CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 200Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorGender and Feminist StudiesGender Roles and Identity Studies

He is a Stud, She is a Slut! A Meta-Analysis on the Continued Existence of Sexual Double Standards

Open access
Endendijk, Joyce J., van Baar, Anneloes L., Deković, Maja·2020·Personality and Social Psychology Review
DOI 10.1177/1088868319891310PMC PMC7153231
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

(Hetero)sexual double standards (SDS) entail that different sexual behaviors are appropriate for men and women. This meta-analysis ( k = 99; N = 123,343) tested predictions of evolutionary and biosocial theories regarding the existence of SDS in social cognitions. Databases were searched for studies examining attitudes or stereotypes regarding the sexual behaviors of men versus women. Studies assessing differences in evaluations, or expectations, of men’s and women’s sexual behavior yielded evidence for traditional SDS ( d = 0.25). For men, frequent sexual activity was more expected, and evaluated more positively, than for women. Studies using Likert-type-scale questionnaires did not yield evidence of SDS (combined M = −0.09). Effects were moderated by level of gender equality in the country in which the study was conducted, SDS-operationalization (attitudes vs. stereotypes), questionnaire type, and sexual behavior type. Results are consistent with a hybrid model incorporating both evolutionary and sociocultural factors contributing to SDS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1088868319891310

Cites

168 of 169 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Boys and men have historically been rewarded and praised for sexual promiscuity, whereas girls and women have been traditionally punished.

    “Known as sexual double standards, boys and men have historically been rewarded and praised for sexual promiscuity, whereas girls and women have been traditionally punished (Endendijk, van Baar, and Deković 2020).”

    From Technology-facilitated sexual violence perpetration as a tool for gender policing in secondary schools (2026) · cites this paper as Endendijk, van Baar, and Deković 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 172 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. *Ali-Faisal S. F. (2014). Crossing sexual barriers: The influence of background factors and personal attitudes on sexual guilt and sexual anxiety among Canadian and American Muslim women and men [Doctoral dissertation]. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/5051/
  2. *Balanko S. L. (2002). Emancipatory sexuality education: An exploration of young women’s perceptions of their sexuality and sexuality education influences [Doctoral dissertation]. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/1915/
  3. *Barron S. R. B. (2010). Perceptions of sexual coercion: Understanding the role of gender, intimacy, and alcohol use [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Order No. 3427331).
  4. *Bliss B. A. (2013). Is it still a sexual offense if society doesn’t find it offensive? Cultural constructions and rape proclivity [Doctoral dissertation]. https://knowledge.library.iup.edu/etd/74
  5. *Doan D. J. (2006). Couples’ sexuality: Relation to gender role attitudes and division of household labor [Doctoral dissertation]. http://library.alliant.edu/record=b1204263~S6
  6. *Donald A. R. (1983). Validation of the sexual double standard construct and a subtle double standard scale. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(3), 957.
  7. *Hong J. (2013). Sexuality professionals’ attitudes toward five dimensions of human sexuality [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Order No. 3574230).
  8. *Isarabhakdi P. (1999). Sexual attitudes and behaviors of never-married, rural Thai youth. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(5), 1932A.
  9. *Javier K. N. (2018). Asian American women: The influence of sororities and little sister programs [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Order No. 10822876).
  10. *Kistler M. E. (2011). Media involvement and maternal communication effects on emerging adults’ acceptance of the traditional sexual script [Doctoral dissertation]. http://hdl.handle.net/2376/3006
  11. *Kleinfelter K. J. (1999). An investigation of college students’ personal attitudes and subjective norms regarding acceptability of assertive and nontraditional sexual behavior in women: Re-examining the sexual double standard [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Order No. 9939187).
  12. *Levin D. S. (2010). Let’s talk about sex... education: Exploring youth perspectives, implicit messages, and unexamined implications of sex education in schools [Doctoral dissertation]. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75809
  13. *Miller K. R. (2012). Influence of parental communication of sexual messages on late adolescent sexual assertiveness and sexual experience and the influence of adolescent adherence to the sexual double standard: An exploratory study [Doctoral dissertation]. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1337093690
  14. Schwartz P. Rutter V. (2000). The gender of sexuality (2nd ed.). Pine Forge Press.
  15. *Sierra J. C. Rojas A. Ortega V. Ortiz J. D. M. (2007). Evaluation of sexist attitudes with college students: First psychometric data of the Spanish versions of Double Standard Scale (DSS) and the Rape Supportive Attitude Scale (RSAS). International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 7(1), 41– 60.
  16. *Young M. Penhollow T. M. Bailey W. C. (2010). Hooking-up and condom provision: Is there a double standard? American Journal of Health Studies, 25(3), 156– 164.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Endendijk, J. J., van Baar, A. L., & Deković, M.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Endendijk, Joyce J.
ORCID
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-12-27
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
163-190
ISSN
  • 1088-8683 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7957
DOI
10.1177/1088868319891310
PMC
PMC7153231
OpenAlex
W2996777343
Cited by
200
References
172
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
Keywords
sexual double standard, gender stereotypes, evolutionary psychology, biosocial theory, gender equality, sexual expectations, gender differences
MeSH terms
Gender Role, Female, Humans, Male, Stereotyping, Sexism

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