ArticlePDF Available

Heterosexual Dating Double Standards in Undergraduate Women and Men

Springer Nature
Sex Roles
Authors:

Abstract

Traditional heterosexual dating and courtship scripts (e.g., men pay for date, women take partner’s last name in marriage) reflect different standards of desirable behavior for women and men. Analogous to sexual double standards, dating double standards reflect the greater agency and power traditionally accorded to men in society. In the present study, we investigated factors related to young heterosexual adults’ endorsement of dating double standards. Participants were 330 female and male U.S. undergraduates at a California public university (57 % female, ages 18–25 years-old) from diverse ethnic backgrounds. In the Heterosexual Dating Double-Standards Scale, respondents rate the desirability of five dating and courtship behaviors (initiate date, hold door open, pay for date, propose marriage, take spouse’s last name) separately for women and men. Preliminary analyses revealed participants generally expressed double standards by rating the desirability of behaviors differently for female and male characters in the traditional direction (e.g., paying for a date rated more desirable for a man than for a woman). We predicted dating double standards would be positively related to factors previously found to predict traditional gender roles (viewing popular media, religious attendance) as well as attitudes that reflect traditional views (conservative political beliefs, benevolent and hostile sexism, disavowing a feminist identity). These hypotheses were generally supported. Among these correlations, dating double standards were strongly associated with benevolent sexism (among women and men) and with hostile sexism (among men). Implications for future research are discussed.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Heterosexual Dating Double Standards in Undergraduate Women
and Men
Alexa Paynter
1
&Campbell Leaper
1
Published online: 12 May 2016
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Traditional heterosexual dating and courtship
scripts (e.g., men pay for date, women take partnerslastname
in marriage) reflect different standards of desirable behavior
for women and men. Analogous to sexual double standards,
dating double standards reflect the greater agency and power
traditionally accorded to men in society. In the present study,
we investigated factors related to young heterosexual adults
endorsement of dating double standards. Participants were
330 female and male U.S. undergraduates at a California pub-
lic university (57 % female, ages 1825 years-old) from di-
verse ethnic backgrounds. In the Heterosexual Dating Double-
Standards Scale, respondents rate the desirability of five dat-
ing and courtship behaviors (initiate date, hold door open, pay
for date, propose marriage, take spouses last name) separately
for women and men. Preliminary analyses revealed partici-
pants generally expressed double standards by rating the de-
sirability of behaviors differently for female and male charac-
ters in the traditional direction (e.g., paying for a date rated
more desirable for a man than for a woman). We predicted
dating double standards would be positively related to factors
previously found to predict traditional gender roles (viewing
popular media, religious attendance) as well as attitudes that
reflect traditional views (conservative political beliefs, benev-
olent and hostile sexism, disavowing a feminist identity).
These hypotheses were generally supported. Among these
correlations, dating double standards were strongly associated
with benevolent sexism (among women and men) and
with hostile sexism (among men). Implications for future
research are discussed.
Keywords Sex role attitudes .Dating .Sexism .Feminism .
Heterosexual relationships .Double standards .Political
attitudes .Religiosity .Mass media
Double standards occur when values regarding appropriate
behavior are applied differently to groups based on their status
(Foschi 2000). With regards to gender, double standards have
usually been discussed in relation to the different standards
regarding sexuality applied to women and men (see Bordini
and Sperb 2013, for a review of studies conducted mostly in
United States). Whereas sexual initiative and sexual activity
have traditionally been disapproved in women (who risk being
labeled as Bsluts^), these same behaviors have been consid-
ered acceptable or even desirable in men (who might be
praised as Bstuds^)(Orenstein2001). In the present research,
we extend the analysis of gender-based double standards to
traditional heterosexual dating and courtship scripts. For ex-
ample, as reviewed below, many people consider it appropri-
ate for men rather than for women to initiate and pay for dates.
Gender-based double standards reflect the greater privi-
lege and power traditionally accorded to men in society
(Foschi 2000).
As explicated in the ambivalent sexism model (Glick and
Fiske 1996,2012), male dominance is maintained through a
combination of benevolent sexism and hostile sexism.
Benevolent sexism emphasizes the chivalrous ideology that
women are weak and they require mens protection (also
known as protective paternalism). In addition, benevolent sex-
ism is premised on essentialist views of gender whereby men
are seen as natural leaders and providers, whereas women are
viewed as natural caregivers. This ideology underlies the
*Campbell Leaper
cam@ucsc.edu
1
Department of Psychology, University of California, Room 277
Social Sciences 2, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406
DOI 10.1007/s11199-016-0628-8
different standards of courtship behavior traditionally expect-
ed for women and men. Thus, as illustrated in various studies
conducted in the United States, it is considered desirable for
menand undesirable for womento be the initiator and the
provider (Glick and Fiske 2012; Jaramillo-Sierra and Allen
2013; Laner and Ventrone 2000). Conversely, it is more desir-
able for women to accept mens control and protection than
the reverse. (Unless indicated otherwise, studies that are
subsequently cited were conducted in the United States
or Canada.)
In the ambivalent sexism model, benevolent sexism
operates in conjunction with hostile sexism to ensure male
dominance. Hostile sexism occurs when antagonism is direct-
ed toward women (or men) who challenge these traditional
gender roles. For example, this would include negative reac-
tions to women who take initiative in dating relationships
(Laner and Ventrone 2000) or to men who might take the
womans surname in marriage (Robnett and Leaper 2013;
Schweingruber et al. 2008). Although gender attitudes have
become more egalitarian in many respects over recent decades
(Brooks and Bolzendahl 2004), studies suggest that traditional
attitudes regarding heterosexual dating and courtship scripts
may be more resistant to change (Robnett and Leaper 2013).
In the present study, we sought to examine some factors that
might be related to variability in the endorsement of hetero-
sexual dating and courtship double standards.
Double standards occur to the extent that men are viewed
positively for exerting agency and control in heterosexual dat-
ing and courtship whereas women are viewed negatively for
the same behaviors. Different standards for women and men
tend to occur during heterosexual dating and courtship in at
least five ways (Eaton and Rose 2011; Glick and Fiske 1996;
Jaramillo-Sierra and Allen 2013; Laner and Ventrone 2000;
Robnett and Leaper 2013;RoseandFrieze1993; Sarlet et al.
2012; Schweingruber et al. 2008; Yoder et al. 2002).
Traditional expectations generally dictate that it is more ap-
propriate for (a) the man than for the women to initiate the
date, (b) the man than for the woman to hold doors open for
the other, (c) the man than for the woman to pay for the
expenses of the date, (d) the man than for the woman to make
a marriage proposal, and (e) the woman than for the man to
take the spouses last name. Conversely, it is often viewed as
inappropriate for the reverse patterns to occur. These five man-
ifestations of heterosexual courtship scripts are related to
structural patterns in society that privilege mens control over
economic resources and consequently place women in the
position of depending on men for their security (Glick and
Fiske 2012;RudmanandGlick2008; Wood and Eagly
2012). In the present study, we investigated double standards
in young adultsattitudes regarding these five heterosexual
dating and marital scripts in a sample of U.S. undergraduates.
For the purpose of our research, we created a measure that
directly evaluated the degree that individuals might hold
different standards for women and men during heterosexual
courtship in the five ways described above. Participants rated
how much they favored particular behaviors separately for
women and for men (e.g., I believe female undergraduates
should be the ones who ask the other sex out for a first date
andI believe male undergraduates should be the ones who
ask the other sex out for a first date). Most existing gender
attitude measures are based on asking respondents to rate their
agreement to single statements about particular behaviors of
one gender (e.g., Men should pay for the womans expenses
on a date). Our approach provides an index of the magnitude
that a participant might be similar or different in their stan-
dards for women and men.
We investigated possible correlates of U.S. undergraduate
womens and mens endorsement of heterosexual dating and
courtship double standards. Within the university setting,
young adults typically explore their sexual-romantic and
gender-role identities (Jones and Abes 2013). Although un-
dergraduate women and men tend to express egalitarian atti-
tudes in many respects (Brooks and Bolzendahl 2004;Davis
and Greenstein 2009), their attitudes about dating and court-
ship often fall back on traditional gender-role scripts (Robnett
and Leaper 2013). To consider personal factors that might be
related to variations in the endorsement of dating and court-
ship double standards, we took into account the participants
gender, preferences, and attitudes.
Predictors of Dating Double Standards
The traditional gendered division of roles has generally con-
ferred greater status and power among men than among wom-
en (Glick and Fiske 2012; Wood and Eagly 2012). Sexist
attitudes reify these inequalities. By extension, the paternalism
underlying dating double standards bestows greater agency
and status on men than on women (e.g., man provides for
woman; woman takes mans last name). Hence, women may
be more likely than men to challenge traditional gender roles
that privilege men relative to women. Indeed, prior studies
have generally observed more gender-egalitarian and nonsex-
ist attitudes among women than among men (Glick and Fiske
1996). Also, in some reports, more men than women were
found to endorse sexual double standards (see Fugère et al.
2008, for a review). In an analogous manner, we hypothesized
that men would be more likely than women to favor traditional
heterosexual dating double standards (Hypothesis 1).
According to the cultivation model, mass media can shape
the formation of peoples expectations of reality and attitudes
(Gerbner et al. 2002). By extension, popular media consump-
tion may inform and reflect womens and mens beliefs about
heterosexual dating traditions (Brown et al. 2002). In content
analyses of gender depictions in the media, girls and women
are often portrayed in subordinate and traditionally feminine
394 Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406
roles (e.g., as sex objects) in dating and marital relationships
(Collins 2011; Signorielli 2012;Wardetal.2014). More gen-
erally, traditional images of sexual-romantic roles are com-
monly reflected in television programs (Signorielli 2012;
Ward et al. 2014), in mens fitness magazines (Hatoum and
Belle 2004), as well as in entertainment and womensfashion
magazines (Stankiewicz and Rosselli 2008). Thus, frequent
consumption of these popular media may reflect and reinforce
traditional gender attitudes in viewers (Ward et al. 2014). For
example, studies with adolescents and young adults indicated
the amount of TV viewing was positively related to traditional
dating-role attitudes (Rivadeneyra and Lebo 2008;Ward
2002). Therefore, we predicted that women and men who
consume more mainstream media (overall TV viewing; read-
ing entertainment, womens fashion, and mens fitness maga-
zines) would be more likely to endorse heterosexual dating
double standards (Hypothesis 2). Specifically, this included
overall TV viewing, womens fashion magazines (or online
sites), mens fitness magazines (or online sites), and entertain-
ment magazines (or online sites).
