See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/8544545

Gender Differences in Affective Responses to Sexual Rejection

Article  in  Archives of Sexual Behavior · September 2004

DOI: 10.1023/B:ASEB.0000028892.63150.be · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

28 2,416

2 authors:

Hanneke de Graaf Theo G M Sandfort

Rutgers, Utrecht, Netherlands Columbia University
64 PUBLICATIONS   1,036 CITATIONS    275 PUBLICATIONS   7,513 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sexual Health in the Netherlands View project

Sex under the age of 25 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hanneke de Graaf on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

P1: GAD
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp1222-aseb-487860 May 20, 2004 4:38 Style file version July 26, 1999

Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 33, No. 4, August 2004, pp. 395–403 (°
C 2004)

Gender Differences in Affective Responses

to Sexual Rejection

Hanneke de Graaf, M.A.1,3 and Theo G. M. Sandfort, Ph.D.2

Received October 18, 2002; revision received October 7, 2003; accepted November 20, 2003

The aim of this study was to answer the following questions: (1) Are affective responses to sexual
rejection different for men and women? (2) Do positive emotions to sexual rejection occur and how
do they balance with negative emotions? (3) How can gender differences in affective responses to
sexual rejection be explained? A sample of 67 men and 65 women (age 18–30 years) completed
a questionnaire in which they rated their affective responses to a hypothetical situation of sexual
rejection. Analyses of variance revealed gender differences: men anticipated a less negative and
more positive affective response to sexual rejection than women did. Men also reported they would
experience a more positive than negative affective response after supposedly being sexually rejected.
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that differences between men and women were
mediated by the respondents’ expectations in the stimulus situation, their interest in casual sex, and
their masculinity.

KEY WORDS: gender differences; courtship; sexual rejection; affective responses.

INTRODUCTION sexual intercourse in various situations (Donald, Lucke,

Many single young adults would like to be involved
in an intimate, sexual relationship. The interactions they
have while trying to find such a relationship do not al-
ways develop as planned or expected. People may find it
difficult to decipher whether a potential partner attaches
the same meaning to an interaction as they themselves
do. Sometimes, a potential partner may terminate an en-
counter that seemed to contain clear signs of reciprocal
sexual interest. We call such situations forms of sexual
rejection. Experiencing that kind of rejection will evoke
affective responses. Understanding these responses is im-
portant to prevent them from escalating into lasting neg-
ative states such as low self-esteem, depression, uncon-
trolled anger, or date rape. Research on responses to sexual
rejection is, however, not widespread. So far, studies have
largely focused on affective responses of young adults to
1 Rutgers Nisso Group, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
2 HIV
Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies, New York State Psy-
chiatric Institute and Columbia University, New York, New York.
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Rutgers Nisso
Group, P.O. Box 9022, 3506 GA Utrecht, Netherlands; e-mail:
h.degraaf@rng.nl.
Dunne, & Raphael, 1995; Guggino & Ponzetti, 1997;
Herold & Mewhinney, 1993; Leigh Aramburu, & Nor-
ris, 1992; Townsend, 1995) or uninvited sexual behavior
(Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1993).
The affective responses that might be elicited by sex-
ual rejection can be understood from the perspective of
sexual scripts (Gagnon & Simon, 1973). Such scripts de-
fine situations, name the actors involved, plan behavior,
and help people to perceive situations and inform them
about what is to be expected. Violation of the rules laid
out in a script might elicit a variety of responses. One of
the norms of current sexual scripts is mutuality (Træen
& Clift, 2000). In situations of sexual rejection this mu-
tuality within intimate encounters is violated. Although
sexual rejection is expected to be a negative experience
for both men and women, the encounter could elicit posi-
tive emotions as well.
The sexual scripts that men and women acquire are
not completely identical. Because men and women at-
tach different meanings to similar situations, it is likely
that their affective responses to sexual rejection differ as
well. This is supported by various studies of young adults.
Metts, Cupach, and Imahori (1992) examined responses

