1

Running head: THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK

The Master Key and the Bad Lock: Sexual Double Standards Based on Sexual History

Natalie Reymundo

Florida International University

2
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
Abstract

In recent years, the concept of dating has undergone several changes, including the way in which

it is approached. These changes have led to the making of a new category altogether among

emerging adults: hooking up. There is a lack of literature describing the existence of a sexual

double standard between men and women amidst a rising hook up culture among newer

generations. We examined U.S. 232 single, heterosexual male students at a South Florida

university on their perceptions of women based on a potential sexual partner’s sexual history

(many sexual partners versus few sexual partners) to determine whether men were sensitive to a

partner’s sexual history than women. Results from our independent samples t-test using SPSS

indicate that there is a significant difference in sexual desirability and attraction based on the

number of sexual partners a potential sexual partner has had (known as “body count”),

supporting our hypothesis.

Keywords: Hooking up, casual sex, double standard

3
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
Gender Disparities in Perceptions of Potential Sexual Partners Based on Sexual History

In moments of doubt, we can often turn to old adages and idioms for guidance. A person

who has heard of the adage, “A key that can open many locks is called a master key, but a lock

that can be opened by many keys is a bad lock,” has the understanding that men who have many

sexual partners are championed, while women with similar tendencies are perceived to be

devalued. This adage, like many others, not only reflects, but perpetuates the existence of a

double standard between men and women as a result of generational conservative ideals. In the

sexual context, the double standard that exists is that for however many sexual partners a man

has had and received praise for, a woman will be condemned and seen as less desirable.

The belief that has been passed down through several generations, as tradition reflects

that men have dominated positions of power in a society and thus have the ability to be

promiscuous without facing as much judgement as women do (Blackburn et al., 2002). A study

performed by Allison (2016) found that family shapes sexuality through the mechanisms of

surveillance, socialization, and stigmatization, supporting that familial influences facilitates the

proliferation of the different expectations and standards to which we hold men and women. The

aforementioned study conducted by Blackburn et al. (2002) also finds that while the power

disparity between men and women has been changing, there is no country where women have

gained equal access to power. This is quantifiably evidenced by the United Nations measure of

Gender Empowerment (GEM) – a measure of women’s empowerment– which has recorded that

all countries have a measure of less than 1. Since 1 is the value representing equality, this

indicates that men are at an advantage not only in the U.S., but across all countries.

While there have been many progressive efforts to diminish the gap between the power

disparity between men and women, we would like to take a closer inspection of the disparity on a
4
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
smaller scale: the college campus. Over time, young adults have made a steady departure from

dating and have replaced it with the increasingly popular concept of “hooking up” (Arnold,

2010; Bradshaw et al.). According to Arnold (2010), while researchers and students have varying

definitions of what it means to hook up, it is generally understood as an intimate physical

encounter between partners who hold no expectation of an ongoing committed relationship. This

phenomenon has surfaced as a result of progressive efforts advocating for liberalization of

gender roles, normalization of premarital sex, decline in piety, and postponement of marriage

and childbearing (Arnold, 2010). The rise of hook up culture can also be attributed to the

overarching idea that college is known to be a time of exploration, as leaving the family home

for college during young adulthood results in a decreased importance of family influence over

the young adults’ explorations of identity and relationships (Trinh et al., 2014). Additionally,

Bogle (2008) asserts that colleges are set up in such a way that makes for the ideal environment

to host casual sexual activity, further stimulating sexual curiosity in the transition from

adolescence to young adulthood. Hooking up has become so common among college students

that even those who have not experienced a hook-up describe very similar scenarios when asked

to describe a typical hook-up (Paul & Hayes 2002).

While hooking up offers a more egalitarian approach than traditional dating for both

genders, there seems to be double standard regarding a potential partner’s sexual history,

specifically regarding the number of previous sexual partners. While there is some evidence that

suggests that the double standard has disappeared, supporting the assertion that hooking up is

truly egalitarian in nature (Marks & Fraley 2005), most research still suggests that a double

standard persists affecting the perceptions of men and women, such that men are praised and

women are derogated for frequent sexual encounters (as cited in Bradshaw et al., 2010).
5
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
Additionally, Bradshaw et al. (2010) found that women generally prefer dating to hooking up,

and one of the reasons for this preference is that dating does not lead to them being labeled a

“slut” or feelings of shame and depression as they likely would following a hook-up. While

college women do still benefit from hooking up, such as feeling the excitement and affection

from sexual experiences without conforming to traditional gender roles (Paul & Hayes, 2002),

men still appear to gain more from hooking up than women.

