Doing Gender in the Bedroom: Investing in Gender Norms and the Sexual Experience

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Sanchez et al. / GENDER IN THE BEDROOM
ARTICLE
10.1177/0146167205277333
Doing Gender in the Bedroom:
Investing in Gender Norms and the Sexual Experience
Diana T. Sanchez
Jennifer Crocker
Karlee R. Boike
University of Michigan
People often believe that they must be consistent with gender
ture, for example, men who participate equally in child
norms to obtain others’ approval. The authors believe people who
care and domestic duties (Levine & Pittinsky, 1997) or
invest in gender norms tend to base self-esteem on others’
women who enter male-dominated fields (Women Break-
approval, which undermines their sexual autonomy and ulti-
ing Through Male-Dominated Fields, 2001). People differ in
mately diminishes their sexual satisfaction in intimate relation-
how important they believe it is to meet gender norms
ships. A survey of 309 sexually active college students examined
(Wood, Christensen, Hebl, & Rothgerber, 1997).
whether placing importance on conforming to gender norms
Adherence to gender norms operates as a double-
undermines sexual relationships because of its link to basing
edged sword (Rudman & Glick, 2001). Although people
self-worth on others’ approval and decreased sexual autonomy.
who follow gender norms may receive more favorable
Using structural equation modeling, the authors found that
evaluations by others, adherence to gender norms may
valuing gender conformity (but not avoiding gender deviance)
have costs to the self. Research suggests that placing
negatively affects sexual pleasure for both men and women
importance on adhering to gender norms is a risk factor
through increased contingency on others’ approval and restricted
in psychological adjustment1 (P.R. Carver, Yunger, &
sexual autonomy. The model fit the data for both men and
Perry, 2003; Egan & Perry, 2001; Sanchez & Crocker,
women.
2005). Egan and Perry (2001) suggested that people who
value gender normativity feel that others’ regard is con-
ditional, namely, that others’ acceptance and support
Keywords: gender roles; sexuality; self-determination; self-worth;
depend on behaving consistently with gender norms.
social norms
Consequently, they experience pressure from the self
F
and others to adhere to gender norms. Following this
eminist theorists have suggested that gender roles
perspective, Sanchez and Crocker (2005) argued that
limit men and women to half the human experience
people who place importance on adhering to gender
(Hyde, 1996). Men are limited to the male sphere of
norms need external validation and base their self-
human activity and women to the female sphere. At the
esteem on external sources such as others’ approval.
same time, men and women often feel pressure to con-
form to gender norms. People who deviate from gender
Authors’ Note: Diana T. Sanchez, Department of Psychology and
norms may meet with harsh disapproval (i.e., the back-
Women’s Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Jennifer
lash effect; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). For example,
Crocker, Karlee Boike, Department of Psychology, University of Michi-
men who are communal are seen as less competent and
gan, Ann Arbor. Diana T. Sanchez is now at the Department of Psychol-
hirable than agentic men (Rudman, 1998), whereas
ogy, Rutgers University. Diana Sanchez was supported by a Ford
Foundation graduate fellowship during the preparation of this article.
women who are agentic tend to be evaluated less favor-
Jennifer Crocker was supported by NIMH Grant K02 MH01747-01. We
ably (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992) because they
would like to thank Julie Garcia for her helpful comments on earlier
violate the stereotypes that women should be in the com-
versions of the article. Correspondence concerning this article should
munal role and men the agentic role.
be addressed to Diana T. Sanchez, Department of Psychology, Rutgers
Although people who violate gender norms face sanc-
University, Tillett Hall, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8040.
tions, not all men and women follow gender norms. Some
PSPB, Vol. 31 No. 10, October 2005 1445-1455
DOI: 10.1177/0146167205277333
men and women defy gender norms in American cul-
© 2005 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
1445

