Exposure to Sexual Economics Theory Promotes a Hostile View of Heterosexual Relationships

Abstract

Proponents of sexual economics theory argue that women exchange sex for men’s resources. This idea is likely to promote a competitive view of gender relationships that undermines gender equality by characterizing women as manipulative and financially dependent on men. Heterosexual college students (N = 474) who were randomly exposed to a popular YouTube video describing sexual economics theory increased their (1) behavioral support for sexual exchange concepts, (2) endorsement of the theory, and (3) adversarial views of heterosexual relationships, compared with a control group of students. Sexual exchange theory endorsement and adversarial heterosexual beliefs positively covaried, and both attitudes were related to participants’ sexism. Reading a critique of sexual exchange theory, that emphasized mutual respect and affection as precursors to heterosexual intimacy, counteracted the consequences of exposure to the theory. The findings provide evidence that disseminating sexual exchange theory via video on the Internet negatively affects young adults’ views of gender relationships. Educators, and others who wish to explore sexual economics theory through the use of this video, should also include a discussion of the countervailing evidence available. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at https://journals-sagepub-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/page/pwq/suppl/index .

Keywords

male–female relations sexual attitudes gender stereotypes sexism sexual economics theory

Decades of research on close relationships suggest that heterosexual unions generally stem from mutual attraction and perceived similarity in demographics, personality, goals, and values (e.g., Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008; Eastwick, Eagly, Finkel, & Johnson, 2011; Fiore & Donath, 2005; Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008; Skopek, Schulz, & Blossfeld, 2010). Nonetheless, cultural forces persist in stereotyping the genders as “opposite” in their goals and desires. For example, reality and prime-time television (TV) shows often portray men as being driven more by their sexual urges than women. Exposure to such media is associated with increased stereotyping of men as sex driven and women as sexual objects (Kim et al., 2007; Ward, 1995, 2003; Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006). In addition, because women are stereotyped as more invested in long-term relationships than men, college students believe that the average woman has a significantly stronger desire for marriage and children than the average man, despite evidence that there are no gender differences in their own reported preferences (Erchull, Liss, Axelson, Staebell, & Askari, 2011). Similarly, people assume that women are usually the first to say “I love you” in a heterosexual relationship, but one study found that men were the first to confess their love in 70% of relationships (Ackerman, Griskevicius, & Li, 2011). Thus, people are prone to erroneously believe that men and women have opposing relationship goals.

Reflecting these views, the authors of sexual economics theory (SET) argue for competitive gender relationships based on sexual exchange (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002). Specifically, they argue that women use sex to barter for men’s financial and emotional resources such that, “women become the suppliers of sex, whereas men constitute the demand for it and play the role of purchasers and consumers” (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004, p. 341). Although SET authors claim that sexual exchange is a “mutually beneficial” transaction (Vohs & Baumeister, 2015, p. 1522), we suspect that the theory undermines both genders, for three reasons. First, proponents of SET promote stereotypical beliefs about men’s stronger desire for sex and women’s stronger desire for commitment, while ignoring contradictory evidence (e.g., Alexander & Fisher, 2003; Carothers & Reis, 2013; Conley, 2011). Second, because SET is based on the belief that men and women have conflicting motives, gender relationships are portrayed as a zero-sum game in which partners compete for the upper hand. As a result, close relationships are inevitably unequal, which undermines relationship satisfaction and stability (Hatfield & Traupmann, 1981; Rudman & Phelan, 2007). Third, people who watch media that promotes sexual exchange also possess adversarial beliefs about heterosexual relationships (Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006). However, whether these opinions are due to a causal effect or a self-selection bias (i.e., people with hostile beliefs might be attracted to such media) is unknown.

To investigate this issue, we exposed half of our participants to SET by means of an animated video, “The Economics of Sex” (available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1ifNaNABY; Austin Institute, 2014). We hypothesized that exposure to SET would promote (1) behavioral support for sexual exchange concepts, (2) endorsement of the SET tenets described by the video, and (3) an adversarial view of heterosexual relationships, unless participants were inoculated against these effects by a critique of the video. In contrast, we hypothesized that reading a news article that praises the video might exacerbate the video’s influence. To maximize the experiment’s external validity, we used real-world materials (readily found online when searching for The Economics of Sex) to either enhance or diminish SET’s persuasive power. Before outlining our specific predictions, we describe SET in greater detail, the evidence that refutes the claims, and reasons why the tenets of SET might be compelling even for women.

Tenets of SET and Countervailing Evidence

SET relies on two economic principles derived from evolutionary psychology’s assumption that for men, multiple sex partners are necessary to offset paternity uncertainty, whereas for women, being selective increases the chances that a mate will provide for the family (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). First, due to the principle of least interest, women can exchange sex for resources because men’s sex drive is stronger than women’s. Although men often display more interest in sex than women (Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, 2001; Clark & Hatfield, 1989; Impett & Peplau, 2003), the fact that this pattern is not always observed, contradicts one of the central tenets of SET (Carothers & Reis, 2013; Davies, Katz, & Jackson, 1999). For example, when people believe they are attached to a lie detector, gender differences in reported number of sexual partners are reduced significantly or completely disappear (Alexander & Fisher, 2003; Fisher, 2013; Fisher, Moore, & Pittenger, 2012; Huberman, Suschinsky, Lalumiere, & Chivers, 2013; see also Fisher, 2009). Further, when people are unable to control their responses, men and women reveal the same level of interest in sex. Specifically, both genders showed equally robust liking for sex in studies that use the Implicit Association Test (Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014) and the Affective Misattribution Paradigm (Dosch, Belayachi, & Van der Linden, 2015). Finally, both genders are equally willing to have casual sex with attractive, trustworthy partners (Conley, 2011) or when women’s safety is otherwise assured (Baranowski & Hecht, 2015). These findings suggest that gender differences in reported sexual experiences or desire may be due to impression management concerns and women’s greater sexual risks (e.g., of social stigma or rape), rather than a principle of less interest, derived from ingrained, evolved dispositions.

