Introduction

People make inferences about the traits of others they encounter in their daily lives based on their visible membership in social groups (e.g., gender) along with other information they learn directly or indirectly about these others. In the modern world of dating, many often learn considerable information about others (potential partners) from content presented in their online profiles. However, there is a lack of research on how people perceive and stereotype a potential partner based on information presented in their online dating profile. In this study, we examine the inferences people make about a hypothetical person’s self-esteem as a function of information manipulated about the person’s recent sexual/relational past (presented in a hypothetical online dating profile). Self-esteem can be considered a central personality trait that people infer based on information that is visible or obtained in other ways (Cameron et al., 2023). We also manipulated the gender of the author of the online dating profile, and thus consider whether there is a double standard in inferences about self-esteem as a function of past sexual behavior.

Conceptual Background

In this section, we first discuss a theoretical background to the double standard and then discuss implications of the double standard for inferences about self-esteem based on limited information learned about another person.

The Double Standard and Sexual Scripts

A double standard refers broadly to different judgments or perceptions toward different categories of people. A sexual double standard more specifically often refers to judging or perceiving men and women differently for the same sexual behavior (Gómez-Berrocal et al., 2022). Multiple studies have provided evidence of a sexual double standard, in which the same sexual behaviors are deemed less acceptable and/or judged more harshly for women than for men. However, controversy remains regarding the existence and durability of a sexual double standard (for reviews, see Crawford & Popp, 2003; Endenjijk et al., 2020; González-Marugán et al., 2021; Marques et al., 2024; Sagebin Bordini & Sperb, 2013), and research on the double standard continues today (e.g., Alvarez-Muelas et al., 2023; Amaro et al., 2024; Busch & Saldala-Torres, 2024; Kennair et al., 2023; Kettrey, 2016; Kreager et al., 2024).

A sexual double standard and its consequences are influenced by cultural sexual scripts. According to sexual script theory (Simon & Gagnon, 1984, 2003), human sexual behavior is guided by socially constructed scripts, or guidelines, that provide parameters for normative sexual activity and that align with cultural expectations. Scripts reflect sets of beliefs that develop over time among a group of people, and that can be reinforced within the larger society. Beginning in childhood and extending into adulthood, sexual scripts for men and women differ (Frith & Kitzinger, 2001; Wiederman, 2005). Traditionally, girls and women are discouraged from investigating their own sexuality, initiating sexual encounters, and engaging in casual sex. Boys and men, on the other hand, are often allowed to explore their sexuality and to pursue sexual encounters with or without the prerequisite of a committed relationship. Individuals who depart from these social scripts risk encountering social stigmas. A social stigma refers to the notable, social disapproval afforded a person whose behavior departs substantially from traditional norms, which may in turn lead to feelings of internalized stigma and lower self-esteem (Goffman, 1963).

At the same time, social norms evolve over time, and sexual scripts can change. Research uncovers evidence of more egalitarian sexual scripts and expectations in recent decades (Masters et al., 2013; Ortiz-Torres et al., 2003; Sagebin Bordini & Sperb, 2013). In a review of the literature, for example, Sagebin Bordini and Sperb (2013) found some evidence of evolving sexual proscriptions, with both premarital sex and sexual intercourse outside of a committed relationship viewed as more acceptable over time for both men and women. Therefore, social stigmas may be waning for certain forms of sexual behavior that run counter to historically, traditional mores.

Self-esteem and the Double Standard

Self-esteem, or the degree to which a person views the self positively, has been argued to be one of the most important personality variables in understanding human behavior (Cameron & Granger, 2019; Leary, 1999). Meta-analysis studies have shown that self-esteem is both a predictor of and a consequence of interpersonal experiences (Cameron & Granger, 2019; Harris & Orth, 2020). One type of interpersonal experience involves sexual experiences, ranging from hookups to committed sexual relations. Although self-esteem has been found to be negatively affected by hookups or casual sex for women (Kennair et al., 2018; Wesche et al., 2021) and by unwanted sex for both genders (Okunlola et al., 2021), a review of recent literature suggests that self-esteem is not associated with number of prior sexual partners for either men or women (Ahn & Yang, 2023). (We note, however, that adolescent and adult females have a slightly lower self-esteem than males overall [Zuckerman et al., 2016]).

