Is There a Sexual Stereotype Linking Casual Sex with Low Self-Esteem?

0Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

An experimental vignette study was conducted to examine the pervasiveness of sexual stereotypes that women (although not men) who engage in casual sex are perceived to have lower self-esteem–and are considered to be less desirable for a relationship–than those who do not engage in casual sex. In a 2 × 2 experimental design, we embedded information about the recent relationship history (two casual sexual relationships vs. two committed sexual relationships) in a hypothetical online dating profile, and also manipulated the profile author’s gender. The participants (N = 318, obtained from two college settings and through Prolific) forecasted that an online profile statement that referred to casual sexual partners would lead to less overall attraction (by other users) than a statement that referred to committed relationships. However, this difference was found regardless of the author’s gender (i.e., no evidence was found for a double standard). Furthermore, participants did not stereotype the hypothetical woman (or man) as having lower self-esteem if they had casual sex partners. The author’s sexual history also did not affect the participants’ ratings of their desirability as a partner, with the exception that the author who had prior casual sexual partners was assumed to be more attractive for a short-term relationship than the author with prior committed sexual partners, and regardless of the author’s gender. The findings are discussed in the contexts of first impressions made in real-world settings, waning double standards in a society of increased egalitarianism, and changing cultural, sexual scripts.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sprecher, S., Verette-Lindenbaum, J., Felmlee, D., Fleming, F., & Odeh, Y. (2025). Is There a Sexual Stereotype Linking Casual Sex with Low Self-Esteem? Sexuality and Culture, 29(4), 1713–1732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-025-10343-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free