The heterosexual script describes the set of complementary but unequal roles for women and men to follow in their romantic and sexual interactions. The heterosexual script is comprised of the sexual double standard (men want sex and women set sexual limits), courtship strategies (men attract women with power and women attract men through beauty and sexiness), and commitment strategies (men avoid commitment and women prioritize relationships). Despite evidence that women and men are aware of this script, and it is prominent in the media, there is no existing measure of endorsement of the heterosexual script. In Studies 1 and 2, we develop and validate a measure of endorsement of the heterosexual script. In Study 3, we demonstrate that television consumption predicts stronger endorsement of the heterosexual script. We discuss the implications of endorsement of the heterosexual script for sexual health and provide suggestions for future research using this scale.
ArnettJ. J. (1995). Adolescents’ uses of media for self-socialization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 519–533. doi:10.1007/BF01537054
2.
ArnettJ. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.5.469
3.
AubreyJ. S. (2004). Sex and punishment: An examination of sexual consequences and the sexual double standard in teen programming. Sex Roles, 50, 505–514. doi:10.1023/b: sers.0000023070.87195.07
4.
AubreyJ. S.SmithS. E. (2013). Development and validation of the endorsement of the hookup culture index. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 435–448. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.637246
5.
Bay-ChengL. Y.Eliseo-ArrasR. K. (2008). The making of unwanted sex: Gendered and neoliberal norms in college women’s unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 386–397. doi:10.1080/00224490802398381
6.
BemS. (1974). The psychological measurement of androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215
7.
BleeckerE. T.MurnenS. K. (2005). Fraternity membership, the display of degrading sexual images of women, and rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 53, 487–493. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-7136-6
8.
BrownR. (1994). Efficacy of the indirect approach for estimating structural equation models with missing data: A comparison of five methods. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 287–316. doi:10.1080/10705519409539983
9.
BurtM. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217
10.
ByrneB. M.ShavelsonR. J.MuthénB. (1989). Testing for equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.
11.
CalogeroR. M.ThompsonJ. K. (2009). Potential implications of the objectification of women’s bodies for women’s sexual satisfaction. Body Image, 6, 145–148. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.01.001
12.
ChuJ. Y.PorcheM. V.TolmanD. L. (2005). The adolescent masculinity ideology in relationships scale: Development and validation of a new measure for boys. Men and Masculinities, 8, 93–115. doi:10.1177/1097184X03257453
13.
ConleyT. D.ZieglerA.MoorsA. C. (2013). Backlash from the bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 392–407. doi:10.1177/0361684312467169
CortinaJ. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.
16.
CostelloA. B.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1–9.
17.
CoyneS. M.Padilla-WalkerL. M.HowardE. (2013). Emerging in a digital world: A decade review of media use, effects, and gratifications in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 125–137. doi:10.1177/2167696813479782
18.
CurtinN.WardL. M.MerriwetherA.CaruthersA. (2011). Femininity ideology and sexual health in young women: A focus on sexual knowledge, embodiment, and agency. International Journal of Sexual Health, 23, 48–62. doi:10.1080/19317611.2010.524694
19.
DeLamaterJ. D. (1989). The social control of human sexuality. In McKinneyK.SprecherS. (Eds.), Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal context (pp. 30–62). Westport, CT: Ablex.
20.
DworkinS. L.O’SullivanL. (2005). Actual versus desired initiation patterns among a sample of college men: Tapping disjunctures within traditional male sexual scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 150–158. doi:10.1080/00224490509552268
21.
EpsteinM.CalzoJ. P.SmilerA. P.WardL. M. (2009). “Anything from Making out to Having Sex”: Men’s Negotiations of Hooking up and Friends with Benefits Scripts.” Journal of Sex Research, 46, 414–424. doi:10.1080/00224490902775801
22.
EpsteinM.WardL. M. (2008). “Always use protection”: Communication boys receive about sex from parents, peers, and the media. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 113–126. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9187 -1
23.
FerrisA. L.SmithS. W.GreenbergB. S.SmithS. L. (2007). The content of reality dating shows and viewer perceptions of dating. Journal of Communication, 57, 490–510. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00354.x
24.
