Social norms and general sexual satisfaction: The cost of misperceived descriptive norms

Abstract

Past research has identified important correlates of sexual satisfaction, but more theoretically-driven research is needed to integrate these findings and identify the causes of variance in sexual satisfaction. The purpose of the two exploratory studies presented here was to examine the utility of Social Norms Theory in understanding the impact of misperceived norms on general sexual satisfaction in unmarried college students. The findings of Study 1 indicated that, consistent with previous research, participants overestimated the sexual activity and permissiveness of their peers and thus perceived self-other discrepancies. Overall, larger perceived discrepancies predicted lower general sexual satisfaction. Study 2 showed that a brief educational intervention could alter these misperceived discrepancies such that participants exposed to the intervention showed smaller self-other discrepancies with concomitantly higher levels of general sexual satisfaction. The theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.

Full text




Sexual satisfaction is an important component of
well-being for most individuals. Studies have linked
reported sexual satisfaction to increased self-esteem
(Hally & Pollack, 1993), healthy disposition, life
satisfaction (Apt, Hulbert, Pierce, & White 1996),
“lovability” (Abadjian-Mozian 2006), relationship
satisfaction (Byers, 2005), and emotional satisfaction
and feelings of general happiness (Laumann, Palk,
& Rosen, 1999). While it has proven difficult to
determine the directionality of these results (Litzinger
& Gordon, 2005), it seems clear that sexual satisfaction
is related to overall satisfaction with one’s life.
Given the importance of sexual satisfaction, many
researchers have explored factors that account for
the variability in reported satisfaction ratings.
Research focusing on the interpersonal realm has
examined issues such as the quality of communication
between relational partners (Lawrance & Byers, 1995)
and attachment style (Haig, 2004). While the majority
of this research is relatively atheoretical, Lawrance
and Byers have tested a comprehensive theory of
sexual satisfaction in relationships based on exchange
theory that focuses on factors such as rewards, costs,
and comparison levels within romantic relationships
to explain variance in sexual satisfaction (Byers,
2006; Lawrance & Byers, 1995).
In contrast to couple-focused research, there have
also been a number of survey-based studies
conducted to identify individual characteristics and
behaviours associated with sexual satisfaction in all
individuals (not just those in relationships). Findings
in this area include the strong positive correlation
between frequency and variety of sexual activity and
sexual satisfaction (Haavio-Mannila, 1997; Hally &
Pollack, 1993), the link between sexual dysfunction
and lower satisfaction (Laumann et al., 1999), and
the connections between sexual satisfaction and
factors like marital status, age, and masturbatory
habits (Barrientos & Páez , 2006).






              



     
        
            

            




             


 
While it is important to study sexual behaviours
within the context of romantic relationships, findings
from this second line of research indicate that it may
also be useful to understand factors that determine
how satisfied a person is with her or his sex life
independently (or in the absence) of a current
relationship. While theories regarding sexual
satisfaction within the context of a relationship have
been developed and tested (e.g., Byers, 2006), there
is a conspicuous absence of theory in predicting the
sexual satisfaction of a person whether or not he or
she is in a relationship. Indeed, researchers have
recently called for “more theoretically driven
research . . . to identify how factors associated with
the individual, the relationship, and the environment
might interact to affect sexual satisfaction”
(Christopher & Sprecher, 2000, p. 1004). While current
theories illuminate relational factors, individual factors
have not yet received adequate theory-driven testing.
Thus, one purpose of the current study was to examine
factors related to “general sexual satisfaction,” which
we define here as a person’s satisfaction with his/her
overall sex life (as opposed to satisfaction with a specific
sexual relationship).
The current study seeks to advance our theoretical
understanding of the environmental and cognitive
factors that may affect general sexual satisfaction in
unmarried college students. It employed Social
Norms Theory, which posits that behaviour is
influenced by an individual’s perceptions of how
members of a social group behave (descriptive
norms) and how accepting the group members are of
such behaviour (injunctive norms). Social norms have
lo ng been s ho wn to affect th e be haviour of
individuals (e.g. Asch, 1955; Cialdini, Reno, &
Kallgren, 1990; Festinger, 1954; Reno & Cialdini,
1993) and the theory has been used to study
behaviours ranging from the filing of taxes (Wenzel,
2005) to marijuana use (Kilmer et al., 2006). In the
current research, we used the theory of normative
influence utilized by Cialdini and colleagues
(Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991).
The first goal of the current studies was to explore
whether perceptions of social norms (either
descriptive or injunctive) were related to general
sexual satisfaction in a population (college students)
whose sexual satisfaction may be determined by
factors that are relatively independent of a specific
relationship. The second goal was to test whether
educational manipulation of these norm perceptions
could increase satisfaction ratings in this population.
While this research does not attempt to create a
comprehensive theory of general sexual satisfaction,
it explores a possible component that may add
predictive and explanatory power to current and
future theories of both general and relationally-
dependent sexual satisfaction.

A majority of recent studies have explored sexual
norm perceptions by measuring number of sexual
partners. They have found that college students tend
to believe that their peers, compared to themselves,
have more sexual partners, are engaging in more
dangerous sexual behaviour (Cohen & Shotland,
1996; Lajoie, 2001; Lopez, 1997; Martens et al.,
2006; Scholly, Alan, Gascoigine, & Holck, 2005; Seal
& Agostinelli, 1996), and are more accepting of such
behaviour (Lambert, Kahn, & Apple, 2003). These
perceptions of both behaviour and approval are
present across racial and gender lines and are
endorsed regardless of personal levels of behaviour
(Seal & Agostinelli, 1996). As a result of these norm
misperceptions, students tend to see large self-other
discrepancies in terms of sexual behaviour (measured
as number of partners) and permissiveness, believing
they are more different from the norm on average
than they actually are.
These perceived self-other discrepancies have also
been found for other types of behaviours, most
notably alcohol consumption. Researchers have
found that college students tend to over-estimate the
drinking behaviour of their peers and the acceptance
of it by their peers, especially in regards to high-risk
binge drinking (Borsari & Carey, 2003; Hines, Saris,
& Throckmorton-Belzer, 2002; Perkins & Wechsler,
1996; Suls & Green, 2003). Such perceptions help
to normalize dangerous levels of alcohol
consumption and increase pressure to consume
dangerously large amounts of alcohol. In response, a
number of norm-based education campaigns have
been undertaken to correct inaccurate norm
perceptions and decrease dangerous drinking
behaviour. These efforts have met with success in



some cases with students targeted by norm campaigns
reporting more accurate perception of peer behaviours
and decreased dangerous drinking behaviour
(Berkowitz, 2006; Lewis & Neighbors, 2006).
Given these beneficial results, researchers have
begun to explore how the same types of campaigns
can be applied to other behaviours, including sexual
health behaviours (Martens et al., 2006; Scholly et
al., 2005). While most of these studies are exploratory
and modeled on earlier alcohol research, the hope is
that risky sexual behaviours, like drinking behaviours,
can be decreased by providing accurate information
regarding baseline levels of sexual activity.