Beliefs about gender roles are often embedded in peoples
religious and political beliefs (Sheeran et al. 1996). For exam-
ple, women are viewed as subordinate, and only men are per-
mitted to lead religious services in orthodox or fundamentalist
versions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In studies con-
ducted in the United States and United Kingdom, religiosity
(or religious attendance) was related to sexual double stan-
dards, whereby those higher in religiosity were more apt to hold
negative views of sexual activity in women (vs. men) (UK:
Sheeran et al. 1996). Also, religiosity is generally associated
with more traditional attitudes about gender roles (U.S.: Burn
and Busso 2005; Kirkpatrick 1993; Woodberry and Smith
1998). In a similar manner, politically conservative views are
also associated with traditional attitudes toward gender roles
(U.S.: Christopher and Mull 2006; Eagly et al. 2004).
Conservatism is often rooted in preserving existing institu-
tions and power relations, which can include the preservation
of male dominance and heterosexual traditions in society
(Christopher and Mull 2006). Hence, we predicted religious
attendance (Hypothesis 3) and conservative (vs. liberal) polit-
ical ideology (Hypothesis 4) would predict a greater likeli-
hood of endorsing heterosexual dating double standards.
According to Glick and Fiske (1996,2012) ambivalent
sexism model, benevolent sexism and hostile sexism are
interrelated processes that maintain male dominance in
society. To measure sexist attitudes, Glick and Fiske (1996)
asked individuals to rate their benevolent and hostile attitudes
towards women with items such as BWomenshouldbe
cherished and protected by men^(benevolent sexism) and
BWomen seek to gain power by getting control over men^
(hostile sexism). These attitudes reflect unequal standards
for women and men (e.g., women need mens protection;
womenaresubordinatetomen),whicharecommonly
expressed in the traditional heterosexual dating scripts de-
scribed previously (e.g., man pays for date; women takes
mans last name). Prior studies have found positive associa-
tions between ambivalent sexism and endorsement of tradi-
tional dating and courtship scripts (Bermúdez et al. 2015;Hall
and Canterberry 2011; McCarty and Kelly 2015; Robnett and
Leaper 2013). Therefore, we hypothesized that benevolent
(Hypothesis 5) and hostile (Hypothesis 6) forms of sexism
would be positively associated with the endorsement of het-
erosexual dating double standards.
Feminism is based on the attainment of gender equality in
the home, in the workplace, and in the larger society. Hence,
women and men who self-identify as feminists should be
more likely to reject gender-based double standards. Indeed,
in one study, U.S. undergraduate women who identified as
feminists were more likely to disavow sexual double stan-
dards than were women who supported gender-egalitarian at-
titudes yet did not identify as feminists (Bay-Cheng and
Zucker 2007). In a related manner, other studies found that
women who self-identified as feminists were less likely to
favor traditional dating and marital roles (Backus and
Mahalik 2011; Yoder et al. 2007). Thus, we hypothesized that
feminist self-identification would be negatively related to the
endorsement of double standards about heterosexual dating
and courtship in women and men (Hypothesis 7).
Summary of Hypotheses
In the present research, we examined variations in U.S. under-
graduate womens and mens endorsement of heterosexual
dating and courtship double standards. Because we created
the Heterosexual Dating Double-Standards Scale for the pres-
ent study, we conducted preliminary tests to examine the ex-
tent that women and men rated the desirability of each of the
five dating and courtship behaviors in the scale differently for
Bundergraduate males^and Bundergraduate females.^
Afterward, we tested the following hypotheses using the com-
posite Heterosexual Dating Double-Standards Scale:
1. Men would be more likely than women to endorse dating
double standards.
2. Popular media preferences would positively predict the
endorsement of dating double standards. We tested this
hypothesis separately for TV viewing, womens fashion
magazines/websites, mens fitness magazines/websites,
and entertainment magazines/websites.
3 and 4. Religious attendance and conservative (vs. liberal)
political attitudes would each positively predict the
sanctioning of dating double standards.
5 and 6. Benevolent and hostile sexism would each positively
predict support of dating double standards.
Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406 395
7. Feminist self-identification would negatively predict ap-
proval of dating double standards.
In addition, we conducted three exploratory analyses. First,
we tested for average gender differences in all of the variables
(although Hypothesis 1 is the only prediction we advanced
regarding average gender differences). Second, we tested if
there were gender differences in the correlates of dating dou-
ble standards (although we did not posit any differences).
Finally, although not hypothesized, we tested if social desir-
ability was correlated with the endorsement of dating double
standards. Some individuals who hold sexist attitudes may
nonetheless believe it is socially unacceptable to express them
openly to others (Swim et al. 1995). This concern might be
especially true for students in a mostly liberal university com-
munity. Therefore, we explored whether social desirability
was a potential bias affecting how individuals responded to
items in our double standards scale.
Method
Participants
The participants were recruited from a pool of students re-
quired to participate in studies (or to do alternative assign-
ments) for psychology classes at a U.S. California public uni-
versity. A total of 377 persons participated. Given the studys
focus on double standards in cross-gender dating and court-
ship relations, we dropped participants who self-identified as
gay, lesbian, questioning, not sure, or other (n= 24 women and
15 men). Also, we dropped student who were older than
25 years (n=7 men), below 18 years of age (n= 1 woman),
or were missing age information (n= 1 woman). Thus, the
sample used in the present study includes 330 heterosexual
undergraduates (188 women and 142 men; ages ranged from
18 to 25). Participantsbackground characteristics are sum-
marized in Table 1.
Procedure
Our study was listed among the posted psychology studies
with the title BCollege StudentsAttitudes.^Students who
opted to participate were directed to an online survey with
questions (in the following order) pertaining to demographic
background, endorsement of double standards, gender atti-
tudes and self-concepts, adjustment (not used in the present
study), and media preferences. Informed consent was secured
before starting the survey, and a debriefing statement with
information on how to contact the researchers appeared at
the end of the survey. Participants received credit for their
course requirement.
Measures
The measures used in the present study are described below.
Unless indicated otherwise, items were rated on a 6-point
scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to6(strongly agree). Scale
scores were derived by averaging ratings across items such
that higher scores indicate a greater level of the variable mea-
sured (unless indicated otherwise).
Social Desirability
Strahan and Gerbasi (1972) shortened version of the
Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability scale was used. There
were 10 items (e.g., BIm always willing to admit it when I
makeamistake^) with satisfactory internal reliability
(α=.69).
Media Preferences
Participants indicated how often they viewed each of the fol-
lowing popular media on the following 8-point scale: 1
(never), 2 (about once or twice per year), 3 (a few times per
year), 4 (about once per month), 5 (several times per month),
6(about once per week), 7 (a few times per week), or 8 (almost
every day): television, fashion magazines/web pages, fitness
magazines/web pages, and entertainment magazines/web
pages. Participants were also asked how often they read dif-
ferent kinds of books, although this latter information was not
used in the present set of analyses.
Religious Attendance
Attendance at religious services was reported using the fol-
lowing 7-point scale: 1 (rarely or never), 2 (every few years), 3
(about 12times per year), 4 (a few times per year), 5 (afew
times per month), 6 (every week), or 7 (more than once per
week). Approximately half (48.9 %) of women and two-fifths
(39.4 %) of men indicated they attended religious services at
least once or twice per year. (Participantsreported religious
affiliations appear in Table 1.)
Political Ideology
Political attitudes were measured using the following scale: 1
(very liberal), 2 (somewhat liberal), 3 (slightly liberal),
4=(dontknow/dontcare), 5 (slightly conservative), 6 (some-
what conservative), or 7 (very conservative). Most of the
women (74.5 %) and men (71.1 %) reported they were at least
slightly liberal. We ran our analyses without participants who
selected the midpoint, and our findings remained the same as
those reported in the present paper.
396 Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406
Benevolent and Hostile Sexism
To evaluate participantsendorsement of sexist attitudes and
beliefs, we used the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick and
Fiske 1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory includes sep-
arate scales to assess benevolent sexism (11 items) and hostile
sexism (11 items). Benevolent sexism is the belief that women
need to be protected by men (e.g., BIn a disaster women
should be rescued before men^) and that women and men
complement one another in their natures (e.g., BMany women
have a quality of purity that few men possess^). Hostile sexism
refers to hostile attitudes towards women who are viewed as
trying to control men, or change the presumed natural order of
gender relations (e.g., BOnce a woman gets a man to commit
to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash^). The
scales for benevolent (α= .79) and hostile (α= .90) sexism
had satisfactory internal reliability.