Though there is extensive literature examining the hook up culture in college students,

research on gender interactions and standards is underexplored, with findings varying in

confirmation of the presence of a sexual double standard. Further, the designs of these studies

vary between “within-subject designs” and “between-subject designs,” all of which have

limitations that may affect the findings of their respective studies. For example, Crawford and

Popp (2003) stated that the “within-subject design” (such as questionnaire methods) “provide the

purest test of double standards because the same participants respond to the same set of questions

for each target” (p. 15), also yielding the most consistent findings. However, a limitation of that

study is that utilizing a questionnaire approach might fail to consider demand characteristics and

social desirability bias, which may affect the results and subsequent conclusion of the study

(Marks & Fraley, 2005). Between-subject designs studying the sexual double standard, while

having improved accountability for demand characteristics and social desirability biases, yields

still more inconsistent findings than within-subjects designs (Crawford & Popp, 2003), where

findings vary from confirming the existence of a sexual double standard to finding there was a

relative absence of the double standard. In essence, studies using within- and between- subject

designs are inconsistent and contradictory in their conclusions, thus lacking a strong support for

the existence of a sexual double standard (Milhausen & Herold, 1999).

6
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
As there has been a call to employ new methods for examining the existence of a double

standard with more confidence, measures such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald

et al., 1998) have surfaced in recent years for applications in sexual research (Geer & Robertson,

2005). The IAT is a latency-based measure of associative strength between concepts in which

participants rapidly classify stimuli into one of four concept groups that share two response keys

(Greenwald et al., 1998). Nosek et al. (2007) suggest that the IAT method examines three types

of implicit attitudes: associations of which a participant is consciously unaware, associations of

which a participant is aware, but rejects as not conforming with their actual beliefs, and

associations of which a participant is aware and endorses, but wants shielded from public

awareness. In this way, the IAT could offer more consistent results that eliminate the potential

for social desirability bias present in self-report measures that reflect explicit attitudes that have

undergone an introspective process by the participant. Sakaluk and Milhausen’s study (2012)

employing the IAT for a sexual double standard found that gender was the only variable

significantly related to both implicit and explicit sexual double standards, where both genders

endorsed an explicit traditional double standard, but men endorsed a stronger explicit double

standard than women.

With the development of progressive social reforms advocating for sexual liberation,

many young adults may deny the importance of how many sexual partners an individual has had

as a factor selecting a sexual partner or romantic interest to reflect a progressive mindset.

However, they may nevertheless harbor implicit attitudes and reservations about a potential

sexual or romantic partner’s sexual history in regard to the number of previous sexual partners

(usually referred to as “body count”), thus still affecting the process of selecting a sexual partner

regardless. In pursuance of examining the presence of a sexual double standard, we have

7
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
developed a study that examines whether heterosexual men—the more critical of the two genders

in regard to the sexual double standard—harbor both explicit and implicit biases towards women

who disclose a greater number of previous sexual partners. We predicted that if single,

heterosexual men were to select a sexual partner that discloses their body count, then men will

perceive a higher body count as less desirable than a lower body count,

Methods

Participants

Two hundred thirty-two male undergraduate students were selected from Florida

International University. Participants ranged from 18 to 26 (M = 20.2, SD = 1.73) and we

specifically selected traditional undergraduate students for this study as hook-up culture is most

prevalent in younger generations who began to experiment sexually in college soon after

graduating high school (within two years of graduating). Racial and ethnic demographics

included 53.87% Hispanic (N = 125), 18.1% Caucasian (N = 42), 15.09% African American (N

=35), 9.48% Asian American (N =22), and 3.45% who reported as other (N = 8). A restriction

was sexuality, as we are focusing on heterosexual men, excluding men with other sexual

orientations since the biases we are investigating do not apply to the same degree. Further, no

participants were involved in a romantic relationship to eliminate any implicit biases of having a

romantic partner throughout the study. Most participants volunteered through the Psychology

Department participant pool.

Materials

Participants answered demographic questionnaires addressing standard demographic

attributes such as gender, age, and ethnicity as well as questions addressing their sexual history

and perceptions thereof (see appendix B). Participants were given definitions of hooking up,
8
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
“friends-with-benefits” (FWB) relationships. Hooking up was defined as “a sexual encounter,

usually only lasting one night, between two people who are strangers, brief acquaintances.