However, when one’s sexual past becomes known to others, the impressions others form and their degree of acceptance versus rejection can influence one’s self-esteem, as suggested by sociometer theory (Leary, 2004). Furthermore, a lay theory of self-esteem would argue that people form impressions of others’ self-esteem based on available information, which can then lead to further judgments, often involving associating positive traits with high self-esteem (Cameron et al., 2016).

Cultural sexual scripts for men and women may influence the self-esteem impressions that are formed when learning information about a person’s sexual history (casual or committed). When estimating a person’s self-esteem based on knowledge of their sexual past, a double standard sexual script may suggest that women with many casual sex partners could be perceived as “less successful” than women in committed sexual relationships, leading to lower estimates of their self-esteem. From an evolutionary sociometer viewpoint, men with a history of many casual sex partners are “more successful” and presumed to have higher self-esteem (Schmitt & Jonason, 2019). Next, we review the literature more generally on the sexual double standard, narrowing in on recent studies that have examined people’s stereotypes about others’ self-esteem based on their sexuality.

Empirical Background to the Sexual Double Standard

A variety of methods have been used to examine the existence of sexual double standards, including focus groups, network studies, participant observations, vignette tasks, and direct questions in large-scale surveys (Sagebin Bordini & Sperb, 2012). One of the more creative and unobtrusive ways to examine stereotypes about sexuality in men and women is a scenario-based, between-subjects experiment in which information about the sexual behavior of a hypothetical person is presented, and the person in the scenario is either a man or a woman. Typically, the type or level of sexual behavior is also manipulated, so the design is 2 (type or level of sexual behavior) × 2 (gender of target). Participants are asked to read the information about the hypothetical man or woman and then evaluate the target on various dimensions. Evidence of a differential sexual stereotype of men versus women is demonstrated if the impressions formed by the participants who are randomly assigned the male target differ from those formed by the participants randomly assigned the female target (presented with comparable information on sexual behaviors).

For example, in one of the first such studies, Sprecher et al. (1987) had participants view survey information supposedly completed by a man or woman about the age they were when they had first sex (age 16 or 21) and the type of relationship it was (casual or serious dating). The researchers found that the target presented as having first sex in a casual relationship was viewed more negatively (particularly on general personality characteristics) than their counterpart who was presented as having first sex in a committed relationship; furthermore, the difference was found to be greater for a female target than for a male target (i.e., evidence of a double standard).

Other more recent variations of between-subjects (scenario or vignette) experimental designs–which have manipulated various factors including number of sexual partners, whether sex occurs in casual or committed relationships, and engagement in uncommon sexual behaviors (e.g., mixed-gender threesomes)–have found mixed results concerning differential evaluations of a man versus a woman for comparable sexual behavior. Some studies have found women are judged more harshly than men (Jonason & Marks, 2009; Smith et al., 2008), other studies have found no differences (Busch & Saldala-Torres, 2024; Jacoby & Williams, 1985; Marks & Fraley, 2005; O’Sullivan, 1995), and a few studies even found a reverse double-standard with men judged more harshly than women for the same sexual behavior (Kennair et al., 2023; Milhausen & Herold, 2002; Sagebin Bordini & Sperb, 2012).

More recently, a between-subjects experimental design has been used to consider a stereotype that links sexual behavior to an internal state (self-esteem) differently for men versus women. In particular, Krems et al. (2021) tested the notion that people would view women who have casual sex as having lower self-esteem than women who have sex only in committed relationships, but that the same difference would not be found for men. They argued that the stereotype indicating that women who engage in casual sex have lower self-esteem is a “common trope in Western television shows, film, and popular music; some media and pop psychology also endorse the idea that if women pursue casual sex, it is either a consequence or a cause of low self-esteem” (p. 872).