---

1446
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
In the present study, we explore the costs of investing
addition, those who invest in gender norms tend to show
in gender norms for sexual relationships. Many theorists
evidence of self-regulation in accordance with those
argue that the sexual interaction is one of the most pow-
norms in both experimental and experiential report
erful domains in which men and women feel pressure to
conditions (Guerrero-Witt, Wood, & Kashy, 2004; Wood
enact gender roles (Coward, 1985; see Rohlinger, 2002).
et al., 1997).
We examined how investment in gender norms (i.e.,
Once a person becomes invested in gender norms,
those who believe that being gender normative is central
gendered scripts direct their daily experiences. People
to the self; Wood et al., 1997) affects the sexual experi-
who invest in gender norms may feel as though their
ence of heterosexual men and women through basing
social acceptance and success depends on adherence to
self-esteem on others’ approval and sexual autonomy.2
gender norms (P. R. Carver et al., 2003; Egan & Perry,
We propose that men and women who invest in gender
2001; Sanchez & Crocker, 2005). People who invest in
norms are more likely to base self-esteem on others’
gender norms tend to base their self-esteem more on
approval and thus feel less sexual autonomy and conse-
external sources such as approval from others, account-
quently experience less sexual satisfaction.
ing for diminished psychological well-being (Sanchez &
Investment in Gender Norms
Crocker, 2005). People who invest in gender norms tend
to worry about what other people think and ultimately
Social scientists have long explored how sex (i.e., bio-
let the evaluations of others determine their self-worth.
logical definition of male and female) and the social
Research on gender roles typically focuses on how
construction of gender (i.e., what society defines as femi-
adherence to gender norms is problematic for women’s
nine or masculine) affect psychological health and the
mental health (Nolen-Hoeksema, Larson, & Grayson,
everyday social experiences of men and women. Adher-
1999), academic performance (Eccles & Jacobs, 1986;
ence to gender norms and engagement in the socially
Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990), and subjective sexual
sanctioned execution of one’s gender offer some bene-
experiences (Sanchez, Kiefer, & Ybarra, 2005; Tevlin &
fits. Following gender norms can foster social accep-
Leiblum, 1983). Restrictive gender norms, which under-
tance and approval. For example, meeting traditional
mine women’s power, competence, and agency, help
gender role expectations can improve likeability and
account for women’s higher rates of depression, poorer
perceptions of accessibility of women in high-status posi-
standardized scores, and higher discontent with sex.
tions (Rudman, 1998; Takiff, Sanchez, & Stewart, 2001).
However, the argument that gender roles are more prob-
However, the costs of gender role adherence frequently
lematic for women than for men contrasts with evidence
outweigh the benefits. Accumulating research suggests
that investment in gender norms is a risk factor for both
that pressure to meet gender norms limits social behav-
men and women (Sanchez & Crocker, 2005). We argue
iors and ultimately promotes poor psychological out-
that although gender roles per se may be more problem-
comes such as lowered self-esteem (P. R. Carver et al.,
atic for women than for men, investment in gender
2003; Egan & Perry, 2001; Perry, 2004; Sanchez &
norms (i.e., feeling pressure to conform to gender
Crocker, 2005). Even so, the pressure to meet gender
norms) is equally problematic for women and men. With
norms is ubiquitous. Girls and boys, men and women are
regard to gender roles, the expectation that women
inundated with messages from their family, peers, com-
should be subservient and cater to their partners
munities, and the media (e.g., magazines, television
(Impett & Peplau, 2003; Kiefer, Sanchez, Kalinka, &
shows, and advertisements) that dictate the traditional
Ybarra, 2005; Sanchez et al., 2005; Tevlin & Leiblum,
performance of gender3 (e.g., Bem, 1983; Bussey &
1983) affords women less autonomy in their intimate
Bandura, 1992; Egan & Perry, 2001; Kim & Ward, 2004;
relationships with men. In addition however, both men
Lott, 1987; Raag & Rackliff, 1998).
and women who invest in gender norms may be vulnera-
Men and women negotiate gender role expectations
ble to diminished autonomy because they feel pressure
in different ways. Some believe it is important to be simi-
to conform and base their self-esteem on what other
lar to traditional norms and avoid gender deviance,
people think of them.
whereas others do not share that belief (Wood et al.,
1997). Previous research showed that investment in gen-
Basing Self-Esteem on Others’ Approval
der norms predicts engagement in stereotypical activi-
William James (1890) suggested that people are selec-
ties and avoidance of nonstereotypical activities (Egan &
tive in what they stake their self-worth on; they have
Perry, 2001; P. R. Carver et al., 2003). For example, P. R.
beliefs about what they must be or do to have worth as a
Carver and colleagues (2003) showed that investment in
person (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). People differ in the
gender norms among adolescents predicted less agentic
domains in which they base self-esteem (e.g., Crocker,
behavior in girls and less communal behavior in boys. In
Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003; Schwalbe & Sta-

