Film Analysis ProposalEasy A”Film DescriptionEasy A is.docx

Film Analysis Proposal
“Easy A”
Film Description:
Easy A is a film about a high-school girl named Olive. At the
beginning of the movie, Olive lies to her friend Rhiannon about
losing her virginity over one particular weekend. This begins a
cascade of events that upend Olive’s high school experience.
First, the local group of Christian girls decides that they need to
become involved in Olive’s business due to her newly ‘sinful’
nature. Eventually an argument gets Olive sent to the
principal’s office where she meets Brandon. Brandon is a gay
teenager who wants Olive to pretend to sleep with him in order
to ‘prove’ to the other students that he’s heterosexual.
She agrees, and before long, the entire school considers
Olive to be a promiscuous tramp. Soon she has a thriving
business pretending to sleep with boys in the school in order to
bolster their reputations. She embraces her ‘new identity’ and
acts the part. Eventually, one of the boys she pretended to sleep
with lies and says Olive gave him an STD (that he actually got
from sleeping with a teacher’s wife), and Olive decides to come
clean. The movie ends with Olive getting together with an old
crush of hers, Todd, who didn’t believe the rumors about her,
and pledging to keep her sex life secret in the future.
Topic Description:
There is a lot of exploration of gender double standards in Easy
A. For my topic, I want to explore how the girls and boys are
treated differently regarding social activity or gender role. In
the movie, sexual behavior and sexual activity raises the boys’
social status while it causes a lot of problems for Olive, who is
seen to be a ‘slut’. In addition to the explicit presentation of
this issue, I also found it interesting to note that Olive is

sympathetic in part because she actually is still a virgin. If she
weren’t a virgin, would she be as sympathetic?
Thesis:
Women who are virgins are considered to be high status, and
women who have had a lot of sexual partners are considered to
be low status, while the reverse is true for men.
Articles:
1.)
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/45633/
11199_2004_Article_483670.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Title: Sex and Punishment: An Examination of Sexual
Consequences and the Sexual Double Standard in Teen
Programming
Author: Aubrey, Jennifer Stevens
Source: Sex Roles, Vol. 50, Nos. 7/8, April 2004
Abstract:
A content analysis was conducted to examine sexual
consequences on teen programming. The sample consisted of
prime-time television dramas that featured characters between
the ages of 12 and 22 years. Two major goals guided the study.
First, the types of sexual consequences in teen programming
were investigated. Results showed that emotional and social
consequences far outnumbered physical consequences. Second,
the portrayal of the sexual double standard was investigated.
Negative consequences were more common in scenes in which
female characters initiated sexual activities than in scenes in
which male characters initiated sexual activities. Implications
for future content analyses and media-effects research
are discussed.
2.)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45019079/T

he_Sexual_Double_Standard_Fact_or_Ficti20160423-20090-
19c8cma.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A
&Expires=1508632587&Signature=jewi%2FGwr8tdjH5oIpVDwi
X%2F94b4%3D&response-content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_Sexual_Double_St
andard_Fact_or_Ficti.pdf
Title: The Sexual Double Standard: Fact or Fiction?
Authors: Marks, Michael J. and Fraley, Chris R.
Source: Sex Roles, Vol. 52, Nos. 3/4, February 2005
Abstract:
In contemporary society it is widely believed that men are
socially rewarded for sexual activity, whereas women are
derogated for sexual activity. To determine whether a sexual
double standard exists, both undergraduate (n = 144) and
Internet (n = 8,080) participants evaluated experimental targets
who were described as either male or female and as having a
variable number of sexual partners. Targets were more likely to
be derogated as the number of sexual partners increased, and
this effect held for both male and female targets. These results
suggest that, although people do evaluate others as a function of
sexual activity, people do not necessarily hold men and women
to different sexual standards.
1
Psychology of Gender (PSY 321)
Guidelines for Film Analysis Proposal and Presentation
General Information
• You will be asked to give an approximately 12-minute
presentation in which you analyze a feature-

length film (of your choosing) that relates to specific
psychology of gender concepts or issues.
• The presentations take place in class on MON, 12/4; TH, 12/7;
and TH, 12/14. Note that your
attendance on your non-presentation dates figures into your
presentation grade.
• Your presentation must incorporate at least two scholarly,
peer-reviewed sources related to your film
and psychology of gender topic area—as well as specific
information from our course readings
(textbook and/or Canvas DQ articles).
• Your presentation must be centered around a coherent thesis,
which is a point that you seek to argue
and support with evidence in your presentation.
• As a preliminary step in preparing your presentation, you will
be asked to turn in a proposal.
• You will find additional useful information (such as a list of
example films and an example
proposal) in the Film Analysis Proposal and Presentation
module in Canvas.
NOTE: The main point of this assignment is for you to identify
a relevant feature-length film and
analyze how it relates to specific psychology of gender concepts
or research findings. These concepts
or research findings should NOT be addressed explicitly (by
name) in the film; it is your job to
make these connections in your presentation. You should also
NOT use scholarly articles that
analyze the film for you, as this is your job.

Presentation Proposal (30 points) – Due Thursday, 10/26 (post
to Canvas by beginning of class)
• Your presentation proposal consists of the following parts:
• a clearly written description of the film (in your own words)
• a clearly written description of the gender psychology topics
that you plan to address in your
presentation (be sure to identify and explain specific and
relevant textbook concepts, provide
the corresponding text page #s, and explain how they will be
useful in your analysis),
• a direct articulation of your thesis statement, and
• two abstracts of scholarly, peer-reviewed articles in detailed-
record format that pertain to
your presentation topic (be sure to include the full reference
information for each article).
• Combine your proposal narrative and two abstracts into one
file and upload the file to the Proposal
assignment link in Canvas (in the Film Analysis Proposal and
Presentation module).
• Refer to the Film Analysis Proposal and Presentation module
for info on writing a good thesis
statement and to the Library Resources tab for info on how to
search for scholarly sources.
• If you need any help generating an idea, finding a film,
writing a good thesis statement, or finding
good sources, do not hesitate to come see me.
Film Analysis Presentation (100 points) – MON, 12/4; TH,
12/7; and TH, 12/14

Supplementary Materials
Submit the following materials to Canvas to the Film Analysis
Presentation assignment link (the
submission deadline is 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, 12/14, regardless
of your presentation date):
• Your presentation notes (detailed, typed notes that address the
requested elements of the
presentation)
• Your presentation PowerPoint (the more schematic notes you
display during your presentation)
• Your two external scholarly sources (upload pdf versions of
the full sources to Canvas). If a source
is not available electronically, turn in a paper copy. I advise
you NOT to post links to the articles,
as these often do not bring me to the article.
2
Format of the Presentation and Helpful Tips
• Prepare two sets of notes: 1) detailed, typed notes that
thoroughly address the requested elements
of the presentation, and 2) a more schematic PowerPoint (or
equivalent) presentation that you will
display during your presentation.
• Your detailed notes will be more than you can cover in the
allotted time frame. I will use these
notes—in addition to the content and style of your
presentation—to assign your grade (evaluating, in

particular, the depth of your analysis).
• In your analysis, be sure to incorporate at least two external,
scholarly, peer-reviewed sources
AND at least two connections to course concepts, theories, or
research findings from the
Helgeson text and/or the Canvas DQ articles.
• Make sure your PowerPoint is not too detailed and text-heavy.
I will assess how effective it is
visually.
• Make your presentation clear and well-organized.
• Avoid all forms of plagiarism in your detailed notes and
PowerPoint presentation. This means
providing proper attribution to all sources and using quotation
marks appropriately. Your detailed
notes and your PowerPoint should have a References section
that includes all sources cited in
your analysis and a citation for your film. This is extremely
important—carefully read all
information on avoiding plagiarism posted in Canvas.
• Pay attention to your presentation style (make eye contact,
avoid reading directly from notes, etc.).
• Keep within the time limit (~12 minutes). In order to ensure
that each student has the same amount
of presentation time, I will keep time and stop you after a set
time. It is thus your responsibility,
when preparing your presentation, to make sure that everything
you need to cover (including class
discussion of your question) fits within the time limit.
• On your presentation date, come to class early and get your

presentation set up on the class
computer BEFORE the class period begins.
Content of the Presentation (Address the following elements
DURING your presentation):
• Specify your topic area and describe the importance of
studying it.
• Describe your film briefly.
• State your thesis.
• Explain how you used your two external scholarly sources to
analyze your film and address your
thesis. You need to refer to these external sources directly by
author name and year (e.g., Smith &
Jones, 2005…). Be careful not to provide detailed annotations
(summaries) of your sources. This
part of your presentation should focus on providing the main
themes and concepts in your sources
that helped you analyze your film and address your thesis.
• Describe the two connections that you made to course
concepts, theories, or research findings from
either the Helgeson text or the Canvas articles (these are
considered your course concept
connections). You need to provide author names, year, and page
number for both of these
connections (e.g., Helgeson, 2012, p. 204). (Note that these
course concept connections are in
addition to the material you incorporate from your two external
scholarly sources.)
• Describe your main conclusions, particularly with respect to
your thesis.
• Describe how the topic you analyzed connects to and informs
some real-life problem or issue.