395
0004-0002/04/0800-0395/0 °
C 2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: GAD
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp1222-aseb-487860 May 20, 2004 4:38 Style file version July 26, 1999
396
to sexual rejection messages. Their findings showed that,
compared to men, women felt more uncomfortable and
would restrain their future sexual advances due to sex-
ual rejection. This finding suggests that women are more
sensitive to sexual rejection than men are. Baumeister,
Wotman, and Stillwell (1993) also found that women ex-
perienced unrequited love as more painful than men did.
Emotional reactions will also depend on the situation
in which rejection occurs, such as the nature of the rela-
tionship between the two people involved, as well as events
that precede rejection. In a situation of perceived mutual
sexual interest, responses to a refusal of sexual intercourse
will be different if two people just met for the first time
or if there had been prior, sexual or nonsexual, involve-
ment. Likewise, people will respond differently if sexual
intercourse took place, but the other person rejects further
involvement, or if both persons only kissed and no sex-
ual intercourse took place yet. Sexual intercourse, usually
evoking various affective responses (Donald et al., 1995;
Guggino & Ponzetti, 1997), is considered to be a more
intimate form of sexual behavior than kissing (Johnson
& Edwards, 1991). Thus far, only situations of sexual re-
jection that did not contain sexual intercourse have been
investigated (Metts et al., 1992).
Little work has been done to find out the origin of
differences in men and women’s responses to sexual re-
jection. These differential responses are likely to be a con-
sequence of other factors on which men and women tend to
differ. One of the factors that potentially mediates the rela-
tionship between biological sex and the response to sexual
rejection is permissiveness in sexual attitudes. People with
less permissive attitudes are more likely to believe that sex-
ual behavior should be something that happens in a mean-
ingful relationship. This applies especially to the more
intimate forms of sexual behavior (Johnson & Edwards,
1991). On the basis of previous research (Carroll, Volk,
& Hyde, 1985; Okami & Shackelford, 2001; Oliver &
Hyde, 1993; Townsend, 1995), we expect the condition
of a meaningful relationship to be a more central element
in the sexual script of women than of men. When cre-
ated expectations of future involvement are not fulfilled,
women will experience more intensely a discrepancy be-
tween their values and behavior than will men, inducing
stronger negative feelings in women.
Besides people’s normative standards, they may also
differ in the extent to which they themselves appreciate
sexual contact with a casual partner. We call this factor
interest in casual sex. The dominant sexual script pre-
scribes men to desire sexual contact, both in committed
relationships and during casual encounters, whereas for
women the interest in sexual contact is regulated by their
desire for intimacy (LaPlante, McGormick, & Brannigan,
de Graaf and Sandfort
1980; Okami & Shackelford, 2001; Townsend, 1995). In
line with this, Clark and Hatfield (1989) found that none
of the young women but 75% of the young men they
studied responded positively to an invitation to have sex
with an attractive stranger. It is likely that men, contrary
to women, will experience a brief sexual encounter as
something positive, even if, against their own preferences,
the relationship is not prolonged. In general, women do
not like to have sex with someone only once (Carroll
et al., 1985) and want sexual contact to lead to some kind
of relationship (Okami & Shackelford, 2001; Townsend,
1995).
Differences between men and women in affective re-
sponses might also depend upon the expectations with
which they engage in a sexual encounter. Men and women
tend to expect different things from each other and we as-
sume that awareness of such differences is integrated in
their sexual scripts. Being aware of the gender stereotype
that men always want to have sex, women do not expect
men to say “no” to an opportunity of sexual intercourse
(O’Sullivan & Byers, 1996). In other words, women’s sex-
ual script is not prepared to explain rejection by a male
partner. As a consequence, women are more likely to seek
for an explanation for being rejected in their own short-
comings. This is supported by the finding of Metts et al.
(1992), who showed that, compared to men, women per-
ceived sexual rejection as less predictable.
A fourth factor that might mediate the gender-
differentiated response to sexual rejection is having had
actual experiences with sexual rejection. Such experiences
may teach people how to cope with sexual rejection and
subsequently protect them from the negative impact of it.
In accordance with sexual scripts that mandate men to ini-
tiate and women to restrict sexual activity, we expect men
to be more experienced when it comes to being rejected
than women are. As a consequence, they would experience
less strong negative emotions.
Finally, differential responses of men and women
to sexual rejection might result from different levels of
masculinity and femininity. These factors refer to a broad
range of culture-specific characteristics and behaviors that
are typically attributed to men (e.g., independent, strong)
and women (e.g., sensitive, romantic), respectively. Be-
ing masculine or feminine does not, however, coincide
completely with a person’s biological sex: both men and
women differ among and between each other on both di-
mensions. People’s levels of masculinity and femininity
are likely to affect the working of their sexual scripts.
Persons who in general think, feel, and behave in a way
usually attributed to men will also have more of these
masculine beliefs in sexual situations. They will respond
to sexual rejection in the direction predicted for men,
P1: GAD
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp1222-aseb-487860 May 20, 2004 4:38
Gender Differences and Sexual Rejection
regardless of whether they are male or female. For femi-
nine persons, we expect an analogous effect.
This study compared young heterosexual male and
female adults on their anticipated negative and positive
affective responses to sexual rejection. Responses to two
situations were investigated. In both situations, the person
had just met his or her partner. This was done to keep
the stimulus situation simple and to eliminate potential
confounding of preexisting feelings. The factor that was
varied in both situations was what happened before the
rejection occurred. In one situation, rejection took place
after the two persons involved only had engaged in kiss-
ing; in the other situation, the two people also had sexual
intercourse. We expected emotional responses to sexual
rejection to be stronger when it was preceded by sexual
intercourse than just by kissing. In addition to examining
gender differences in the affective response to sexual re-
jection, this study aimed at explaining such differences as
well, by exploring which factors mediate the relationship
between biological sex and affective responses to sexual
rejection.
METHOD
Participants
To obtain a heterogeneous sample of young adults,
respondents were recruited in a variety of locations, such
as bars, school and university canteens, and work settings
(shops) in the Netherlands. At each location, persons es-
timated to be between 18 and 30 years of age were ap-
proached and invited to participate in the study by the first
author. She informed potential participants about the pur-
pose of the study (“To investigate how men and women
think about sexuality and relationships”), the anonymity
of the questionnaire, and that it would take about 30-min
to complete the questionnaire. Next, she asked them if
they would be willing to participate in the study. When
they agreed, she checked if the age of the participant was
indeed between the intended 18 and 30 years. From this
moment, the procedure depended on the circumstances
in which the participants were recruited. If possible, the
questionnaire was collected the next day at the same place.
When recruited in bars or other places where this was not
possible, the participants were asked for their name and
address so that an anonymous questionnaire and postage-
paid reply envelope could be mailed to them.
Four approached persons were not interested in par-
ticipation. A total of 136 of the 220 questionnaires that
were handed out were returned, yielding a response rate of
61%. Three women were excluded from analyses because
they identified themselves as exclusively or primarily at-
Style file version July 26, 1999
397
tracted to women and one man because he was older than
the age limit that was set.
The final sample thus consisted of 67 men and
65 women. The mean age of the respondents was 22.8
years (SD = 3.64). More than half of the respondents
were students (53.4%), whereas 44.3% had a job or were
looking for a job. Of the students, 68.6% were college stu-
dents. Of the respondents who had a job or were looking
for a job, 29.5% had a college degree.
Fifty-three percent of the respondents were in a steady
relationship, which had lasted between 1 month to over
8 years (M = 2.5 years; SD = 1.87). Of the total sam-
ple, 88.6% reported that they had engaged in sexual in-
tercourse. The mean age of first intercourse was 17 years
(SD = 2.31). Of the respondents with coital experience,
30.5% only had had intercourse with steady partners,
67.0% with steady and casual partners, and 2.5% with ca-
sual partners only. The number of persons the respondents
had intercourse with during their lifetime ranged from 1 to
75 for men (Mdn = 4.0; SD = 14.25) and from 1 to 30 for
women (Mdn = 4.0; SD = 6.21). During the preceding
year, 6.7% of the sexually experienced respondents had
not had intercourse, 57.1% had intercourse with one part-
ner, and 36.2% with two or more different partners. Dif-
ferences between men and women were not statistically
significant for all of these relational and sexual history
variables.
Measures
The questionnaire contained a written instruction
concerning the importance of honesty and not discussing
questions with others. The instruction also stressed the
anonymity of participation. The questionnaire started with
questions about demographics, followed by scales mea-
suring factors expected to explain the relationship between
gender and the affective responses. All scales had items
with 5-point response options. Scale scores were calcu-
lated by dividing the total sum score by the number of
items.
Next, one of two versions of the scenario appeared,
and respondents were asked to imagine experiencing the
described situation themselves. These two versions were
assigned randomly. After a description of the situation,
participants were asked what they would like to happen
and what they thought was likely to happen. Subsequently,
participants were confronted with the rejection. This was
done on a new page, to prevent influence of knowledge
of the outcome of the scenario on the responses to the
two preceding questions measuring desire and expecta-
tion. After the scenario, the list of affective responses was
inserted in the questionnaire. Finally, the respondents were
P1: GAD
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp1222-aseb-487860 May 20, 2004 4:38
398
asked about their actual experience with sexual rejection
and their sexual history.
Demographic Variables and Sexual History
Standard demographic measures and measures were
administered for descriptive purposes. These measures
and the measures on sexual history included can be found
in the description of the participants. We assessed sex-
ual orientation to be able to exclude participants with a
nonheterosexual preference from the analysis.
Rejection Scenarios, Desires, Expectations,
and Affective Responses
Respondents were presented with one of two versions
of a scenario. This scenario was created based on a pilot
study by Leigh et al. (1992), in which a typical “pick up”
situation was constructed, and on a study by Edgar and
Fitzpatrick (1993), in which a script for a casual sexual
encounter was generated. Both versions of the scenario
started as follows:
Imagine being single and on an evening out. In a dis-
cotheque, you notice an attractive person of the opposite
sex. The two of you make eye contact and start talk-
ing. You turn out to like each other: you keep talking
and dancing with each other all evening. After a while,
the discotheque closes. You go outside together. Then
s/he asks if you feel like coming to his/her apartment
for a drink. At the apartment, you both have a drink on
the couch. You talk together, listen to music, and start
kissing.
From this point, the two versions of the scenario were
different. In the first version participants were asked how
much they would like to have sex themselves and how
likely it was that the other person wanted to have sex with
them. Subsequently, the scenario continued as follows:
After kissing for a while, the other person says s/he wants
to go to sleep, and asks you to leave. You realize s/he does
not want to have sex. S/he says s/he had a good time, but
it is clear s/he does not want to have any further contact.
In the second version, participants were told:
Eventually, you move to the bedroom and have sex. After
having sex, you lie together and talk a bit.
Respondents were subsequently asked how much they
would like to continue to meet the other person and how
likely it was that they would indeed see each other again.
Thereafter, the scenario continued as follows:
After a while, the other person says s/he wants to go to
sleep, and asks you to leave. S/he says s/he had a good
Style file version July 26, 1999
de Graaf and Sandfort
time, but it is clear s/he does not want to have any further
contact.
After reading the scenario, participants were asked
how they supposed they would feel after experiencing
the respective situation. A list of 32 possible affective re-
sponses to the scenarios was presented to the participants.
This list was based on the First Coital Affective Reaction
Scale (Schwartz, 1998) and on a list of emotions gener-
ated by Hermans (1974). Respondents were requested to
indicate the applicability of each of the emotions (1 = not
at all applicable, 5 = very much applicable). Because we
considered the presence of positive emotions to be differ-
ent from the absence of negative emotions, two separate
summarizing scales were constructed, each consisting of
16 emotions (Cronbach’s alpha for positive emotions, .89;
for negative emotions, .92; see Appendix for the list of
emotions).
Sexual Permissiveness
To assess respondents’ acceptance of men and
women having numerous and casual sexual experiences,
we constructed an 18-item scale based on the Sexual
Double Standard Scale (Muehlenhard & Quackenbush,
1998). Each item was presented in parallel forms, one re-
ferring to men’s and the other to women’s sexual behavior
(e.g., “I kind of admire a woman who has had sex with
a lot of men” and “I kind of admire a man who has had
sex with a lot of women”). The items were mixed and
appeared as a single scale in the questionnaire (α = .83).
Respondents were asked to rate their degree of agreement
with these items.
Interest in Casual Sex
On the basis of the Sexual Attitudes Scale (Hendrick
& Hendrick, 1987), we constructed a scale to assess the
respondents’ general interest in casual sex. This scale con-
tained 10 statements about casual sex and sex in a commit-
ted relationship (e.g., “I do not need to be committed to a
person to have sex with him/her” and “Sex gets better as a
relationship progresses”). Respondents were requested to
indicate how much they agreed with the items. Cronbach’s
alpha was .80.
Perception of the Other Sex’s Interest in Casual Sex
To assess the respondents’ perception of the desire of
the opposite sex for casual sex, we modified the items of
the scale measuring Interest in Casual Sex by replacing “I”
as the subject by either “men” or “women,” depending on
P1: GAD
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp1222-aseb-487860 May 20, 2004 4:38 Style file version July 26, 1999

