How Sweet is the Deal? The Effect of Incentives on College Students’ Willingness to Sugar Date

Abstract

Sugar dating has emerged as a controversial type of transactional relationship, frequently compared to prostitution and sex work. The current study explores college students’ willingness to engage in various types of sugar dating services in exchange for instrumental and intrinsic incentives such as cash, company, and fine gifts. Using a sample of 641 U.S. undergraduate students, we implemented a randomized survey experiment to examine the extent to which randomly assigned incentives impacted willingness to sugar date. Analyses were conducted using linear probability models (LPMs) predicting students’ willingness to exchange each service. Both males and females were more willing to exchange less explicit forms of sugaring services such as talking and dating. Findings indicated that monetary incentives and payment for college tuition were greatly influential in motivating willingness to engage in more explicit services such as making out or having sex with a partner. Theoretical, legal, and ethical implications are discussed.

Keywords

sugar dating compensated dating sex work prostitution

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boffey

(2019, April 5). “Sugar daddy” website owner charged with debauchery in Belgium. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/sugar-daddy-website-owner-charged-debauchery-belgium-sigurd-vedal

Chu

C. S. K.

Laidler

K. J.

(2015). Becoming a male client of compensated dating. Deviant Behavior, 37(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.983007

Clarke

R. V.

Cornish

D. B.

(Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer-Verlag.

Deke

(2014). Using the linear probability model to estimate impacts on binary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Mathematica Policy Research. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mpr:mprres:62a1477e274d429faf7e0c71ba1204b2

Eliason

M. J.

(1995). Accounts of sexual identity formation in heterosexual students. Sex Roles, 32(11–12), 821–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01560191

Florida Statutes § 796.07. (1981). Prohibiting prostitution and related acts. https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2018/Chapter796

Garcia

J. R.

Reiber

Massey

S. G.

Merriwether

(2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027911

Gibbs

B. R.

Ten Bensel

(2022). Sentencing females convicted of sex offenses: Examining measures of perceived dangerousness and the decision to incarcerate. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211032708

Gobind

Du Plessis

(2015). Sugar daddy: The student attraction. Gender and Behaviour, 13(2), 6720–6729. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/gab/article/view/127675

10.

Grasmick

H. G.

Bursik

R. J.

(1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law & Society Review, 24(3), 837–861. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053861

11.

Gunnarsson

Strid

(2023). Varieties of sugar dating in Sweden: Content, compensation, motivations. Social Problems, 70(4), 1044–1062. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spab063

12.

Hardy

Sanders

(2014). The political economy of “lap dancing”: Contested careers and women’s work in the stripping industry. Work, Employment and Society, 29(1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017014554969

13.

Hariton

Locascio

J. J.

(2018). Randomised controlled trials—The gold standard for effectiveness research. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 125(13), 1716–1716. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15199

14.

Hirsch

J. S.

Khan

(2020). Sexual citizens: A landmark study of sex, power, and assault on campus. W. W. Norton & Company.

15.

Kyegombe

Meiksin

Namakula

Mulindwa

Muhumuza

Wamoyi

Heise

Buller

A. M.

(2020). Community perspectives on the extent to which transactional sex is viewed as sexual exploitation in Central Uganda. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 20(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-020-00228-w

16.

Lanau

Matolcsi

(2024). Prostitution and sex work, who counts? Mapping local data to inform policy and service provision. Social Policy and Society, 23(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746422000136

17.

T. M. H.

Wong

W. C. P.

Chan

Law

Y.-W.

K.-W.

Chau

Yip

S. F. P.

(2015). Sexual and mental health in compensated dating in youth in Hong Kong: An exploratory quantitative study. Jacobs Journal of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, 1(1), 6. https://pweb.fbe.hku.hk/~mchau/papers/CompensatedDating.pdf

18.

