Abstract
Researchers have consistently found that men report that women display more sexual interest than women report they actually do in cross-sex interactions (e.g., Abbey, 1982). Cognitive Valence Theory is employed to provide a theoretical framework to help understand these findings (Andersen, 1989). A series of perceptual and cognitive processes consistent with Cognitive Valence Theory were examined as possible explanations for the gender difference. Gender differences emerge for both perceptual and cognitive variables. In addition, perceptions of sexually motivated behaviors and variables associated with appropriateness judgments and personal receptivity were found to predict perceptions of women’s sexual interest.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females’ friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830–838.
Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of friendly behaviors as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 173–194.
Abbey, A., Cozarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. (1987). The effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 108–126.
Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15, 283–298.
Andersen, P. A. (1989, May). A cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. Paper presented at the International Network on Personal Relationships Conference, Iowa City, Iowa.
Andersen, P. A. (1998). The cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. In M. T. Palmer & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Mutual influence in interpersonal communication: Theory and research in cognition, affect, and behaviors (pp. 39–72) (Progress in communication sciences: Vol. 14). Stamford, Connecticut: Ablex.
Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 7–25.
Fisher, T. D., & Walters, A. S. (2003). Variables in addition to gender that help to explain differences in perceived sexual interest. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 154–162.
Harnish, R., Abbey, A., & Debono, D. (1990). Toward an understanding of “the sex game”: The effects of gender and self-monitoring on perceptions of sexuality and likability in initial interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1333–1344.
Henningsen, D. D. (2004). Flirting with meaning: Examining miscommunication in flirting interactions. Sex Roles, 50, 481–489.
Iliffe, A. M. (1960). A study of preferences in feminine beauty. British Journal of Social Psychology, 93, 267–273.
Johnson, C., Stockdale, M., & Saal, F. (1991). Persistence of men’s misperceptions of friendly cues across a variety of interpersonal encounters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 463–475.
Koeppel, L. B., Montagne-Miller, Y., O’Hair, D., & Cody, M. J. (1993). Friendly? Flirting? Wrong? In: P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal relationship (pp. 13–32). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Reyes, M., Afifi, W., Krawchuck, A., Imperato, N., Shelley, D., & Lee, J. (1999). Just (don’t) talk: Comparing the impact of interaction style on sexual desire and social attraction. Paper presented at the conference of the International Network on Personal Relationships, Louisville, Kentucky (June).
Saal, F., Johnson, C., & Weber, N. (1989). Friendly or sexy? It may depend on whom you ask. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 263–276.
Schmidt, D. P., & 118 members of the International Sexuality Description Project. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104.
Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66–73.
Sigal, J., Gibbs, M., Adams, B., & Derfler, R. (1988). The effects of romantic and nonromantic films on perceptions of female friendly and seductive behavior. Sex Roles, 19, 545–554.
Simpson, J., Gangestad, S., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perceptions of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1192–1201.
Solomon, D. H., & Williams, M. L. M. (1997). Perceptions of social-sexual communication at work as sexually harassing. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 147–184.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, I. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508–516.
White, G. (1980). Physical attractiveness and courtship progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 660–668.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Denise Solomon, Erica Mundinger, and Elaine Davies for their contributions to this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Henningsen, D.D., Henningsen, M.L.M. & Valde, K.S. Gender Differences in Perceptions of Women’s Sexual Interest during Cross-Sex Interactions: An Application and Extension of Cognitive Valence Theory. Sex Roles 54, 821–829 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9050-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9050-y