• Specify directions for future research in your topic area (i.e.,
what questions remain unanswered in
your topic area?).
• Ask the class at least one thought-provoking question on your
topic to spur class discussion. This
can be anywhere in your presentation. Follow the guidelines for
writing good discussion questions
when preparing this question. Though you only need to ask one
question that generates discussion,
you may want to prepare two questions in case one falls flat.
Topic/importance
My topic will be about fighting against gender stereotypes and
gender roles, and gender identity that a culture incorporate for
male and female, but the more concern is about females’ gender
roles, gender identity, and gender stereotypes as described in
chapter 7 and page number 150. Pai is dared to confront the
cultural traditions about gender roles and gender stereotypes
that are the hurdle in her way to adopt her own actual
personality. This confrontation is the soul of the film and this
theme is really important because this theme is so broad that
every culture depicts this kind of the theme and every culture
has its own defined gender stereotypes and gender roles. The
importance of this topic is to evaluate the gender roles in every
culture because without this evaluation we cannot put right
people on right place to move ahead towards success of the
people and the whole community.
Film description
At the East Coast of New Zealand, the people of Whangara
believed that their existence was based on a purely brave
prophet-Paikea, who did ride on the back of the whale in order
to escape death when his canoe was capsized in the sea. Based
on that believe, Whangarra chiefs had the belief that the only

first born males were the directly the descendants of Paikea
(Whale Rider, 2002). The protagonist in the movie is Paikea
Apirana who is aged 11 years old girl born in this patriarchal
tribe. Being a girl is shunned down by the society because of
her mother, as well as her twin brother, died at the time of
delivery, therefore, leaving the girl as unfavorable to Koro- her
grandfather. She says that she was not glad when she was born
as her twin brother died and took her mother away. The hope of
the family was the boy who could lead the family (Whale Rider,
2002). The traditions bound her grandmother to choose a male
leader in the society. The girl loves her grandfather than anyone
else. Pai has to fight her grandfather as well as thousand years
of the tradition in order to fulfill as well as meet her destiny.
Pai shows great courage to collide with cultural norms and
especially gender roles are very important to analyze to evaluate
the direction of culture as far as the credibility and authenticity
of gender stereotypes and gender roles are concerned.
Moreover, the evaluation must be done to analyze the need to
establish cultural gender roles and gender stereotypes. The
persistence of Pai is another important feature of the film. The
way Pai transformed from her outcast to the chief of the tribe
depicts that cultural stereotypes can be defeated if a right
person fights with his or her ability and persistence. The love of
Pai for her tribe, grandparents, and the lifestyle of the tribe
make her prominent from other children because other children
love the modern and urban lifestyle. Pai persistently achieves
the leading role of her tribe and proves that women shouldn’t be
underestimated. They can rule and lead the communities.
Thesis
My thesis is that cultural gender stereotypes and gender roles
are baseless, ambiguous, and a hindrance in the way of people’s
thought process which creates trouble for them to adjust their
selves within the culture which turns them into a revolutionary
character to act against the cultural gender stereotypes and
gender roles.
Two external sources

Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and
men into social roles.
Authors: Eagly, Alice H.; Steffen, Valerie J.
Source: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol
46(4), Apr 1984, 735-754.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.46.4.735
#2- Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes
Prevent Women's Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder
Authors: Madeline E. Heilman
Source: Journal of the Society for the Psychological Study of
Social Issues, Volume 57, Issue 4, pages 657-674, winter 2001.
DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00234
Two external sources
I am going to use these two external sources because these
sources analyzes the gender stereotypes of cultures and go along
what the film depicts about gender roles and gender stereotypes.
Cultural gender stereotypes don’t allow women to thrash in the
society. Women are supposed to be in the lower ranks than men
when it comes to lead the family for a bright future. Cultural
gender stereotypes and gender roles assign the duty of leading
the family to men which are supposed to be stronger, wiser, and
diplomatic than women. This cannot be true in both perspectives
of women and men. The film describes the hope of the family to
have the boy who could lead the family. The family doesn’t
consider Pai to be able enough to lead the family and the reason
behind their consideration is gender stereotypes and gender
roles of their culture.
These two sources go against the gender stereotypes and gender
roles which diminish or lessen the active, effective, and leading
role of the women.
Source # 1
The article includes experiments about the communal and
agentic nature of males and females. The experiments of the
article disqualify the stereotypic belief that women are more
likely than men to hold the position of lower status and
authority. Moreover, the article also clarifies that women,

definitely, want to master in the field they like.
The article is well written and proves that the gender
stereotypes must be redefined and analyzed especially about
women perspective. The article’s conclusion backs up the
thinking of the protagonist character of the film “Pai”.
Source # 2
The articles analyzes the scarcity of women at the upper or
higher levels of organizations and poses the reasons behind this
scarcity as gender stereotypes and gender roles that culture
assigns to its population. The gender bias hinders women to
proceed as much as they have the ability as compared to men do
in their life.
The article’s context is wonderful and it totally agrees with my
thesis. Gender stereotypes and gender roles are killers of
women success and their actual abilities to thrash in their life.
Course concepts connections
The best description about gender stereotypes can be finding in
the textbook’s chapter 7 on page 161, the Adjective Checklist
Study of Williams and Best suggests that gender stereotypes are
baseless and ambiguous because study mentions men to be more
active, aggressive, extrovert and open as compared to women,
but the uncertainty about the basis of the development of gender
stereotypes still remains alive. No one knows the factors and
boundaries of gender stereotypes. The context of chapter 7
thrashes the gender roles that are based on cultural stereotypes
and makes a statement against them. Gender roles are not based
on the personal abilities of women or men. Cultural
incorporates gender roles from nowhere. Women are equally
able to have the leading role as men. By defining the terms
gender roles, gender stereotypes, and gender identity gender
role means the extent to which a person adopts the gender
specific behavior defined by his or her culture. Gender
stereotypes means psychological and behavioral characteristics
attached with men and women and gender identity means the
extent to which a person has awareness that he or she adopts the
gender role. But the question is there any credibility of gender

role and gender stereotypes that the culture propagates through
generation after generation defined by our textbook? The
answer is simply no. That’s what the film depicts and proves the
concept of gender roles in her culture wrong by becoming the
leader of her tribe.
Real life issues
Gender stereotypes and gender roles are literally the issues of
real life. Women are being affected by the cultural gender
stereotypes and gender roles. Different countries have different
gender stereotypes. For example, in Afghanistan, girls are not
allowed to go to schools especially in those areas where there is
an influence of Taliban. This is totally wrong concept. Taliban
cannot give any factual reason behind this stereotype except
their vague and pathetic mentality.
Secondly, the leader of the family is supposed to be the man in
most part of the world. This is even a gender stereotype which
restricts women to be the housewives with no other available
profession. Moreover, we can calculate the number of women
who are leading the countries as the head of their state. The
numbers of women who are the head of their countries are less
as compared to the men in same situation. Hillary Clinton
competed in the election but failed. There can be some other
reasons behind her defeat and those reasons are not the part of
our paper, but Britain, Germany, Bangladesh, and Poland are
the countries who have female head of the government as I
remember. The reason behind this is also the concept of gender
stereotypes and roles. There is the mentality of people which
prevails is that females are not able than to lead the countries.
Future research
After watching film and analyzing the external sources the
gender stereotypes and gender roles demands research on their
factors and boundaries. There is a need to evaluate as much
cultures as possible to know why the people develop and believe
in their gender stereotypes and gender roles while not knowing
the reasons behind those gender stereotypes and gender roles.
DQ and Discussion

What are the factors which develop gender stereotypes? Is
religion one of the reasons of gender stereotypes? What does
the comparison between monotheistic, polytheistic, and
atheistic societies suggest about the presence of gender
stereotypes in each society respectively?
What would be the positive outcomes if there are some effective
interventions started to eradicate gender stereotypes? Do female
leaders of some countries like Britain and Germany quantifies
the negation of gender stereotypes?
Conclusion
To conclude, gender stereotypes and gender roles are needed to
be redefined and reevaluate for the best of the people’s
prosperity. Until now, gender stereotypes are totally baseless
and ambiguous. The film, two external sources, and the chapter
7 of the textbook describe similar perspective which goes
against the practice of gender stereotypes and gender roles.
Every connection, whether external connections or course
connections, describes that cultural gender stereotypes and
gender roles need concrete basis to be established in any culture
with dignity and credibility. Until now the cultural gender
stereotypes and gender roles are baseless and ambiguous
because there is no criterion mentioned to judge anyone’s
ability to hold the leading role. Cultures are wrongly assigning
male members right to have the leading roles in culture just
because there role is admitted in the culture as a stereotype.
References
Film
Whale Rider by Niki Caro, 30 January 2017

#1- Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and
men into social roles.
Authors: Eagly, Alice H.; Steffen, Valerie J.
Source: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol
46(4), Apr 1984, 735-754.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.46.4.735
#2- Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes
Prevent Women's Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder
Authors: Madeline E. Heilman
Source: Journal of the Society for the Psychological Study of
Social Issues, Volume 57, Issue 4, pages 657-674, winter 2001.
DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00234
Chapter 7, Culture and Psychology by David Matsumoto and
Linda Juang
Course connections:
Matsumoto & Juang, 2013, p. 161).
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for
this publication at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226259861
The Sexual Double Standard: Fact or Fiction?
Article in Sex Roles · February 2005
DOI: 10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5

CITATIONS
91
READS
1,201
2 authors:
Michael John Marks
New Mexico StateUniversity
29 PUBLICATIONS 749 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
R. Chris Fraley
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
101 PUBLICATIONS 9,607 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by
Michael John Marks on 17 April 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded
file.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226259861_The_Sexu
al_Double_Standard_Fact_or_Fiction?enrichId=rgreq-

055310eb77bdb0815565532ca7fea0e4-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNjI1OTg2MTtBUzox
MDQyNTQ1ODQ5MTgwMzdAMTQwMTg2NzYzODk0Nw%3D
%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226259861_The_Sexu
al_Double_Standard_Fact_or_Fiction?enrichId=rgreq-
055310eb77bdb0815565532ca7fea0e4-
https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-
055310eb77bdb0815565532ca7fea0e4-
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Marks5?enrichId
=rgreq-055310eb77bdb0815565532ca7fea0e4-
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/New_Mexico_State_Un
iversity?enrichId=rgreq-055310eb77bdb0815565532ca7fea0e4-
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/R_Fraley?enrichId=rgreq-

