Scripts when it comes to dating the same sex

Preliminary Analyses

Overall, the sample reported moderate levels of dating and sexual experience and minimal endorsement of gendered stereotypical attitudes about sex. Using a ten-point scale, college students' ratings of their dating and sexual experiences fell near the mid-point, which translated to “1-2 sexual relationships.” Men (M=4.82, SD=2.70), however, reported significantly higher levels of dating and sexual experience than did women (M=4.09, SD=2.36), F(1, 500)=10.46, p<.01. Women, on average, neither agreed nor disagreed with the Heterosexual Script (M=3.25, SD=0.72), but they disagreed with traditional masculinity (M=1.86, SD=0.54). Men's endorsement of the Heterosexual Script was significantly higher than their female counterparts', F(1, 504)=36.26, p<.001, and men's endorsement of traditional masculinity was also significantly higher than women's, F(1, 505)=205.60, p<.001. Still, men, on average, neither agreed nor disagreed with the Heterosexual Script (M=3.62, SD=0.65), and disagreed a little with the expectations of traditional masculinity (M=2.62, SD=0.66).

There were two sets of preliminary analyses. For each set, all analyses for women and men were conducted separately because of the study's focus on gender. First, we ran zero-order correlations between the three dependent variables and the following demographic variables: raised outside the U.S., maternal and paternal education, age, religiosity, Greek affiliation, and race (with 0/1 dummy codes representing membership in specific ethnic groups). Previous research has demonstrated that each of these demographic characteristics is frequently correlated with sexual attitudes and experiences (e.g., Ahrold & Meston, 2010; Berntson et al., 2014; Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfand, 2008). Results for women and men are provided in Table 1.

Almost all demographic characteristics emerged as significant correlates to women's and men's sexual attitudes and level of dating and sexual experience. Women and men shared several similarities. For example, being religious was correlated with more endorsement of both masculine ideology and the Heterosexual Script, and less sexual experience for women and men. Belonging to a fraternity or a sorority was associated with stronger endorsement of the Heterosexual Script and higher levels of sexual experience. For women and men, being older was associated with being more sexually experienced. Identifying as Asian was only associated with less sexual experience, and identifying as Black was associated with stronger endorsement of traditional masculinity. There were also some gender differences. For example, having a highly educated mother was associated with a weaker endorsement of masculine ideology among women and higher levels of sexual experience among men. The significant demographic correlates were controlled for in all analyses predicting sexual attitudes and behaviors.

For the second set of preliminary analyses, we conducted inter-correlations between reports of peer communications across scripts to determine if multicollinearity exists. For women and men, correlations between different discourses from male and female peers did not exceed .77. The majority of the inter-correlations for women (82%) and men (79%) were below .60. For women and men, reports of each discourse from female peers highly correlated with reports of the same discourse from male peers (r=.39 to r=.77). In general, greater exposure to any given discourse was associated with greater exposure to another discourse. There were a few exceptions. For example, men's reports of male peers' procreational script messages were not linked to reports of female peers' and male peers' Heterosexual Script messages.

Finally, we looked at overall peer sexual communications by collapsing across reports of male and female peer communications. Overall means for peer communications are presented in Table 2. Women and men, on average, reported that the most frequently and least frequently discussed sexual scripts were recreational sex and procreation, respectively. Only one significant gender difference emerged; women reported receiving significantly more messages regarding the relational script than did men.

Hypotheses Testing

Because we expected that communications would vary according to who spoke to whom, we ran linear mixed models, which are presented in Table 3. We did not find support for hypothesis 1 that undergraduate women – regardless of the gender(s) of their peers – would report receiving more restrictive messages (i.e., relational, procreational, and Heterosexual Scripts) than undergraduate men. Instead, women reported receiving significantly more messages regarding each sexual script than men. Yet, these significant main effects are qualified by the significant peer gender and recipient gender interactions that emerged for each script. Estimated marginal means for male and female peer communications are presented in Table 4. We found some evidence for Hypothesis 2, which states that undergraduate women would receive more messages from their same-sex peers about relational and procreational scripts than men, who would receive more messages from their same-sex friends about the Heterosexual and recreational scripts than women. Hypothesis 2 also stated that other-sex friends would convey more recreational script messages to undergraduate women and more relational script messages to undergraduate men. As expected, undergraduate women reported more messages from their same-sex peers about relational and procreational scripts than did men, who received more messages from their same-sex peers about recreational sex than did women. Other-sex friends conveyed more recreational script messages to undergraduate women and more relational script messages to undergraduate men. Contrary to our prediction, undergraduate women received more same-sex peer communications regarding the Heterosexual Script than did men.

Two sets of three hierarchical regressions were conducted to answer the question (RQ1) regarding the unique contributions of male peers' and female peers' sexual communications to college students' sexual attitudes and levels of dating and sexual experience. Significant demographic correlates were entered in step 1, and peer communications of each sexual script from male and female peers were entered in step 2. Refer to Table 5 for women's results. Nothing predicted women's endorsement of masculine ideology and level of dating and sexual experience. However, significant discourse predictors emerged for endorsement of the Heterosexual Script. After controlling for several demographic characteristics, female peers' communication of the Heterosexual Script and male peers' communication of the procreational script each predicted greater endorsement of the Heterosexual Script. Also, male peers' communications of the relational script predicted weaker endorsement of the Heterosexual Script. Peer sexual communications accounted for an additional 3.8% to 19.2% of the variance in undergraduate women's sexual attitudes and levels of sexual experience. Results for men are provided in Table 6. Only female peers' communications of the recreational script predicted higher levels of men's endorsement of masculine ideology. Additionally, only female peers' communications of the recreational script predicted more sexual experience. Only male peers' communications of the Heterosexual Script predicted higher endorsement of the Heterosexual Script. Peer sexual communications accounted for an additional 6.1% to 30.1% of the variance in undergraduate men's sexual attitudes and level of sexual experience.

Table 6

Regression Analyses Testing Which Discourses Best Predict Sexual Attitudes and Sexual Experience among Undergraduate Men

Masculine Ideology (AMIRS)	Heterosexual Script	Sexual Experience
Step 1. Demographics
Raised outside of the U.S.	-.04	.02	.02
Maternal education	-.08	-.01	.07
Paternal education	.01	.01	.04
Age	.01	.09	.15*
Religiosity	.10	.03	-.12
Greek affiliation	.07	.14*	.27***
Asian	.06	-.02	-.20**
Black	.16*	.04	.12
Step 1 adjusted R2	.016	-.007	.157
Step 2. Peer Communications
Source: Female Peers
Hookup	.22*	.01	.21*
Relational	-.15	-.12	.08
Heterosexual	.13	.01	.19
Procreational	.10	-.16	-.06
Source: Male Peers
Hookup	-.11	.05	.05
Relational