Janell C. Fetterolf

Eroticizing Inequality in the United States: The Consequences and Determinants of Traditional Gender Role Adherence in Intimate Relationships

This article reviews the research on traditional gender-role adherence and sexuality for heterosexual men and women. Specifically, the consequences and predictors of following traditional gender roles of female submissiveness and male dominance in sexual relationships is examined. Despite evidence that men and womens sexual roles are becoming more egalitarian over time, empirical evidence suggests that the traditional sexual roles continue to dominate heterosexual relations. This article explores whether the sexual context is one in which both men and women feel particularly compelled to engage in gender stereotypic behavior, and why. In addition, this article reports on research that finds that men and women have automatic associations between sexuality and power that reinforce their gender stereotypic behavior in sexual contexts. The negative effects of traditional gender-role adherence for womens sexual problems and satisfaction is demonstrated. This article concludes that traditional sexual scripts are harmful for both womens and mens ability to engage in authentic, rewarding sexual expression, although the female submissive role may be particularly debilitating. Future directions of research are suggested, including interventions to reduce womens adherence to the sexually submissive female script.

What Motivates the Sexual Double Standard? More Support for Male Versus Female Control Theory

The present research uniquely compared male control theory (MCT) versus female control theory (FCT) to illuminate motives for the sexual double standard (SDS), whereby men gain status from engaging in casual sex or having many sexual partners, but women are stigmatized for it. Consistent with MCT, men were more likely than women to endorse the SDS and to give sexual advice in ways that reinforce it—gender differences that were mediated by hostile sexism (HS) and endorsing the SDS, respectively. The data did not support FCT’s argument that women are motivated by sexual economics to restrict female sexuality (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002). Both genders discouraged women from having casual sex to protect women from social stigma and rape myths that justify violence against sexual women. In concert, the findings support MCT more than FCT and suggest that sexism, stigma, and rape myths are primary obstacles to sexual equality.

The Costs and Benefits of Perceived Sexual Agency for Men and Women

Women are less likely than men to engage in sexually agentic behavior (e.g., initiating sexual encounters), despite the benefits associated with sexual agency (Kiefer & Sanchez, 2007). Two studies examined possible explanations, related to person perception, for gender differences in sexually agentic behavior. In Study 1, participants viewed the dating profiles of targets who were either high or low on sexual agency and rated sexually agentic targets as more desirable but also riskier sexual partners (i.e., having more previous sexual partners), as well as more selfish partners overall. Participants believed the agentic female targets to be the most desirable but also to have the highest number of previous sexual partners. In Study 2, female participants weighed the importance and consequences of sexual agency differently than male participants. Based on the two studies, we suggest that although men and women are judged similarly for sexual agency, women may refrain from sexual agency because they view the traits and characteristics that are perceived to go hand in hand with sexual agency more negatively.

Gender and sexual economics: do women view sex as a female commodity?

In the study reported here, data from implicit and behavioral choice measures did not support sexual economics theory’s (SET’s) central tenet that women view female sexuality as a commodity. Instead, men endorsed sexual exchange more than women did, which supports the idea that SET is a vestige of patriarchy. Further, men’s sexual advice, more than women’s, enforced the sexual double standard (i.e., men encouraged men more than women to have casual sex)—a gender difference that was mediated by hostile sexism, but also by men’s greater implicit investment in sexual economics. That is, men were more likely to suppress female sexuality because they resisted female empowerment and automatically associated sex with money more than women did. It appears that women are not invested in sexual economics, but rather, men are invested in patriarchy, even when it means raising the price of sexual relations.

Why Sexual Economics Theory Is Patriarchal: Reply to Vohs and Baumeister’s (2015) Comment on Rudman and Fetterolf (2014)

In their Commentary on our study testing sexual economics theory (SET; Rudman & Fetterolf, 2014), Vohs and Baumeister (2015) have conflated men’s behavioral and implicit endorsement of sexual exchange with support for SET; the point we made is that they are not the same thing. Instead, the fact that men’s support for sexual exchange is stronger than women’s signals that SET is rooted in patriarchy. To explain why, we summarize how our research undermines three central tenets of SET: (a) that women (not men) are responsible for suppressing female sexuality, because (b) women are more invested in sexual exchange than men are, and (c) that men like sex more than women, which affords women a bargaining chip. First, both evolutionary psychology and feminist theory predict that men are largely responsible for suppressing women sexually (i.e., male-control theory), whereas SET endorses female control theory (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002). Prematurely, Baumeister and Vohs (2012) claimed “victory” for SET as the only theory to predict that “the cultural suppression of female sexuality is propagated and sustained by women” (p. 521). In previous research contradicting SET, we found more support for malethan for female-control theory (Rudman, Fetterolf, & Sanchez, 2013). For example, men were more likely than women to endorse the sexual double standard, which explained why men were more likely to give sexual advice that supports it (i.e., to encourage men but discourage women from having casual sex). SET’s core thesis that women are motivated by sexual economics to restrict female sexuality was not supported; instead, both genders endorsed social stigma and sexual assault, not sexual economics, as reasons to sexually inhibit women. Second, Baumeister and Vohs (2004) reasoned that women have more to gain than men from restricting female sexuality because “it is always within the best interests of an oligopoly of sellers to restrict the supply of its product” (p. 357), whereas “men will tend to support initiatives that lower the price of sex” (p. 343). In other words, women are more invested in sexual exchange than men are.1 How can one test this idea? According to Baumeister and Vohs (2004), SET is too dark to ask people about (p. 360):

How accurate are metaperceptions of sexism? Evidence for the illusion of antagonism between hostile and benevolent sexism

In the first examination of the accuracy of metaperceptions of sexism among White, Asian, and Black women and men (N = 308), results showed that regardless of ethnicity, both genders were similarly inaccurate, but in opposing ways. Women overestimated men’s hostile sexism (HS) and underestimated men’s benevolent sexism (BS), whereas men overestimated women’s BS and underestimated women’s HS. Further, metaperceptions of HS were negatively related to metaperceptions of BS, for both genders. Individual differences in sexism informed metaperceptions only for men (not women). In concert, the findings support an illusion of antagonism between HS and BS. Viewing HS and BS as oppositional is an illusion because, cross-culturally, they are positively correlated in men and women alike (e.g., Glick et al., 2000), and both forms of sexism reinforce the gender hierarchy (Rudman & Glick, 2008). Therefore, disarming the illusion of antagonism is an overlooked key to advancing gender equality.

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

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 PWQs website at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index .

On the neural implausibility of the modular mind: Evidence for distributed construction dissolves boundaries between perception, cognition, and emotion

Firestone & Scholl (F&S) rely on three problematic assumptions about the mind (modularity, reflexiveness, and context-insensitivity) to argue cognition does not fundamentally influence perception. We highlight evidence indicating that perception, cognition, and emotion are constructed through overlapping, distributed brain networks characterized by top-down activity and context-sensitivity. This evidence undermines F&Ss ability to generalize from case studies to the nature of perception.