Truth and Consequences: Using the Bogus Pipeline to Examine Sex Differences in SelfReported Sexuality

Author(s): Michele G. Alexander and Terri D. Fisher

Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, Gender and Sexuality (Feb., 2003), pp. 2735
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813768
Accessed: 06/09/2010 22:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
Sex Research.

http://www.jstor.org

liuth and Consequences:Using the Bogus Pipeline to Examine Sex

Differencesin Self-ReportedSexuality
Michele G. Alexander
Universib of Maine

Terri D. Fisher
The OhioStateUniversityat Mansfield

testedwhetherthesedifferMenreportmorepermissivesexualattitudesandbehaviorthando women.Thisexperiment
to gendernorms(distortedreportingconsistentwithgenderstereotypes).
ences mightresultfromfalse accommodation
sexualbehaviorwerenegliin self-reported
underthreeconditions.Sexdiffierences
Participantscompletedquestionnaires
congiblein a boguspipelineconditionin whichparticipantsbelievedIyingcouldbe detected,moderatein an anonymous
responscouldpotentiallyviewparticipants'
dition,andgreatestin an exposurethreatconditionin whichtheexperimenter
exposureto
es. Thispatternwasclearestfor behaviorsconsideredless acceptablefor womenthanmen(e.g.,masturbation,
sexualbehaviorreflectresponses
hardcore& softcoreerotica).Resultssuggestthatsomesex differencesin self-reported
for menandwomen.
influencedby normativeexpectations
sexualattitudesandbehavior
Researchon self-reported
consistentlyindicatesthat men are more inclined than
womento engagein sexualbehavioroutsideof committed
relationshipsand are less discnminatingwith regardto
quality and quantityof sexual partners(Baumeister,
Catanese, & Vohs, 2001; Clark & Hatfield, 1989;
Hendrick, Hendrick, Slapion-Foote,& Foote, 1985;
Laumann,Gagnon,Michael,& Michaels,1994;Okami&
2001;Oliver& Hyde,1993).Recentreviews
Shackelford,
confirm that men, comparedwith women, are more
approvingof casual sex and reportmore frequentand
explicitsexualfantasies(Hyde& Oliver,2000; Jones&
Barlow, 1990; Leitenberg& Henning,1995; Okami&
menreportanearlierage
2001).Additionally,
Shackelford,
of first intercourse,a greaternumberof sexualpartners
(Smith,1992),anda higherincidenceof intercourseand
(Oliver& Hyde,1993).Women,on theother
masturbation
hand,reportmore sexualcautionthando men (Hyde&
sex stereotypesexist suchthat
Oliver,2000).Furthermore,
menareexpectedto be moresexuallypermissivethanare
women (Cohen& Shotland,1996;Masters,Johnson,&
Kolodny,1995;Oliver& Hyde,1993).

sex differencesin sexSeveralof thesewell-established

have
ual behavioraresomewhatbewildering.Researchers
questionedthe statisticalimprobabilityof men having
more heterosexualintercoursepartnersthan women, as
thesenumbersshouldbe equivalentfor the sexes (Brown
&
& Sinclair,1999;Pedersen,Miller,Putcha-Bhagavatula,
Yang,2002; Wiederman,1997). Similarparadoxesexist
with regardto men reportingmore frequentintercourse
thanwomen.Becausea partneris required,it is impossible
for mento engagein heterosexualintercoursemoreoften
males typiFurthermore,
thantheirfemalecounterparts.
cally reportan earlierage of first intercoursethan do
females(Oliver& Hyde, 1993).Althoughit is plausible
thatmaleshave theirfirst sexualexperienceswith older
females,it seemsunlikely,given thatadolescentfemales
preferolder sexual partners(Elo, King, & Furstenberg,
1999;Kenrick,Gabrielidis,Keefe,& Cornelius,1996).In
lightof theseillogicalities,it is reasonableto speculatethat
someof the sex differencesin self-reportsof sexualityare
not dueto actualsex differencesin behavior,butratherto
differencesin reportingas a functionof differentialnormativeexpectationsfor menandwomen.

The researchreportedin this articlewas supportedby a Professional

DevelopmentGrantawardedby The Ohio State Universityat Mansfield.
determined
Authorship
on this articlewas equaland the orderof authorship
alphabetically.
The authorsgratefullyacknowledgeElaineBednar,Douglas
Benavides,Ken Kmetz,David Myers,Tim Napier,CindyTruex,and Mary
Wright-Ally
fortheirinvaluableassistancewithdatacollection.Wewouldalso
reviewersfortheir
andseveralanonymous
like to thankCharleneMuehlenhard
helpfulcommentson differentversionsof this article.[Editor'snote:Janet
andsubseShibleyHydeandSandraMettsreviewedthis paperanonymously
quentlyagreedto be identifiedin theauthornote.]
Address correspondenceto Michele G. Alexander,Departmentof
Psychology,366 LittleHall, Universityof Maine,Orono,ME 04469-5742;
of Psychology,
or to TerriD. Fisher,Department
e-mail:michelea@maine.edu
TheOhioStateUniversityat Mansfield,1680UniversityDrive,Mansfield,OH
44906;e-mail:fisher.16@osu.edu.

ANDSEXUALITY
ROLES,
NORMS,
GENDER
Genderroles and gender-typedexpectationsmay have
directimplicationsformen'sandwomen'ssexualattitudes
andbehavior.In general,menareexpectedto takeagentic
roles, being assertive,independent,and dominant,and
womenareexpectedto servecommunalroles,beingrelationshiporiented,selfless,andsubmissive(Cejka& Eagly,
1999;Glick,1991).Suchexpectationsencourageandfosbehaviorby men andwomenbothpriterrole-consistent
1997)and
Hebl,& Rothgerber,
vately(Wood,Christensen,
publicly(Eagly,Wood,& Diekrnan,2000). If womenare
expectedto be relationshiporiented,they may also be

