Human Nature 7 (3):291-321 (1996)

Abstract
This work tests two conflicting views about double standards: whether they reflect evolved sex differences in behavior or a manipulative morality serving male interests. Two questionnaires on jealous reactions to mild (flirting) and serious (cheating) sexual transgressions were randomly assigned to 172 young women and men. One questionnaire assessed standards for appropriate behavior and perceptions of how young women and men usually react. The second asked people to report how they had reacted or, if naive, how they would react. The questions concerned anger at and blame of partner and rival and the self-oriented responses of loss of self-esteem, feelings of hurt, and fear of losing the partner. As predicted by the idea of manipulative morality, both sexes advanced sets of double standards that serve the interests of their own sex at the expense of the opposite sex. Much of the data contradict the idea of a match between double standards and evolved sex differences. First, subjects who set self-serving double standards did not perceive gender differences in jealous reactions. Second, there were few gender differences in judgments regarding jealous responses. Third, in contrast with the familiar double standard, women were more aggressively reactive to a flirting rival than men. Fourth, self-reports of the strength of aggressive jealous reactions suggest that women’s behavior is stronger than the prescriptions for it. These data suggest that double standards represent a communication strategy which assists men’s control of women. The data on jealous reactions were interpreted in terms of the degree of threat to fitness posed by infidelity in different situations
Keywords Aggressive motivation  Double standards  Gender differences  Morality  Person perception  Sexual jealousy
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF02733399
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,160
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.Edward O. Wilson - 1975 - Journal of the History of Biology 33 (3):577-584.
Social Theory and Social Structure.Lawrence Haworth - 1961 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11 (44):345-346.
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.Edward O. Wilson - 1975 - Harvard University Press.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Raising Darwin’s Consciousness.Sarah Blaffer Hrdy - 1997 - Human Nature 8 (1):1-49.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Gender Differences in Double Standards.Iris Vermeir & Patrick Van Kenhove - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 81 (2):281 - 295.
Sex, Gender, and Difference.Victoria K. Burbank - 1992 - Human Nature 3 (3):251-277.
Rape and the Reasonable Man.C. D. & K. Haely - 1999 - Law and Philosophy 18 (2):113-139.
Standards, Double Standards and No Standards.Beuy Joob & Viroj Wiwanitkit - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):265-265.
Rape and the Reasonable Man.Donald C. Hubin & Karen Haely - 1999 - Law and Philosophy 18 (2):113-139.
Double Marking Revisited.Val Brooks - 2004 - British Journal of Educational Studies 52 (1):29 - 46.
Extraversion, Sexual Experience, and Sexual Emotions.John Marshall Townsend - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):537-537.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-11-24

Total views
27 ( #420,817 of 2,499,389 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #418,195 of 2,499,389 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes