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 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.

Sexist Ideology and Endorsement of Men’s Control Over Women’s Decisions in Reproductive Health

“…The financial abortion item seems to reflect the heterosexual hostility facet of hostile sexism-the perception that women are using their sexuality, and in this case their pregnancy, to leverage resources from men (Begun & Walls, 2015). This is in line with research linking hostile sexism to a competitive view of heterosexual relationships, wherein women are argued to exchange sex for men's resources (Fetterolf & Rudman, 2017). In contrast, benevolent sexism was a negative predictor of support for financial abortion across both studies, albeit only marginally in Study 2.…”

The men and women, guys and girls of the ‘manosphere’: A corpus-assisted discourse approach

“…Van Valkenburgh (2018) also noted that TRP endorse Sexual Economics Theory, which states that women exchange sex with men for men’s resources. Fetterolf and Rudman (2017) found that endorsing Sexual Economics Theory coincides with high scores on two scales: the 15-item Adversarial Heterosexual Beliefs Scale (Lonsway and Fitzgerald, 1995), which includes items such as ‘it is natural for one spouse to be in the control of the other’; and Glick and Fiske’s (1996) Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, which distinguishes between hostile sexism (negative stereotypes such as women being less capable than men) and benevolent sexism (positive stereotypes such as women being more caring than men).…”

Myths of Sexual Economics Theory

“…In related research, consumers of reality television (TV) shows that promote sexual exchange, such as Joe Millionaire, also reported adversarial sexual beliefs (Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006). Although it is possible that consumers who are drawn to such entertainment already possess these beliefs, Fetterolf and Rudman's (2017) findings support a causal link: Video exposure to SET promotes antagonistic beliefs about heterosexual relationships.…”

“…To investigate the persuasive power of the video, Fetterolf and Rudman (2017) exposed some participants ( N = 474; 222 women) to The Economics of Sex , but we also randomly assigned some half of those participants to read a feminist critique of the video, which rebutted its claims (West, 2014). The feminist article satirized the video’s dark view of gender relations, arguing that people generally have sex because they like each other, not to trade bodies for bank accounts.…”

“…The feminist article satirized the video’s dark view of gender relations, arguing that people generally have sex because they like each other, not to trade bodies for bank accounts. Controls either read the critique without seeing the video or they only completed the dependent variables, which included the sexual exchange ad choice task (Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014) and the sexual exchange endorsement index (Fetterolf & Rudman, 2017). The latter assessed their agreement with SET tenets described in the video (see Appendix C for all items) on a scale from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ).…”