Promoting Theory-Based Perspectives in Sexual Double Standard Research
The sexual double standard (SDS) has been a focus of research for several decades. Numerous anecdotal accounts of the double standard exist, detailing its consequences and impact on women’s, as well as men’s, sexual behavior and identities. Empirical research, however, has yet to completely corrobor...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Sex roles 2017-04, Vol.76 (7-8), p.407-420 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 420 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7-8 |
container_start_page | 407 |
container_title | Sex roles |
container_volume | 76 |
creator | Zaikman, Yuliana Marks, Michael J. |
description | The sexual double standard (SDS) has been a focus of research for several decades. Numerous anecdotal accounts of the double standard exist, detailing its consequences and impact on women’s, as well as men’s, sexual behavior and identities. Empirical research, however, has yet to completely corroborate the degree to which the double standard pervades everyday life. The disparity between anecdotal accounts and empirical evidence related to the SDS may be the result of the partially atheoretical approach with which the SDS has traditionally been examined. The goal of the present paper is to encourage researchers to take a more theory-oriented approach to understanding the double standard. Our goal is not to provide another comprehensive literature review or an argument for the “best” theory, but rather to promote theory-based perspectives in future SDS research. In the current paper, three theoretical perspectives—evolutionary theory, social role theory, and cognitive social learning theory—and their relevance to the SDS are discussed. We discuss four hypotheses, one related to the core tenet of the SDS itself, and three related to moderating factors, including characteristics of evaluators (i.e., gender, gender roles beliefs, and sexual history), characteristics of targets (i.e., relationship type engaged in, sexual activities participated in, and power status), and social factors (i.e., cultural background, historical era, and socialization agents). Existing research is also interpreted in light of one or more of the theoretical perspectives in the hopes of guiding future research. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11199-016-0677-z |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1877731696</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4320834921</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-49dc7b1e73579cb8295892189dd32ff566fa977246f8b9f0c308ef674da344f23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kLFOwzAURS0EEqXwAWyRmA3PdmLHIxQKSJWoaJktJ3luU6VJsRNE-_WkCgML013uuVc6hFwzuGUA6i4wxrSmwCQFqRQ9nJARS5SgXEl-SkYgJFAAnpyTixA2ANBj8YhM577ZNm1Zr6LlGhu_pw82YBHN0Ycd5m35hSEq62iB352tosemyyqMFq2tC-uL6B0DWp-vL8mZs1XAq98ck4_p03LyQmdvz6-T-xnNBZMtjXWRq4yhEonSeZZynaSas1QXheDOJVI6q5XisXRpph3kAlJ0UsWFFXHsuBiTm2F355vPDkNrNk3n6_7SsFQp1b9o2bfY0Mp9E4JHZ3a-3Fq_NwzMUZcZdJlelznqMoee4QMT-m69Qv9n-V_oB7C6bPA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1877731696</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Promoting Theory-Based Perspectives in Sexual Double Standard Research</title><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Zaikman, Yuliana ; Marks, Michael J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Zaikman, Yuliana ; Marks, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><description>The sexual double standard (SDS) has been a focus of research for several decades. Numerous anecdotal accounts of the double standard exist, detailing its consequences and impact on women’s, as well as men’s, sexual behavior and identities. Empirical research, however, has yet to completely corroborate the degree to which the double standard pervades everyday life. The disparity between anecdotal accounts and empirical evidence related to the SDS may be the result of the partially atheoretical approach with which the SDS has traditionally been examined. The goal of the present paper is to encourage researchers to take a more theory-oriented approach to understanding the double standard. Our goal is not to provide another comprehensive literature review or an argument for the “best” theory, but rather to promote theory-based perspectives in future SDS research. In the current paper, three theoretical perspectives—evolutionary theory, social role theory, and cognitive social learning theory—and their relevance to the SDS are discussed. We discuss four hypotheses, one related to the core tenet of the SDS itself, and three related to moderating factors, including characteristics of evaluators (i.e., gender, gender roles beliefs, and sexual history), characteristics of targets (i.e., relationship type engaged in, sexual activities participated in, and power status), and social factors (i.e., cultural background, historical era, and socialization agents). Existing research is also interpreted in light of one or more of the theoretical perspectives in the hopes of guiding future