Loza

Strathdee

S. A.

Lozada

Staines

Ojeda

V. D.

Martinez

G. A.

Amaro

Patterson

T. L.

(2010). Correlates of early versus later initiation into sex work in two Mexico–US border cities. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.06.011

19.

Mampane

J. N.

(2018). Exploring the “blesser and blessee” phenomenon: Young women, transactional sex, and HIV in rural South Africa. SAGE Open, 8(4), Article 215824401880634. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018806343

20.

Miller

(2011). Sugar dating: A new take on an old issue. Buffalo Journal of Gender, Law & Social Policy, 20(1), 33–68. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bjglsp/vol20/iss1/4/?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu%2Fbjglsp%2Fvol20%2Fiss1%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

21.

Mixon

F. G.

(2019). Sugar daddy U: Human capital investment and the university-based supply of “romantic arrangements.” Applied Economics, 51(9), 956–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2018.1524129

22.

Motyl

(2012). Trading sex for college tuition: How sugar daddy “dating” sites may be sugar coating prostitution. Dickinson Law Review, 117(3), 927–958. https://pennstatelawreview.org/117/3/Motyl%20final.pdf

23.

Nagin

D. S.

Paternoster

(1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27(3), 467–496. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/enduring-individual-differences-rational-choice/docview/1297915809/se-2

24.

Nayar

K. I.

(2017). Sweetening the deal: Dating for compensation in the digital age. Journal of Gender Studies, 26(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2016.1273101

25.

Roberts

Bergström

Van Rooy

D. L.

(2007). Sex work and students: An exploratory study. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(4), 323–334. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/sex-work-students-exploratory-study/docview/62066426/se-2

26.

Roberts

Golding

J. F.

Towell

Reid

Woodford

Vetere

Weinreb

(2000). Mental and physical health in students: The role of economic circumstances. British Journal of Health Psychology, 5(3), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910700168928

27.

Roberts

Sanders

Myers

Smith

(2010). Participation in sex work: Students’ views. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 10(2), 145–156. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/participation-sex-work-students-views/docview/861240368/se-2

28.

Ross

(2015, January 20). Where the sugar babies are. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/where-the-sugar-babies-are/384547/

29.

Schochet

P. Z.

(2013). Statistical power for school-based RCTs with binary outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(3), 263–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2012.725803

30.

Scull

M. T.

(2020). “It’s its own thing”: A typology of interpersonal sugar relationship scripts. Sociological Perspectives, 63(1), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121419875115

31.

Scull

M. T.

(2022). From seeking financialships to satisfying curiosity: Women’s motivations for entering sugar relationships. Sexuality & Culture, 26(1), 222–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09888-9

32.

Selikow

T.-A.

Mbulaheni

(2013). “I do love him but at the same time I can’t eat love”: Sugar daddy relationships for conspicuous consumption amongst urban university students in South Africa. Agenda, 27(2), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2013.809930

33.

Stewart

T. J.

(2023). “Dear higher education, there are sex workers on your campus”: Rendering visible the realities of US college students engaged in sex work. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 16(4), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000351

34.

Stoebenau

Nixon

Rubincam

Willan

Zembe

Tsikoane

Tanga

P. T.

Bello

H. M.

Caceres

C. F.

Townsend

Rakotoarison

P. G.

Razafintsalama

(2011). More than just talk: The framing of transactional sex and its implications for vulnerability to HIV in Lesotho, Madagascar and South Africa. Globalization and Health, 7(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-7-34

35.

Testa

(2022). What are the chances? Perceived risk of sexual victimization for self and others among college women. Violence & Victims, 37(1), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1891/VV-D-20-00170

36.

Wade

(2009). Seeking arrangement: The definitive guide to sugar daddy and mutually beneficial arrangements. InfoStream Group Inc.

37.

Westreich

Greenland

(2013). The Table 2 fallacy: Presenting and interpreting confounder and modifier coefficients. American Journal of Epidemiology, 177(4), 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws412

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

0.03 MB