Subjects: In both Study #1 and Study #2, subjects were 48 men and 48 women who were on the campus of Florida State University. Sixteen subjects were randomly assigned to each of the six conditions.

Procedure: The confederates stood on one of five college quadrangles, and approached members of the opposite sex, who were total strangers. Only one requestor made a request in each area at any one time. The requestors were instructed to approach only subjects who were attractive enough that they would be willing to actually sleep with them, if given the opportunity (assuming, of course, that they were appropriate on other grounds as well). On a scale of 1 to 9 (1 = "Very unattractive"; 9 = "Very attractive"), female confederates rated the subjects M = 7.30. Male confederates rated the subjects M = 7.70. (These ratings were not significantly different; t < 1.00.) The confederates' ratings made it clear that they only selected "moderately" to "very attractive" male and female subjects.

Once a subject was selected, the requestor approached him/her and said: "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive." The confederate then asked subjects one of three questions: "Would you go out with me tonight?" or "Would you come over to my apartment tonight?" or "Would you go to bed with me tonight?" Thus, this procedure resulted in a 2 x 3 factorial design [Sex of requestor (2 levels) x Type of request (3 levels)].

The requestor carried a notebook which had one of the three requests written on a separate page. The type of request was randomly determined for each requestor. After the selection of a subject, each requestor flipped a page in the notebook to see what type of request was to be made.

The requests were made during weekdays to decrease the probability of subjects refusing because they had dates or other social obligations. Subjects were not approached between class periods or during rainy weather.

Subjects were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A 2 x 3 x 2 multidimensional chi-square analysis was used to analyse the data (Winer, 1971). In Study #1, conducted in 1978, the results indicated that men were more likely to say yes to each type of invitation than were women (65% versus 21%, Χ² (1) = 18.78, p < .001). However, as can be clearly seen in Table 1, Sex of requestor/Sex of subject interacted with the type of invitation, Χ² (2) = 29.33, p < .001. Whereas, both males and females were willing to go out on a date, it was only the males who agreed to go to the females apartment and go to bed with her, Χ² (1) = 9.30, p < .01 and Χ² 12.52, p < .001, respectively.

Table 1: Study #1, 1978
Percentage of Compliance With Each Request

In Study #2, conducted in 1982, we secured results that were almost identical with those described above. Once again, men were more likely to respond positively to each type of request than were women (63% versus 17%, Χ² (1) = 21.08, p < .001). However, once again, as can be seen in Table 2, Sex of requestor/Sex of subject interacted with the type of request, Χ² (2) = 23.65, p < .001. Whereas, both males and females were equally willing to accept a date, Χ² (1) = 0, n. s., it was only males who agreed to go to a female's apartment (Χ² (1) = 16.76, p < .001) or to go to bed with her (Χ² (1) = 16.76, p < .001).

Table 2: Study #2, 1982
Percentage of Compliance With Each Request

In both studies, we found then that men and women responded as traditionalists would expect them to. Men readily accepted a sexual invitation. Women were extremely reluctant to do so.

We now know that this is so. We are not quite sure why this is so. It may be that, as sociobiologists suggest, women are eager for love and commitment. Men are eager for sexual activity. Such theorizing is consistent with the data. Both men and women were willing to date a total stranger. (When one goes on a date, one has the opportunity to asses the probability that a loving relationship could occur.) Women were unwilling to go to a man's apartment or to have sexual relations. Men, on the other hand, were surprisingly willing to go to a strange woman's apartment or to bed. (In fact, they were less willing to accept an invitation to date than to have sexual relations!)

Consistent with this interpretation were the subject's reactions to the requests. In general, the female experimenters reported that men were at ease with the request. They would say "Why do we have to wait until tonight?" or "I cannot tonight, but tomorrow would be fine." The men that said "No" even gave apologies, i.e., "I'm married" or "I'm going with someone." In contrast, the woman's response to the intimate requests from males was "You've got to be kidding," or "What is wrong with you? Leave me alone."

Of course the sociological interpretation - that women are interested in love while men are interested in sex - is not the only possible interpretation of these data. It may be, or course, that both men and women were equally interested in sex, but the men associated fewer risks with accepting a sexual invitation than did women. Men may be more confident of their ability to fight back a physical assault than are women. Also, the remnants of the double standard may make women afraid to accept the man's invitation.

Regardless of why we secured these data, however, the existence of these pronounced gender differences is interesting.

Researchers may well choose to replicate this study sometime in the next five years to ascertain what impact the AIDS epidemic has on the preceding pattern of results. There is some anecdotal evidence that in such major cities as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. both men and women have become extremely wary of casual sex (see Baum, 1987). This should, of course, markedly alter the preceding pattern of results. On the other hand, some researchers (Weinstein, 1980 and 1984) have found that young people still underestimate the riskiness of their "unsafe" sexual practises and that most young people tend to see themselves as invulnerable to negative events. In that case, the preceding pattern of results might be expected to continue into the future.

References:

• Baum, A. (Ed.) (March 1987), Special issue on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(3), 189-350.
• Weinstein, N. D. (1980), Unrealistic optimism about future life events, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.
• Weinstein, N. D. (1984), Why it won't happen to me: Perception of risk factors and susceptibility, Health Psychology, 3, 431-457.
• Winer, B. J. (1971), Statistical principles in experimental designs, New York: McGraw-Hill.