Gender Differences and Sexual Rejection 399

whether the participant was female or male, respectively
(e.g., “I would like to have sex with many partners” was
changed into “Men/women would like to have sex with
many partners”). This scale also contained 10 items (α =
.77).
Experience With Rejection
We assessed the respondents’ experience with sex-
ual rejection by asking them, after they had rated their re-
sponses to the stimulus situation: “Did you ever experience
a situation like this yourself?” Responses were yes/no.
Masculinity and Femininity
To assess levels of masculinity and femininity, we
used the Dutch Sex-Identity Questionnaire (Nederlandse
Sekse-Identiteit Vragenlijst; Willemsen & Fischer, 1996,
1999). This questionnaire includes components on per-
sonality traits as well as behaviors, preferences, and inten-
tions, with the purpose of measuring the extent to which a
person’s self-concept reflects stereotypic notions of femi-
ninity and masculinity. All items have 5-point rating scales,
with anchor points varying with the topic of the item.
The scale has been shown to have satisfactory content,
criterion, and construct validity (Willemsen & Fischer,
1996, 1999). In this study, some items were excluded
from the scales on account of low item-total correlations.
Cronbach’s alpha was .82 for the masculinity scale (19
items) and .85 for the femininity scale (23 items).
RESULTS
Mean scores of men and women on Positive and Neg-
ative Emotions in response to both situations are shown in
Table I. A 2 (Gender) × 2 (Situation: no intercourse vs. in-
tercourse) multivariate analysis of variance, with Positive
and Negative Emotions as the dependent variables, re-
vealed multivariate main effects for Gender, F(2, 127) =
11.48, p < .001, and Situation, F(2, 127) = 3.57, p <
.05. A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) for Posi-
tive Emotions yielded a significant main effect for Gender,
F(1, 128) = 14.03, p < .001. The ANOVA for Negative
Emotions yielded significant main effects for both Gender,
F(1, 128) = 19.11, p < .001, and Situation, F(1, 128) =
7.20, p < .01.
Men anticipated a stronger positive response to both
situations than women did, F(1, 130) = 14.24, p < .001,
whereas women anticipated a stronger negative response
to both situations than men did, F(1, 130) = 18.80, p <
.001. Both men and women anticipated more Negative
Emotions to rejection after the second situation compared
to the first situation (rejection after intercourse vs. re-
jection without intercourse, F(1, 130) = 6.88, p < .01).
Men had a higher score on Positive than on Negative
Emotions in response to both situations, t(66) = 2.25,
p < .05, whereas women had a higher score on Negative
than on Positive Emotions in response to both situations,
t(64) = −4.38, p < .001.
To explore how the relationship between gender and
affective responses to sexual rejection could be explained,
we first tested whether men and women differed on the fac-
tors we expected to mediate this relationship (viz. sexual
permissiveness, interest in casual sex, other sex’s interest
in casual sex, masculinity, femininity, desires, and expec-
tations in the hypothetical situations, and experience with
rejection). We subsequently conducted four two-step hier-
archical multiple regression analyses, one for each com-
bination of Positive and Negative Emotions with type of
situation. In the first step, potentially mediating variables
on which men and women differed were included. In the
second step, we added Gender to see whether it would

Table I. Means for Positive and Negative Emotions by Gender and Situation

Men (N = 67) Women (N = 65) Total (N = 132)

Dependent variable M SD M SD M SD

Positive emotions
Situation 1a 2.53 .11 2.19 .11 2.37 .60
Situation 2b 2.48 .11 1.97 .11 2.21 .75
Mean 2.51 .67 2.08 .62 2.30 .68
Negative emotions
Situation 1a 2.05 .15 2.54 .15 2.29 .83
Situation 2b 2.29 .15 3.11 .15 2.70 1.00
Mean 2.17 .82 2.83 .94 2.49 .94

Note. Response scale: 1 = not at all applicable, 5 = very much applicable.

a Sexual rejection not preceded by sexual intercourse.
b Sexual rejection after sexual intercourse has taken place.
P1: GAD
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp1222-aseb-487860 May 20, 2004 4:38 Style file version July 26, 1999

400 de Graaf and Sandfort

Table II. Sex Differences on the Mediating Variables

Men (N = 67) Women (N = 65)

Variables M SD M SD df t

Sexual permissiveness 2.58 .58 2.48 .64 130 1.01

Interest in casual sex 2.60 .71 2.16 .61 130 3.76***
Perception other sex’s interest in casual sex 2.62 .57 3.11 .51 129 −5.20***
Masculinity 3.31 .52 2.95 .39 130 4.44***
Femininity 3.01 .38 3.61 .35 130 −9.43***
Desire to have intercourse in situation 1a 3.91 1.12 3.34 1.33 65 1.90
Desire second date in situation 2b 3.97 .69 3.79 1.14 63 .77
Expecting intercourse in situation 1a 3.63 .84 4.41 .67 65 −4.17***
Expecting second date in situation 2b 3.84 .99 3.61 1.22 63 .86
%Yes %Yes df χ2
Experience with situations similar situation 1a 38.2 15.6 1 4.25*
Experience with situations similar to situation 2b 37.5 21.1 1 2.08

a Sexualrejection not preceded by sexual intercourse.

b Sexualrejection after sexual intercourse has taken place.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

predict the observed differences over and above the vari-
ables identified in the first step.
Of the 11 variables that we thought might mediate
gender differences in the affective responses, six showed
statistically significant differences between men and
women (Table II). Men were more in favor of casual sex
than were women (medium effect size). Women expected
men to have a stronger interest in casual sex than men
expected women to have (high effect size). In the first hy-
pothetical situation (where rejection was not preceded by
sexual intercourse), women also expected that the other
person wanted to have sex more strongly than men did
in the same situation (high effect size). More men than
women reported to have had experiences similar to the
first hypothetical situation, in which rejection occurred
without having had intercourse. Men rated themselves
as more masculine and less feminine than women (re-
spectively medium and high effect sizes). No significant
gender differences were found in sexual permissiveness.
Men and women also did not differ in the desire to have
sex in the first hypothetical situation and in the desire
and the expectation that they would see the other person
again in the second hypothetical situation. The propor-
tions of men and women who reported to have experi-
enced the second hypothetical situation also did not differ
significantly.
The results of the four two-step hierarchical multiple
regression analyses are summarized in Table III. Positive
Emotions in response to the first hypothetical situation of
sexual rejection (no intercourse) were significantly pre-
dicted by the participant’s Expectations to have sexual
contact in the specific situation and Masculinity, together
accounting for 17% of the variance. The more respondents
expected that the other person wanted to have sex in this
hypothetical situation, the less positive affective response
was anticipated when being rejected. Respondents who
rated themselves as more masculine anticipated more pos-
itive emotions. Other variables on which men and women
differed did not contribute independently to the explana-
tion of Positive Emotions. Adding Gender in the second
step did not significantly increase the proportion of ex-
plained variance in positive emotions.
Negative Emotions in response to the first hypothet-
ical situation were uniquely predicted by Masculinity, in-
dicating that respondents who rated themselves as more
masculine anticipated a less negative affective response to
being rejected in this situation. In this situation, adding
Gender in the second step also did not significantly in-
crease the proportion of explained variance.
Positive Emotions in the second hypothetical situa-
tion of sexual rejection (after intercourse had taken place)
were uniquely explained by Interest in Casual Sex. Re-
spondents with a stronger interest in casual sex showed
a more positive response to rejection in this situation.
Adding Gender in the second step also did not signifi-
cantly increase the proportion of explained variance of
Positive Emotions. Negative Emotions in response to the
second hypothetical situation were also explained by In-
terest in Casual Sex. Respondents who like to have sex
without having a committed relationship showed a less
negative response to rejection after having had intercourse.
Additionally, Negative Emotions in this situation were ex-
plained by Masculinity, although in a lesser degree. Higher
levels of masculinity corresponded with lesser Negative
P1: GAD
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp1222-aseb-487860 May 20, 2004 4:38
Gender Differences and Sexual Rejection
Table III. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Emotional Responses From Gender Differences
Situation 1a
Positive emotions Negative emotions
Variables entered β R21 β R21
Step 1
Interest in casual sex
Situational expectations −.32** .11**
Masculinity .25* .06* −.31*
Model R 2 .17
F (2, 64) = 6.60** (1, 65) = 6.96*
Step 2
Gender −.08 .00 .22
Model R2 .18
F (3, 63) = 4.44** (2, 64) = 5.15**
a Sexualrejection not preceded by sexual intercourse (N = 67).
b Sexualrejection after sexual intercourse has taken place (N = 65).
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Emotions. As in the other situations, Gender did not add
significantly to the explanation of Negative Emotions.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explore whether
men and women respond differently to two hypothetical
situations of sexual rejection and, if so, how such differ-
ences could be explained. The results showed that men
and women indeed responded differently to sexual rejec-
tion. In accordance with our expectations, based on sexual
script theory and past research (Baumeister et al., 1993;
Metts et al., 1992), women anticipated a stronger negative
response after being rejected than men did. Compared to
women, men anticipated a stronger positive response in
this situation. We also expected that sexual rejection would
be a predominantly negative experience for both men and
women. This seemed to be the case for women, but not
for men. It was somewhat surprising that men anticipated
experiencing a more positive than negative response to
being sexually rejected, regardless of whether rejection
was preceded by sexual intercourse. The two hypothetical
situations themselves seemed to evoke different affective
reactions. Both men and women anticipated a stronger
negative response to being rejected after intercourse had
taken place than they did after rejection without having
had intercourse.
The different affective responses to sexual rejection
between men and women were mediated by gender-related
factors. The specific factors that mediated the relationship
between biological sex and emotional response were the
expectation that sex might occur in the hypothetical situ-
ations, one’s interest in casual sex, and the self-rated level
Style file version July 26, 1999
401
Situation 2b
Positive emotions Negative emotions
β R21 β R21
.67*** .45*** −.50*** .39***
.10* −.25* .05*
.10 .45 .44
(1, 63) = 51.06*** (2, 62) = 24.08***
.04 −.08 .01 .14 .02
.14 .45 .45
(2, 62) = 25.71*** (3, 61) = 16.88***
of masculinity. Biological sex as such did not explain the
observed differences.
This study had a few limitations. One of them is the
use of hypothetical situations to assess affective responses
to sexual rejection. For some respondents, it might be dif-
ficult to imagine being in the described situation or to
imagine how they would feel after having been in such a
situation. Using hypothetical situations also limits the pos-
sibilities to discuss all the aspects of an interpersonal en-
counter that could influence a person’s affective response
to it. Another limitation concerns the hypothetical situa-
tions used in this study. There are obviously various de-
grees of rejection and the situations used in this study
could be considered to be relatively mild forms of rejec-
tion. Rejection in situations in which people have made
more extensive investments might elicit more negative and