055310eb77bdb0815565532ca7fea0e4-
055310eb77bdb0815565532ca7fea0e4-
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University_of_Illinois_
Urbana-Champaign?enrichId=rgreq-
055310eb77bdb0815565532ca7fea0e4-
055310eb77bdb0815565532ca7fea0e4-
Sex Roles, Vol. 52, Nos. 3/4, February 2005 ( C© 2005)
DOI: 10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5
The Sexual Double Standard: Fact or Fiction?
Michael J. Marks1,2 and R. Chris Fraley1
In contemporary society it is widely believed that men are
socially rewarded for sexual activ-

ity, whereas women are derogated for sexual activity. To
determine whether a sexual double
standard exists, both undergraduate (n = 144) and Internet (n =
8,080) participants evaluated
experimental targets who were described as either male or
female and as having a variable
number of sexual partners. Targets were more likely to be
derogated as the number of sexual
partners increased, and this effect held for both male and female
targets. These results sug-
gest that, although people do evaluate others as a function of
sexual activity, people do not
necessarily hold men and women to different sexual standards.
KEY WORDS: double standard; sexuality; sex partners;
attitudes toward sex; gender norms; gender
differences; sexual activity; gender equality; promiscuity.
In contemporary society it is widely believed
that women and men are held to different standards
of sexual behavior (Milhausen & Herold, 2001). As
Barash and Lipton (2001, p. 145) noted, “a man who
is successful with many women is likely to be seen as
just that—successful . . . [whereas] a woman known
to have ‘success’ with many men is . . . likely to be
known as a ‘slut.’ ” The view that men are socially
rewarded and women socially derogated for sexual
activity has been labeled the sexual double standard.
The sexual double standard has received a lot
of attention from contemporary critics of Western
culture (e.g., Lamb, 2002; Tanenbaum, 2000; White,
2002). Tanenbaum (2000), for example, has docu-
mented the harassment and distress experienced by
adolescent girls who have been branded as “sluts” by
their peers. Other writers have critiqued the way the

media help to create and reinforce negative stereo-
types of sexually active women (Waggett, 1989) and
how these stereotypes may contribute to violence
against women (Malamuth & Check, 1981). Given
the attention the sexual double standard has re-
ceived in contemporary discourse, one might assume
1Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign, Illinois.
2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department
of
Psychology (MC 716), 603 E. Daniel Street, Champaign, Illinois
61820; e-mail: [email protected]
that behavioral scientists have documented the dou-
ble standard extensively and elucidated many of the
mechanisms that generate and sustain it. Despite
much systematic research, however, there is virtu-
ally no consistent evidence for the existence of this
allegedly pervasive phenomenon.
We have three objectives in this article. Our first
is to review briefly the empirical literature on the sex-
ual double standard. As we discuss, research findings
concerning the double standard do not strongly sup-
port its existence. Next, we discuss several method-
ological reasons why previous researchers may not
have been able to document a double standard even
if one exists. Finally, we report a study that was de-
signed to determine whether the sexual double stan-
dard exists by rectifying the methodological limita-
tions of previous studies.
Empirical Research on the Sexual Double Standard
The sexual double standard seems to be a

ubiquitous phenomenon in contemporary society;
one recent survey revealed that 85% of people
believe that a double standard exists in our culture
(Marks, 2002; see also Milhausen & Herold, 2001).
The double standard is frequently publicized by
the media. For example, MTV, a popular cable
television channel that specializes in contemporary
175 0360-0025/05/0200-0175/0 C© 2005 Springer
Science+Business Media, Inc.
176 Marks and Fraley
culture, recently aired a program called “Fight
for Your Rights: Busting the Double Standard”
that was designed to convey the idea that a sexual
double standard exists and that people should try to
transcend it by exhibiting more egalitarian thinking
(MTV Networks Music, 2003).
Although the sexual double standard seems
pervasive, empirical research does not necessarily
show that people evaluate sexually active men and
women differently. In fact, much of the literature
reveals little or no evidence of a double standard
(Gentry, 1998; Oliver & Sedikides, 1992; O’Sullivan,
1995; Sprecher, 1989; Sprecher, McKinney, Walsh, &
Anderson, 1988). O’Sullivan (1995), for example,
conducted a person perception study in which indi-
vidual participants read vignettes of a male or fe-
male target who reported a high or low number of
past sexual partners. Participants then evaluated the
targets in domains such as likeability, morality, and
desirability as a spouse. Although men and women

who engaged in casual intercourse were evaluated
more negatively than those whose sexual experiences
occurred in committed relationships, a double stan-
dard was not found. Gentry (1998) also employed a
person perception task and found that raters judged
both male and female targets who had relatively few
past sexual partners and who were in monogamous
relationships more positively than targets who had
a high number of partners and had frequent casual
sex. Again, no evidence of a double standard was
found. Sprecher et al. (1988) examined how appro-
priate certain sexual acts were for men and women
of various ages. Although older targets received
more permissive responses (i.e., they were allowed
more sexual freedom), there were few differences
in the standards used for men versus women for any
age group.
Researchers have also documented many char-
acteristics of respondents that influence attitudes to-
ward sexuality, but few, if any, of these findings
are consistent with a double standard. For instance,
Garcia (1982) found that respondents’ degree of an-
drogyny was related to the sexual stereotypes they
held. Androgynous participants (i.e., people who
possess high levels of both masculine and femi-
nine psychological traits) displayed a single standard,
whereas gender-typed respondents (i.e., masculine
men and feminine women) displayed a slight pref-
erence for female targets in the low-sexual expe-
rience condition. However, a preference for high-
experience male targets over low-experience male
targets was not found.
The number of sexual partners respondents
have had also appears to influence their judgments of

targets. Milhausen and Herold (1999), for example,
found that women with many sexual partners were
more tolerant of highly sexually active men than
were women with few sexual partners. However, the
interaction between target gender, target experience,
and participant experience was not tested. The gen-
der of the respondent has also been shown to influ-
ence views on sexuality. Women tend to hold sexual
standards that are stricter than those of men, but do
not necessarily apply those standards differently as a
function of the gender of the person being evaluated
(Sprecher, 1989; Sprecher et al., 1988).
In summary, although it appears that people do
evaluate others with respect to the number of sex-
ual partners those people have had, research does
not consistently show that those evaluations differ
for male and female targets.3 Even in situations in
which men and women are evaluated differently, the
associations usually vary only in magnitude, not in
sign. In other words, there are some situations in
which both women and men may be evaluated more
negatively as the number of sexual partners they re-
port increases, but this association is only slightly
stronger for women than it is for men. As we will
explain below, this pattern can be characterized as a
“weak” rather than “strong” double standard. If the
sexual double standard is as pervasive and powerful
as many people believe, empirical research should re-
veal cross-over interactions such that the association
between sexual experience and evaluations is nega-
tive for women but positive for men.
Sexual Double Standard Research Methodology
Although the empirical literature would seem

to suggest that the sexual double standard is not in
operation, it may be the case that behavioral scien-
tists have failed to tap it properly. Commonly used
paradigms for studying the sexual double standard
may have methodological limitations that prevent
the double standard from emerging. If this is the case,
changes are needed in the methodology used in sex-
ual double standard research.
3Some authors have claimed to find support for a double
standard.
For instance, Sprecher, McKinney, and Orbuch (1987) found ev-
idence of a double standard conditional on age and the context
(committed or casual) in which the loss of virginity occurred.
However, neither the interaction between target gender and age
(Sprecher, 1989; Sprecher et al., 1988) nor the context effect
(O’Sullivan, 1995) has been replicated.
The Sexual Double Standard 177
One limitation of past research is the likely
existence of demand characteristics. For example,
if a study explicitly requires participants to rate
the appropriateness of certain sexual behaviors for
men, immediately followed by identical questions
regarding women (e.g., Ferrel, Tolone, & Walsh,
1977; Sheeran, Spears, Abraham, & Abrams, 1996;
Sprecher & Hatfield, 1996), participants may try to
answer either in an egalitarian manner or in a man-
ner that is consistent with what they believe to be the
norm. Given that many people have preconceived
notions about the sexual double standard (Milhausen
& Herold, 1999, 2001), it is important to minimize de-
mand characteristics when researching attitudes to-

ward sexuality.
A second limitation of past research involves the
presentation of sexual activity in a valenced fash-
ion. For example, some researchers have used ma-
terials that imply that premarital sexual intercourse
“is just wrong” (Mark & Miller, 1986, p. 315) or have
described a target as having a number of past sex-
ual partners that is “a lot above average” (Gentry,
1998, p. 507). This kind of language implies that there
is something abnormal or inappropriate about the
target’s activity. Describing sexual activity with
value-laden terms or implying that a person is in-
volved in any behavior to an excess may lead to
biased evaluations of that person, regardless of
whether that person is male or female. If a sexual
double standard exists, the use of these kinds of de-
scriptors may occlude researchers’ ability to docu-
ment it clearly.
Finally, much of the past double standard
research has not differentiated between attitudes
and evaluations. Attitudes toward sexual behavior
may include general beliefs about the norms of
the culture, personal decisions about when sex is
permissible, and the perceived appropriateness of
certain sexual behaviors. Evaluations concern real
judgments made about specific people who engage in
sexual activity. Attitudes may be independent of the
way people actually evaluate one another. Because
of this, results concerning attitudinal differences
(e.g., women hold less permissive sexual standards
than men do) as evidence of the double standard’s
existence may conflict with results concerning eval-
uations of others’ behavior. We believe that at the
core of popular interest in the sexual double standard

is the notion that men and women are evaluated
differently depending on their sexual experience. Al-
though the general attitudes that people hold about
sexuality are of interest to psychologists, these atti-
tudes may not be reflected in the actual evaluations
that people make about one another. Therefore, it
is imperative to focus on the evaluations that people
make about specific individuals.
Overview of the Present Study
The objective of the present experiment was to
determine whether people evaluate men and women
differently based on the number of sexual partners
they have had. To do this, we asked participants to
rate a target on a number of evaluative dimensions.
We manipulated both (a) the sex of the target and (b)
the number of sexual partners reported by the tar-
get. This experiment was explicitly designed to rec-
tify some of the limitations of previous research on
the sexual double standard. For example, we focused
on the evaluations people made about specific tar-
gets rather than general perceptions of social norms.
We did not include valenced or biased descriptions
of sexual activity (e.g., “promiscuous,” “above aver-
age number of partners”). Moreover, we employed a
between-subjects design to reduce potential demand
characteristics. These features enabled us to draw
attention away from the sexual focus of the study
and allowed us to tap the way people evaluate oth-
ers who vary in gender and sexual experience. Fi-
nally, in addition to the “college sophomore” sam-
ple usually represented in the literature, we recruited
an Internet-based sample. Use of these two samples
enabled us to examine the possibility that a sexual

