Validity, Reliability, and Invariance of the Double Sexual Standard in a Colombian and Mexican Sample
Article Sidebar
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Downloads
Societal impact
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the validity, reliability and invariance of the Double Sexual Standard questionnaire in a sample of Colombian and Mexican adolescents and young adults.
Methods: The participants were 1,906 individuals, of whom 795 were men (41,7 %) and 1111 were women (58,2 %), aged between 15 and 28 (M = 20,16; SD = 2,28). The 61,1 % of the sample were Colombian and 38,8% were Mexican. The Sexual Double Standard Scale was used, which allows for the evaluation of more permissive acceptance when judging the sexual behavior of men than that of women.
Results: Although the original questionnaire has a unidimensional structure, exploratory factor analysis yielded two factors, which were named: factor 1 (condescending sexual behavior toward men) and factor 2 (strict sexual behavior toward women), explaining 51,7 % of the variance. This new version has adequate reliability. Furthermore, confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify this new version, and the fit indices were adequate (>0,908). The Differential Functioning (DIF) of the 10 items (DIF) was evaluated to identify whether the probability of responding differently to the double standard sexual behavior items in the Mexican and Colombian populations was concentrated. Item 8 showed a problematic pattern, with a significant uniform and non-uniform DIF in favor of Mexico. Similarly, item 3 showed non-uniform DIF, suggesting that it discriminates differently between the two countries. Likewise, statistically significant differences were found in condescending sexual behavior toward men and strict sexual behavior toward women, with Colombian men scoring higher than Mexican men.
Conclusions: The results of this research provide a valid and standardized measurement tool for the study of sexual double standards and the development of promotion and prevention programs for related issues such as intimate partner violence, sexism, and gender studies in sex education.
Article Details
References
1. Harsey SJ, Zurbriggen EL. Men and women’s self-objectification, objectification of women, and sexist beliefs. Self Identity. 2021;20(7):861–8.
2. Xue J, Lin K. Chinese university students’ attitudes toward rape myth acceptance: The role of gender, sexual stereotypes, and adversarial sexual beliefs. J Interpers Violence. 2022;37(5–6):2467–86.
3. Sierra JC, Gutiérrez-Quintanilla R. Psychometric study of the Salvadoran version of the Double Standard Scale. Cuad Med Psicosom Psiquiatr Enlace. 2007;(82):22–30.
4. Huang Y, Davies PG, Sibley CG, Osborne D. Benevolent sexism, attitudes toward motherhood, and reproductive rights: A multi-study longitudinal examination of gender equality. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2023;49(4):621–36.
5. Bermúdez MP, Ramiro MT, Teva I, Ramiro-Sánchez T, Buela-Casal G. Sexual behavior and human immunodeficiency virus testing among young university students in Cuzco (Peru). Gac Sanit. 2018;32(3):223–9.
6. Álvarez-Muelas A, Gómez-Berrocal C, Sierra JC. Study of sexual satisfaction in different typologies of adherence to the sexual double standard. Front Psychol. 2021;11:609571.
7. Chmielewski JF, Perdue LA, Bockrath CR. Gender differences in sexual attitudes: The enduring power of the double standard. Arch Sex Behav. 2023;52(1):287–301.
8. Gómez-Berrocal MDC, Vallejo-Medina P, Moyano N, Sierra JC. Sexual double standard: A psychometric study from a macropsychological perspective among the Spanish heterosexual population. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1907.
9. Delgado Amaro H, Alvarez MJ, Ferreira JA. Portuguese college students’ perceptions about the social sexual double standard: Developing a comprehensive model for the social SDS. Sex Cult. 2021;25(2):733–55.
10. Moyano N, Monge FS, Sierra JC. Predictors of sexual aggression in adolescents: Gender dominance vs. rape supportive attitudes. Eur J Psychol Appl Leg Context. 2017;9(1):25–31.
11. Álvarez-Muelas A, Gómez-Berrocal C, Sierra JC. Relationship between sexual double standards and sexual functioning and risky sexual behaviors: systematic review. Rev Iberoam Psicol Salud. 2020;11(2):103–16.
12. Endendijk JJ, Deković M, Vossen H, van Baar AL, Reitz E. Sexual double standards: Contributions of sexual socialization by parents, peers, and the media. Arch Sex Behav. 2022;51(3):1721–40.
13. Souto Pereira S, Swainston K, Becker S. The discursive construction of low-risk to sexually transmitted diseases between women who are sexually active with women. Cult Health Sex. 2019;21(11):1309–21.