The Journal of Sex Research Volume 40, Number 1, February 2003: pp. 27-35

27

28

expectedto disapproveof andavoidsexualbehaviors

that
areperceivedas beingthreatening
to relationships
or selfserving,suchas casualsex, masturbation,
anduse
core or softcoreerotica.In contrast,frequent of hardand early
recreational
sex as well as autoeroticsexualbehaviorsare
moresociallyapprovedof and encouragedfor
for women.Thesebehaviorsareconsidered men than
moreagentic
and independentthan sexual behavior
associatedwith
long-termcommitment,
andmencan enhancetheirdominanceandpowerby participating
in a greaternumberof
short-termrather than close, long-term
relationships
(Baumeister
& Sommer,1997;Gabriel& Gardner,1999).
Consistentwith this genderrole perspectiveof
the only large sex differencesreportedin sexuality,
Oliver and
Hyde's(1993) meta-analysisof varioussexual
domains
werefor attitudestowardcasual sex and
reportedincidenceof masturbation.
Thepotentialeffectsof thesebroadgender
expectations
onsexualityarecurrentlyevidentin the sexual
scriptsthat
regulatemen's and women'ssexual behavior.
In sexual
encounters,
men are expectedto initiateand womenare
expectedto react and comply (Rose & Frieze,
1993;
Shotland
& Hunter,1995). Some researchershave
suggestedthatdifferencesin sexualdesirebetween
men
and
womencouldbe attributed
to the socialpressuresthatare
placedon womento stifle theirsexuality,as
dictatedby
sexual
scripts(Leiblum,2002).Furthermore,
many
people
stillacceptsomeversionof the sexualdouble
standard,
in
which
menareaffordedmoresexualfreedomthan
women,
and
womenareexpectedto be morereluctantthanmen
to
acknowledge
theirdesirefor sex (Gentry,1998).Women
and
mencananticipatedifferentconsequenceswhen
deviating
fromtheirprescribed
behavior:Menarelikelyto find
theirsexual orientationor potency
questioned,while
women
risk being labeled"sluts"or "whores."
Indeed,
societal
judgmentsof sexuallypermissivewomencontinue
to be harsherthanthoseof sexually
permissivemenin
certain
circumstances(Milhausen & Herold, 2001;
Sprecher,
McKinney,& Orbuch,1987).
Giventheconnectionbetweengenderrolesand
sexuality,
sex differencesbasedon self-reports
maypartlyreflect
false
accommodation
to genderrole norms,thatis, selfpresentation
strategiesusedby menandwomento appear
consistent
with genderrole expectationsandto avoidthe
negative
consequencesassociatedwith deviatingfrom
these
expectations.False accommodation
mightresultin
answers
distortedin opposite directionsfor men and
women
suchthatmenmaybe motivatedto
ing
of sexualbehaviorandto exaggeratethereportapprovfrequencyand
variability
of theirsexualencounters,
whereaswomenmay
bemotivated
to understate
theirs.Thesedistortedself-presentations
couldoccurintentionally
throughbiasedreporting
or unintentionally
throughselectiverecall.Recentdiscussions
of thesusceptiblenatureof self-reports
ity
to social desirabilityresponding(Meston,of sexualHeiman,
Trapnell,
& Paulhus, 1998) indicatethatit is not
clear how
closely
self-reportsof sexualityresembletrueattitudesand

Sex Differences in Self-Reported Sexuality

behavior.Thedifferencesreportedin previoussex
couldreflectactualsex differences,or they couldresearch
merely
be a resultof self-presentation
strategieson the partsof
menandwomen.Totheextentthatsex
differencesin selfreportedsexualityresult from false
accommodation
to
genderrole norms,researchcontextsthat
encouragegender-typed
self-presentation
strategies,suchas an exposure
threatsituationin whichanonymityis not
guaranteed,
may
yieldlargerself-reported
sex differencesthancontextsin
whichsuchself-presentation
strategiesarediscouraged,
as
withthe boguspipelinemethod.
BOGUS
PIPELINE
METHODOLOGY
Theboguspipelineproceduremaybe usefulfor
identifyingor controllingfalse accommodationto
gender
role
normson self-reportsof sexual attitudesand
Withthis procedure,participantsare attachedbehavior.
to a nonfunctioning
polygraphandareled to believethatdishonest
answers
given duringan interviewor on a surveycan be
detected
by the machine(Jones & Sigall, 1971).
Their
responses
aretypicallycomparedwitha controlgroupnot
attached
to the device;thosein the boguspipeline
condition
tendto reporthigherfrequencyof socially
sensitive
or
sociallyundesirablebehaviors(Tourangeau,
Smith, &
Rasinski,
1997).A meta-analysisof 31 studiesusing the
bogus
pipelinemethodacross severalopiniondomains
indicated
thatthetechniqueis aneffectivemeansof reducingbiased respondingand shifting
self-reportstoward
veracity
(Roese& Jamieson,1993).Apparently
theprocedure
eliminatespositive self-presentation
by evoking a
motivational
shift from self-enhancement
to self-protection
(Roese & Jamieson,1993). If a self-enhancing
presentation
(e.g., conformityto genderrolenorms)is inconsistent
with one's true attitudes and behavior (e.g.,
deviance
from gender role norms),an individualwho
gives
self-enhancingresponsesrisks being detectedas
lying
or as lacking self-awareness.The bogus
pipeline
method
motivatesindividualsto eschewself-enhancement
in
favorof honestandaccurateanswersto avoid
embarrassment
(Sabini,Siepmann,& Stein,2001).
Toourknowledge,thereis only one published
studyin
which
a measureof self-reportedsexual behavior
was
assessed
usingthe boguspipelineprocedure.Tourangeau
et
al.(1997)examinedmen'sandwomen's
reportsof several
sensitivebehaviors,includingnumberof sexualpartners,
using the bogus pipelinetechnique.Both men
and
women
reportedmore sexual partnersin the bogus
pipeline
thanin thecontrolcondition.Thisfinding
cult
to interpret,however,becausethe authors is diffiadministered
the questionsin a face-to-faceinterview,thus
combining
a conditionlikelyto discouragefalse
accommodation
(theboguspipelinecondition)witha condition
likely
to
encouragefalse accommodation(a nonanonymous
interview).
The full impactof the pipelineconditionon
participants'
responsesin this experimentmayhavebeen
obscured
by
the threatof exposing their true responses
to
the
interviewer,thus limiting the study's usefulness
for

Alexander and Fisher

drawingclear conclusionsregardingsex differencesin

reportsof sexualbehavior.

