISCUSSION
Though not
as clear as we
had expected, the
pattern of
results
generally supported the
idea that men
and women
use
gender-specific
self-presentation strategies
when report-
ing their
sexual behaviors. Sex
diSerences were
greatest in
the
exposure ffireat condition,
which
encouraged gender
role
accommodation, and
were smallest in
the bogus
pipeline
condition, which
discouraged
stereotypical
responses
and encouraged
honest responding
instead. These
findings
suggest that some
sex differences
found by sex
researchers
may reflect filse
accommodation to
gender role
norms when
reporting
sexuality, particularly on
the part of
women.
This pattern was more
apparent for
self-reports of
Figure 2.
Mean number of
sexual partners as a
function of
participant sex and
testing condition.
sexual behaviors than
of attitudes toward
sexuality.
The results were
clearest for
autonomous sexual behav-
iors
(i.e.,
masturbation, exposure to
hardcore & softcore
erotica), which are
considered more
appropriate for males
than females. Typical
sex differences,
with more men than
women reporting
having engaged in
these behaviors, were
found in the exposure
threat condition.
These sex differ-
ences were smaller in
the anonymous
condition and even
more diminished in
the bogus
pipeline condition.
Participants reports
of the age of
their first consensual
intercourse also
significantly differed
by sex and testing
condition, with
almost no sex
differences evident in the
bogus pipeline
condition and a typical
sex difference with
men reporting a
6-month younger age
than women in the
exposure threat
condition (although not
quite significant).
Surprisingly, women
reported an earlier
age than men in
the
anonymous
condition.
Sex difiSerences in
self-reports of the
number of sexual
partners also showed
the predicted
trend, although it was
not
significant. The
sex difference
was greatest in the
exposure threat
condition, which
encouraged gender role
accommodation, and
decreased in the
anonymous condi-
tion. In the bogus
pipeline condition,
which encouraged
honesty rather than
social desirability,
women actually
reported more sexual
partners than did
men. This pattern
should be interpreted
cautiously because
the overall inter-
action between
participant sex and
testing condition was
not
significant.
Nonetheless the trend
is intriguing and
may
help explain why
heterosexual
males report a greater
number of sexual
partners than do
heterosexual females
(Wiederman, 1997).
Women's reports of
sexual
experiences fluctuated more
than
did men's as a
function of testing
condition. This is not
altogether surprising,
given the different
expectations for
the
sexes regarding
sexual behavior, with
more constraints
placed on women
(Schwartz &
Rutter, 1998). Gender
expectations
consistent with the sexual
double standard
may
be responsible
for heightening
women's sensitivity to
Figure 3. Mean age of
fiIrst consensual
sexual intercourse
as a function
of participant sex
and testing
* l
conc 1 ;lon.
- w -
>. 0
3 . 7
_
-
- y
Pipeline
Anonymous Exposure
Threat
1W
l
I
/
I
ss
Testing
Condition
32
Sex Differences in
Self"Reported Sexuality
54
o
u
cn
tn
o
o
v
a
3.0
2.0
l.0
0.O
Testing
Condition
5
4.4
cr)
o
z
u)
4
3
x
2
1 7
1 1 * J
17
1 6 . 5 _
16
15.5
_ 1 7 rl
l j u
16.t/-5j
wi16.8
w
+Males
/
-* 16.2 __
Females
-{1 5 . 8
Q
o
Pipeline
Anonyrnous
Exposure
Threat
Testing Cc:
ndition
_ Males
Females
+
Males O
t:n
Females <
:

Alexander
and
Fisher
33
the
degree of
pnvacy
or pressure
to respond
honestly
more
so than
men's,
especially
in
the exposure
threat
condition.
Men
have a
history
of enjoying
and
expressing
sexual
free-
dom,
autonomy7
and
liberation,
and therefore
may be
more
comfortable
than women
expressing
their sexuality
on
self-
report
measures.
Because
men
do not
face the
same
nega-
tive
consequences
for expressing
their sexuality
as do
women,
they
may not
experience
the
need to
inhibit
these
responses
to
the same
degree.
The
lack
of significant
effects
of
testing
condition
on
sex
differences
in erotophilia
and sexual
attitudes
is
inter-
esting
and requires
further
explanation,
in light
of some
of
the
significant
findings
related
to behavior.
One plausible
explanation
is that reports
of
sexual
attitudes
and opinions
are
not as influenced
by normative
expectations
for
men
and
women
as are reports
of
sexual
behaviors.