double standard exists not only in the traditionally
examined population (college students), but also in a
more diverse population not usually studied in dou-
ble standard research.
Competing Hypotheses
If a traditional or “strong” sexual double stan-
dard exists, then as the number of sexual partners
reported increases, male targets would be evaluated
more positively and female targets more negatively
(see the left-most panel of Fig. 1). In other words, if
we regress evaluations of the target on the number of
partners reported by the target and the sex of the tar-
get, we would find an interaction such that the slopes
of the regression functions are positive for men and
negative for women.
It is also possible that a “weak” double stan-
dard exists, such that both men and women are
derogated for high levels of sexual experience,
Fig. 1. Patterns of simple slopes that would indicate a
traditional (or “strong”) sexual double standard (left), a “weak”
sexual double standard (center), or no double standard (left).
but to different degrees. A weak double standard
would be evidenced by negative slopes for both men
and women, but slopes for women would be more
strongly negative than those for men (see the center
panel of Fig. 1). Finally, if there is no sexual double
standard, then we would observe equivalent slopes

for male and female targets, regardless of the sign
or elevation of the regression functions (see the
right-most panel of Fig. 1).
METHOD
Participants
We used two samples in this investigation. One
sample consisted of 8,080 self-selected people (1,347
men, 6,733 women) who participated in an on-line
version of the study over the Internet. The study was
listed as a “person perception study” on our Close
Relationships and Personality Research website—a
website that typically hosts studies on personality and
attachment. The mean participant age in this sample
was 23.69 (SD = 8.55, range 18–80 years). The other
sample consisted of 144 undergraduates from a large
midwestern university (44 men, 100 women) who
participated in fulfillment of partial course credit.
The mean participant age in this sample was 19.66
(SD = 3.14, range 18–30 years).
In the Internet sample, 68.6% of participants
resided in the United States, 8.3% in Canada, 5.6%
in the United Kingdom, 3% in Australia, and 14.5%
resided in other countries or declined to declare
a country of residence. The ethnic makeup of the
on-line study participants was 61.9% White, 9.7%
Hispanic, 7.2% Black, 6.4% Asian, and 14.8% of
other ethnicity or no ethnicity specified. This sample
was recruited because some authors have critiqued
the over-reliance on convenience samples of North
American college students in sexual double standard
research (e.g., Crawford & Popp, 2003; Milhausen &

Herold, 1999).
In the student sample, all participants resided
in the United States. The ethnic makeup of the stu-
dent sample was 32.6% White, 32.6% Asian, 16.0%
Hispanic, 9.0% Black, and 9.7% of other ethnicity, or
no ethnicity specified.
Design
We employed a 2 (target sex) × 6 (number of
partners: 0, 1, 3, 7, 12, or 19) between-subjects design.
Using an alpha level of .05, our power to detect an in-
teraction between target sex and number of partners
that accounts for at least 4% of the variance was >
0.99 for the Internet sample and 0.68 for the student
sample.
Procedure
A page (constructed by the experimenters) that
contained five questions and the answers to those
questions was given to the participants to read. Par-
ticipants were told that the page was a section from a
general public survey that had been completed by an
anonymous individual. The page contained answers
to questions such as “What are your hobbies?” and
“How do you see yourself?” Information about the
target’s sexual experience was conveyed in response
to the question “What is something not many people
know about you?” The key phrase in the response

was “I’ve had sex with [number] [guys/girls]. I don’t
really have much to say about it. It’s just sort of the
way I’ve lived my life.”
After reading the page that contained the tar-
get’s answers, participants were asked to rate 30 eval-
uative statements about the target. Participants rated
each item on a 5 point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree,
5 = Strongly Agree). These items were selected from
a larger pool of 50 evaluative items that were based
on domains shown to be sensitive to sexual infor-
mation in past sexual double standard research—
power, intelligence, likeability, morality, quality as a
date, quality as a spouse, physical appeal, and friend-
ship. We should note that the dependent variables
were not chosen on the basis of theoretical consider-
ations (e.g., evolutionary theory) because we wanted
to sample as broad a range of evaluative domains
as possible. If we had limited our dependent mea-
sures to those entailed by any one theoretical per-
spective, it is likely that we would have inadvertently
excluded some domains in which the double standard
manifests.
In order to reduce the 50 evaluative items to
a smaller set of subscales, we performed a princi-
pal components analysis with varimax rotation and
Kaiser normalization. We extracted four evaluative
factors: values (9 items, α = .83), peer popularity
(8 items, α = .83), power/success (8 items, α = .84),
and intelligence (5 items, α = .70). Items not used
either loaded poorly on all factors or did not load
cleanly on a single factor. (See the Appendix for a
listing of items within each domain.) Following com-
pletion of the experiment, both student and Internet
participants were fully debriefed, given feedback on

their responses, and thanked for their participation.
RESULTS
We report the results for the Internet and stu-
dent samples separately in the sections that follow.
As will be seen, the results differed slightly across the
two samples. We have illustrated the results for both
samples side-by-side in Figs. 2–5. Preliminary analy-
ses in both the Internet and student samples revealed
no significant differences between male and female
respondents in any domain—alone or in interaction
with other variables. Thus, respondent sex and age
were not used as predictor variables in the results re-
ported in the text. In the Internet sample, we con-
Table I. Results for the Internet Sample
Variable
Dependent Predictor B SE B β �R2
Values Partners −.19 .01 −.29∗
Target sex .02 .01 .04∗
Interaction −.00 .01 −.01 .00
simple slopes
Men −.03 .00 −.29∗
Women −.03 .00 −.29∗
Peer popularity Partners .11 .01 .16∗
Target sex .08 .01 .12∗
Interaction .00 .01 .00 .00
simple slopes
Men .02 .00 .16∗
Women .02 .00 .16∗

Power/Success Partners .00 .01 .00
Target sex .01 .01 .02
Interaction −.02 .01 −.03∗ .001∗
simple slopes
Men .00 .00 .03
Women −.00 .00 −.03
Intelligence Partners −.10 .01 −.16∗
Interaction −.03 .01 −.04∗ .002∗
simple slopes
Men −.01 .00 −.12∗
Women −.02 .00 −.20∗
Note: ∗ p < .05.
ducted exploratory analyses on participants of vari-
ous age groups. Because results did not appear con-
ditional on age, the data were collapsed across age.
Internet Sample
Because exploratory analyses revealed the effect
of number of target’s sex partners to be linear, hierar-
chical regression analyses were performed for each of
the four evaluative domains.4 This allowed us to sep-
arate the main effects from the interaction between
them and to observe how much variance the critical
interaction between target sex and number of part-
ners explained in the dependent variables. The first
block contained the number of sexual partners and
the target’s sex; the second block contained the in-
teraction between these two factors. See Table I for

all coefficients and simple slopes. Descriptive statis-
tics are reported in Table II.
In the domain of values there were main effects
of both target sex and number of sexual partners,
4Conducting 2 × 6 ANOVAs on the dependent variables
revealed
identical patterns of main effects and interactions as the regres-
sion analyses in both samples.
Table II. Descriptive Statistics for the Internet Sample
Internet Sample(n = 8,080)
Men Women
Domain Partners M SD M SD
Values 0 3.93 .55 3.98 .57
1 3.91 .58 3.95 .53
3 3.77 .63 3.80 .64
7 3.65 .64 3.68 .67
12 3.54 .69 3.62 .67
19 3.39 .71 3.40 .70
Peer popularity 0 2.87 .66 3.01 .65
1 2.92 .69 3.08 .62
3 2.92 .65 3.10 .64
7 3.03 .68 3.21 .67

12 3.11 .67 3.30 .62
19 3.19 .66 3.30 .62
Power/Success 0 2.67 .69 2.78 .67
1 2.74 .68 2.77 .70
3 2.69 .67 2.76 .67
7 2.75 .73 2.73 .69
12 2.73 .71 2.76 .67
19 2.75 .69 2.71 .65
Intelligence 0 3.80 .55 3.88 .56
1 3.80 .58 3.87 .58
3 3.68 .62 3.76 .62
7 3.70 .63 3.66 .67
12 3.64 .61 3.66 .62
19 3.57 .62 3.51 .62
R2 = .09, F (2, 8077) = 387.07, p < .05. Women were
evaluated more positively, β = .04, p < .05, whereas
targets with many partners were evaluated more neg-
atively, β = −.29, p < .05. There was no change in R2
when the interaction term was introduced, �R2 = .00,
Fchange(1, 8076) = 0.19, ns. (See left panel of Fig. 2.)
In the domain of peer popularity there were
main effects of both target sex and number of sex-
ual partners, R2 = .04, F (2, 8077) = 145.82, p <
.05. Women were evaluated more positively, β = .12,
p < .05, as were targets with many sexual partners,
β = .16, p < .05. Again, there was no change in R2
Fchange(1, 8076) = 0.07, ns. (See left panel of Fig. 3.)
In the domain of power/success, there were no

main effects of target sex or number of sexual part-
ners, R2 = .00, F (2, 8077) = 1.57, ns, but there was
an interaction between them, �R2 = .001, Fchange(1,
8076) = 5.47, p < .05. Analysis of simple slopes re-
vealed that men were evaluated more positively as
the number of partners they had had increased, β =
.03, p < .05, whereas women were evaluated more
negatively as the number of partners they had had
increased, β = −.03, p < .05. This interaction is con-
sistent with the “strong” double standard discussed
previously, but, as can be seen, this strong double
standard manifests itself in a weak manner. (See left
panel of Fig. 4.)
In the domain of intelligence, there were main
effects of both target sex and number of sexual part-
ners, R2 = .02, F (2, 8077) = 114.58, p < .05; women
were evaluated slightly more positively, β = .02, p =
.05, and targets who had had more sexual partners
were evaluated more negatively, β = −.16, p < .05.
The interaction term was statistically significant, �R2
= .002, Fchange(1, 8076) = 14.58, p < .05. Analysis of
the simple slopes revealed that both men, β = −.12,
p < .05, and women, β = −.20, p < .05, were eval-
uated more negatively as the number of partners
Fig. 2. Evaluations of values as a function of target sex and the
number of sexual part-
ners reported by the target.
Fig. 3. Evaluations of peer popularity as a function of target sex

