Validade, Confiabilidade e Invariância do Duplo Padrão Sexual em uma Amostra Colombiana e Mexicana
Barra lateral de artigos
Como Citar
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.displayStats.downloads##
Societal impact
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Resumo
Objetivo: Analisar a validade, a confiabilidade e a invariância do Questionário de Duplo Padrão Sexual em uma amostra de adolescentes e jovens adultos colombianos e mexicanos.
Métodos: Os participantes foram 1.906 indivíduos, dos quais 795 eram homens (41,7%) e 1.111 eram mulheres (58,2%), com idades entre 15 e 28 anos (M 20,16; DP 2,28). 61,1% da amostra eram colombianos e 38,8% mexicanos. Foi utilizada a Escala de Duplo Padrão Sexual, que avalia a maior permissividade em relação ao comportamento sexual masculino comparado ao feminino.
Resultados: Embora o questionário original apresente uma estrutura unidimensional, a análise fatorial exploratória resultou em dois fatores: Fator 1 (Comportamento Sexual Condescendente em Relação aos Homens) e Fator 2 (Comportamento Sexual Rigoroso em Relação às Mulheres), que explicam 51,7% da variância. Esta nova versão demonstra confiabilidade adequada. A análise fatorial confirmatória foi utilizada para verificar esta nova versão, e os índices de ajuste foram adequados (>0,908). O Funcionamento Diferencial do Item (FDI) dos 10 itens foi avaliado para identificar se a probabilidade de resposta diferenciada aos itens sobre o duplo padrão sexual difere entre as populações mexicana e colombiana. O item 8 apresentou um padrão problemático, com FDI uniforme e não uniforme significativo favorecendo o México. Da mesma forma, o item 3 apresentou FDI não uniforme, sugerindo que discrimina de forma diferente entre os dois países. Igualmente, diferenças estatisticamente significativas foram encontradas no comportamento sexual condescendente em relação aos homens e no comportamento rígido em relação às mulheres, com os homens colombianos apresentando pontuações mais altas em comparação aos homens mexicanos.
Conclusões: Os resultados desta pesquisa fornecem um instrumento de mensuração válido e padronizado para o estudo do duplo padrão sexual e para o desenvolvimento de programas de promoção e prevenção de problemas relacionados, como violência doméstica, sexismo e estudos de gênero na educação sexual.
Detalhes do artigo
Referências
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.