Feminist Self-Identification
Participants completed the four-item Self-Identification as a
Feminist questionnaire (Szymanski 2004). Examples of items
from this questionnaire are BI consider myself a feminist^and
BI identify myself as a feminist to other people.^The scale had
Tabl e 1 Sample characteristics
Va r i ab l e Wo m e n ( n=188) Men (n=142)
Age: M(SD) 19.41 (1.51) 20.39 (1.55)
Self-identified ethnicity
White/European American 75 (40 %) 67 (47 %)
Latina/Latino/Hispanic 49 (26 %) 27 (19 %)
Asian/Pacific Islander 38 (20 %) 34 (24 %)
Other 26 (14 %) 14 (10 %)
Political Views
Very liberal 41 (22 %) 31 (22 %)
Somewhat liberal 71 (38 %) 42 (30 %)
Slightly liberal 28 (15 %) 28 (20 %)
Dont Know/Dont Care 21 (11 %) 20 (14 %)
Slightly conservative 15 (8 %) 14 (10 %)
Somewhat conservative 11 (6 %) 6 (4 %)
Very conservative 1 (1 %) 1 (1 %)
Religious Affiliation
Not religious 37 (20 %) 54 (38 %)
Spiritual but not religious 52 (28 %) 34 (24 %)
Catholic/Christian Orthodox 46 (25 %) 26 (18 %)
Other Christian 22 (12 %) 15 (11 %)
Jewish 10 (5 %) 8 (6 %)
Buddhist 12 (6 %) 0
Muslim 0 1 (1 %)
Hindu 1 (1 %) 0
Other 0 4 (3 %)
No response 8 (4 %) 0
Mothers highest education
No high school diploma 29 (15 %) 25 (18 %)
High school diploma 31 (17 %) 19 (13 %)
Some college 54 (29 %) 29 (20 %)
Bachelors degree or higher 74 (39 %) 69 (49 %)
Fathers highest education
No high school diploma 29 (21 %) 26 (18 %)
High school diploma 37 (20 %) 28 (20 %)
Some college 34 (18 %) 20 (14 %)
Bachelors degree or higher 78 (42 %) 68 (48 %)
Note. There was a significant gender difference in age, t(328) = 5.73, p< .001. No significant gender difference
occurred in ethnic identifications, χ
2
(330) = 4.31, p=.230
Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406 397
satisfactory internal reliability (α= .89). Among the women,
45.2 % Bslightly^to Bstrongly^agreed that they considered
themselves a feminist and 25.5 % Bslightly^to Bstrongly^
agreed that they identified as a feminist to others. Among
men, these percentages were 31.7 and 19 %, respectively.
Heterosexual Dating Double-Standards Scale
For the present research, we devised the Heterosexual Dating
Double-Standards Scale to assess peoples double standards re-
garding different forms of paternalism in traditional heterosexual
dating and courtship. Our scale seeks to improve upon popularly
used gender attitude measures by directly comparing the behav-
ioral standards that individuals hold for women and men. In most
of the existing measures, respondents are asked to rate their
agreement to statements that stipulate either gender-egalitarian
arrangements (e.g., BA woman should be as free as a man
to propose marriage^from Spence and Helmreich 1978,
Attitudes Toward Women Scale) or traditional arrangements
(e.g., BWomen should be cherished and protected by men^from
Glick and Fiske 1996, Ambivalent Sexism Scale). Individuals
are seen as holding relatively gender-egalitarian attitudes if they
agree with statements about gender-egalitarian arrangements and
disagree with items specifying traditional patterns.
However, the format of these items does not allow for all
possibilities in how individuals might view the relative desirabil-
ity of a behavior for women and men. For a given behavior, there
are four alternative attitudes that might be endorsed: The behav-
ior might be viewed as equally desirable for women and men
(equal standard); it might be viewed as equally undesirable for
women and men (equal standard); it may be viewed as more
desirable for men than for women (double standard); or the
behavior might be viewed as more desirable for women than
for men (double standard). The method that we utilized allows
for these various possibilities (see Axinn et al. 2011;
Muehlenhard and McCoy 1991, for similar approaches). In our
Heterosexual Dating Double-Standards Scale, it is possible to
compare the behavioral standards that individuals held for wom-
en and men. Moreover, it assesses the magnitude of difference in
the standards that individuals might hold for women and men
(i.e., whether the average differences in ratings for male and
female characters are negligible, small, medium, or large).
The directions preceding the items assessing double
standards stated that we wanted participantsBopinions
about appropriate behavior for different kinds of people
such as undergraduates, teachers, politicians, actors, and
so forth.^In addition, the directions stated: BSome of the
items pertain to sexual-romantic behaviors. In these in-
stances, please indicate your opinions about people in
heterosexual relationships regardless of your own sexual
orientation.^Participants subsequently rated their views
regarding the appropriateness of specific behaviors sepa-
rately for different types of persons. They rated agreement
for all items regarding Bfemale undergraduates^and Bmale
undergraduates.^Also, to help disguise the questionnaires
focus on gender attitudes, participants were asked to rate many
(but not all) of the behaviors for additional target groups that
included Bwealthy persons,^Breligious persons,^Bpoliticians,^
Bactors,^and Bteachers.^
The order of items was randomized across participants.
This included the gender and the type of target being rated.
Also, while taking the survey, each item needed to be com-
pleted before proceeding to the next item; and it was not pos-
sible to return to earlier items.
Item Selection Twenty-four item types were initially generat-
ed through a review of prior gender attitude measures and
research on double standards. We conducted preliminary anal-
yses to evaluate potential items for the final scale. Some items
were dropped because they were considered peripheral to our
present focus on heterosexual dating and courtship behaviors.
These include some items created to evaluate possible double
standards about drinking alcohol (BI think that [target group]
who get very drunk must have poor self-control^). Some
items related to dating were dropped due to low internal reli-
ability with the other items. We found the least reliable items
focused more on sexual behaviors in dating relationships (e.g.,
BI believe it is fine if [target group] date someone much older
than them,^BI believe that [target group] who are sexually
experienced would be desirable romantic partners^). Further
inspection revealed that our sample generally did not hold
double standards about these sexual behaviors.
Our final scale was comprised of 5 items that focused spe-
cifically on traditional heterosexual dating and courtship
scripts: BI believe [target group] should hold open doors for
the other sex,^BI believe [target group] should be the ones
who ask the other sex out for a first date,^BIf [target group]
go out on a date, they should usually pay for most or all of
the expenses,^BIf [target group] later get married, I believe
they should be the ones who do the marriage proposal,^
and BIf [target group] later get married, I believe they
should adopt the last name of the other partner.^
Traditional dating double standards were reflected if the
respondent rated stronger agreement for male undergradu-
ates than for female undergraduates, with the exception of
the last item (taking partners last name) which was reverse
scored. The scale had satisfactory internal consistency
(α=.80 forwomen; α= .77 for men).
Scoring Separate ratings of Bfemale undergraduates^and
Bmale undergraduates^were used to evaluate double stan-
dards (BI believe a female undergraduate should hold open
doors for the other sex^vs.BI believe a male undergraduate
should hold open doors for the other sex^). As mentioned
above in the general description of the measures, items were
rated on a 6-point scale. The difference between ratings of
398 Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406
female and male characters for each behavior was computed.
Difference scores were positive integers if they reflected tra-
ditional double standards (e.g., stronger agreement for men
than for women as the ones to pay for a date; or stronger
agreement for women than for men as the ones to take part-
ners last name). Negative scores reflected nontraditional dou-
ble standards (e.g., stronger agreement for women than for
men as the ones to pay for a date). Scores closest to zero
reflected egalitarian attitudes (i.e., no difference in ratings of
behavior for females and males). The composite score for the
Heterosexual Dating Double-Standards Scale reflects the av-
erage difference score across the five items (i.e., a possible
range for mean scores of 5 to +5). Higher scores reflect
stronger endorsement of double standards in the traditional
direction.
Results
Three sets of analyses were conducted using the Heterosexual
Dating Double-Standards Scale. First, we performed a prelim-
inary series of paired-ttests and correlations to examine if
participants rated female and male undergraduates differently
on each of the five items in the scale. (When describing the
item characters in the scale, we refer to ratings of Bfemale
undergraduates^versus ratings of Bmale undergraduates.
When describing the gender of the participants, we refer
to women versus men.) These analyses were conducted to
explore how well the items in the new scale reflected het-
erosexual dating double standards among women and men.
For the second set of analyses, we tested for average gen-
der differences on all of the measures. Finally, we ran bi-
variate correlations between the composite score on the
Heterosexual Dating Double-Standards Scale and each of
the hypothesized predictors. Although we did not hypoth-
esize gender differences in these correlations, we did test if
any occurred.
Item Analyses
The results from the paired t-tests comparing participants
ratings of item characters (i.e., undergraduate women and
men) on each of the dating and courtship behaviors are sum-
marized in Table 2. For each item, ratings of undergraduate
femalesare compared with ratings of Bundergraduate males.^
The table presents both (a) the correlation between pairs of
items, run separately for women and men participants, as well
as (b) the values from the paired t-tests (including Cohensd
measures of effect size) comparing the difference between
each pair of ratings. Tests for gender differences between
correlations were performed, and these results are addition-
ally indicated in Table 2.Overall,womenandmenen-
dorsed traditional double standards regarding the various
dating and courtship behaviors. One exception was the
item pertaining to holding doors. Although men tended to
support a traditional double standard here, women gener-
ally did not.
Large effect sizes (d.70) occurred among women and
men who expressed traditional double standards about paying
for a date and proposing marriage. Also, large effect sizes
were indicated among women about whoshould ask for a date
and among men about who should take the marriage partners
last name. The trend was for traditional scripts (i.e., man ini-
tiates date, pays for date, and proposes marriage; woman takes
mans last name) to be viewed positively and for nontradition-
al scripts to be viewed negatively (e.g., woman proposes mar-
riage). Thus, these average patterns reflect a gender-based
double standard in how these heterosexual courtship behav-
iors were evaluated.
Group Comparisons
For our next set of analyses, we compared womens and mens
score on all of the measures. However, first, we performed a
preliminary 4 × 2 ANOVA to test for possible differences in
heterosexual dating double standards based on participants
ethnicity (White/Euro, Latino/a, Asian, or other) or gender.
There were no significant main effects for ethnicity, F(3,
322) = 1.81, p= .145, or gender, F(1, 322) = .74, p= .319.
Also, the interaction effect was not significant, F(3,
322) = 2.20, p= .088. Given that ethnic background did not
appear related to double standards, we did not consider it as
a factor in subsequent analyses.
Next, we carried out a MANOVA to test for average gender
differences across the 11 measures used in the present study.