less positive affective responses. A final limitation is the
relatively small sample size. The latter could account for
the fact that none of the differences between men and
women in sexual history were significant.
Our findings can be interpreted from the perspec-
tive of sexual scripts. Women’s stronger negative response
suggests that sexual rejection hurts them more than it does
men. It could, however, also be that men are less willing
to admit that they are hurt. After all, men’s gender script
prescribes them not to express their emotions or vulnera-
bility. Men’s more positive response to rejection suggests
that for them the hypothetical situations contained suf-
ficient positive rewards to counterbalance any negative
feelings. In men’s sexual script, it is actual sexual con-
tact, regardless of its intensity or duration, which counts,
whereas in women’s sexual script intimacy, and in the case
of rejection, deceived intimacy, is more central.
P1: GAD
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp1222-aseb-487860 May 20, 2004 4:38 Style file version July 26, 1999
402
When the two hypothetical situations were compared,
men and women’s affective responses turned out to be
more negative when they were rejected after actual inter-
course took place. For women, this is in accordance with
the finding of Townsend (1993) that women expect some
emotional investment after sexual intercourse. If that in-
vestment is lacking, they might feel “used.” Because being
used for sex by a woman does not fit the male sexual script,
the rejection by women after sexual intercourse might be
difficult to explain for men and they have to look for an-
swers elsewhere. Because a common element of the male
and female sexual script is that it is the male responsibil-
ity to perform during sexual intercourse, men might get
upset when being rejected afterwards because it implies
something negative about their quality as a lover.
The role of the factors that mediated the relationship
between biological sex and affective response can also be
understood from a sexual script perspective. This is the
case with men’s stronger interest in casual sex. Because it
is part of the male sexual script that women do not want
to have sex in casual encounters, men reckon with the
potential risk of rejection in sexual encounters. They can
enjoy the positive elements of a sexual encounter without
sexual intercourse more than women do, even when being
rejected, because they did not expect to get sex in the first
place. Also, men will experience a relatively more positive
response to a short-lived sexual encounter, simply because
they like to have casual sex. For men, a casual sexual en-
counter is perceived as a pleasant experience, even when
the other person decides they will not meet again. Further-
more, men having more characteristics and behaviors that
are stereotypically subscribed to men, such as being inde-
pendent, adventurous and self-assured, hiding emotions,
fighting when angry and going out alone, explains why
they experience a more positive and less negative affec-
tive response to being sexually rejected than women do.
Although the design of our study and the analysis of
the data was guided by the perspective of sexual scripts,
this is not the only viable perspective. Our findings could
also be understood from the perspective of evolutionary
psychology (cf. Buss, 1994) or social exchange theory
(Baumeister & Tice, 2001). Our findings cannot give a
decisive answer about the superiority of one perspective
over the other.
Some of the gender differences we expected in the
mediating variables were not significant. Men and women
did not differ in their acceptance of other persons hav-
ing numerous and casual sexual experiences. Unlike the
constructors of the Sexual Double Standard Scale
(Muehlenhard & Quackenbush, 1998), we did not find a
double standard: the respondents allowed men and women
the same amount of sexual freedom. As for the perceptions
de Graaf and Sandfort
of the stimulus situation, men and women also did not dif-
fer in their desire to have sex in the hypothetical situations.
Finally, men and women were similar in their expecta-
tions or desires to see the other person again after sexual
intercourse. We expected gender differences in these vari-
ables based on research with North American samples.
It could be that in the Netherlands, where this study was
conducted, these differences indeed do not exist. One ex-
planation for the absence of such differences would be that
in the United Stated, gender roles are more distinct than in
the Netherlands (Hofstede, 1991, 1998), where men can
be less masculine and are expected to have feminine quali-
ties as well. Furthermore, not finding a sexual double stan-
dard could be explained by the Dutch culture being more
sexually permissive than the American culture (Widmer,
Treas, & Newcomb, 1998). However, this could also be a
consequence of the adapted instruments we used. These
potential cultural differences require further exploration.
In summary, the contributions of this study to the
literature are threefold. First, this study is the first to ex-
plain gender differences in responses to sexual rejection,
by gender specific expectations and desires, characteris-
tics, and behavior. Another contribution of this study is the
examination of a situation where sexual rejection is pre-
ceded by sexual intercourse. Finally, this study is the first
to examine both negative and positive affective responses
to sexual rejection.
Assuming that being rejected is a common experi-
ence for young adults, we think that further research on
this topic is necessary. On the basis of the limitations of
this study described above, we recommend complement-
ing the measures used in this study by in-depth interviews.
Qualitative research into actual experiences of sexual re-
jection might broaden the perspective on this issue. Fur-
thermore, it would be interesting to study the interactional
process and investigate the methods people use to indi-
cate they are not interested in having sex or in having a
sexual relationship. In the situations used in this study,
the rejection message was very clear. It is likely that in
reality most people will use more indirect methods. Metts
et al. (1992) showed that directness in rejection messages
increases the negative impact of the message. It is likely
that men and women differ in the rejection methods they
use and that they misinterpret each other’s messages. This
miscommunication in turn can evoke negative affective
responses. Furthermore, we would strongly recommend
cross-cultural research, to get a better understanding of
the role that social climate and gender arrangements play
in emotional events as rejection. Understanding the con-
sequences of rejection and the processes involved is de-
sirable to be able to prevent negative emotional states and
their potentially harmful consequences.
P1: GAD
Archives of Sexual Behavior pp1222-aseb-487860 May 20, 2004 4:38 Style file version July 26, 1999