Physical interaction is typical and may or may not include sexual intercourse or other sexual

activities.” FWB was defined as “two people who engage in sexual activity without being in a

committed relationship. All means of data collection and conduits for experimentation

(questionnaires, IATs, Indexes, etc.) were conducted online through the FIU Psychology

Research Participation System.

Measure 1. The Sexual Double Standard IAT (Greenwald et al., 1998) is a measure that

provides a means to examine the double standard without the presence of the demand

characteristics and social desirability biases that contaminate self-report research. During an

IAT, participants on a computer are asked to rapidly sort stimuli that appear in the middle of

their screen into the correct concept on either the left or right side of their screen (Lane et al.,

2007). Concepts IAT are distinct, with pairs of “categories” being the evaluative targets (e.g.

male and female), and pairs of “attributes” functioning as the evaluative quality (e.g. positive and

negative; Lane et al). As conducted in Sakaluk and Milhausen’s (2012) study, participants

completed the IAT as follows:

Participants proceed through the seven trial blocks of an IAT, with blocks 3-4 and 6-7

being of particular interest. In the first block of trials, participants practice sorting

category stimuli (e.g. male or female), while in the second block of trials, participants

practice sorting attribute stimuli (e.g. positive or negative). In the third and fourth

“combined-task” blocks, participants must sort stimuli from both category and attribute

groups simultaneously; each category share a side of the screen, as well as a response key

with an attribute (Male/Positive or Female/Negative). In the fifth block, participants

9
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
practice sorting category stimuli again, however the category labels switch to the

alternate side of the screen (e.g. female or male). Categories are paired again with

attributes in the sixth and seventh “combined-task” blocks, however, in an arrangement

opposite of the third and fourth block arrangement (e.g. Female/Positive or

Male/Negative). Response latency and accuracy is measured to examine whether one

arrangement was more easily sorted than the other. Nosek et al. (2007) state that in these

combined tasks, a stronger cognitive association between paired categories and attributes

should facilitate a speedier response than if category and attribute were not strongly

associated.

Measure 2. Simpson’s (1990) two-item scale known as the Physical and Sexual

Attractiveness Index was developed in a study concerning the perception of attractiveness of

opposite-sex persons. An example question is: “How attractive do you find the person in the ad?”

(rated on a 7-point scale, where 1 = not at all and 7 = extremely). However, these questions were

slightly modified to fit the context of the simulation.

Measure 3 The Sexual Desire and General Likeability Indexes developed by Prokop,

Pazda, and Elliot’s (2015) measure women's sexual desire toward a man seen in a picture and

their perceptions of his general likeability. This 9-item measure was designed to ask questions on

a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). An example question is: “To what degree would you

like to have sex with this man?” Questions were modified to be administered to both genders.

Procedure

Data were collected through the FIU Psychology Research Participation System.

Participants signed into the website with their student credentials then selected our study to

participate and answered the preliminary questions to determine their eligibility for the study
10
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
Upon receiving eligibility status for the study, informed consent was obtained and were briefed

on the nature of the study, the questions they will be administered, and the type of simulation

they will be exposed to. Participants were then administered the demographic survey and were

then exposed to a date-style simulation in which they meet a fictional woman at hypothetical

event on campus. This between subjects design randomly selected individuals will receive either

condition one (a woman with a high body count) or condition two (a woman with a low body

count). Both conditions were administered evenly and randomly between the participants: 50%

of participants received condition one (meeting a woman with a high body count) and 50% of

participants received condition two (meeting a woman with a low body count). The independent

variable will be described amidst the simulated person’s attributes (personality, interests, major,

etc.) in the description and dialogue between the simulated person and the participant. To

elaborate, the as the participant “meets’ the fictional woman at the campus event, the body count

will be implied in a conversation between the participant and the fictional woman. However,

these attributes will be neutral and be averagely attractive so as to not create bias from the

participant that could contaminate the effects of the independent variable in the study (e.g. the

body count will be disclosed in a conversation with fictional woman that describes her major,

hobbies, etc. to maintain the implicitness of the independent variable, but the details will be

neutral to maintain the integrity of the independent variable). After “meeting” their assigned

person through the date simulation, participants will answer questions based on the Sexual

Desire and General Likeability Indexes and the Physical and Sexual Attraction Index to measure

sexual attraction and the likeliness that the person would ever engage with the person sexually.

Then, participants will be exposed to the Sexual Double Standard IAT to account for implicit
11
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
attitudes and control for participant social desirability bias that could be present in the previous

self-report measures. Following the IAT, participants were debriefed.