and the number of
sexual partners reported by the target.
increased, but the women slightly more so. This in-
teraction pattern is consistent with the “weak” dou-
ble standard described previously. (See left panel of
Fig. 5.)
Student Sample
The same evaluative scales were used for the
student sample; however we made some minor ad-
justments to the scales to maximize the reliability
coefficients. The alphas for values, peer popularity,
power/success, and intelligence were .82, .67, .65, and
.69, respectively. As before, hierarchical regression
analyses were performed for each evaluative domain.
The first block contained number of sexual partners
and target sex, and the second block contained the in-
teraction term.5 See Table III for all coefficients and
simple slopes. Descriptive statistics are reported in
Table IV.
In the values domain, there was a main effect
of number of sexual partners, R2 = .15, F (2, 141) =
12.05, p < .05. Targets with more partners were eval-
uated more negatively, β = −.38, p < .05. There was
no main effect of target sex and no change in R2
Fchange(1, 140) = 1.87, ns. (See right panel of Fig. 2.)
5One may note that the simple slopes in the student sample
appear
consistent with a weak double standard, as the betas of the
simple
slopes for women are significant, but most of those for men are

not. However, to interpret the interaction effect, one must refer-
ence the beta for the interaction term in the regression equation
containing both sexes. As can be seen, these interactions only
ac-
count for 1 to 2% of the variance in participant evaluations in
any
given domain.
In the domain of peer popularity, there was a
main effect of number of sexual partners, R2 = .05,
F (2, 141) = 3.66, p < .05. Targets with more partners
There was no main effect of target sex and no change
in R2 when the interaction term was introduced,
�R2 = .02, Fchange(1, 140) = 3.41, ns. (See right panel
of Fig. 3.)
In the domain of power/success, there were no
main effects of target sex or number of sexual part-
ners, although there was a tendency for participants
to evaluate targets with many partners more nega-
tively, β = −.16, p = .06. There was no change in R2
Fchange(1, 140) = 1.90, ns. (See right panel of Fig. 4.)
In the domain of intelligence, again there was a
main effect of number of sexual partners, R2 = .06,
F (2, 141) = 4.62, p < .05. Targets with more partners
There was no change in R2 when the interaction term
was introduced, �R2 = .01, Fchange(1, 140) = 2.11, ns.
(See right panel of Fig. 5.)
DISCUSSION
To date, there has been little evidence that

women are evaluated more negatively than men for
having many sexual partners. However, if the double
standard exists, methodological limitations of previ-
ous research may have prevented it from emerging
clearly. In the present research, we sought to provide
a rigorous test of whether or not the sexual double
standard exists by rectifying methodological limita-
tions of previous studies. Our data reveal virtually no
Fig. 4. Evaluations of power/success as a function of target sex
and the number of
sexual partners reported by the target.
evidence of a traditional, or “strong,” sexual double
standard.
The only domain in which a traditional sexual
double standard emerged was that of power/success,
and this was true only in the Internet sample. How-
ever, the effect was quite small; it accounted for less
than 1% of the variance in people’s evaluations. We
also found some evidence of a “weak” double stan-
dard in the domain of intelligence for the Internet
sample. Both male and female targets were rated as
less intelligent as their reported number of partners
increased, but the effect was stronger for female tar-
gets. Again, this interaction only accounted for less
than 1% of the variance in participants’ evaluations.
In no other domain was there an interaction between
the sex of the target and how many sexual partners
the target had had.

These results and others (e.g., Sprecher et al.,
1987) suggest that although the double standard may
not operate in overall evaluations of persons, it may
play a role in shaping perceptions of sexually active
people in specific domains. Concerning the domain
of intelligence, for example, engaging in frequent ca-
sual sex may not be a “smart” thing to do in light
of the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases (espe-
cially AIDS). However, the consequences of engag-
ing in frequent casual sex may be seen as more severe
for women than for men. Also, domains associated
with sexual stereotypes (e.g., power or dominance;
Cejka & Eagly, 1999; Lips, 1994) may be more sen-
sitive to the double standard than those that are not
(e.g., peer popularity).
These results suggest that even after addressing
some of the methodological limitations of previous
Fig. 5. Evaluations of intelligence as a function of target sex
and the number of sexual
partners reported by the target.
Table III. Results for the Student Sample
Variable
Dependant Predictor B SE B β �R2
Values Partners −.24 .05 −.38∗
Interaction −.07 .05 −.11 .01

simple slopes
Men −.03 .01 −.28∗
Women −.05 .01 −.47∗
Peer Popularity Partners −.11 .05 −.19∗
Interaction −.09 .05 −.15 .02
simple slopes
Men .00 .01 −.04
Women −.03 .01 −.35∗
Power/Success Partners −.09 .05 −.16
Target sex −.01 .05 −.01
Interaction −.07 .05 −.11 .01
simple slopes
Men −.00 .01 −.05
Women −.02 .01 −.22∗
Intelligence Partners −.10 .04 −.20∗
Interaction −.06 .04 −.12 .01
simple slopes
Men −.01 .01 −.08
Women −.03 .01 −.32∗
Note: ∗ p < .05.
research, traditional accounts of the sexual double
standard do not appear to characterize the manner
in which sexually active men and women are evalu-
ated. This raises the question of whether the sexual
double standard is more a cultural illusion than an
actual phenomenon. If the double standard does not

accurately characterize the manner in which people
evaluate sexually active others, why does belief in it
persist?
One possibility is that people are sensitive to
our culture’s “sexual lexicon.” Many writers have ob-
served that there are more slang terms in our lan-
guage that degrade sexually active women than sexu-
ally active men (e.g., Richardson, 1997; Tanenbaum,
2000). On the basis of such observations, people may
conclude that a sexual double standard exists. How-
ever, one must be cautious when citing sexual slang
as evidence of a double standard. It may be more
valuable to consider the relative frequency of the
use of slang terms than to consider solely the num-
ber of slang terms that exist. When Milhausen and
Herold (2001) analyzed the frequency of sexual slang
used to describe men and women in actual discourse,
they found that the majority of men and women used
negative terms to describe both sexually experienced
Table IV. Descriptive Statistics for the Student Sample
Student Sample (n = 144)
Men Women
Domain Partners M SD M SD
Values 0 3.75 .42 3.89 .42
1 3.72 .59 3.97 .61
3 3.32 .73 3.67 .57
7 3.33 .52 3.24 .63
12 3.16 .41 3.20 .58
19 3.26 .84 3.10 .64

Peer popularity 0 3.46 .57 3.77 .59
1 3.64 .51 3.62 .62
3 3.06 .81 3.67 .54
7 3.40 .41 3.56 .49
12 3.40 .56 3.41 .52
19 3.38 .69 3.14 .58
Power/Success 0 3.20 .65 3.31 .57
1 3.10 .52 3.25 .54
3 2.79 .52 3.10 .62
7 3.31 .36 3.02 .62
12 3.15 .36 2.93 .49
19 2.96 .57 2.90 .66
Intelligence 0 3.90 .47 3.97 .47
1 3.86 .52 4.21 .32
3 3.65 .59 4.03 .40
7 3.71 .32 3.83 .56
12 3.55 .43 3.75 .60
19 3.80 .73 3.63 .73
men and women. They reported that a minority of
men (25%) and women (8%) actually used words
such as “stud” to describe sexually active men. More-
over, sexually active men were frequently described
with words that fall into the category of sexual preda-
tor (e.g., “womanizer”) or promiscuous (e.g., “slut,”
“dirty”). So although a difference exists in the num-
ber of sexual slang terms to describe men and women,
it is not nearly analogous to the difference in the fre-
quency of their use for men and women.
The confirmation bias (Gilovich, 1993; Snyder,

1981), may also help to explain why people believe
that the sexual double standard exists. Confirmation
bias refers to a type of selective thinking in which
one tends to notice evidence that confirms one’s be-
liefs and to ignore or undervalue evidence that con-
tradicts one’s beliefs. Confirmation biases may lead
people to notice cases that are consistent with the
double standard (e.g., a woman being referred to as
a “slut”) and fail to notice cases inconsistent with
the double standard (e.g., a man being referred to
as a “whore”). Because the vast majority of people
believe that a sexual double standard exists (Marks,
2002; Milhausen & Herold, 1999, 2001), it is likely
that people will process social information that seem-
ingly corroborates the sexual double standard and
will ignore information that refutes it. In short, al-
though men and women may have an equal probabil-
ity of being derogated (or rewarded) for having had
many sexual partners, people may tend to notice only
the instances in which women are derogated and men
are rewarded. Attending to cases that are consistent
with the double standard while ignoring cases incon-
sistent with it may create the illusion that the sexual
double standard is more pervasive than it really is.
Limitations of the Present Study
Although we sought to correct some limitations
of past research, other limitations remain. First, the
statistical power of the student sample was low be-
cause of the relatively small sample size. The results

of the student sample may therefore be less stable
than those of the Internet sample. The reliability co-
efficients for the student sample were also lower than
those for the Internet sample, which again may have
undermined our statistical power. This relatively low
power in the student sample may be one reason for
the divergence in the results between the two sam-
ples in some domains.
Second, the results reported here may not gener-
alize to populations outside of Western culture. Cul-
ture can be a powerful sculptor of sexual attitudes
and behavior (e.g., Okazaki, 2002); the double stan-
dard may exist in one culture, but be absent from
another. For instance, a review of the anthropolog-
ical literature on sex and sexuality in Africa reveals
much evidence of a double standard in African cul-
ture (Njikam-Savage & Tchombe, 1994).
Third, this study, like much previous re-
search, employs an experimental person perception
paradigm. Studying the double standard in more nat-
uralistic settings may reveal dynamics not otherwise
tapped by more artificial methodologies. For exam-
ple, observing “hot spots” where social interactions
are possibly centered on sex (e.g., bars, locker rooms)
may offer insight to the kinds of attitudes expressed
concerning the sexual activity of men and women.
Finally, the present research is relatively atheo-
retical, partly because we believe that it is necessary
to document the phenomenon of the double standard
systematically (if it exists) before bringing theoretical
perspectives to bear on it. Nonetheless, there may be
theoretical perspectives that would help guide us in a
more effective search for this phenomenon. For ex-

ample, social psychological theory suggests that peo-
ple tend to conform to social norms in the presence
of others (Asch, 1952; Sherif, 1936; Turner, 1991).
Because there are strong gender norms concerning
the appropriate sexual behavior of men and women
(Cohen & Shotland, 1996; Oliver & Hyde, 1993),
people may behave in accordance with these norms
in social situations. Our study, like other studies on
the double standard, only focused on individuals in
nongroup situations. Social psychological theory sug-
gests that social interaction in group contexts may be
a necessary precondition for the emergence of the
double standard.
CONCLUSIONS
In an effort to denounce the sexual double stan-
dard, contemporary authors, critics, and the media
may actually be perpetuating it by unintentionally
providing confirming evidence for the double stan-
dard while ignoring disconfirming evidence. Most ac-
counts from these sources cite numerous cases of
women being derogated for sexual activity, perhaps
in an effort to elicit empathy from the audience. Em-
pathy is a commendable (and desirable) goal, but
these writings may also serve to embed the dou-
ble standard in our collective conscious. Suggesting
that a societal double standard is the basis of the
derogation of women shifts focus away from those
who are truly at fault—those who are engaging in
or permitting sexual harassment and other forms of
derogation.
In closing, we believe that it may be beneficial to
shift the emphasis of sexual double standard research

from the question of whether the double standard ex-
ists to why the double standard appears to be such a
pervasive phenomenon when it really is not. By ad-
dressing this question, future researchers should be
able to elucidate the disparity between popular intu-
itions and the research literature and open doors to
novel avenues for our understanding of attitudes to-
ward sexuality.
APPENDIX
Subscale 1: Values
This person is trustworthy.
This person is respectful.
This person would make someone a good boyfriend/
girlfriend.
This person would make someone a good husband/
wife.
This person is immoral.
This person is dishonest.
This person is careless.∗
I could be friends with this person.
I would not like to know this person.
Subscale 2: Popularity with Peers
This person is popular.