There was a significant multivariate main effect for gender,
F(11, 316) = 18.84, p<.001; ηp
2
= .40. As summarized in
Tab le 3, there were significant univariate gender effects asso-
ciated with dating double standards (women higher), hostile
sexism (men higher), feminist identity (women higher),
reading womens fashion magazines/websites (women
higher), reading mens fitness magazines/websites (men
higher), and reading entertainment magazines/websites
(women higher).
In Hypothesis 1, we posited higher average endorsement of
dating double standards among men than among women.
However, the opposite pattern was indicated. That is, women
were significantly more likely than were men to support het-
erosexual dating double standards. Thus Hypothesis 1 was not
supported.
Correlates of Double Standards
We conducted bivariate Spearman correlations to test whether
the hypothesized predictors were related to variations in the
composite Heterosexual Dating Double-Standards Scale. The
Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406 399
correlations among all variables, separately by participants
gender, are presented in Table 4. In addition, tests for
gender differences in the correlations between double
standards and the hypothesized predictors are presented
in Table 5.
Social Desirability
Although not hypothesized, we explored whether there was
any association between social desirability and double stan-
dards. The results indicated these two variables were not
Tabl e 2 Paired t-tests comparing
ratings of item characters Item Item Character rt pd
Bundergraduate males^Bundergraduate females^
MSDM SD
1. Hold door for other sex
Women 4.14 1.32 4.20 1.37 .71
a
.78 .437 .08
Men 4.18 1.37 3.38 1.41 .29
b
5.75 .000 .68
2. One to ask first date
Women 3.97 1.42 2 .64 1.02 .15
a
9.75 .000 1.01
Men 3.37 1.38 3.10 .94 .14
b
2.11 .037 .25
3. One to pay for date
Women 3.81 1.31 2 .16 1.01 .09
a
13.22 .000 1.36
Men 3.69 1.29 2.31 1.11 .15
a
9.03 .000 1.07
4. One to propose marriage
Women 3.81 1.31 2 .16 1.01 .09
a
13.22 .000 1.36
Men 4.13 1.47 2.51 1.14 .29
a
9.24 .000 1.10
5. Adopt marriage partnerslastname
Women 2.26 1.12 3 .21 1.54 .10
a
6.54 .000 .68
Men 2.33 1.10 3.68 1.39 .13
a
8.55 .000 1.02
Note. n= 188 women and n= 142 men. Ratings of Bundergraduate males^and Bundergraduate females^were
made on a 6-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to6(strongly agree). The scores for the t-tests and Cohensd
are positive when they reflect traditional double standards (ratings of Bundergraduate males^higher than of
Bundergraduate females^for items 14, and the reverse for item 5. For rcorrelations for each item, different
subscripts indicate significant (p< .01) differences for women and men participants
*
p< .05.
**
p<.01.
***
p< .001
Tabl e 3 Gender comparisons on
study measures Possible Women Men F(1, 326) η
p
2
d
Range M(SD)M(SD)
Dating Double Standards 5 to +5 1.44 (1.36) 1.09 (1.31) 5.45
*
.02 .26
Benevolent Sexism 1 to 6 3.29 (.89) 3.19 (.85) 1.21 .00 .11
Hostile Sexism 1 to 6 2.91 (.98) 3.20 (1.09) 6.49
*
.02 .28
Feminist Identify 1 to 6 3.48 (1.26) 3.13 (1.35) 5.78
*
.02 .27
Political Views 1 to 6 2.65 (1.48) 2.76 (1.47) .36 .00 .07
Religious Attendance 1 to 7 2.63 (1.70) 2.43 (1.76) 1.08 .00 .12
TV Viewing 1 to 8 6.53 (1.61) 6.59 (1.52) .21 .00 .04
Wom e ns Fashion Magazines 1 to 8 2.90 (1.52) 1.37 (1.03) 105.52
***
.25 1.18
Mens Fitness Magazines 1 to 8 1.30 (.82) 2.01 (1.61) 27.12
***
.08 .56
Entertainment Magazines 1 to 8 2.98 (1.73) 1.92 (1.55) 32.15
***
.09 .65
Social Desirability 1 to 6 3.33 (.74) 3.42 (.65) 1.38 .00 .13
Note. Paternalism was the only scale allowing possible negative scores (range 5 to +5) with scores above zero
reflecting traditional double standards. Political views range from very liberal (low) to very conservative (high). A
MANOVA testing for gender differences across all measures was significant, F(13, 314) = 16.43, p< .001,
η
p
2
=.41
*
p< .05.
**
p<.01.
***
p< .001
400 Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406
significantly correlated for both women (r=.12,p= .089) and
men (r=.08, p=.348).
Media Preferences
We predicted a positive association between participants
mainstream media preferences and their endorsement of dating
double standards (Hypothesis 2). We tested this hypothesis in
relation to participantsreported consumption of the following
media: television, womens fashion magazines (or websites),
mens fitness magazines (or websites), and entertainment
magazines (or websites). Among women, the hypothesized pat-
tern was seen with regards to reading womens fashion and
entertainment magazines, but not in relation to TV viewing or
reading mens fitness magazines. Among men, the expected
pattern was observed with TV viewing and (marginally) with
reading mens fitness magazines, but not with reading womens
fashion magazines or entertainment magazines. There were no
significant gender differences in the correlations between dou-
ble standards and media consumption regarding TV viewing,
womens fashion magazines, and entertainment magazines.
However, the correlation between double standards and reading
mens fitness magazines was significantly stronger for men
than for women (see Table 5).
Religious Attendance and Political Ideology
The endorsement of heterosexual dating double standards was
expected to be more likely among those scoring higher in
religious attendance (Hypothesis 3) and conservative political
attitudes (Hypothesis 4). Religious attendance was significant-
ly associated with the double standards only among men.
However, endorsing conservative (vs. liberal) political atti-
tudes was significantly and positively related to double stan-
dards in men and women. There were no gender differences in
the latter correlations (see Table 5).
Benevolent and Hostile Sexism
As hypothesized, both hostile (Hypothesis 5) and benevolent
(Hypothesis 6) sexism were positively and significantly relat-
ed to endorsing double standards. Both correlations were in-
dicated for women as well as men. The magnitude of correla-
tion between benevolent sexism and dating double standards
was comparable for women and men, but the association be-
tween hostile sexism and double standards was significantly
stronger for men than for women (see Table 5).
Feminist Self-Identification
The hypothesized association between feminist self-
identification and dating double standards (Hypothesis 7)
Tabl e 4 Spearman correlations among study measures by gender
Measures 12345578910
1. Dating Double Standards .51
***
.17
*
.11 .18
*
.11 .06 .16
*
.09 .14
+
2. Benevolent Sexism .51
***
.40
***
.05 .26
***
.21
**
.14 .06 .00 .17
*
3. Hostile Sexism .52
***
.51
***
.39
***
.40
***
.07 .08 .06 .10 .02
4. Feminist Identity .36
***
.20
*
.39
***
.32
***
.07 .01 .04 .04 .01
5. Political Attitudes .32
***
.38
***
.36
***
.41
***
.21
**
.01 .01 .04 .08
6. Religious Attendance .20
*
.24
**
.17
*
.03 .05 .08 .03 .05 .05
7. Television Viewing .18
*
.08 .07 .13 .03 .08 .00 .03 .17
*
8. Womens Fashion Magazines .01 .16
+
.09 .19
*
.04 .19
*
.02 .23
**
.50
***
9. Men Fitness Magazines .16
+
.19
*
.19
*
.05 .21
*
.14 .12 .55
***
.14
+
10. Entertainment Magazines .01 .10 .01 .07 .04 .20
*
.08 .47
***
.46
***
Note. n= 188 women and n= 142 men. Correlations for women appear above the diagonal; for men, below. Political views range from liberal (low) to
conservative (high)
+
p< .06.
*
p< .05.
**
p< .01.
***
p<.001
Table 5 Gender comparisons of correlations between hypothesized
predictors and dating double standards
Variables Women Men Z
difference
Benevolent Sexism .51
***
.51
***
.15
Hostile Sexism .17
*
.52
***
3.68
***
Feminist Identity -.11 -.36
***
2.43
*
Political Attitudes .18
**
.32
***
1.33
Religious Attendance .11 .20
*
.85
TV Viewing .06 .18
*
1.08
Wom e ns Fashion Magazines .16
*
.01 1.53
Mens Fitness Magazines .09 .16
+
2.24
*
Entertainment Magazines .14
*
-.01 1.35
Note. n=188womenandn= 142 men. Political views range from liberal
(low) to conservative (high)
*
p< .05.
**
p< .01.
***
p<.001
Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406 401
was indicated among men but not among women, and the
gender difference was significant (see Table 5).
Discussion
The items in our Heterosexual Dating Double Standards Scale
were designed to assess different standards of behavior for wom-
en and men during heterosexual dating and courtship. The selec-
tion of the items was guided by prior research on the topic (Eaton
and Rose 2011;GlickandFiske1996; Laner and Ventrone 2000;
Robnett and Leaper 2013;RoseandFrieze1993;Sarletetal.
2012). In general, women and men in our U.S. undergraduate
sample generally endorsed double standards about heterosexual
scripts. By employing a difference scorewhereby participants
rated the desirability of particular behaviors separately for wom-
en and menit was possible to infer the magnitude of the double
standard that individuals held. When we explored this patterns
for specific items, we observed medium and large effect sizes in
double standards toward asking for a date, paying for the date,
proposing marriage, and adopting a marriage partners last name.
On average, women and men evaluated each of these behaviors
positively when they reflected traditional scripts (e.g., man initi-
ates date, man proposes marriage) and negatively when they
reflected nontraditional scripts (e.g., woman initiates date, man
takes womans last name in marriage). Thus, many women and
men endorsed double standards about heterosexual dating and
courtshipeven in our mostly liberal undergraduate sample.