Data Analysis

An independent samples t-test was conducted using SPSS to examine the difference

between condition one (met a woman with a high body count) and condition two (met a woman

with a low body count).

Results

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare sexual desirability and

attraction levels between the group of participants who received condition one (met a woman

with a high body count) and the group of participants in condition two (met a woman with a low

body count). There was a significant difference in sexual desirability and attraction levels

between Group 1 (M = 61.7, SD = 4.21) and Group 2 (M = 85.0, SD = 4.61 ), t(DF) = 230, p

< .05. As a result, the null hypothesis (body count has no effect on sexual desire/attraction) was

rejected, and the alternative hypothesis (body count has an effect on sexual desire/attraction) was

accepted.

The effect size for the analysis (d = -5.27) was found to exceed Cohen’s (1988)

convention for a large effect (d = .80). Levene’s test for equality of variances was violated for

the present analysis, F(DF) = .779, p = .378. These results suggest that when participants are

meet a woman who discloses a higher body count, they will have lower levels of sexual desire

and attraction to the woman. Specifically, our results indicate that participants who are meet a

woman who discloses a higher body count lower levels of sexual desire and attraction than those

who meet a woman who discloses a lower body count.

12
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine both the implicit and explicit attitudes that

heterosexual men may harbor in regard to women who engage in sexual activity at a high

frequency versus women who engage in sexual activity at a low frequency which contribute to

the sexual double standard between the two genders. 232 single, heterosexual male students

volunteered through the FIU Psychology Research Participation System, completing both

implicit and explicit measures of sexual desire and attraction to reflect a sexual double standard,

as well as several sexuality and demographic items. In summation, body count (the number of

sexual partners a person has had) was the only variable that was significantly related to both

implicit and explicit double standards. Men who underwent a date simulation meeting a fictional

woman who disclosed a higher body count were significantly less sexually attracted to the

woman than men who underwent a date simulation meeting a fictional woman disclosing a lower

body count. For the IAT, men demonstrated a double standard by associating sexually negative

words with female words than with male words. For the Sexual Desire and General Likeability

Indexes as well as the Physical and Sexual Attractiveness Index, men consistently demonstrated

lower scores for sexual desire and attraction towards fictional women who disclosed higher body

counts than women who disclosed lower body counts, supporting our hypothesis.

Results of this study support previous findings that a sexual double standard exists. For

example, Sakaluk and Milhausen’s (2012) study found that men endorse a strong explicit sexual

standard. In this present study, it was also found that men harbor explicit attitudes reflecting a

traditional sexual double standard. However, while Sakaluk and Milhausen’s (2012) study found
13
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
that men implicitly evaluated female and male stimuli similarly, this study demonstrates that the

presence of an implicit traditional sexual double standard persists at the implicit level.

While there is some research that has produced similar findings to this study, there is a

wealth of research with results that contradict these findings. For example, Mark and Miller

(1986), Sprecher (1989) and Marks and Fraley (2005) have all found little to no support for the

assertion that a sexual double standard exists, while this study reflects that a sexual double

standard exists. Although there is a lack of research with findings similar to those of this study

and a plethora of research suggesting opposing findings, it is nonetheless a reasonable ratio

considering the novel and contemporary nature of this aspect of sexual research. Despite

developments in social reform for gender equality and sexual liberation, it seems that the double

standard persists due to traditional nature of the double standard, as this standard has been passed

down through generations (Allison, 2016) and perpetuated in the media (Medley-Rath, 2007).

A limitation of this study is the potential underestimation to which believe the neutral

attributes to describe the fictional woman in the situation were actually neutral. More

specifically, it is entirely possible that a seemingly neutral attributes to describe the fictional

woman (major, occupation, etc.) were actually not neutral, and could have potentially influenced

the level sexual desire and attraction of the participants to the fictional woman in the dating

simulation.

Future research examining explicit and implicit attitudes of heterosexual men towards

women should consider also including women in their study to determine if this sexual double

standard is present in all genders, and if so, if one gender endorses a double standard to a greater

extent than the other gender, as found in Sakaluk and Milhausen’s (2012) study. Future research

should also consider a different means for participants to meet a potential sexual partner, as there
14
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
is a possibility that the date simulation used in this study could have confounding variables that

could influence the participants’ sexual desire and attraction.