Second, SET’s authors enlist the law of supply and demand; because women are choosier, their sexual favors are scarcer and, thus, more valuable than men’s, which is why men are willing to exchange financial resources for sex (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). SET’s portrayal of gender relationships is distinctly unequal, because it assumes that women’s access to resources depends entirely on men. Indeed, SET authors have speculated that sexual exchange fostered and sustained patriarchy, as men “sought to keep women in a dependent, vulnerable position in the hope that this would stimulate women to offer sex more readily (so as to obtain other resources)” (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002, p. 198). Rudman and Fetterolf (2014) showed that men endorsed sexual exchange concepts behaviorally (by selecting jewelry ads promoting it) and implicitly (by automatically associating sex with money) more than women. These gender differences were mediated by men’s higher hostile sexism (HS) scores, suggesting that men’s resentment of female empowerment explains why they are more likely than women to endorse sexual exchange concepts (Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014).

SET authors’ claim that sexual exchange is “mutually beneficial” (Vohs & Baumeister, 2015, p. 1522) is inconsistent with the findings of Rudman and Fetterolf (2014) and also with signs that the notion of sexual exchange is adversarial to gender relationships. First, women may suspect men’s professions of love to be disingenuous attempts to procure sex rather than signals of commitment (Ackerman et al., 2011). Second, both genders believe that sex is more likely to occur on a first date when the man paid for the movie or dinner, compared to when both parties split the cost (Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010; Morr & Mongeau, 2004). When the date is expensive, men are more likely than women to believe that sex is expected (Morr & Mongeau, 2004) or even “owed” to the man, setting up a situation to blame the woman if an acquaintance rape occurs (Basow & Minieri, 2011). Finally, viewing programs in which sexually objectified women compete to marry a successful man (e.g., “Joe Millionaire”) is positively associated with adversarial sexual beliefs (ASBs) for both genders (Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006).

Why Might Women Endorse SET?

Although heterosexual intimacy is ideally a mutual exchange of each party’s sexual favors, SET authors claim this exchange is unequal because women’s sexual favors are more valuable than men’s, which is why they can be used for barter. By placing extra value on women’s sexual favors, SET appears to give women a distinct advantage (i.e., a form of power over men), which may be appealing to some women. Possessing a sought after commodity, women can set a high price for their sexual favors. SET authors claim that women’s sexual favors are so desirable that men will work hard to gain access to them, including earning a college degree and striving for occupational success, thereby becoming “a respectable stakeholder contributing to society” (Baumeister & Vohs, 2012, p. 521).

However, The Economics of Sex video explains that women are losing the “mating game” because effective contraception has lured them into giving sex away “for free.” With pregnancy no longer inciting “shotgun” marriages and with “cheap” sex on the rise, men are portrayed as not only reluctant to marry but also less ambitious than in the past, because “Success isn’t as important as it once was, when it was a prerequisite for sex” (Baumeister & Vohs, 2012, p. 523). Thus, the SET video blames the pill for changes in gender relationships that disadvantage women, while offering a solution: Collectively restricting men’s access to premarital sex would enable women to gain the upper hand. Despite being entirely speculative, women may be persuaded by arguments derived from SET, unless they are accompanied by a critique.

Overview of Research and Hypotheses

Participants were randomly assigned to view either no video or The Economics of Sex video. The video (2014; see Method section) is produced by the Austin Institute, a socially conservative think tank (Watson, 2014). In addition, participants read no article, a rebuttal of the video, or a supportive article that reinforced the messages of the video. This procedure allowed us to isolate the effects of the video and the articles by providing a baseline (no video, no article) condition.

To confirm that SET is hostile to gender relationships, we predicted that endorsement of SET tenets would positively correlate with ASBs, and both of these beliefs would positively correlate with participants’ HS scores (Hypothesis 1). As in prior research, compared with women, we expected men to behaviorally support sexual exchange concepts more than women (e.g., by choosing more jewelry ads that endorse sexual exchange; Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014), to show stronger ASBs (Emmers-Sommer, 2014; Forbes, Adams-Curtis, & White, 2004; Ménard, Hall, Phung, Ghebrial, & Martin, 2003), and to score higher on HS, whereas no gender differences should emerge on benevolent sexism (BS; e.g., Glick & Fiske, 1996; Glick et al., 2000). The current study tested whether men might endorse the SET tenets described by the video more than women.

Our key hypotheses focused on the effects of SET exposure dependent on whether the tenets of SET were supported or critiqued in a subsequent article (i.e., Video × Article interactions). Relative to the no video control group, we predicted that the video would increase participants’ choice of ads promoting sexual exchange unless they read the critical article, which would reduce behavioral support for sexual exchange concepts, compared with no article or supportive article conditions (Hypothesis 2). Similarly, we predicted that the video would increase explicit endorsement of SET unless participants also read the critical article (Hypothesis 3). To assess whether SET undermines gender relationships, we hypothesized that the video would increase participants’ ASBs, unless they read the critical article (Hypothesis 4). Support for these hypotheses would demonstrate that exposure to SET encourages a competitive view of gender relationships that undermines sexual equality, unless its ideology is rebutted.