In their basic design, Krems et al. (2021) presented participants with a description of a hypothetical target and asked them to provide their first impressions of the target, including estimating their self-esteem. The target was presented as either a young woman, a young man, or no gender information was presented. In addition, the target was either described as having multiple casual-sex partners, described as having a few committed-sex partners, or presented without any past sexual partner information. The results indicated that the hypothetical woman described as having “a lot of casual hook ups and no-strings-attached sexual partners” in the past few years was assumed by the participants to have lower self-esteem than the hypothetical woman who was described as having sex only with “partners in a committed, monogamous relationship” or a woman without sexuality information presented. In contrast, the participants’ perceptions of the self-esteem of a hypothetical man were not affected by the information about his type of sexual partners.

Krems et al. (2021) further conducted several variations of their experimental design, and found consistent evidence that lower self-esteem was attributed to women who have many casual sexual partners. They also manipulated past sexual behavior with a target’s bogus answers to a Sociosexuality Inventory (Study 4), presenting the person to have either restricted sociosexuality or unrestricted sociosexuality. Consistent with their scenario-based studies, unrestricted woman were assumed to have lower self-esteem than unrestricted men, but no gender difference was found for the restricted targets. Another recent replication, conducted in two countries (U.S. and Iran), also found evidence for the stereotype linking casual sex and a lower self-esteem among women. Hitlan and colleagues (2023) investigated whether the sexual double standard stereotype held for descriptions of highly attractive (male or female) targets who engaged in either “…a lot of casual hook ups and no-strings attached sexual partners … [and] …lost count of how many different sexual partners…” or targets who have “…only had sex with partners … in a committed monogamous relationship … [and] only dates one partner at a time…” (p. 310). Although the participants in both the US and Iran perceived targets engaging in casual sex as having lower self-esteem compared to targets having sex in committed relationships, the Iranian sample estimated that the self-esteem for women engaging in casual sex was lower than for men having sex in causal relationships, offering support for the sexual double standard stereotype linking unrestricted sex with lower self-esteem among women.

Contrary to the stereotype linking casual sex with lower self-esteem particularly for women, survey research has shown that people’s own sexual behaviors and attitudes are generally unassociated with their self-esteem. For example, Krems et al. (2021) found that the participants’ own sexual behaviors and attitudes (measured with a sociosexual orientation scale) were not associated with their own self-esteem. Other studies have also documented a weak or no association between people’s self-esteem and their own sexual behavior and attitudes. That is, women who have casual sex are not found to have significantly lower self-esteem than women with more restricted sexual orientations (Jonason et al., 2011; Neto, 2016; Wesche et al., 2021), including in a study that analyzed data collected over three decades (Sprecher & Verette-Lindenbaum, 2024).

The Present Study

Although Krems et al. (2021) concluded that “lay theories linking low self-esteem to women’s (but not men’s) casual sexual behavior seem pervasive and robust” (p. 887), we questioned the generalizability of the stereotype due to the lack of evidence that women’s own sexual behavior is associated with their self-esteem (e.g., Krems et al., 2021; Sprecher & Verette-Lindenbaum, 2024). In addition, we wanted to test the stereotype using an alternative experimental design to that used in the recent studies (Hitlan et al., 2023; Krems et al., 2021), with potentially greater realism and a reduction of possible confounds. In a critique of past research on the sexual double standard, for instance, Crawford and Popp (2003) reported that the inclusion or exclusion of factors, such as relationship commitment, number of partners, age, and how a relationship ended, may affect findings on the existence of the double standard (also see Sagebin Bordini & Sperb, 2012). To provide a more stringent test of the prevalence of a sexual double standard stereotype, we standardized two of these potential confounds – the number of partners and how the relationship ended.