---

Sanchez et al. / GENDER IN THE BEDROOM
1447
ples, 1991). Some college students base self-esteem on
basing self-esteem on others’ approval may extend
more external domains such as others’ approval, social
beyond psychological well-being to negatively affect
comparisons, academic performance, or their physical
sexual relationships.
appearance, whereas others base their self-esteem on
more internal sources such as being a virtuous person or
Sexual Autonomy
religious faith (Crocker, Luhtanen, et al., 2003). When
We hypothesize that people who invest in gender
people are contingent on specific domains of self-worth,
norms and consequently base self-esteem on others’
their self-esteem depends on success or failure in these
approval experience diminished autonomy in sexual
domains (e.g., Crocker, Sommers, & Luhtanen, 2002).
relationships. We borrow our conceptualization of sex-
Others’ approval has often been cited as a major con-
ual autonomy from self-determination theory (Deci &
tingency or source of self-worth (e.g., Cooley, 1902;
Ryan, 1987, 1995). Autonomy is defined as the feeling
Coopersmith, 1967; Harter, 1986; Leary & Baumeister,
that one’s behaviors originate in themselves rather than
2000; Mead, 1934). Basing self-worth on external
external forces and therefore are volitional, chosen, and
sources, like others’ approval, is related to more negative
self-determined. Autonomy positively predicts well-
psychological outcomes than basing it on more internal
being (Deci & Ryan, 1985; see Deci & Ryan, 2000, for a
or intrinsic aspects of the self, such as being a virtuous
review). For example, autonomy predicts greater aca-
person (Crocker, Luhtanen, et al., 2003; Luhtanen &
demic success (see Deci & Ryan, 2000, for a review;
Crocker, 2005; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Goldenberg,
Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989), less engagement in
2003; Sanchez & Crocker, 2005). Self-esteem that
risky health behaviors (Turner, Irwin, Tschann, &
requires approval from others is easily threatened and
Millstein, 1993), and greater daily vitality, well-being,
consequently, tends to be low (Crocker, 2002; Crocker &
and positive affect (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, &
Wolfe, 2001) and unstable (Kernis & Waschull, 1995).
Ryan, 2000). Furthermore, autonomy is specifically con-
People who base self-esteem on others’ approval should
ducive to sustaining healthy and satisfying relationships
be sensitive to rejection and may feel pressure to con-
(Hodgins, Koestner, & Duncan, 1996). Autonomy not
form to social norms because they fear the disapproval of
only implies freedom from external pressures but also
others (Crocker & Park, 2004). This felt pressure to con-
an inner consistency between one’s desires and choices
form should undermine autonomy in relationships.
(Deci & Ryan, 1985).
People who believe it is important to behave consis-
We believe that the concept of autonomy is highly rel-
tently with gender norms may feel as though acceptance,
evant to sexual relationships. Positive and satisfying sex-
love, and support from others rely on their ability to
ual experiences may require sexual autonomy. People
maintain gender role consistency. People who value gen-
who report that they are able to initiate and refuse sexual
der norms most likely learned to evaluate their gender
activities also report more positive, satisfying, and con-
normativity through the reactions of others. Many par-
sensual sexual experiences (Haavio-Mannila & Kontula,
ents teach their children how to perform gender appro-
1997; Hurlbert, Apt, & Rabehl, 1993; Morokoff et al.,
priately by praising gender-normative behavior and
1997; Tolman, 2002). For decades, sex researchers and
admonishing gender-deviant behavior (Bem, 1993;
therapists have suggested that the root of many sexual
Bussey & Bandura, 1992; Egan & Perry, 2001; Lott, 1987;
dysfunctions lies in the inability of individuals to express
Pollack, 1998; Raag & Rackliff, 1998). Thus, people who
sexual desires and exercise choice during sexual activi-
value gender normativity use others to gauge their suc-
ties with their partners (Sprecher & Regan, 2000; Tevlin
cess at performing gender and ultimately their value as a
& Lieblum, 1983; Weinberg, Swensson, &
person. Investing in gender norms predicts greater self-
Hammersmith, 1983). In accordance with these per-
worth contingency on others’ approval, which is a risk
spectives on sexuality and self-determination, we con-
factor for well-being. In a sample of 677 college students,
tend that sexual autonomy fosters pleasurable sexual
Sanchez and Crocker (2005) found that students who
experiences. Furthermore, we posit that investment in
think it is personally important to be similar to the tradi-
gender norms diminishes sexual autonomy because it is
tional gender norm tended to base their self-esteem on
associated with basing self-worth on others’ approval,
external domains such as others’ approval. Further-
which in turn undermines the experience of choice and
more, being externally contingent mediated the rela-
volition in one’s sexual activities. Fearful of their part-
tionship between investment in gender norms and poor
ner’s disapproval and the resulting drop in self-worth
psychological well-being. This pattern held for both men
that would ensue, men and women who are highly
and women as well as for Asian Americans, African
invested in gender norms may engage in unwanted
Americans, and White Americans. The consequences of
sexual behaviors to please their partners.

---

1448
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Parcel 1
Parcel 2
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q1
Q2

.87
.89
Approval
.87
.87
.50
.89 .85
.56
Contingency
R² = .26
–.25
Gender

Sexual
Conformity
–.21

Autonomy
–.10, ns (–.28)

R² = .12

–.08 ns (–.14)

.42
.51
.05, ns (–.13)
Avoiding
Sexual Pleasure
Gender
R² = .26
–.06, ns (–.11, ns)
Deviance




.93 .84

.70 .92 .78
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Figure 1 Results on sample as a whole.
NOTE: In the figure, betas in the parentheses refer to the direct effects between investment in gender normativity and autonomy as well as gender
normativity and sexual pleasure (excluding all other paths) in separate nested models. Dashed lines represent the direct paths we hypothesized
would be mediated. Standardized beta coefficients are shown. All betas are significant at p < .05 unless otherwise stated.
Present Research
METHOD
We tested whether people who invest in gender
Participants
norms experience lower sexual satisfaction because they
base self-esteem on others’ approval, undermining their
In this study, 309 sexually active heterosexual partici-
sexual autonomy. Thus, we predicted that (a) invest-
pants were recruited from the introductory psychology
ment in gender norms is positively related to basing self-
subject pool; 117 men and 192 women (236 Whites/
worth on others’ approval and negatively related to sex-
White American, 19 Asian/Asian American, 19 Hispanic/
ual autonomy and sexual satisfaction, (b) basing self-
Latino American, 14 Black/African American, 21
esteem on others’ approval mediates the relationship
identified as Other) completed the survey for course
between investing in gender norms and sexual auton-
credit.4
omy, and (c) sexual autonomy mediates the relationship
Materials
between investing in gender norms (gender conformity
and avoiding gender deviance) and sexual pleasure (see
We assessed investment in gender norms using the
Figure 1). The hypothesized mediated relationships are
four-item scale developed by Wood and her colleagues
represented by dashed lines. In the hypothesized model,
(1997). Participants were instructed to think of how soci-
we treat gender conformity and avoiding gender devi-
ety defines the ideal man and woman and were asked two
ance as two aspects of investment in gender norms on
questions regarding how important it is to conform to
the assumption that people could invest in one or both
gender norms from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal;
types of gender norms or neither. Androgyny theories
Cronbach’s alpha = .84). For women, the questions were,
suggest that some people value both femininity and mas-
“How important is it for you to be similar to the ideal
culinity (e.g., Bem, 1974), suggesting that some partici-
woman?” and “To what extent is being similar to the ideal
pants in this study would characterize themselves as
woman an important part of who you are?” For men, the
investing in meeting the gender norm for their gender
questions pertained to the “ideal man.” Participants
and the opposite sex. We tested the fit of this model for
were then asked two questions regarding how important
men and women as well as the entire sample.
is it to avoid gender deviance (Cronbach’s alpha = .88).

