The impact of personal gender-typicality and partner gender-traditionality on taking sexual initiative: Investigating a social tuning hypothesis

5Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Sexual assertiveness is an issue of interest in the context of gender equality and sexual health. This study investigated the social tuning hypothesis that encountering a gender-traditional partner would lead to stronger gender-typical behavior, i.e., respectively, higher and lower levels of taking sexual initiative among men and women. Participants (N = 271) read a vignette describing a romantic partner, who was either presented as gender-traditional or not, followed by a sexual scenario. Subsequently, participants were asked about their expectations toward their own sexual initiative taking. Results showed a significant 'target gender-traditionality × participant gender × participant gender-typicality (masculinity/femininity)' interaction meaning that less gender-typical men were more likely to initiate sexual contact in the experimental, compared to the control condition. Men low in masculine characteristics showed higher initiative taking in response to a gender-traditional target female. We conclude that less gender-typical men seem to employ more social tuning toward their sexual partner, whereas more gender-typical men seem to adhere to their gender-typical behavior regardless of perceived partner characteristics. These results were not seen among the women in the sample. These findings are a starting point for the further development of experimental investigations regarding the gendered nature of both sexual initiative taking and sexual assertiveness in general.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Emmerink, P. M. J., Van Den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Ter Bogt, T. F. M., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2017). The impact of personal gender-typicality and partner gender-traditionality on taking sexual initiative: Investigating a social tuning hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(FEB). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00107

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free