To mediate such effects, we tested the robustness of the stereotype in what may be considered a more realistic context (than a story of a hypothetical person) by embedding the information about a target’s past sexual behaviors in the context of a task on evaluating statements made in a hypothetical online dating profile. Meeting partners through online dating sites or apps has now become a common way for people, especially young adults, to meet partners (Vogels & McClain, 2023). Participants were asked to imagine how online daters would respond to various types of statements made in an online dating profile (with the author presented as either a man or a woman). One statement was about past sexual relationships, manipulated to refer to either casual or committed relationships.

Second, we controlled for the number of past partners so that only the type of partners (casual or committed) was manipulated and not confounded with the number of partners. (In the Krems et al. [2021] basic vignette design, the phrasing “a lot” of partners was referred to in the casual sex condition whereas the description “very few” partners was referred to in the committed sex condition; similar confounds occurred in Hitlan et al., 2023.) Third, we made it clear that the past relationships (causal or committed) had ended mutually to control for the confound that participants might assume that women who have had a lot of prior partners also had been “dumped” many times, leading to a reduction in their self-esteem.

We also extended the types of dependent measures considered. Similar to Krems et al. (2021), we asked participants to estimate the target person’s self-esteem. However, we added more measures about dating desirability. Whereas Experiment 4 in Krems et al. (2021) asked participants to estimate the target person’s self-perceived mate value, we asked participants to estimate how other online dating users would be attracted to the target and perceive the target on various measures of desirability for a relationship. The extension of the dependent variables allowed us to link our study to the broader literature on the double standard in which studies have often focused primarily on the rated desirability of the target as a function of the target’s sexual behavior (e.g., O’Sulllivan, 1995). In sum, by presenting a modern context (online dating) for the experimental manipulation and reducing possible confounds (assumptions about number of partners and assumptions about how the relationships ended), we offered an alternative, stringent test of whether women who have casual sex are viewed by laypeople to have lower self-esteem (and also viewed to be less desirable for dating) than women who have sex in the context of committed relationships, and to a greater degree than men having casual sex.

The main research questions guiding this research are:

RQ1: Will the author of a (hypothetical) online dating profile who refers to having prior casual sexual partners be assumed to have lower self-esteem than a hypothetical author who refers to having committed sexual partners, and does it depend on the gender of the author?

RQ2: Will the author of a (hypothetical) online dating profile who refers to having prior casual sexual partners be viewed as less desirable for a relationship than an author who refers to having prior committed sexual partners, and does it depend on the gender of the author?

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 318) were recruited from three sources. First, 68 undergraduate students from a U.S. midwestern university were obtained. They participated in the study for extra credit offered in sociology classes. Second, 150 undergraduate students from a small college in Eastern U.S. participated in partial fulfillment of course research offered through a Psychology subject pool. In addition, 100 U.S. adults were obtained from the Prolific platform, which allows data to be collected quickly from a diverse sample. Recent research has demonstrated the quality of data collected from Prolific relative to other sources (Douglas et al., 2023). The combined sample consisted of 93 men (29.2%), 211 women (66.4%), and 14 choosing nonbinary, other, or did not indicate gender. The mean age of the sample was 24.04 (SD = 9.90). The mean age of the Prolific sample was older (M = 33.73) than the college sample (M = 19.65); p < 0.001.Footnote 1 The sample was diverse in race/ethnicity: 65% indicated White, 12.9% indicated African American, and the remainder indicated another race/ethnicity including East Asian (3.5%), Mexican American or Chicana/o/x (3.5%), and Other Latina/o/x (3.8%).

