14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A double standard for “Hooking Up”: How far have we come toward gender equality?

      ,
      Social Science Research
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993-2007.

          In 1993 Oliver and Hyde conducted a meta-analysis on gender differences in sexuality. The current study updated that analysis with current research and methods. Evolutionary psychology, cognitive social learning theory, social structural theory, and the gender similarities hypothesis provided predictions about gender differences in sexuality. We analyzed gender differences in 30 reported sexual behaviors and attitudes for 834 individual samples uncovered in literature searches and 7 large national data sets. In support of evolutionary psychology, results from both the individual studies and the large data sets indicated that men reported slightly more sexual experience and more permissive attitudes than women for most of the variables. However, as predicted by the gender similarities hypothesis, most gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors were small. Exceptions were masturbation incidence, pornography use, casual sex, and attitudes toward casual sex, which all yielded medium effect sizes in which male participants reported more sexual behavior or permissive attitudes than female participants. Most effect sizes reported in the current study were comparable to those reported in Oliver and Hyde's study. In support of cognitive social learning theory, year of publication moderated the magnitude of effect sizes, with gender differences for some aspects of sexuality increasing over time and others decreasing. As predicted by social structural theory, nations and ethnic groups with greater gender equity had smaller gender differences for some reported sexual behaviors than nations and ethnic groups with less gender equity. Gender differences decreased with age of the sample for some sexual behaviors and attitudes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Undoing Gender

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sexual double standards: a review and methodological critique of two decades of research.

              A review of 30 studies published since 1980 found evidence for the continued existence of sexual double standards: different standards of sexual permissiveness for women and men. Experimental studies have included predominantly White North American college students; ethnographies, focus group and interview studies, and linguistic analyses have included more diverse samples. Studies show that sexual double standards are influenced by situational and interpersonal factors (e.g., the target's age, level of relationship commitment, and number of partners), and that double standards are local constructions, differing across ethnic and cultural groups. This review discusses methodological issues, including the strengths and limitations of quantitative and qualitative approaches. It also discusses implications for women s high-risk sexual behavior and sexual identity, and suggests directions for future research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Social Science Research
                Social Science Research
                Elsevier BV
                0049089X
                September 2013
                September 2013
                : 42
                : 5
                : 1191-1206
                Article
                10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006
                5e3a733d-d72b-4f3a-8be7-292b65f28bc0
                © 2013

                Comments

                Comment on this article