Correcting Some Misrepresentations About Gender and Sexual Economics Theory

Vohs, Kathleen D.; Baumeister, Roy F.

doi:10.1177/0956797615581492

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…SET authors' claim that sexual exchange is ''mutually beneficial'' (Vohs & Baumeister, 2015, p. 1522) is inconsistent with the findings of 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).…”

Section: Tenets Of Set and Countervailing Evidencementioning

confidence: 89%

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

Fetterolf

Rudman

2016

Psychology of Women Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 ¼ 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.

show abstract

Section: Tenets Of Set and Countervailing Evidencementioning

confidence: 89%

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

Fetterolf

Rudman

2016

Psychology of Women Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, educators might use The Economics of Sex video as a cautionary tale of how a scientific theory can be misused to further a political cause (in this case, suppressing female sexuality). SET consists of a set of working hypotheses, not verified explanations for human behavior, despite the claims of the video (and SET authors; Vohs & Baumeister, 2015). Please see http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index for PowerPoint slides for instructors who want to teach about research on SET.…”

Section: Practice Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The upshot is that women are more invested in sexual exchange than men, albeit deceptively (to trick men into compliance). Yet the system is purportedly “mutually beneficial” because what men chiefly want from women is sex and what women chiefly want from men is their financial resources (Vohs & Baumeister, 2015, p. 1522). In reality, heterosexual unions generally stem from mutual attraction and perceived similarity in demographics, goals, and values (e.g., Eastwick, Eagly, Finkel, & Johnson, 2011; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1983; Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008).…”

Section: Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(p. 185)Indeed, research investigating 36 cultures showed that as female empowerment increased, gender differences in mate selection were reduced because women expressed less interest, while men expressed more interest, in their partners’ financial capacity (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Therefore, it is unclear why SET authors did not incorporate societal changes into their initial reasoning and why they have dismissed empirical challenges to their claim that female control is a superior explanation for the suppression of female sexuality than male control (Vohs & Baumeister, 2015). Baumeister and Vohs (2012) cleared up the mystery by revealing their gender politics:Because of women’s lesser motivation and ambition, they will likely never equal men in achievement…Even today, the women’s movement has been a story of women demanding places and preferential treatment in the organizational and institutional structures that men create, rather than women creating organizations and institutions themselves…Why have men acquiesced so much in giving women the upper hand in society’s institutions?…”

Section: Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Myths of Sexual Economics Theory

Rudman

2017

Psychology of Women Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors of sexual economics theory (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002; Baumeister & Vohs, 2004) argue that sex is a female commodity that women exchange for men's resources; therefore, women (not men) are responsible for the cultural suppression of sexuality, ostensibly to preserve the value of sex. In this article, I describe the central tenets of sexual economics theory and summarize a growing body of research contradicting them. I also explain the negative implications of the claims of sexual economics theory for gender equality and heterosexual relationships. Researchers, clinicians, and educators engaged in understanding human sexuality may use the arguments provided in this article to counteract gender myths. This article also serves as a case study of how feminist scholars can employ empirical evidence to weaken a popularized, patriarchal theory.

show abstract