CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 931Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorGender Roles and Identity StudiesGender and Feminist Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007.

Petersen, Jennifer L., Hyde, Janet Shibley·2010·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/a0017504
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In 1993 Oliver and Hyde conducted a meta-analysis on gender differences in sexuality. The current study updated that analysis with current research and methods. Evolutionary psychology, cognitive social learning theory, social structural theory, and the gender similarities hypothesis provided predictions about gender differences in sexuality. We analyzed gender differences in 30 reported sexual behaviors and attitudes for 834 individual samples uncovered in literature searches and 7 large national data sets. In support of evolutionary psychology, results from both the individual studies and the large data sets indicated that men reported slightly more sexual experience and more permissive attitudes than women for most of the variables. However, as predicted by the gender similarities hypothesis, most gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors were small. Exceptions were masturbation incidence, pornography use, casual sex, and attitudes toward casual sex, which all yielded medium effect sizes in which male participants reported more sexual behavior or permissive attitudes than female participants. Most effect sizes reported in the current study were comparable to those reported in Oliver and Hyde's study. In support of cognitive social learning theory, year of publication moderated the magnitude of effect sizes, with gender differences for some aspects of sexuality increasing over time and others decreasing. As predicted by social structural theory, nations and ethni…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0017504

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2010-01
Volume
136
Issue
1
Pages
21-38
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/a0017504
OpenAlex
W2128715124
Cited by
931
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 134 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 76 · 2013: 64 · 2012: 43
FWCI
65.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
gender differences in sexuality, sexual behavior, sexual attitudes, evolutionary psychology, social cognitive learning theory, gender equity, casual sex, pornography use, masturbation, age differences
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Sexual Behavior, Sex Factors, Stereotyping, Sexuality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review