A massive new study spearheaded by nearly 100 researchers from around the globe sheds light on the individual and cultural factors that influence one’s openness to sugar relationships.
The new research represents the largest investigation to date of attitudes towards sugar relationships and offers unprecedented insights into how economic conditions, societal norms, psychological traits, and cultural values converge to shape perceptions and acceptance of these arrangements. It was recently published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Sugar Dating in the Digital Era
Sugar relationships, sometimes termed sugar arrangements or sugar dating, represent a form of transactional relationship where a wealthier individual (commonly referred to as a sugar daddy or sugar mama) provides financial support or other material benefits to a partner (known as a sugar baby) in exchange for companionship or sexual intimacy.
These arrangements have evolved with the digital age, facilitated by specialized dating sites and social media platforms, making them more visible and accessible. Unlike traditional relationships, sugar relationships explicitly negotiate the exchange of material benefits and companionship, blurring the lines between personal intimacy and financial transactions.
Despite the historical prevalence of transactional relationships for material gain, modern sugar relationships are often stigmatized and poorly understood. By examining these relationships across a wide range of cultures and demographics, the researchers aimed to shed light on the motivations behind engaging in sugar arrangements, how societal norms and economic factors influence their acceptance, and the psychological traits associated with participants.
“There is a relatively large amount of media coverage about sugar relationships these days, but the psychological context of openness to sugar relationships has not been studied much,” said study author Norbert Meskó, an associate professor at the University of Pécs. “Although the sugar relationship is a relatively new phenomenon, it has historical antecedents, as concubines, mistresses, paramours, and other types of relationships were known in earlier centuries. So, in general, we are interested in the psychological context of openness to these ‘exchanges sex for resources’ type encounters.”
Methodology: Surveying Attitudes Across Cultures
The researchers distributed a comprehensive survey to a vast number of participants worldwide. The study’s initial sample comprised a staggering 118,324 initial participants from 176 countries.
However, to ensure the quality and reliability of the data, the researchers applied stringent inclusion criteria. This filtering process involved excluding participants who failed attention checks, a common method used in surveys to ensure that respondents are paying attention to the questions rather than randomly answering.
Furthermore, language subsamples that did not reach a minimum of 100 participants were also excluded, narrowing the final dataset to 69,924 individuals from 87 countries, completing the survey in one of 37 languages.
Gender Dynamics and Sugar Relationships
One of the study’s key findings was the significant influence of gender on attitudes toward sugar relationships. Men, both young and older, exhibited a higher acceptance of sugar relationships compared to women. This gender disparity highlights the social and evolutionary underpinnings of sugar relationships, suggesting that traditional dynamics of male resource provision and female selection based on resource availability still influence modern relationship preferences.
Adherence to traditional gender roles was positively associated with acceptance of sugar relationships. This indicates that individuals who endorse traditional views about the roles of men and women in society are more likely to view sugar relationships favorably.
This correlation can be understood in the context of the traditional gender role expectation where men are seen as providers and women as caretakers or recipients of provision. Sugar relationships — where typically an older, wealthier man provides for a younger woman — mirror these traditional roles.
The study also explored the role of sociosexual orientation, revealing that individuals with a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation — those more open to casual sex without the need for emotional closeness — were more likely to accept sugar relationships. This suggests that for some, sugar relationships may be seen as an extension of their general openness to casual sexual experiences, rather than a distinct or separate form of relationship.
The Surprising Link Between Parasite Stress and Sugar Dating
Interestingly, a positive correlation was found between parasite stress and openness to sugar relationships, both at the individual and country levels. This indicates that in regions with higher levels of infectious diseases, or among individuals with a history of parasitic infections, there’s a greater acceptance or inclination towards engaging in sugar relationships.
This finding is in line with parasite stress theory, which holds that the prevalence of infectious diseases in a given environment can significantly influence social behavior and mating strategies. The social and psychological impacts of living in high parasite stress environments — such as increased concern for physical well-being and a heightened emphasis on resource acquisition for health and survival — may make sugar relationships more socially acceptable or desirable.
