Abstract
Past studies indicate that men generally report having had more sexual experience and sexual partners than women, as well as an earlier age at first intercourse. At least some of these findings may partially reflect different responses to certain contextual variables in research. College students (266 men and 463 women) were asked to anonymously report their sexual attitudes and behavior after reading one of three fictitious statements about research findings regarding gender differences in sexuality. Some past findings were replicated, with men reporting somewhat more sexual experience and more permissive sexual attitudes than women. However, women reported a significantly younger age at first intercourse than did men. While there was no significant sex difference for total number of sexual partners, there was a significant interaction. With female research assistants (but not with male assistants), men reported more sexual partners when they were told that women are now more sexually permissive than men. This finding appeared to be largely a function of the men who scored higher on measures of hypermasculinity and ambivalent sexism. Women's reports were not significantly affected by the wording of the cover sheet, regardless of the sex of the research assistant. Even in this anonymous survey, the sex of the experimenter and the nature of the statement about research findings had an impact on the sex differences that were found. In light of these results, some previous conclusions about male-female differences in sexual behavior may need to be examined more closely.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The one exception has been in the area of reports of number of sexual partners where it is apparent that the partner counts provided by heterosexual men and women should be comparable (McConaghy, 1999). Various explanations have been posed to account for the mismatch in reported partners, including dishonesty, inaccurate recall, the exclusion of prostitutes from the data sample, sex differences in the methods used to determine the number of partners, potential sampling bias, and possible response bias (Wiederman, 1997).
References
Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35.
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374.
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273.
Brown, N. R., & Sinclair, R. C. (1999). Estimating number of lifetime sexual partners: Men and women do it differently. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 292–297.
Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
Catania, J. A. (1999). A framework for conceptualizing reporting bias and its antecedents in interviews assessing human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 25–38.
Catania, J. A., Binson, D., Canchola, J., Pollack, L. M., Hauck, W., & Coates, T. J. (1996). Effects of interviewer gender, interviewer choice, and item wording on responses to questions concerning sexual behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 345–375.
Catania, J. A., Binson, D., Peterson, J., & Canchola, J. (1997). The effects of question wording, interviewer gender, and control on item response by African American respondents. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), Researching sexual behavior: Methodological issues (pp. 110–113). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Connell, R. W. (2001). The social organization of masculinity. In S. M. Whitehead & F. J. Barrett (Eds.), The masculinities reader (pp. 30–50). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Cowart-Steckler, D., & Pollack, R. H. (1998). The Cowart-Pollack Scale of Sexual Experience. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 104–105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26.
Dallos, S., & Dallos, R. (1997). Couples, sex and power: The politics of desire. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Danso, H. A., & Esses, V. M. (2001). Black experimenters and the intellectual test performance of white participants: The tables are turned. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 158–165.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.
Durant, L. E., Carey, M. P., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2002). Effects of anonymity, gender, and erotophilia on the quality of data obtained from self-reports of socially sensitive behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 439–467.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306–315.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.
Ehrhardt, A. A. (1997). Gender. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), Researching sexual behavior: Methodological issues (pp. 361–362). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fisher, T. D., & Hall, R. G. (1988). A scale for the comparison of sexual attitudes of adolescents and their parents. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 90–100.
Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., & White, L. A. (1983). Emotional barriers to contraception. In D. Byrne & W. A. Fisher (Eds.), Adolescents, sex, and contraception (pp. 207–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1993). Sex differences in intensity of emotional experience: A social role interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1010–1022.
Hyde, J. S., & Durik, A. M. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity—Evolutionary or sociocultural forces? Comment on Baumeister (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 375–379.
Johnson, T. P., & Moore, R. W. (1993). Gender interactions between interviewer and survey respondents: Issues of pornography and community standards. Sex Roles, 28, 1–19.
Kline, J. P., Blackhart, G. C., & Joiner, T. E. (2002). Sex, lie scales, and electrode caps: An interpersonal context for defensiveness and anterior electroencephalographic asymmetry. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 459–478.
Larkin, K. T., Ciano-Federoff, L. M., & Hammel, D. (1998). Effects of gender of observer and fear of negative evaluation on cardiovascular reactivity to mental stress in college men. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 29, 311–318.
Leary, M. R., Nezlek, J. B., Downs, D., Radford-Davenport, J., Martin, J., & McMullen, A. (1994). Self-presentation in everyday interactions: Effects of target familiarity and gender composition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 664–673.
Levine, F. M., & DeSimone, L. L. (1991). The effects of experimenter gender on pain reports in male and female subjects. Pain, 44, 69–72.
McConaghy, N. (1999). Unresolved issues in scientific sexology. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 285–318.
Mensch, B. S., & Kandel, D. B. (1988). Underreporting of substance use in a national longitudinal youth cohort: Individual and interviewer effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 100–124.
Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 148–157.
Mosher, D. L. (1988). Hypermasculinity inventory. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Sexuality-related measures: A compendium (pp. 225–227). Lake Mills, IA: Graphic Publishing Company.
Murnen, S. K., & Byrne, D. (1991). Hyperfemininity: Measurement and initial validation of the construct. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 85–106.
Pratto, F. (1996). Sexual politics: The gender gap in the bedroom, the cupboard, and the cabinet. In D. M. Buss & N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 179–230). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schroder, K. E. E., Carey, M. P., & Vanable, P. A. (2003). Methodological challenges in research on sexual risk behavior: II. Accuracy of self-reports. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 26, 104–123.
Segal, L. (2001). The belly of the beast: Sex as male domination? In S. M. Whitehead & F. J. Barrett (Eds.), The masculinities reader (pp. 100–111). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Shope, G. L, Hedrick, T. E., & Geen, R. G. (1978). Physical/verbal aggression: Sex differences in style. Journal of Personality, 46, 23–42.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Simpson, J. A. (1998). Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 565–567). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.
Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275–304.
Weisfeld, C. C., & Stack, M. A. (2002). When I look into your eyes: An ethological analysis of gender differences in married couples’ nonverbal behaviors. Psychology, Evolution and Gender, 4, 125–147.
Wiederman, M. W. (1997). The truth must be in here somewhere: Examining the gender discrepancy in self-reported lifetime number of sex partners. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 375–386.
Willer, R. (2005, August). Overdoing gender: A test of the masculine overcompensation thesis. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia.
Winer, G. A., Makowski, D., Alpert, H., & Collins, J. (1988). An analysis of experimenter effects on responses to a sex questionnaire. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 257–263.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Joey Billotte, Nathan Mollette, Tasha Stumpf, Vicki Summers, and Carla Wilkinson, who served as research assistants for this study. Michele Alexander, Dan Lehman, and Paul Trapnell made helpful suggestions and Jim McNulty provided valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fisher, T.D. Sex of Experimenter and Social Norm Effects on Reports of Sexual Behavior in Young Men and Women. Arch Sex Behav 36, 89–100 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9094-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9094-7