All research regarding this topic has yielded inconsistent findings due to either

desirability biases present in explicit self-report measures such as questionnaires or inconsistent

results employing between-subject designs. This study was conducted with the aim of

eliminating social desirability bias and demand characteristics resulting from introspection

during self-report methods with the most accuracy possible, and we recommend for the

limitations to be carefully reviewed and evaluated in future replications of this study. While this

study has similar findings to that of previous research, it nonetheless contributes to the

understanding of the still underexplored topic of sexual attitudes.

.
15
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
References

Allison, R. (2016). Family influences on hooking up and dating among emerging

adults. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 20(3), 446-463.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1007/s12119-016-9334-5

Arnold, K. D. (2010). College Student Development and the Hook Up Culture. Journal of

College & Character, 11(4), 1.

Blackburn, R. M., Browne, J., Brooks, B., & Jarman, J. (2002). Explaining gender

segregation. British Journal of Sociology, 53(4), 513-536.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/0007131022000021461

Bogle, K.A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating and relationships on campus. New York: New

York University Press.

Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A., & Saville, B. (2010). To Hook Up or Date: Which Gender

Benefits? Sex Roles, 62(9–10), 661–669. https://doi-org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1007/s11199-

010-9765-7

Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological

critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 13-26.

Geer, J. H., & Robertson, G. G. (2005). Implicit attitudes in sexuality: Gender differences.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(6), 671-677.

Greenwald, A. G. , McGhee , D. E. , & Schwartz , J. L. K. ( 1998 ). Measuring individual

differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test . Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology , 74 , 1464 – 1480 .

Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007) Understanding and using

the implicit association test: IV. What we know (so far) about the method. In B.
16
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
Wittenbrink, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes. (pp. 59-102). New

York: The Guilford Press.

Mark, M. M., & Miller, M. L. (1986). The effects of sexual permissiveness, target gender,

subject gender, and attitude toward women on social perception: In search of the double

standard. Sex Roles, 15(5), 311-322.

Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles,

52(3), 175-186.

Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist?

Perceptions of university of women. The Journal of Sex Research, 36(4), 361-368.

Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The implicit association test at age 7: A

methodological and conceptual review. In J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Automatic processes in

social thinking and behavior. (pp. 265-292). London: Psychology Press.

Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The casualties of ‘casual’ sex: A qualitative exploration of

the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 19, 639–661.

Prokop, P., Pazda, A. D., & Elliot, A. J. (2015). Influence of conception risk and sociosexuality

on female attraction to male red. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 166-170.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.042

Sakaluk, J., & Milhausen, R. (2012). Factors Influencing University Students’ Explicit and

Implicit Sexual Double Standards. Journal of Sex Research, 49(5), 464–476. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/00224499.2011.569976

Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of physical attractiveness:

Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of

17
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1192–

1201. https://doi-org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1192

Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of individuals. The

Journal of Sex Research, 26(2), 232-248

Trinh, S., Ward, L. M., Day, K., Thomas, K., & Levin, D. (2014). Contributions of Divergent

Peer and Parent Sexual Messages to Asian American College Students’ Sexual

Behaviors. Journal of Sex Research, 51(2), 208–220.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/00224499.2012.721099
18
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK

Appendix A

ADULT CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY

[Insert Title of Study]

SUMMARY INFORMATION

(Note: This summarized key information section needs to be included at the beginning of all
Consent Forms. The information provided in this section must be brief. More detailed
information should be provided later on in the respective areas of the Consent Form).

Things you should know about this study:

 Purpose: The purpose of the study is to measure levels of attraction in men on a

college campus setting.
 Procedures: If you choose to participate, you will be asked to answer demographic
questions, undergo a date simulation, perform in Implicit Attitudes Test, and answer
questions based on your date simulation experience.
 Duration: This will take about 1hour and 15 minutes
 Risks: The main risk or discomfort from this research is disclosing sexual history
 Benefits: The main benefit to you from this research is receiving SONA credits
 Alternatives: There are no known alternatives available to you other than not taking
part in this study.
 Participation: Taking part in this research project is voluntary.

Please carefully read the entire document before agreeing to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to measure levels of attraction in men on a college campus setting.

NUMBER OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS

If you decide to be in this study, you will be one of 232 people in this research study.
19
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK

DURATION OF THE STUDY

Your participation will involve 1 hour and 15 minutes.

PROCEDURES

If you agree to be in the study, we will ask you to do the following things:
 Fill out a demographic questionnaire.
 Participate in a date simulation where you meet a fictional person at a campus event.
 Complete an Implicit Associations Test (IAT).
 Answer questions regarding your experience in the dating simulation.

RISKS AND/OR DISCOMFORTS

While there are no risks in this study, you may face the discomfort of disclosing vague sexual
history questions.

