Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Has Dating Become More Egalitarian? A 35 Year Review Using Sex Roles

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this selective review, we examined research on heterosexual dating published in Sex Roles since its inception to determine if dating practices have become more egalitarian over the past 35 years. An analysis of current best-selling dating advice books suggests that gender roles continue to be institutionalized in cultural scripts. A sexual scripts framework was used to categorize research findings to determine if the empirical evidence confirmed the durability of gender roles over time or revealed that dating has become less gender-typed. Research in Sex Roles suggests that heterosexual dating among young adults in the U. S. remains highly gender-typed in terms of cultural scripts (e.g., beliefs, ideals, and expectations), as well as interpersonal scripts (e.g., actual interpersonal emotions, interpersonal behaviors, or behaviors aimed at achieving or signaling a partner). Some variability was observed in interpersonal scripts in terms of occasional initiation of dates by women, for instance, but was not sufficiently widely used to challenge the dominant script. Functional reasons for the persistence of gender stereotypes in dating are presented. In addition, a friendship script is proposed as an alternative, egalitarian model of dating that might fulfill the same functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abelson, R. P. (1981). The psychological status of the script concept. The American Psychologist, 36, 715–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acitelli, L. K., & Young, A. M. (1996). Gender and thought in relationships. In G. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures and interactions in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 147–168). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. (1984). Women at west point: A three-year perspective. Sex Roles, 11, 525–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afifi, W. A., & Lucas, A. A. (2008). Information seeking in initial stages of relational development. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 197–215). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles, 34, 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelo, M. (2010, April). Fortune 500 Women CEOs. Fortune 500, April 22, 2010. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1004/gallery.fortune500_women_ceos.fortune/index.html.

  • Bailey, B. L. (1988). From front porch to back seat: Courtship in twentieth-century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belsey, C. (1994). Desire: Love stories in western culture. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, C. G., Galliher, R. V., & Ferguson, T. J. (2007). Associations among aspects of interpersonal power and relationship functioning in adolescent romantic couples. Sex Roles, 57, 483–495.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bergen, D. J., & Williams, J. E. (1991). Sex stereotypes in the United States: Revisited 1972–1988. Sex Roles, 24, 413–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. G. (1992). An integrative model of friendship. In R. Blieszner & R. G. Adams (Eds.), Adult friendship (pp. 1–27). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1990). Intimate relationships and the creation of sexuality. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 307–320). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A. S., & Saville, B. K. (2010). To hook up or date: Which gender benefits? Sex Roles, 62, 661–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bredow, C. A., Cate, R. M., & Huston, T. L. (2008). Have we met before? A conceptual model of first romantic encounters. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 3–28). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, J. S. (1991). Perceptions of date and stranger rape: A difference in sex role expectations and rape-supportive beliefs. Sex Roles, 24, 291–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, J. S., & McGrail, C. A. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for date and stranger rape. Sex Roles, 21, 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Testa, M. (2008). Social influence on judgments of rape victims: The role of negative and positive social reactions of others. Sex Roles, 58, 490–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, J. (2006). Dating for dummies (2nd ed.). New York: Hungry Minds.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2008 (Report 1017). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2008.pdf

  • Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cann, A. (2004). Rated importance of personal characteristics across four relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 322–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. L., Volk, K. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences between males and females in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 131–139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Casey, W. (2009). The man plan: Drive men wild… not away. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalyst (2009). Women MBAs. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/publication/250/women-mbas.

  • Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). The history of courtship. In R. M. Cate & S. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Courtship (pp. 13–32). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisler, J. (2010). In honor of Sex Roles: Reflections on the history and development of the journal. Sex Roles, 63, 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, C. M., & Sicola, M. K. (2005). Listening to lesbian couples: Communication competence in long-term relationships. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1, 143–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, G. (2000). Beliefs about the causes of four types of rape. Sex Roles, 42, 807–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, S. D. (1998). Gender roles and cultural continuity in the Asian Indian immigrant community in the U.S. Sex Roles, 38, 953–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K., & Hanna, R. (1984). Courtship in the personals column: The influence of gender and sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 11, 363–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLucia, J. L. (1987). Gender role identity and dating behavior: What is the relationship? Sex Roles, 17, 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. (2006). Singled out: How singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored, and still live happily ever after. New York: St Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. M., Savin-Williams, R. C., & Dubé, E. M. (1999). Sex, dating, passionate friendships, and romance: Intimate peer relations among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 175–210). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrmann, W. (1959). Premarital dating behavior. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldridge, N. S., & Gilbert, L. A. (1990). Correlates of relationship satisfaction in lesbian couples. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, L. E., & Peterson, C. (1993). Gender differences in best friendships. Sex Roles, 29, 497–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, J., Klinkenberg, W. D., Scandell, D. J., Faulkner, K., & Claus, R. E. (2007). Perceived physical attractiveness, sexual history, and sexual intentions: An internet study. Sex Roles, 56, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eshbaugh, E. M., & Gute, G. (2008). Hookups and sexual regret among college women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 77–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, B. (2008). Friendship formation. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 29–54). New York: Psychology Press of Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, B., Sprecher, S., & Underwood, L. (Eds.). (2009). Compassionate love: Theory, research, and applications. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felmlee, D. H. (1994). Who’s on top? Power in romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 31, 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Matthews, J. (2007). Speed-dating as an invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: A methodological primer. Personal Relationships, 14, 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. J. (1987). Hispanic and majority student attitudes toward forcible date rape as a function of differences in attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 17, 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flannagan, D., Marsh, D., & Fuhrman, R. (2005). Judgments about the hypothetical behaviors of friends and romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 797–815.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, G. B., Jobe, R. L., White, K. B., Bloesch, E., & Adams-Curtis, L. E. (2005). Perceptions of dating violence following a sexual or nonsexual betrayal of trust: Effects of gender, sexism, acceptance of rape myths, and vengeance motivation. Sex Roles, 52, 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forleo, M. (2008). Make every man want you: How to be so irresistible you’ll barely keep from dating yourself! New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzoi, S. L. (2001). Is female body esteem shaped by benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 44, 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuhrman, R. W., Flannagan, D., & Matamoros, M. (2009). Behavior expectations in cross-sex friendships, same-sex friendships, and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 16, 575–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism: Theory and research (pp. 61–89). Orlando: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galician, M. (2004). Sex, love, & romance in the mass media: Analysis & criticism of unrealistic portrayals & their influence. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershon, A., Gowen, L. K., Compian, L., & Hayward, R. C. (2004). Gender-stereotyped imagined dates and weight concerns in sixth grade girls. Sex Roles, 50, 515–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, L. A., Walker, S. J., McKinney, S., & Snell, J. L. (1999). Challenging discourse themes reproducing gender in heterosexual dating: An analog study. Sex Roles, 41, 753–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, G. P. (1988). Rules, scripts and prototypes in personal relationships. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 23–39). Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasser, C. L., Robnett, B., & Feliciano, C. (2009). Internet daters’ body type preferences: Race–ethnic and gender differences. Sex Roles, 61, 14–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right: College women on dating and mating today. New York: Institute for American Values.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2004). Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good for? Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(2), 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, J. T. (1988). Dilemmas of the high-achieving Chicana: The double-bind factor in male/female relationships. Sex Roles, 18, 367–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goode, E. (1996). Gender and courtship entitlement: Responses to personal ads. Sex Roles, 34, 141–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W., Swanson, C., Swanson, K., Tyson, R., & Yoshimoto, D. (2003). Observing gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples’ relationships: Mathematical modeling of conflict interaction. Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 65–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grauerholz, E. (1987). Balancing the power in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 563–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, K., & Faulkner, S. L. (2005). Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles, 53, 239–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grote, N. K., & Frieze, I. H. (1994). The measurement of friendship-based love in intimate relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, 275–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamby, S., & Jackson, A. (2010). Size does matter: The effects of gender on perceptions of dating violence. Sex Roles, 63, 324–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersla, J. F., & Frease-McMahan, L. (1990). University students’ priorities: Life goals vs. relationships. Sex Roles, 23, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannon, R., Hall, D. S., Kuntz, T., Van Laar, S., & Williams, J. (1995). Dating characteristics leading to unwanted vs. wanted sexual behavior. Sex Roles, 33, 767–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannon, R., Kuntz, T., Van Laar, S., Williams, J., & Hall, D. S. (1996). College students’ judgments regarding sexual aggression during a date. Sex Roles, 35, 765–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannon, R. K., Hall, D. S., Nash, H., Formati, J., & Hopson, T. (2000). Judgments regarding sexual aggression as a function of sex of aggressor and victim. Sex Roles, 43, 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, G. L. (1985). Dating jealousy among college students. Sex Roles, 12, 713–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M., Ibarra, H., & Peyer, U. (2010). The best performing CEOs in the world. Harvard Business Review, 88, 104–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, L. A., & Abrishami, G. (2004). Dating violence attributions: Do they differ for in-group and out-group members who have a history of dating violence? Sex Roles, 51, 543–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haworth-Hoeppner, S. (1998). What’s gender got to do with it: Perceptions of sexual coercion in a university community. Sex Roles, 38, 757–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heesacker, M., Smith, M., & Lawrence, A. (1998). The desired loving behavior scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Scheer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 452–453). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegewisch, A., Liepmann, H., Hayes, J., & Hartmann, H. (2010). Separate and not equal? Gender segregation in the labor market and the gender wage gap. Briefing paper from The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR). Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350.pdf.

  • Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1993). Lovers as friends. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 459–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., & Valde, K. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions of women’s sexual interest during cross-sex interactions: An application and extension of cognitive valence theory. Sex Roles, 54, 821–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetsroni, A. (2000). Choosing a mate in television dating games: The influence of setting, culture and gender. Sex Roles, 42, 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. D., Adams, M. S., Ashburn, L., & Reed, W. (1995). Differential gender effects of exposure to rap music on African American adolescents’ acceptance of teen dating violence. Sex Roles, 33, 597–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., & Allport, F. H. (1931). Student attitudes. Syracuse: Craftsman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & Tirone, V. (2009). Women’s sexual compliance with male dating partners: Associations with investment in ideal womanhood and romantic well-being. Sex Roles, 60, 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., Moore, J. A., & Tkachuk, S. (2007). Verbal sexual coercion and perceived victim responsibility: Mediating effects of perceived control. Sex Roles, 57, 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenig, S., & Ryan, J. (1986). Sex differences in levels of tolerance and attribution of blame for sexual harassment on a university campus. Sex Roles, 15, 535–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinkenberg, D., & Rose, S. (1994). Dating scripts of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 26, 23–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., & Staneski, R. A. (1986). Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratings by men and women. Sex Roles, 15, 585–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, R. M. (1993). Inferring sexual interest from behavioral cues: Effects of gender and sexually relevant attitudes. Sex Roles, 29, 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurdek, L. A. (1993). The allocation of household labor in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married couples. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laner, M. R. (1989). Competitive vs. noncompetitive styles: Which is most valued in courtship? Sex Roles, 20, 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laner, M. R., & Russell, J. N. (1998). Desired characteristics of spouses and best friends: Do they differ by sex and/or sex? Sociological Inquiry, 68, 186–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laws, J. L., & Schwartz, P. (1977). Sexual transactions. In J. L. Laws & P. Schwartz (Eds.), Sexual scripts: The social construction of female sexuality (pp. 103–132). Washington: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., Glick, P., & Chen, Z. (2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libby, R. (1976). Social scripts for sexual relationships. In S. Gordon & R. Libby (Eds.), Sexuality today and tomorrow: Contemporary issues in human sexuality (pp. 172–173). N. Scituate: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littleton, H., Breitkopf, C. R., & Berenson, A. (2007). Rape scripts of low-income European American and Latina women. Sex Roles, 56, 509–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littleton, H., Tabernik, H., Canales, E. J., & Backstrom, T. (2009). Risky situation or harmless fun? A qualitative examination of college women’s bad hook-up and rape scripts. Sex Roles, 60, 793–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lottes, I. L. (1993). Nontraditional gender roles and the sexual experiences of heterosexual college students. Sex Roles, 29, 645–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, A. R., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2009). Gender equality in intimate relationships. In C. Knudson-Martin & A. R. Mahoney (Eds.), Couples, gender, and power: Creating change in intimate relationships (pp. 3–16). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, L. (1989). Gender and the prerogatives of dating and marriage: An experimental assessment of college students. Sex Roles, 20, 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, L., Miller, M., & Moran, P. B. (1989). When a kiss is not just a kiss: Relating violations of consent in kissing to rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 20, 231–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, T. W., & Robinson, D. W. (2008). Effects of attire, alcohol, and gender on perceptions of date rape. Sex Roles, 58, 423–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, N. B., Brannigan, G. G., & LaPlante, M. N. (1984). Social desirability in the bedroom: Role of approval motivation in sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 11, 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, A. K. (2005). Young women’s dating behavior: Why/Why not date a nice guy? Sex Roles, 53, 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, P. (2005). Love smart: Find the one you want–fix the one you got. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensinger, J. L., Bonifazi, D. Z., & LaRosa, J. (2007). Perceived gender role prescriptions in schools, the superwoman ideal, and disordered eating among adolescent girls. Sex Roles., 57, 557–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milburn, M., Mather, R., & Conrad, R. (2000). The effects of viewing R-rated movie scenes that objectify women on perceptions of date rape. Sex Roles, 43, 807–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. (2004). Understanding women: The definitive guide to meeting, dating and dumping, if necessary. New York: The Book Factory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, E., Smith, J., & Trembath, D. (2001). The ‘skinny’' on body size requests in personal ads. Sex Roles, 43, 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monsour, M., Harris, B., Beard, C., & Kurzwil, N. (1994). Challenges confronting cross-sex friendships: Much ado about nothing? Sex Roles, 31, 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morr, M. C., & Mongeau, P. A. (2004). First-date expectations: Impact of sex of initiator, alcohol consumption, and relationship type. Communication Research, 31, 