---

Sanchez et al. / GENDER IN THE BEDROOM
1449
The two questions for avoiding gender deviance read,
ables and the dependent variable simultaneously (Klem,
“How important is it for you to be dissimilar to typical
2000) as well as test mediational models (i.e., indirect
members of the opposite sex?” and “To what extent is
and direct effects). In the following analyses, we test the
being dissimilar to typical members of the opposite sex
structural model on the entire sample of college stu-
an important part of who you are?”
dents and examine the fit of the model separately for
We assessed basing self-esteem on others’ approval
male and female students. We also perform direct effect
with the 35-item Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale
tests to show the original relationship between invest-
(CSWS; Crocker, Luhtanen, et al., 2003). The CSWS con-
ment in gender norms (conformity and deviance) and
sists of seven 5-item subscales that assess the extent to
sexual autonomy as well as sexual satisfaction (see
which self-esteem is contingent on various domains. For
dashed lines in Figure 1). The structural models were
the present study, we were particularly interested in the
performed separately on listwise covariance matrices. In
Approval From Others subscale. Participants were asked
accordance with standard structural equation modeling
the extent to which they agreed with statements such as
with EQS software (Raykov, Tomer, & Nesselroade,
“I don’t care if other people have a negative opinion
1991), we report the following goodness-of-fit indices:
about me” and “What others think of me has no effect on
normed fit (NFI), non-normed fit (NNFI), and compar-
what I think about myself.” Responses were assessed on a
ative fit (CFI). Acceptable fit indices exceed .90. We also
7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
report the root mean square error of approximation
Items on this subscale were reverse-scored such that
(RMSEA) and the confidence interval of the RMSEA.
higher numbers indicated greater contingency on oth-
RMSEA misfit indices should be at or below .05 or .06
ers’ approval. The approval subscale has good test-retest
(Hu & Bentler, 1999). ?2 is reported but has been
reliability and convergent and divergent validity with
replaced by the previously mentioned fit indices because
other measures (Crocker, Luhtanen, et al., 2003). We
of its sensitivity to sample size (Klem, 2000).
randomly divided the scale into two indicators (? = .87)
Table 1 presents the zero-order correlations among
in a procedure commonly referred to as parceling. Par-
all variables for the overall sample. Table 2 shows correla-
celing improves the goodness of fit and reduces bias in
tions for men and women separately. Table 3 shows the
estimations of structural parameters compared to
results of t test comparisons for men and women on the
individual item use (Bandalos, 2002).
variables of interest. Fit statistics for each model and
Sexual autonomy was assessed by adapting the auton-
accompanying nested models are included in Table 4.
omy scale used in self-determination research on rela-
tionships (see LaGuardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci,
Analyses on Total Sample
2000). It consisted of three items measuring the extent
Testing the hypothesized structural model based on
to which participants felt their sexual behaviors were
the total sample provided a good fit to the data, ?2(44, N =
self-determined. Participants were asked to indicate
289) = 61.50, p = .04, NFI = .96, NNFI = .98, CFI = .99,
their agreement with the following statements on a scale
RMSEA = .03. The overall model explained 27.5% of the
from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true): (a) “When I am hav-
variance in reported sexual pleasure, 26% of the vari-
ing sex or engaging in sexual activities with someone, I
ance in approval CSWS, and 12% of the variance in sex-
feel free to be who I am”; (b) “When I am having sex or
ual autonomy. Figure 1 presents the paths obtained in
engaging in sexual activities with someone, I have a say in
the model. As expected, investment in gender confor-
what happens and I can voice my opinion”; and (c)
mity indirectly predicted lowered sexual pleasure
“When I am having sex or engaging in sexual activities
because investment in gender conformity predicted bas-
with someone, I feel controlled and pressured to be
ing self-esteem on others’ approval, restricting sexual
certain ways” (Cronbach’s alpha = .75).
autonomy. Investment in avoiding gender deviance pre-
We measured sexual pleasure with three items assess-
dicted less contingency on others’ approval.
ing the extent to which participants perceived sexual
intercourse, sexual activities, and sexual intimacy pleasur-
Gender Analyses
able on a scale from –3 to 3 with higher scores indicating
greater satisfaction and pleasure (Cronbach’s alpha =
To test the comparative fit of the model for both men
.84).
and women, we tested the fit of the covariance matrices
for both men and women separately (see Table 2) con-
straining all paths to be equal. The analysis provided a
RESULTS
good fit to the data, ?2(105, women = 178; men = 111) =
We tested the model by confirmatory latent-variable
145.60, p < .001; NFI = .92, NNFI = .97, CFI = .98, RMSEA =
structural analyses using EQS computer software, which
.04. The final model was compared to a completely unre-
allows us to test causal paths between the predictor vari-
strained model, and the difference in chi-square was