In addition to the behavioural effects of norm
misperceptions, researchers have also identified
important emotional consequences that result from
either deviating from or conforming to descriptive
social norms (Claire, 1994). Recent studies
employing a “motivational approach to normative
behavior” (Christensen, Rothgerber, Wood, & Matz,
2004) have revealed that people feel more positive
emotions when conforming to group norms and more
negative emotions when deviating from such standards.
Most of these studies have explored simple, discrete
choices (such as working on a Rubik’s Cube) and,
correspondingly, measured transient emotions such
as how participants feel “right now.” We suspect that
these emotional effects may be longer lasting and
farther reaching for behaviours that are more central
to an individual’s sense of self and his/her life
satisfaction, such as sexual behaviour and beliefs.
More specifically, we expect that, in the realm of
sexual behaviour, college students may experience
lower sexual satisfaction as a result of perceived self-
other discrepancies for sexual behaviour and beliefs.
The current research explored this possible relationship.
Our working hypothesis was that the greater the
discrepancy between a person’s own experience/
beliefs and his/her perceptions of prevalent social norms
for others, the lower would be the person’s reported
satisfaction with his/her sex life.
In keeping with previous work on sexual norms
perceptions (e.g. Seal & Agostinelli, 1996), we opted
to use number of sexual partners as our measure of
sexual activity. Of course, there are a number of
sexual behaviour variables that could be used to study
the relationship between self-other discrepancies and
sexual satisfaction such as sexual frequency and
quality of sexual interactions. Given the exploratory
nature of this study, however, and the unique
comparison of norms perceptions to satisfaction, we
thought it appropriate to begin with a variable for
which large self-other discrepancies have already
been documented across gender and racial lines (Seal
& Agostinelli, 1996). Once the utility of social norms
theory in sexuality is more firmly established, it will
no doubt be beneficial to explore additional measures
of sexual behaviour that have been shown to be linked
with satisfaction. Indeed, given the nature of social
norms perceptions, large discrepancies in many
measures of sexual behaviour should be associated
with decreased satisfaction.
Additionally, the use of number of sexual partners
as a measure of sexual behaviour can be examined
relatively independently of an individual’s current
relational status. Social norms theory is best able to
explain a person’s perceived relationship to a group
of peers as opposed to an individual such as a current
relational partner. By focusing on a facet of social
comparison that can be measured independently of
current relationships, we hoped to touch on an
element of ”general satisfaction” that is potentially
universal, affecting both those involved in a sexual
relationship and those who are not, and/or never have
been. For example, even young adults who have not
yet engaged in intercourse are likely to compare their
experiences, or lack thereof, to what they perceive
as normative levels of experience (and may be even
more likely to do so than someone more experienced).
    

We suspect that everyone tends to compare their
sexual experiences to perceived sexual norms.
However this comparison may be qualitatively
different for an individual depending on his/her
relationship status, operationally defined as currently
being involved in an exclusive romantic relationship
or not. Studies have shown that men and women in
relationships tend to be more sexually satisfied than
those who are not (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, &
Michaels, 1994; Stanley & Markman, 1997),

 
implying some difference between the two groups.
While we are aware of no research examining the
role of relationship status in sexual norms
perceptions, it would make intuitive sense that those
in a romantic relationship would be less concerned
about the sexual behaviour and beliefs of others. To
test this assumption, we examined relationship status
as a moderator between perceived self-other
discrepancies and sexual satisfaction, predicting that
the effect of discrepancies would be significantly less
for individuals currently in a romantic relationship.
     

Past research has documented important gender
differences in regards to sexuality. In particular,
recent reviews of the literature indicate differences
between men and women in terms of masturbatory
habits, attitudes towards casual sex, arousal to erotica,
orgasm consistency, sex drive, and an emphasis on
the relationship as a context for sexual expression
(Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Peplau, 2003). While recent
studies call the authenticity of some these differences
into doubt (e.g. Alexander & Fisher, 2003), there do
seem to be important differences between men and
women in the sexual realm.
In terms of social norms perceptions and sexual
satisfaction there is little consistent evidence from
which to make predictions about potential gender
differences. However, early studies on sexual norms
showed that men may be affected more by these types
of perceptions (Sea l & Ago stinelli, 199 6) .
Researchers have also found that men tend to endorse
conformity motives for engaging in sex (e.g., having
sex to conform to a peer group) significantly more
often than women (Browning, Hatfield, Kessler, &
Levine, 2000). Given these findings, we tentatively
predicted a gender interaction where the association
between perceived self-other discrepancies and
satisfaction would be stronger for men than for women.
The hypotheses introduced above were tested in two
questionnaire studies on young adult university
students. Study 1 had two general goals; first, to
verify the expected relationship between self-other
sexual discrepancies and general sexual satisfaction
and second, to determine whether gender or
relationship status moderated this relationship. Study
2 sought to determine whether experimental
manipulation of the participants’ sexual norm
perceptions would have an effect on perceived self-
other discrepancies and on reported levels of general
sexual satisfaction. The reports for studies 1 and 2
are presented sequentially with a final general
discussion.

For Study 1 we used an online survey to assess
participants’ sexual behaviour and beliefs, as well as
their perceptions of peer behaviour and beliefs. We
hypothesized that perceived self-other discrepancies
found in previous studies would be replicated in our
sample; that is, students would see themselves as
having had significantly fewer sexual partners and
as being less sexually permissive than their peers.
We further hypothesized that the size of these
perceived self-other discrepancies would inversely
predict reported sexual satisfaction. In other words,
greater discrepancies between participants’ behaviour
and their perception of peer behaviour (descriptive
norms) and greater discrepancies between one’s own
level of acceptance for sexual behaviour and the
perceived acceptance shown by one’s peers
(injunctive norms) would be associated with lower
levels of sexual satisfaction.
In addition, tentative predictions were made
regarding gender and relational status as moderators.
Specifically, we hypothesized that the effect of
perceived discrepancies would be a better predictor
of satisfaction for men and those currently not in an
exclusive romantic relationship as compared to
women and those in such a relationship.


Participants were 152 undergraduate introductory
psychology students from a private American
university. They were 73% female and 27% male,
with a mean age 18.5 years (SD= .78). The sample
was 69% Caucasian, 15% Asian, 10% Latino, 4%
African-American, and 2% other, consistent with the
ethnic breakdown of the student body. Thirty-four
percent of the participants were currently involved
in a romantic relationship and 40% reported no



history of vaginal intercourse. Only 1% of participants
identified as homosexual or bisexual. As such, no
conclusions could be drawn regarding differences in
sexual orientation or self-identification and these
participants were excluded from the analyses.

Participants filled out online surveys for course credit
in an introductory psychology class. The students
were provided with unique identification numbers
to access the online system for social science surveys
and could choose from a list of available studies to
fulfill class requirements. Study 1 was labeled “Social
Norms and Sexual Satisfaction.” Once they had
selected the study, participants were directed to an
online consent form before filling out five
questionnaires, which were presented in a random
order. All answers were anonymous with random
identifiers used to organize response data. From the
total sample, 146 participants (96.1%) completed all
required questionnaires (those who dropped out
before completion of surveys were not included in
the analyses and none of the information they
provided was available to the researchers).

Participants completed five surveys assessing,
respectively, (a) sexual behaviour, (b) perceptions of
“average” levels of sexual activity, (c) sexual
permissiveness, (d) perceptions of “average” levels
of sexual permissiveness, and (e) sexual satisfaction.
They also provided demographic information on
gender and current relationship status.

The comprehensive survey used to assess participant
sexual behaviour adopted items modeled on those in
Trauger, Schick, Astor-Stetson, & Beck (1998) and
included questions regarding vaginal intercourse, oral
sex, and petting (also described in the measure as
hand-to-genital contact). For each behaviour,
participants were asked if they had ever engaged in
the behaviour and how old they were when they first
engaged in it. They were then asked to report the
number of partners they have had in eight different
situations (e.g. how many overall lifetime partners,
how many partners in monogamous relationships,
how many partners in hook-ups, etc.). Reliability was
assessed using coefficient alpha. Each of the four
subsections were reliable (coefficient alpha ranged
from .84 - .88) as was the full scale (coefficient alpha
= .93; CI = .91 - .94). In the current sample, 87 (60%)
participants reported having engaged in vaginal
intercourse (25% males, 75% females). For males,
this is lower than estimates from a national
representative sample of people averaging18.5 years
of age (65%; Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2002). Of
the 59 participants who had not engaged in vaginal
intercourse, 38 (64.4%) had engaged in petting (27%
males, 73% females), and 22 (37.3%) had engaged
in oral sex (32% males, 68% females). Overall, only
21 participants (14%) reported having no sexual
experience at all. The current analyses focused on
the reported number of lifetime partners for each of
the three sexual behaviours and a total sexual
experience score, created by summing the reported
number of lifetime partners for each of the three
sexual behaviours. While this total experience score
may count a single partner multiple times (e.g., if an
individual reported oral and vaginal sex with one
partner, this would result in a total experience score
of two), we felt that experiencing different types of
sexual behaviour should also be included in the
construct of “sexual experience,” and thus was
worthy of inclusion in analyses.

The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (Hendrick,
Hendrick, and Reich, 2006) was used to assess sexual
permissiveness. This scale has been shown to be a
reliable and valid measure of sexual permissiveness;
coefficient alpha was .93 (CI = .91 - .95) in the current
Study 1. On this measure, participants rated their
agreement with 10 statements (e.g., the best sex is
with no strings attached) that tap the construct of
sexual permissiveness on a 6-point scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Mid-scale
items were “disagree somewhat” and “agree
somewhat”. Total scores were obtained by summing
responses (possible range 10-60) with higher scores
indicating higher levels of sexual permissiveness.
While a scale measuring permissiveness towards the
specific activities measured (i.e., oral sex, vaginal
intercourse, etc.) would have been informative, no
such validated scale was available at this time.

 

Variations of the above scales were used to assess
participant perceptions of descriptive and injunctive
norms. For both scales, sexual experience and sexual
permissiveness, participants were instructed to
estimate the “answer given by an average male/
female” peer at their college. Given the documented
differences between males and females in terms of
both sexual activity and permissiveness (e.g.,
McCabe & Collins, 1984) and to allow for more
direct social comparison, participants gave separate
estimates for male and female peers. Items in the
scales were identical to the sexual activity and sexual
permissiveness scales, except for the above
instructions and a differing subject (e.g., “How many
oral sex partners have you had in your lifetime?”
versus “How many oral sex partners has the average
[school name] male/female had in his/her lifetime?”).

To quantify self-other discrepancies for descriptive
norms, each participant’s reported number of lifetime
partners was subtracted from his/her perceived norms
score for lifetime partners for same-gender peers,
resulting in a norm discrepancy score that represented
the size of the difference between a subject’s personal
experience and what he/she perceived as an average
level of experience for same-gender peers. This was
done for overall sexual experience and separately for
each type of behaviour. To quantify self-other
discrepancies for injunctive norms, each participant’s
total score on the sexual permissiveness scale was
subtracted from his/her perceived total score for
same-gender peers.

Most widely used scales of sexual satisfaction tend
to assess individual feelings within the context of a
current sexual relationship. Given our goal of
assessing sexual satisfaction independently of
relational status, many of these measures were
inappropriate. One that did fit our purpose was the
“overall satisfaction” subscale of the Pinney Sexual
Satisfaction Inventory (Pinney, 1987). The subscale
consists of 14 statements designed to measure sexual
satisfaction relatively independently of relational or
sexual status, such as “In general I am satisfied with
my sex life” and “I feel nothing is lacking in my sex
life.” None of the items in this scale directly assessed
number of sexual partners. Participants rated their
agreement with these statements on a 6-point scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly
agree). Mid-scale items were “disagree somewhat” and
“agree somewhat”. Possible score range was 14-84.
This scale was been shown to be a reliable and valid
measure of sexual satisfaction in single women.
Though the scale has not been validated on men and
has been used less than some more popular scales of
sexual satisfaction, we experienced no problems in
terms of reliability: coefficient alpha for the measure
was .96 (CI = .94 - .97). The lack of a more recent
and validated scale for general sexual satisfaction is
something future research should address.


