Exploring Attitudes Toward “Sugar Relationships” Across 87 Countries: A Global Perspective on Exchanges of Resources for Sex and Companionship

Authors

• Norbert Meskó, University of Pécs
• Marta Kowal, University of Wrocław
• András Láng, University of Pécs
• Ferenc Kocsor, University of Pécs
• Szabolcs A. Bandi, University of Pécs
• Adam Putz, University of Pécs
• Piotr Sorokowski, University of Pécs
• David A. Frederick, Chapman UniversityFollow
• Felipe A. García, Universidad de Concepción
• Leonardo A. Aguilar, Central University of Venezuela
• Anna Studzinska, Icam, Toulouse
• Chee-Seng Tan, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
• Biljana Gjoneska, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Taciano L. Milfont, University of Waikato
• Merve Topcu Bulut, Lund University
• Dmitry Grigoryev, HSE University
• Toivo Aavik, University of Tartu
• Mahmoud Boussena, University Setif2
• Alan D. A. Mattiassi, University of Florence
• Reza Afhami, Tarbiat Modares University
• Rizwana Amin, Bahria University
• Roberto Baiocco, Sapienza University of Rome
• Hamdaoui Brahim, University of Ibn Tofail
• Ali R. Can, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University
• Joao Carneiro, University of Porto
• Hakan Çetinkaya, Yaşar University
• Dimitri Chubinidze, Tbilisi State Medical University
• Eliane Deschrijver, Ghent University
• Yahya Don, Universiti Utara Malaysia
• Dmitrii Dubrov, HSE University
• Izzet Duyar, Istanbul University
• Marija Jovic, University of Belgrade
• Julia A. Kamburidis, Sofia University
• Farah Khan, Women University Mardan
• Hareesol Khun‑Inkeeree, Prince of Songkla University
• Maida Koso‑Drljevic, University of Sarajevo
• David Lacko, Masaryk University
• Karlijn Massar, Maastricht University
• Mara Morelli, Sapienza University of Rome
• Jean C. Natividade, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
• Ellen K. Nyhus, University of Agder
• Ju Hee Park, Yonsei University
• Farid Pazhoohi, University of British Columbia
• Ekaterine Pirtskhalava, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
• Koen Ponnet, Imec-Mict-Ghent University
• Pavol Prokop, Comenius University
• Dušana Šakan, Union University
• Singha Tulyakul, Thaksin University
• Austin H. Wang, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
• Sibele D. Aquino, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
• Derya D. Atamtürk, Istanbul University
• Nana Burduli, University of Georgia
• Antonio Chirumbolo, Sapienza University of Rome
• Seda Dural, Izmir University of Economics
• Edgardo Etchezahar, Education Universidad Internacional de Valencia
• Nasim Ghahraman Moharrampour, University of Melbourne
• Balazs Aczel, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University
• Luca Kozma, University of Pécs
• Samuel Lins, University of Porto
• Efisio Manunta, Université de Toulouse
• Tiago Marot, Getúlio Vargas Foundation
• Moises Mebarak, Universidad del Norte
• Kirill G. Miroshnik, Saint Petersburg State University
• Katarina Misetic, University of Sarajevo
• Marietta Papadatou‑Pastou, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
• Bence Bakos, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University
• Fatima Zahra Sahli, Ibn Tofail University
• Sangeeta Singh, University of Agder
• Çağlar Solak, Manisa Celal Bayar University
• Tatiana Volkodav, Kuban State University
• Anna Wlodarczyk, Universidad Católica del Norte
• Grace Akello, Gulu University
• Marios Argyrides, Neapolis University Pafos
• Ogeday Çoker, Pamukkale University
• Katarzyna Galasinska, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities
• Talía Gómez Yepes, International University of Valencia
• Aleksander Kobylarek, University of Wrocław
• Miguel Landa‑Blanco, National Autonomous University of Honduras
• Marlon Mayorga, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador-Ambato
• Barış Özener, Istanbul University
• Ma. Criselda T. Pacquing, University of Santo Tomas
• Marc Eric S. Reyes, University of Santo Tomas
• Ayşegül Şahin, HSE University
• William Tamayo‑Agudelo, Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia
• Gulmira Topanova, Kazakh National Women’s Pedagogical University
• Ezgi Toplu‑Demirtaş, Mef University
• Belgüzar N. Türkan, Pamukkale University
• Marcos Zumárraga‑Espinosa, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana
• Simone Grassini, University of Bergen
• Jan Antfolk, Åbo Akademi University
• Clément Cornec, University of Saint-Etienne
• Katarzyna Pisanksi, University of Wrocław
• Sabrina Stöckli, University of Zurich
• Stephanie Josephine Eder, University of Vienna
• Hyemin Han, University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

12-21-2023

Abstract

The current study investigates attitudes toward one form of sex for resources: the so-called sugar relationships, which often involve exchanges of resources for sex and/or companionship. The present study examined associations among attitudes toward sugar relationships and relevant variables (e.g., sex, sociosexuality, gender inequality, parasitic exposure) in 69,924 participants across 87 countries. Two self-report measures of Acceptance of Sugar Relationships (ASR) developed for younger companion providers (ASR-YWMS) and older resource providers (ASR-OMWS) were translated into 37 languages. We tested cross-sex and cross-linguistic construct equivalence, cross-cultural invariance in sex differences, and the importance of the hypothetical predictors of ASR. Both measures showed adequate psychometric properties in all languages (except the Persian version of ASR-YWMS). Results partially supported our hypotheses and were consistent with previous theoretical considerations and empirical evidence on human mating. For example, at the individual level, sociosexual orientation, traditional gender roles, and pathogen prevalence were significant predictors of both ASR-YWMS and ASR-OMWS. At the country level, gender inequality and parasite stress positively predicted the ASR-YWMS. However, being a woman negatively predicted the ASR-OMWS, but positively predicted the ASR-YWMS. At country-level, ingroup favoritism and parasite stress positively predicted the ASR-OMWS. Furthermore, significant cross-subregional differences were found in the openness to sugar relationships (both ASR-YWMS and ASR-OMWS scores) across subregions. Finally, significant differences were found between ASR-YWMS and ASR-OMWS when compared in each subregion. The ASR-YWMS was significantly higher than the ASR-OMWS in all subregions, except for Northern Africa and Western Asia.

Comments

This article was originally published in Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02724-1

Recommended Citation

Meskó, N., Kowal, M., Láng, A. et al. Exploring Attitudes Toward “Sugar Relationships” Across 87 Countries: A Global Perspective on Exchanges of Resources for Sex and Companionship. Arch Sex Behav (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02724-1

Copyright

The authors

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.