BENEFITS

The study has the following possible benefits to you: Receiving (3) SONA Credits.

ALTERNATIVES

There are no known alternatives available to you other than not taking part in this study (

CONFIDENTIALITY

The records of this study will be kept private and will be protected to the fullest extent provided
by law. In any sort of report we might publish, we will not include any information that will
make it possible to identify you. Research records will be stored securely, and only the
researcher team will have access to the records. However, your records may be inspected by
authorized University or other agents who will also keep the information confidential.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) may request to review and obtain
copies of your records.

A description of this clinical trial will be available on http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, as required

by US Law. This web site will not include information that can identify you. At most, the web
site will include a summary of the results. You can search this website at any time.

USE OF YOUR INFORMATION

 Your information collected as part of the research will not be used or distributed for future
research studies even if identifiers are removed.
20
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
COMPENSATION & COSTS

You will receive a payment of (3) SONA Credits for your participation. There are no costs to
you for participating in this study.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You are free to participate in the study or withdraw
your consent at any time during the study. You will not lose any benefits if you decide not to
participate or if you quit the study early. The investigator reserves the right to remove you
without your consent at such time that he/she feels it is in the best interest.

RESEARCHER CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions about the purpose, procedures, or any other issues relating to this
research study you may contact Natalie Reymundo at Florida International University [(786)425-
7573), [nreym002@fiu.edu]

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

If you would like to talk with someone about your rights of being a subject in this research study
or about ethical issues with this research study, you may contact the FIU Office of Research
Integrity by phone at 305-348-2494 or by email at ori@fiu.edu.

PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT

I have read the information in this consent form and agree to participate in this study. I have had
a chance to ask any questions I have about this study, and they have been answered for me. I
understand that I will be given a copy of this form for my records.

________________________________ __________________
Signature of Participant Date

________________________________
Printed Name of Participant

________________________________ __________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Appendix B

Age ___

What is your racial or ethnic background? Hispanic

21
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
Caucasian

African American

Asian American

Other

What year are you in? Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

What is your current living situation? On-campus housing

Off-campus housing

Living at home with family

Are you involved in extracurricular activities Yes

(clubs, reek life, student unions)? No

Do you engage in casual sex? Yes

No

Have you ever had a casual nonmonogamous Yes

relationship or a friends-with benefits No

relationship?

How conscious are you about your sexual (Not at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Very much)

health?

How many sexual partners have you had? ___

At what age did you first experience sexual ___

intimacy? (sexual intercourse, oral sex, etc.)

22
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
Have you ever been involved in a romantic Yes

relationship? No

If so, for how long? ____

N/A

When was the last time you were sexually Within the last week

intimate? Within the last month

Within the last year

Within the last 2+ years

N/A

About how frequently do you have casual sex A couple times a week

(including with friends-with-benefits Once a week

relationships)? A couple times a month

Once a month

A couple times a semester

N/A

Do you think casual sex is appropriate for Yes

men? No

Do you think casual sex is appropriate for Yes

women? No

Do you consider factors beyond physical Yes

attractiveness in a sexual partner for a hook No

up or friends-with-benefits relationship? N/A

If so, please describe _________

23
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
Do you believe you are sexually liberal, or Sexually liberal

sexually conservative? Sexually conservative

Do some or all of your sexual encounters Yes

originate from meeting sexual partners on No

campus? N/A

Do some or all of your sexual encounters Yes

originate from meeting sexual partners on No

social media or dating applications? N/A

Do some or all of your sexual encounters Yes

originate from meeting sexual partners at No

parties or nightclubs? N/A

Where else might you meet someone to seek

sexual partnership? N/A

Appendix C
24
THE MASTER KEY AND THE BAD LOCK
Independent Samples T-Test

95% Confidence
Interval

Statisti Mean SE Cohen's

df p Lower Upper
c difference difference d

Sexual Student's < .00

-40.2 230 -23.3 0.580 -Inf -22.3 -5.27
Desire t 1
< .00
Welch's t -40.2 228 -23.3 0.580 -Inf -22.3 -5.27
1

Note. Hₐ 1 < 2

Assumptions
Homogeneity of Variances Test (Levene's)
F df df2 p

Sexual Desire 0.779 1 230 0.378

Note. A low p-value suggests a violation of the assumption of equal

variances

Group Descriptives
Grou Mea Media
N SD SE
p n n

Sexual Desire 1 116 61.7 62.5 4.21 0.391

2 116 85.0 84.6 4.61 0.428