The mean, median, and standard deviations for self-
reported number of sexual partners for each sexual
behaviour and for total sexual experience can be
found in Table 1. Differences between sexual
experience scores and perceived norm experience
scores (norm discrepancies; comparing male
participants to average male ratings and female
participants to average female ratings) were evaluated
using a series of 2 X 2 repeated measures analysis of
variance (ANOVAs). Interactions between gender
and norm discrepancies were included in the model
because of the potential for sex differences in
reported behaviour and beliefs (Oliver & Hyde,
1993). The main effects of norm discrepancies and
gender and the interaction effects between norm
discrepancies and gender can also be found in Table
1. Since a large majority of participants (90% of both
males and females) believed they were less sexually
experienced than their peers, the sample of those who
perceived themselves as having more partners than
their peers was too small to allow for meaningful
analyses or interpretations.
Using an adjusted p value of .01 to protect from Type
I error due to multiple tests, statistically significant
discrepancies between sexual experience scores and
perceived norm experience scores were found for all
three sexual behaviours (petting, oral sex, vaginal
intercourse) and for total sexual experience. As
expected, participants believed that they had lower



than average levels of sexual experience compared
to same-gender peers. No main effects were found
for gender, indicating that men and women did not
vary to a statistically significant degree in their
reported behaviour and beliefs.
Similar results were obtained in regards to
permissiveness. A 2 X 2 repeated measures analysis
of variance was used to evaluate injunctive
discrepancies between self-reported permissiveness
and participants’ perceptions of same-gender peers’
permissiveness. The interaction between injunctive
discrepancies and gender was included in the model.
As expected, participants believed that their peers
were statistically significantly more sexually
permissive (M =28.2) compared to themselves (M =
21.58), F (1, 144) = 66.9, ç2 = .32, p < .001. A
statistically significant main effect of gender was also
found; men reported significantly higher levels of
permissiveness (marginal means for self-report and
perceptions of peers were 29.7 and 38.6 respectively)
compared to women (marginal means for self-report
and perceptions of peers were 18.6 and 24.4
respectively), F (1, 144) = 86.8, ç2 = .38, p < .001.
Possible sexual permissiveness score range was 10-
60. The interaction term was not statistically
significant, indicating that men and women reported
similar discrepancies between their own degree of
sexual permissiveness and their perceptions of their
same-gender peers’ degree of sexual permissiveness.
Sexual permissiveness was not significantly
correlated with sexual satisfaction, r = .01, ns.
   


Hierarchical linear regression analysis was used to
determine whether (1) descriptive norm discrepancies
predicted sexual satisfaction, (2) gender or relationship
status predicted sexual satisfaction and (3) gender or
relationship status moderated the effect of descriptive
norm discrepancies on sexual satisfaction. Descriptive
norm discrepancy variables were centered before
creating the interaction terms and the centered variables
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and repeated measures ANOVAs comparing sexual behaviour and perceptions of local
peer’s sexual behaviour for Study 1.
F
Norm Partial FPartial FPartial
Number of partners Self Others Discrepancies n2 Gender n2 Interaction n2
Total sexual experience 53.03 *** .27 2.49 .01 2.49 .02
M8.4 15.5
Median 6.0 13.0
SD 9.2 9.9
Petting 21.20 *** .13 1.66 .01 1.44 .01
M4.5 6.6
Median 3.0 5.0
SD 5.0 4.9
Oral sex 73.84 *** .34 1.81 .01 6.23 .04
M2.2 4.7
Median 1.0 4.0
SD 2.5 3.4
Vaginal intercourse 39.28 *** .21 0.35 .00 0.95 .01
M1.6 3.2
Median 1.0 3.0
SD 2.5 1.8
** p < .01; ***p < .001
Note: Ranges of scores below
Total sexual experience 0-50 Total perceived sexual experience 0-60
Petting 0-25 Total perceived petting 0-30
Oral sex 0-15 Total perceived oral sex 0-15
Vaginal intercourse 0-16 Total perceived vaginal intercourse 0-15

 
were used in the subsequent analyses (Aiken & West,
1991). Descriptive norm discrepancies, a dummy
variable representing gender, and relationship status
were entered in the first block and the interactions
between gender and descriptive norm discrepancies
and between relationship status and norm
discrepancies were entered in the second block. Four
regression analyses were conducted for discrepancy
scores for each of the three sexual behaviours and
for total sexual experience (see Table 2).
All of the descriptive norm discrepancy variables
statistically significantly predicted sexual
satisfaction, indicating that higher perceived
discrepancies between participants’ behaviour and
the behaviour of their peers predicted lower levels
of sexual satisfaction. In contrast, gender did not
predict sexual satisfaction. Relationship status
consistently predicted sexual satisfaction, indicating
that participants who were currently in an exclusive
dating relationship reported higher sexual satisfaction
compared to participants who were not in an
exclusive dating relationship. There were no
statistically significant interactions between
descriptive norm discrepancies and gender, or
between descriptive norms discrepancies and
relationship status in predicting satisfaction.

Contrary to our hypotheses, the hierarchical linear
regression results indicated that there was no statistically
significant relationship between injunctive norm
discrepancies and sexual satisfaction, F (2, 143) = .59,
ß = -1.01, ns and gender did not predict sexual
satisfaction when entered in the first block with
injunctive norm discrepancies, ß = .07, ns. The
interaction term was also non-significant, F (3, 142) =
.48, ß = -.09, ns.

As expected, the results indicated that college
students tended to overestimate the sexual behaviour
and sexual permissiveness of their peers. Participants
in Study 1 did endorse beliefs that their peers had
more sexual partners and were more sexually
permissive, on average, compared to themselves.
These differences were present across gender. The
results mirrored the findings of previous research
(Seal & Agostinelli, 1996) and thus allowed us to
assume with confidence that participants perceived
sizeable differences between themselves and their
peers in these areas, regardless of gender.
Also consistent with our hypotheses, self-other
discrepancies for descriptive norms were found to
be related to sexual satisfaction; the larger the
difference a participant perceived between him or
herself and “average” peers in terms of sexual
behaviour, the lower his or her reported satisfaction.
This finding is consistent with a motivational
approach to normative behaviour (Christensen, et al.,
2004) which predicts that people feel increased
negative emotion when deviating from peer
descriptive norms. Contrary to our hypotheses, the
interaction between gender and descriptive norm
discrepancies did not predict sexual satisfaction.
Although we predicted that norms perceptions would
have a stronger effect for men, this hypothesis was
based on limited research regarding sexual norms
Table 2 Prediction of individual sexual satisfaction from norm discrepancies, gender and relationship status; Study 1
ββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββDiscrep. X Discrep. X F R2
Predictors Discrep. Gender Rel. status F R2gender rel. status Change Change
Total sexual
experience -.34 ** -.01 .37 *** 6.8 ** .20 .12 .111.40 .02
Petting -.39 *** .01 .38 *** 6.6 ** .19 .21 .12 2.40 .03
Oral sex -.34 ** .01 .38 *** 6.6 ** .19 .15 .13 2.30 .03
Vaginal
intercourse -.34 ** -.01 .36 *** 6.3 ** .18 -.01 .10 .59 .01
* p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Discrep. = discrepancies