---

1450
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
TABLE 1: Zero-Order Correlations on Entire Sample
1
2
3
4
5
Investment in gender norms
1. Gender conformity
1.000
2. Avoiding gender deviance
.365***
1.000
3. Approval contingency
.409***
.045
1.000
4. Sexual autonomy
–.203***
–.154
–.280***
1.000
5. Sexual satisfaction
–.083
–.091
–.065
.376***
1.000
***p < .001.
TABLE 2: Zero-Order Correlations by Gender
1
2
3
4
5
Investment in gender norms
1. Gender conformity
1.000
.363***
.400***
–.288***
–.119†
2. Avoiding gender deviance
.363***
1.000
.111
–.117*
–.099
3. Approval contingency
.459***
–.020
1.000
–.351***
–.031
4. Sexual autonomy
–.113
–.154
–.280***
1.000
.421***
5. Sexual satisfaction
–.016
–.091
–.065
.376***
1.000
NOTE. These results are based on average responses for the measure. Men are represented below diagonal, women above the diagonal.
†p < .10. *p < .05. ***p < .001.
TABLE 3: Group Differences for Investment, Approval Contingency, Sexual Autonomy, and Satisfaction
Women
Men
Difference
Measure
M
SD
M
SD
t
Investment in gender norms
Gender conformity
5.74
1.80
5.90
1.64
0.79, ns
Avoiding gender deviance
4.87
1.79
5.29
1.87
1.93*
Approval contingency
4.28
1.24
3.92
1.89
–2.53*
Sexual autonomy
5.67
1.06
5.45
1.03
–1.75†
Sexual satisfaction
2.46
0.07
2.60
1.82†
1.82†
†p < .09. *p < .05.
nonsignificant, ?2(10) = 12.51, ns, suggesting that no
DISCUSSION
post hoc constraints should be released. These results
suggest that the model fits the data equally well for men
The present study provides evidence that investment
and women. Analyses did not reveal a significant differ-
in gender conformity (i.e., striving to be similar to the
ence in the equality constraints on any of the relation-
gender norm) predicts lower sexual satisfaction. As pre-
ships between the factors. The results support our pre-
dicted, this relationship was mediated by the tendency to
diction that investment in gender norms negatively
base self-esteem on others’ approval and lower sexual
affects sexual pleasure through greater propensities to
autonomy. The hypothesized model fit the data for the
base self-esteem on others’ approval, undermining sex-
sample as a whole and for both gender groups.
ual autonomy. Unexpectedly, investment in avoiding
Investment in Gender Norms
gender deviance predicted less contingency on others’
approval. Furthermore, direct effects testing suggested
Gender role theorists suggest that gender roles can
no relationship between avoiding gender deviance and
limit men and women. However, not all men and women
autonomy or pleasure, suggesting that avoiding gender
believe it is important to follow gender norms (Wood
deviance does not restrict or benefit one’s sexual
et al., 1997). In the present study, investing in gender
experience.
conformity (placing importance on being similar to the

---

Sanchez et al. / GENDER IN THE BEDROOM
1451
TABLE 4: Chi-Square Fit Statistics
Root
Mean Square
Normed Fit
Non-Normed Comparative
Error of
2
df
Index
Fit Index
Fit Index
Approximation
2
Full model
64.58*
45
.96
.98
.99
.04
—
Compared to direct effects model
Gender conformity to autonomy
139.78***
50
.92
.93
.95
.08
75.20***
Avoiding gender deviance to autonomy
151.86***
50
.91
.92
.94
.08
87.28***
Gender conformity to satisfaction
125.02***
47
.93
.93
.95
.08
60.44***
Avoiding gender deviance to satisfaction
126.05***
47
.93
.93
.95
.08
61.47***
Gender comparison restrained model
145.60***
105
.92
.97
.98
.04
—
Unrestrained model
133.09**
95
.92
.97
.98
.04
12.51, ns
Compared to direct effects models
Gender conformity to autonomy
211.30***
108
.89
.93
.94
.06
65.70***
Avoiding gender deviance to autonomy
222.86***
108
.88
.92
.93
.06
77.26***
Gender conformity to satisfaction
194.64***
108
.90
.93
.95
.06
49.04***
Avoiding gender deviance to satisfaction
196.35***
102
.89
.93
.95
.06
50.75***
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
norm) predicted basing self-esteem on others’ approval,
adjustment and impede the development of healthy, sat-
which undermined autonomy in sexual relationships.
isfying relationships.
The present study shows that investing in gender con-
It is important to note that investing in gender confor-
formity can negatively affect both men and women even
mity is conceptually distinct from actually conforming to
when the norms themselves have differential conse-
or satisfying those norms (e.g., being a masculine man or
quences for men and women. Recent findings suggest
a feminine woman). Conforming to gender norms in
that both men and women who feel pressure to conform
sexual relationships may afford women less power
to gender roles show poorer psychological adjustment
because gender roles dictate female submission and
(P. R. Carver et al., 2003; Sanchez & Crocker, 2005). Fur-
male dominance (Impett & Peplau, 2003; Kiefer et al.,
thermore, Sanchez and Crocker (2005) found that those
2005; Sanchez et al., 2005; Tevlin & Leiblum, 1983).
who invest in gender conformity are more externally
Independent of the content of these norms, we believe it
contingent, that is, have self-esteem that is based on
is essential to consider the importance people place on
external sources. The present study extends this previ-
meeting those norms. The feeling of pressure to meet
ous work by showing that basing self-esteem on others’
the norms rather than the norms per se fosters self-worth
approval undermines autonomy in intimate relation-
that is contingent on others’ approval and undermines
ships, which diminishes sexual satisfaction. We argue
sexual autonomy. In the terms of self-determination the-
that both men and women who invest in gender confor-
ory, when people are motivated to conform to gender
mity feel as though they need to meet these ideals to gain
norms for extrinsic or introjected reasons (e.g., because
others’ approval. Although preliminary evidence sug-
self-worth is contingent on meeting the norms), they will
gests that those who invest in gender normativity feel
experience low autonomy, which undermines well-
better about themselves when they are engaged in gender-
being. When people who invest in gender norms have
normative activities (Guerrero-Witt et al., 2004; Wood
integrated those norms into the self-concept and are
et al., 1997), our results suggest that elevated affect and
intrinsically motivated to meet the norms, they may feel
self-esteem could be a short-term boost related to feeling
autonomous when acting in ways that conform to gender
as though one has others’ approval. Previous research
norms and may not show the negative consequences
suggests that boosts and drops in self-esteem related to
observed here.
succeeding and failing at contingencies of self-worth are
Investment in Conforming Versus Avoiding Deviance
related to increases in symptoms of depression over time
(Crocker, Karpinski, et al., 2003; Kernis et al., 1998; Rob-
Some people value being similar to gender norms,
erts, Kassel, & Gotlib, 1995). Future research should
whereas others believe it is more important to be dissimi-
examine whether satisfying gender norms creates long-
lar to the opposite sex gender norm. More generally,
term benefits for those who invest in gender normativity
approach and avoidance represent two distinct methods
or whether the temporary boosts to self-esteem are asso-
of achieving goals (C. S. Carver & Scheier, 1998). Inter-
ciated with fragile self-worth and poor psychological
estingly, men and women did not significantly differ in