29

bogus pipelineprocedurefor reducingsocial desirability

responding,we includeda brief (19-item)versionof the
Social DesirabilityScale (Strahan&
Marlowe-Crowne
RESEARCH
THEPRESENT
Gerbasi,1972)at the end of the surveypacket.Questions
experimentto assessthe effects
We designeda laboratory
on thisscaleareansweredin a true-falseformat,andpossion sex differencesin self-report- ble scoresrangefrom0 to 19,withhigherscoresindicating
of false accommodation
ed sexualbehaviorsandattitudes.To manipulatethe likea tendencyto denyhavingbasichumanfoibles(oc= .64 in
we hadmale andfemale
lihoodof false accommodation,
thepresentstudy).
who wereattachedto the
college studentscompletea sexualattitudesandbehavior
We also gave 50 participants
underthreetestingconditions.In the expobelow)threeitemsaskinghow
questionnaire
polygraph(see procedures
wereled to believethat
surethreatcondition,participants
accuratetheythoughtthe machinewas in measuringtheir
theirresponsesmightbe seen by a peer (i.e., a research true attitudesand behavior,how much influencethey
in thisconditionto be
assistant).Weexpectedparticipants
thoughtthe machinehad on their responses,and how
much pressurethey felt from the lie detectorto answer
influencedby genderrole norms,renderingsex differparticipants
in
which
condition,
anonymous
ences. In the
questionshonestly.Theyrespondedusinga 5-pointLikert
we
expected
were given strongassurancesof anonymity,
scale(1 = not at all to 5 = a greatdeal).
the lack of identifiabilityto reducethe magnitudeof sex
Sexualattitudes.The 21-itemSexualOpinionSurvey
differencesby relaxingthe pressureto adhereto gender
(Fisher,Byrne,& White,1983)was usedto measureeroSample items include "I think it
role norms.Finally,in the bogus pipelinecondition,we
tophobia-erotophilia.
woulduse an honestyself-preto look at hardcorepornograexpectedthatparticipants
wouldbe very entertaining
to
phy"and"IfpeoplethoughtI was interestedin oralsex, I
sentationstrategy,thusreducingfalse accommodation
respondedusinga 7Participants
genderrole normsresultingin few if any sex differences. wouldbe embarrassed."
Altogether,we expectedthemagnitudesof sex differences point Likertscale (1 = stronglyagree, 7 = stronglydis(i.e., positiveand
agree).Possiblescoresrangefrom0 to 126, with lower
in reportsof erotophiliaanderotophobia
negativeemotionalorientationtowardsexuality),sexual
scoresindicatingnegativeemotionalresponsesto sexual
andhigherscoresindicatingpositive
matters(erotophobia)
attitudes,and sexualexperienceto vary as a functionof
emotionalresoponsesto sexual matters(erotophilia).In
testingcondition.We expectedthis patternof responses
alphareliabilitycoefficient
thecurrentstudy,theCronbach
especiallyon specificsexualbehaviorsfor whichgender
role expectationsdivergefor men andwomen(e.g., numfor this scalewas .79.
WemeasuredsexualattitudeswiththeAttitudesToward
ber of sexualpartners,age at firstintercourse,masturbation,exposureto hardcore& softcoreerotica).
SexualityScale(Fisher& Hall,1988).This13-iteminstruA differentialimpactof testingcontexton men's and
mentassessesgeneralsexualattitudeson a 5-pointLikert
women'sreportedsexuality,evidencedby an interaction scale(1 = stronglydisagreeto 5 = stronglyagree).Sample
itemsinclude"Petting(a stimulatingcaressof any or all
sex andtestingcondition,wouldsugbetweenparticipant
gest thatnormativeexpectationsfor menandwomenplay
partsof thebody)is immoralbehaviorunlessthecoupleis
married"and"A person'ssexualbehavioris his/herown
a rolein reportingsexualactivity.Suchresultswouldprovide supportfor the ideathatsex differencesin reportsof
businessandnobodyshouldmakevaluejudgmentsabout
rangefrom13to 65,
sexualbehaviorandattitudesareat leastin partdueto difit."Potentialscoreson thisinstrument
ferencesin socialexpectations.
with lower scoresindicatinggreatersexualconservatism
(ot= .81
andhigherscoresreflectingmorepermissiveness
METHOD
forthis sample).
Sexualexperienceand behavior.Sexualbehaviorwas
Participants
measuredusingtheCowartPollackscaleof sexualexperiAn initialsampleof 248 maleandfemaleundergraduates ence(Cowart-Steckler
& Pollack,1988),whichis a pairof
at a regionalcampusof a Midwesternuniversityparticithe breadthof men's and
assesses
that
scales
Guttman
in
patedas partialfulfillmentof a researchrequirement
women'ssexualexperience.Usinga yes-noresponseforPsychologycourse.To keepthe sample
indicatein whichof 30 sexualactivities
theirIntroductory
mat,respondents
somewhathomogenous,we used only datafromunmartheyhaveengaged(e.g., oralstimulationof partner'sgenThe47
ried,heterosexual,18- to 25-year-oldparticipants.
itals).Scoresrangefrom0 to 30, withhigherscoresindiwho did not fit thisdescriptionweredropped, catinga broaderrangeof sexualexperience(oc= .95 for
participants
(96 menand105
leavinga finalsampleof 201 participants
the presentstudy).Becausewe wereespeciallyinterested
women), 189 of whom were White, 7 of whom were
in examiningresponsesto threeitems highlyrelevantto
exposureto softcore
AfricanAmerican,and 5 of whom were of otherethnic
genderrole norms (masturbation,
backgrounds.
erotica,and exposureto hardcoreerotica),we createda
subscaleusingthesethreeitems(oc= .73).
Measures
to indicatethe age at which
We also askedparticipants
they had first engagedin consensualsexual intercourse
Manipulationchecks.To assess the effectiveness of the

Sex Differences in Self-Reported Sexuality

30

andthe numberof partnerswithwhomtheyhadengaged

in sexualintercourse(referredto hereafteras sexualpartners).Oneparticipant
reportedhavingengagedin consensualsexualintercourse
at age 10.Toenhancehomogeneity
of thevariance,we excludedthisparticipant
fromanalyses
involvingthisvariable.
Procedure
Overview.
All participants
signedup for a studyon sexual
attitudesand behavior.Upon arrivingat the laboratory,
participants
were greetedby the experimenter,
a student
researchassistant,who tookthemto a small,privatetesting roomwherethey weretestedindividually.
We examinedparticipants'
self-reported
sexualattitudesandbehavior in three testing conditions.Two testing conditions
entailedconnectingparticipants
to a boguspipelineapparatusat somepoint,eitherwhilecompletingthe sex questionnaire(boguspipelinecondition)or whilecompletinga
filler task (anonymouscondition).Participantsin the
bogus pipelineconditionwere attachedto the pipeline
apparatuswhile completingthe sex questionnairesand
wereunattachedduringthe fillertask.Participants
in the
anonymousconditionwereattachedto the apparatus
during thefillertaskandunattached
whilecompletingthe sex
questionnaires.We attachedparticipantsto the bogus
pipelineapparatus
in bothtestingconditionsto ensurethat
they were treatedsimilarlyin the two testingconditions,
controllingfor potentialconfoundsproducedby the invasive procedureof theboguspipeline(i.e., contactor physical proximitywithexperimenter;
see Ostrom,1973).The
thirdcondition(exposurethreat)didnotinvolvethebogus
pipelineor thefillertask.
Participants
wererandomlyassignedto one of thethree
testingconditions.Forthe boguspipelineandanonymous
conditions,participantsex, experimentersex, and task
orderwere counterbalanced
using all possiblecombinationsof thesevariables.Forthe exposurethreatcondition,
participantsex and experimentersex were counterbalanced.Upon finishingthe experiment,participantswho
hadbeenattachedto the polygraphcompletedthe manipulationcheckandweredebriefedandquestionedfor suspicion.No participants
reportedbeing suspiciousof the
bogusrecordingdevice.
Boguspipelinecondition.The experimenter
informed
participants
in thisconditionthattheywouldbe completing
a questionnaire
abouttheirsexualattitudesandbehaviors
andwouldview andratea briefvideotape.Theyweretold
thatduringa portionof theexperiment
theywouldbe connectedto a physiologicalmonitorsimilarto a polygraphor
"lie detector"to maximizehonestyin responding.The
polygraphwas a LafayetteInstruments
Minigraphchart
recorderreconstructed
to resemblea polygraphmachine.It
consistedof an electrodeinputbox attachedby a 6-foot
cable to a power supplycabinetequippedwith a chart
recorderandfourinkrecordingpins.Fourinertleadwires
anddisposablesilver/silver-chloride
electrodeswereused
to ostensiblyassessparticipants'
physiologicalsignals.

As the experimenter
placedelectrodeson participants'
hands,forearms,andneck,he or she toldparticipants
that
the polygraphcouldassesstruthfulness
by measuringvital
signssuchas heartrateandgalvanicskinresponse.To"calibratethemachineto ensurethatit workedcorrectly,"
andto
enhancethebelievabilityof theboguspipeline,theexperimenteraskedparticipants
to respond"yes"to twoquestions,
one of whichevokeda falseresponse("IsyournameBart
Simpson?"),
andone of whichevokeda trueresponse("Is
yourname [participant's
actualname?]").As participants
responded
to thesequestions,thepaperrollersandpenson
the polygraphwere activated.The experimenter
showed
everyonethe samebogusprintout,
whichclearlydifferentiated the false response from the truthful response.
Remindingthemthatthemachinewas sensitiveenoughto
detectdishonestyeven in writtenresponses,the experimenterurgedparticipants
to respondaccurately,handed
themthesex questionnaire,
andexitedtheroom,closingthe
doorto provideprivacy.Whenfinished,participants
placed
theircompletedsurveysin a lockedbox in theroom.
Anonymouscondition.Participantsin the anonymous
conditionwereattachedto the polygraphduringthe filler
task(viewinga videotapedepictinga studentaskinga professorabouta class assignmentandthenratingthedegree
of sexualinteresteachhaddisplayed),butnot whilecompletingthe sexualityquestionnaires.
They were told that
theiranswerswouldbe completelyanonymousand they
were left alone in the small room with the door fully
closed.They placedtheircompletedsurveysin a locked
box beforeexitingtheroom.
Exposurethreatcondition.In thiscondition,we didnot
use thepolygraph.Participants
wereled to believethatthe
experimenter,a college studentpeer, might view their
responsesbecausetheywereinstructed
to directlyhandthe
completedquestionnaireto the experimenterwhen finished. They completedthe questionnairesin the small
roomwiththe dooropenandthe experimenter
sittingjust
outsidein full view as a reminderof theimpendingpossibilityof exposure.In actuality,whenparticipants
attempted to give theircompletedsurveyto theexperimenter,
they
wereinsteadtold to placethe questionnaire
in the locked
box in the testingroom.
RESULTS

ManipulationChecks
Responseson the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability
scale for all three conditionswere comparedwith a 2
(Participant
Sex) X 3 (TestingCondition)analysisof variance(ANOVA),whichindicateda significantmaineffect
for testingconditionamongthe threegroups,F(2, 197) =
14.1,p < .001, 1]2 = .127.1 A Fisher'sLSD post-hoctest
i According to Cohen (1988), an 2 Of .01 indicates a small eSect correspondingto .2 of a standarddeviation,an 2 Of .059 indicatesa moderateeSect
correspondingto .5 of a standarddeviation, and an 2 Of .138 reflects a large
effect correspondingto .8 of a standarddeviation.

Alexander and Fisher

31

indicatedthat,as predicted,socialdesirabilityscoreswere
lowestin theboguspipelinecondition(M= 5.6, SD = 2.9),
intermediate
in the anonymouscondition(M = 7.0 SD =
2.9), andhighestin theexposurethreatcondition(M= 8.3,
SD = 3.0).
Onaverage,the 50 participants
whorespondedto questionsaboutthe boguspipelineratedit as fairlyaccuratein
measuringtrueattitudesandfeelings(M = 3.7, SD = 0.9)
andas somewhatlikely to influencetheirresponses(M =
2.4, SD = 1.4)andto pressurethemto be honest(M= 2.6,
SD = 1.4).A multivariate
analysisof variance(MANOVA)
donewiththesethreeitemsrevealedno significanteffects
for conditionor participant
sex andno significantinteractions, Fs < l. Takentogether,these manipulation
checks
indicate that the bogus pipeline encouraged honest
respondingby participants.