14. Zaikman Y, Marks MJ. Promoting theory-based perspectives in sexual double standard research. Sex Roles. 2017;76(5–7):407–20.
15. Marks MJ, Busch TM, Wu A. The relationship between the sexual double standard and women’s sexual health and comfort. Int J Sex Health. 2022;34(3):409–23.
16. Kelly M, Inoue K, Barratt A, Bateson D, Rutherford A, Richters J. Performing (heterosexual) femininity: Female agency and role in sexual life and contraceptive use – a qualitative study in Australia. Cult Health Sex. 2017;19(2):240–55.
17. World Health Organization. Sexual health [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2020 [cited 2025 Sep 17]. Available from: https://www.who.int/es/health-topics/sexual-health
18. Muehlenhard CL, Quackenbush DM. The sexual double standard scale. In: Fisher TD, Davis CM, Yarber WL, Bauserman R, editors. Handbook of sexuality-related measures. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis; 2011. p. 199–200.
19. Ward LM, Rivadeneyra R. Contributions of entertainment television to adolescents’ sexual attitudes and expectations: The role of viewing amount versus viewer involvement. J Sex Res. 1999;36(3):237–49.
20. Zurbriggen EL, Morgan EM. Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes toward sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles. 2006;54(1–2):1–17.
21. Milhausen RR, Herold ES. Reconceptualizing the sexual double standard. J Psychol Human Sex. 2002;13(2):63–83.
22. Kang HY. A study on the characteristics of sexual knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and variables forecasting sexual intercourse of university students [dissertation]. Seoul: Sungkonghoe University; 2007.
23. Haavio-Mannila E, Kontula O. Single and double sexual standards in Finland, Estonia, and St. Petersburg. J Sex Res. 2003;40(1):36–49.
24. Caron SL, Davis CM, Halteman WA, Stickle M. Predictors of condom-related behaviors among first-year college students. J Sex Res. 1993;30(3):252–9.
25. Sierra JC, Costa N, Ortega V. A validation study of the Double Standard Scale and the Rape Supportive Attitude Scale in Brazilian women. Int J Psychol Res. 2009;2(2):90–8.
26. Ubillos S, Goiburu E, Puente A, Pizarro J. Adaptation and validation of the Double Standard Scale in Basque adolescents. Rev Psicol Soc. 2016;31(2):368–97.
27. Greene K, Faulkner SL. Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles. 2005;53(3–4):239–51.
28. Monge F, Sierra JC, Salinas JM. Factorial and metric equivalence of Double Standard Scale by gender and age. Suma Psicol. 2013;20(1):7–14.
29. Sierra JC, Santos-Iglesias P, Gutiérrez-Quintanilla JR. Validation of the Intimate Partner Abuse Index in women in El Salvador. Rev Mex Psicol. 2010;27(1):5–14.
30. Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39(1):31–6.
31. Harman HH. Modern factor analysis. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1967.
32. Pasquali L. TEP – Psychological examination techniques: the fundamentals. São Paulo: Vetor Editora; 2020.
33. Sierra JC, Santos-Iglesias P, Gutiérrez-Quintanilla R, Bermúdez MP, Buela-Casal G. Factors associated with rape-supportive attitudes: Sociodemographic variables, aggressive personality and sexist attitudes. Span J Psychol. 2010;13(1):202–9.
34. Vasilenko SA, Espinosa-Hernández G. Multidimensional profiles of religiosity among adolescents: Associations with sexual behaviors and romantic relationships. J Res Adolesc. 2019;29(2):414–28.
35. Olivera MP, Salinas-Oñate N, Silva A, Manríquez-Robles D, Neira-Pérez I. Gender norms and health risk behaviors: A systematic review in Latin American men. Psykhe. 2023;32(1):1–18.
36. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002;9(2):233–55.
37. Rojas OL, Castrejón-Caballero JL. The onset of sexual activity in Mexico: An analysis of changes over time and social differences. Rev Latinoam Poblac. 2020;14(27):77–114.
38. Marques AS, de Oliveira JM, Nogueira C. Sexual double standard in friends with benefits relationships: A literature review. Womens Stud Int Forum. 2024;105:102940.
39. Sánchez-Fuentes MDM, Moyano N, Gómez-Berrocal C, Sierra JC. Invariance of the Sexual Double Standard Scale: A cross-cultural study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1707.
40. Asensi-Rodríguez C, Martínez-Rolán X. Feminism in the digital age: Mobilization, resistance, and the anti-feminist backlash on social media. An approach to the fourth wave. Gender on Digital. J Digit Feminism. 2024;2:95–116.