This person has lots of friends.
This person is fun at parties.
People like this person.
This person would be fun to hang out with.∗
This person is physically attractive.
People listen to this person.∗
No one likes this person.
Subscale 3: Power/Success
This person makes a lot of money.
This person will hold a job with lots of power.
This person is in charge of many people.
This person has a good job.
This person would make a good leader.
This person is successful.
This person often takes control of situations.∗
This person influences others.
Subscale 4: Intelligence
This person is intelligent.
This person is a failure.
This person performs well in everything he/she does.
This person makes a lot of mistakes.
This person did well in school.
∗ Item was dropped in the student sample.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of
Stephanie Riger for reading drafts of this article and

providing us with feedback and suggestions.
REFERENCES
Asch, S. E. (1952). Effects of group pressures upon the modifi-
cation and distortion of judgments. In G. E. Swanson, T. M.
Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychol-
ogy (pp. 393–401). New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.
Barash, D. P., & Lipton, J. E. (2001). The myth of monogamy.
New York: Freeman.
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic im-
ages of occupations correspond to sex segregation of employ-
ment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–
423.
Cohen, L. L., & Shotland, R. (1996). Timing of first sexual in-
tercourse in a relationship: Expectations, experiences, and
perceptions of others. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 291–
299.
Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A
re-
view and methodological critique of two decades of research.
Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26.
Ferrel, M. Z., Tolone, W. L., & Walsh, R. H. (1977).
Maturational
and societal changes in the sexual double-standard: A panel
analysis (1967–1971; 1970–1974). Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 39, 255–271.
Garcia, L. T. (1982). Sex-role orientation and stereotypes about
male–female sexuality. Sex Roles, 8, 863–876.

Gentry, M. (1998). The sexual double standard. The influence
of
number of relationships and level of sexual activity on judg-
ments of women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
22, 505–511.
Gilovich, T. (1993). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility
of
human reason in everyday life. New York: Free Press.
Lamb, S. (2002). The secret lives of girls: What good girls
really
do—sex play, aggression, and their guilt. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Lips, H. (1994). Female powerlessness: A case of “cultural pre-
paredness”? In L. Radtke & H. Stam (Eds.), Power/gender—
Social relations in theory and practice (pp. 89–107). London:
Sage.
Malamuth, N. M., & Check, J. V. (1981). The effects of mass
me-
dia exposure on acceptance of violence against women: A
field experiment. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 436–
446.
Mark, M. M., & Miller, M. L. (1986). The effects of sexual
permis-
siveness, target gender, subject gender, and attitude toward
women on social perception: In search of the double standard.
Sex Roles, 15, 311–322.
Marks, M. J. (2002). [Internet survey of attitudes of sexual free-
dom.] Unpublished raw data.
Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual

double
standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. Journal
of Sex Research, 36, 361–368.
Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (2001). Reconceptualizing the
sexual double standard. Journal of Psychology and Human
Sexuality, 13, 63–83.
MTV Networks Music. (2003, August 18). Fight for your
rights: Busting the double standard[Television broadcast].
New York: MTV Networks Music.
Njikam-Savage, O. M., & Tchombe, T. M. (1994).
Anthropological
perspectives on sexual behaviour in Africa. Annual Review of
Sex Research, 5, 50–72.
Okazaki, S. (2002). Influences of culture on Asian Americans’
sex-
uality. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 34–41.
O’Sullivan, L. F. (1995). Less is more: The effects of sexual
experi-
ence on judgments of men’s and women’s personality charac-
teristics and relationship desirability. Sex Roles, 33, 159–181.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in
sexual-
ity: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.
Oliver, M. B., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects of sexual
permissive-
ness on desirability of a partner as a function of low and high
commitment to relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55,
321–333.

Richardson, L. (1997). Gender stereotyping in the English lan-
guage. In L. Richrdson, V. Taylor, & N. Whittier (Eds.), Fem-
inist frontiers V (pp. 112–116). New York: McGraw Hill.
Sheeran, P., Spears, R., Abraham, S. C. S., & Abrams, D.
(1996).
Religiosity, gender, and the double standard. Journal of
Psychology, 130, 23–33.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York:
Harper and Row.
Snyder, M. (1981). Seek, and ye shall find: Testing hypotheses
about other people. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M.
P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium on
personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different
cat-
egories of individuals. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 232–
248.
Sprecher, S., & Hatfield, E. (1996). Premarital sexual standards
among U.S. college students: Comparison with Russian and
Japanese students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 261–
288.
Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1987). Has the
dou-
ble standard disappeared? An experimental test. Social Psy-
chology Quarterly, 50, 24–31.

Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., Walsh, R., & Anderson, C. (1988).
A
revision of the Reiss Premarital Sexual Permissiveness Scale.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 821–828.
Tanenbaum, L. (2000). Slut! New York: Harper Collins.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Bristol, PA: Open
University
Press.
Waggett, G. J. (1989, May 27). A plea to the soaps: Let’s stop
turn-
ing rapists into heroes. TV Guide, pp. 10–11.
White, E. (2002). Fast girls: Teenage tribes and the myth of the
slut.
New York: Scribner.
View publication statsView publication stats
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226259861
P1: IZO
Sex Roles [sers] pp1156-sers-483670 April 2, 2004 19:21 Style
file version June 3rd, 2002
Sex Roles, Vol. 50, Nos. 7/8, April 2004 ( C© 2004)
Sex and Punishment: An Examination of Sexual
Consequences and the Sexual Double Standard
in Teen Programming1

Jennifer Stevens Aubrey2, 3
A content analysis was conducted to examine sexual
consequences on teen programming.
The sample consisted of prime-time television dramas that
featured characters between the
ages of 12 and 22 years. Two major goals guided the study.
First, the types of sexual conse-
quences in teen programming were investigated. Results showed
that emotional and social
consequences far outnumbered physical consequences. Second,
the portrayal of the sexual
double standard was investigated. Negative consequences were
more common in scenes in
which female characters initiated sexual activities than in
scenes in which male characters
initiated sexual activities. Implications for future content
analyses and media-effects research
are discussed.
KEY WORDS: sex; adolescents; television; sexual stereotypes;
content analysis.
Content analyses of sex on television have
provided a great deal of information about the
frequency and explicitness of sexual behavior and di-
alogue (Fernandez-Collado, Greenberg, Korzenny, &
Atkin, 1978; Franzblau, Sprafkin, & Rubinstein, 1977;
Greenberg et al., 1993; Kunkel, Cope, & Biely, 1999;
Kunkel, Cope, & Colvin, 1996; Kunkel, Cope-Farrar,
Biely, Farinola, & Donnerstein, 2001; Sprafkin &
Silverman, 1981; Truglio, 1998; Ward, 1995), yet one
contextual element of the portrayal of sexuality has
not been adequately conceptualized and analyzed: the
portrayal of sexual consequences. A common theme
from content analyses is that sex on television is vir-

tually free of consequences (Kunkel et al., 1996, 1999,
2001; Sprafkin & Silverman, 1981; Truglio, 1998). For
1An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2001
meeting
of Broadcast Education Association, Las Vegas, NV, and at the
2002 meeting of the International Communication Association,
Seoul, Korea.
2Department of Communication Studies, The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
3To whom correspondence should be addressed at 2020 Frieze
Building,105 S. State St., Ann Arbor, Michigan 49109-1285; e-
mail:
[email protected]
example, Truglio (1998) found that a 1990 representa-
tive sample of 109 network television programs con-
tained only 16 references to any form of unwanted
pregnancy or STD in the entire sample.
However, researchers have typically defined sex-
ual consequences as physical and have downplayed
the more ubiquitous emotional and social conse-
quences of sex. In biennial content analyses of prime-
time television shows, Kunkel et al. (1999, 2001, 2003)
coded “risk or responsibility themes,” defined as sex-
ual patience (waiting until a relationship matures and
both people are equally ready to engage in sex), sex-
ual precaution (pursuing efforts to prevent AIDS,
STDs, and/or unwanted pregnancy), and depiction
of risks and/or negative consequences of irrespon-
sible sexual behavior, such as unwanted pregnancy
and anxiety about contracting AIDS. Two of these
three themes were hinged on the definition of conse-
quences as physical, that is, STDs and unwanted preg-

nancies. Kunkel et al. (2003) concluded that although
risk/responsibility themes were relatively rare amid
the large number of scenes with sexual talk or be-
havior, they had increased modestly since the 1998
sample of television programming. The percentage
505 0360-0025/04/0400-0505/0 C© 2004 Plenum Publishing
Corporation
P1: IZO
506 Aubrey
of scenes with any sexual content that mentioned
risk/responsibility was 4% in 1998 and 6% in 2002, and
the percentage of episodes with risk/responsibility
themes increased from 9% in 1998 to 15% in
2002.
Although researchers have defined the negative
consequences of sexuality as physical, it appears that
adolescents are just as concerned with the emo-
tional and social consequences of sex. For example,
adolescents are relatively unconcerned about the
physical dangers of sex and more concerned about
the maintenance of their sexual reputations, about
uncertainty and confusion about their bodies, and
about their emotional relationships with their sexual
partners (Martin, 1996). Thus, a central goal of
the present study was to broaden the definition of
sexual consequences to include emotional and social