Method

Participants

Participants were 474 heterosexual undergraduate students (252 men, 222 women) from a general psychology participant pool recruited in exchange for partial fulfillment of their experimental requirement (M _age = 19, SD = 1.26). Their ethnicity was 42.60% White, 33.60% Asian, 9.70% Black, 7.80% Hispanic, 4.20% multiracial, and 2.10% “other.” A power analysis suggested that a medium-to-small interaction effect size would require 480 participants to obtain 80% power (Campbell & Thompson, 2012). Data collection ended when the semester ended, resulting in a slightly smaller sample.

Materials

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI)

Participants completed the ASI (Glick & Fiske, 1996) online. The ASI consists of two 11-item scales measuring HS (e.g., “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men”; “Feminists are making unreasonable demands of men”) and BS (e.g., “Women should be cherished and protected by men”; “Women and children should be rescued first in an emergency”). Participants responded to the items on a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 6 (agree strongly). Scores were averaged, with higher scores indicating more HS (α = .86) and BS (α = .78). HS reflects investment in patriarchy, whereas BS reflects paternalistic beliefs about women. The scales are positively related; we adjusted for each in covariation analyses involving the other, as is recommended (Glick & Fiske, 1997).

SET video

The 10-min animated The Economics of Sex video (Austin Institute, 2014) is narrated by a man and a woman who describe the central tenets of SET as though they were scientifically validated facts. The claims include that women exchange sex for male resources, that the pill has had devastating effects on marriage rates (it is compared to the insecticide DDT as a scientific advance with disastrous consequences), and that women suppress female sexuality due to supply and demand. Throughout the video, men and women are depicted as adversaries, with men desirous of sex and women desirous of marriage. Women are urged to hold out for more resources before consenting to having sex because, in the mating competition, men are winning.

We selected the video for two reasons. First, it has been viewed on YouTube over 1.2 million times, with a 3.5:1.0 ratio of “likes” to “dislikes,” providing an ecologically valid measure of the effects of exposure to SET. Second, the central tenets of SET are presented in the video in a manner that is consistent with academic discussions of the theory, and the video is accompanied by a resource manual that features SET publications, ostensibly for use by educators. Therefore, it is important to examine the effects of a popular means of disseminating SET theory and claims to young adults.

Articles

Participants read no article, an article endorsing the video (Riley, 2014; full article available at http://www.nypost.com/2014/02/16/the-economics-of-sex-has-the-price-gotten-too-cheap/), or a critique of the video (West, 2014; full article available at http://www.jezebel.com/sex-is-not-an-economy-and-you-are-not-merchandise-1524954631). The articles were edited to be approximately the same length (752 and 663 words, respectively).

Ad choice

Using stimuli found online and previously validated by Rudman and Fetterolf (2014), participants chose between two print ads on each of 24 trials ostensibly as part of a “consumer research project.” For 13 trials, the choice was between a jewelry ad promoting sexual exchange and a control jewelry ad (see Appendix A). Ad choice was scored 0 (chose the control ad) or 1 (chose the sexual exchange ad); responses were summed to reflect behavioral endorsement of sexual exchange concepts. The remaining 11 filler trials used neutral ads (e.g., for smartphones, computers, or travel) as a smoke screen.

Economics of Sex Endorsement Scale (ESES)

To assess direct endorsement of the SET tenets outlined in The Economics of Sex video, participants responded to 9 items on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), shown in Appendix B. The items were created for this study based on the central tenets of SET and the information included in The Economics of Sex video. They included support for sexual exchange, prescriptions for women to withhold premarital sex, blame for low marital rates attributed to casual sex, and differences in what men and women desire from close relationships. Items were averaged to form the ESES (α = .83).

Adversarial Sexual Beliefs

Participants responded to a subset of items from the 15-item Adversarial Heterosexual Beliefs Scale (ASBs; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995) on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Seven items that reflected antagonistic beliefs about sexual relationships (e.g., “Men and women are generally out to use each other” and “Sex is like a game where one person wins and the other loses”) were averaged, so that higher scores reflected more ASBs (α = .83).

Design and Procedure

Participants first completed the ASI online, as part of a departmental prescreen. Weeks later, they participated in a lab study on “Social Issues.” The time range between the prescreen and the experiment varied for each participant because they chose their own experiment schedules. All participants were escorted to a cubicle by the experimenter, where a computer program administered the study, including random assignment to video and article conditions. The design of the study was a 2 (Video, No Video) × 3 (No Article, Supportive Article, Critical Article) factorial design. The study materials were presented in the order described above. Items within each measure were randomly presented. Upon completion of the study, participants were fully debriefed and compensated. The jewelry ads and items in the ESES are available in Appendixes A and B, respectively. Additional measures, including the edited articles, and data are available from the corresponding author via e-mail.

Results

For the sake of future researchers conducting meta-analysis, Table 1 shows the results of gender main effects for each dependent variable derived from omnibus analyses of variance (ANOVAs; described below), including effect sizes (Cohen’s d). By convention, ds of .20, .50, and .80 correspond to small, medium, and large effects (Cohen, 1988). As expected, compared with women, men chose more ads promoting sexual exchange (d = 0.46); they also scored higher on ASB (d = 0.19) and HS (d = 0.61). No gender differences were shown for BS (d = 0.08) or ESES (d = 0.04). These findings cohere with prior research (Forbes et al., 2004; Glick & Fiske, 1996; Ménard et al., 2003; Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014).

Table 1.
Gender Differences in the Focal Dependent Variables and Ambivalent Sexism.

