Attachment Theory and the Sexual Double Standard

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between adults’ attachment orientation and their exhibition of the sexual double standard. According to attachment theory, adults who score higher on measures of anxious attachment are more clingy, jealous, and fearful of abandonment. Those who are more avoidant are distrustful and uncomfortable with intimacy. The sexual double standard is the belief that men are rewarded for sexual activity while women are derogated for the same activity. Participants read about a male or female who has had either 12 sexual partners or 1 sexual partner. They then evaluated the person’s popularity, success, intelligence, and values. Although this study did not find evidence of the double standard, results indicated that women who are insecurely attached to their mothers judge men with more partners more harshly than men with fewer partners, and men who are anxiously attached to their romantic partners judge men with more sexual partners more harshly than men with fewer sexual partners. ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 3 Attachment Theory and the Sexual Double Standard When asked, most adults in Western society could quickly describe an incident, either from their own lives or from the media, in which a man is rewarded for his sexual experience. College students can recall young men bragging to one another about a young woman with whom they have had sex, often exaggerating the story. Just as easily, someone can describe the other side of the story: society’s reactions to the woman’s behavior. Across campus, the woman’s friends are calling her a slut behind her back. It is a familiar tale. The sexual double standard is the widespread belief that men are rewarded for sexual activity while women are derogated for the same activity (Greene & Faulkner, 2005; Marks, 2008). It is a popularly held notion that has been replicated in empirical research using experimental conditions that resemble real-life situations in which people judge others (e.g., Marks, 2005). For instance, the sexual double standard was exhibited in one study when participants performed an additional cognitive task (rehearsing a series of numbers) while reading about a target male or female who had varied numbers of sexual partners (Marks, 2008). The cognitive task served as a distraction similar to those that people encounter in the environment when forming first impressions of real individuals. When distracted, people often use shortcuts when evaluating others because their attention is divided. They may take small bits of information about a person, such as his or her sexual activity, and use it to make assumptions about the person (Marks, 2008). The sexual double standard is also visible when sexual behaviors are less common and more taboo, such as threesomes (a type of group sex involving three people). Jonason and Marks (2009) manipulated the gender of a target individual and the type of threesome in which the target engaged based upon the genders of the other people involved. Overall, women who ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 4 participated in threesomes were evaluated more negatively than men who participated in threesomes. The same paradigm, when used with monogamous sexual activity instead of threesomes, did not reveal the sexual double standard. Results also showed that men tended to positively evaluate men who were in a threesome with two women, but negatively evaluate men whose threesome included another man, suggesting that homophobia may be a factor in judgment (Jonason & Marks, 2009). People also are more likely to exhibit the sexual double standard when they are asked to make their judgments in a group setting with other individuals. Marks and Fraley (2007) asked participants to evaluate a target individually and then assigned the participants to three-person, same-sex focus groups. The groups came to a consensus on evaluative statements to describe the target. While the sexual double standard did not emerge with the individual target evaluations, it was evident in group evaluations. Notably, the group dynamics did not have a significant impact in the values domain, which represents a person’s perception of the target’s morality. It is possible that people hold their own deep moral convictions independently and they are less susceptible to others’ influence in this domain. The group context did have an impact on participants’ evaluation of targets’ dominance, success, and intelligence. Specifically, highly sexual men were evaluated more favorably than highly sexual women. When participants were asked to evaluate the targets individually after the group evaluation, the group opinion influenced their individual responses, meaning that participants exhibited the sexual double standard (Marks & Fraley, 2007). The finding of a double standard in only one or two evaluative domains is common. Gentry (1998) found that while women were not considered promiscuous if they had many sex partners, they were judged to be more liberal and assertive than average women. In other words, ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 5 information about a target’s sexual activity appears to influence judgments in domains that are not directly related to morality. For instance, the sexual double standard has been found in the domains of dominance (Marks & Fraley, 2005; Marks & Fraley, 2007), intelligence (Marks & Fraley, 2005; Marks & Fraley, 2007), and success (Marks & Fraley, 2007). Dominance and success refer to a person’s ability to earn money, be a leader, and influence others. An intelligent person is considered to be a high achiever who makes few mistakes. In contrast, someone rated highly on values is considered to be honest, trustworthy, and respected (Marks & Fraley, 2005). These previous studies indicate that judgments of others are not simply positive or negative, but rather more nuanced. Because belief in the sexual double standard is so common (Marks & Fraley, 2005), there may be an underlying, pervasive reason for a belief in its existence. Marks and Fraley (2006) suggest that confirmation bias plays a role. Confirmation bias is the tendency to notice evidence that is consistent with a person’s expectations while ignoring evidence that is inconsistent with expectations. People who believe that the sexual double standard exists might pay attention to situations in which men are praised for sexual behavior and/or women are derogated for it. They will also be less likely to remember situations that did not fit the sexual double standard. To investigate this possibility, Marks and Fraley (2006) presented participants with a journal entry from a target person in which the target wrote about his or her sexual behavior. Each entry contained ten comments from other people in the target’s life: five positive comments and five negative comments. As hypothesized, participants remembered more positive comments about men’s sexual experience and more negative comments about women’s sexual experience, even though both types of comments were presented equally. These results are consistent with the sexual double standard (Marks & Fraley, 2006). ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 6 To date, research has not come to a conclusion on whether or not the sexual double standard is really as pervasive as popular belief dictates. It is a relatively new and specific area of research. Some studies have found no support for it (Marks & Fraley, 2005). However, when experimental conditions are made to resemble real-life scenarios in which people judge others, several studies have found evidence of the sexual double standard (Jonason & Marks, 2009; Marks & Fraley, 2005; Marks & Fraley, 2006; Marks & Fraley, 2007). Importantly, little to no research has examined individual differences in the exhibition of the double standard—the purpose of the proposed study. More specifically, it seems reasonable to assume that not every male or female exhibits the double standard to the same degree and that characteristics of people, such as their personality traits, may play a role in their judgments of others’ sexual activities. One personality trait that may impact whether one exhibits the sexual double standard is attachment orientation. An Overview of Adult Romantic Attachment Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973) posits that children develop consistent ways of interacting with their primary caregiver based on how this caregiver treats them. Bowlby defines attachment behavior as “any form of behavior that results in a person attaining or retaining proximity to some other differentiated and preferred individual, usually conceived as stronger and/or wiser” (Bowlby, 1973, p. 292). The preferred individual is often the mother. Ainsworth and colleagues (1978) observed attachment behavior in infants by examining their reactions to their mothers’ departures and subsequent returns. The researchers then divided the children’s behavior into three categories: secure, avoidant, or anxious-ambivalent. Infants who explored their world and used their parents as a safe base were labeled as securely attached. It was hypothesized that infants develop this form of security when parents are attentive to their needs. ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 7 Avoidant infants detached from caregivers. This detachment may be caused by caregivers who typically do not have much contact with the infant and can be hostile. Anxious-ambivalent infants cried and clung to their caregivers when their caregivers left and exhibited anger when they returned, possibly as a result of inconsistent care. It was hypothesized that these infants did not know whether or not the attachment figure would respond to their needs (Ainsworth et al., 1978). After Bowlby and Ainsworth paved the way for attachment theory, researchers began to apply attachment theory to adult romantic relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Researchers noted similarities between infant-caregiver attachment and adult romantic relationships. For instance, adults who are confident in their relationships will use their partner as a source of comfort when going through a tough time, similar to infants who use their mother as a safe base. Other adults are unusually clingy or distant in a relationship. According to attachment theory, early attachment experiences do influence adult romantic relationships (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). Hazan and Shaver (1987) theorized that adults exhibit secure, avoidant, and ambivalent attachment styles just like infants do. Adults’ early attachment relationships provide the basis for their working models of relationships, which then affect their behavior and how they expect their romantic partners to behave (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). Currently, researchers conceptualize adult attachment on a continuum. One variable is attachment-related anxiety. A high anxiety score suggests that the person will cling to their partner, need intimacy, and doubt that their partner loves and supports them (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). The other variable is attachment-related avoidance. High avoidance scores indicate people’s reluctance to be close to their partners, trust them, or rely on them. An individual who is low on both dimensions will be trusting, comfortable with relying on a partner ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 8 for some aspects of life, and confident in the relationship. Research suggests that these variables are fairly stable throughout an adult’s life, even in different close relationships, such as those with parents or best friends (Fraley & Waller, 1998). Even when faced with the same situation in a relationship, different people will view the situation differently based on their attachment orientation. For example, an insecure (highly anxious or highly avoidant) individual is likely to take his or her partner’s casual mention of an ex as evidence that the partner is cheating. Others would not view it as a threat. In other words, working models of relationships dictate how people will interpret situations that arise (Simpson, 1990). They also influence a person’s response to a situation. Vicary and Fraley (2007) presented participants with a Choose Your Own Adventure story about a relationship in which participants were led to believe that their responses were influencing the course of their fictional relationship. Highly insecure individuals made choices throughout the fictional relationship that demonstrated mistrust in the partner and that were detrimental to the relationship, suggesting that they