Procedure and Manipulations

The factorial survey experiment or vignette method is used in this study to address our research questions. This method presents a hypothetical situation or information to participants, varies one or more characteristics (or dimensions) across the vignettes or scenarios and requests participants to react to the scenario(s) to which they are randomly assigned (Finch, 1987; Treischl & Wolbring, 2022). There are many advantages of using the vignette or survey experiment including providing an unobtrusive way to examine people’s attitudes about a particular topic. In this study, the specific design was a 2 (gender of target) × 2 (type of relationships in the past year), and thus four different vignettes were created. The context was online dating. After receiving informed consent information, participants were given these directions:

Researchers have become interested in what information people should present in an online dating profile in order to be attractive to others. What should people include, if anything, about past relationships and current social ties? Should leisure interests and hobbies be mentioned? Should people mention how they spend time and what they are passionate about?...... The goal of this research is to examine how people react to specific information that could potentially be presented in a dating profile. We will ask you to look through the statements that a hypothetical person could possibly present about themselves in an online dating profile…”

Participants were then randomly assigned to think of either a “young woman” or a “young man” as the author of the online dating profile, and to consider how typical online users who are the other gender to the author of the profile would respond to the statements (e.g., participants randomly assigned to think of the author as a woman were asked to think about how male online users would respond to the statements).Footnote 2

The Profile Statements

Participants were presented with eight statements that the hypothetical young man (or woman) might present in an online dating profile. Each statement was followed by the question, “Would this statement made in an online dating profile increase, decrease, or have no effect on other users’ attraction to the author of the profile?”, followed by a 7-point response scale with the anchors, 1 = decrease attraction greatly; 4 = no effect; and 7 = increase attraction greatly. The critical statement that included information about the target’s past relationships was presented third in the list, followed directly by the question above. The other statements were filler items and referred to the role of family in their life, hobbies, a healthy work-life balance, etc., and each item was followed by a similar question. The entire list is available in the Appendix. The two versions of the randomly assigned critical statement were:

Casual Relationships version:

You are probably wondering about my past romantic relationships. In the past year, I became attracted to two people, and they both developed into casual sexual hookups. However, both ended mutually.

Committed Relationships version:

You are probably wondering about my past romantic relationships. In the past year, I became attracted to two people, and they both developed into committed, sexually monogamous relationships. Both ended mutually.

Dependent Measures

After the participants read each hypothetical profile statement and responded to the question that followed each statement, they were then given the following additional directions:

Now that you have read some potential statements this hypothetical person might provide in their online dating profile, think about what this person might be like overall. Based on what you learned about this person, please provide your first impressions of this person on the following questions.

The participants were then presented with the items measuring the key dependent.

variables, as described below.

Perceptions of the Target’s Self-views

Participants were presented with the items from the Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale and asked how they would rate the self-esteem of the person who had ostensibly authored the profile statements. The statements were reworded to refer to the target’s self-esteem (e.g., “On the whole, this person is probably satisfied with themselves,” and “This person probably feels they have a number of good qualities.”). The participants responded to the 10 self-esteem items on a 7-point response scale, ranging from Disagree strongly to Agree strongly. After re-coding the reverse scored items, a total self-esteem score was calculated (α = 0.90).

Participants were also asked a global question about the target’s self-esteem as follows: “Self-esteem is defined as ‘feeling good about oneself and having a solid sense of one’s self-worth’. Please rate what you think the individual’s self-esteem is.” This was followed by a 7-point response scale that had the anchors, 1 = very low self-esteem, 4 = moderate self-esteem, and 7 = very high self-esteem. Participants were also asked to rate the physical attractiveness of the person on a 1 = very physically unattractive; to 7 = very physically attractive response scale (a similar item had also been included in Krems et al. [2021] to examine whether people view certain targets negatively on dimensions other than self-esteem).

Perceptions of the Target’s Relationship Attraction and Desirability

As noted above, after being presented the critical item to the hypothetical target’s past sexual behaviors, the participants were asked the degree to which the profile statement would increase other users’ attraction to the target, on a scale that had the anchors, 1 = decrease attraction greatly; 4 = no effect; and 7 = increase attraction greatly. (This question was also asked after each filler item.)