Dependent variable Women Men

M SD M SD F p d

Ad choice 4.33 2.91 5.69 2.99 29.62 .000 0.46

Economics of sex endorsement 3.64 1.19 3.68 1.00 0.16 .686 0.04

Adversarial sexual beliefs 2.94 1.24 3.16 1.08 3.99 .046 0.19

Hostile sexism 3.34 0.94 3.86 0.77 32.16 .000 0.61

Benevolent sexism 3.79 0.78 3.85 0.77 0.12 .470 0.08

Note. For hostile and benevolent sexism, df = 461. For all other variables, df = 462.

Endorsement of Sexual Economics Tenets Is Positively Related to ASBs and Ambivalent Sexism

To support the argument that exposure to SET undermines gender relationships, we predicted in our first hypothesis that endorsement of SET tenets described in the video would positively correlate with ASBs and that all dependent measures would positively correlate with participants’ HS (see Table 2 for the correlations among the focal variables and their relation to both HS and BS). Because HS and BS were positively correlated, r(470) = .40, p < .001, we also adjusted for BS when analyzing HS and for HS when analyzing BS (Glick & Fiske, 1997). Due to gender differences (see Table 1), we also examined correlations separately for women (above the diagonal) and men (below the diagonal) in Table 2.

Table 2.
Correlations Among Dependent Variables Adjusting for Video and Article Conditions.

Dependent variable Ad choice ESES ASB HS BS

Economics of sex endorsement .12 —

Adversarial sexual beliefs .08 .68* —

Hostile sexism .14 .27* .32 —

Benevolent sexism .17* .49* .25* .40* —

Correlations by participant gender

Ad choice — .20 .13 .07 .24*

Economics of sex endorsement .04 — .69* .22* .58*

Adversarial sexual beliefs −.01 .68* — .31* .36*

Hostile sexism .10 .34* .31* — .46*

Benevolent sexism .13* .41*** .16* .33*** —

Note. N = 474. The bottom half displays correlations separately for 222 women (above the diagonal) and 252 men (below the diagonal). Hostile sexism correlations adjusted for benevolent sexism and vice versa.

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

The top half of Table 2 shows that, as expected, ESES strongly correlated with ASB, confirming our argument that SET tenets are hostile toward heterosexual gender relationships. Moreover, all measures positively correlated with not only HS but BS, suggesting that people who resent women (HS), or view them as weak (BS), are more likely to endorse sexual exchange concepts and ASBs. These findings support our first hypothesis.

The bottom half of Table 2 shows that ESES and ASB scores strongly correlated for both genders, and both measures were related to HS and BS for men and women alike. Contrary to our prediction, ad choice was only related to BS (not HS) for both genders. Women who selected ads that promoted sexual exchange also scored high on ESES (agreement with SET), while men did not show this relation. Using a Fisher’s z-test, we found that this gender difference was only marginally significant, z = 1.76, p = .078. Thus, there is weak evidence that behavioral and direct endorsement of sexual exchange ideas cohered more for women than for men. However, men were more likely to choose ads promoting sexual exchange than women (see Table 1). Nonetheless, both genders supported our central thesis that SET is hostile to gender relationships; endorsing its tenets on the ESES was robustly associated with ASBs.

Exposure to The Economics of Sex Video Increased Support for Sexual Exchange Concepts Unless Paired With a Critique

To test Hypotheses 2–4, we conducted three 2 (Participant Gender) × 2 (Video) × 3 (Article) ANOVAs with ad choice, economics of sex endorsement, and ASBs as dependent variables. We used separate ANOVAs because the dependent variables measured conceptually different constructs: actual behavior, endorsement of SET tenets described in the video, and consequences of endorsing SET tenets, respectively. The means and standard deviations for decomposing significant Video × Article interactions are provided in Table 3.

Table 3.
Descriptive Statistics for Significant Video × Article Interactions.

Dependent variable No article Critical Supportive

M SD M SD M SD

Ad choice

No video 5.47 2.91 5.15_x 3.06 4.65_x 2.74

Video 5.12_a 3.00 4.00_{b, y} 3.24 5.88_{a, y} 2.97

Economics of sex endorsement

No video 3.54_x 1.05 3.42 1.05 3.65_x 0.89

Video 4.37_{a, y} 0.98 3.73_b 1.02 4.17_{a, y} 0.99

Note. Row means differing at p < .05 are noted with subscripts a and b. Column means differing at p < .05 are noted with subscripts x and y.

Ad choice

According to Hypothesis 2, the video should increase participants’ choice of ads promoting sexual exchange, unless they read the critical article. Figure 1 shows the expected Video × Article interaction, F(2, 462) = 8.22, p < .001. For control (no video) participants, the articles had no effect on ad choice, all ts < 1.84, ps > .06. Supporting Hypothesis 2, among participants in the experimental condition, those who read the critical article chose fewer sexual exchange ads than those who read no article, t(157) = 2.26, p = .025, d = 0.37, or the supportive article, t(149) = 3.72, p < .001, d = 0.62. The latter two conditions did not differ, t(158) = 1.62, p = .108, d = 0.25. Thus, the supportive article did not reinforce behavioral endorsement of SET, but the critical article inoculated people against it, as expected.

Figure 1.
Video × Article interaction on sexual exchange ad choice. Higher scores indicate choosing more ads that reflect sexual exchange. Error bars represent standard errors.

We also compared SET exposure within each article condition. In the no article condition, The Economics of Sex video had no effect, t(168) < 1, p = .446, d = 0.12. Thus, mere exposure to SET did not increase behavioral endorsement of sexual exchange concepts. However, for participants who read the article supportive of sexual exchange, the video increased ad choice, t(152) = 2.67, p = .008, d = 0.43. Finally, for those who read the article critical of sexual exchange, watching the video decreased ad choice, t(148) = 2.23, p = .027, d = 0.36. Thus, the articles were persuasive for participants who also viewed the video.

