Although casual sex is increasingly socially acceptable, negative stereotypes toward women who pursue casual sex remain pervasive. For example, a common trope in television, film, and other media is that women who engage in casual sex have low self-esteem. Despite robust work on prejudice against women who engage in casual sex, little empirical work has focused on the lay theories individuals hold about them. Across six experiments with U.S. adults (N = 1,469), we found that both men and women stereotype women (but not men) who engage in casual sex as having low self-esteem. This stereotype is held explicitly and semi-implicitly; is not driven by individual differences in religiosity, conservatism, or sexism; and is mediated by inferences that women who have casual sex are unsatisfied with their mating strategy—yet the stereotype persists when women are explicitly described as choosing to have casual sex. Finally, the stereotype appears to be unfounded; across experiments, the same participants’ sexual behavior was not significantly correlated with their self-esteem.
AubreyJ. S. (2004). Sex and punishment: An examination of sexual consequences and the sexual double standard in teen programming. Sex Roles, 50, 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000023070.87195.07
3.
BanaiB.PavelaI. (2015). Two-dimensional structure of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory and its personality correlates. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915604541
4.
BogleK. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York University Press.
5.
BordiniG. S.SperbT. M. (2013). Sexual double standard: A review of the literature between 2001 and 2010. Sexuality & Culture, 17(4), 686–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-012-9163-0
6.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204
7.
CameronJ. J.StinsonD. A.HoplockL.HoleC.SchellenbergJ. (2016). The robust self-esteem proxy: Impressions of self-esteem inform judgments of personality and social value. Self and Identity, 15(5), 561–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2016.1175373
8.
CavalloJ. V.HirniakA. (2019). No assistance desired: How perceptions of others’ self-esteem affect support-seeking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(2), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732394
CrawfordM.PoppD. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552163
11.
de JongD. C.AdamsK. N.ReisH. T. (2018). Predicting women’s emotional responses to hooking up: Do motives matter?Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(4), 532–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517743077
12.
DubéS.LavoieF.BlaisM.HébertM. (2017). Consequences of casual sex relationships and experiences on adolescents’ psychological well-being: A prospective study. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(8), 1006–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1255874
13.
EndendijkJ. J.van BaarA. L.DekovićM. (2020). He is a stud, she is a slut! A meta-analysis on the continued existence of sexual double standards. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(2), 163–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319891310
14.
EshbaughE. M.GuteG. (2008). Hookups and sexual regret among college women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.1.77-90
15.
EyalK.FinnertyK. (2009). The portrayal of sexual intercourse on television: How, who, and with what consequence?Mass Communication and Society, 12(2), 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430802136713
16.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
17.
FielderR. L.WalshJ. L.CareyK. B.CareyM. P. (2013). Predictors of sexual hookups: A theory-based, prospective study of first-year college women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1425–1441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0106-0
18.
GarciaJ. R.ReiberC.MasseyS. G.MerriwetherA. M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027911
19.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x
20.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
21.
JacksonJ. J.KirkpatrickL. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.005
22.
JussimL.CrawfordJ. T.AnglinS. M.ChambersJ. R.StevensS. T.CohenF. (2016). Stereotype accuracy: One of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. In NelsonT. D. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 31–63). Psychology Press.
23.
KurzbanR.DukesA.WeedenJ. (2010). Sex, drugs and moral goals: Reproductive strategies and views about recreational drugs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1699), 3501–3508. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0608
24.
LandoltM. A.LalumièreM. L.QuinseyV. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)00012-V
25.
LearyM. R.TamborE. S.TerdalS. K.DownsD. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518
26.
LevinR. J. (2007). Sexual activity, health and well-being – the beneficial roles of coitus and masturbation. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 22, 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990601149197
McIlhaneyJ. S.BushF. M. (2008). Hooked: New science on how casual sex is affecting our children. Northfield Publishing.
29.
MikachS. M.BaileyJ. M. (1999). What distinguishes women with unusually high numbers of sex partners?Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(3), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00045-2
30.
MontoM. A.CareyA. G. (2014). A new standard of sexual behavior? Are claims associated with the “hookup culture” supported by general social survey data?The Journal of Sex Research, 51(6), 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.906031
31.
PaulE. L. (2006). Beer goggles, catching feelings, and the walk of shame: The myths and realities of the hookup experience. In KirkpatrickD. C.DuckS.FoleyM. K. (Eds.), Relating difficulty: The process of constructing and managing difficult relationships (pp. 141–160). Erlbaum.
32.
PaulE. L.HayesK. A. (2002). The casualties of ‘casual’ sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(5), 639–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502195006
33.
PenkeL.AsendorpfJ. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
34.
RosenbergM. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image. Wesleyan University Press.
35.
RosinH. (2012). The end of men: And the rise of women. Penguin.
36.
SchmittD. P., & 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(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.85
SteppL. S. (2007). Unhooked: How young women pursue sex, delay love and lose at both. Penguin.
39.
TownsendJ. M. (1995). Sex without emotional involvement: An evolutionary interpretation of sex differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541580
40.
TriversR. (2017). Parental investment and sexual selection (pp. 136–179). In CampbellB. G. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: The Darwinian pivot. Routledge. (Original work published 1972)
41.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293
VarnumM. E. W.GrossmannI. (2017). Pathogen prevalence is associated with cultural changes in gender equality. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), Article 0003. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0003
44.
VrangalovaZ. (2015). Does casual sex harm college students’ well-being? A longitudinal investigation of the role of motivation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 945–959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0255-1
45.
VrangalovaZ.OngA. D. (2014). Who benefits from casual sex? The moderating role of sociosexuality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(8), 883–891. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614537308
46.
Zeigler-HillV.BesserA.MyersE. M.SouthardA. C.MalkinM. L. (2012). The status-signaling property of self-esteem: The role of self-reported self-esteem and perceived self-esteem in personality judgments. Journal of Personality, 81(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00790.x
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.