This
would
account
for
fluctuations
found
in
self-reported
behavior
but
not attitudes
across
testing
conditions.
A second
pos-
sible
explanation
is
that individuals,
particularly
women,
experience
more constraints
placed
on their
sexual
behav-
iors
than on
their
sexual attitudes,
which
may pressure
them
to falsely
accommodate
to behavioral
norms
more
so than
to
attitudinal
norms
for sexuality.
Thus,
sexual
behaviors
may be
more susceptible
to social
desirability
responding
and self-presentation
strategies
than are
sexu-
al attitudes.
If this is
the case,
findings
on sex
differences
in self-reported
sexual
attitudes
may
indicate
real
differ-
ences
between
the
sexes
whereas
the typical
patterns
found
in self-reported
sexual
behavior
may
not accurately
reflect
true
sex differences.
[t
is well
known that
response
bias
can weaken
the
cred-
ibility
and validity
of
findings
obtained
with
the traditional
survey
approach
(Catania,
Gibson,
Marin,
Coates,
&
Greenblatt7
1990).
As the present
study
suggests,
self-pre-
sentation
strategies
relevant
to gender
role
norms
also
affect
self-reports
of sexual
behavior.
Much
of the
data
reported
on
sexuality
are collected
in
settings
more similar
to
our exposure
threat
condition
than
either
the
bogus
pipeline
or
the anonymous
conditions.
Thus, in
sex
research
based
on
self-reports,
sex
differences
may
be
exaggerated
due to
false accommodation
to
gender
role
norms.
These
differences
may
reflect
respondents'
ideas
of
what
they are
expected
to
report rather
than
their
actual
expenence.
Although
it is
not practical
to
use the
bogus
pipeline
technique
in
all sex
research,
our results
illustrate
the
need for
researchers
to do
everything
possible
to
mini-
mize
the likelihood
that participants'
responses
are tainted
by social
expectations.
Future
researchers
interested
in using
the
bogus pipeline
method
should
be
aware of
a potential
weakness
in our
procedure
stemming
from
an attempt
to control
for
con-
founds
between
the
bogus
pipeline
and the
anonymous
conditions.
Although
participants
in
our anonymous
con-
dition
were
not attached
to
the bogus
pipeline
while
com-
pleting
the
sex survey?
they
had been
made
aware
of the
experimenter's
desire
to obtain
honest
responses
by
being
attached
to
the pipeline
while
completing
the
video
filler
task
(although
half of
the time
this occurred
after the
sex
survey
had been
completed).
The anonymous
condition
we
designed
was
therefore
unlike
that
used
by most
sex
researchers.
Lately
there
has been
heated
debate
regarding
the
ori-
gins
of sex
differences
in sexual
behavior
and attitudes
(see
Eagly &
Wood,
1999; Pratto
&
Hegarty,
2000;
Wood
& EaglyX
2002),
with
two distinct
explanations
prevalent
in
the
psychological
literature.
Evolutionary
psychologists
attribute
sex
differences
to the
evolved
dispositions
of
men
and
women,
with differential
patterns
of sexual
behavior
developing
over
time
due to
their likelihood
of maximiz-
ing reproductive
success
(Buss,
1998;
Buss
& Schmidt,
1993;
Symons,
1979).
In contrast,
social
role theorists
(Eagly,
1987)
suggest
that sex
differences
in
social behav-
ior
mirror gender
roles
and
stereotypes,
which
originate
from
the differential
distribution
of
men and
women
into
social
roles in
domestic
and
paid labor.
Thus,
evolutionary
theorists
favor
distal
explanations
whereas
social
role
the-
orists
favor
proximal
explanations.
Although
our
study
does
not directly
address
the
origins
of sex
differences
in
sexuality,
it
does suggest
that
reports
of sex
differences
based
on self-reports
may reflect
conformity
to normative
expectations
for men
and women
rather
than
actual differ-
ences
in behavior.
When
the
impact
of normative
expecta-
tions
for men
and
women
was muted
by pressure
to be
honest
in the
bogus
pipeline
condition,
sex
differences
were
minimized.
When
existing
gender
norms
seemed
most
appropriate
to
use, as
in the exposure
threat condi-
tion,
men's
and women's
reports
corresponded
to gender
role
norms for
sexuality
more
closely,
with
men reporting
more
sexual
experiences
than
women.
