What’s Gender Got to Do With It? Sexual Double Standards and Power in Heterosexual College Hookups

Abstract

Although college hookups are typically enjoyable for both men and women, heterosexual hookups often involve inequitable power dynamics that privilege men (e.g., women perform sexual acts to please partners and/or succumb to pressure for intercourse). Some scholars have attributed this power imbalance to the traditional double standard. However, recent studies have indicated college students typically endorse egalitarian standards—and some endorse a reverse double standard in which they negatively judge men more than women for engaging in the same sexual behavior. Using Online College Social Life Survey data (N = 11,077) I examined relationships between endorsement of double standards and power in hookups. Because contemporary students often believe double standards exist in society but not in their own minds, I also examined relationships between feeling negatively judged for hooking up and power. Most respondents endorsed egalitarian standards, but women were more likely than men to feel judged for hooking up. Feeling judged was a significant predictor of power disadvantages for women and men; endorsing a double standard disparaging one’s own gender was significant among men. Findings suggest contemporary relevance of the traditional double standard and highlight differences between women’s and men’s endorsement of double standards disparaging their own gender.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Laura M. Carpenter for her valuable input and support throughout the duration of this project, as well as Tony N. Brown, Holly J. McCammon, and Deborah L. Tolman for their comments on earlier versions of this article.

Funding

This research was made possible by financial support from the Vanderbilt University College of Arts and Science Social Science Dissertation Fellowship.

Notes

¹ I classified respondents with a difference of 0 (as opposed to 0 or 1) as egalitarian because the vast majority of respondents reported a difference of 0. Likewise, I aggregated respondents with a difference of 1 to 3 points into one single category (i.e., traditional double standard or reverse double standard) instead of distinguishing magnitude of difference because the proportion of respondents reporting any difference in their evaluations of men’s and women’s sexual behaviors was relatively small.

² Thus, 2.96% of cases were dropped due to missing data.

³ Compared to the full OCSLS sample (consisting of respondents who did and did not report college hookup experience), there was not a significant difference in the proportion of women (or men) in the final hookup sample, X²(1, N = 11,077) = 0.11, p >.10. However, consistent with previous research that has indicated hooking up is most common among White students (Bogle, 2008; Owen et al., 2010), the final sample contained a significantly greater proportion of White respondents than the full sample, X²(1, N = 11,077) = 282.82, p < .001. Regarding double standards, a greater proportion of respondents in the final sample, compared to the full sample, endorsed the traditional double standard, X²(1, N = 11,077) = 62.04, p < .001, but there was not a significant difference in the proportions of respondents in the final and full samples endorsing the reverse double standard, X²(1, N = 11,077) = .28, p > .10. A significantly smaller proportion of respondents in the final sample endorsed the egalitarian conservative standard, X²(1, N = 11,077) = 26.15, p < .001, and a significantly greater proportion of respondents in the final sample endorsed the egalitarian liberal standard, X²(1, N = 11,077) = 8.25, p < .01.

Additional information

Funding

This research was made possible by financial support from the Vanderbilt University College of Arts and Science Social Science Dissertation Fellowship.