perceptions. In fact, much of the research on gender’s
moderating effect on social norms perceptions in
general is mixed. While some studies have reported
that norms perceptions predicted behaviour more
accurately in men, others report that women were
more strongly affected (Eleck, Miller-Day, & Hecht,
2006). Thus, our null findings in this regard could
have been due to the unique composition of our
sample, or could have resulted from our having only
a partial understanding of the influence of gender on
norms perceptions. Additional research is necessary
to replicate these results and test for possible 3-way
interactions between gender, norms perceptions, and
other variables in determining sexual satisfaction and
a wide range of behaviours.
Relationship status, as expected, did predict sexual
satisfaction; participants in relationships reported higher
sexual satisfaction than participants who were not in
exclusive dating relationships. However, there were no
statistically significant interactions between descriptive
norm discrepancies and relationship status, indicating
that norm discrepancies affect sexual satisfaction
similarly for those in relationships and those not in
relationships. This effect adds support to our
conceptualization of general sexual satisfaction and
suggests that norms perceptions may play an
important role in satisfaction independent of
relational status.
Contrary to expectations, no relationship was found
between sexual permissiveness discrepancies and
sexual satisfaction. The reasons for this null finding
are not known. However, recent research on the effect
of norms perceptions on drinking behaviours has
found that perceived descriptive norms of distal
reference groups (e.g., same-gender peers) are related
to drinking behaviour whereas perceived injunctive
norms of these same groups are not (Neighbors et
al., 2008). In fact, only perceived injunctive norms
for proximal reference groups (e.g., friends and
parents) were related to behaviour. We do not know
whether these findings generalize to sexual
behaviour, or sexual satisfaction, but one possible
explanation of our findings is that our reference group
was too distal to allow for the influence of perceived
injunctive norms on sexual satisfaction. Given these
null findings, we chose to drop injunctive norms as
a variable for Study 2.

The findings of Study 1 suggest that Social Norms
Theory may provide a useful framework for
understanding cognitive and social environmental
factors that influence sexual satisfaction. Given the
finding that perceived self-other discrepancies for
descriptive norms predicted satisfaction ratings for
men and women across relationship status, the two
constructs do seem to be related in some way.
However, the fact that injunctive norms discrepancies
did not predict satisfaction implies that these types
of norms may function differently in determining
emotional outcomes.
The primary limitation of Study 1 was that it was
correlational, so the exact nature of the relationship
between descriptive norm discrepancies and sexual
satisfaction remained unclear. While we were able
to find a relationship between the two, we could not
determine the directionality of the relationship or
whether a third variable was affecting both ratings.
An experimental study was necessary to address these
issues.
Psychologists and communications scholars have
suggested multiple ways in which perceptions of
sexual norms are formed ranging from peer
discussion (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005) to media
influences (Chia & Gunther, 2006). In all cases,
beliefs regarding norms are based on information
gathered from external sources, which means that
perceived norms should be malleable if new
information is provided.


The first goal of Study 2 was to replicate the
findi ngs of S tudy 1. We ag ain test ed for a
statistically significant overestimation of peer
sexual activity and a statistically significant
negative relationship between the size of perceived
self-other discrepancies for descriptive norms and
sexual satisfaction. Since no statistically
significant correlation was found between
injunctive norm discrepancies and satisfaction in
Study 1, these norms were not included in Study
2. The second, and primary purpose of Study 2
was to determine the directionality of the

 
relationship between descriptive norm perceptions and
satisfaction by manipulating sexual norm perceptions
and measuring the effect on reported general sexual
satisfaction. Use of this experimental method also
offered the opportunity to identify a possible direct
relationship between norm perceptions and satisfaction,
independent of the influence of third factors like amount
of sexual experience.
If we assume that participant misperceptions of
sexual norms are based on inaccurate information
regarding sexual behaviours, then accurate
information should correct these erroneous beliefs,
as seen in alcohol consumption studies (e.g., Lewis
& Neighbors, 2006). We hypothesized that the
provision of accurate normative information about
pertinent sexual behaviours would be effective in
decreasing perceived self-other discrepancies. If a
direct relationship between perceived discrepancies
and sexual satisfaction exists, then this intervention
would also be expected to result in higher levels of
general sexual satisfaction.


Th e sampl e for Study 2 c onsisted of 119
undergraduate introductory psychology students from
the same university as for Study 1. Participants were
82% female and 18% male, with a mean age 18.8
years (SD = .84). The sample was 77% Caucasian,
6% Asian, 9% Latino, 2% African-American, and
7% other. Forty-seven percent of the participants
were currently involved in a romantic relationship
and 37% reported no history of vaginal intercourse.

Three of the surveys used in Study 1 were included
in Study 2. They assessed sexual behaviour (Trauger,
Schick, Astor-Stetson, & Beck, 1998), beliefs
regarding “average” levels of sexual activity, and
sexual satisfaction (Pinney, 1987). Questionnaires
were identical to those given in Study 1, except for
the fact that they were paper versions instead of
online versions.


We opted for a personalized, local normative
intervention to manipulate norm perceptions based
on previous research regarding the effectiveness of
this technique (Cho, 2006) and the relative ease of
providing the information in a controlled
environment. The intervention consisted of a paper
handout with a summary of data collected in Study 1
including all three types of sexual behaviours (vaginal
intercourse, oral sex, and petting) in three relational
contexts: number of lifetime partners, partners in the
past year, and number of partners in a “hook-up.”
We included the mean number of partners for each
activity, including bar graphs to optimize
understanding for participants who would be better
able to access information in this form. Based on
past studies on norm interventions (e.g., Cho, 2006),
we believed that norms for one’s same-gender peers at
a private university represented an ideal balance
between global norms (which may have little impact
due to the absence of a relevant reference group) and
overly specific norms (such as a participant’s group of
friends), to assure maximum impact of the intervention.

Students signed up for the study in the same manner
used in Study 1 and received course credit in an
introductory psychology class for their participation.
Those who selected the study were randomly
assigned to either the experimental or control
condition (based on the last digit of their student ID
numbers). Preliminary analyses confirmed no
significant differences in gender distribution, dating
status, or coital status between the groups. Separate
experimental sessions were held in a university
classroom: three control sessions and three
experimental sessions. All participants were
presented with a consent form first.
Participants in the experimental condition next
received the handout containing the normative
information. They were given approximately 5
minutes to read the handout (specific times varied as
participants were instructed to take as long as they
needed) before returning it to the experimenter. They
did not have the handout while completing the
questionnaires. Participants in the control condition
received no handout intervention. All participants
were then given the three surveys assessing sexual
behaviour, perceptions of peer’s behaviours, and
sexual satisfaction. All answers were anonymous with



random identifiers used to organize response data. From
the initial sample, 95.8% completed all required
questionnaires (those with missing responses were
excluded from corresponding analyses).

To verify that the statistically significant overestimation
of peer sexual activity found in Study 1 was replicated
with the control group in Study 2, a series of paired-
sample t tests were performed. Gender was not included
in these analyses because no gender differences were
found between men and women in norm discrepancies
in Study 1 and because of the relatively low number of
men in the Study 2 sample. The results of these analyses
along with the mean, median, and standard deviations
for self-reported number of sexual partners for each
sexual behaviour and for total sexual experience can
be found in Table 3. Consistent with Study 1, statistically
significant discrepancies were found for total sexual
experience scores, indicating that participants believed
that they had significantly fewer sexual partners
compared to same-gender peers. Using the adjusted p
value of .01 to control for Type I error, the discrepancy
for oral sex experience was also statistically significant.
Table 3 Descriptive statistics and t tests comparing sexual behaviour and perceptions of localpeer’s sexual behaviour for
Study 2 control group
Number of partners Self Others t
Total sexual experience M10.5 14.9 -2.68 **
Median 7.0 12.0
SD 12.0 10.5
Petting M 5.3 7.0 -2.31 *
Median 3.0 5.5
SD 6.2 5.3
Oral sex M 3.0 4.7 -3.28 **
Median 2.0 4.0
SD 3.8 3.3
Vaginal intercourse M 2.1 3.0 -2.1 *
Median 1.0 3.0
SD 2.8 2.4
* p < .05; **p < .01
Note: Ranges of scores below
Total sexual experience 0-68 Total perceived sexual experience 0-35
Petting 0-25 Total perceived petting 0-15
Oral sex 0-20 Total perceived oral sex 0-15
Vaginal intercourse 0-23 Total perceived vaginal intercourse 0-10
Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate
the relationship between descriptive norm
discrepancy and sexual satisfaction. Consistent with
Study 1, a statistically significant negative correlation
was found for total sexual experience, r = -.21, p <
.05, indicating that the larger the size of the self-other
discrepancy, the lower the participant’s reported
sexual satisfaction. For the specific sexual
behaviours, using the adjusted p value, a statistically
significant negative correlation was found between
descriptive norm discrepancies for vaginal intercourse
and sexual satisfaction, r = -.28, p < .01. The correlations
between norm discrepancies and petting (-.15) and oral
sex (-.18) were not statistically significant (most likely
due to the smaller sample size).


To determine whether control and experimental
groups differed on self-reported sexual experiences
and their perceptions of peers’ experience, the two
groups were compared on four variables (total sexual
experience, petting, oral sex, and vaginal sex) using
two one-way analyses of variance. No differences
were found between the two groups on reported
sexual experiences. In contrast, there were
statistically significant differences for all four

 
variables on perceptions of peers’ experiences (see
Table 4), with the experimental group providing
statistically significantly lower estimates of peers’
levels of sexual experience compared to the control
group’s estimates. Taken together, these findings
indicate that the experimental manipulation was
effective for the targeted variable (i.e., perceptions
of peers’ levels of experience).
The effect of the experimental manipulation on
general sexual satisfaction was tested using a t test
to determine whether there was a statistically
significant difference in mean sexual satisfaction
scores across the two groups. The experimental group
reported statistically significantly higher levels of
sexual satisfaction (M = 72.3) compared to the control
group (M = 64.9), t (110) = 2.14, p < .05. The effect
size was d = .48, which is considered a medium effect
size. To ensure that differences in satisfaction were
due to the reduction of norm discrepancies in the
experimental group rather than some other variable
(e.g., demand characteristics) two additional
analyses were run. First, an ANOVA was
performed using group membership as the
independent variable and satisfaction as the
dependent variable. Results confirmed that
satisfaction was significantly predicted by group
membership, F (1, 109) = 4.3, p < .05. Next, an
ANCOVA was performed, using norm
discrepancies as a covariate. Results indicated that
when norm discrepancies were controlled for,
group differences in sexual satisfaction became
non-significant, F (1, 109) = 1.3, ns, indicating
that the differences in norm discrepancies between
groups were driving the difference in satisfaction
between the two groups.

As hypothesized, the descriptive norms intervention
did appear to affect norm discrepancies, with the
experimental group reporting smaller perceived self-
other discrepancies compared to the control group.
The experimental group also reported statistically
significantly higher sexual satisfaction ratings. These
findings are important for a number of reasons. First,
it does appear that sexual norms perceptions can be
manipulated, that is, that providing college students
with accurate normative information can provide
them with more accurate perceptions of peer
behaviour. This result extends the findings of alcohol
normative campaigns (Berkowitz, 2006; Lewis &
Neighbors, 2006) into the area of sexuality and
suggests that the study of sexual behaviours and
satisfaction can benefit from similar research.
Even more importantly, the effect of providing an
intervention designed to increase the accuracy of
sexual norms perceptions resulted in higher self-
reported sexual satisfaction in the experimental group
Table 4 Descriptive statistics and F values from one-way ANOVAs comparing groups on perceptions of peer sexual
behaviour, Study 2
Control Experimental
Perceptions of peer behaviour Group Group F
Total Sexual Experience 10.0 **
M15.0 10.1
SD 10.5 5.1
Petting 7.7 **
M 7.0 4.8
SD 5.3 3.0
Oral Sex 10.5 **
M 4.7 3.1
SD 3.3 1.6
Vaginal Intercourse 7.4 **
M 3.0 2.0
SD 2.4 1.0
* p < .05; **p < .01



than in the control group. In other words, it seems
that when accurate sexual norm information was
provided to college students, it not only increased
the accuracy of their norm perceptions, but also led
them to feel more satisfied with their overall sex lives.
This result lends support to a motivational approach
to normative behaviour (Christensen, et al., 2004),
which stipulates that individuals will experience a
lower level of negative emotion when conforming
to peer norms. Specifically, our results suggest that
these emotional consequences may extend to more
global assessments of satisfaction in wide
behavioural areas. Given the ethical implications of
manipulating other factors associated with sexual
satisfaction (e.g., relationship quality), this may be
one of the few cases where we can establish a link
between a cause of satisfaction and satisfaction
ratings that does not rely solely on correlational data
or the temporal relationships between factors.

The two exploratory studies presented here suggest
the presence of a relationship between the
misperception of social norms and general sexual
satisfaction in unmarried college students. It seems
clear that college students tend to overestimate the
sexual experience and sexual permissiveness of their
peers, believing that their peers have more sexual
partners and are more sexually permissive than they
actually are. It also seems that, in terms of number
of partners, the more unusual college students
perceive themselves to be, the less satisfied they are
with their sex lives (and that this is true across gender
and relational status). Experimental manipulation
suggests that this is a direct relationship; when
participants realized that they were more “normal”
than they had thought, they reported higher levels of
satisfaction.