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morr Serewicz, M. C., & Gale, E. (2008). First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship. Sex Roles, 58, 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardi, P. M. (1999). Gay men’s friendships: Invincible communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevid, J. (1984). Sex differences in factors of romantic attraction. Sex Roles, 11, 401–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noland, V. J., Daley, E. M., Drolet, J. C., Fetro, J. V., McCormack Brown, K. R., Hassell, C. D., et al. (2004). Connotative interpretations of sexuality-related terms. Sex Roles, 51, 523–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Offman, A., & Matheson, K. (2004). The sexual self-perceptions of young women experiencing abuse in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 51, 551–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dougherty Wright, M., Norton, D. L., & Matusek, J. A. (2010). Predicting verbal coercion following sexual refusal during a hookup: Diverging gender patterns. Sex Roles, 62, 647–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara, D. (1989). Cross-sex friendships: Four basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex Roles, 21, 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlofsky, J. L. (1982). Psychological androgyny, sex-typing, and sex-role ideology as predictors of male–female interpersonal attraction. Sex Roles, 8, 1057–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. Y., Yun, G. W., McSweeney, J. H., & Gunther, A. C. (2007). Do third-person perceptions of media influence contribute to pluralistic ignorance on the norm of ideal female thinness? Sex Roles, 57, 569–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The causalities of “casual” sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paxton, S. J., Norris, M., Wertheim, E. H., Durkin, S. J., & Anderson, J. (2005). Body dissatisfaction, dating, and importance of thinness to attractiveness in adolescent girls. Sex Roles, 53, 663–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, W. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A., & Miller, L. C. (2010). Are men and women really that different? Examining some of Sexual Strategies Theory (SST)’s key assumptions about sex-distinct mating mechanisms. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9811-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peplau, L. A. (1979). Power in dating relationships. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (2nd ed., pp. 106–121). Palo Alto: Mayfield Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peplau, L. A. (1991). Lesbian and gay relationships. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 177–196). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perrin, P. B., Heesacker, M., Tiegs, T. J., Swan, L. K., Lawrence, A. W., Smith, M. B., et al. (2010). Aligning mars and Venus: The social construction and instability of gender differences in romantic relationships. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9804-4.

  • Rainville, R. E., & Gallagher, J. G. (1990). Vulnerability and heterosexual attraction. Sex Roles, 23, 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. Hawthorne: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regis, P. (2003). A natural history of the romance novel. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, M. E., & Lynch, J. M. (1990). Power-sharing in lesbian partnerships. Journal of Homosexuality, 19, 1–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhode, D. L., & Kellerman, B. (2007). Women and leadership: The state of play. In B. Kellerman & D. L. Rhode (Eds.), Women and Leadership: The state of play and strategies for change (pp. 1–62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickard, K. M. (1989). The relationship of self-monitored dating behaviors to level of feminist identity on the Feminist Identity Scale. Sex Roles, 20, 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S. (1985). Same- and cross-sex friendships and the psychology of homosociality. Sex Roles, 12, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S. (2000). Heterosexism and the study of women’s romantic and friend relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1989). Young singles’ scripts for a first date. Gender & Society, 3, 258–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S., & Zand, D. (2000). Lesbian dating and courtship from young adulthood to midlife. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 11, 77–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S., Zand, D., & Cini, M. (1993). Lesbian courtship scripts. In E. Rothblum & K. A. Brehony (Eds.), The Boston marriage today: Romantic but asexual relationships between lesbians (pp. 70–85). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L. E., & Davis, A. C. (1996). Black-White college student attitudes and expectations in paying for dates. Sex Roles, 35, 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, E. K. (1984). Hands and hearts: A history of courtship in America. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, K. M., & Mohr, S. (2005). Gender differences in playful aggression during courtship in college students. Sex Roles, 53, 591–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, K. M., Weikel, K., & Sprechini, G. (2008). Gender differences in narcissism and courtshipviolence in dating couples. Sex Roles, 58, 802–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, P. (1994). Peer marriage: How love between equals really works. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seal, D. W., Agostinelli, G., & Hannett, C. A. (1994). Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender. Sex Roles, 31, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shechory, M., & Ziv, R. (2007). Relationships between gender role attitudes, role division, and perception of equity among heterosexual, gay and lesbian couples. Sex Roles, 56, 629–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M. (2007). Gender differences in preferences for singles ads that proclaim extrinsic versus intrinsic values. Sex Roles, 57, 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siavelis, R., & Lamke, L. (1992). Instrumentalness and expressiveness: Predictors of heterosexual relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 26, 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, K., & Subich, L. M. (1999). Rape perceptions as a function of gender-role traditionality and victim-perpetrator association. Sex Roles, 40, 617–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, H. C. (2010). Stalking myth-attributions: Examining the role of individual, cultural, and contextual variables on judgments of unwanted pursuit scenarios. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9853-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). When courtship persistence becomes intrusive pursuit: A comparison of rejecter and pursuer perspectives of unrequited attraction. Sex Roles, 52, 839–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skomorovsky, A., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2006). The buffering role of social support perceptions in relation to eating disturbances among women in abusive dating relationships. Sex Roles, 54, 627–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. A., Konik, J. A., & Tuve, M. V. (2010). In search of looks, status, or something else? Partner preferences among butch and femme lesbians and heterosexual men and women. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9861-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. E., Waldorf, V. A., & Trembath, D. L. (1990). Single white male looking for thin, very attractive.... Sex Roles, 23, 675–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell, W. E., & Godwin, L. (1993). Social reactions to depictions of casual and steady acquaintance rape: The impact of AIDS and stereotypical beliefs about women. Sex Roles, 29, 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spindel, J. (2007). How to date men: Dating secrets from America’s top matchmaker. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S. (1985). Sex differences in bases of power in dating relationships. Sex Roles, 12, 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and riendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., & Sedikides, C. (1993). Gender differences in perception of emotionality: The case of close heterosexual relationships. Sex Roles, 28, 511–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, J., & Lauer, M. L. (1987). The consequences of being overweight: A controlled study of gender differences. Sex Roles, 17, 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, T. D., & Harrison, T. M. (1985). A longitudinal comparison of couples with sex-typical and non-sex-typical orientations to intimacy. Sex Roles, 12, 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struckman-Johnson, D., & Struckman-Johnson, C. (1991). Men and women’s acceptance of coercive sexual strategies varied by initiator gender and couple intimacy. Sex Roles, 25, 661–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers, R. J., & Myklebust, K. (1992). The influence of a history of romance on judgments and responses to a complaint of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27, 345–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, L. D. (2005). All for him: Articles about sex in American lad magazines. Sex Roles, 52, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. H., Jr. (1991). The maleness of violence in dating relationships: An appraisal of stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titus, M., & Fadal, T. (2008). Why hasn’t he called? How guys really think and how to get the right one interested in you. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., Marin, G., Lisansky, J., & Betancourt, H. (1984). Simpatu’a as a cultural script of Hispanics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1363–1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbaniak, G., & Kilmann, P. R. (2003). Physical attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do nice guys really finish last? Sex Roles., 49, 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbaniak, G. C., & Kilmann, P. R. (2006). Niceness and dating success: A further test of the nice guy stereotype. Sex Roles, 55, 209–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veniegas, R. C., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). Power and the quality of same-sex friendships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. L., Wester, S. R., Heesacker, M., & Madon, S. (1999). Dating relationships & the demand/withdraw pattern of communication. Sex Roles, 41, 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorauer, J., & Ross, M. (1996). The pursuit of knowledge within close relationships: An informational goals analysis. In G. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 369–396). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 13–37). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, M. K. (1990). Dating, mating, and marriage. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, F. N., & Carlson, R. A. (1993). Singles ads: Gender, social class, and time. Sex Roles, 29, 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., & Rose, S. (1997). Gender and close relationships. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, vol 1 (5th ed., pp. 629–667). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Workman, J. E., & Freeburg, E. W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41, 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Norton, D., & Matusek, J. (2010). Predicting verbal coercion following sexual refusal during a hookup: Diverging gender patterns. Sex Roles, 62, 647–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeater, E. A., Lenberg, K. L., Avina, C., Rinehart, J. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2008). When dating situations take a turn for the worse: Situational and interpersonal risk factors for sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 59, 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Integrated Science and Humanity, Florida International University, DM 445A, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

    Asia Anna Eaton & Suzanna Rose

Authors
  1. Asia Anna Eaton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suzanna Rose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asia Anna Eaton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eaton, A.A., Rose, S. Has Dating Become More Egalitarian? A 35 Year Review Using Sex Roles . Sex Roles 64, 843–862 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation