Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19 (1995). 563-581. Printed in the United States of America.

WOMEN’S PERCEPTIONS OF FEMALE CON TRACE PTl VE B EH AVI 0 R

Experimental Evidence of the Sexual Double Standard

Michaela Hynie and John E. Lydon McCill University

A social perception study was conducted to examine the effect of the sexual double standard on impressions of a female target. As part of a “social memory” study, 57 female undergraduates read a fictitious woman’s diary describing a sexual encounter where the woman pro- vided a condom, the man provided a condom, or the couple had unpro- tected intercourse. Participants made behavioral judgments and interper- sonal judgments about the couple, and rated the female target on several personality traits. Women rated the target’s behavior more negatively, and as more inappropriate, when she provided a condom, than when her partner provided a condom. Participants also assumed that the tar- get’s partner would feel less positive about her when she provided a condom than if he provided a condom or if they had unprotected inter- course. These results are discussed with respect to the continued exis- tence of the sexual double standard, and its impact on women’s contra- ceptive behavior.

Unprotected intercourse has always posed a potential risk for women in the form of an unwanted pregnancy. Now women also have to contend

This study was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and by a Social Sciences research grant from the McGill University Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research. We would like to thank Susan Sprecher and anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We appreciate the assistance of Lorne Sugar for conducting this study.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Michaela Hynie, Department of Psychol- ogy, McGill University, 1205 Dr. Penfield Ave. Montreal, Quebec H3A 1B1, Canada; e-mail: hynieaego .psych. mcgill.ca.

Published by Cambridge University Press 0361-6843195 $7.50 + .10 563

564 HYNIE AND LYDON

with a risk of AIDS. The rates of HIV infection and AIDS among women is growing rapidly, and risk of infection from unprotected heterosexual intercourse may be much greater for women than for men (Ickovics & Rodin, 1992). As a result of these risks, public health campaigns have strongly encouraged condom use among sexually active adolescents and adults, and increasingly they have targeted condom use by women. Recent studies suggest that women’s attitudes toward condoms are relatively posi- tive, even more so than men’s on several dimensions (Campbell, Peplau & DeBro, 1992; Helweg-Larsen & Collins, 1994). Despite studies de- monstrating a positive relation between attitudes toward condoms and actual condom use (e.g., Catania, Coates, Greenblatt, Dolcini, Kegeles, Puckett, Corman & Miller, 1989; Geringer, Marks, Allen, & Armstrong, 1993), Helweg-Larsen and Collins (1994) recently found that women’s condom use is unrelated to either their past condom use, or their attitudes toward condoms, suggesting that some women may still rely upon men to provide condoms in sexual situations. Given the greater risk that women face as a result of unprotected intercourse, and the force of public health messages, why are some women still unwilling to take the initiative re- garding condom use? One possibility is that the traditional double stan- dard regarding sexual behavior conflicts with women’s desire to have safe sex.

The Sexual Double Standard

Traditionally, there has existed a double standard regarding sexuality. At one time premarital intercourse was tolerated for men but not for women (Reiss, 1971). As premarital sex became more common, this double stan- dard developed into a belief that recreational sexual activity could be tolerated for men, whereas women’s sexual experiences should occur only in the context of serious relationships (Carroll, Volk, & Hyde, 1985; De- Lamater, 1987; MacCorquodale, 1989; Oliver & Hyde, 1993).

Recently, however, there has been some debate over the continued exis- tence of a double standard regarding sexual activity (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Oliver & Sedikides, 1992; Sprecher, 1989; Sprecher, McKinney, & Orbuch, 1987, 1991; Williams & Jacoby, 1989). For example, in a study of university undergraduates, Williams and Jacoby (1989) found that both men and women preferred dating and marriage partners with only limited previous heterosexual experience. Not only did their results fail to support the existence of the double standard, but women actually showed a stronger preference for virginity in prospective partners than did men. In other words, men were judged more harshly for being sexually experi- enced than were women. If anything, these results suggest the emergence of a reverse double standard.

Sexual Double Standard 565 Other research, however, suggests that a subtle double standard still

exists. Although similar sexual standards are prescribed for men and women (Sprecher, 1989), women are still perceived more negatively than men for being too sexually experienced. Sprecher, McKinney, and Orbuch (1987) presented undergraduates with fictitious survey information about either a male or female student’s first sexual experience. The investigators manipulated information about the target’s age (16 or 21 years) and the seriousness of the relationship (casual or serious) at the time of this first sexual encounter. Participants were then asked to rate the student on several personality characteristics. The female target was rated less favor- ably when she engaged in early first coitus (age 16 years) than when first intercourse occurred at age 21 years. For the male target, however, age of first coitus made no difference. Furthermore, although both male and female targets were rated more negatively in the context of a casual rela- tionship than in a serious relationship, this difference was more pro- nounced for the female target. These results suggest that a double standard still exists with respect to the acceptability of certain kinds of sexual behav- ior. Specifically, premarital sex is appropriate for both men and women within the confines of a serious adult relationship. However, sexual behav- iors that exist outside these limits are less acceptable for women than they are for men.

Oliver and Sedikides (1992) also found evidence of a sexual double standard and demonstrated how this double standard could influence women’s dating relationships. Male and female undergraduates were given information about a hypothetical other-gender student’s sexual per- missiveness. Participants were asked to rate how much they would like this person as a blind date and as a marriage partner. Both men and women preferred a nonpermissive target to a permissive target as a mar- riage partner. In the blind-date condition, however, women continued to prefer the nonpermissive target, whereas men found the permissive target more desirable. These data suggest that as casual dating partners, sexually permissive women are not only acceptable, but desirable. In contrast, sexually permissive women would be less desirable for a serious relation- ship. Conversely, men consider nonpermissive women to be more desir- able as marriage partners but less desirable as dating partners.

Thus, women continue to be judged more harshly than men for sexual behaviors that do not reflect a relationship-centered ideal of sexuality (Sprecher, McKinney, & Orbuch, 1987). Moreover, women who ignore this double standard can expect negative repercussions regarding their desirability as serious dating partners (Oliver & Sedikides, 1992). If women are aware of the possibility of negative relationship outcomes, they may be unwilling to engage in behaviors that imply sexual permissiveness, even if those same behaviors protect them from other negative conse- quences.

566 Contraception and the Double Standard

HYNIE AND LYDON

One sexual behavior that could result in negative relationship outcomes is being contraceptively prepared for an initial sexual encounter. In one respect, being contraceptively prepared may reduce concerns about be- coming pregnant, and, in the case of condom usage, reduce concerns about sexually transmitted diseases. However, being contraceptively pre- pared for a sexual encounter suggests an expectation of sexual intercourse. Thus, a woman who is not in a serious dating relationship, yet is contra- ceptively prepared, risks being perceived as sexually permissive.

For example, male university students associated being on the Pill with a greater risk of having AIDS (Williams et al., 1992). Moreover, the other characteristics associated with greater risk of AIDS included dressing provocatively, and seeming overly anxious to have sex. Thus, women who are contraceptively prepared may be perceived as promiscuous. If provid- ing contraceptives for a sexual encounter leads to assumptions of promiscu- ity, a woman who is contraceptively prepared may be seen as less desirable for committed relationships. Therefore, we would expect that the double standard would conflict with women’s desire to be contraceptively pre- pared in sexual situations. Women have to choose between risking unpro- tected intercourse, on the one hand, and risking being perceived as promis- cuous, and therefore jeopardizing their relationship, on the other.

The double standard regarding sexual experience and its influence on assumptions of promiscuity about male and female contraceptive users has been addressed experimentally by McKinney, Sprecher, and Orbuch (1987). Male and female targets in a personal impression study used either a condom, the Pill, or no method of contraception during first coitus. On the basis of the double standard, we would predict that the female target would be rated more negatively than the male target for being contracep- tively prepared, but this was not the case. Participants’ ratings reflected the efficacy of the contraceptive used. Men and women responded most positively to those targets who used the most efficient contraceptive method, the Pill, and most negatively to those that used no method at all. However, these results do not rule out the possibility that women are still derogated for being contraceptively prepared. Rather, we believe that these data reveal participants’ awareness of another sexual standard that exists independent of the double standard.

We suggest that there currently exists a clear standard or ideal for so- cially appropriate sexual behavior, especially among young people - use contraception. Therefore, it may be socially inappropriate to derogate a woman for using contraception. When the link between contraceptive behavior and overall impressions of a woman is clear, we would expect a dampening of the double standard, in other words, less of a willingness to devalue women who have contraceptives available. However, we main- tain that the double standard does apply to the use of contraception. Being

Sexual Double Standard 567

contraceptively prepared outside a long-term serious relationship indicates a willingness to engage in casual sexual intercourse (Williams et al., 1992), and this sexual permissiveness is less acceptable for women than it is for men (Sprecher et al., 1987). Thus, it is more acceptable for the man to have contraceptives in an initial sexual encounter than for the woman to have contraceptives. We propose that this effect may be revealed in an experimental situation that reduces concerns about socially appropriate responses.

By embedding information about sexual and contraceptive behavior within the context of seven diary entries for a “social memory study” we felt that we could obtain the necessary experimental situation to demon- strate the sexual double standard regarding contraceptive behavior.

Rationale for the Current Study

Our aim in studying the double standard was to investigate factors that might conflict with women’s desire to use contraceptives. For the double standard to influence women’s contraceptive use, women must be aware of it, and believe that men endorse it. Importantly, whether or not men actually endorse this double standard need not have an impact. Rather, it is women’s beliefs about men’s endorsement of the double standard that will influence their behavior. This study therefore focused on women’s attitudes about women’s contraceptive use and their assumptions about men’s attitudes toward female contraceptive users. Specifically, the study examined women’s attitudes regarding women’s use of condoms in a ca- sual, initial sexual encounter.

Research suggests that the double standard applies primarily to sexual behavior outside of committed relationships. Women in noncommitted sexual situations are therefore most likely to experience the double stan- dard. Moreover, our data (Hynie &I Lydon, 1994) suggest that women may be at much greater risk for unprotected intercourse during an initial sexual encounter than in an established sexual relationship. Finally, the repercussions of unprotected intercourse may be especially pronounced for women in casual relationships (i.e., risk of sexually transmitted diseases, lack of partner support in the event of pregnancy).

Of all the contraceptive methods available to women and men, condoms may be especially significant early on in a sexual relationship. Not only have condoms been the focus of public health campaigns, but they also appear to be the most frequently used method of contraception during initial sexual encounters (Hynie & Lydon, 1993, 1994). A study by Hynie and Lydon (1994) found that university women were more than three times as likely to report using a condom than the next most popular method, the Pill, during the first intercourse with their most recent part- ner. Furthermore, condoms allow a more direct comparison between the

568 HYNlE AND LYDON

man’s and woman’s behavior. Obtaining and using the Pill requires long term planning of sexual encounters, but it remains relatively “invisible” during the sexual act. Condoms, on the other hand, need less long-term planning, but tend to reflect an expectation of sexual intercourse in the near future and require negotiation and cooperation between sex partners.

Hypotheses

We hypothesize that women who provide a condom during an initial, casual sexual encounter and those who have unprotected intercourse will both be devalued, but in very different ways. The research reviewed above suggests that women who provide their own contraceptives should be perceived as more permissive than women whose partners provide a con- traceptive. As a result of the double standard, we predict that women who provide their own condoms should be viewed less favorably.

Women who engage in unprotected intercourse should not be perceived as sexually permissive. If anything, participants should assume that they are sexually inexperienced and naive. However, women who have unpro- tected intercourse are breaking another social standard regarding sexual- ity, the importance of using contraceptives. Thus, we predict that women who violate this standard may be seen as foolish, but importantly, not as immoral or unpleasant.

METHODS

Research Participants

Participants were recruited through classroom sign-up sheets that were distributed in several classes on campus. A total of 63 women who had indicated an interest in participating were recruited by telephone. Six participants were subsequently eliminated for failing to correctly describe the contraceptive condition in the free recall portion of the experiment. Analyses were based on the remaining 57 women. Participants’ mean age was 20.00 (SD = 2.02) and ranged from 17 to 30 years. Average number of years of university was 1.76 (SD = .97) and ranged from .5 to 4 years. Twenty-two participants were psychology students. Of those remaining participants, 18 were taking a degree in the Arts, 10 in the Sciences, and 7 were registered in professional programs. Participants had their names entered in a drawing for five cash prizes ranging from $25 to $100.

Sexual Double Standard

Procedure 569

Participants were tested in groups no larger than four. Their anonymity was assured, and they were seated so as to ensure the privacy of their responses.

To reduce concerns about social desirability, the current study was de- signed as a “social memory” study, in which participants read two (of supposedly seven) diary accounts of a female student. Participants were asked to provide ratings of the student “in order to provide information about how people encode social information.” They were informed that they would read the two diary entries, fill out some attitude question- naires, and try to remember as much as they could from the diary entries. As part of the instructions, participants were presented with a list of seven diary entries: conflict with roommate, providing emotional support for friend, taking an exam, seeing the film “Malcolm X with friends, being offered a part-time job, meeting a male acquaintance at a party, and having a disagreement with parents.

Participants were asked to select the first, and then the second of the entries they would read from two sets of seven unmarked piles; one entry was selected from each set. This was done to lend credibility to our claim that there were in fact seven different diary entries. All entries in the first set of seven piles were the distraught friend scenario, and all entries in the second set of seven piles were the sexual encounter scenario. Three differ- ent contraceptive conditions of the sexual scenario (woman provided con- dom, man provided condom, no condom) were alternated within each pile and across the seven piles in the second set, so that roughly equal numbers of participants would fall into each condition. There were 21 participants in the woman-provided condom condition, 18 in the man- provided condom condition, and 18 in the no-condom condition. The experiment was therefore a 3 (Contraceptive Behavior) x 2 (Scenario) design, with contraception as a between-subjects factor, and scenario as a within-subjects factor.

After participants read the first diary entry, they placed it in a large envelope and then completed a set of questionnaires including ratings of their impressions of the target (e.g., personality trait inferences). They placed the questionnaires in the large envelope upon completion, and then they completed the free recall memory test and added the third section of materials to the envelope. The same three-step process - read the diary entry, respond to the questionnaires, complete the free recall memory test - was engaged in for the second scenario as well.

Following completion of both sets of questionnaires, participants were debriefed and given a written summary of the rationale of the study. They were asked during the debriefing to indicate what they believed were the hypotheses of the study. No participant suspected that our interest was in

5 70 HYNIE AND LYDON

the contraceptive behavior of the targets. The experimental session took approximately 45 minutes.

Materials

Scenarios The first entry for all participants described an evening during which a friend of Anne-Marie’s needed emotional support after breaking up with her boyfriend. The friend was very demanding, and Anne-Marie was anxious to be studying because it was the night before she had a big exam. Eventually, Anne-Marie asked her friend to leave. Anne-Marie suspected that her friend felt angry and hurt at being asked to leave.

The second diary entry dealt with an unplanned sexual encounter be- tween Anne-Marie and a man she had dated only a few times. The text for the scenario in the no condom condition read as follows.

Dear Diary, I am writing this early Sunday morning, since I was in no shape to write last night1 Eric, the guy from my Chem class, was at Joanne’s party last night. I thought Eric was as interested in me as I was in him. Well, now I know he was1 Eric and I had only gone out a couple times before last night, but it was like we had known each other forever. We talked all night. People began leaving the party early, around 1:OO. Eric offered to walk me home and we stopped at a pub and played pool for a while. We were having such a good time, we didn’t leave until the bar closed11 Then we had a snow fight on the way home. I know, I know, it’s corny, but it was really fun. I asked him up for a coffee even though it was pretty late. He didn’t seem to want the evening to end either, so we started watching some terrible late movie about cave people. We started making out and things got kind of carried away. I never intended to sleep with him, but before I knew what was happening, we were having sex. It was great! (Thank god I just had my period, because we didn’t have a condoml) I know it was all kind of sudden, but at the time it just felt so right. I wonder where we go from here? I wonder what he’s thinking. . . .

Participants received one of three versions of the sexual scenario. The three conditions were identical except for the contraceptive information, which was provided in one parenthetical phrase which read either “thank god I had that condom in my purse,” “thank god he had a condom in his wallet,” or “thank god I just had my period, because we didn’t have a condom.”

Personality Traits Participants rated Anne-Marie on 18 bipolar personality characteristics, such as mature-immature, wise-foolish, and warm-cold. The personality traits were selected to measure three dimensions: maturity/intelligence,

Sexual Double Standard 571

social attractiveness, and morality. The personality traits were modeled after the personality characteristics used by McKinney et al. (1987). All dependent measures, including the bipolar personality traits, were as- sessed on 7-point scales.

Responses to the personality traits for each of the scenarios were submit- ted to a confirmatory factor analysis with varimax rotation. Three factors with eigen values greater than 1 were found across both scenarios. One factor (eigen values of 2.16 for Scenario 1 and 7.72 for Scenario 2) ap- peared to be measuring social attractiveness, or Niceness. A second factor (eigen values of 7.86 and 2.81, respectively) seemed to be measuring matu- ritylintelligence, or Wisdom. Finally, a third factor for both analyses (eigen values of 1.32 and 1.23) seemed to be measuring how outgoing (Inhibited) Anne-Marie was perceived to be.

For the first factor, Niceness, personality traits with loadings of more than .SO for both scenarios included the traits caring, good, warm, likable, and manipulative (with a negative loading). For the second factor, Wis- dom, the traits that loaded highly for both analyses included responsible, mature, careful, wise, experienced, intelligent, and naive (loading nega- tively). Only three traits were included for the third factor, Inhibited.’ These were the traits carefree, liberal, and uninhibited. Three traits that failed to load highly on one of the three factors in both scenarios were excluded from the analyses. These traits were moral, attractive, and friendly.

Three new variables were constructed for each scenario based on these three factors by averaging ratings for each of the traits described above. Traits loading negatively on their respective factors were reversed before being included in the calculations. A test of scale reliability resulted in alpha correlations of .87 and -88 for Niceness, measured after Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively, .89 and .89 for Wisdom, and .62 and .68 for Inhib- ited. The alpha correlations suggest that the combination of items into these three dimensions was reasonable.

Attitude Measures These questionnaires assessed various aspects of participants’ reactions to Anne-Marie’s behavior, and the behavior of the other character in each scenario. Specifically, participants were asked to rate how appropriately the characters in the story behaved, from totally inappropriate to totally appropriate. Participants were also asked how they themselves felt about Anne-Marie’s behavior, and how both characters felt about Anne-Marie’s behavior, from negative to positive.

Participants were then asked to rate the extent to which men and women would be interested in making Anne-Marie’s acquaintance, the extent to which they personally would like to make Anne-Marie’s acquain- tance, and the extent to which Anne-Marie would fit in with their friends,

5 72 HYNIE AND LYDON

from not at all to very much. Questions measuring the extent to which Anne-Marie would fit in with subjects’ own friends, how much the partici- pants would like to make Anne-Marie’s acquaintance, and how much women in general would like to make Anne-Marie’s acquaintance were combined into one variable called Social Acceptance.

Free Recall Finally, participants listed as many facts as they could remember from the scenario they had just read. This task was used to distract participants’ attention from the true nature of the study, to ensure that participants read the scenarios carefully, and to check the manipulation of the contra- ceptive condition in the second scenario. Participants who failed to cor- rectly list the contraceptive behavior of the characters in the second sce- nario were excluded from further analyses.

RESULTS4

Behavioral Judgments

Measurements of behavioral judgments were performed only on the mean ratings following the second scenario, because Anne-Marie’s behavior across the two scenarios did not seem comparable. Judgments of Anne- Marie’s behavior during the sexual scenario were assessed using two sets of measures. One set of variables assessed how appropriate the behaviors of Anne-Marie and her partner were. The second set of variables asked sub- jects how Anne-Marie, her partner, and the participants themselves felt about Anne-Marie’s behavior after the evening’s events. Because there were a number of specific hypotheses, planned comparisons were used to analyze the data (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). Planned comparisons contrasting the man-provided condom condition and the woman-provided condom condition tested whether Anne-Marie was perceived more nega- tively for violating the double standard. Planned comparisons contrasting the man-provided condom condition with the no condom condition tested whether Anne-Marie was perceived more negatively for having unpro- tected sex.

Participants were asked to rate how appropriate Anne-Marie’s behavior was in the sexual scenario, from completely inappropriate to totally appro- priate. As seen in Table 1, a planned comparison revealed that Anne- Marie’s behavior was rated as less appropriate if she had a condom ( M = 3.29) than if her partner had a condom ( M = 4.50), F(1, 54) = 7.90, p < .01 (effect size r = .36). A planned comparison contrasting the no- condom condition with the man-provided condom condition was not sig- nificant, F ( l , 54) = 2.57, n s . (see Table 1).

The appropriateness of Anne-Marie’s sexual partner’s behavior was also

Sexual Double Standard 5 73

Table 1

Means (and standard deviations) of behavioral judgments

She Had He Had Judgment Condom Condom No Condom

Appropriateness" Her behavior 3.29 4.50 3.78

(1.31) (1.38) (1.35) His behavior 3.48 4.44 3.78

(1.47) (1.42) (1.35)

How Anne-Marie feels 5.67 6.22 5.94 (1.06) (0.88) (0.64)

How he feels 5.38 6.06 6.06 (0.97) (1.26) (0.80)

How you feel 3.43 4.44 3.72 (1.66) (1.62) (1.53)

Emotional reactions

Note: n = 21 for she had condom. n = 18 for he had condom and for no condom. * Appropriateness was measured on a 7-point scale, with 1 representing totally inappropriate, and 7 representing totally appropriate.

Emotional reactions were measured on 7-point scales, where 1 was negative and 7 was positive.

found to be significantly influenced by the contraceptive condition. The man's behavior was deemed more appropriate when he provided the con- dom ( M = 4.44) than when she provided the condom ( M = 3.48), F(1, 54) = 4.49, p < .05 (effect size I = .28). The difference between the no-condom condition and the man-provided condom condition was not significant, F(1,54) = 1.95, n.s. (see Table 1). Thus, it was deemed more appropriate for the man to provide a condom in a sexual situation, and it was deemed more appropriate for the woman to have the man provide the condom, than for the woman to provide a condom herself.

When asked how Anne-Marie felt about her own behavior in the sexual situation, a planned comparison contrasting the woman-provided condom and man-provided condom conditions revealed a tendency for participants to expect Anne-Marie to feel more negatively about her behavior if she provided a condom ( M = 5.67) than if he provided a condom ( M = 6.22), F(1, 54) = 3.80, p = .06 ( I = .26). Surprisingly, there was no significant difference between the man-provided condom and no-condom conditions, F < 1 (see Table 1). Thus, participants did not expect Anne- Marie to feel worse about having unprotected intercourse but did expect her to feel worse about being contraceptively prepared.

When asked how the man felt toward Anne-Marie immediately follow- ing the sexual encounter, a planned comparison revealed that female par- ticipants expected the male sex partner to feel less positively toward Anne- Marie when she provided the condom ( M = 5.38) than when he provided the condom ( M = 6.06), F(1,54) = 4.20, p < .05 ( I = .27). Mean rat-

5 74 HYNIE AND LYDON

ings for the man-provided condom condition and no-condom condition were identical (see Table 1). Thus, women did not expect Anne-Marie’s partner to feel less positively about her if she engaged in unprotected intercourse, but did expect him to react less positively if she provided a condom.

Finally, participants were asked to rate how they felt about Anne- Marie’s behavior in the sexual scenario, from negative to positive. Partici- pants were less positive in the woman-provided condom condition (M = 3.43) than in the man provided condom condition ( M = 4.44), F = 3.88, p = .05 ( r = .26). A planned comparison contrasting the man provided condom with the no condom condition was not significant, F(1, 54) = 1.81, n.s. (see Table 1). Thus, being contraceptively prepared elicited negative impressions of Anne-Marie, but having unprotected intercourse did not.

Interpersonal Judgments

For both the interpersonal judgments and personality trait assessments, analyses used data from both levels of the within factor, Scenario, in the 3 x 2 design. Participants’ ratings after Scenario 1 were used as a baseline against which to compare ratings after Scenario 2. Unless otherwise stated, planned comparisons for the interpersonal and personality trait judgments contrasted ratings after Scenario 1 with ratings after Scenario 2 separately for the three conditions.

Participants were asked to rate to what extent men in general would be interested in making Anne-Marie’s acquaintance. Planned comparisons examining changes within each contraceptive condition showed that fe- male participants assumed men to be more interested in meeting Anne- Marie after the sexual scenario than after the rebuffing friend scenario in the woman-provided condom condition ( M = 4.95 after Scenario 1, M = 5.48 after Scenario 2), F(1, 54) = 4.15, p < .05 ( r = .27), and the man-provided condom condition ( M = 4.67 after Scenario 1, M = 5.72 after Scenario 2), F(1, 54) = 13.98, p < .01 ( r = .45).6 The differ- ence between Scenario 1 ( M = 4.44) and Scenario 2 ( M = 5.61) was also significant for the no-condom condition, F(1, 54) = 17.35, p < .01 ( r = .49; see Table 2).

Essentially, across the three experimental conditions, information about Anne-Marie’s sexual activity increased women’s ratings of how socially attractive they thought that men would find Anne-Marie. This could be caused by a familiarity effect, but the social acceptability ratings that follow belie this possibility. Rather, women appear to be acknowledging Oliver and Sedikides’ (1992) finding that men find sexually experienced women attractive as casual dating partners.

Planned comparisons revealed that, when she provided a condom, par-

Sexual Double Standard 5 75 Table 2

Means (and SDs) for interpersonal judgments"

She Had He Had Judgment Condom Condom No Condom

Men's desire to become acquainted

Scenario 1 4.95 4.67 4.44

Scenario 2 5.48 5.72 5.61 (1.16) (1.19) (0.98)

(0.75) (1.23) (1.04) Social acceptance

Scenario 1 5.32 4.87 4.69

Scenario 2 4.22 4.65 4.11 (0.92) (1.24) (1.20)

(1.03) (1.36) (0.98)

Note: n = 21 for she had condom. n = 18 for he had wndom and for no condom. * Scales ranged from 1 to 7, with 1 representing not at all and 7 representing very much.

ticipants rated Anne-Marie as less socially acceptable after Scenario 2 (M = 4.22) than after Scenario 1 (M = 5.32), F(1, 54) = 12.71, p < .01 ( T = .44). There was no significant change in the extent to which she was deemed acceptable from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2 if her partner pro- vided the condom, F < 1. There was a tendency for Anne-Marie to be seen as less socially acceptable when she had unprotected intercourse (M = 4.87) than before learning that she had unprotected intercourse (M = 4.65), F(1, 54) = 3.03, p < .10 ( T = .23; see Table 2). Thus, we found a strong reliable negative effect of being contraceptively prepared on women's social impressions of Anne-Marie, and we also found a some- what weaker, less reliable effect of having unprotected intercourse on social impressions.

Personality Traits

Planned comparisons were used to examine the difference between Scenar- ios 1 and 2 for Niceness, separately in each of the three conditions. It was predicted that Anne-Marie would be rated lower on Niceness after the scenario where she provided a condom, but not after either the scenario where her partner provided the condom or where there was no condom. Anne-Marie was, in fact, rated as significantly less nice after Scenario 2 (M = 4.78) than after Scenario 1 (M = 5.23) in the condition where she pro- vided the condom, F(1, 54) = 5.91, p < .05 ( T = .31). This difference was not significant in either the man-provided condom condition, F(1,54) = 1.82, n.s., orintheno-condomcondition, F < 1 (seeTable3).

We expected Anne-Marie to be rated as less inhibited in Scenario 2 than

5 76 HYNIE AND LYDON

Table 3

Means (and SDs) for personality trait ratings"

She Had He Had Trait Condom Condom No Condom

Niceness Scenario 1 5.23 5.36 5.02

(0.67) (1.18) (1.14) Scenario 2 4.78 5.09 4.94

(0.64) (0.98) (0.81) Wisdom

Scenario 1 4.82 4.91 4.66 (0.61) (0.67) (0.65)

Scenario 2 4.20 4.46 3.42 (0.74) (1.00) (0.77)

Scenario 1 4.25 4.17 4.43 (0.86) (0.68) (0.93)

Scenario 2 2.54 2.46 2.63 (0.67) (0.67) (0.88)

Inhibited

Note: n = 21 for she had condom. n = 18 for he had condom and for no condom. Scores range from 1 to 7, with low scores reflecting less of the trait.

in Scenario 1 across all conditions, but that the difference would be great- est in the woman-provided condom condition. There was a simple effect for Scenario on ratings of inhibition, F(1,54) = 189.79, p < .001. How- ever, planned comparisons revealed that there were no significant differ- ences in the change in Inhibited ratings between the three experimental conditions, F < 1 (see Table 3).

We predicted that Anne-Marie would be rated less wise in the no- condom condition than in either the woman-provided condom condition or the man-provided condom condition. In all three conditions, Anne- Marie was rated as less wise in Scenario 2 compared with Scenario 1, p < .05.. A planned comparison was performed that contrasted the change in Wisdom ratings from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2 for contraceptive versus no contraceptive use conditions. Our prediction was supported, F(1, 54) = 10.53, p < .01 (T = .40). As shown in Table 3, women who had unpro- tected intercourse were seen as less wise (mean change = 1.24) than those who used a condom (unweighted mean change for both conditions = .535).

DISCUSSION

We hypothesized that a woman providing a condom for a sexual encounter would be violating a subtle sexual double standard. Our results supported this hypothesis. All ten planned comparisons testing this hypothesis were

Sexual Double Standard 577 supported, save one. Women’s impressions of Anne-Marie’s niceness be- came more negative when they learned that she had provided a condom, but there was no evidence of increasingly negative impressions when her partner provided a condom. Moreover, for the sexual scenario, Anne- Marie was viewed more negatively for providing a condom compared to her relying upon her partner to provide a condom. Specifically, partici- pants rated her behavior as less appropriate; they assumed that Anne- Marie’s partner felt more negative about her and they tended to assume that Anne-Marie felt more negative about herself; and finally, participants themselves felt more negatively toward her when she was contraceptively prepared.

We also predicted that women who engage in unprotected intercourse would be perceived more negatively for violating the social directive to use contraceptives. Having unprotected intercourse does not imply sexual permissiveness, however, and may even lead to assumptions of sexual inex- perience. Thus, the nature of the social derogation directed toward a woman who had unprotected intercourse should have been different in kind from that experienced by one who provided her own condom.