In addition, in a later section of the survey, the participants were asked three additional questions about the dating desirability of the person. The first question was: “Assuming that this person provided all of the statements (presented earlier) in their online dating profile, how desirable do you think others at this dating site (who are attracted to this gender) would find this person?” The second question began in the same way but ended with the phrase, “find this person for a long-term committed relationship?” The final question ended with, “find this person for a short-term hookup experience?” These three items were followed by a 7-point scale with the anchors, 1 = extremely undesirable; 4 = moderately desirable; and 7 = extremely desirable.

Results

Plans for Analyses

We conducted a series of 2 (type of sexual partners in past year: casual vs. committed) × 2 (gender of author of the profile: man vs. woman) Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) for the self-esteem dependent variables (RQ1) and the attraction/desirability dependent variables (RQ2).

Stereotypes of Casual Sex and Self-esteem (RQ1)

For the Rosenberg (1965) total self-esteem scale and the global self-esteem item (completed for the hypothetical author), no effects were found to be significant (ps > 0.39). That is, the main effect for type of recent sexual partners, the main effect for gender of author, and the interaction effect were not significant for either the total Rosenberg self-esteem scale or the global self-esteem item. Similar non-significant results were found for the rating of physical attractiveness (ps > 0.43).

Stereotypes About Sexual History and Dating Desirability (RQ2)

To the question, “Would this statement made in an online dating profile increase, decrease, or have no effect on other users’ attraction to the author of the profile?”, the overall mean (on a 7-point scale) was 2.71 (SD = 1.41) for the key statement that referred to prior sexual partners. This mean score indicates that participants assumed that such a statement included in an online dating profile would overall negatively affect other users’ attraction to that person (for the means for the other [filler] items, which had higher means in the direction of assumed greater attraction, see the Appendix).

However, the ANOVA indicated a significant main effect for gender of author (F [1,315] = 3.89, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.012); the mean estimate for users’ attraction to the author was lower when the author was assumed to be a male (M = 2.57, SD = 1.30) than when the author was assumed to be a female (M = 2.86, SD = 1.42). In addition, the main effect for type of prior sexual partners was significant (F [1,315] = 7.78, p = 0.006, ηp2 = 0.024). The mean attraction of users to the author was lower if the author referred to casual sexual partners (M = 2.51, SD = 1.36) than if the author referred to committed sexual partners (M = 2.93, SD = 1.43). However, the interaction effect was not significant (p > 0.30). That is, the pattern of presumed attraction to the author as a function of sexual history was similar for a female author and a male author.

Analyses were also conducted on the three items measuring general dating desirability of the author of the profile. An ANOVA indicated no significant effects for gender of the author or the author’s recent history of casual versus committed sex on participants’ beliefs about the desirability of the author to other online dating users or their dating desirability specifically for a long-term relationship (ps > 0.09). However, for the item that asked participants their estimates of the attraction of other users to the author for a short-term (hookup) relationship, a main effect was found for the type of partners referred to in the profile (F [1,308] = 28.50, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.085). The author (regardless of their gender) who had referred to two casual sexual partners in the past year was presumed to be more attractive to other online daters users for a short-term relationship than a target who had referred to committed sexual partners. Figure 1a and b display responses to dependent variables as a function of sexual history (casual versus committed partners) for male and female targets, respectively.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Full size image

a Responses as a Function of Whether the Profile Referred to Casual Sexual Partners or Committed Partners: Results for the Male Target. b Responses as a Function of Whether the Profile Referred to Casual Sexual Partners or Committed Partners; Results for the Female Target