One notable gender difference occurred in participantsrat-
ings of the item about holding the door (BI believe undergrad-
uate [males/females] should hold open doors for the other
sex^). Whereas men in general viewed this more appropriate
for undergraduate males than for undergraduate females (with
a large effect size), women in general viewed it equally desir-
able for undergradaute males and females. Unfortunately, in
our survey items, we did not specify whether holding doors
for the other gender was specific to a dating context. Yoder
et al. (2002) observed patterns of door holding among mixed-
gender pairs in public settings (e.g., on campus) and dating
contexts (e.g., at a restaurant). In mixed-gender pairs, women
were somewhat more likely to hold doors in public settings,
whereas men were much more likely to hold doors in dating
settings. Therefore, for future use, we recommend adding the
phrase Bduring a date^to our item.
When examining the correlates of endorsing dating double
standards, we explored whether social desirability concerns
might bias participantswillingness to endorse dating double
standards. When individuals with traditional gender attitudes
are part of a liberal college community, they may be reluctant
to share their traditional gender attitudes (Swim et al. 1995).
However, we found no evidence that responses on our double
standards scale were significantly related to social desirability
for either women or men.
Undergraduatesoverall endorsement of heterosexual dat-
ing double standards varied with the other personal factors
that we examined. First, we tested for average gender differ-
ences in the endorsement of dating double standards. Prior
studies (conducted mostly in the United States) have found
that men were more likely than women to endorse sexist atti-
tudes (Rudman and Glick 2008). In a similar manner, we
observed higher average endorsement of hostile sexism
among men than among women. However, our first hypothe-
sis that more men than women would favor double standards
was not supported. Instead, the reverse pattern was indicated
whereby women scored higher on average than did men. An
inspection of the specific items in the Heterosexual Dating
Double Standards Scale (see Table 2) suggests this was mainly
due to the item addressing who initiates the first date.
Although both women and men tended to express traditional
double standards regarding this behavior, the trend was much
stronger among women (very large effect size) than men
(small effect size). This may reflect the anxiety often associ-
ated with initiating a date (McNamara and Grossman 1991),
which many men may find intimidating.
In our second hypothesis, we proposed that popular media
preferences would predict dating double standards. We fo-
cused on popular media in the United States that tend to rein-
force traditional gender roles, including overall television
viewing, womens fashion magazines (or web sites), entertain-
ment magazines (or web sites), and mens fitness magazines
(or web sites). Traditional sexual-romantic roles are common-
ly depicted in television and other popular media (Signorielli
2012). Furthermore, women are commonly portrayed as sex
objects in fashion magazines (Stankiewicz and Rosselli 2008).
At the same time, traditional images of masculinity are rein-
forced in mens fitness magazines (Hatoum and Belle 2004).
These images underscore notions of women needing to appeal
to men who might ask them on dates, as well as men needing
to appear strong and powerful; in turn, these patterns may
contribute to traditional dating roles. Consistent with our pre-
dictions, double standards were more likely among women
who reported reading womens fashion or entertainment mag-
azines (or web sites). Also, as expected, we found double
standards were more likely among men who reported either
more television viewing or more reading of mens fitness
magazines (or web sites).
The observation that different types of print media were
related to endorsing double standards for women and men is
unsurprising. These differences reflected the media habits that
women and men reported. Reading fashion and entertainment
magazines were more common among women, whereas read-
ing mens fitness magazines was more likely among men. The
additional finding that TV viewing was associated with dating
double standards only among men, however, deserves explo-
ration. There was no average gender difference in amount of
reported television viewing. One possible explanation is that
402 Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406
men are overrepresented as characters in television shows
(Collins 2011; Signorielli 2012), which may provide men with
proportionally more gender-stereotypical role models to
observe.
Frequent consumption of popular media may reinforce the
internalization of cultural stereotypes (Signorielli 2012), which
often include double standards about dating scripts (Eggermont
2006; Rivadeneyra and Lebo 2008). To the extent that media
often inform and guide peoples gender-role expectations, the
latter explanation follows from social role theory (Eagly and
Woo d 2012), as well as from the cultivation model (Gerbner
et al. 2002). Although all of our results are correlational and
causation cannot be inferred, prior experimental studies demon-
strated that viewing gender-typed television content led to in-
creases in peoples endorsement of gender stereotypes
(Signorielli 2012;Ward2002). We suspect the causal influence
is bidirectional, whereby mass media shape peoples attitudes
and also people tend to favor media that reflect their views. To
better understand possible television influences, it may be more
revealing in future research to look for links between particular
television programming and dating attitudes (Rivadeneyra and
Lebo 2008;Tolmanetal.2007; Zurbriggen and Morgan 2006).
Religious attendance and political views were additional
facets of individualsexperiences and ideology that we tested
as correlates of dating double standards. As predicted in our
respective third and fourth hypotheses, both factors were as-
sociated with the endorsement of heterosexual dating double
standards. Greater religious attendance was related to stronger
endorsement of double standards (although the association
was significant only among men). This finding is consistent
with prior research noting a positive association between reli-
giosity and support for protective paternalism (Burn and
Busso 2005). Most mainstream religions emphasize patriar-
chal roles for men and women (Sheeran et al. 1996). In future
work, however, it may prove helpful to distinguish among
fundamentalist and more progressive sects of particular faiths
(Bang et al. 2005; Woodberry and Smith 1998).
In addition, undergraduates with a more conservative po-
litical ideology (in our mostly liberal sample) were more likely
to endorse gender-role double standards in dating and court-
ship. Support for traditional heterosexual roles is a common
tenant of conservative political ideology (Eagly et al. 2004;
Henley et al. 2000;Klein2006). The results involving reli-
gious attendance as well as political attitudes underscore how
traditional views of heterosexual relations are intertwined with
other cultural ideologies in society.
As predicted in our fifth and sixth hypotheses, respectively,
benevolent and hostile sexism were positively related to par-
ticipantsbacking of double standards. Among the examined
correlates of double standards, benevolent sexism was the
only factor with a large effect size among both women and
men. This is not surprising given that our double standards
scale focuses on forms of protective paternalism (benevolent
sexism) in dating and courtship scripts. Hence, the strong
association with benevolent sexism supports the validity of
dating double standards measure. One distinctive feature of
our measure, however, is that it specifically focuses on atti-
tudes regarding heterosexual dating and courtship scripts.
Although hostile sexism was significantly correlated with
dating double standards among women and men, the associa-
tion was substantially stronger among men than women.
Mensand womens patterns of correlations among hostile
sexism, benevolent sexism, and dating double standards are
compatible with Glick and Fiske's (1996) ambivalent sexism
model. Hostile sexism reifies mens traditional dominance
over women, whereas benevolent sexism offers women the
putative reward of mens protection in exchange for womens
deference. Thus, endorsing double standards about heterosex-
ual courtship may be especially likely for women who believe
it is important for the man to protect the woman (i.e., benev-
olent sexism). In a complementary manner, endorsing these
double standards may be more common among men who
value male dominance or the role of male as protector (i.e.,
both hostile sexism and benevolent sexism) (Fischer 2006;
Hammond et al. 2014;Rudmanetal.2013).
In our seventh and last hypothesis, we posited that feminist
self-identification would be negatively related to expressing
double standards. Although the correlation was negative for
women and men, it was significant only for men. Also, the
gender difference in the correlations was significant. The lack
of a significant association between feminist self-identification
and double standards among women may reflect the BImnota
feminist but^phenomenon documented in prior studies in the
United States (Leaper and Arias 2011; Zucker 2004). That is,
some women may endorse gender-egalitarian attitudes but reject
the feminist label because of misunderstandings and negative
perceptions regarding feminism. Conversely, men who reject
double standards that generally privilege their own gender
may more readily associate gender equality with feminism.
These conjectures require testing in future research.
Having discussed the results pertaining to our hypotheses,
we now turn to some implications of our study for future
research. The Heterosexual Dating Double-Standards Scale
assesses different behavioral standards for women and men
during heterosexual dating and courtship. Analogous to sexual
double standards, dating double standards reflect the greater
power conferred upon men than upon women in society. Also,
as seen in sexual double standards, participants tended to view
men positively for expressing agency and control in dating
and courtship, whereas they tended to view women somewhat
negatively for the same behaviors.
We note some advantages of our method for assessing double
standards in future research. First, our scale improves upon the
approach used in many gender attitude questionnaires by sepa-
rately assessing the desirability for women and for men of par-
ticular heterosexual courtship behaviors. In this manner, it is
Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406 403
possible to index the degree that individuals might hold double
standards (see Axinn et al. 2011; Muehlenhard and McCoy
1991, for similar approaches). Our scale also includes a cohesive
set of items that collectively address paternalistic arrangements in
heterosexual dating and courtship (Glick and Fiske 2012).
Heterosexual courtship is not the only domain in which pa-
ternalism and double standards are enacted. Therefore, to build
on our approach, we recommend expanding the scale to include
multiple domains in which double standards are expressed.
Besides heterosexual dating and courtship roles, other domains
might include sexual behavior (Lai and Hynie 2011; Zaikman
and Marks 2014), decision making (Harvey et al. 2002),
socioemotional support (Burleson et al. 2005), aggression
(Strauss 2008), and marital role-sharing (Gaunt 2013).
Considering multiple domains in which gender-based double
standards operate might prove helpful when evaluating how
and when double standards guide behavior (Eaton and
Matamala 2014; Forste and Fox 2012; Kaufman and Taniguchi
2006).
There is untapped potential of our difference-score ap-
proach that we were unable to consider the present study. It
can be used in situations when individuals might have cross-
gender-typed attitudes (e.g., believing it is more appropriate
for a woman than for a man to initiate a date). There were
insufficient incidences of such patterns to explore in the pres-
ent study. Also, the difference-score method can distinguish
between individuals who consider a behavior as equally ac-
ceptable versus equally unacceptable for women and men.
This distinction might be more pertinent when considering
attitudes about sexual behaviors. For example, some people
might have similar views about having a Bone-night stand^for
women and menbut one group might see this behavior as
equally acceptable whereas another group sees it as equally
undesirable. Perhaps these two egalitarian patterns are differ-
entially related to other outcomes.