Evidence supporting these expectations was equivocal. Although means for most variables were in the expected direction, these typically did not approach significance. There was a tendency for women to be less accept- ing of a woman who had unprotected intercourse than of one whose part- ner provided a condom, and the target was rated as significantly less wise if she did not use contraceptives. The relatively weak evidence of devaluation in the no-contraceptive condition may have been caused by Anne-Marie’s claim to have just had her period. Participants may have interpreted this to mean that Anne-Marie was in fact using the rhythm method of contraception. That participants considered this method to be ineffective is supported by ratings of Anne-Marie as more foolish in the no-condom condition than in the other two conditions. Nonetheless, more negative perceptions may have been apparent in this condition if no method at all was suggested.

To the very limited extent that Anne-Marie was devalued for having unprotected intercourse, this devaluation did seem to be the product of a different set of assumptions than in the case where Anne-Marie provided a condom. If Anne-Marie had unprotected intercourse, participants tended to perceive her as unwise. However, if Anne-Marie was contraceptively prepared, she was clearly not nice.

Importantly, women believe that men socially derogate a woman if she provides a condom, but not if she has unprotected sex. When asked to rate how Anne-Marie’s partner would feel about Anne-Marie following the sexual experience, women assumed he would feel less positive when she provided the condom compared to both the unprotected intercourse condi- tion and the condition where he provided the condom. Thus, women may perceive more social pressure to appear sexually modest than to be sexually

578 HYNIE AND LYDON

safe. As a result, women may acknowledge the importance of using con- doms and actively wish to use them (DeBro, Campbell, & Peplau, 1994), but feel inhibited from initiating their use. It is important to note, how- ever, that this study did not assess women’s actual contraceptive behavior, but rather their attitudes regarding contraceptive behavior. The strength of the association between these attitudes and women’s actual contracep- tive behavior remains to be seen.

It will be interesting and important then to explore men’s attitudes toward women’s contraceptive behavior in the context of the social mem- ory paradigm. Women’s sexual attitudes tend to be more conservative than men’s (Christopher & Cate, 1984, 1985; Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Therefore, women may be overestimating the extent to which men endorse the double standard, or underestimating the extent to which men care about having protected intercourse. If men do not devalue women who are contracep- tively prepared to the extent that women think they do, women need to be educated about men’s true attitudes.

Further research will also be required to determine whether initial sex- ual encounters occurring within both serious and casual relationships are equally affected by the double standard. Men may, for example, discrimi- nate between contraceptive behaviors during initial sexual encounters in casual and serious relationships. The research reviewed regarding the dou- ble standard suggests that in the context of a long-term, committed rela- tionship the sexual double standard should have less impact. But men’s preference for nonpermissive serious partners in serious relationships (Oli- ver & Sedikides, 1992) may result in more devaluation for female condom providers in serious than in casual sexual relationships, if condom provi- sion implies permissiveness even in the context of a serious relationship.

The importance of whether the sexual encounter was planned may also interact with women’s and men’s reactions to women’s contraceptive initi- ation. Women who are contraceptively prepared for unplanned casual sexual encounters may be most vulnerable to social derogation. The as- sumption that Pill users are greater AIDS risks (Williams et al., 1992) suggests that women who are always prepared to have sex are assumed to engage in more casual sexual behavior. Casual initial sexual encounters are more likely to be unplanned than initial sexual encounters in long-term committed relationships. Thus, relationship status (casual vs. serious) and sexual behavior (planned vs. unplanned) may be naturally confounded, requiring careful experimental designs to explore their possible indepen- dent and interactive effects.

It is important to note that the findings from this study are specific to condom use and may not generalize to other contraceptive methods. Specifically, the extent to which our target was devalued for providing her own contraceptives may have been moderated by the fact that she pro- vided a condom, rather than the Pill. Having the male and female contra- ceptive conditions both include a condom avoided the confound of contra-

Sexual Double Standard 5 79

ceptive efficacy on participants’ ratings and made the scenario characters’ behaviors directly comparable. Our target may have been devalued for violating sex roles, however, rather than for her contraceptive use per se. Condoms are considered a male contraceptive, and providing a contracep- tive for one’s male partner to use may seem too assertive and unfeminine (Carroll et al., 1985; Schinke, 1984). In addition, condoms now seem to imply the risk of STDs (Williams et al., 1992) and thus may have more negative attitudes associated with them (but see Campbell, Peplau & De- Bro, 1992; Helweg-Larsen & Collins, 1994). Further studies will therefore be required to determine if Anne-Marie would be equally devalued if she had been using the Pill, or if these results are limited to condom use.

Finally, the findings from this study also raise more questions about the nature of the sexual double standard. While men and women endorse egalitarian sexual standards, their emotional responses to men and wom- en’s actual sexual behavior may not match the ideals they espouse (Sprecher, 1989). It may be important to differentiate between people’s idealized sexual standards, and those that they actually practice and en- dorse. The disparity that may exist between ideal and actual sexual stan- dards may reflect the slow process of social change from the sexual double standard to more egalitarian sexual standards.

First draft received: August 24, 1994 Final draft received: June 6,1995

NOTES

1. Of the six participants who were eliminated, one spontaneously recalled the contraceptive information during the debriefing, and a second participant could not remember which member of the couple had the condom. The remaining four participants did not mention contraception in their recall.