ESES

In Hypothesis 3, we predicted the same pattern of results on the ESES for endorsing the SET tenets described in the video. Results showed main effects for video, F(1, 462) = 35.66, p < .001, and article condition, F(2, 462) = 7.09, p = .001, qualified by a significant Video × Article interaction, F(2, 462) = 3.21, p = .041. Simple effects are shown in Figure 2 (see also Table 3). In the control condition, the articles had no effect, all ts < 1.42, ps > .15. However, experimental participants who read the critical article reported lower ESES scores than those who read no article, t(157) = 3.99, p <.001, d = 0.60, or the supportive article, t(149) = 2.60, p = .01, d = 0.41. The latter two conditions did not differ, t(158) = 1.32, p = .188, d = 0.19. Thus, the critical article appears to have inoculated people against endorsing SET. As with ad choice, rebutting the video was more effective than supporting it among participants who watched The Economics of Sex.

Figure 2.
Video × Article interaction on the Economics of Sex Endorsement Scale. Higher scores indicate stronger endorsement of SET tenets described in the “The Economics of Sex” video. Error bars represent standard errors.

Comparing SET exposure within each article condition, viewing the video increased ESES scores in the supportive article condition, t(152) = 3.42, p < .001, d = 0.49, but also in the no article condition, t(168) = 5.29, p < .001, d = 0.78. That is, mere exposure to SET increased participants’ beliefs in its tenets. By contrast, ESES scores did not differ across video conditions in the critical article condition, t(148) = 1.86, p = .065, d = 0.30. Thus, reading the critical article buffered this effect of the video.

ASBs

In Hypothesis 4, we expected a Video × Article interaction, such that watching the video would increase ASBs, unless participants read the critical article. Analyses revealed a main effect for video, F(1, 462) = 5.15, p = .024, such that experimental participants reported stronger ASBs (M = 3.20, SD = 1.22) than control participants (M = 2.92, SD = 1.09), d = 0.24. However, this effect was qualified by an unexpected Participant Gender × Video × Article interaction, F(2, 462) = 3.14, p = .044.

To decompose the three-way interaction, we examined men and women separately. Figure 3 shows the results. For men, only a main effect of video emerged, F(1, 246) = 7.76, p = .006, such that those exposed to SET scored higher on ASB (M = 3.35, SD = 1.11) compared with controls (M = 2.96, SD = 1.02), d = 0.33. Thus, merely watching the video increased men’s beliefs that sexual relationships are a zero-sum game, with winners and losers.

Figure 3.
Gender × Video × Article interaction on adversarial sexual beliefs. Higher scores indicate more adversarial beliefs about intimate heterosexual relationships. Error bars represent standard errors.

Women showed the expected Video × Article interaction, F(2, 216) = 3.59, p = .029. In the control condition, the article had no effect on women’s ASB scores, all ts < 1.53, ps > .12. However, experimental women who read the critical article had lower ASB scores (M = 2.50, SD = 1.13), compared with those who read no article (M = 3.07, SD = 1.27), t(66) = 1.93, p = .058, d = 0.49, or the supportive article (M = 3.38, SD = 1.41), t(67) = 2.82, p = .006, d = 0.75. The latter two conditions did not differ, t(71) < 1.00, p = .332, d = 0.27. Thus, the critical article appears to have inoculated women exposed to SET, as expected.

We also compared SET exposure within each article condition for women. In the no article condition, women’s ASB scores were similar whether they watched the video (M = 3.07, SD = 1.27) or not (M = 2.92, SD = 1.29), t(80) < 1.00, p = .587, d = 0.14. Unlike men, viewing the video alone did not increase their ASB scores. However, for women who read the supportive article, ASB scores were higher in the video condition (M = 3.38, SD = 1.41) compared with no video controls (M = 2.74, SD = 1.20), t(69) = 2.03, p = .046, d = 0.55. For women who read the critical article, ASB scores were lower in the video condition (M = 2.50, SD = 1.13) compared with controls (M = 2.98, SD = 0.99), t(67) = 1.87, p = .067, d = 0.41, providing further evidence that rebutting SET inoculates women against an adversarial view of gender relationships.

In summary, exposure to SET increased behavioral and direct endorsement of sexual exchange theory, unless participants also read an article critical of The Economics of Sex. As expected, the critical article was necessary to buffer the negative effects of the video. However, for ASB, this was unexpectedly only true for women; for men, the video alone increased antagonistic beliefs about gender relations. In concert, these findings support our thesis that SET promotes a view of gender relationships that undermines harmonious, equal unions.

Discussion

The Economics of Sex video (Austin Institute, 2014) portrays sexual exchange as scientific fact, despite evidence refuting SET’s core tenets (Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014; Rudman, Fetterolf, & Sanchez, 2013) and considerable scientific evidence contradicting its stereotyped view that men and women possess competing relationship goals (e.g., Eastwick et al., 2011; Montoya et al., 2008). According to SET, men attempt to sleep with women without obligations, whereas women use sex to lure men into committed relationships. Although people refute this view of gender relationships when directly asked whether or not they endorse it (e.g., Baumeister & Twenge, 2002; Rudman et al., 2013), we reasoned that participants might be more susceptible to the tenets of SET when they are wrapped in a scientific package. To examine the moderating effect of arguments against or in favor of SET, we contrasted a no-article condition with a rebuttal of the video and a supportive article, using previously published articles available online.