Further testing of heterosexual dating and courtship double
standards is recommended with other populations. The pres-
ent study was based on a sample of heterosexual and mostly
liberal undergraduates. They were young adults (18 to
25 years old) who may still be exploring their ideas and opin-
ions about romantic and marital roles (Jones and Abes
2013). There are reasons to study both younger and
older samples. Paternalistic attitudes about dating are
apparent in U.S. adolescents (Farkas and Leaper 2016).
Also, previous research in the United States suggests
gender attitudes often become more traditional after het-
erosexual couples have children (Hackel and Ruble
1992; Katz-Wise et al. 2010). We also encourage exam-
ining gender-role double standards in lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender individuals. For example, some evidence
suggests the internalization of double standards may affect
romantic relationship quality among gay men (Wade and
Donis 2007). However, this may be less likely in lesbian
relationships for whom egalitarian roles might be more likely
than gay mens or heterosexualsrelationships (Kurdek 1998).
Finally, we encourage investigation into the potential con-
sequences of endorsing double standards. Drawing on the
gender-role strain model, double standards can be psycholog-
ically and physically debilitating for women and men (Levant
and Philpot 2002;Richmondetal.2015; van Well et al. 2005).
Conversely, research on heterosexual, gay, and lesbian roman-
tic couples suggests that transcending traditional double stan-
dards may bolster relationship satisfaction and psychological
adjustment (Casad et al. 2015; Forste and Fox 2012;Kaufman
and Taniguchi 2006;Kurdek1998; Levant and Philpot 2002).
When individuals in a romantic relationship are equally free to
express their agency and to support one another, their lives
together may be more fulfilling.
Acknowledgments The research was supported by a grant from the
Academic Senate Committee on Research of the University of
California, Santa Cruz. The authors thank Timea Farkas, Rachael
Robnett, Antoinette Wilson, Christy Starr, Veronica Hamilton, and
Melissa Smith for their suggestions and comments. Preliminary findings
from this study were presented at the 2014 Conference of the Association
for Psychological Science in San Francisco.
Both authors collaborated in the design of the study and the writing of
the article. AP was responsible for initially proposing a study on gender-
based double standards. Also, AP identified relevant behaviors to include
in the scale. CL was responsible for creating the difference-score format
for the scale and conducting the statistical analyses. Also, CL was pri-
marily responsible for revisions of the manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of
interest.
Research Involving Human Participants The Institutional Review
Board at the authorsuniversity reviewed and approved the research
protocol.
Informed Consent Informed consent was secured from all
participants.
References
Axinn, W. G., Young-DeMarco, L., & Ro, M. C. (2011). Gender double
standards in parenting attitudes. Social Science Research, 40,417
432. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.08.010.
Backus, F. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2011). The masculinity of Mr Right:
Feminist identity and heterosexual womens ideal romantic partners.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35,318326. doi:10.1177/
0361684310392357.
Bang, E., Hall, M. E., Anderson, T. L., & Willingham, M. M. (2005).
Ethnicity, acculturation, and religiosity as predictors of female col-
lege studentsrole expectations. Sex Roles, 53,231237. doi:10.
1007/s11199-005-5681-7.
Bay-Cheng, L., & Zucker, A. N. (2007). Feminism between the sheets:
Sexual attitudes among feminists, nonfeminists, and egalitarians.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 157163. doi:10.1111/j.
1471-6402.2007.00349.x.
404 Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406
Bermúdez, J. M., Sharp, E. A., & Taniguchi, N. (2015). Tapping into the
complexity: Ambivalent sexism, dating, and familial beliefs among
young Hispanics. Journal of Family Issues, 36,12741295. doi:10.
1177/0192513X13506706.
Bordini, G. S., & Sperb, T. M. (2013). Sexual double standard: A review of
the literature between 2001 and 2010. Sexuality and Culture An
Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 17,686704. doi:10.1007/s12119-012-
9163-0.
Brooks, C., & Bolzendahl, C. (2004). The transformation of US gender
role attitudes: Cohort replacement, social-structural change, and
ideological learning. Social Science Research, 33, 106133. doi:
10.1016/S0049-089X(03)00041-3.
Brown, J. D., Steele, J. R., & Walsh-Childers, K. (Eds.). (2002). Sexual
teens, sexual media: Investigating medias influence on adolescent
sexuality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burleson, B. R., Holmstrom, A. J., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2005). BGuys cant
say that to guys^: Four experiments assessing the normative moti-
vation account for deficiencies in the emotional support provided by
men. Communication Monographs, 72, 468501. doi:10.1080/
03637750500322636.
Burn, D. M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism,
and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29,412418. doi:
10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00241.x.
Casad, B. J., Salazar, M. M., & Macina, V. (2015). The real versus the
ideal: Predicting relationship satisfaction and well-being from en-
dorsement of marriage myths and benevolent sexism. Psychology of
Wom e n Q uar t e rly, 39,119129. doi:10.1177/0361684314528304.
Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and
ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30,223230.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00284.x.
Collins, R. L. (2011). Content analysis of gender roles in media: Where
are we now and where should we go? Sex Roles, 64,290298. doi:
10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5.
Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender ideology: Components,
predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35,87
105. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van
Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of
theories of social psychology (Vol 2 (pp. 458476). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B.,Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & Koenig, A. M.
(2004). Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psycholog-
ical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87,
796816. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.796.
Eaton, A. A., & Matamala, A. (2014). The relationship between
heteronormative beliefs and verbal sexual coercion in college stu-
dents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(7), 14431457. doi:10.1007/
s10508-014-0284-4.
Eaton, A. A., & Rose, S. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A
35 year review using sex roles. Sex Roles, 64, 843862. doi:10.
1007/s11199-011-9957-9.
Eggermont, S. (2006). Television viewing and adolescentsjudgment of
sexual request scripts: A latent growth curve analysis in early and
middle adolescence. Sex Roles, 55,457468. doi:10.1007/s11199-
006-9099-7.
Farkas, T., & Leaper, C. (2016). Chivalrys double-edged sword: How girls
and boyspaternalistic attitudes relate to their possible family and work
selves. Sex Roles, 74,220230. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0556-z.
Fischer, A. R. (2006). Womens benevolent sexism as reaction to hostility.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30,410416. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6402.2006.00316.x.
Forste, R., & Fox, K. (2012). Household labor, gender roles, and family
satisfaction: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies, 43,613631. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/23267837.
Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and re-
search. Annual Review of Sociology, 26,2142. doi:10.1146/
annurev.soc.26.1.21.
Fugère, M. A., Escot, C., Cousins, A. J., Riggs, M. L., & Haerich, P.
(2008). Sexual attitudes and double standards: A literature review
focusing on participant gender and ethnicbackground. Sexuality and
Culture, 2008(12), 169182. doi:10.1007/s12119-008-9029-7.
Gaunt, R. (2013). Breadwinning moms, care giving dads: Double stan-
dard in social judgments of gender norm violators. Journal of
Family Issues, 34,324. doi:10.1177/0192513X12438686.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J.
(2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J.
Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: advances in theory
and research (2nd ed., pp. 4367). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory:
Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70,491512. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.70.3.491.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and
benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender in-
equality. In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice:
Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social
change (pp. 7088). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hackel, L. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1992). Changes in the marital relationship
after the first baby is born: Predicting the impact of expectancy
disconfirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
62,944957. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.944.
Hall, J. A., & Canterberry, M. (2011). Sexism and assertive courtship
strategies. Sex Roles, 65,840853. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0045-y.
Hammond, M. D., Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2014). The allure of
sexism: Psychological entitlement fosters womens endorsement of
benevolent sexism over time. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 5,422429. doi:10.1177/1948550613506124.
Harvey, S. M., Beckman, L. J., Browner, C. H., & Sherman, C. A. (2002).
Relationship power, decision making, and sexual relations: An ex-
ploratory study with couples of Mexican origin. Journal of Sex
Research, 39,284291. doi:10.1080/00224490209552152.
Hatoum, I. J., & Belle, D. (2004).Mags and abs: Media consumption and
bodily concerns in men. Sex Roles, 51,397407. doi:10.1023/
B:SERS.0000049229.93256.48.
Henley, N. M., Spalding, L. R., & Kosta, A. (2000). Development of the
short form of the Feminist Perspectives Scale. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 24,254256. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00207.x.
Jaramillo-Sierra, A., & Allen, K. R. (2013). Who pays after the first date?
Youn g me n s discourses of the male-provider role. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 14,389399. doi:10.1037/a0030603.
Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college stu-
dents: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Katz-Wise, S., Priess, H. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). Gender-role attitudes
and behavior across the transition to parenthood. Developmental
Psychology, 46,1828. doi:10.1037/a0017820.
Kaufman, G., & Taniguchi, H. (2006). Gender and marital happiness in
later life. JournalofFamilyIssues,27, 735757. doi:10.1177/
0192513X05285293.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993). Fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, and
intrinsic religious orientation as predictors of discriminatory atti-
tudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32,256268.
doi:10.2307/1386664.
Klein, M. (2006). Americas war on sex: The attack on law, lust and
liberty. Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood.
Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors:
Longitudinal evidence from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting,
and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 60,553568. doi:10.2307/353528.
Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406 405
Lai, Y., & Hynie, M. (2011). A tale of two standards: An examination
of young adultsendorsement of gendered and ageist sexual
double standards. Sex Roles, 64,360371. doi:10.1007/
s11199-010-9896-x.
Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (2000). Dating scripts revisited. Journal
of Family Issues, 21,488500. doi:10.1177/019251300021004004.
Leaper, C., & Arias, D. M. (2011). College womens feminist identity: A
multidimensional analysis with implications for coping with sexism.
Sex Roles, 64,475490. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9936-1.
Levant, R. F., & Philpot, C. L. (2002). Conceptualizing gender in marital
and family therapy research: The gender role strain paradigm. In H.
A. Liddle, D. A. Santsteban, R. F. Levant, & J. H. Bray (Eds.), First
national conference on marital and family therapy process and out-
come research (pp. 301329). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10438-015.