2. Although the final factor for each analysis seemed to include outgoing personality traits, it included somewhat different traits for the two scenarios. A smaller number of traits had high loadings (> .50) for this factor in both analyses. The three traits chosen had loadings of more than .50 for the second scenario and were among the six traits loading most strongly in the first scenario (loadings > .30).

3. All three variables displayed similar patterns across the three conditions and were corre- lated with one another. Correlations were .84 and .73 between own desire to become acquainted with Anne-Marie and fitting in with friends after Scenarios 1 and 2, respec- tively. Correlations between one’s own desire to become acquainted with Anne-Marie and women’s desire to become acquainted with Anne-Marie were -41 and .64 for Scenarios 1 and 2. Fitting in with friends and women’s desire to become acquainted with Anne-Marie were correlated at .45 and .52 for Scenarios 1 and 2. Cronbach‘s alpha for Social Accep- tance after Scenario 1 was .78; Cronbach‘s alpha for Social Acceptance after Scenario 2 was 32 .

4. Effect sizes are reported as rs in brackets following significant, or near significant, results. 5. No cell comparisons are reported in addition to the planned comparisons because omnibus

F tests and post hoc tests did not reveal any significant differences other than those re-

6. To make an analogous comparison to the ratings of how Anne-Mane’s partner felt about ported.

580 HYNIE AND LYDON

the sexual encounter, discussed in the behavioral judgment section, a planned comparison contrasting the change in the extent of men’s interest in the woman-provided condom condition to the change in the man-provided condition was also performed. This compari- son was not significant, F(1, 54) = 1.47, n.s., although the difference was in the same direction as in the behavioral judgment reported earlier.

REFERENCES

Campbell, S. M., Peplau, L. A., & DeBro, S. C. (1992). Women, men, and condoms: Attitudes and experiences of heterosexual college students. Psychology of Women’s Quar-

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

Catania, J. A,, Coates, T. J., Greenblatt, R. M., Dolcini, M. M., Kegeles, S. M., Puckett, S., Corman, M., & Miller, J. (1989). Predictors of condom use and multiple-partnered sex among sexually active adolescent women: Implications for AIDS-related health inter- ventions. The Journal of Sex Research, 26,514-524

Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. M. (1984). Factors involved in premarital sexual decision- making. The Journal of Sex Research, 20,363376,

Christopher, F. S. , & Cate, R. M. (1985). Anticipated influences on sexual decision-making for first intercourse. Family Relations, 34, 265-270.

DeBro, S. C., Campbell, S. M., & Peplau, L. A. (1994). Influencing a partner to use a condom: A college student perspective. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 165-182.

DeLamater, J. (1987). Gender differences in sexual scenarios. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Females, males, and sexuality: Theories and research. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Geringer, W. M., Marks, S., Allen, W. J., & Armstrong, K. A. (1993). Knowledge, attitudes, and behavior related to condom use and STDs in a high risk population. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 75-83.

Helweg-Larsen, M., & Collins, B. E. (1994). The UCLA Multidimensional Condom Atti- tudes Scale: Documenting the complex determinants of condom use in college students. Health Psychology, 13, 224-237.

Hynie M., & Lydon, J. E. (1993, August). Women’s concerns and attitudes about sexual behuoior. Poster presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.

Hynie M., & Lydon, J. E. (1994). [Factors influencing unprotected intercourse in initial and ongoing sexual interactions]. Unpublished raw data.

Ickovics, J. R., & Rodin, J. (1992). Women and AIDS in the United States: Epidemiology, natural history, and mediating mechanisms. Health Psychology, 11,l-16.

MacCorquodale, P. (1989). Gender and sexual behavior. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal context. Norwood, NJ: Ahlex.

McKinney, K., Sprecher, S., & Orbuch, T. L. (1987). A person perception experiment examining the effects of contraceptive behavior on first impressions. Basic and Applied

Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.

Oliver, M. B., & Sedikides C. (1992). Effects of sexual permissiveness on desirability of partner as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Sociul Psychological Quarterly, 55, 321-333.

Reiss, I. L. (1971). The double standard in premarital intercourse: A neglected concept. In B. Lieberman (Ed.), Human serual behaoioir: A book of readings @p. 183-190). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rosenthal R., & Rosnow, R.L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

terly, 16, 273-288.

Social Psychology, 8,235-248.

Sexual Double Standard 581 Schinke, S. P. (1984). Preventing teenage pregnancy. Progress in Behavior Modification, 16,

Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of individuals. The Journal of Sex Research, 26,232-248.

Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1987). Has the double standard disappeared?: An experimental test. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 24-31.

Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1991). The effects of current sexual behavior on friendship, dating, and marriage desirability. The Journal of Sex Research, 28, 387- 408.

Williams, J. D., & Jacoby, A. P. (1989). The effects of premarital heterosexual and homosex- ual experience on dating and marriage desirability. Journal of Martiage and the Family, 51,489-497.

Williams, S. S., Kimble, D. L., Covell, N. H., Weiss, L. H., Newton, K. J., Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (1992). College students use implicit personality theory instead of safer sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22,921-933.

31-64.