Sexualexperienceandbehavaor.
The2 X 3 ANOVAon
the overallscoreof the sexualexperiencesscale yielded
no significanteffects Fs < 2. Resultson the composite
scoreof gender-role-relevant
sexualbehaviors(i.e., masturbation,exposure to hardcoreand softcore erotica3
yielded a significantinteractionbetweenparticipantsex
andtestingcondition,F(2, 192) = 3.2, p = .04, 2 = .032.
Plannedcomparisonsrevealedthat althoughtherewere
significantsex differences(with men scoringhigher)in
all threeconditions,the differenceswere muchlargerin
the exposurethreatcondition,F(1 86) = 49.33,p < .001,
2 = .365, than in the anonymouscondition,F(1,58) =
13.46,p - .001, 2 = .188, or the pipelinecondition,F(l
49) = 4.96, p = .03 2 = .094. An analysisof simple
effectsfurtherindicatedno significantdifferencesamong
the menas a functionof testingcondition,Fs < 2. Among
the women,howeverS
thosein thepipelinecondition,F(1
SexualAttitudesand Behaviors
68) = 21.16,p < .01, andin theanonymouscondition,Ff 1,
To ensurethatthe counterbalancing
procedurecontrolled 78) - 8.23, p < .01, reportedengagingin significantly
forpotentialeffectsof experimenter
sex andtaskorder,we
moreof these behaviorsthandid those in the exposure
first analyzedparticipants'
responsesusing a series of 2
threatcondition(see Figure1).
(Participant Sex) X 3 (Testing Condition) X 2
Numberof sexualpartners.The two-wayANOVAon
(ExperimenterSex) X 2 (Order of Survey/Video self-reportsof the numberof sexualpartnersyieldedno
Presentation)between-subjectsANOVAs. Experimenter significanteffects,F < 1, but the datadid stronglyfavor
sex andtaskorderdidnotaffectresponses;thusfurtherdisthe predictedpattern(see Figure2). Thatis, menreported
cussionof theresultsarerestricted
to 2 (Participant
Sex) X
more sexual partnersthan did women in the exposure
3 (TestingCondition)ANOVAs.The responsemeansfor
threatcondition(3.7 vs. 2.6, 2 = .03), where gender
sexualattitudesandexperiencesarepresentedin Tablel.
expectationsare most salient.The magnitudeof the sex
Sexualattitudes.For the Sexual OpinionSurvey,the
differencedecreasedin the anonymitycondition(4.2 vs.
ANOVAyieldeda significantmaineffect for participant 3.4, 2 = .0l), andthe directionof the differenceactually
sex witha moderateeffectsize,F(1, 194)- 10.69,p= .001
reversedin theboguspipelinecondition,withmenreport2 = .052, withmen(M= 71.7,SD = 21.1)reporting
greater ing fewerpartnersthanwomen(4.0 vs. 4.4 2 = .00l).
erotophiliathanwomen(M= 60.0, SD = 23.8).Therewas
Age offirst intercourse.
A two-wayANOVAon particialsoa maineffectfortestingcondition,F(2, 194)= 3.37,p
pants'reportsof the age of theirfirstintercourse
indicated
= .036, qS = .034, with participants
in the boguspipeline
no maineffectsof sex of participant
ortestingcondition,Fs
condition(M= 71.2,SD = 22.6)reportingmoreerotophilic < 1,butdidyielda signif1cant
interaction,
F(2 142)= 4.72,
attitudesthanparticipants
in the exposurethreatcondition p = .0l, 2 =.062 (see Figure3). Plannedcomparisons
(M= 60.9, SD = 21.8). No significantinteraction
between
revealedno sex differencebetweenreportedage of first
participant
sex andtestingconditionemerged(F < 1). The
intercourse
in the pipelinecondition,F(1 35) = 0.08, p =
2 X 3 ANOVAforscoreson theAttitudes
TowardSexuality
.77. Intheanonymous
conditionhowever,womenreported
Scalerevealedno significaneffects(Fs < 2).
a significantlyearlierage of firstintercourse
thandidmen
Table1. Meansand StandardDeviationsfor SexualAttitudesand Behaviorsby ParticipantSex and TestingCondition
Testingcondition
Instrument

Participantsex

Pipeline

Anonymous

Exposurethreat

Sexual Opinion Surveya

Male
Female

74.7 ( 17.8)
66.6 (27.2)

73.0 (22.8)
64.1 (25.5)

68.7 (21.8)
54.0 (19.6)

AttitudesTowardSexualityb

Male
Female

43.7(8.5)
42.3 (9.3)

43.9(8.6)
43.6 (11.4)

40.1 (10.0)
41.9 (8.6)

Sexual ExperienceC

Male
Female

21.3 (9 5)
20.6 (7.1)

22.0 (6.3)
19.0 (8.8)

19.0 (9 2)
18.5 (7.9)

Note. The ns forthe bogus pipeline, anonymous, and exposure threatconditions, respectively,were 29, 28, and 42 for men and 22 33, and 47 for
women.
aSexualOpinion Survey scores can range from 0 to 126; higher scores reflect more positive emotional reactionsto sexuality. bAttitudesToward
Sexuality Scale scores can range from 13 to 65; higher scores reflect more permissive sexual attitudes. CSexualExperienceScale scores can range
from 0 to 30; higher scores reflect a broaderrange of sexual experience.

Females

32

Sex Differences in Self"ReportedSexuality

Figure1. Meancompositescorefor autonomoussexual

behaviorsas a functionof participantsex and
testingcondition.
54
o
u
cn

3.0

54
tn
o

2.0

o
v

l.0

0.O

+2.32

_2

I
Pipeline

Males

I
Anonymous

Testing

Exposure
Threat

Condition

F(1, 43) = 6.02,p = .018, indicatinga reversedpatternof

typicalself-reportresearch.In the exposurethreatcondition, men reportedan earlierage of firstintercoursethan
didwomen althoughthedifferencedidnotquitereachsignificance,F(1, 64) = 3.17, p = .08. The effect of testing
conditionwas significantforthewomen,F(2, 75) = 3.92,p
= .024,2 = .095, butnotforffiemen,F < 2.
DISCUSSION
Thoughnot as clear as we had expected,the patternof
resultsgenerallysupportedthe idea thatmen andwomen
usegender-specific
self-presentation
strategies
whenreporting theirsexualbehaviors.Sex diSerencesweregreatestin
the exposureffireatcondition,which encouragedgender
role accommodation,and were smallest in the bogus
pipeline condition, which discouraged stereotypical
responsesandencouraged
honestresponding
instead.These
findingssuggestthatsome sex differencesfoundby sex
researchers
mayreflectfilse accommodation
to genderrole
normswhenreportingsexuality,particularly
on the partof
women.Thispatternwas moreapparent
for self-reports
of
Figure2. Meannumberof sexualpartnersas a functionof
participant
sexandtestingcondition.