consequences, which were expected to be more
common than physical consequences.
Another goal of this study was to investigate
the possibility that the portrayal of sexuality differs
by gender. According to the sexual double standard,
sexual activity among young men is tolerated and en-
couraged, whereas for young women, sexuality is con-
trolled, restricted, and subjected to censure if norms
are violated (Jessor & Jessor, 1975; MacCorquodale,
1989; Muehlenhard, 1988). If television targeted at
adolescents perpetuates this script, men’s sexuality
will be seen as rewarded, and women’s sexuality will
be seen as punished.
One way in which the sexual double standard
could be manifested on television is through the por-
trayal of male characters disproportionately initiating
sexual activities. Kunkel et al. (2001) found that fe-
male characters were more likely to initiate physical
flirting, but male characters were more likely to initi-
ate kissing/intimate touching and sexual intercourse.
When types of behaviors were collapsed, however,
male and female characters initiated approximately
the same number of sexual behaviors. The hypo-
thesis that male characters will be more likely to
initiate sexual activities was tested again in this
study.
No research to date has examined differences
in whether women or men are more likely to be por-
trayed as receiving sexual consequences. However,
some research has shown that in general television
portrayals of women’s sexuality differ from those of
men’s sexuality. Ward (1995) found several themes
that support the sexual double standard in a content

analysis of the television programming most pop-
ular among adolescents. One of the most frequent
messages in the programs was that men view women
as sex objects and value them primarily for their
physical appearance. Other messages characterized
women as delimiters of sexual activities. Popular teen
magazines also commonly present adolescent sexual-
ity in accordance with the sexual double standard. In
Seventeen and YM, women’s sexuality was associated
with allure, passivity, and responsibility, whereas
men’s sexuality was associated with aggression and
urgency (Carpenter, 1998; Durham, 1998). In Sev-
enteen, adolescent girls were portrayed as obsessed
about boys, but they were warned to be passive in
interacting with boys in sexual situations (Wray &
Steele, 2002). According to Durham (1998), one of
the most troubling aspects of these texts was the
underlying message that discouraged women from ac-
knowledging their sexuality; the texts focused instead
on how to curb the insatiable sexual appetites of men.
Certainly, structural and narrative features of maga-
zines are qualitatively different from entertainment
television. Nevertheless, the possibility that similar
trends in support of the sexual double standard exist
in entertainment television merits exploration. In
keeping with the findings of the content analyses on
television and magazines, female characters might
be more likely than male characters to be portrayed
as experiencing negative sexual consequences,
and this might be the case especially when female
characters are shown initiating the sexual activity.
Likewise, male characters might be more likely than
female characters to reap the positive outcomes of
sexuality.

Exploring the sexual consequences of male and
female characters is motivated by social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1994), which argues that individuals
can learn how to perform behaviors from media
models. The principle of vicarious reinforcement is
especially useful in conceptualizing what audiences
might learn from television. According to the theory,
the functional value of the modeled act is com-
municated to audiences through the rewarding or
punishing of the action. For example, when a viewer
observes a model engaging in an enjoyable sexual
behavior and perceives that person as rewarded in
some way, the viewer will be vicariously reinforced to
model that behavior (Bandura, 1994). On the other
hand, a viewer will be discouraged from modeling
the behavior if he or she perceives the behavior as
resulting in an unrewarding or a punishing outcome.
The positive or negative consequences received by
the model for performing the behavior serve as cues
that indicate the perceived functional value of the act
P1: IZO
Sexual Consequences 507
and thus guide the viewer about the appropriateness
of performing the act. Thus, it is important to discern
what types of messages regarding the functional value
of sexuality are presented to young television viewers
because these messages can have implications for
adolescent viewers’ decisions to model sexual scripts

on television.
In summary, two overall goals guided this content
analysis. First, the definition of sexual consequences
(both positive and negative) was expanded to include
not only physical consequences but also social and
emotional consequences. The hypothesis was that so-
cial and emotional consequences would outnumber
physical consequences. Second, gender differences
in the spirit of the sexual double standard were in-
vestigated. Specifically, the sexual double standard
might be manifested in the following areas: (a) male
characters initiate sex more than female characters,
(b) female characters bear the brunt of the negative
consequences of sex, (c) male characters reap the pos-
itive consequence of sex more than female characters,
and (d) negative consequences will be especially likely
to occur when female characters initiate sex.
METHOD
Sample
To be included in the sample, the television pro-
grams had to fit the following criteria: (a) each pro-
gram had to be 1 h in length because programs in the
30-minute format are typically of a different genre
(e.g., situation comedy, variety show) than the dra-
mas investigated here; (b) the program had to be
aired between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time; (c) the program had to be shown on one of the
five broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, UPN, and
WB); and (d) the program had to feature adolescent
or college-aged characters. The actual ages of the char-
acters had to be between 12 years, which was thought
to be early adolescence and thus the beginning of the

development of a sexual identity, and 22 years, which
was thought to be the end of late adolescence. Around
this age, sexual identities were thought to be relatively
stable.4
4The author watched an episode of each of the programs that fit
the
first three selection criteria (1-h, prime-time, broadcast
network)
and determined whether any regular members of the cast were
between the ages of 12 and 22 years. Because characters often
do
not explicitly discuss or acknowledge their ages in the episodes,
the websites for the television programs were checked to make
Programs that feature young characters were
chosen for three reasons. First, programming that con-
tains young, attractive characters with whom young
viewers are likely to identify will be powerful in in-
fluencing viewers’ attitudes toward and perceptions
of sexuality (Bandura, 1994; Huston, Wartella, &
Donnerstein, 1998). Second, networks such as the
WB and UPN explicitly target young viewers with
programs that feature mostly adolescent casts, which
makes these programs quite popular in the 12–34 age
group (Collins, 1998; Freeman, 2000; Keough, 2000;
Rathbum, 1999). Third, Kunkel et al. (1999, 2001,
2003) found that shows targeted at adolescents were
more likely to portray sexual consequences than were
programs that targeted other age groups. Likewise,
dramas and soap operas portray sexuality as “high
drama,” fraught with punishment and pain (Smith,
1991). Thus, to obtain the greatest variation in the
types of sexual consequences coded, a sample that
was likely to contain a relatively large number of sex-
ual consequences was chosen.

Two waves of episodes were collected for this
analysis for a total of 84 episodes (42 episodes per
wave). In the Wave 1 sample, programs that appeared
between April 16 and May 11, 2000 (4 weeks) were
included. A matched sample was collected between
October 16 and November 10, 2000 (4 weeks). Two
waves of episodes were included to enhance the rep-
resentativeness of the sample. For example, some
programs that aired during the spring of 2000 (e.g.,
Beverly Hills, 90210 and Party of Five) did not air dur-
ing the fall of 2000; likewise, some new programs pre-
miered during the fall of 2000 (e.g., Gilmore Girls and
Dark Angel). Thus, including both waves of episodes
increased the diversity of programs in the sample. It
should be noted that both waves of episodes included
2 weeks of sweeps episodes and 2 weeks of nonsweeps
episodes. Originally, this was done to test for differ-
ences in the portrayal and frequency of sexuality be-
tween sweeps and nonsweeps time periods. However,
because that was not the goal of the current analysis,
those results are not reported here.
The sampling strategy was to include all episodes
of a program that occurred during the selected
sampling periods. When possible, four episodes per
wave were included in the sample. However, because
of a variety of circumstances, including scheduling
changes, emergency newsbreaks, preemptions, and
sure that at least one character was between the ages of 12 and
22. After the programs were collected, the age of the characters
in the sample was coded (Scott’s pi = .94).

P1: IZO
508 Aubrey
cancellations from the networks, some programs had
fewer than four episodes and one program had more
than four episodes.5
Consecutive episodes were sampled because
it was important to follow storylines that continue
between episodes. It was found that a sexual trans-
gression in one episode had repercussions for several
subsequent episodes; thus, analyzing consecutive
episodes was more desirable than analyzing randomly
selected episodes.
Coding System
Units of Analysis
The programs were coded on two levels: scenes
and sexual references. The episodes were coded into
scenes, which were defined as exchanges that occurred
in a single location with one set of participants present
without interruption by time, changes in participants
or locations, or commercial breaks (Greenberg &
Busselle, 1996). At this level, coders determined if
the scene contained a sexual reference. If a scene
contained a sexual reference, it was examined with
a more detailed set of coding procedures about type
and context. A sexual reference was defined as a depic-
tion of dialogue or behavior that involved sexuality,
sexual suggestiveness, sexual activities, or sexual re-

lationships (Kunkel et al., 1999). This definition did
not include references to love, romance, or romantic
(nonsexual) relationships.
Sexual references could take the form of sexual
dialogue or sexual behavior. Sexual dialogue referred
to a conversational exchange between characters re-
garding a sexual topic between characters. Sexual di-
alogue could also constitute a sexual consequence, if
the subject of the conversation was a positive or neg-
ative outcome of sexuality. However, the sexual di-
alogue did not have to contain a consequence. As a
minimum requirement, the dialogue had to include
5In Wave 1, the following programs were included in the
sample:
7th Heaven (three episodes), Angel (four episodes), Beverly
Hills,
90210 (three episodes), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (four
episodes),
Charmed (six episodes), Dawson’s Creek (four episodes), D.C.
(two episodes), Felicity (four episodes), Party of Five (four
episodes), Popular (four episodes), and Roswell (four episodes).
In Wave 2, the following programs were included in the sample:
7th Heaven (four episodes), Angel (three episodes), Boston
Public
(two episodes), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (four episodes),
Charmed
(four episodes), Dark Angel (two episodes), Dawson’s Creek
(four
episodes), Felicity (four episodes), Freakylinks (three
episodes),
Gilmore Girls (four episodes), Once and Again (two episodes),
Popular (two episodes), and Roswell (four episodes).
a sexual topic. Each new sexual topic discussed in a