“Perhaps more surprisingly, it was not only more frequent infection with pathogens (reported by individuals) that was associated with openness to sugar couplings, but also higher levels of parasite saturation in countries,” Meskó told PsyPost.
The Role of Culture, Economic Inequality and Development
Cultural factors played a significant role in shaping attitudes toward sugar relationships. The study found variations in acceptance across different cultures, with individuals from collectivist societies showing less openness to sugar relationships. This could reflect the influence of societal norms and values that prioritize group harmony and disapprove of relationships perceived as transactional or non-traditional.
Additionally, the research identified economic and social factors, such as gender inequality and social welfare, as influential. In regions with higher gender inequality and lower levels of social welfare, sugar relationships were more accepted, suggesting that economic pressures and gender dynamics might drive individuals towards these arrangements as a means of financial support or social mobility.
In contexts where traditional routes to financial security and social welfare are obstructed due to systemic inequalities or lack of opportunities, entering into a sugar relationship may be perceived as a pragmatic choice.
“This research may shake our belief that our attitudes towards our own sexuality (e.g. our openness to sugar relationships) are essentially up to us, our values that we take personally,” Meskó told PsyPost. “After all, the research shows that openness to sugar relationships is not only related to direct psychological questionnaire data such as one’s identification with traditional gender roles, but also to the level of gender inequality in society.”
Surprisingly, the researchers found a positive correlation between the Human Development Index and acceptance of sugar relationships. This indicates that individuals in countries with higher levels of human development, which include factors such as income, education, and life expectancy, may be more open to engaging in or accepting sugar relationships than previously thought.
“It was surprising that, contrary to expectations, openness to sugar relationships was associated with higher social well-being and not with poverty,” Meskó said. “As one author from a Western country noted, ‘I live in a rich country where sugar dating is not done out of necessity (not for survival). My daughter has friends who are sugar babies and do it to finance their luxurious needs (e.g. luxury handbags).'”
“This is of course not true in developing countries where the motivation for sugar babies is fuelled by women’s disenfranchisement, economic dependency, and sexual vulnerability. This means that sexual availability in exchange for resources cannot be psychologically attributed to a single cause, such as poor living conditions. Rather, it is a multi-component phenomenon. It is the interaction of individual characteristics and environmental factors, which shows an individual pattern specific to a particular person.”
The Dark Triad: Personality Traits and Sugar Relationships
Another key finding was the association between positive attitudes towards sugar relationships and traits commonly found within the Dark Triad—Machiavellianism, narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy. These traits, characterized by manipulativeness, a lack of empathy, egotism, and a strategic, often exploitative approach to interpersonal relationships, were positively correlated with openness to engaging in sugar relationships, both from the perspective of the sugar baby and the sugar provider.
This correlation suggests that individuals who exhibit higher levels of Dark Triad traits may be more inclined to view relationships through a pragmatic or instrumental lens, seeing sugar relationships as opportunities to advance their interests or gain material benefits. The strategic and self-serving nature of these traits aligns with the transactional essence of sugar relationships, where emotional connection may be secondary to the exchange of resources and benefits.
“What is probably common to the ‘sugar relationships’ that seems so fashionable in the Western world today, as well as to the ‘compensated dating’ known in the East and the ‘transactional sex’ known in Africa, is the treatment of female sexuality as a commodity,” Meskó told PsyPost.
Limitations and Caveats
The study, like all research, has limitations. The reliance on self-reported data and the use of online platforms for data collection could introduce biases. Additionally, the study’s cross-sectional design means it can’t definitively prove causation — only correlation. Future research could explore the dynamics of sugar relationships in more detail, examining how they evolve over time and their impact on the well-being of those involved.
An anonymous reviewer raised concerns that the term “sugar relationship” might have also affected participants’ understanding and responses. In particular, participants from cultures where the term “sugar relationship” is not commonly used might have interpreted the questionnaire differently from those in cultures where the term is well-known.
The study’s statistical analysis did not find evidence that this significantly impacted the overall findings. This suggests that, across the diverse sample, participants were able to understand to the concept of sugar relationships in a way that was meaningful within their cultural context. However, the limitation serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in conducting cross-cultural research.
“Many intimate arrangements cross-culturally and throughout history were also about an exchange of resources, irrespective of the form of relationship,” Meskó noted. “Our research does not focus on the question of how these other arrangements relate to the sugar relationships or what distinctions can be drawn between them.”
“At the same time, there can be significant differences between cultures depending on the extent to which they have incorporated the ‘sex for resources’ aspect into their mating rituals. Some cultures have long preferred marriages/relationships that occur between individuals of similar social class or socioeconomic status; others have allowed for more mobility.”
“Further, some cultures allow for an explicit consideration and discussion of the resources exchanged in a match (economic/financial/status in exchange for companionship/reproductive capacity, etc.) while others prefer not to speak of such considerations directly. However, these culturally embedded norms can also have an impact on attitudes measured on openness to sugar relationships.”
Sugar Dating and Sexual Objectification
“It is important to raise young people’s awareness of the many dangers of being involved in a sugar relationship,” Meskó added. “Indeed, some anti sex-industry organizations argue that being involved in sugar relationships gives young people the opportunity to become victims rather than financial independence while at university.”
“For young people coming to university, it is usually the first time they are away from a safe home and a supportive family – if they have one – to look after them. Why should young adults be looked after by those around them? Because all young people in the West have grown up in a culture that presents the sexual objectification of women and girls as natural and prostitution as glamorous, and thus sanctioned.”
The study, “Exploring Attitudes Toward “Sugar Relationships” Across 87 Countries: A Global Perspective on Exchanges of Resources for Sex and Companionship,” was authored by Norbert Meskó, Marta Kowal, András Láng, Ferenc Kocsor, Szabolcs A. Bandi, Adam Putz, Piotr Sorokowski, David A. Frederick, Felipe E. García, Leonardo A. Aguilar, Anna Studzinska, Chee-Seng Tan, Biljana Gjoneska, Taciano L. Milfont, Merve Topcu Bulut, Dmitry Grigoryev, Toivo Aavik, Mahmoud Boussena, Alan D. A. Mattiassi, Reza Afhami, Rizwana Amin, Roberto Baiocco, Hamdaoui Brahim, Ali R. Can, Joao Carneiro, Hakan Çetinkaya, Dimitri Chubinidze, Eliane Deschrijver, Yahya Don, Dmitrii Dubrov, Izzet Duyar, Marija Jovic, Julia A. Kamburidis, Farah Khan, Hareesol Khun-Inkeeree, Maida Koso-Drljevic, David Lacko, Karlijn Massar, Mara Morelli, Jean C. Natividade, Ellen K. Nyhus, Ju Hee Park, Farid Pazhoohi, Ekaterine Pirtskhalava, Koen Ponnet, Pavol Prokop, Dušana Šakan, Singha Tulyakul, Austin H. Wang, Sibele D. Aquino, Derya D. Atamtürk, Nana Burduli, Antonio Chirumbolo, Seda Dural, Edgardo Etchezahar, Nasim Ghahraman Moharrampour, Balazs Aczel, Luca Kozma, Samuel Lins, Efisio Manunta, Tiago Marot, Moises Mebarak, Kirill G. Miroshnik, Katarina Misetic, Marietta Papadatou-Pastou, Bence Bakos, Fatima Zahra Sahli, Sangeeta Singh, Çağlar Solak, Tatiana Volkodav, Anna Wlodarczyk, Grace Akello, Marios Argyrides, Ogeday Çoker, Katarzyna Galasinska, Talía Gómez Yepes, Aleksander Kobylarek, Miguel Landa-Blanco, Marlon Mayorga, Barış Özener, Ma. Criselda T. Pacquing, Marc Eric S. Reyes, Ayşegül Şahin, William Tamayo-Agudelo, Gulmira Topanova, Ezgi Toplu-Demirtaş, Belgüzar N. Türkan, Marcos Zumárraga-Espinosa, Simone Grassini, Jan Antfolk, Clément Cornec, Katarzyna Pisanski, Sabrina Stöckli, Stephanie Josephine Eder, and Hyemin Han.