sexualbehaviorsthanof attitudestowardsexuality.
Theresultswereclearestfor autonomous
sexualbehaviors (i.e., masturbation,
exposureto hardcore& softcore
erotica),whichareconsideredmoreappropriate
for males
thanfemales.Typicalsex differences,withmorementhan
womenreportinghavingengagedin thesebehaviors,were
foundin the exposurethreatcondition.Thesesex differences were smallerin the anonymousconditionandeven
more diminished in the bogus pipeline condition.
Participantsreportsof the age of theirfirst consensual
intercoursealso significantlydifferedby sex and testing
condition,with almostno sex differencesevidentin the
boguspipelineconditionanda typicalsex differencewith
menreportinga 6-monthyoungerage thanwomenin the
exposurethreatcondition(althoughnot quitesignificant).
Surprisingly,
womenreportedan earlierage thanmen in
the anonymouscondition.
Sex difiSerences
in self-reportsof the numberof sexual
partnersalso showedthe predictedtrend,althoughit was
not significant.The sex differencewas greatestin the
exposurethreatcondition,whichencouragedgenderrole
accommodation,
and decreasedin the anonymouscondition. In the boguspipelinecondition,which encouraged
honestyratherthan social desirability,women actually
reportedmoresexualpartnersthandid men.Thispattern
shouldbe interpreted
cautiouslybecausethe overallinteractionbetweenparticipant
sex andtestingconditionwas
not significant.Nonetheless the trendis intriguingand
mayhelpexplainwhy heterosexual
malesreporta greater
numberof sexualpartnersthando heterosexualfemales
(Wiederman,
1997).
Women'sreportsof sexualexperiencesfluctuatedmore
thandidmen'sas a functionof testingcondition.Thisis not
altogethersurprising,given the differentexpectationsfor
the sexesregardingsexualbehavior,withmoreconstraints
placed on women (Schwartz& Rutter,1998). Gender
expectationsconsistentwith the sexual double standard
maybe responsiblefor heighteningwomen'ssensitivityto
Figure3. Meanage of fiIrstconsensualsexualintercourse
as a functionof participantsex and testing
conc1;lon.
*

4.4
-

u)4

>.

17

3.7

* J

_ 17

17
+

Males

Females

<

t:n
x

16 . 5_

o
Q

Anonymous

Exposure
Threat

w
-

-{1

-* 16.2

5.8

15.5
1W

Pipeline

wi16.8

16.t/-5j

16

cr)

rl

Pipeline

Anonyrnous Exposure
Threat

ss

Testing

Condition

Testing

Cc:ndition

+Males
__ Females

Alexander and Fisher

33

thedegreeof pnvacyor pressureto respondhonestlymore

so thanmen's,especiallyin the exposurethreatcondition.
Menhavea historyof enjoyingandexpressingsexualfreeandliberation,andthereforemaybe more
dom,autonomy7
thanwomenexpressingtheirsexualityon selfcomfortable
reportmeasures.Becausemendo not face the samenegative consequencesfor expressingtheir sexualityas do
women,theymaynot experiencethe needto inhibitthese
responsesto the samedegree.
The lack of significanteffects of testingconditionon
sex differencesin erotophiliaandsexualattitudesis interestingandrequiresfurtherexplanation,in lightof someof
the significantfindingsrelatedto behavior.Oneplausible
explanationis thatreportsof sexualattitudesandopinions
arenot as influencedby normativeexpectationsfor men
andwomenas arereportsof sexualbehaviors.Thiswould
accountfor fluctuationsfoundin self-reportedbehavior
but not attitudesacrosstestingconditions.A secondposwomen,
sible explanationis thatindividuals,particularly
experiencemoreconstraintsplacedon theirsexualbehaviors than on their sexual attitudes,which may pressure
themto falsely accommodateto behavioralnormsmore
so than to attitudinalnormsfor sexuality.Thus, sexual
behaviorsmay be moresusceptibleto social desirability
strategiesthanaresexurespondingandself-presentation
al attitudes.If this is the case, findingson sex differences
in self-reportedsexualattitudesmay indicatereal differences between the sexes whereasthe typical patterns
sexualbehaviormaynot accurately
foundin self-reported
reflecttruesex differences.
[t is well knownthatresponsebiascanweakenthecredibilityandvalidityof findingsobtainedwiththetraditional
survey approach(Catania,Gibson, Marin, Coates, &
1990).As the presentstudysuggests,self-preGreenblatt7
sentationstrategiesrelevantto genderrole norms also
affect self-reportsof sexual behavior.Much of the data
reportedon sexualityarecollectedin settingsmoresimilar
to our exposurethreatconditionthan either the bogus
pipeline or the anonymousconditions. Thus, in sex
researchbased on self-reports,sex differencesmay be
to genderrole
exaggerateddue to false accommodation
ideasof
norms.Thesedifferencesmayreflectrespondents'
whatthey are expectedto reportratherthantheiractual
expenence.Althoughit is not practicalto use the bogus
pipelinetechniquein all sex research,ourresultsillustrate
to do everythingpossibleto minithe needfor researchers
responsesaretainted
mize the likelihoodthatparticipants'
by socialexpectations.
interestedin usingtheboguspipeline
Futureresearchers
aware
of a potentialweaknessin our
be
should
method
procedurestemmingfroman attemptto controlfor confoundsbetweenthe bogus pipelineand the anonymous
in our anonymousconconditions.Althoughparticipants
ditionwerenot attachedto the boguspipelinewhilecom-