Discussion and Conclusions

This experimental study was designed to test a form of the double standard stereotype found in recent research (Hiltan et al., 2023; Krems et al., 2021) that a person, particularly a woman, with a history of having sex in casual (vs. committed) relationships would be perceived as having lower self-esteem. Our interest in testing the pervasiveness of this stereotype was partially driven by the lack of actual correspondence between self-reported proclivity towards casual sex and low self-esteem, as reported by the participants’ self-reports in the Krems et al. (2021) study, self-reports of undergraduate students over a 30-year span (Sprecher & Verette-Lindenbaum, 2024), and a review of literature on the effects of casual sex on well-being (Wesche et al., 2021). Nonetheless, we speculated that the belief of a negative association between sexual history and self-esteem for women (but not for men) could still persist. This belief could persist due to societal pressures and media that stigmatize women who pursue sex more casually (Endendijk et al., 2020; Krems et al., 2021). Our conceptual replication involved a 2 (sexual history) × 2 (profile author’s gender) experimental design with participants (both college students and a Prolific sample) evaluating statements that a hypothetical person might include in an online dating profile. The participants then further provided additional reactions to the hypothetical author including judgements of their self-esteem, physical attractiveness, and attractiveness/desirability as a partner to other online users. The conceptual background to this study includes sexual script theory (Simon & Gagnon, 2003).

Our data yielded no evidence of a sexual double-standard stereotype on any of the dependent variables (self-esteem, physical attractiveness, attraction, and relationship desirability). These findings suggest that standardizing the number of past sexual partners across relationship type and embedding vignettes in a realistic dating context may have minimized demand characteristic cues that could have contributed to the sexual double standard stereotypes found in past research (e.g., Hitlan et al., 2023; Krems et al., 2021). However, it is also possible that the differences in findings could be because this study embedded information about a target’s sexual past with a lot of other (positive) information about the target person, whereas the prior studies (Hitlan et al., 2023; Krems et al., 2021) did not have other potentially contradictory information. The comparison in findings across the studies suggests that the existence of a double standard and first impressions formed based on sexual history may depend on what other information is presented (Elsaadawy & Carlson, 2022). The procedure used in this study, nevertheless, is likely more analogous to how information about a person’s sexual past is learned about in real-world settings – often in conjunction with other information. Finally, guidelines for sexual behavior reflect social, cultural expectations, according to sexual script theory, and cultural norms can shift over time. A review of the literature reported that norms regarding sexual intercourse outside of a committed relationship have become more accepting and egalitarian (Sagebin Bordini & Sperb, 2013). Therefore, our results could reflect a recent decline in the degree to which women are uniquely stigmatized for engaging in casual sex.

We did find a few significant main effects in the study. First, when participants were asked specifically how the profile statement referring to past sexual behavior might affect the attraction of other users to the author, they believed there would be a greater reduction in attraction when the author had referred to prior casual sexual partners than prior committed partners, and this was found regardless of the gender of the author. However, interestingly, when the participants were asked later to consider everything they learned about the author of the profile and to indicate how desirable the person would be for others at the dating site, no main effect for the manipulation to this item was found. These combined results support the speculation above that when the only information presented about someone is their sexual history, there may still be a slight stigma for having sex in casual sexual contexts rather than committed relationship contexts (although equally for women and men, at least with the number of partners presented in the scenarios used in this study) but when additional positive information is presented such sexual information may no longer be impactful.

A second main effect was found that indicated that participants assumed that the profile statement about past sexual relationships would reduce attraction to the author by other users to a greater degree if it was written by a man than by a woman. Although we can only speculate why this finding occurred, perhaps participants assumed that men who felt a need to refer to having had past relationships are less invested in their relationships. However, it also should be noted that the gender of the hypothetical author was confounded with the gender of the “other users” that the participants thought about as they answered the question in our study. Thus, the finding could be driven more by predictions of reactions of female online dating users than by reactions per se to a male target.

Finally, a main effect was found for type of past sexual partners referred to in the (hypothetical) dating profile on the perceived desirability of the target for a short-term relationship. Participants believed that dating users would be more attracted to the target for a short-term relationship if the target had referred to prior casual sexual partners than if the target had referred to prior committed sexual partners. This may simply reflect that people assume that a person who has had prior casual sex will be more willing to have casual sex again and that other online dating users would consider this information in their evaluations. As suggested by Shanteau and Nagy (1979), the likelihood of pursuing a potential partner is influenced not only by their attractiveness but also by the probability of being accepted.

