We were disappointed to read Rudman and Fetterolf’s (2014) misrepresentation of sexual economics theory (SET). We were also puzzled: Their empirical findings seem to support the theory, contrary to their claims to have refuted it. Rudman and Fetterolf relied on quasiparaphrase to attribute tenets to our theory. We encourage readers to read our own presentation of our theory (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004) and then read Rudman and Fetterolf’s interpretation to see for themselves. Rudman and Fetterolf’s investigation was based on a fundamental mistake: “SET’s central tenet is that women are more invested in sexual exchange than men are” (p. 1438). This interpretation is wrong: Whether men or women have a greater desire to make the exchange can be predicted by the principle of least interest. As the basis for SET, this principle holds that whoever wants the outcome more will be correspondingly more willing to sacrifice in the hopes of getting the exchange to take place (Waller & Hill, 1938/1951). Moreover, crucially, a basic lesson of economics is that exchanges take place mainly when both parties benefit (Smith, 1776/1937). According to our theory and much evidence, men want sex and women want men’s resources, and that creates the basis for a mutually beneficial exchange....
Language: en
LA - en SN - 0956-7976 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797615581492 ID - ref1 ER -