scene was coded separately; thus, it was possible to
have more than one sexual reference per scene. A be-
havior was coded as sexual if it conveyed a sense of
sexual intimacy. Thus, a peck on the cheek or a friendly
hug was not coded as a sexual behavior. The gender of
the initiator of the sexual dialogue or sexual behavior
was coded for each sexual reference. The initiator was
defined as the person who started the conversation
with the sexual topic or the person who made the first
move that resulted in a sexual behavior.
Negative Sexual Consequences
A negative consequence was conceptualized as
an undesirable outcome related to sexuality. The sex-
ual activity for which a person was punished could be
dialogue, as would be the case of a character being
ostracized for expressing sexual desire verbally, or it
could be behavior, as would be the case of a charac-
ter being ostracized for engaging in a sexual act. The
gender of the recipient who bore the brunt of the con-
sequence was coded (man only, woman only, or both
man and woman).
Three types of negative consequences were
coded: emotional/social, physical, and punitive. A
list of possible nonphysical consequences was com-
piled to code for emotional and social consequences.
After pilot testing the coding scheme with three
undergraduate coders, it was determined that the
original list could be reduced to four consequences
that coders could reliably code. Emotional and so-
cial consequences were conceptualized to be simi-
lar in that they were both nonphysical; thus, they
were coded in a combined category. The main dif-
ference between the two was that emotional conse-

quences were experienced in isolation from others,
and social consequences were typically exacerbated
by others in one’s social group. Emotional conse-
quences included disappointment (Carroll, Volk, &
Hyde, 1985) and guilt/anxiety (Levinson, Jaccard, &
Beamer, 1995; Tolman, 1999). Social consequences in-
cluded humiliation (Tolman, 1994, 1999) and rejection
(Tolman, 1994). Physical consequences included un-
wanted pregnancy, contraction of an STD, and physi-
cal abuse by a sexual partner. Punitive consequences
occurred when characters were literally punished by
others for engaging in a sexual act, such as the case
when a teacher gave detention to a couple for “making
out” in a school hallway. Punitive consequences could
come from a parent, school official, or law enforce-
ment official. In some scenes, there were undertones
P1: IZO
Sexual Consequences 509
of more than one of these negative consequences;
thus, the most obvious consequence was coded to
avoid double coding a single interaction. For exam-
ple, if a scene portrayed a character finding out he
had contracted an STD and showed him expressing
anxiety in the same scene, only the STD—the more
manifest consequence—was coded.
Positive Sexual Consequences

A positive consequence was conceptualized as an
instance in which a character reaped manifest benefit
from sexuality. Positive consequences were conceptu-
alized to be emotional/social and physical. Emotional/
social consequences included an increase in self-
esteem or self-worth (Kunkel et al., 2001; Levinson
et al., 1995), expression of closeness, intimacy, and/or
affection (Levinson et al., 1995), and pride in the en-
hancement of one’s reputation among others (Kunkel
et al., 2001; Levinson et al., 1995). Positive physical
consequences included a clear expression of physical
satisfaction and intentional pregnancy.
Coding and Reliability
Three undergraduate coders underwent exten-
sive training to learn how to implement the coding
system. The coders practiced on several episodes be-
fore coding the actual sample. The reliability results
for these practice episodes were not included in the
final reliability results. The purpose of the practice
coding was to identify and resolve problems with the
coding scheme. After the coding scheme was modi-
fied on the basis of these practice rounds, the coding
of the episodes was independent. Twenty-four percent
of the sample (N = 20 episodes) was coded by at least
two coders and subjected to reliability analyses.
The coders agreed on the unitizing of the
episodes into scenes an average of 91.2% (the range
was 77–100%) of the time.
Two scene-level variables were relevant to
the hypotheses: agreement on whether the scene
contained a sexual reference and agreement on
whether the scene contained a sexual consequence.

Reliability for both variables was satisfactory. Scott’s
pi (Krippendorff, 1980) for sexual references was .84,
and Scott’s pi for sexual consequences (positive or
negative) was .78.
The remaining variables were coded on the
reference-level of analysis. Reliability analyses for
the reference-level variables showed that the average
Scott’s pi for these variables across the 20 episodes was
.92; the range was from .82 to 1.0. The specific coef-
ficients were adequate: type of negative consequence
(.91), type of emotional/social negative consequence
(.83), type of physical negative consequence (.97),
type of punitive negative consequence (1.0), type of
positive consequence (.92), type of emotional/social
positive consequence (.92), type of physical positive
consequence (1.0), gender of the initiator of the sex-
ual reference (.95), and gender of the recipient of the
consequence (.87).
RESULTS
Although not the primary goal of this project,
notation of the frequency of sex in the sample provides
perspective on how sexual the programs were. Of the
84 episodes coded, 90.5% (N = 76) contained at least
one sexual reference. Sixteen percent (N = 676) of
the scenes in the sample contained a sexual reference,
and on average, there were 7.9 sexual references per
hour of programming.
The strategy for hypothesis testing was twofold.
Because the data were categorical, it was neces-
sary to use nonparametric tests (Glass & Hopkins,
1996). Thus, the first step was to conduct chi-square

goodness-of-fit tests to determine if the distribution
among categories was not equal, as predicted by the
hypotheses. Second, for hypotheses that called for
pairwise comparisons among distributions with more
than two categories, Marascuilo contrasts were used.
Marascuilo contrasts allow for pairwise comparisons
between categories that consist of proportion data
(Glass & Hopkins, 1996).
Of the 220 negative consequences found in the
sample, coders could decide on a primary type of
consequence for 212. Of these cases, 75.0% (N =
159) were emotional/social, and only 17.5% (N =
37) were physical. Punitive consequences comprised
7.5% (N = 16) the negative consequences. Thus, as
expected, physical consequences were far less com-
mon than emotional and social consequences. For
the chi-square test, the null hypothesis was that
incidents of negative consequences in the sample
were evenly distributed among the three categories:
emotional/social, physical, and punitive. Because the
chi-square statistic was significant, χ2(2, N = 212) =
168.7, p < .001, it can be concluded the categories of
negative consequences were not evenly distributed.
As expected, the pairwise comparison showed that
the proportion of emotional/social consequences was
significantly greater than the proportion of physical
P1: IZO
510 Aubrey

Table I. Distribution of Social, Emotional, Physical, and
Punitive
Sexual Consequences
N %
Emotional/social consequences
Guilt/anxiety 42 26.4
Rejection 41 25.8
Humiliation 37 23.3
Disappointment 36 22.6
Other 3 1.9
Total 159 100
Physical consequences
Unwanted pregnancy 24 64.9
Other 7 18.9
Contraction of STD 4 10.8
Physical abuse 2 5.4
Total 37 100
Punitive consequences
Punishment by school officials 13 81.3
Punishment by law 2 12.5
Punishment by parents 1 6.3
Total 16 100
Note. Due to rounding error, the %s do not add to 100.
consequences, χ2(2, N = 196) = 58.1, p < .001, and
the proportion of punitive consequences, χ2(2, N =
175) = 82.6, p < .001.

Table I presents the data for the types of emo-
tional and social consequences contained in the
sample. The emotional/social consequences were
evenly distributed among humiliation, rejection,
guilt/anxiety, and disappointment. Table I also shows
the types of physical and punitive consequences. Of
the few physical consequences, unwanted pregnan-
cies were most common, and punishment by school
officials or teachers was the most common type of
punitive consequence.
A surprising finding was the dearth of positive
consequences of sexuality. Of the 676 scenes with
a sexual reference, only 4.1% (N = 28) contained a
positive consequence. Of these 28 portrayals, 50.0%
(N = 14) were social, 35.7% (N = 10) were physical,
and 14.3% (N = 4) were emotional. Because of the
Table II. A Comparison of the Gender of the Character Who
Received the Negative Consequence and the Gender
of the Characters in the Scene
Women received Men received Men and women shared
negative consequence negative consequence negative
consequence Total
Women only in scene 82.6%a (N = 19) 4.3%b (N = 1) 13.0%b
(N = 3) 100% (N = 23)
Men only in scene 21.9%a (N = 7) 68.8%b (N = 22) 9.4%a (N =
3) 100% (N = 32)
Men and women in scene 43.2%a (N = 67) 31.6%a (N = 49)
25.2%a (N = 39) 100% (N = 155)
Total 44.3%a (N = 93) 34.3%a (N = 72) 21.4%a (N = 45) 100%
(N = 210)
Note. The chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic was significant,

χ2(4, N = 210) = 32.65, p < .001. Pairwise comparisons
were done using Marascuilo contrasts (Glass & Hopkins, 1996).
Means in the same row that do not share subscripts
differ at p < .05.
small number of positive consequences, it was not
possible statistically to compare positive emotional
and social consequences to positive physical conse-
quences.
There was little difference between the initia-
tion of sexual dialogue by female and male charac-
ters; 51.3% (N = 231) of sexual dialogue was initiated
by female character and 48.7% (N = 219) was initi-
ated by male characters. On the other hand, 60.4%
(N = 171) of the sexual behaviors were initiated by
male characters, and 39.6% (N = 112) were initi-
ated by female characters. The chi-square test demon-
strated that the proportion of male initiators and that
of female initiatiors were not equal, χ2(1, N = 283) =
12.3, p < .001. Thus, as predicted, male characters ini-
tiated sexual behaviors significantly more often than
female characters did.
If the programs conform to the sexual double
standard, female characters would be more likely than
male characters to receive the negative consequences.
Of the 220 negative consequences, a primary recipi-
ent of the negative consequence could be identified
for 210. Female characters received 44.3% (N = 93)
of the negative consequences, and male characters
received 34.3% (N = 72). In the remaining 21.4%
(N = 45) of the negative consequences, male and fe-
male characters shared the consequences. Many of the
programs in the sample (e.g., Felicity, Charmed, Buffy
the Vampire Slayer) feature female main characters

Film Analysis ProposalEasy A”Film DescriptionEasy A is.docx

Film Analysis ProposalEasy A”Film DescriptionEasy A is.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Film Analysis ProposalEasy A”Film DescriptionEasy A is.docx

Similar to Film Analysis ProposalEasy A”Film DescriptionEasy A is.docx (20)

More from ssuser454af01

More from ssuser454af01 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Film Analysis ProposalEasy A”Film DescriptionEasy A is.docx