---

1452
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
mean levels of importance of meeting norms for their
ways that feel inauthentic or unsatisfying. We argue that
gender, but men were significantly more likely than
contingent self-worth, specifically, basing self-esteem on
women to place importance on avoiding gender devi-
others’ approval, explains why gender conformists feel
ance. Men may be more resistant to gender deviance
they must perform certain roles—they fear that if they
because cross-sexed behavior is judged especially
do not conform to gender norms, they will lose others’
harshly in boys (Cahill & Adams, 1997; Martin, 1990;
approval and will feel worthless as a result. Basing self-
Pleck, 1981; Sandnabba & Ahlberg, 1999). Investment in
esteem on others’ approval consequently undermines
gender conformity (i.e., placing importance on being
the freedom and autonomy people feel in their sexual
feminine for women and masculine for men) predicted
relationships with others. These findings are consistent
poorer sexual satisfaction. Investment in avoiding gen-
with the view of researchers who suggest that externally
der deviance did not have the same negative effect, sug-
contingent self-worth undermines autonomy (Crocker
gesting that trying to be similar to the gender norm has
& Park, 2004; Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994).
more negative implications for intimate relations.
People who base self-esteem on others’ approval may
The unexpected difference between investing in gen-
behave in ways that are aimed at garnering others’
der conformity and avoiding gender deviance has
approval and are not consistent with their inner desires.
important implications. Most obviously, researchers
Potentially, people who experienced undermined
should consider gender conformity and avoiding gen-
autonomy may be more sexually compliant (i.e., will-
der deviance independently because these two
ingly engage in unwanted sex; see Impett & Peplau,
approaches to doing gender have different conse-
2003, for a review) and communicate less of their sexual
quences. Investment in avoiding gender deviance was
desires, potentially accounting for markedly less sexual
unrelated to basing self-esteem on others’ approval; in
satisfaction. Future research should continue to explore
fact, when we controlled for the effects of gender confor-
how contingent self-worth and undermined autonomy
mity in the full model, the independent path from avoid-
affect the development of healthy and satisfying sexual
ing gender deviance to the approval contingency was
relationships with others.
negative. Thus, avoiding gender deviance may be less
about what other people think but rather a more inter-
Limitations
nalized value that is no longer a response to interper-
The present research is limited by reliance on self-
sonal demands. In Kelman’s (1961) model of social
reports, which may be compromised by social desirabil-
influence, investing in gender conformity could be a
ity.5 Furthermore, the causal direction of the relation-
form of social compliance where a person is said to
ships among variables in the present study remains
engage in normative activity to gain the approval of oth-
unknown. Although we propose that investment causes
ers. On the other hand, avoiding gender deviance may
people to base self-esteem on others’ approval, it is
be an internalized norm where a person is said to accept
equally plausible that basing self-esteem on others’
influence because the behavior is consistent with the
approval breeds investment in gender conformity. These
person’s value system. Those who internalize norms
variables likely have a reciprocal relationship in which
tend to find engaging in—or in this case, avoiding—gen-
people who base self-esteem on others’ approval come to
der deviance intrinsically rewarding. Although social
be more conforming to the greater societal values and
norms begin as external demands, some people come to
people who are gender conforming tend to gauge their
truly believe in them. Future research should examine
success and self-worth on whether they have the approval
the motivations behind investing in gender conformity
of others.
and avoiding gender deviance. Perhaps, gender con-
Similarly, we argue that gender norm conformity
formists maintain more extrinsic motivations to meet
undermines sexual satisfaction through self-worth that is
these norms while those who avoid gender deviance
not self-determined and lowered sexual autonomy. How-
maintain more intrinsic motivations.
ever, people who have less satisfying sexual experiences
Sexual Autonomy
might feel lower sexual autonomy as a result. Most likely,
people enter sexual relationships with a degree of sexual
Sexual autonomy is a popular topic in sexual self-help
autonomy influenced partly by socialization and contin-
manuals focused on improving intimate relationships
gencies of self-worth as well as their previous experi-
(Weinberg et al., 1983). There are many avenues
ences. Longitudinal research is needed to examine the
through which autonomy can be undermined for peo-
direction of these relationships.
ple who value conformity to gender norms. The most
Importantly, the present study is limited to heterosex-
obvious is that these people feel they must perform cer-
ual relationships. The concept of normative creativity
tain sexual roles and thus feel pressure to act in certain
suggests that lesbians and gay men who resist traditional