Gender Differences and Sexual Rejection 403

APPENDIX: LIST OF POSITIVE AND Donald, M., Lucke, L., Dunne, M., & Raphael, B. (1995). Gender differ-
NEGATIVE EMOTIONS ences associated with young people’s emotional reactions to sexual
intercourse. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 453–464.
Edgar, T., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1993). Expectations for sexual interac-
Positive emotions tion: A cognitive test of the sequencing of sexual communication
Self-esteem behaviors. Health Communication, 5, 239–261.
Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of
Energy human sexuality. Chicago: Aldline.
Happiness Guggino, J. M., & Ponzetti, J. J. (1997). Gender differences in affective
Enjoyment reactions to first coitus. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 189–200.
Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (1987). Multidimensionality of sexual at-
Love titudes. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 502–526.
Relief Hermans, H. J. M. (1974). Waardegebieden en hun ontwikkeling. Ams-
Excitement terdam, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D. M. K. (1993). Gender differences in
Pleasure casual sex and AIDS prevention: A survey of dating bars. Journal
Romance of Sex Research, 30, 36–42.
Peace Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
London: HarperCollins.
Solidarity Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension
Satisfaction of national cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Security Johnson, K. L., & Edwards, R. (1991). The effects of gender and type of
romantic touch on perceptions of relational commitment. Journal
Trust of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 43–55.
Joy LaPlante, M. N., McCormick, N. B., & Brannigan, G. G. (1980). Living
Freedom the sexual script: College students’ views of influence in sexual
encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 338–355.
Warmth Leigh, B. C., Aramburu, B., & Norris, J. (1992). The morning af-
ter: Gender differences in attributions about alcohol-related sex-
Negative emotions ual encounters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 343–
Anxiety 357.
Loneliness Metts, S., Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1992). Perceptions of sexual
compliance-resisting messages in three types of cross-sex relation-
Exploited ships. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 1–17.
Tension Muehlenhard, C. L., & Quackenbush, D. M. (1998). Sexual Double
Anger Standard Scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bausermans,
G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related
Powerlessness measures (pp. 186–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inferiority Okami, P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual
Depression psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 186–
241.
Unhappy Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A
Embarrassment meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.
Guilt O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1996). Gender differences in responses
to discrepancies in desired level of sexual intimacy. Journal of Psy-
Regret chology and Human Sexuality, 8(1/2), 49–67.
Disappointment Schwartz, I. M. (1998). First Coital Affective Reaction Scale. In C. M.
Confusion Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bausermans, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis
(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 127–128).
Not being who I am Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Concerned Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1993). College
men’s and women’s reactions to hypothetical sexual touch var-
ied by initiator gender and coercion level. Sex Roles, 29, 371–
REFERENCES 385.
Townsend, J. M. (1995). Sex without emotional involvement: An evolu-
tionary interpretation of sex differences. Archives of Sexual Behav-
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2001). The social dimension of sex. ior, 24, 173–206.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Træen, B., & Clift, S. (2000). A qualitative study of Norwegians’ ac-
Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited counts of unpleasant sexual encounters. Scandinavian Journal of
love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Sexology, 3, 50–64.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 377–394. Widmer, E. D., Treas, J., & Newcomb, R. (1998). Attitudes toward
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. nonmarital sex in 24 countries. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 349–
New York: Basic Books. 358.
Carroll, J. L., Volk, K. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences between Willemsen, T. M., & Fischer, A. H. (1996). Femininiteit en Masculiniteit
males and females in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse. in Nederland. De ontwikkeling van de Nederlandse Sekse-Identiteit
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 131–139. Vragenlijst (NSIV). Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to Willemsen, T. M., & Fischer, A. H. (1999). Assessing multiple facets of
sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2(1), gender identity: The Gender Identity Questionnaire. Psychological
39–55. Reports, 84, 561–562.

View publication stats