For both genders, exposure to The Economics of Sex video increased support for sexual exchange theory unless they also read a critique of the video, as expected. Also consistent with our central thesis that SET is hostile to gender relationships, men exposed to SET scored higher on ASBs than control men, regardless of article condition. For women exposed to SET, the critical article buffered this effect compared with the supportive and no-article conditions. The robustly positive relation between endorsing SET and ASBs for men and women alike further confirmed our central thesis. People who support sexual exchange theory are also likely to view sexual relationships as a competition with winners and losers. Although prior research has also revealed a connection between viewing reality TV shows that traffic in sexual exchange and ASBs (Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006), the present study uncovered a causal effect.

Behaviorally, men chose ads promoting sexual exchange more than women, as in prior research (Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014), but if they watched the video, both genders chose more sexual exchange ads if they read no article, or a supportive article, compared with when they read a critique of the ideas presented in the video. Our expectation that, without a rebuttal, The Economics of Sex video would have a detrimental effect on gender relationships by increasing support for sexual exchange concepts and ASBs was upheld.

Elsewhere, it has been argued that sexual exchange theory is antagonistic to gender equality (Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014, 2015). In support of that view, endorsing sexual exchange tenets corresponded with participants’ HS scores as well as their ASBs. The link between SET endorsement and HS has been previously demonstrated (Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014), but the current study is unique because it extended examination of this relation to BS. HS is targeted at powerful women (e.g., professionals and feminists), whereas BS is reserved for traditional women who are viewed as “wonderful but weak” (Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner, & Zhu, 1997; Sibley & Wilson, 2004). A question for future research is whether a sexual exchange view of gender relationships functions to restrict female sexuality by punishing women who are liberal with their sexual favors, while rewarding those who are more discriminating (e.g., with diamonds and commitment).

Limitations and Future Directions

There is no shortage of media supporting the negative stereotypes that the proponents of SET promote (e.g., that men chiefly value women for sex and women chiefly value men for their resources), but the influence of such programming has mainly been investigated among young adults (e.g., Ward, 2003; Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006), as in this study. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether older participants are also susceptible to SET.

The most important limitation of the current study is that we used materials drawn from the real world, instead of creating a video or articles specifically for experimental use. Naturally, this creates potential confounds in the content, style, or tone of the opposing articles (supporting vs. critical). For example, the critical article uses a more sarcastic tone and directly (although briefly) addresses exchanging jewelry for relationship resources, while the supporting article talks about female power and parent–child discussions of sexuality. Thus, it is difficult to determine what, specifically, about the articles affected participants’ endorsement of sexual exchange concepts and ASBs. However, this limitation is also arguably the greatest strength of the study, because we used materials that people outside of an experimental setting actually watch and read. That is, they were ecologically valid materials that can actually affect people’s gender beliefs in a real-word context.

The process by which the critical article succeeded in undermining SET is a question for future research, but we speculate that its chief contribution was the author’s emphasis on the importance of “liking another human being [emphasis in original]” (West, 2014) when contemplating a sexual relationship. By promoting positive beliefs about sexual relationships, the author likely countered sexual exchange with a scientifically supported view of heterosexual intimacy. This outcome cannot be understated because the potential consequences of promoting men’s ASBs may be severe, given these beliefs have been linked to rape myth acceptance and sexual assault behaviors (Abbey & McAuslan, 2004; Loh, Gidycz, Lobo, & Luthra, 2005; Ménard et al., 2003).

Finally, because choosing a gender-egalitarian partner is central to women’s relationship satisfaction (Rudman & Phelan, 2007), future research might test whether exposure to SET undermines women’s expectations of finding one. Another potential consequence includes restricting female sexuality, which The Economics of Sex prescribes for women to enhance marital rates (by protecting the market value of their sexual favors; Baumeister & Twenge, 2002).

Practice Implications

In the current study, we found that The Economics of Sex video, and related articles, influenced young people’s views of heterosexual relationships. Although more research is necessary to determine why the media affected participants, we suggest that the video was persuasive because it presented stereotypical beliefs about men and women as scientific facts. Therefore, participants who viewed the video were plausibly familiar with the arguments being made. It is incumbent upon policy advocates and journalists to emphasize that scientific theories are working hypotheses, not verified explanations for social phenomena. Thus, when presenting scientific evidence that seemingly supports cultural beliefs, it is important to also discuss evidence that refutes those beliefs, when available. In the present study, exposure to counterarguments reduced the effect of the video on participants’ negative views of heterosexual relationships.

In addition, educators interested in using The Economics of Sex video for sexual education should be warned that it promotes a stereotypical view of men and women that increases adversarial beliefs about intimate relationships. Instead, it might be shown as an example of how social science can be misused to promote a conservative ideology concerned with suppressing female sexuality. Elsewhere, we have shown that the central tenets of sexual exchange theory are not supported (Rudman et al., 2013; Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014). Therefore, educators, journalists, and policy makers might include those readings in any discussion of SET. In their commentary on our findings, Vohs and Baumeister (2015) stated that SET is not meant to be politicized, but it nonetheless has been politicized by the Austin Institute, a conservative think tank (http://www.austin-institute.org). Although it is not unusual for gender research to be misused for ideological purposes, it is unusual for an animated video, claiming to use scientific findings, to provide women with a cautionary tale regarding sexual liberation to be produced and widely disseminated on the Internet. In our opinion, this increases the potential for SET to harm sexual equality.