Participants
seemed
to alter
their
self-presentations
to meet
the demands
of the
testing
condition,
which
lends
support
to the
social
role
perspective
that sex
differences
in
sexuality
stem
from
gender-differentiated
norrnative
pressures
that
designate
men
as more
sexual
than women.
In
closing,
one reason
that
the results
are not
as strong
as
we had
hoped
is that
the very
sex differences
that
we sought
to explain
were
not particularly
robust.
Main
effects of
par-
ticipant
sex
were evident
only
on the
3-item
composite
measure
of sexual
experience
and the
erotophilia-erotopho-
bia
measure.
No sex
differences,
for
example,
were
found
on the
Attitudes
Toward
Sexuality
Scale,
a measure
that
has
consistently
yielded
sex differences
in the past
(Fisher
&
Hall,
1988).
This overall
lack
of sex
difference
findings
may
indicate
a broader
shift in
gender
role norms
which
has
implications
for men's
and women's
attitudes
and behavior.
Several
recent
sexuality
surveys
have
found
no sex
differ-
ences
in self-reported
sexual
behavior
(Browning,
Kessler,
Hatfield,
&
Choo, 1999),
incidence
of casual
sexual
inter-
actions
(Maticka-Tyndale,
Herold,
& Mewhinney,
1998;
Paul,
McManus,
&
Hayes,
2000), number
of
sexual
part-
ners
in the past
year
(Brown
& Sinclair,
1999),
or desired
number
of lifetime
sexual
partners
(Pedersen
et al.,
2002).
The
lack of
sex differences
in these
studies
and in
our
analysis
may
reflect
currently
shifting
gender
roles
and

34
Sex
Differences
in
Self-Reported
Sexuality
Glick,
P.
(1991).
Trait-based
and
sex-based
discrimination
in
occupational
their
subsequent
impact
on
normative
expectations
and
expressions
of
sexual
behavior.
This
trend
is
somewhat
analogous
to
Eagly
&
Wood's
(1999)
finding
that
sex
dif-
ferences
in
mate-selection
preferences
are
minimized
in
societies
with
high
levels
of
gender
equality.
As
a
given
society
advances
toward
gender
equality,
differences
in
gender
role
expectations
may
diminish,
rendering
sex
dif-
ferences
in
self-reports
of
sexuality
obsolete.
REFERENCES
Baumeister,
R.
F.,
Catanese,
K.
R.,
&
Vohs,
K.
D.
(2001).
Is
there
a
gender
difference
in
strength
of
sex
drive?
Theoretical
views,
conceptual
dis-
tinctions,
and
a
review
of
relevant
evidence.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
Review,
5,
242-273.
Baumeister,
R.
F.,
&
Sommer,
K.
L.
(1997).
What
do
men
want?
Gender
dif-
ferences
and
the
two
spheres
of
belongingness:
Comment
on
Cross
and
Madson.
Psychological
Bulletin,
122,
3844.
Brown,
N.
R.,
&
Sinclair,
R.
C.
(1999).
Estimating
lifetime
sexual
partners:
Men
and
women
do
it
differently.
The
Journal
of
Sex
Research,
36,
292-297.
Browning,
J.
R.,
Kessler,
D.,
Hatfield,
E.,
&
Choo,
P.
(1999).
Power,
gen-
der,
and
sexual
behavior.
The
Journal
of
Sex
Research,
36,
342-347.
Buss,
D.
M.
(1998).
Sexual
strategies
theory:
Historical
origins
and
current
status.
The
Journal
of
Sex
Research,
35,
19-31.
Buss,
D.
M.,
&
Schmidt,
D.
P.
(1993).
Sexual
strategies
theory:
An
evolu-
tionary
perspective
on
human
mating.
Psychological
Review,
100,
204-232.
Catania,
J.,
Gibson,
D.
R.,
Marin,
B.,
Coates,
T.
J.,
&
Greenblatt,
R.
M.
(1990).
Response
bias
in
assessing
sexual
behaviors
relevant
to
HIV
transmission.
Evaluation
and
Program
Planning,
13,
19-29.
Cejka,
M.
A.,
&
Eagly,
A.
H.
(1999).
Gender-stereotypic
images
of
occupa-
tions
correspond
to
sex
segregation
of
employment.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
Bulletin,
25,
413423.
Clark,
R.,
&
Hatfield,
E.
(1989).
Gender
differences
in
receptivity
to
sexu-
al
offers.