research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0360-0025</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2762</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11199-016-0677-z</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SROLDH</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Cultural Background ; Evaluators ; Everyday life ; Evidence ; Evolution ; Females ; Feminist Forum Review Article ; Gender differences ; Gender Studies ; Learning Theories ; Literature reviews ; Males ; Medicine/Public Health ; Psychology ; Research Design ; Researchers ; Resistance (Psychology) ; Role Theory ; Sex roles ; Sexual behavior ; Sexual Orientation ; Sexuality ; Sexually Transmitted Diseases ; Social learning ; Social power ; Socialization ; Socialization agents ; Sociocultural factors ; Sociology ; Studies ; Theory</subject><ispartof>Sex roles, 2017-04, Vol.76 (7-8), p.407-420</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017</rights><rights>Sex Roles is a copyright of Springer, 2017.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-49dc7b1e73579cb8295892189dd32ff566fa977246f8b9f0c308ef674da344f23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-49dc7b1e73579cb8295892189dd32ff566fa977246f8b9f0c308ef674da344f23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11199-016-0677-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11199-016-0677-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27321,27901,27902,33751,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zaikman, Yuliana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><title>Promoting Theory-Based Perspectives in Sexual Double Standard Research</title><title>Sex roles</title><addtitle>Sex Roles</addtitle><description>The sexual double standard (SDS) has been a focus of research for several decades. Numerous anecdotal accounts of the double standard exist, detailing its consequences and impact on women’s, as well as men’s, sexual behavior and identities. Empirical research, however, has yet to completely corroborate the degree to which the double standard pervades everyday life. The disparity between anecdotal accounts and empirical evidence related to the SDS may be the result of the partially atheoretical approach with which the SDS has traditionally been examined. The goal of the present paper is to encourage researchers to take a more theory-oriented approach to understanding the double standard. Our goal is not to provide another comprehensive literature review or an argument for the “best” theory, but rather to promote theory-based perspectives in future SDS research. In the current paper, three theoretical perspectives—evolutionary theory, social role theory, and cognitive social learning theory—and their relevance to the SDS are discussed. We discuss four hypotheses, one related to the core tenet of the SDS itself, and three related to moderating factors, including characteristics of evaluators (i.e., gender, gender roles beliefs, and sexual history), characteristics of targets (i.e., relationship type engaged in, sexual activities participated in, and power status), and social factors (i.e., cultural background, historical era, and socialization agents). Existing research is also interpreted in light of one or more of the theoretical perspectives in the hopes of guiding future research.</description><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Cultural Background</subject><subject>Evaluators</subject><subject>Everyday life</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Feminist Forum Review Article</subject><subject>Gender differences</subject><subject>Gender Studies</subject><subject>Learning Theories</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Males</subject><subject>Medicine/Public Health</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Resistance (Psychology)</subject><subject>Role Theory</subject><subject>Sex roles</subject><subject>Sexual behavior</subject><subject>Sexual Orientation</subject><subject>Sexuality</subject><subject>Sexually Transmitted Diseases</subject><subject>Social learning</subject><subject>Social power</subject><subject>Socialization</subject><subject>Socialization agents</subject><subject>Sociocultural factors</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Theory</subject><issn>0360-0025</issn><issn>1573-2762</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><sourceid>QXPDG</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kLFOwzAURS0EEqXwAWyRmA3PdmLHIxQKSJWoaJktJ3luU6VJsRNE-_WkCgML013uuVc6hFwzuGUA6i4wxrSmwCQFqRQ9nJARS5SgXEl-SkYgJFAAnpyTixA2ANBj8YhM577ZNm1Zr6LlGhu_pw82YBHN0Ycd5m35hSEq62iB352tosemyyqMFq2tC-uL6B0DWp-vL8mZs1XAq98ck4_p03LyQmdvz6-T-xnNBZMtjXWRq4yhEonSeZZynaSas1QXheDOJVI6q5XisXRpph3kAlJ0UsWFFXHsuBiTm2F355vPDkNrNk3n6_7SsFQp1b9o2bfY0Mp9E4JHZ3a-3Fq_NwzMUZcZdJlelznqMoee4QMT-m69Qv9n-V_oB7C6bPA</recordid><startdate>20170401</startdate><enddate>20170401</enddate><creator>Zaikman, Yuliana</creator><creator>Marks, Michael J.