McCarty, M. K., & Kelly, J. R. (2015). Perceptions of dating behavior:
The role of ambivalent sexism. Sex Roles, 72, 237251. doi:10.
1007/s11199-015-0460-6.
McNamara, J. R., & Grossman, K. (1991). Initiation of dates and anxiety
among college men and women. Psychological Reports, 69,252
254. doi:10.1080/03630242.2014.996723.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Double standard/double
bind: The sexual double standard and womens communication
about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15,447461. doi:10.
1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00420.x.
Orenstein, P. (2001). Sluts and studs. In A. Banaman (Ed.), Self and
society (pp. 3637). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Richmond,K.,Levant,R.,Smalley,B.,&Cook,S.(2015).The
Femininity Ideology Scale (FIS): Dimensions and its relationship
to anxiety and feminine gender role stress. Women & Health, 55,
263279. doi:10.1080/03630242.2014.996723.
Rivadeneyra, R., & Lebo, M. J. (2008). The association between
television-viewing behaviors and adolescent dating role attitudes
and behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 31,291305. doi:10.1016/
j.adolescence.2007.06.001.
Robnett, R. D., & Leaper, C. (2013). BGirls dont propose! Ew^.: A
mixed-methods examination of marriage tradition preferences and
benevolent sexism in emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 28,96121. doi:10.1177/0743558412447871.
Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singlescontemporary dating
scripts. Sex Roles, 28,499509. doi:10.1007/BF00289677.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender:
How power and intimacy shape gender relations.NewYork,NY:
Guilford Press.
Rudman, L. A., Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2013). What motivates
the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female
control theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39,250
263. doi:10.1177/0146167212472375.
Sarlet, M., Dumont, M., Delacollette, N., & Dardenne, B. (2012).
Prescription of protective paternalism for men in romantic and work
contexts. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 444457. doi:10.
1177/0361684312454842.
Schweingruber, D., Cast, A. D., & Anahita, S. (2008). BAstoryanda
ring^: Audience judgments about engagement proposals. Sex Roles,
58,165178. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9330-1.
Sheeran, P., Spears, R., Abraham, S. C., & Abrams, D. (1996).
Religiosity, gender, and the double standard. Journal of
Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 130,2333. doi:10.
1080/00223980.1996.9914985.
Signorielli, N. (2012). Televisions gender-role images and contribution
to stereotyping: Past, present, future. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer
(Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (2nd ed., pp. 321339).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. F. (1978). Masculinity and femininity:
Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Stankiewicz, J. M., & Rosselli, F. (2008). Women as sex objects and
victims in print advertisements. Sex Roles, 58, 579589. doi:10.
1007/s11199-007-9359-1.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 28,191193.
Strauss, S. (2008). Aggressive men and witchy women: The double stan-
dard. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), The psychology of women at work:
Challenges and solutions for our female workforce (Vol. 3, pp. 1
20). Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexismand
racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68,199214. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.68.2.199.
Szymanski, D. M. (2004). Relations among dimensions of feminism and
internalized heterosexism in lesbians and bisexual women. Sex
Roles, 51,145159. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000037759.33014.55.
Tolman, D. L., Kim, J. L., Schooler, D., & Sorsoli, C. L. (2007). Rethinking
the associations between television viewing and adolescent sexuality
development: Bringing gender into focus. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 40,e9e16. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.08.002.
van Well, S., Kolk, A. M., & Arrindell, W. A. (2005). Cross-cultural
validity of the masculine and feminine gender role stress scales.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 84,271278. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa8403_06.
Wade, J. C., & Donis, E. (2007). Masculinity ideology, male identity, and
romantic relationship quality among heterosexual and gay men. Sex
Roles, 57,775786. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9303-4.
Ward, L. M. (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults
attitudes and assumptions about sexual relationships? Correlational
and experimental confirmation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
31,115. doi:10.1023/A:1014068031532.
Ward, L. M., Reed, L., Trinh, S. L., & Foust, M. (2014). Sexuality and
entertainment media. In D. L. Tolman, L. M. Diamond, J. A.
Bauermeister,W.H.George,&J.G.Pfaus(Eds.),APA handbook
of sexuality and psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 373423). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14194-012.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differ-
ences and similarities in behavior. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson
(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp.
55123). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Woodberry, R. D., & Smith, C. S. (1998). Fundamentalism et al.:
Conservative Protestants in America. Annual Review of Sociology,
24,2556. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.25.
Yoder, J. D., Hogue, M., Newman, R., Metz, L., & LaVigne, T. (2002).
Exploring moderators of gender differences: Contextual differences
in door-holding behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32,
16821686. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02769.x.
Yoder, J. D., Perry, R. L., & Saal, E. I. (2007). What good is a feminist
identity?: Womensfeminist identification and role expectations for
intimate and sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 57,365372. doi:10.
1007/s11199-007-9269-2.
Zaikman, Y., & Marks, M. J. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and the sexual
double standard. Sex Roles, 71(910), 333344. doi:10.1007/
s11199-014-0417-1.
Zucker, A. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when
women say, BIm not a feminist, but^.Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 28,423435. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00159.x.
Zurbriggen, E. L., & Morgan, E. M. (2006). Who wants to marry a
millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes toward
sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54,117. doi:10.1007/
s11199-005-8865-2.
406 Sex Roles (2016) 75:393406
... Hostile and benevolent sexist behaviours become more pervasive during adolescence. Once heterosexual adolescents begin dating, benevolent sexism is apparent in the adoption of traditionally paternalistic dating scripts, such as the boy being the one to initiate and pay for the date (Paynter & Leaper, 2016). Hostile sexism in the forms of sexual objectification and sexual harassment tends to rise from early to late adolescence (Brown et al., 2020). ...
... Endendijk et al., 2022) and traditional heterosexual dating and marital scripts (e.g. Brett et al., 2023;Paynter & Leaper, 2016) highlight themes related to complementary gender differentiation (e.g. girl or woman as chaste), protective paternalism (e.g. ...
... If so, asymmetries in gender roles and protective paternalism would not be indicated. Therefore, I recommend utilizing wording formats that more explicitly evaluate whether individuals endorse particular behaviours differently based on a person's gender (see Paynter & Leaper, 2016, for further discussion and an example of a scale using an alternative method). To be clear, I am not suggesting that prior uses of the ASI are invalid. ...
Article
Full-text available
The United Nations' Goals for Sustainable Development highlight gender inequality as a pervasive problem around the world. Developmental psychologists can help us understand the development and consequences of sexism in people's lives. I highlight ambivalent sexism theory as a promising framework for this work; and I offer recommendations for expanding the theory. Ambivalent sexism theory distinguishes between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism as complementary processes perpetuating and maintaining men's dominance and heteronormativity in society. I summarize how these two forms of sexism emerge during childhood and adolescence; and I review the negative manifestations of hostile and benevolent sexism during adolescence and adulthood. Next, I chart several directions for expanding the ambivalent sexism model. These include addressing sexism directed towards gender‐nonconforming, sexual‐minoritized, and gender‐minoritized youth (in addition to sexism towards girls and women); taking into account the gender and sexual identities of both perpetrators and targets of sexism; considering a broader array of hostile and benevolent sexist practices than captured in existing measures; taking into account cultural variations and intersectionality in how ambivalent sexism is enacted; conducting more research on ambivalent sexism in childhood and adolescence and designing effective programs to reduce and to prevent ambivalent sexism beginning in childhood.
... on dates, pay for dates, take the lead in initiating romantic and sexual activities, buy an engagement ring, make the marriage proposal, and that women should take their husband's surname after marriage (Lever et al., 2015;Paynter & Leaper, 2016;Robnett & Leaper, 2013;Sprecher et al., 2021;Wu et al., 2022). ...
... One set of attitudes underlying the endorsement of heteronormative dating scripts is ambivalent sexism (Paynter & Leaper, 2016). Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001 holds that sexist attitudes have a hostile form and a benevolent form. ...
... Both benevolent sexism and hostile sexism are closely linked to norms around how men and women should behave in romantic contexts with one another, including placing expectations on men to take an active, leading role, while women are expected to be passive, receptive, and nurturing (Hammond & Overall, 2017). Indeed, studies have shown that both hostile and benevolent sexism are associated with greater endorsement of a range of gendered scripts for dating and marriage between women and men (Bermúdez et al., 2015;Cameron & Curry, 2020;Paynter & Leaper, 2016;Robnett & Leaper, 2013;Viki et al., 2003). In addition, people who strongly endorse benevolent and hostile sexism respond more negatively to counter-stereotypic dating behaviour (McCarty & Kelly, 2015), and tend to prefer more traditional partners (Chen et al., 2009;Lee et al., 2010;Travaglia et al., 2009). ...
Article
Full-text available
Heteronormative dating scripts involve expectations for women and men to enact different behaviours in romantic contexts with one another, such as men paying on dates and making marriage proposals. While previous research has shown that sexism and feminist identity predicts the endorsement of these scripts, there is a lack of research on other potential predictors relevant to women’s personal preferences for partners and relationships. We examined these novel predictors in three online samples of single women in Australia (N1 = 112, N2 = 157, N3 = 189). Hierarchical regressions and an integrative meta-analysis identified that women’s endorsement of heteronormative dating scripts was predicted by higher benevolent sexism, higher hostile sexism, and lower feminist identity, as well as a greater preference for dominant men as partners and a lower preference for short-term relationships. In addition, path modelling suggested that a greater preference for male partner dominance partially explained the association between women’s benevolent sexism and the endorsement of these scripts. Overall, women’s endorsement of heteronormative dating scripts was more strongly related to their sexist attitudes than their partner or relationship preferences, suggesting that traditional romantic prescriptions are interconnected with gender inequalities, despite the relevance of personal preferences beyond sexism.
... Understanding dogmatism could shed light on persistent sexism and its gender differences (Brandt & Van Tongeren, 2017). It might explain why the relationship between benevolent or hostile sexism and religiosity is often weaker among women compared to men (e.g., Davis et al., 2022;Glick et al., 2016;Hellmer et al., 2018;Paynter & Leaper, 2016), as dogmatism upholds traditional gender roles, promotes literal scriptural interpretations reinforcing male dominance, excludes women from leadership positions, controls women's autonomy, and fosters discrimination against nonconformists, and thus women are less prone to endorse it (Wood, 2019). ...
... Out of 25 correlation results hostile sexism had a significant positive correlation 18 times. The remaining six results were not significant among Jewish women from Israel (Gaunt, 2012), Catholic men from Spain (Glick et al., 2002), both women and men from Sweden (Hellmer et al., 2018), 188 U.S. women (Paynter & Leaper, 2016), and 310 U.S. women (intrinsic religiosity; Piggott & Anderson, 2023). One result was a significant negative correlation among Jewish men (Gaunt, 2012). ...
Article
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore and analyze the existing research on the relationship between religiosity and two forms of ambivalent sexism: benevolent and hostile. A narrative synthesis approach and meta-analysis based on Fisher’s z-transformed correlation coefficients were used to summarize the findings. The findings are re-ported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The find-ings suggest that religiosity is associated positively with both forms of ambivalent sexism. There was a stronger positive correlation between religiosity and benevolent sexism (z = .29, 95% CI [.26; .33]) than between religiosity and hostile sexism (z = .19, 95% CI [.13; .25]). However, the relationship varied significantly across studies, suggesting moderating roles of religious affiliation and gender. The findings highlight the need for more nuanced and intersectional approaches. Empirical models which will allow a better understanding of this relationship are proposed.
... However, benevolent sexism also imposes rigid expectations that constrain men's choices. Adhering to traditional norms in courtship, such as paying for dates ( 141 ), proposing marriage ( 142 ), and providing financially ( 143 ), can lead to guilt ( 144 ) and negative judgments ( 145 ) when these expectations are not met. ...
Article
Traditional gendered arrangements—norms, roles, prejudices, and hierarchies—shape every human life. Associated harms are primarily framed as women’s issues due to more severe consequences women face. Yet, gendered arrangements also shape men ’s relationships, career paths, and health. Current work on gender equity overlooks men’s perspectives. Despite benefits they gain from out-ranking women, men’s position paradoxically entraps them in restrictive roles, compelling them to prioritize dominance. An inclusive framework challenges prevailing narratives by considering personal costs borne by men. Identifying with a man’s traditional role is a mixed privilege, as five gendered arrangements show for men who subscribe to them: 1. Masculine norms can restrict men’s choices and are associated with adverse health trajectories; 2. Some men’s disengagement from communal roles denies them positive outcomes associated with caring for others; 3. Hostile sexism fosters antipathy, fueling tension in some men’s interactions with women; 4. Benevolent sexism forces some men into scripted interactions, preventing genuine connections and burdening them with unrealistic breadwinner and protector roles; 5. Societal shifts in gender hierarchies can elicit threat responses in men, depending on intersections with social class and racial identities. Understanding costs to men calls for more empirical research. Gender equity for men, whose circumstances differ from those of women, would enable men to make informed choices and achieve better outcomes for themselves—paralleling the progress women have made in many areas of life. Striving for equity for all genders can ultimately enhance overall human well-being.
... Ambivalent sexism may be increasingly impactful on youths during emerging adulthood (Hammond et al., 2018;. Emerging adults begin navigating more serious relationships that spur opportunities for traditional roles (e.g., courtship, division of household labor, career opportunities; Leaper & Starr, 2019;Paynter & Leaper, 2016). Notably, however, college students may also be forming more gender-egalitarian ideals (Azmitia et al., 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
Aplicamos un marco cultural-ecológico para examinar relatos retrospectivos de la socialización del sexismo entre jóvenes de ascendencia mexicana que viven en Estados Unidos. Específicamente, encuestamos a 802 estudiantes universitarios de ascendencia mexicana de tres universidades (79,5% mujeres, 20,5% hombres; M = 19,60 años de edad). Se encuestó a los participantes para evaluar en qué medida recordaban haber escuchado Mensajes Tradicionales de Género (TGM, por sus siglas en inglés) de parte de parientes mayores, parientes de edad similar (homólogos familiares) y homólogos no familiares. Además, ellos incluyeron medidas de centralidad de la identidad étnica, importancia de la tipicidad de la identidad étnica, y sexismo ambivalente. Nuestros resultados indicaron que los TGM se atribuyeron con mayor frecuencia a los parientes mayores y con menor frecuencia a los homólogos familiares. Las actitudes sexistas ambivalentes actuales se relacionaron positivamente con los TGM recordados de homólogos familiares y no familiares, pero no de parientes mayores; además, la asociación fue ligeramente más fuerte para los homólogos familiares que para los homólogos no familiares. Además, el sexismo ambivalente se asoció positivamente con la importancia de la tipicidad étnica y negativamente con la centralidad de la identidad étnica. Nuestra investigación resaltó la importancia de tener en cuenta los procesos culturales vinculados con la aprobación del sexismo y proporciona una nueva medida de socialización de los TGM a partir de múltiples fuentes relevantes para los jóvenes universitarios de ascendencia mexicana. Los homólogos familiares pueden servir como modelos a seguir para ayudar a los jóvenes de ascendencia mexicana a cuestionar las actitudes sexistas. Además, los jóvenes universitarios de ascendencia mexicana rechazaron las creencias sexistas al mismo tiempo que mantenían fuertes las identidades étnicas mexicanas. En total, nuestro trabajo resaltó la identidad étnica positiva y los homólogos familiares (y no familiares) como reguladores contra la interiorización del sexismo.
... Adolescents' endorsement of ambivalent sexist attitudes is related to multiple negative outcomes. In various studies with adolescents or emerging adults, hostile or benevolent sexist attitudes predicted acceptance or perpetration of sexual harassment and sexual violence (e.g., Bendixen and Ottesen Kennair, 2017;Cava et al., 2020;de Puiseau and Roessel, 2013;Dickman-Burnett et al., 2021;Dosil et al., 2019;Durán et al., 2010;Fasanelli et al., 2020;Lee et al., 2016;Morelli et al., 2016;Nava-Reyes et al., 2018), prejudicial attitudes toward gays and lesbians (Carrera- Fernández et al., 2013), sexual risk taking (Ramiro-Sánchez et al., 2018), support of heterosexual dating double standards or marriage traditions (Paynter and Leaper, 2016;Robnett and Leaper, 2013b), and endorsement of unrealistic romantic beliefs (Fernández et al., 2023). In addition, adolescent girls' benevolent sexist attitudes were correlated with restricted academic or career aspirations (Farkas and Leaper, 2016a;Montañés et al., 2012;Sáinz and Gallego, 2022) and greater involvement in housework (Malonda et al., 2017;Silvan-Ferrero and Lopez, 2007). ...
Chapter
We review how sexist ideologies and practices perpetuate male dominance in society during adolescence. Their deleterious impacts on girls, gender- and sexual-minoritized youth, and gender-nonconforming boys are emphasized, although we also describe their negative effects for gender-conforming boys. Conceptual models of sexist attitudes and traditional gender ideologies are explained, and their correlates with adolescents’ behaviors are summarized. Next, we document the prevalence and effects of sexualization, sexual harassment, and sexual violence. Also, we address how gender-biased experiences undermine youth in academic and athletic settings. Finally, we review factors related to adolescents’ awareness of sexism, coping, and potential strategies for preventing sexism.
... Links between men's HS and VAW behaviors were expected given that male dominance is at the core of HS and VAW (Connor et al., 2016;Hunnicutt, 2009). In addition, associations between BS and VAW behaviors were hypothesized due to the power differentials between women and men in heterosexual dating scripts predicated on BS (e.g., Eaton & Matamala, 2014;Paynter & Leaper, 2016); this, BS attitudes may lead some men to feel entitled to commit VAW in the pursuit of heterosexual romantic relationships (Livingston et al., 2004;Thomas & Kitzinger, 1994). In support of our hypotheses, our meta-analyses indicated both BS and HS predicted men's VAW behaviors. ...
Article
Full-text available
Ambivalent sexism (hostile and benevolent sexism) maintains gender inequalities and has been applied to investigate violence against women (VAW). We conducted a comprehensive three-level meta-analytic review testing ambivalent sexism as predictors of VAW-supportive attitudes and behaviors regarding sexual harassment, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. Relevant articles published between 1996 and April 2022 were retrieved from the PsycINFO, Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses, Cochrane Database Reviews, ERIC, and Web of Science online databases. A total of 141 reports (with 912 unique effect sizes) met our inclusion criteria (e.g., assessed Glick and Fiske’s 1996 ASI and at least one self-reported measure of VAW-supportive attitudes or men’s VAW perpetration and/or proclivity; VAW was limited to violence against women perpetrated by men). Our review revealed hostile and benevolent sexism, respectively, were associated with greater VAW-supportive attitudes across genders (r = .47, 95% CI [.43–.50]; r = .26, 95% CI [.23–.29]) and to greater VAW behaviors among men (r = .23, 95% CI [.19–.27]; r = .08, 95% CI [.04–.12]). Our review also highlighted participant gender, VAW type, and domain of VAW as important moderators. Notably, benevolent sexism was more strongly tied to VAW-supportive attitudes among women (r = .31, 95% CI [.27–.35]) than men (r = .22, 95% CI [.18–.26]). Overall, the results underscore the importance of addressing hostile and benevolent sexism in future research and interventions on VAW.
... BS is central in guiding expectations and behaviors in intimate heterosexual relationships (Fairchild, 2014;Overall & Hammond, 2018). In dating, actions reflecting BS (e.g., men paying for women on the first date, holding the door open for women) are viewed as desirable in men (Paynter & Leaper, 2016). Later in relationships, BS encourages women to focus on attaining a committed marriage, having children, and foregoing the pursuit of personal power including status and education (Lee et al., 2010;Rudman & Heppen, 2003). ...