Given the exploratory nature of the two studies
presented here, it is important to note their limitations.
First, both samples were predominantly female and
white, compromising the external validity of the
findings. Second, approximately 42% of the students
we surveyed attended private religious high schools
and over 45% identified themselves as Catholic or
Roman-Catholic. Given this background, it is not
surprising that participants were generally less
sexually experienced and permissive than population
norms (Laumann, et al., 1999). For example, 40% of
the participants in Study 1 were virgins at the time
the study was performed. As noted earlier, given the
average participant age of 18.5 years, we should
expect a percentage of about 35% based on a
representative national sample (Mosher, et al., 2005).
Thus, it would appear that our sample had more white
students, had a higher percentage of females, was
less sexually experienced, and was less sexually
permissive than the population in general, all of
which may limit the generalizability of our findings.
Additionally, the nature of the experimental
ma ni pulation in Study 2 m ay have affected
participant responses. Specifically, participants were
provided with normative information before
completing questionnaires assessing norm
perceptions and satisfaction. As such, participants
may have ascertained that the study hypotheses
involved the effect of norm perceptions on
satisfaction. This, along with the presence of an
investigator in the room, may have led to demand
characteristics that biased responses. However, it is
unlikely that participants in the experimental
condition were aware of the specific hypothesis being
tested (i.e., the correction of misperceived norms
leading to increased satisfaction) and thus were
probably not able to answer in such a way as to
confirm this hypothesis. A post-experimental
questionnaire would have been helpful in assessing
the effect of many of these limitations and future
research in this area would benefit from the use of
such a questionnaire.
A final, and central, consideration is the use of the
construct of “general sexual satisfaction.” While we
believe that this construct is important for advancing
research and theory development in this area, more
work is needed to define and predict a person’s
satisfaction with his/her sex life independent of a
specific romantic relationship. The fact that we were
forced to employ a rarely used scale of sexual
satisfaction that has not yet been validated in men
underscores the need for a better measure of general
sexual satisfaction that can be used across
relationship statuses.

 
   

The aim of this research was to explore a heretofore
under-examined influence on sexual satisfaction
using an established theoretical framework.
Specifically, we asked whether or not subjective
feelings of satisfaction with one’s own sex life were
contingent upon one’s perceptions of the sexual
behaviours and beliefs of others. Our findings support
our hypothesis that perceptions of descriptive sexual
norms do play a role in general sexual satisfaction,
with perceived deviation from the norm leading to
decreased satisfaction ratings. Using both
correlational and experimental methods, it appears
that a direct relationship exists between the two
concepts suggesting that further research on
normative perceptions of sexual activity may be
important and fruitful.
However, it is important to note that only half of
social norms theory was supported in this case; only
the perception of social norms (actual behaviour)
predicted satisfaction. This is generally in line with
recent research on the emotional impact of norm
perceptions (Christensen, et al., 2004), which has
shown only that deviation from descriptive norms
may cause increases in negative emotion. There are
a number of possible reasons why perception of
injunctive norms was not strongly tied to satisfaction,
including the use of a reference group too far removed
from the individual (Neighbors, et al., 2008).
Alternatively, given that participants in these studies
were largely first-year college students, they may not
have felt a strong affinity with the selected reference
group (same-gendered peers at their university).
Research has shown that when people feel a weak
affinity to a reference group, social norms for that
group have little effect on behaviour (Rimal, 2008).
It could be the case that, in the current study, the
effect of descriptive norms was strong enough to
overcome this weak affinity while that of injunctive
norms was not. However, given the absence of
measures of group affinity, these explanations are
purely speculative.
In terms of descriptive norms, our results suggest that
the impact of misperceiving oneself as deviating from
normative levels of behaviour may do more than
affect transient levels of negative affect. The
misperception of such deviation may, in fact, impact
macro-level judgments regarding satisfaction. One
possible reason that sexual perceptions may affect
these large-scale judgments (where other perceptions
may not) is that sexual behaviour involves more “ego
involvement” which is defined as the extent to which
individuals’ self-concept is connected with their
position on a particular issue and forms an integral
part of how individuals define themselves (Lapinski
& Rimal 2005). Given the importance of sexuality
to an individual’s sense of self and life satisfaction, we
would expect norm perceptions to have a relatively
larger impact in this area than in, say, solving a Rubik’s
cube. This assumption has not been tested and future
research examining whether the importance or ego
involvement of sexual behaviour moderates the
relationship between norms perceptions and satisfaction
should prove illuminating.
An important next step in expanding the current
research is to explore the longevity of the present
findings. In other words, how long does the increase in
satisfaction last in response to a normative intervention?
Given the relatively weak intervention used here (five
minutes reading a paper handout) we would assume
that the effect is short-lived. But, given the lack of
research on sexual norm perceptions, there is little
evidence to support this assumption. Another logical
extension would be to test other measures of sexual
behaviour. Individuals are likely to compare many
aspects of their sexual experience to what they perceive
as normal levels. These factors include frequency,
quality, and diversity of sex. Studies using these
variables would help to expand the scope of the social
norms framework in relation to sexual satisfaction.
A more general extension of the current research
would be to explore the emotional consequences of
norm misperceptions as a mediator of the relationship
between norms perceptions and behaviour. For
example, it may be possible that decreased sexual
satisfaction serves as a mechanism through which
sexual norms perceptions affect behaviour, with large
perceived self-other discrepancies in terms of number
of sexual partners leading to decreased sexual
satisfaction, which in turn increases one’s desire to
engage in sex with more partners. Indeed, the
literature on social norms includes almost no
explanation as to how norms perceptions influence



behaviour (Rimal & Real, 2005), but when possible
mediating factors such as outcome expectations are
included, the predictive power of models tends to
greatly increase. We are aware of no research that
has examined the emotional consequences of norm
deviation as a possible mediator between perceptions
and behaviour, but the findings presented here
suggest that such research may lead to a more
nuanced understanding of social norms in general.
It should also be noted that the role of descriptive
social norms perceptions in predicting sexual
satisfaction did not statistically significantly differ
based on relationship status. This finding suggests
that both the participants in relationships and those
not in relationships may have compared their
experiences to what they perceived as normal when
deciding how satisfied they were with their sex lives.
This observation provides some initial support for
our conceptualization of general sexual satisfaction
and suggests that this concept may be worthy of
attention in future research on sexual satisfaction.