Conclusion

SET’s authors argue that men and women’s relationship goals are directly opposed, portraying sexual intimacy as a zero-sum game (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). The present results showed that exposure to SET by means of an animated video, The Economics of Sex, promotes an adversarial view of gender relationships that is consistent with sexist ideologies. As a result, SET is a theory that has negative implications for gender equality as well as for close heterosexual relationships (Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014, 2015). Rebutting sexual exchange theory with the argument that sexual intimacy is generally based on mutual affection and concern undermined the video’s persuasive power, with the notable exception that men’s ASBs increased after exposure to SET, regardless of exposure to this critique. This alone is cause for concern, given that hostility toward women is a predictor of sexual assault (e.g., Abbey & McAuslan, 2004; Begany & Milburn, 2002; Forbes et al., 2004; Loh et al., 2005; Rudman & Mescher, 2012). Rather than being mutually beneficial, the notion of sexual exchange undermines close relationships and reinforces sexual inequality by promoting stereotypical views of men, women, and what they desire from one another. Based on the results of this study, we believe that it is important for policy advocates, journalists, and educators to emphasize that scientific theories are not necessarily scientifically validated facts and to present alternative scientific findings, if available.

Dependent variable	Women	Men
Ad choice	4.33	2.91	5.69	2.99	29.62	.000	0.46
Economics of sex endorsement	3.64	1.19	3.68	1.00	0.16	.686	0.04
Adversarial sexual beliefs	2.94	1.24	3.16	1.08	3.99	.046	0.19
Hostile sexism	3.34	0.94	3.86	0.77	32.16	.000	0.61
Benevolent sexism	3.79	0.78	3.85	0.77	0.12	.470	0.08

Dependent variable	Ad choice	ESES	ASB	HS	BS
Economics of sex endorsement	.12**	—
Adversarial sexual beliefs	.08	.68***	—
Hostile sexism	.14**	.27***	.32**	—
Benevolent sexism	.17***	.49***	.25***	.40***	—
Correlations by participant gender
Ad choice	—	.20**	.13	.07	.24***
Economics of sex endorsement	.04	—	.69***	.22***	.58***
Adversarial sexual beliefs	−.01	.68***	—	.31***	.36***
Hostile sexism	.10	.34***	.31***	—	.46***
Benevolent sexism	.13*	.41***	.16*	.33***	—

Dependent variable	No article	Critical	Supportive
Ad choice
No video	5.47	2.91	5.15_x	3.06	4.65_x	2.74
Video	5.12_a	3.00	4.00_{b, y}	3.24	5.88_{a, y}	2.97
Economics of sex endorsement
No video	3.54_x	1.05	3.42	1.05	3.65_x	0.89
Video	4.37_{a, y}	0.98	3.73_b	1.02	4.17_{a, y}	0.99

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abbey

McAuslan

(2004). A longitudinal examination of male college students’ perpetration of sexual assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 747–756. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.5.747

Ackerman

J. M.

Griskevicius

N. P.

(2011). Let’s get serious: Communication commitment in romantic relationship formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1079–1094. doi:10.1037/a0022412

Alexander

M. G.

Fisher

T. D.

(2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35. doi:10.1080/00224490309552164

Austin Institute. (2014, 2 14). The Economics of Sex [video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1ifNaNABY

Back

M. D.

Schmukle

S. C.

Egloff

(2008). Becoming friends by chance. Psychological Science, 19, 439–440. doi:10.1111/j.1467-92800.2008.02106.x

Baranowski

A. M.

Hecht

(2015). Gender differences and similarities in receptivity to sexual invitations: Effects of location and risk perception. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0520-6

Basow

S. A.

Minieri

(2011). “You owe me”: Effects of date cost, who pays, participant gender, and rape myth beliefs on perceptions of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 479–497. doi:10.1177/0886260510363421

Baumeister

R. F.

Catanese

K. R.

Vohs

K. D.

(2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5

Baumeister

R. F.

Twenge

J. M.

(2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6, 166–203. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.6.2.166

10.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2

11.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(2012). Sexual economics, culture, men, and modern sexual trends. Society, 49, 520–524. doi:10.1007/s12115-012-9596-y

12.

Begany

J. J.

Milburn

M. A.

(2002). Psychological predictors of sexual harassment: Authoritarianism, hostile sexism, and rape myths. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3, 119–126. doi:10.1037//1524-9220.3.2.119

13.

Buss

D. M.

Schmitt

D. P.

(1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204

14.

Campbell

J. I. D.

Thompson

V. A.

(2012). MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1255–1265. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0

15.

Carothers

B. J.

Reis

H. T.

(2013). Men and women are from earth: Examining the latent structure of gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 385–401. doi:10.1037/a0030437

16.

Clark

R. D.

Hatfield

(1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55. doi:10.1300/J056v02n01_04

17.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Conley

T. D.

(2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 309–329. doi:10.1037/a0022152

19.

Davies

Katz

Jackson

J. L.

(1999). Sexual desire discrepancies: Effects on sexual and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 553–567. doi:10.1023/A:1018721417683

20.

Dosch

Belayachi

Van der Linden

. (2015). Implicit and explicit sexual attitudes: How are they related to sexual desire and sexual satisfaction in men and women? The Journal of Sex Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.1003361

21.

Eastwick

P. W.

Eagly

A. H.

Finkel

E. J.

Johnson

S. E.

(2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 993–1011. doi:10.1037/a0024061

22.

Emmers-Sommer

T. A.

(2014). Adversarial sexual attitudes toward women: The relationships with gender and traditionalism. Sexuality & Culture, 18, 804–817. doi:10.1007/s12119-014-9222-9

23.

Emmers-Sommer

T. A.

Farrell

Gentry

Stevens

Eckstein

Battocletti

Gardener

(2010). First date sexual expectations: The effects of who asked, who paid, date location, and gender. Communication Studies, 61, 339–355. doi:10.1080/10510971003752676

24.

Erchull

M. J.

Liss

Axelson

S. J.

Staebell

S. E.

Askari

S. F.

(2011). Well…she wants it more: Perceptions of social norms about desires for marriage and children and anticipated chore participation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 253–260. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01566.x

25.

Fiore

A. T.

Donath

J. S.

(2005). Homophily in online dating: When do you like someone like yourself? Paper presented at the 2005 Computer Human Interaction conference, Portland, Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/∼atf/papers/fiore_chi2005_short.pdf

26.

Fisher

T. D.

(2009). The impact of socially conveyed norms on the reporting of sexual behavior and attitudes by men and women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 567–572. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.007

27.

Fisher

T. D.

(2013). Gender roles and pressure to be truthful: The bogus pipeline modifies gender differences in sexual but not non-sexual behavior. Sex Roles, 68, 401–414. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0266-3

28.

Fisher

T. D.

Moore

Z. T.

Pittenger

(2012). Sex on the brain?: An examination of frequency of sexual cognitions as a function of gender, erotophilia, and social desirability. The Journal of Sex Research, 49, 69–77. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.565429

29.

Forbes

G. B.

Adams-Curtis

L. E.

White

K. B.

(2004). First- and second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and hostility toward women: Their interrelationships and association with college students’ experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion. Violence against Women, 10, 236–261. doi:10.117/1077801203256002

30.

Glick

Diebold

Bailey-Werner

Zhu

(1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334. doi:10.1177/01461672972312009

31.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

32.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb000104.x

33.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

Mladinic

Saiz

J. L.

Abrams

Masser

… Lopez

W. L.

(2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.1037//002-3514.79.5.763

34.

Hatfield

Traupmann

(1981). Intimate relationships: A perspective from equity theory. In Duck

Gilmour

(Eds.), Personal relationships, Vol. 1: Studying personal relationships (pp. 165–178). London, England: Academic Press.

35.

Huberman

J. S.

Suschinsky

K. D.

Lalumiere

M. L.

Chivers

M. L.

(2013). Relationship between impression management and three measures of women’s self-reported sexual arousal. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 45, 259–273. doi:10.1037/a0033397

36.

Impett

E. A.

Peplau

L. A.

(2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87–100. doi:10.1080/00224490309552169

37.

Kim

J. L.

Sorsoli

C. L.

Collins

Zylbergold

B. A.

Schooler

Tolman

D. L.

(2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. The Journal of Sex Research, 44, 145–157. doi:10.1080/00224490701263660

38.

Loh

Gidycz

C. A.

Lobo

T. R.

Luthra

(2005). A prospective analysis of sexual assault perpetration: Risk factors related to perpetrator characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1325–1348. doi:10.1177/0886260505278528

39.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704–711. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.68.4.704

40.

Ménard

K. S.

Hall

G. C. N.

Phung

A. H.

Ghebrial

M. F. E.

Martin

(2003). Gender differences in sexual harassment and coercion in college students: Development, individual, and situational determinants. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1222–1239. doi:10.1177/0886260503256654

41.

Montoya

R. M.

Horton

R. S.

Kirchner

(2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922. doi:10.1177/0265407508096700

42.

Morr

M. C.

Mongeau

P. A.

(2004). First-date expectations: The impact of sex of initiator, alcohol consumption, and relationship type. Communication Research, 31, 3–35. doi:10.1177/0093650203260202

43.

Riley

N. S.

(2014, 2 16). The Economics of Sex: Has the price gotten too cheap? New York Post. Retrieved from http://www.nypost.com/2014/02/16/the-economics-of-sex-has-the-price-gotten-too-cheap/

44.

Rudman

L. A.

Fetterolf

J. C.

(2014). Gender and sexual economics: Do women view sex as a female commodity? Psychological Science, 25, 1438–1447. doi:10.1177/0956797614533123

45.

Rudman

L. A.

Fetterolf

J. C.

(2015). Why sexual economics theory is patriarchal: Reply to Vohs and Baumeister’s (2015) comment on Rudman and Fetterolf (2014). Psychological Science, 26, 1524–1525. doi:10.117/0956797615595018

46.

Rudman

L. A.

Fetterolf

J. C.

Sanchez

D. T.

(2013). What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 251–263. doi:10.1177/0146167212472375

47.

Rudman

L. A.

Mescher

(2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and male sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 734–746. doi:10.1177/0146167212436401

48.

Rudman

L. A.

Phelan

J. E.

(2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: Is feminism good for relationships? Sex Roles, 57, 787–799. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9319-9

49.

Sibley

C. G.

Wilson

M. S.

(2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687–696. doi:10.1007/s11199-004-0718-x

50.

Skopek

Schulz

Blossfeld

(2010). Who contacts whom? Educational homophily in online mate selection. European Sociological Review, 27, 180–195. doi:10.1093/esr/jcp068

51.

Vohs

K. D.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2015). Correcting some misrepresentations about gender and sexual economics theory: Comment on Rudman and Fetterolf (2014). Psychological Science, 26, 1522–1523. doi:10.1177/0956797615581492

52.

Ward

L. M.

(1995). Talking about sex: Common themes about sexuality in the prime-time television programs children and adolescents view most. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 595–615. doi:10.1007/BF01537058

53.

Ward

L. M.

(2003). Understanding the role of entertainment media in the sexual socialization of American youth: A review of empirical research. Developmental Review, 23, 347–388. doi:10.1016/S0273-2297(03)00013-3

54.

Watson

(2014, 3 3). Austin’s new (no sex) institute. The Austin Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2014-03-03/austins-new-no-sex-institute/

55.

West

(2014, 2 18). Sex is not an “economy” and you are not merchandise. Jezebel. Retrieved from http://www.jezebel.com/sex-is-not-an-economy-and-you-are-not-merchandise-1524954631

56.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

Morgan

E. M.

(2006). Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes toward sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-8865-2

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.20 MB