Journal
of
Psychology
and
Human
Sexuality,
2,
39-55.
Cohen,
J.
(1988).
Statistical
power
analysis
for
the
behavioral
sciences
(2nd
ed.).
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cohen,
L.
L.,
&
Shotland,
R.
(1996).
Timing
of
first
sexual
intercourse
in
a
relationship:
Expectations,
experiences,
and
perceptions
of
others.
The
Jouznal
of
Sex
Research,
33,
291-299.
Cowart-Steckler,
D.,
&
Pollack,
R.
H.
(1988).
The
Cowart-Pollack
Scale
of
Sexual
Experience.
In
C.
M.
Davis,
W.
L.
Yarber,
&
S.
L.
Davis
(Eds.),
Sexuality
related
measures:
a
compendium
(pp.
9192).
Lake
Mills,
IA:
Graphic
Publishing.
Eagly,
A.
H.
(1987).
Sex
differences
in
social
behavior:
A
social
role
inter-
pretation.
Hillside,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Eagly,
A.
H.,
&
Wood,
W.
(1999).
The
origins
of
sex
differences
in
human
behavior:
Evolved
dispositions
versus
social
roles.
American
Psychologist,
54,
408-423.
Eagly,
A.
H.,
Wood,
W.,
&
Diekman,
A.
(2000).
Social
role
theory
of
sex
differences
and
similarities:
A
current
appraisal.
In
T.
Eckes
&
H.
M.
Trautner
(Eds.),
The
developmental
social
psychology
of
gender
(pp.
123-174).
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Elo,
I.
T.,
King,
R.
B.,
&
Furstenberg,
F.
F.
(1999).
Adolescent
females:
Their
sexual
partners
and
the
fathers
of
their
children.
Journal
of
Marriage
&
Family,
61,74-84.
Fisher,
T.
D.,
&
Hall,
R.
G.
(1988).
A
scale
for
the
comparison
of
sexual
atti-
tudes
of
adolescents
and
their
parents.
The
Journal
of
Sex
Research,
24,
9s100.
Fisher,
W.
A.,
Byrne,
D.,
&
White,
L.
A.
(1983).
Emotional
barriers
to
con-
traception.
In
D.
Byrne
&
W.
A.
Fisher
(Eds.),
Adolescents,
sex,
and
con-
traception
(pp.
207-239).
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gabriel,
A.,
&
Gardner,
W.
L.
(1999).
Are
there
"his"
and
"hers"
types
of
interdependence?
The
implications
of
gender
differences
in
collective
versus
relational
interdependence
for
affect,
behavior
and
cognition.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
77,
642-655.
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.
prestige,
occupational
salary,
and
hiring.
Sex
Roles,
25,
351-378.
Hendrick,
S.,
Hendrick,
C.,
Slapion-Foote,
M.
J.,
&
Foote,
F.
H.
(1985).
Gender
differences
in
sexual
attitudes.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
48,
1630-1642.
Hyde,
J.
S.,
&
Oliver,
M.
B.
(2000).
Gender
difference
in
sexuality:
Results
from
a
meta-analysis.
In
C.
B.
Tavris
&
J.
W.
White
(Eds.),
Sexuality,
society,
and
feminism
(pp.
57-77).
Washington,
DC:
American
Psychological
Association.
Jones,
E.
E.,
&
Sigall,
H.
(1971).
The
bogus
pipeline:
A
new
paradigm
for
measuring
affect
and
attitude.
Psychological
Bulletin,
76,
349-364.
Jones,
J.
C.,
&
Barlow,
D.
H.
(1990).
Self-reported
frequency
of
sexual
urges,
fantasies,
and
masturbatory
fantasies
in
heterosexual
males
and
females.
Archives
of
Sexual
Behavior,
19,
269-279.
Kenrick,
D.
T.,
Gabrielidis,
C.,
Keefe,
R.
C.,
&
Cornelius,
J.
S.
(1996).
Adolescents'
age
preferences
for
dating
partners:
Support
for
an
evolu-
tionary
model
of
life-history
strategies.
Child
Development,
67,
1499-1511.
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.
Leiblum,
S.
R.
(2002).
Reconsidering
gender
differences
in
sexual
desire:
An
update.
Sexual
and
Relationship
Therapy,
17,
57-68.
Leitenberg,
H.,
&
Henning,
K.
(1995).
Sexual
fantasy.