Abadjian-Mozian, L.R. (2006). Sexual satisfaction and
self-esteem of married women. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 67(2-B), 1138.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Alexander, M.G., & Fisher, T.D. (2003). Truth and
consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine
sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of
Sex Research, 40, 27-35.
Apt, C., Hulbert, D.F., Pierce, A.P., & White, C.L. (1996).
Relationship satisfaction, sexual characteristics and
the psychosocial well-being of women. The Canadian
Journal of Human Sexuality, 5, 195-210.
Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific
American, 193, 31-35.
Barrientos, J.E., & Páez, D. (2006). Psychosocial variables
of sexual satisfaction in Chile. Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy, 32, 351-368.
Berkowitz, A. (2006). The social norms approach to
preventing school and college age substance abuse: A
handbook for educators, counselors, and clinicians.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borsari, B., & Carey, K.B. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive
norms in college drinking: A meta-analytic integration.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 331-341.
Browning, J.R., Hatfield, E., Kessler, D., & Levine, T.
(2000). Sexual motives, gender, and sexual behavior.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 135-153.
Byers, S.E. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual
satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in
long-term relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 42,
113-118.
Byers, S.E. (2006). Further validation of the interpersonal
exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex
& Marital Therapy, 32, 53-69.
Cho, H. (2006). Influences of norm proximity and norm
types on binge and non-binge drinkers: Examining the
under-examined aspects of social norms interventions
on college campuses. Journal of Substance Use, 11,
417-429.
Christensen, P.N., Rothgerber, H.W., Wood, M., & David
C. (2004). Social norms and identity relevance: A
motivational approach to normative behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1295-
1309.
Christopher, S.F., & Sprecher, S. (2000). Sexuality in
marriage, dating, and other relationships: A decade
review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 999-1017.
Cialdini, R.B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to
protect the environment. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12, 105-109.
Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., & Kallgren, C.A. (1990). A
focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the
concept of norms to reduce littering in public places.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
1015-1026.
Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A., & Reno, R.R. ( 1991). A
focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical
refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in
human behavior. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-
234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

 
Claire, T.V. (1994). Perceptions of social norms and the
consequences of deviating from them. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 55, 2435.
Cohen, L.L., & Shotland, L.R. (1996). Timing of first
sexual intercourse in a relationship: Expectations,
experiences, and perceptions of others. Journal of Sex
Research, 33, 291-299.
Elek, E., Miller-Day, M., & Hecht, M. (2006, December).
Influences of personal, injunctive, and descriptive
norms on early adolescent substance use. Journal of
Drug Issues, 36, 147-172.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison
processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Haavio-Mannila, E. (1997). Correlates of increased sexual
satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 399-419.
Haig, J.R. (2004). Sexual satisfaction: Its structure,
stability, and correlates. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 64, 6376.
Hally, C.R., & Pollack, R. (1993). The effects of self-
esteem, variety of sexual experience, and erotophilia
on sexual satisfaction in sexually active heterosexuals.
Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 19, 183-192.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S.S., & Reich, D.A. (2006). The
brief sexual attitudes scale. Journal of Sex Research.
Special Issue: Scientific Abstracts, World Congress
of Sexology, 43, 76-86.
Hines, D., Saris, R.N., & Throckmorton-Belzer, L. (2002).
Pluralistic ignorance and health risk behaviors: Do
college students misperceive social approval for risky
behaviors on campus and in media. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32, 2621-2640.
Kilmer, J.R., Walker, D.D., Lee, Christine M., Palmer, R.S.,
Mallett, K.A., Fabiano, P., & Larimer, M.E. (2006).
Misperceptions of college student marijuana use:
implications for prevention. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 67, 277-281.
Lajoie, H.C. (2001). The influence of social norms and
attitudes toward sexual activity on behavioral intention
to engage in sexual activity. Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A: Humanities and Social
Sciences, 61, 4685.
Lambert, T.A., Kahn, A.S., & Apple, K.J. (2003).
Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. Journal of Sex
Research, 40, 129-133.
Lapinski, M.K., & Rimal, R.N. (2005). An explication of
social norms. Communication Theory, 15, 127-147.
Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels,
S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual
practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Laumann, E.O., Palik, A., & Rosen, R.C. (1999). Sexual
dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence and
predictors. Journal of th e Ameri ca n Medical
Association, 281, 537-544.
Lawrance, K., & Byers, E.S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction
in long-term heterosexual relationships: The
Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lewis, M.A., & Neighbors, C. (2006). Social norms
approaches using descriptive drinking norms
education: A review of the research on personalized
normative feedback. Journal of American College
Health, 54, 213-218.
Litzinger, S., & Gordon, K.C. (2005). Exploring
relationships among communication, sexual
satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex
& Marital Therapy, 31, 409-424.
Martens, M.P., Page, J.C., Mowry, E.S., Damann, K.M.,
Taylor, K.K., & Cimini, M.D. (2006). Differences
between actual and perceived student norms: An
examination of alcohol use, drug use, and sexual
behavior. Journal of American College Health, 54,
295-300.
McCabe, M.P., & Collins, J. K. (1984). Measurement and
depth of desired and experienced sexual involvement
at different stages of dating. The Journal of Sex
Research, 20, 377-390.
Mosher, W.D., Chandra, A., & Jones, J. (2002). Sexual
behavior and selected health measures: Men and
women 15–44 years of age, United States. Advance
data from vital and health statistics; No. 362.
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.



Neighbors, C., O’Connor, R., Lewis, M., Chawla, N., Lee,
C., & Fossos, N. (2008). The relative impact of
injunctive norms on college student drinking: The role
of reference group. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 22, 576-581.
Oliver, M.B., & Hyde, J.S. (1993). Gender differences in
sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
114, 129-151.
Peplau, L.A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and
women differ? Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 12, 37-40.
Perkins, W.H., & Wechsler, H. (1996). Variation in
perceived college drinking norms and its impact on
alcohol abuse: A nationwide study. Journal of Drug
Issues, 26, 961-974.
Pinney, E.M. (1987). The Pinney sexual satisfaction
inventory. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 233-251.
Reno, R.R., & Cialdini, R.B. (1993). The transsituational
influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64, 104-112.
Rimal, R., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are
influenced by perceived norms: A test of the theory of
normative social behavior. Communication Research,
32, 389-414.
Rimal, R. (2008). Modeling the relationship between
descriptive norms and behaviors: A test and extension
of the theory of normative social behavior (TNSB).
Health Communication, 23, 103-116.
Scholly, K.R., Alan, R., Gascoigne, J., & Holck, P.S.
(2005). Using social norms theory to explain
perceptions and sexual health behaviors of
undergraduate college students: An exploratory study.
Journal of American College Health, 53, 159-169.
Seal, D.W., & Agostinelli, G. (1996). College students’
perceptions of the prevalence of risky sexual behavior.
AIDS Care, 8, 453.
Stanley, S.M., & Markman, H.J. (1997). Marriage in the
’90s: A nationwide random phone survey. Denver,
CO: PREP, Inc.
Suls, J., & Green, P. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and
college student perceptions of gender-specific alcohol
norms. Health Psychology, 22, 479-486.
Trauger, H., Schick, C., Astor-Stetson, E., & Beck, B. L.
(1998). Billy Joel was wrong: Relationship of
attachment style, religion, and alcohol use to college
students’ sexual and intimacy-related beliefs,
behaviors, and traits. Poster session presented at the
meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association,
Boston, MA.
Wenzel, M. (2005). Misperceptions of social norms about
tax compliance: From theory to intervention. Journal
of Economic Psychology, 26, 862-883.