task (althoughhalf of the time this occurredafterthe sex

surveyhadbeencompleted).Theanonymousconditionwe
designed was thereforeunlike that used by most sex
researchers.
Latelytherehas been heateddebateregardingthe origins of sex differencesin sexual behaviorand attitudes
(see Eagly& Wood,1999;Pratto& Hegarty,2000;Wood
prevalentin
2002),withtwodistinctexplanations
& EaglyX
the psychologicalliterature.Evolutionarypsychologists
sex differencesto theevolveddispositionsof men
attribute
andwomen,with differentialpatternsof sexualbehavior
developingovertime due to theirlikelihoodof maximizing reproductivesuccess (Buss, 1998; Buss & Schmidt,
1993; Symons, 1979). In contrast,social role theorists
(Eagly,1987) suggestthatsex differencesin socialbehavior mirrorgenderroles and stereotypes,which originate
of men andwomeninto
fromthe differentialdistribution
socialrolesin domesticandpaidlabor.Thus,evolutionary
whereassocialrolethetheoristsfavordistalexplanations
orists favor proximalexplanations.Althoughour study
does not directlyaddressthe originsof sex differencesin
sexuality,it does suggestthatreportsof sex differences
mayreflectconformityto normative
basedon self-reports
expectationsfor menandwomenratherthanactualdifferencesin behavior.Whenthe impactof normativeexpectations for men and womenwas mutedby pressureto be
honest in the bogus pipelinecondition,sex differences
were minimized.When existing gendernorms seemed
to use, as in the exposurethreatcondimost appropriate
to gender
tion, men'sandwomen'sreportscorresponded
rolenormsfor sexualitymoreclosely,withmenreporting
seemed
moresexualexperiencesthanwomen.Participants
to meetthedemandsof the
to altertheirself-presentations
testingcondition,which lends supportto the social role
perspectivethat sex differencesin sexualitystem from
norrnativepressuresthat designate
gender-differentiated
menas moresexualthanwomen.
Inclosing,onereasonthattheresultsarenotas strongas
we hadhopedis thattheverysexdifferencesthatwe sought
robust.Maineffectsof parto explainwerenotparticularly
ticipantsex were evidentonly on the 3-itemcomposite
measureof sexualexperienceandtheerotophilia-erotophobia measure.No sex differences,for example,werefound
on theAttitudesTowardSexualityScale,a measurethathas
consistentlyyieldedsex differencesin the past (Fisher&
Hall, 1988).This overalllack of sex differencefindings
mayindicatea broadershiftin genderrolenormswhichhas
formen'sandwomen'sattitudesandbehavior.
implications
Severalrecentsexualitysurveyshavefoundno sex differsexualbehavior(Browning,Kessler,
encesin self-reported
Hatfield,& Choo,1999),incidenceof casualsexualinterHerold,& Mewhinney,1998;
actions(Maticka-Tyndale,
Paul,McManus,& Hayes,2000), numberof sexualpartnersin the pastyear(Brown& Sinclair,1999),or desired

pleting the sex survey?they had been made aware of the

experimenter'sdesire to obtain honest responses by being
attachedto the pipeline while completing the video filler

numberof lifetime sexual partners(Pedersenet al., 2002).

The lack of sex differences in these studies and in our
analysis may reflect currently shifting gender roles and

in Self-ReportedSexuality
Differences
Sex
34

and
subsequentimpacton normativeexpectations
their
somewhat
is
trend
of sexual behavior.This
expressions
Eagly& Wood's(1999)findingthatsex difto
analogous
in
in mate-selectionpreferencesare minimized
ferences
given
a
As
with high levels of genderequality.
societies
in
advancestowardgenderequality,differences
society
difsex
role expectationsmaydiminish,rendering
gender
of sexualityobsolete.
in self-reports
ferences
REFERENCES
Is therea gender
R. F., Catanese,K. R., & Vohs,K. D. (2001).
Baumeister,
conceptualdisviews,
in strengthof sex drive?Theoretical
difference
and Social
Personality
evidence.
relevant
of
review
tinctions,and a
Review,5, 242-273.
Psychology
want?GenderdifR. F., & Sommer,K. L. (1997).Whatdo men
Baumeister,
on Crossand
Comment
belongingness:
of
ferencesandthe two spheres
Madson.PsychologicalBulletin,122, 3844.
sexualpartners:
N. R., & Sinclair,R. C. (1999).Estimatinglifetime Research,36,
Brown,
Sex
of
Journal
Men and women do it differently.The
292-297.
(1999). Power,genJ. R., Kessler,D., Hatfield,E., & Choo, P.
Browning,
36, 342-347.
Research,
Sex
of
Journal
The
behavior.
der,andsexual
andcurrent
origins
Historical
theory:
D. M. (1998). Sexualstrategies
Buss,
19-31.
35,
Research,
Sex
of
Journal
status.The
theory:An evoluD. M., & Schmidt,D. P. (1993). Sexualstrategies Review, 100,
Buss,
Psychological
tionary perspectiveon human mating.
204-232.
& Greenblatt,R. M.
J., Gibson,D. R., Marin,B., Coates,T. J.,
Catania,
relevantto HIV
behaviors
sexual
assessing
in
bias
(1990). Response
19-29.
13,
Planning,
transmission.Evaluationand Program
imagesof occupaM. A., & Eagly,A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypicPersonalityand
Cejka,
employment.
of
tions correspondto sex segregation
SocialPsychologyBulletin,25, 413423.
in receptivityto sexuR., & Hatfield,E. (1989). Genderdifferences
Clark,
2, 39-55.
Sexuality,
al offers.Journalof Psychologyand Human
sciences(2nd
behavioral
the
for
analysis
power
J. (1988).Statistical
Cohen,
ed.). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
sexualintercoursein a
L. L., & Shotland,R. (1996). Timingof first
Cohen,
of others.The
perceptions
and
relationship:Expectations,experiences,
Jouznalof Sex Research,33, 291-299.
Scale of
D., & Pollack,R. H. (1988). The Cowart-Pollack (Eds.),
Cowart-Steckler,
Davis
L.
S.
&
Yarber,
SexualExperience.In C. M. Davis, W. L.
(pp. 9192). LakeMills, IA:
Sexualityrelatedmeasures:a compendium
GraphicPublishing.
A social role interA. H. (1987). Sex differencesin social behavior:
Eagly,
pretation.Hillside,NJ:Erlbaum.
sex differencesin human
A. H., & Wood,W. (1999). The originsof
Eagly,
roles. American
social
versus
behavior: Evolved dispositions
408-423.
54,
Psychologist,
Social role theoryof sex
A. H., Wood,W., & Diekman,A. (2000).
Eagly,
In T. Eckes & H. M.
appraisal.
differencesand similarities:A current
of gender (pp.
psychology
social
developmental
The
Trautner(Eds.),
123-174). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
F. (1999). Adolescentfemales:
Elo,I. T., King, R. B., & Furstenberg,F.
of their children.Journal of
fathers
the
Their sexual partnersand
Marriage& Family,61,74-84.
thecomparisonof sexualattiFisher,T. D., & Hall,R. G. (1988).A scalefor Journalof Sex Research,24,
The
tudesof adolescentsandtheirparents.
9s100.
Emotionalbarriersto conFisher,W.A., Byrne,D., & White,L. A. (1983). Adolescents,sex, andcontraception.InD. Byrne& W.A. Fisher(Eds.),
traception(pp. 207-239). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum. and "hers"types of
there"his"
Gabriel,A., & Gardner,W. L. (1999). Are
differencesin collective
gender
of
implications
The
interdependence?
and cognition.
behavior
affect,
for
versus relationalinterdependence
642-655.
77,
Psychology,
Journalof Personalityand Social
The influenceof numberof
Gentry,M. (1998).The sexualdoublestandard:
judgmentsof women and
on
activity
sexual
of
relationshipsand level
505-511.
22,
men.Psychology of WomenQuarterly,