---

Sanchez et al. / GENDER IN THE BEDROOM
1453
gender norms by engaging in intimate relationships with
norms. On one hand, research suggests that women and
same-sex partners create norms within their communi-
men may gain others’ approval or at the very least avoid
ties unencumbered by societal standards (Brown, 1989)
others’ disapproval or negative evaluations if they follow
and could therefore value others’ approval less. For this
gender norms (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). On the
reason, we suspect that the relationships among the stud-
other hand, men and women who feel compelled to fol-
ied variables would be more complex in more
low norms may sacrifice their own needs and desires,
nontraditional relationships.
which can prevent the development of satisfying and
authentic intimate relationships with others. The negoti-
Implications for Future Research
ation between the need for approval and the need for
Investment in gender conformity may also affect
autonomy presents an important next step for work on
other sexual beliefs in addition to sexual autonomy. For
gender conformity.
example, social norms literature would suggest that
norms provide scripts in ambiguous situations (Cialdini,
NOTES
1993), which could alleviate anxiety or discomfort when
1. Egan and Perry (2001) and Carver, Yunger, and Perry (2003)
approaching new sexual relationships. On the other
examined placing importance on gender norms by measuring felt
hand, investing in gender conformity may promote a
pressure to conform to gender norms that included both felt pressure
more general sexual conservatism that contributes to
from the self and from family and peers. We do not suggest that felt
pressure is identical to investment in gender normativity, but we are
feelings of less sexual agency. We believe exploring the
compelled to treat these concepts similarly because they are intuitively
consequences of investment in gender norms and other
related. Although their measure of felt pressure incorporates self-
aspects of gender identity on sexual relationships is a
imposed pressure as well as other-imposed pressure, we believe that
investment in gender normativity is strongly tied to external
fruitful avenue to understand intimacy between men
influences.
and women.
2. In the present study, we focus exclusively on heterosexual men
Researchers have taken several different approaches
and women.
3. Judith Butler (1993) referred to the acts traditionally associated
to examining gender identity and conformity. Research-
with gender and gender roles as performances.
ers from the gender-schematic approach determine gen-
4. The present study reports on a subset of measures collected.
der identity by measuring endorsement of feminine or
5. In another data set not reported in the current article (Sanchez,
2005), we found that social desirability (Crown & Marlowe, 1960) was
masculine characteristics (Bem, 1974). Others use more
uncorrelated with investment in gender norms (gender conformity
multidimensional approaches to gender identity such as
and avoidance of gender deviance).
intergroup attitudes (Egan & Perry, 2001; Spence,
1993), gender role behaviors, and gender typicality (P. R.
REFERENCES
Carver et al., 2003). For the purposes of this study, we
focused on investment in gender norms because we were
Bandalos, D. (2002). The effects of item-parceling on goodness-of-fit
and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling.
interested in examining individuals who consciously
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 78-102.
strive to meet gender norms rather than distinguishing
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.
feminine personalities from masculine personalities.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Bem, S. L. (1983). Gender schema theory and its implications for
However, future research would benefit from examining
child development: Raising gender-aschematic children in a
other aspects of gender identity that may affect sexual
gender-schematic society. Signs, 8, 598-616.
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual
relationships. For example, in heterosexual relation-
inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
ships, egalitarian attitudes may account for differences
Brown, L. S. (1989). New voices, new visions: Toward a lesbian/gay
in sexual pleasure. Previous research found that women
paradigm for psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 445-
458.
who have more egalitarian attitudes report more sexual
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1992). Self-regulatory mechanisms govern-
partners, suggesting that egalitarian attitudes loosen
ing gender development. Child Development, 63, 1236-1250.
adherence to gendered sexual scripts (Lucke, 1998).
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New
York: Routledge.
Other research suggests that adopting masculine traits
Cahill, B., & Adams, E. (1997). An exploratory study of early child-
encourages a masculine pattern of sexual behavior for
hood teachers’ attitudes toward gender roles. Sex Roles, 36, 517-
both men and women (e.g., more sexual experience;
529.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior.
Leary & Snell, 1988; Lucke, 1998). The future utilization
New York: Cambridge University Press.
of a multidimensional model of gender identity to
Carver, P. R., Yunger, J. L., & Perry, D. G. (2003). Gender identity and
explore the sexual relationship might help us under-
adjustment in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 49, 95-109.
Cialdini, R. (1993). Influence: Science and practice (3rd ed). New York:
stand the relative influence of different aspects of gen-
HarperCollins.
der identity and conformity on sexual satisfaction.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York:
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to the question
Scribner.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. New York:
of whether women and men should conform to gender
Freeman.

---

1454
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Coward, R. (1985). Female desires. New York: Grove.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Crocker, J. (2002). Contingencies of self-worth: Implications for self-
University Press.
regulation and psychological vulnerability. Self and Identity, 1, 143-
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion
149.
Quarterly, 25, 57-78.
Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. (2003). When
Kernis, M. H., & Waschull, S. B. (1995). The interactive roles of stabil-
grades determine self-worth: Consequences of contingent self-
ity and level of self-esteem: Research and theory. In M. P. Zanna
worth for male and female engineering and psychology majors.
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 93-
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 507-516.
141). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003).
Kernis, M. H., Whisenhunt, C. R., Waschull, S. B., Greenier, K. D.,
Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and mea-
Berry, A. J., Herlocker, C. E., et al. (1998). Multiple facets of self-
surement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894-908.
esteem and their relations to depressive symptoms. Personality and
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psy-
Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 657-668.
chological Bulletin, 130, 392-414.
Kiefer, A., Sanchez, D. T., Kalinka, C. J., & Ybarra, O. (2005). How
Crocker, J., Sommers, S. R., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2002). Hopes dashed
women’s nonconscious association of sex with submission affects their abil-
and dreams fulfilled: Contingencies of self-worth and admissions
ity to orgasm. Manuscript submitted for publication.
to graduate school. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,
Kim, J. L., & Ward, L. M. (2004). Pleasure reading: Associations
1275-1286.
between young women’s sexual attitudes and their reading of con-
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psycho-
temporary women’s magazines. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28,
logical Review, 108, 593-623.
48-58.
Crown, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability
Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In L. G. Grimm & P. R.
independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding MORE multivariate statis-
24, 349-354.
tics (pp. 227-260). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitat-
Association.
ing internalization: The self-determination theory perspective.
LaGuardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000).
Journal of Personality, 62, 119-141.
Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination
determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfill-
in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
ment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the
367-384.
control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of
1024-1037.
self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for
experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1-62). San Diego, CA: Aca-
true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-
demic Press.
esteem (pp. 31-49). New York: Plenum.
Leary, M. R., & Snell, W. E. (1988). The relationship of instrumental-
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pur-
ity and expressiveness to sexual behavior in males and females. Sex
suits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psy-
Roles, 18, 509-522.
chological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Levine, J., & Pittinsky, T. (1997). Working fathers. Reading, MA:
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and
Addison-Wesley.
the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
Lott, B. E. (1987). Women’s lives themes and variations in gender learning.
111, 3-22.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Eccles, J. S., & Jacobs, J. E. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes
Lucke, J. (1998). Gender roles and sexual behavior among young
and performance. Signs, 11, 367-380.
women. Sex Roles, 39, 273-297.
Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereo-
Luhtanen, R. K., & Crocker, J. (2005). Alcohol use in college students:
types, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender dif-
Effects of level of self-esteem, narcissism, and contingencies of
ferences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183-201.
self-worth. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, 99-103.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimen-
Martin, C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with
sional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment.
nontraditional and traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151-165.
Developmental Psychology, 17, 451-463.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chi-
Guerrero-Witt, M., Wood, W., & Kashy, D. (2004, January). Self-
cago Press.
regulation of sex-typed behavior. Poster presented at the annual
Morokoff, P. J., Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Whitmire, L., Grimley, D. M.,
meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Con-
Gibson, P. R., et al. (1997). Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS) for
ference, Austin, TX.
women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and
Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kontula, O. (1997). Correlates of increased
Social Psychology, 73, 790-804.
sexual satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 399-419.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Larson, J., & Grayson, C. (1999). Explaining the
Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the construction, mainte-
gender difference in depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality
nance, and enhancement of the self-concept in children. In J. Suls
and Social Psychology, 77, 1061-1072.
& A. W. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol.
Perry, D. G. (2004, April). Gender identity and gender relevance beliefs: Two
3, pp. 136-182). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
components of a causal cognitive system underlying gender differentiation.
Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compati-
Paper presented at the Conference on Gender Development, San
bility of autonomy and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology
Francisco.
Bulletin, 22, 227-237.
Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood.
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
New York: Henry Holt.
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Goldenberg, J. (2003). Freedom in
Hurlbert, D. F., Apt, C., & Rabehl, S. M. (1993). Key variables to
the balance: On the defense, growth, and expansion of the self. In
understanding female sexual satisfaction: An examination of
M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp.
women in nondistressed marriages. Journal of Sex & Marital Ther-
314-343). New York: Guilford.
apy, 19, 154-165.
Raag, T., & Rackliff, C. L (1998). Preschoolers’ awareness of social
Hyde, J. S. (1996). Half the human experience: The psychology of women.
expectations of gender: Relationships of toy choices. Sex Roles, 38,
Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
685-700.
Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender,
Raykov, T., Tomer, A., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1991). Reporting struc-
motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research,
tural equation modeling results in psychology and aging: Some
40, 87-100.
proposed guidelines. Psychology & Aging, 6, 499-503.

---