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London, England: Sage.
25.
Finnerty-MyersK. (2011). Understanding the dynamics behind the relationship between exposure to negative consequences of risky sex on entertainment television and emerging adults’ safe-sex attitudes and intentions. Mass Communication and Society, 14, 743–764. doi:10.1080/15205436.2010.540057
26.
FisherD. A.HillD. L.GrubeJ. W.GruberE. L. (2004). Sex on American television: An analysis across program genres and network types. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 529–553. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4804_1
27.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. A. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
28.
FujiokaY. (1999). Television portrayals and African-American stereotypes: Examination of television effects when direct contact is lacking. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 52–75. doi:10.1177/107769909907600105
29.
GalambosN.PetersenA.RichardsM.GitelsonI. (1985). The attitudes toward women scale for adolescents: A study of reliability and validity. Sex Roles, 13, 343–356. doi:10.1007/BF00288090
30.
GerbnerG.GrossL.MorganM.SignorielliN. (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In BryantJ.ZillmannD. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491.
32.
GordonM. K.WardL. M. (2000). I’m beautiful, therefore I’m worthy: Assessing associations between media use and adolescents’ self-worth. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Chicago, IL.
33.
HalpernC. T.KaestleC. E. (2014). Sexuality in emerging adulthood. In TolmanD. L.DiamondL. M.BauermeisterJ. A.GeorgeW. H.PfausJ. G.WardL. M. (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology, Vol. 1: Person-based approaches (pp. 487–522). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
34.
HamiltonL.ArmstrongE. A. (2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23, 589–616. doi:10.1177/0891243209345829
35.
HolbertR. L.ShahD. V.KwakN. (2003). Political implications of prime-time drama and sitcom use: Genres of representation and opinions concerning women’s rights. Journal of Communication, 53, 45–60. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb03004.x
36.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
37.
ImpettE. A.SchoolerD.TolmanD. L. (2006). To be seen and not heard: Femininity ideology and adolescent girls’ sexual health. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 129–142. doi:10.1007/s10508-005-9016-0
38.
JamiesonP.MoreE.LeeS.BusseP.RomerD. (2008). It matters what people watch: Health risk behaviors portrayed in top-grossing movies since 1950. In JamiesonP.RomerD. (Eds.), The changing portrayal of adolescents in the media since1950 (pp. 105–131). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
39.
KatzE.BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 509–523. doi:10.1086/268109
40.
KimJ. L.CollinsR. L.KanouseD. E.ElliottM. N.BerryS. H.HunterS. B.…KunkelD. (2006). Sexual readiness, household policies, and other predictors of adolescents’ exposure to sexual content in mainstream entertainment television. Media Psychology, 8, 449–471. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0804_6
41.
KimJ. L.SorsoliC. L.CollinsK.ZylbergoldB. A.SchoolerD.TolmanD. L. (2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 145–157. doi:10.1080/00224490701263660
42.
KirschA.MurnenS. (2014). “Hot” girls and “cool dudes”: Examining the prevalence of the heterosexual script in American children’s television media. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. doi:10.1037/ppm0000017
43.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
44.
LindbergS. M.HydeJ. S.McKinleyN. M. (2006). A measure of objectified body consciousness for preadolescent and adolescent youth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 65–76. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00263.x
45.
LippmanJ. R.WardL. M.SeabrookR. C. (2014). Isn’t it romantic? Differential associations between romantic screen media genres and romantic beliefs. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3, 128–140.
46.
LissM.ErchullM. J.RamseyL. R. (2010). Empowering or oppressing? Development and exploration of the enjoyment of sexualization scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 55–68. doi:10.1177/0146167210386119
47.
MahalikJ. R.LockeB. D.LudlowL. H.DiemerM. A.ScottR. P.GottfriedM.FreitasG. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
48.
MahalikJ.MorrayE.Coonerty-FemianoA.LudlowL.SlatteryS.SmilerA. (2005). Development of the conformity to feminine norms inventory. Sex Roles, 52, 417–435. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3709-7
MoradiB.HuangY. P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377–398. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x
51.
MurnenS. K.WrightC.KaluznyG. (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359–375. doi:10.1023/A:1020488928736
52.
NabiR. L.ClarkS. (2008). Exploring the limits of social cognitive theory: Why negatively reinforced behaviors on TV may be modeled anyway. Journal of Communication, 58, 407–427. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00392.x
NoarS. M.MorokoffP. J.HarlowL. L. (2002). Condom negotiation in heterosexually active men and women: Development and validation of a condom influence strategy questionnaire. Psychology and Health, 17, 711–735. doi:10.1080/0887044021000030580
56.
OrlofskyJ. L.RamsdenM. W.CohenR. S. (1982). Development of the revised sex-role behavior scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 632–638. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4606_13
57.
PleckJ. H.SonensteinF. L.KuL. C. (1993). Masculinity ideology: Its impact on adolescent males’ heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 11–29. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01166.x
58.
RamseyL. R.HoytT. (2014). The object of desire: How being objectified creates sexual pressure for women in heterosexual relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 151–170. doi:10.1177/0361684314544679
59.
ReiseS. P.WidamanK. F.PughR. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.552
60.
RichA. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5, 631–660.
61.
RideoutV. J.FoehrU. G.RobertsD. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
62.
RudmanL. A.MescherK. (2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 734–746. doi:10.1177/0146167212436401
63.
SakalukJ. K.ToddL. M.MilhausenR.LachowskyN. J., & Undergraduate Research Group in Sexuality. (2014). Dominant heterosexual sexual scripts in emerging adulthood: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 516–531. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.745473
64.
SimonW.GagnonJ. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120. 10.1007/BF01542219
65.
SprecherS.MettsS. (1989). Development of the romantic beliefs scale and examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 387–411. doi:10.1177/0265407589064001
66.
StithS. M.SmithD. B.PennC. E.WardD. B.TrittD. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65–98. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001
67.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
68.
TetenA. L.HallG. C. N.PacificiC. (2005). Validation of Acceptance of Coercive Sexual Behavior (ACSB): A multimedia measure of adolescent dating attitudes. Assessment, 12, 162–73. doi:10.1177/1073191105275042
69.
TolmanD. L. (2006). In a different position: Conceptualizing female adolescent sexuality development within compulsory heterosexuality. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 112, 71–89. doi:10.1002/cd.163
70.
TolmanD. L.KimJ. L.SchoolerD.SorsoliC. L. (2007). Rethinking the associations between television viewing and adolescent sexuality development: Bringing gender into focus. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 84.e9–84.e16.
71.
TolmanD.PorcheM. (2000). The Adolescent Femininity Ideology Scale: Development and validation of a new measure for girls. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 365–376. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00219.x
72.
van de SchootR.LugtigP.HoxJ. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 486–492. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.686740
73.
WardL. M. (1995). Talking about sex: Common themes about sexuality in the prime-time television programs children and adolescents view most. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 595–615. doi:10.1007/BF01537058
74.
WardL. M. (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults’ attitudes and assumptions about sexual relationships? Correlational and experimental confirmation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 1–15. doi:10.1023/A:1014068031532
75.
WardL. M.FriedmanK. (2006). Using TV as a guide: Associations between television viewing and adolescents’ sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 133–156. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00125.x
76.
WardL. M.ReedL.TrinhS.FoustM. (2013). Sexuality and entertainment media. In TolmanD.DiamondL. M. (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology, Volume 2: Contextual approaches (pp. 373–423). Washington, DC: APA.
77.
WardL. M.RivadeneyraR. (1999). Contributions of entertainment television to adolescents’ sexual attitudes and expectations: The role of viewing amount versus viewer involvement. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 237–249. doi:10.1080/00224499909551994
78.
ZurbriggenE. L.MorganE. M. (2006). Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes towards sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-8865-2
79.
ZurbriggenE. L.RamseyL. R.JaworskiB. K. (2011). Self-and partner-objectification in romantic relationships: Associations with media consumption and relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 64, 449–462. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9933-4