behave in response to their preconceived notions. In other words, if they believe that a relationship will go badly, they will behave in a manner that causes it to go badly. Even when the partner in the story always responded positively, insecure individuals continued to behave in ways that undermined the relationship (Vicary & Fraley, 2007). The types of choices that undermine a relationship differ according to a person’s attachment orientation. Jealousy is a prominent characteristic of anxious individuals. Their fear of abandonment and need for close physical proximity causes them to be nervous when their partners are out of their sight. For these people, excessive monitoring of a partner’s activities can damage the relationship (Vicary & Fraley, 2007). For instance, in Vicary & Fraley’s Choose Your Own Adventure study (2007), participants were presented with scenarios in which the ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 9 fictional partner insisted that his or her interaction with another person was not a threat to the relationship with the participant. Participants could choose to accept their partners’ explanation or to continue to worry. Although individuals high in anxiety were more likely to choose a negative course of action, when given the same choices, avoidant individuals were more likely to accept their partners’ explanation for interacting with another person. The study showed that individuals high in avoidance still affect their relationships in negative ways, however, by not meeting their partner’s emotional needs, spending enough quality time with their partner, or sharing their inner thoughts with their partner (Vicary & Fraley, 2007). In sum, the dynamics of adult romantic relationships exist on a spectrum of attachment. Some people are particularly private, aloof, and distant. They would be considered highly avoidant. Highly anxious individuals are likely to be jealous and to need frequent reassurance of their partner’s love for them. Alternatively, an individual might be low on both dimensions, indicating a healthy degree of attachment (Fraley, 2010). Importantly, people can have a different attachment orientation for different people in their lives (Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011) and one’s attachment orientation influences the interpretations and decisions they make regarding romantic relationships (Vicary & Fraley, 2007). The Sexual Double Standard and Adult Romantic Attachment Given that individual differences in attachment can affect one’s evaluation of a situation and factors related to romantic relationship functioning, it is plausible that attachment orientation affects how strongly people ascribe to the sexual double standard. In other words, people’s working models of attachment (sets of expectations based on important past relationships) may relate to how they view others’ sexual activities. Additionally, romantic attachment appears to play a larger role in the development of first impressions than does parental attachment, ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 10 suggesting that romantic attachment may be the more reliable predictor of a person’s judgment of others’ sexual activity (Brumbaugh & Fraley, 2007). The sex lives and motives of highly anxious people tend to be complicated. They often use sex as a tool to influence their partners’ emotions and behavior, especially when they feel that their relationships are threatened. During sex, they frequently acquiesce to a partner’s wishes, ignoring their own desires in hopes of satisfying their partner and maintaining the relationship (Birnbaum, 2010). Their communication skills are weaker than those of their more securely attached peers (Greene & Faulkner, 2005). Some evidence suggests that people who are insecurely attached in general are more accepting of casual sex. However, other research has found that anxiously attached people tend to disapprove of sex outside of a committed relationship (Brassard, Shaver, & Lussier, 2007). One possible explanation for this finding is jealousy. Evolutionary theory posits that men have evolved to be concerned about the number of partners a woman has because paternity is always uncertain, and they may accidentally invest resources in other men’s children rather than perpetuating their own lineages. Women needed the resources that men could provide, so they had to ensure that their men would not abandon them and their children (Duntley & Buss, 2011). Anxiously attached people are, on average, prone to jealousy. They tend to keep a close watch on their partners’ interactions with others, looking for signs of emotional or physical infidelity. They are hypervigilant to changes in facial cues, often misinterpreting others’ expressions. These misunderstandings naturally evoke frustration in both partners, and hypervigilance creates tension in relationships (Fraley, Niedenthal, Marks, Brumbaugh, & Vicary, 2006). ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 11 The goal of this study is to test the hypothesis that, given that highly anxious individuals are hypervigilant and jealous, they will be wary of those who engage in casual sex because they will be afraid that they will lose their partners. Anxious men and women alike have reasons to judge women with many sexual partners more harshly than men with many sexual partners. Men may view highly sexual women as potentially unfaithful partners, and therefore evaluate them in a negative light. Women may view highly sexual women as potential competitors who threaten to steal their men. Consequently, this study aims to test the hypothesis that highly anxious people will exhibit the sexual double standard more so than less anxious people. A set of alternative hypotheses, however, is also warranted. Anxious men may have reason to exhibit the reverse of the sexual double standard, meaning that they would judge promiscuous men more harshly than promiscuous women. Their heightened jealousy may cause them to view sexually active men as competitors. If a man has reported having had many sexual partners, then women must be engaging in sexual activity with him, leaving open the possibility that these women could be carrying the promiscuous man’s child, for whom the anxiously attached man would have to invest resources in protecting (Duntley & Buss, 2011). Similarly, it is also possible that anxious women will exhibit the reverse of the sexual double standard. They may judge promiscuous men more harshly because they view these men as less likely to be faithful to them. Additionally, this study will explore the potential differences in evaluation of a target between male and female participants and between participants who are more or less anxiously or avoidantly attached to their mothers and fathers. The relationship with the romantic partner is hypothesized to be a better predictor of one’s exhibition of the sexual double standard than is the relationship with the mother or father, because attachment in romantic relationships has been found to be more influential in judging others’ sexual activity (Brumbaugh & Fraley, 2007). ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 12 However, relationships with the mother and father are still very influential in most adults’ lives and may impact their judgments of others. Although highly anxious men and women alike are hypothesized to exhibit the sexual double standard more so than less anxious people, participants’ sex may affect the ways in which they judge others’ sexual activity according to the four evaluative domains used in this study (popularity, success, intelligence, and values). According to Sexual Strategies Theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993), men and women have different motives and priorities when engaging in sexual behavior. Men take sexual infidelity very seriously because partners who cheat on them may become pregnant, and men do not want to provide for children who are not their own (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Therefore, they may concern themselves most with their partners’ values. On the other hand, women must be attentive to their partners’ abilities to provide necessary resources for themselves and their children (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Accordingly, they may emphasize their partners’ success rather than their partners’ values. Rather than succumbing to jealousy, highly avoidant people are concerned about becoming too psychologically intimate with a partner. For many, this may manifest as a complete disregard for sex. For other avoidant people, sex is a casual, physical act that is enjoyable as long as it does not result in uncomfortable intimacy (Brassard, Shaver, & Lussier, 2007). Even in a monogamous relationship, highly avoidant individuals are not very emotionally affected by problems in their sex lives—they simply disengage (Birnbaum, 2010). A physically gratifying sex life is realistic for an avoidantly attached person because it can be accomplished with one night stands, friends with benefits relationships, or other casual sex practices that allow for physical pleasure without emotional intimacy. Because sex is not a deeply meaningful issue for highly avoidant people, this study will test the hypothesis that they will not endorse the ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 13 sexual double standard as strongly as will less avoidant individuals because they simply may be more accepting of casual sex for both genders. Method Participants Participants were 236 undergraduates from a Midwestern university who participated in exchange for course credit. The median age was 19 (M = 18.75, SD = .92). Fifty-three percent of participants were female. See Table 1 for additional demographic information. Materials and Procedure Participants first completed a demographics questionnaire. They then completed the 27item ECR-RS (Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire; Fraley et al., 2011; see Table 2 for means and standard deviations), which assesses current attachment relationship with mother, father, and romantic partner. If participants did not have a romantic partner, they were asked to answer in regards to how they would feel in a romantic relationship or how they have felt in one in the past. Sample items include, “It helps to turn to this person in times of need”, “I talk things over with this person”, and “I worry that this person won’t care about me as much as I care about him or her” (Fraley et al., 2011). After completing these measures, participants viewed output from a purported personality quiz said to have been administered on Facebook as part of a prior study (see Appendix A). The output consisted of a results page that was supposedly given to an individual who participated in the prior study. The target individual’s answers were included in the results. Importantly, the target’s number of sexual partners was among the information presented in the results. The target individual was fictitious and no picture was used. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. Specifically, they either viewed information stating that the target individual is a ATTACHMENT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD 14 man who has had 1 sexual partner, a woman who has had 1 sexual partner, man who has had 12 sexual partners, or a woman who has had 12 sexual partners. Participants in all groups saw Facebook results pages that were identical except for the sex of the fictional person and the number of sexual partners. Following their viewing of the Facebook results page, participants answered 30 evaluative statements (see Appendix B). Responses were recorded on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 7 being “strongly agree.” Evaluative statements fell into one of four subscales: values, popularity with peers, power/success, and intelligence. Sample items include, “This person is immoral”, “People like this person”, “This person has a good job”, and “This person performs well in everything he/she does.” The evaluative scale used in this study was developed to measure the sexual double standard in previous research (Marks & Fraley, 2005). Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample’s subscales were .89 for values, .78 for popularity, .74 for success, and .64 for intelligence. See Table 3 for means and standard deviations. See Table 4 for correlations among measures. Results To determine whether participants in the present study exhibited the double standard, and whether males or females exhibited it more strongly, I ran an ANOVA with target sex, target’s number of sexual partners (1 or 12) and participant sex as the fixed factors. Below are the results for each of the four scales.