In sum, overall, the results provided no evidence for a sexual double-standard stereotype. That is, prior casual sexual histories experienced by women were not assumed to have more negative effects (e.g., on estimates of their self-esteem, dating desirability), than prior sexual histories in men. It is interesting that the main effects that were found for the manipulations of gender of target and sexual history were limited to the dependent variables of how the key statement would affect attraction to the target and (short-term) dating desirability and were not found for expectations of the target’s self-esteem. That is, participants did not expect the author of the profile (and regardless of their gender) would have differences in their self-esteem as a function of whether they had had sex in the past year in a casual sexual context or in committed relationships. It is possible that our inclusion of the sentence that the prior relationships (in both conditions) had “ended mutually” reduced any likelihood that participants inferred post-dissolution distress in one condition more for one gender than the other.

Although our study was designed to test a sexual double standard (i.e., whether low self-esteem is attributed to someone [particularly a woman] who has casual sex), the method used to test this sexual stereotype (the context of hypothetical online dating profiles) also provides the opportunity to contribute to the small literature on how people evaluate online dating profiles (Toma & D’Angelo, 2017). Our findings indicate that people assume that referring to any information about past relationships in an online dating profile will decrease attraction, whereas other types of information (reference to friends, family, and leisure interests) are expected to increase attraction (see the Appendix).

This study has several strengths, such as the experimental vignette design and the relatively diverse sample obtained from two colleges and the Prolific online platform. Of particular importance, our experiment also was framed in the context of online dating, which was intended to add greater realism as compared to presenting the same information in a scenario, which is common to prior experimental studies (e.g., Krems et al., 2021; Marks & Fraley, 2007; Marks & Zaikman, 2023). We attempted to minimize possible demand characteristic cues in our study, as well. For example, we controlled for possible confounds in our experiment by standardizing the number of past partners in the descriptions of sexual history rather than allowing that number to differ between the casual sex and committed relationship conditions. We also specified that the past relationships had ended mutually so that participants would not assume that past partners had broken up with the profile author in the casual (or committed) sex condition. These controls enhance the likelihood that any differences in participants’ evaluations of behavior between the two experimental conditions would be attributed to the hypothetical person’s involvement in casual, as opposed to committed, relationships, rather than to discrepancies in the number of past relationships or to the degree of (non)mutuality of breakups.

Although this study exhibits several advantages, it also has possible limitations. The sample is not random, for example, and it may not accurately portray responses from a more representative group of people. In addition, participants in the study were asked to rate how desirable “other users” would find the hypothetical author of the profile statements. It is possible that findings would have differed if the participants had been asked about their own attraction to the target. Our manipulation may have been too weak, moreover, in that the history of two casual relationships may have not been enough to trigger the stereotype that a woman’s self-esteem suffers due to casual sex. Alternatively, two committed relationships in one year may have appeared to be too many to be considered truly committed. Future research could benefit from varying the number of past, casual (or committed) relationships presented in a vignette to see whether there is a threshold value for activating a negative stereotype.

In conclusion, the sexual double standard represents a well-studied topic with several contradictory and complex findings. We find little evidence of a sexual double standard in this study, however, with a hypothetical woman in an online dating profile who had engaged in casual sex failing to be seen as significantly less attractive than a hypothetical man. Negative stereotypes about the low self-esteem of women who participated in casual sex relationships also did not emerge. Therefore, it remains possible that this notorious double standard is waning in our society along with the evolution of certain sexual scripts, a trend that may have become more apparent under the relatively realistic and stringent, experimental design employed here. Further research is needed to determine the generalizability of these findings, however, and the degree to which the double standard shifts, depending on specific study definitions and measurement, including with other types of methods and in other cultures.