discrimination
sex-based
and in occupational
Trait-based
P.(1991).
Glick,
25, 351-378.
Roles,
Sex
hiring.
occupationalsalary,and
prestige,
Foote, F. H. (1985).
&
J.,
M.
Slapion-Foote,
C.,
Hendrick,
S.,
Hendrick,
andSocial
differencesin sexualattitudes.Journalof Personality
Gender
48, 1630-1642.
Psychology,
in sexuality:Results
J. S., & Oliver,M. B. (2000). Genderdifference (Eds.), Sexuality,
Hyde,
White
W.
J.
&
a meta-analysis.In C. B. Tavris
from
Washington, DC: American
society,and feminism (pp. 57-77).
Association.
Psychological
A new paradigmfor
E. E., & Sigall, H. (1971). The bogus pipeline: 76, 349-364.
Jones,
Bulletin,
Psychological
affectandattitude.
measuring
frequencyof sexual
J. C., & Barlow,D. H. (1990). Self-reported
Jones,
males and
heterosexual
in
fantasies
masturbatory
urges,fantasies,and
269-279.
19,
Archivesof SexualBehavior,
females.
J. S. (1996).
D. T., Gabrielidis,C., Keefe, R. C., & Cornelius,for an evoluKenrick,
Support
partners:
dating
age preferencesfor
Adolescents'
Child Development, 67,
tionarymodel of life-history strategies.
1499-1511.
S. (1994). The
E. O., Gagnon,J. H., Michael,R. T., & Michaels, UnitedStates.
Laumann,
in the
practices
Sexual
sexuality:
of
socialorganization
Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
in sexual desire:
S. R. (2002). Reconsideringgenderdifferences
Leiblum,
57-68.
17,
Therapy,
Anupdate.Sexualand Relationship
Psychological
H., & Henning, K. (1995). Sexual fantasy.
Leitenberg,
Bulletin,117, 469-496.
Humansexuality
W.H., Johnson,V. E., & Kolodny,R. C. (1995).
Masters,
Collins.
(Sthed.). New York:Harper
Casualsex on
E., Herold,E. S., & Mewhinney,D. (1998).
Maticka-Tyndale,
The
students.
Canadian
of
behaviors
and
spring break: Intentions
Journalof Sex Research,35, 254-264.
Paulhus,D. L. (1998).
C. M., Heiman,J. R., Trapnell,P. D., &
Meston,
TheJournalof
self-reports.
sexuality
Sociallydesirablerespondingand
SexResearch,35, 148-157.
the sexual
R. R., & Herold,E. S. (2001). Reconceptualizing
Milhausen,
13,
Sexuality,
Human
and
double standard.Journal of Psychology
63-83,
differencesin sexual
P., & Shackelford,T. K. (2001). Humansex
Okami,
12, 18S241.
Research,
Sex
of
Review
Annual
behavior.
psychologyand
sexuality:A
in
differences
Gender
M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993).
Oliver,
29-51.
meta-analysis.PsychologicalBulletin,114,
new ignis fatuus?
T. M. (1973). The bogus pipeline: A
Ostrom,
79,252-259.
Bulletin,
Psychological
Characteristics
E. L., McManus,B., & Hayes,A. (2000). "Hookups":
Paul,
and anonymoussexual
spontaneous
students'
college
of
correlates
and
37, 7S88.
experiences.TheJournalof Sex Research,
A., & Yang,Y. (2002).
W. C., Miller,L. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula,
Pedersen,
desired?The long and
partners
of
number
the
in
differences
Evolvedsex
157-161.
13,
shortof it. PsychologicalScience,
of reproductive
F., & Hegarty,P. (2000). The politicalpsychology
Pratto,
2.
4
57
11,
Science,
strategies.Psychological
Twentyyears of bogus pipeline
Roese,N. J., & Jamieson,D. W. (1993).
PsychologicalBulletin,
meta-analysis.
and
review
critical
research:A
114, 363-375.
datingscripts.
contemporary
Rose,S., & Frieze,I. H. (1993).Youngsingles'
SexRoles, 28, 499-509.
The reallyfundamentalattriSabini,J., Siepmann,M., & Stein,J. (2001). PsychologicalInquiry,12,
research.
psychological
social
in
butionerror
1-15.
of sexuality.ThousandOaks,
Schwartz,P., & Rutter,V. (1998). Thegender
CA:Pine ForgePress.
Women's"tokenresistant"and
Shotland,R. L., & Hunter,B. A. (1995).
uncertainsexualintentionsand
to
related
are
behaviors
sexual
compliant
Bulletin,21, 226-236.
Psychology
Social
rape.Personalityand
andwomenin reportingnummen
between
Discrepancies
1992).
(
T.
Smith,
countries.Social Biology,
four
from
summary
A
partners:
berof sexual
39, 203-211.
L. (1987). Has the doublestanSprecher,S., McKinney,K., & Orbuch,T. Social PsychologyQuarterly,
test.
experimental
An
darddisappeared?
50, 24-3 1.
homogeneousversionsof the
Strahan,R., & Gerbasi,K. C. (1972). Short, Scale. Journal of Clinical
Desirability
Social
Crowne
Marlowe
Psychology,28, 191193.

Alexanderand Fisher
Symons,D. (1979). Theevolutionof humansexuality.New York:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Tourangeau,R., Smith, T. W., & Rasinski,K. A. (1997). Motivationto
reportsensitivebehaviorson surveys:Evidencefrom a bogus pipeline
experiment.Journalof AppliedSocial Psychology,27, 209-222.
Wiederman,M. W. (1997). The truth must be in here somewhere:
Examiningthe genderdiscrepancyin self-reportedlifetime numberof
sex partners.TheJournalof Sex Research,34, 375-386.

35

Wood, W., Christensen,P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber,H. (1997).

Conformityto sex-typednorms,affect,andthe self-concept.Journalof
Personalityand Social Psychology,735523-535.
Wood,W., & Eagly,A. H. (2002).A cross-culturalanalysisof the behavior
of women and men: Implicationsfor the origins of sex differences.
PsychologicalBulletin,128, 599-727.
ManuscriptacceptedDecember 16, 2002