Psychological
Bulletin,
117,
469-496.
Masters,
W.
H.,
Johnson,
V.
E.,
&
Kolodny,
R.
C.
(1995).
Human
sexuality
(Sth
ed.).
New
York:
Harper
Collins.
Maticka-Tyndale,
E.,
Herold,
E.
S.,
&
Mewhinney,
D.
(1998).
Casual
sex
on
spring
break:
Intentions
and
behaviors
of
Canadian
students.
The
Journal
of
Sex
Research,
35,
254-264.
Meston,
C.
M.,
Heiman,
J.
R.,
Trapnell,
P.
D.,
&
Paulhus,
D.
L.
(1998).
Socially
desirable
responding
and
sexuality
self-reports.
The
Journal
of
Sex
Research,
35,
148-157.
Milhausen,
R.
R.,
&
Herold,
E.
S.
(2001).
Reconceptualizing
the
sexual
double
standard.
Journal
of
Psychology
and
Human
Sexuality,
13,
63-83,
Okami,
P.,
&
Shackelford,
T.
K.
(2001).
Human
sex
differences
in
sexual
psychology
and
behavior.
Annual
Review
of
Sex
Research,
12,
18S241.
Oliver,
M.
B.,
&
Hyde,
J.
S.
(1993).
Gender
differences
in
sexuality:
A
meta-analysis.
Psychological
Bulletin,
114,
29-51.
Ostrom,
T.
M.
(1973).
The
bogus
pipeline:
A
new
ignis
fatuus?
Psychological
Bulletin,
79,252-259.
Paul,
E.
L.,
McManus,
B.,
&
Hayes,
A.
(2000).
"Hookups":
Characteristics
and
correlates
of
college
students'
spontaneous
and
anonymous
sexual
experiences.
The
Journal
of
Sex
Research,
37,
7S88.
Pedersen,
W.
C.,
Miller,
L.
C.,
Putcha-Bhagavatula,
A.,
&
Yang,
Y.
(2002).
Evolved
sex
differences
in
the
number
of
partners
desired?
The
long
and
short
of
it.
Psychological
Science,
13,
157-161.
Pratto,
F.,
&
Hegarty,
P.
(2000).
The
political
psychology
of
reproductive
strategies.
Psychological
Science,
11,
57
4
2.
Roese,
N.
J.,
&
Jamieson,
D.
W.
(1993).
Twenty
years
of
bogus
pipeline
research:
A
critical
review
and
meta-analysis.
Psychological
Bulletin,
114,
363-375.
Rose,
S.,
&
Frieze,
I.
H.
(1993).
Young
singles'
contemporary
dating
scripts.
Sex
Roles,
28,
499-509.
Sabini,
J.,
Siepmann,
M.,
&
Stein,
J.
(2001).
The
really
fundamental
attri-
bution
error
in
social
psychological
research.
Psychological
Inquiry,
12,
1-15.
Schwartz,
P.,
&
Rutter,
V.
(1998).
The
gender
of
sexuality.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Pine
Forge
Press.
Shotland,
R.
L.,
&
Hunter,
B.
A.
(1995).
Women's
"token
resistant"
and
compliant
sexual
behaviors
are
related
to
uncertain
sexual
intentions
and
rape.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
Bulletin,
21,
226-236.
Smith,
T.
(
1992).
Discrepancies
between
men
and
women
in
reporting
num-
ber
of
sexual
partners:
A
summary
from
four
countries.
Social
Biology,
39,
203-211.
Sprecher,
S.,
McKinney,
K.,
&
Orbuch,
T.
L.
(1987).
Has
the
double
stan-
dard
disappeared?
An
experimental
test.
Social
Psychology
Quarterly,
50,
24-3
1.
Strahan,
R.,
&
Gerbasi,
K.
C.
(1972).
Short,
homogeneous
versions
of
the
Marlowe
Crowne
Social
Desirability
Scale.
Journal
of
Clinical
Psychology,
28,
191193.

Alexander and Fisher
35
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Tourangeau, R., Smith, T. W., & Rasinski, K. A. (1997). Motivation to
report sensitive behaviors on surveys: Evidence from a bogus pipeline
experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 209-222.
Wiederman, M. W. (1997). The truth must be in here somewhere:
Examining the gender discrepancy in self-reported lifetime number of
sex partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 375-386.
Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997).
Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 735 523-535.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior
of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 599-727.
Manuscript accepted December 16, 2002