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7R6</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>888</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGEN</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>QXPDG</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170401</creationdate><title>Promoting Theory-Based Perspectives in Sexual Double Standard Research</title><author>Zaikman, Yuliana ; Marks, Michael J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-49dc7b1e73579cb8295892189dd32ff566fa977246f8b9f0c308ef674da344f23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Cultural Background</topic><topic>Evaluators</topic><topic>Everyday life</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Feminist Forum Review Article</topic><topic>Gender differences</topic><topic>Gender Studies</topic><topic>Learning Theories</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Males</topic><topic>Medicine/Public Health</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Resistance (Psychology)</topic><topic>Role Theory</topic><topic>Sex roles</topic><topic>Sexual behavior</topic><topic>Sexual Orientation</topic><topic>Sexuality</topic><topic>Sexually Transmitted Diseases</topic><topic>Social learning</topic><topic>Social power</topic><topic>Socialization</topic><topic>Socialization agents</topic><topic>Sociocultural factors</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zaikman, Yuliana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>GenderWatch</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>GenderWatch (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest Women's & Gender Studies</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Diversity Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Sex roles</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zaikman, Yuliana</au><au>Marks, Michael J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Promoting Theory-Based Perspectives in Sexual Double Standard Research</atitle><jtitle>Sex roles</jtitle><stitle>Sex Roles</stitle><date>2017-04-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>7-8</issue><spage>407</spage><epage>420</epage><pages>407-420</pages><issn>0360-0025</issn><eissn>1573-2762</eissn><coden>SROLDH</coden><abstract>The sexual double standard (SDS) has been a focus of research for several decades. Numerous anecdotal accounts of the double standard exist, detailing its consequences and impact on women’s, as well as men’s, sexual behavior and identities. Empirical research, however, has yet to completely corroborate the degree to which the double standard pervades everyday life. The disparity between anecdotal accounts and empirical evidence related to the SDS may be the result of the partially atheoretical approach with which the SDS has traditionally been examined. The goal of the present paper is to encourage researchers to take a more theory-oriented approach to understanding the double standard. Our goal is not to provide another comprehensive literature review or an argument for the “best” theory, but rather to promote theory-based perspectives in future SDS research. In the current paper, three theoretical perspectives—evolutionary theory, social role theory, and cognitive social learning theory—and their relevance to the SDS are discussed. We discuss four hypotheses, one related to the core tenet of the SDS itself, and three related to moderating factors, including characteristics of evaluators (i.e., gender, gender roles beliefs, and sexual history), characteristics of targets (i.e., relationship type engaged in, sexual activities participated in, and power status), and social factors (i.e., cultural background, historical era, and socialization agents). Existing research is also interpreted in light of one or more of the theoretical perspectives in the hopes of guiding future research.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s11199-016-0677-z</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0360-0025 |
ispartof | Sex roles, 2017-04, Vol.76 (7-8), p.407-420 |
issn | 0360-0025 1573-2762 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1877731696 |
source | EBSCOhost Education Source; Sociological Abstracts; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Behavioral Science and Psychology Cultural Background Evaluators Everyday life Evidence Evolution Females Feminist Forum Review Article Gender differences Gender Studies Learning Theories Literature reviews Males Medicine/Public Health Psychology Research Design Researchers Resistance (Psychology) Role Theory Sex roles Sexual behavior Sexual Orientation Sexuality Sexually Transmitted Diseases Social learning Social power Socialization Socialization agents Sociocultural factors Sociology Studies Theory |
title | Promoting Theory-Based Perspectives in Sexual Double Standard Research |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T20%3A16%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Promoting%20Theory-Based%20Perspectives%20in%20Sexual%20Double%20Standard%20Research&rft.jtitle=Sex%20roles&rft.au=Zaikman,%20Yuliana&rft.date=2017-04-01&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=7-8&rft.spage=407&rft.epage=420&rft.pages=407-420&rft.issn=0360-0025&rft.eissn=1573-2762&rft.coden=SROLDH&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11199-016-0677-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4320834921%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1877731696&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |