Psychology Assignment

“I Have,” “I Would,” “I Won’t”: Hooking Up Among Sexually Diverse Groups of College Students

Scott S. Hall Ball State University

David Knox East Carolina University

Kelsey Shapiro Ball State University

Incorporating the intention to “hook up” with whether one has hooked up can distinguish groups with unique sets of background characteristics and experiences pertaining to hooking up within the college culture. A large, gender-balanced sample of college students (N � 3,893) from 2 universities that represented sizable numbers of diverse sexual identities was analyzed for the current study. Results indicated that within each sexual identity, men were more likely than women to have hooked up (“I have”) and to be willing to hookup if they hadn’t (“I would”). Across sexual identities, gay/lesbian and bisexual individuals were more likely to have hooked up than were straight individuals. Gay and straight individuals were more likely than bisexual individuals to intend to avoid hooking up (“I won’t”). However, multivariate analyses that accounted for various background, attitudinal, and sexual experi- ences appeared to account for much of the variation by sexual identity.

Public Significance Statement This study identified that men as a group and individuals identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were more likely to have “hooked up” and to be willing to hook up if they hadn’t. Such differences among sexual identities lessened when diverse beliefs and experiences were accounted for.

Keywords: hooking up, sexual identity, intentions

“Hooking up” has become a major focus of research in sexuality and relationships of emerging adults, especially college students. Though definitions vary, a hookup is typically understood to be a sexual encounter that occurs between individuals who have no relationship commitment, sometimes who are strangers (Garcia, Reiber, Massey, & Merriwether, 2012; Lewis, Atkins, Blayney, Dent, & Kaysen, 2013). Motivations for hooking up include not having a formal dating scene alternative, sexual gratification, wanting to fit in, fun/adventure, being too busy for a steady relationship (e.g., demands of a college-student life), and hope for a transition into a romantic relationship (Uecker et al., 2015). The college context promotes hooking-up encounters, with an apparent cultural expectation that hooking up is integral to embracing the full college experience (Bogle, 2007; Garcia et al., 2012). Re- searchers continue to investigate the profile of individuals likely to hook up, their motivations for doing so, and the outcomes of the experience.

Yet some college students report never having hooked up (Gar- cia et al., 2012). Such individuals may be categorized as those who avoid such encounters (e.g., the strongly religious) or those who have not had the opportunity. Those who have not hooked up could thus be meaningfully different from one another, depending on their intentions related to hooking up. Understanding the charac- teristics and circumstances of individuals with diverse intentions and experiences would be instructive. In addition, most research on hooking up has focused on heterosexuals, or has made no distinctions among sexual orientations/identities in the analyses (Williams & Harper, 2014), and women tend to outnumber men (sometimes dramatically) in college-based research on hooking up. Examining how sexual identity intersects with hookup intentions and behavior would also be instructive. In the current study, we investigated hookups within a college setting with a gender- balanced sample that included sizable diversity in sexual identity. We also incorporated distinct intentions with hookup behavior to capture a greater diversity of hookup profiles (e.g., intentions and behaviors).

Literature Review

Hooking up in the college context has become normative. Over the last 60 years, traditional norms of courting and pursuing romantic relationships have lessened. They may still occur, but more often, the less traditional, casual hookup is the norm (Bogle,

This article was published Online First March 20, 2017. Scott S. Hall, Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Ball State

University; David Knox, Department of Sociology, East Carolina Univer- sity; Kelsey Shapiro, Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Ball State University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott S. Hall, Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Ball State University, AT 206, Muncie, IN 47303. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity © 2017 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 4, No. 2, 233–240 2329-0382/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000223

233

2007; Stinson, 2010). Because today’s college students are more focused on getting their education, study-abroad experiences, and getting established in a career (and not on getting married in their early 20s), they prefer more casual, fun hookups that do not limit their independence. In some cases, however, a hookup culture—as the perceived social norm— creates a context in which students feel pressure to participate in hookups just to fit in (Bogle, 2007; Reiber & Garcia, 2010). Some students (e.g., young, having low self-concept, not religious) may be particularly vulnerable to such pressure and have difficulty holding firm to their intentions. Others will be looking for the opportunity to hook up but have not experienced their desired context.

From her research on college students around the country, Freitas (2013) concluded that a campus stigma toward forming serious relationships in college, especially early on, contributed to a common hookup pattern. She found that students sought out willing participants at parties (often while both inebriated), sepa- rate their emotions from their physical sensations, complete the hookup with no strings attached, and share their stories with others as verification of their own normalness. Although such a scenario likely fails to capture all the variations of motivations and expe- riences, it provides common elements of a context in which college students are considering and participating in hookups. In addition, because of college life being viewed as a time of sexual explora- tion and experimentation, it provides an opportunity for individu- als to affirm their sexual identity or orientation (Rupp, Taylor, Regev-Messalem, Fogarty, & England, 2014).

The integrative model of behavioral prediction (IMBP) incor- porates key elements of behavioral intentions and circumstances that lead to actual behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Fishbein & Yzer, 2003). The model has helped explain various actions related to sex, including sexual intercourse (Bleakley, Hennessy, Fishbein, & Jordan, 2011), condom use (Rhodes, Stein, Fishbein, Goldstein, & Rotheram-Borus, 2007), and seeking sexually explicit media (Bleakley, Hennessy, & Fishbein, 2011). The IMBP posits that intentions, skills, and environmental constraints determine behav- ior. Intentions are a function of one’s attitudes, perceived norms, and self-efficacy related to a given behavior. Thus, how one perceives the acceptability and consequences of hooking up influ- ences the intention of hooking up. However, the intention or interest in hooking up does not result in a hookup unless it is linked with a perceived ability to engage in one, and a willing partner is available. To understand contributing factors to the hookup phe- nomenon, the IMBP emphasizes the interrelated yet separate con- structs of both intention and context that allow the behavior to occur. The model also emphasizes a broad scope of factors related to intentions and behaviors, such as demographics, culture, atti- tudes, emotions, and exposure to media and other models (Fish- bein & Yzer, 2003)—providing a framework of the types of factors relevant to an investigation of hooking up.

Gender has been consistently associated with intentions and behavior related to hooking up. Men tend to be more open to having sex (intention) with a stranger (Conley, 2011) and report more hookups, more sexual partners in the previous year, and sex without emotional involvement (Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Fin- cham, 2010; Townsend & Wasserman, 2011). Men and women report similar physical motives for hooking up—sexual desire, sexual experimentation, physical pleasure, alcohol use, and partner attractiveness (Regan & Dreyer, 1999; Weaver & Herold, 2000).

However, men are more likely to report status enhancement and normative peer-group behavior as reasons for casual sex, whereas women cite more interpersonal reasons such as increased proba- bility of long-term commitment from a sex partner (Regan & Dryer, 1999; Townsend & Wasserman, 2011; Erichsen, Dignam, & Knox, 2016). Some research has indicated that women experi- ence more negative effects of hooking up, including depression and regret (Fielder & Carey, 2010b; Eshbaugh & Gute, 2008; Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006). Competing theories address gen- der differences in sexual intentions and behaviors (e.g., some focus primarily on gender socialization and others focus on more innate factors related to evolutionary functions) and typically offer ex- planations consistent with men being more open to casual sexual encounters (Garcia et al., 2012).

Previous researchers have also analyzed hooking-up data of same-sex encounters among adolescents and among young adults. Gays and lesbians often refer to hooking up in the college context as cruising (Bullock, 2004). Individuals wanting to try out various sexual identities view college as an environment in which same- sex activity is relatively acceptable and allows for experimentation of the bisexual, lesbian, and queer sexual identities (Rupp et al., 2014). Reece and Dodge (2004) found cruising to be supportive of sexual identity and sexual orientation development, while also contributing to impulsiveness and challenges to romantic and social relationships. Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender (GLBT) in- dividuals are especially likely to use the Internet to find partners, due at least in part to fewer contexts for sexual encounters De- Haan, Kuper, Magee, Bigelow, & Mustanski, 2013; Kuperberg & Padgett, 2015).

Some scholars have suggested that gay and lesbian individuals are more likely than straight individuals to participate in hookups. Gotta et al. (2011) found that adult gay men reported greater interest in casual sex than did adult heterosexual men. Rupp et al. (2014) argued that because of the acceptability of same-sex activ- ity in the college context, women might actively seek out casual sex as a means to test or explore their identity. In contrast, straight women have more opportunities than lesbian women to find will- ing sex partners, which might increase the likelihood of straight women actually hooking up (Bullock, 2004). In the current study, we compared hookup intentions and behaviors in regard to sexual identity and gender.

Some background characteristics have been linked to the like- lihood of hooking up and would similarly influence the IMBP factors (i.e., intentions, skills, environment), such as age (a proxy of time at college; Fielder & Carey, 2010b), race (Owen, Fincham, & Moore, 2011), religiosity (Owen et al., 2011), personality (Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008), seeking to cope with loneliness or depression (Owen et al., 2011), and proneness to intoxication (Fielder & Carey, 2010b; Lewis, Atkins, Blayney, Dent, & Kaysen, 2013). Other factors include parental divorce (Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2005), permissive beliefs and attitudes about oral sex (Halpern-Felsher, Cornell, Kropp, & Tschann, 2005), and prior sexual activity (Fielder & Carey, 2010a; Owen et al., 2011). Some research has shown that high-quality relationships between ado- lescents and parents are protective against casual, adolescent sex- ual practices as expressions of poor attachment or compensation for a lack of parental acceptance (Browning, Leventhal, & Brooks- Gunn, 2005; Pearson, Muller, & Frisco, 2006). It is plausible that college students’ sexual practices—including hooking up— could

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

234 HALL, KNOX, AND SHAPIRO

be related to parent– child-relationship quality for similar reasons. Of course, a sexual encounter with a stranger can be the result of sexual coercion, and therefore has less to do with the characteristics of someone who seeks out such a hookup (Krahe, Scheinberger-Olwig, & Bieneck, 2003), though most sexual coercion appears to come from acquaintances or dating partners (Fisher, Cullen, & Daigle, 2005).

The current study expands upon prior research on hooking up by focusing on intention and behavior with an inclusive (e.g., sexual identity variety) sample. Including intentions is important because opportunity varies. The differences between a person who has hooked up and one who has yet to hookup could be minimal if both were equally willing to hook up, given the opportunity. Con- versely, the hookup experience itself might have an impact on a person beyond the impact of having the intention to hookup, so that two people with equally willing intentions to hookup differ when only one of them has actually hooked up. Data were gathered regularly for several years to create a sample with a large, propor- tionate number of men and sizable numbers of individuals who identified their sexual identity to be something other than hetero- sexual. The first goal of the analysis was to identify how gender and sexual identity related to hooking up (defined as having sex with someone one just met) in the context of both intentions and behavior. The second goal was to explore how sets of factors that are related to intentions, skills, and environmental conditions were associated with distinct hookup profiles (i.e., combinations of intentions and behaviors).

Method

Undergraduates from two universities (one in the Midwest, one on the East Coast) were asked via email to take an online survey between the years 2009 and 2015. Students were oversampled from courses pertaining to marriage and family (for the conve- nience of the investigators). Unmarried emerging adults (ages � 18 –29, M � 19.7, SD � 1.7) were selected for analysis (N � 3,893). About 10% of the sample indicated sexual identities other than heterosexual (see Table 1). The sample had an equal propor- tion of men and women and was 83% Caucasian (7.6% African American, 4% Hispanic).

Measures

We created the “College Student Attitudes and Behaviors Sur- vey” for the purpose of studying college students’ relational ex- periences and attitudes. The survey consisted of 100 questions that

addressed students’ demographic characteristics, sexual and ro- mantic experiences, as well as their attitudes and beliefs about love, relationships, and sexuality. Items were identified from the survey that could relate to the factors within the scope of the IMBP (i.e., attitudes, perceived norms, self-efficacy, skills, and environ- mental barriers). Some items were similar to variables identified in the literature review (e.g., age, race, sadness, intoxication, family background, beliefs about sex, and prior sexual activity), and others were categorically similar to such items, but had not been identified in published research on hooking up. For example, being pressured to have sex, having cheated on a partner, and heteroge- neous dating are elements of prior sexual and relationship history that contribute to a broader experience profile or perspective from which intentions and decisions related to hooking up are formed.

Hookup profile. The dependent variable included informa- tion about both intention and behavior—to be referred to as a hookup profile. The variable was formed by dividing respondents into three profiles based on their responses to two items. Respon- dents who agreed to the item “I have ‘hooked up’ or had sex (oral or sexual intercourse) the first time I met someone,” were catego- rized into the “I have” profile. Those who disagreed with that item but agreed with the following item: “If I ‘hooked up’ with the right person and felt good about our interaction, I could have sexual intercourse, cunnilingus or fellatio the first time I met someone,” were categorized into the “I would” profile. Those who responded that they disagreed with both of the items were categorized into the “I won’t” profile, as in, they had not experienced nor intended to have sexual intercourse, cunnilingus or fellatio the first time they met someone (which for the current study was used as the defini- tion of a hookup).

Individual and family background information. Race was collapsed into two categories (White, other). Age was reported in years. Sexual identity was determined by the response to “I con- sider myself:” followed by a list of options (heterosexual, bisexual, gay male, gay female, other). A sexual identity variable (gay/ lesbian vs. straight) was created that could be used to create a sexual identity by gender variable to represent various identity combinations (see Table 1).

Being religious consisted of a single item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not at all religious to very religious. Substance problems were measured by the extent of agreement (on 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree) with “I have had a problem (interfered with my health, school, or social relationships) with alcohol or drugs.” Having divorced parents was

Table 1 Descriptive Data for Demographic Variables and Hookup-Group Distributions for Each Sexual Identity

Variables Straight men (n � 1,727)

Straight women (n � 1,789)

Bisexual men (n � 73)

Bisexual women (n � 130)

Gay men (n � 134)

Gay women (n � 40)

Whitea 1503 (84.2%) 1,496 (81.9%) 61 (81.3%) 100 (75.8%) 122 (87.1%) 31 (77.5%) Mean ageb 20 19.49 19.76 19.82 20.19 19.93 Mean religiousc 2.90 3.15 2.24 2.21 2.51 2.03 #I haved 552 (32.0%) 358 (20.0%) 30 (41.1%) 41 (31.5%) 63 (47.0%) 7 (17.5%) #I wouldd 494 (28.6%) 99 (5.5%) 31 (42.5%) 18 (13.8%) 29 (21.6%) 6 (15.0%) #I won’td 681 (39.4%) 1332 (74.5%) 12 (16.4%) 71 (54.6%) 42 (31.3%) 27 (67.5%)

a �2(5, 999) � 10.65, p � .059. b F(5, 3993) � 18.37, p � .001; straight and gay men were older than straight women. c F(5, 3998) � 31.07, p � .001; straight women were more religious than straight men; both were more religious than others. d �2(10, 3,893) � 604.96, p � .001.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

235HOOKING UP AMONG DIVERSE GROUPS

ascertained by a yes/no response to “My biological parents are divorced.” Having good relationships with parents was measured by respondents reporting their “current level of happiness” with their mothers or fathers (separately) on 10-point Likert scales.

Personal outlook and beliefs. Personal happiness was mea- sured on a 10-point Likert scale (extremely unhappy to extremely happy). Sexual values were captured by an item in which respon- dents chose one of three choices to the following item: “The sexual value which best describes me is . . .” Options were, “absolutism— intercourse before marriage is wrong,” “relativism—if you are in a loving relationship, intercourse is ok even if not married,” and “hedonism—if it feels good, do it— being in love or being married doesn’t matter.” Dummy variables were created, with absolutism being the comparison group. The belief that hookups “don’t end up in a stable relationship” was an item with a 5-point Likert agree- ment scale, and the belief that “having sex is having sexual intercourse, not having oral sex” was measured with yes and no response options.

Sexuality and dating. A series of yes/no questions addressed sexual behavior, including having given oral sex, having received oral sex, having had anal intercourse, and having had vaginal intercourse (the latter two variables were combined into a single variable, with yes including having had one or both experiences). Having been in a “friends with benefits (had sex with a friend) relationship” was a single-item, 5-point Likert agreement scale. Having been pressured by a stranger to have sex, and having been pressured by a dating partner were separate items (yes/no). Having cheated on a partner and having been cheated on by a partner were separate items (5-point Likert agreement scale). Having dates outside one’s race and religion were measured by the extent of agreement with “I have dated someone of another race” and “I have dated someone of another religion” respectively (5-point Likert agreement scale). Respondents also answered yes or no on whether they had “looked for a partner on the Internet,” and whether they had “lied to [a] partner about [his/her] number of previous sexual partners.”

Results

Chi-square analyses were used to test for potential variation across gender and sexual identity regarding the hookup profile. Six Gender � Identity categories were differentially distributed among the three hookup groups, �2(10, 3,893) � 604.96, p � .001. Gay men were the most likely to report having experienced a hookup, bisexual men were most likely to report being willing to experi- ence a hookup (and second highest to have experienced a hookup), and straight women (and women in general) were most likely to report being against having a hookup (see Table 1). To better understand the sample, demographic characteristics across sexual identities were compared, revealing that groups were somewhat dissimilar (i.e., approached statistical significance) in distributions of white students, although bisexual and gay women were some- what less so, �2(5, 3,999) � 10.65, p � .059; that straight and gay men were older than straight women, F(5, 3,993) � 18.37, p � .001; and that straight women were more religious than straight men, although both were more religious than other groups, who did not differ from one another (see Table 1).

Multivariate analysis was used to investigate gender and sexual identity while also accounting for various background, disposi-

tional, and experiential variables likely associated with sexual encounters. Namely, a multinomial logistic regression was used to compare the associations of the predictor variables for each of the more affirming hookup profiles (i.e., “I have,” “I would”) with those of the “I won’t” profile for the 92% of the respondents who provided data on all model variables (see Table 2). This strategy is appropriate to use with a mixture of continuous and noncontinuous variables and generates odds ratios that can be useful in comparing different classifications (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006). The model was statistically significant, �2(58, 3,568) � 2,482.02, p � .001, suggesting there were statistical differences among the indepen- dent variables as they pertained to membership in the “I won’t” profile versus one of the other profiles. The overall classification accuracy was 72.9%.

Table 2 Multinomial Logistic Coefficients and Odds Ratios Comparing Groups to “Would Not Hookup” (N � 3,568)

Variables

Have hooked up (n � 959)

Would hook up (n � 644)

B Exp(B) B Exp(B)

Individual and family background

Race (White � 1) .21 1.24 .04 1.04 Age .08 1.08 �.05 .95 Gender (Male � 1) 1.45 4.27��� 2.57 13.11���

Bisexual �.10 .91 .34 1.40 Gay/Lesbian �.51 .60 .58 1.79 Bisexual � Gender .11 1.12 .03 1.03 Gay/Lesbian � Gender† .54 1.72 �1.21 .30�

Religious .00 1.00 �.18 .84���

Substance problems .23 1.26��� .02 1.02 Divorced bio. parents .09 1.09 .10 1.11 Good relationship with

mother �.04 .96 .01 1.01 Good relationship with

father .07 1.08� .04 1.04 Outlook and beliefs

Happiness �.03 .97 �.07 .94�

Relativistic .02 1.02 1.90 6.68���

Hedonistic 1.64 5.15��� 3.34 28.07���

“Hookups do not lead to relationship” �.38 .69��� �.54 .58���

“Oral sex is not sex” .35 1.43�� .16 1.18 Sexuality and dating

Have given oral sex .47 1.61� �.05 .95 Have received oral sex 1.00 2.72��� �.24 .79 Have had vaginal/anal

intercourse .82 2.26��� .36 1.43 Had sex with friend 1.15 3.17��� .52 1.68���

Pressured by stranger for sex 1.11 3.02��� .38 1.46�

Pressured by date for sex �.31 .73 �.03 .97 Have cheated on partner .14 1.15 .07 1.07 Have been cheated on .03 1.03 �.02 .98 Dated outside of race .10 1.11 .01 1.01 Dated outside of religion �.02 .98 �.11 .90�

Looked for partner on internet .85 2.35��� .22 1.24

Lied to partner about no. of sex partners 1.04 2.84��� .30 1.35

† Separate models by gender revealed similar results, despite the positive interaction. � p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

236 HALL, KNOX, AND SHAPIRO

Of the individual and family background variables, men were over four times more likely, Exp(B) � 4.27, to be in the “I have” profile and over 13 times more likely, Exp(B) � 13.11, to be in the “I would” profile than the “I won’t” profile. Sexual identity vari- ables were not associated with the hookup profiles except for the case of the Gay/Lesbian � Gender interaction for the I would profile. However, separate analyses by gender did not reveal any sexual identity differences in the profile comparisons, suggesting that the interaction was very weak.

Also compared with the “I won’t” profile, the “I have” profile members were more likely to have had a substance abuse problem and reported a better relationships with their fathers, while the “I would” profile was less likely to be religious. Aside from gender, the substance abuse variable appeared to be particularly notewor- thy, with each step up in the 5-point substance abuse scale increas- ing the odds 1.26 times of being in the “I have” profile, all else being equal.

Of the personal outlook and belief variables, compared to the “I won’t” profile, the “I have” profile members were more likely to be hedonistic (compared to being absolutist) in their sexual values and were less likely to believe that hookups can lead to stable relationships. In contrast, the “I would” profile members were more likely to be both relativistic and, particularly, hedonistic (compared to being absolutist), were less happy, and were less likely to believe that hookups could lead to stable relationships. Overall, being hedonistic or relativistic (compared to absolutist) was especially noteworthy among the outlook and belief variables, given that endorsing hedonism increased the odds by over five times of being in the “I have” and by 28 times of being in the “I would” profiles.

Of the sexuality and dating variables, compared to the “I won’t” profile, the “I have” profile members were more likely to report that they had given and received oral sex, to have experienced vaginal or anal sex, to have had sex with a friend (friends with benefits), to have been pressured by a stranger to have sex, to have looked for a partner online, and to have lied to a partner about their number of sex partners. In contrast, the “I would” profile members were more likely to have had sex with a friend, to have been pressured by a stranger to have sex, to have looked for a partner online, and were less likely to have dated outside of their religion. Perhaps most noteworthy among these variables was the consistent pattern of having participated a list of sexual and dating experi- ences increasing the odds two or three fold for being in the “I have” profile, and the much less consistent relevance they had for the “I would” profile.

To further investigate the discrepancy between the univariate and multivariate findings regarding sexual identity, a multinomial logistic regression was used that included only the gender and the identity variables (and gender by identity interactions). The model was significant, �2(10, N � 3,999) � 636.33, p � .001, and several statistical differences appeared: bisexual individuals were more than twice as likel, Exp(B) � 2.15, to be in the “I have” profile than the “I will not” profile and three times as likely, Exp(B) � 3.41, to be in the “I would” profile than the “I will not” profile. Lesbian women were nearly three times as likely, Exp(B) � 2.99, to be in the “I would” profile than the “I will not” profile. As noted, in the full model, the corresponding coefficients were smaller and none was statistically significant, though the coefficients in the full model trended the same way for the “I

would” as the “I will not” profiles. Subsequent univariate analyses of the six gender/sexual identity groups revealed sexual identity differences on most of the other significant variables in the full model. Compared with their gender counterparts of other identi- ties, straight men and women were more religious, happier (than bisexual counterparts only), were less likely to believe hooking up lead to a relationship (gay men only for men, bisexual only for women), were much less likely to report being hedonistic, were less likely to believe oral sex is “sex,” were less likely to have given and received oral sex, were less likely to have had a form of intercourse (bisexual only; lesbians were less likely than straight women, however), were less likely to have had sex with a friend, were less likely to have been pressured by a stranger to have sex, and were much less likely to have searched for a partner using the Internet.

Discussion

The first goal of this study was to investigate how gender and sexual identity relate to hooking up in regard to intentions and behavior. The univariate analyses indicated that both gender and sexual identity related to hooking up. Within each sexual identity, men were more likely than women to have hooked up (especially gay men compared with gay women). Across sexual identities, gay and bisexual men were more likely to have hooked up than were straight men, and gay and bisexual women were more likely to have hooked up than straight women. However, when considering the “I will not” profile, lesbian and straight women were more similar than bisexual women. The same pattern existed for men. Bisexual men (especially) and bisexual women had the fewest qualms about hooking up should the opportunity (or anticipated circumstances) arise. Though this sample is nonrandom and rela- tively narrow, the strikingly high number of women intending to avoid hooking up the first time they meet someone (73%) might suggest that the college atmosphere so often depicted as promoting a hooking-up culture (Bogle, 2007; Freitas, 2013) may not be as universal or compelling as one might assume—at least in the case of people who just met having intercourse or oral sex. Prior research has revealed that men tend to be more willing to having causal sex than are women (Conley, 2011; Cubbins & Tanfer, 2000). Other research has suggested a greater willingness to have casual sex among homosexual individuals, particularly men (Gotta et al., 2011). The degree to which gay men engage in casual sexual relationships might be partially explained by being male rather than by being gay. Although sex-role socialization is often men- tioned as an explanation for male sexual openness and assertive- ness, others argue for a biological basis as a root cause for gendered sexual behavior. For example, Eagly’s social role theory (Eagly, Eastwick, & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2009) suggests that men are biologically driven for evolutionary purposes to spread sperm to a greater number of women, whereas women are to be more careful in their selection in sexual partners because they have the task of birthing and caring for the infant. Hooking up for the female is counter to this notion. That a higher proportion of men than women reported having been involved in a hookup suggests that some men are hooking up with the same women (generally consistent with Eagly’s social role theory) or that men overreported and/or women underreported their sexual behavior—perhaps moti- vated by societal pressures to conform to gendered sexual scripts

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

237HOOKING UP AMONG DIVERSE GROUPS

(Kim et al., 2007; Simon & Gagnon, 1986) Biological sex, sexual identity, and gender socialization likely interact in a variety of nu- anced ways to contribute to hookup intentions and behaviors (Garcia et al., 2012).

Data from the current study suggest greater openness to hookups among GLB individuals, but these findings should be interpreted with caution because of the size of some subsamples and conve- nience sampling. Furthermore, the multivariate analysis revealed that sexual identity differences were questionable. Being bisexual or gay (regardless of gender), when compared with being straight, was generally unassociated with hookup profiles. The Sex � Identity interaction was significant for the “I would” profile, but separate analyses by gender failed to reveal any significant differ- ences by sexual identity. In a truncated, separate analysis that included only the gender and the identity variables, bisexual indi- viduals were over twice as likely (to be in the “I have” profile than the “I will not” profile and three times as likely to be in the “I would” profile than the “I will not” profile. Lesbian women were nearly three times more likely to be in the “I would” profile than the “I will not” profile. This overall pattern was similar but less pronounced and statistically insignificant in the full model.

It is possible that a lack of power in the full model due to the number of variables and modest subsample sizes contributed to a lack of statistical significance. Nevertheless, the sizable decreases in the coefficients in the full model compared with the truncated model suggest that at least some of the differences between the intentions of GLB and straight individuals related to other factors. As noted, there may be fewer opportunities for sexual minorities to find partners (Bullock, 2004), so a larger proportion of sexual minorities might be in the “I would” than the “I wouldn’t” profile partially for that reason. Yet, given the opportunity, the results suggest that a greater proportion of straight individuals, especially women, are determined to avoid a hookup. Furthermore, other variables in the model might account for at least some of the differences between the full and truncated models. e.g., GLB individuals, on average, reported being less religious, more hedo- nistic, more likely to believe a hookup could lead to a relationship, more likely to have engaged in a variety of sexual experiences (e.g., oral sex, vaginal/anal intercourse, sex with a friend), more likely to have been pressured by a stranger to have sex, and more likely to have looked for a partner on the Internet. Some of these factors could be related to opportunity—such as looking for a partner online to simplify finding someone of the same sexual identity (Kuperberg & Padgett, 2015). Other factors could be related to identity exploration— gaining more sexual experience as a means toward exploring one’s sexuality when there is some question as to one’s sexual identity (Rupp et al., 2014). Still other factors could relate to social structure— greater hedonism (as opposed to being absolute, which often connotes waiting until marriage to have sex) might reflect a lack of institutional rein- forcement of monogamy (the data were gathered before same-sex marriage was legalized by the United States Supreme Court). The extent to which the differences noted across sexual identities are inherent in identity, reflective of subcultural values, or are a product of distinct positions and opportunities in the larger social environment continues to be the subject of debate.

The second goal of the study was to explore how sets of factors related to predictors of behavior (i.e., intentions, skills, and envi- ronmental conditions) compared across unique hookup-intention/

behavior profiles. The discussion above regarding sex and sexual identity pertains somewhat to this second purpose, but a major implication of the findings is that including both intentions and behavior distinguished diverse profiles and predictors related to hooking up. For instance, being less religious, less happy, more relativistic (and more hedonistic according to a comparison of the sizes of the coefficients), and not having dated outside one’s religion (which is easier to do if you are less likely to be religious) predicted being in the “I would” profile versus the “I will not” profile— but these variables were not (or were less, in the case of hedonism) predictive of being in the “I have” versus “I will not” profile. Having had substance-abuse problems, believing that oral sex is not sex, having both given and received oral sex, having had a form of intercourse, having looked for a partner on the Internet, and having lied to a partner about the number of one’s previous sex partners predicted being in the “I have” versus the “I will not” profile, but these variables were not predictive of being in the “I would” versus the “I will not” profile. This pattern suggests that only comparing groups of people based on hookup experience risks overlooking variation among individuals that could contrib- ute to causes and consequences of hooking up.

Having hooked up might impact an individual beyond mere intentions to hook up, perhaps only inhibited by the lack of opportunity. The causal order of the variables is unknowable from the data, but the findings are consistent with the idea that hooking up contributes to psychological, emotional, and behavioral out- comes. Some of the unique or stronger variables correlated within the “I have” group could have coincided with a (or the) hookup. For example, more sexual experience (e.g., oral sex, intercourse, sex with a friend) and being pressured by a sexual partner might have only occurred during an initial hookup, or they could repre- sent a pattern conducive to one becoming more open to hooking up.

A history of alcohol abuse (more likely reported by the “I have” profile) could lead to a greater acceptance of or vulnerability to a hookup (Lewis et al., 2013). Hooking up could embolden one’s confidence to sexual exploration and activity, or contribute to a sense of regret (Owen et al., 2011). The ability to tease apart behaviors that occurred as part of an initial hookup from a pattern that existed before a hookup would reveal more about factors that contribute to hooking up (and the intentions to do so).

Limitations

As noted, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits under- standing of causal order, and the convenience sampling limits the generalizability of the current study. Though the sample included a balance in gender, having a more racially or ethnically diverse sample and a larger number of participants who identify as some- thing other than heterosexual would enhance the ability to make more robust and generalizable comparisons. The measures in the study did not account for all possible variations in how sexual interaction could be interpreted or measured (i.e., sex was defined as “oral or sexual intercourse”). The array of sexual experiences given the diversity of gender and sexual orientation in the sample may not have been completely accounted for. Furthermore, it is not known whether individuals had multiple hookups or whether hav- ing hooked up was sexually coerced; there could have been other differences among these profiles that remain undetected and the

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

238 HALL, KNOX, AND SHAPIRO

meanings of the sexual experiences might not be apparent. Further investigations that account for intentions and behavior that unam- biguously capture the nature, timing, and repetition of events and attitudes related to sexual behavior and that incorporate inclusive samples can continue to discover nuanced connections among factors that contribute to the inner workings and potential conse- quences of a hookup culture on college campuses.

References

Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., & Fishbein, M. (2011). A model of adoles- cents’ seeking of sexual content in their media choices. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 309 –315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010 .497985

Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., Fishbein, M., & Jordan, A. (2011). Using the integrative model to explain how exposure to sexual media content influences adolescent sexual behavior. Health Education & Behavior, 38, 530 –540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198110385775

Bogle, K. A. (2007). The shift from dating to hooking up in college: What scholars have missed. Sociology Compass, 1, 775–788. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00031.x

Browning, C. R., Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2005). Sexual initia- tion in early adolescence: The nexus of parental and community control. American Sociological Review, 70, 758 –778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 000312240507000502

Bullock, D. (2004). Lesbian cruising: An examination of the concept and methods. Journal of Homosexuality, 47, 1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/ J082v47n02_01

Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 100, 309 –329. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/a0022152

Cubbins, L. A., & Tanfer, K. (2000). The influence of gender on sex: A study of men’s and women’s self-reported high-risk sex behavior. Ar- chives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 229 –257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1001963413640

DeHaan, S., Kuper, L. E., Magee, J. C., Bigelow, L., & Mustanski, B. S. (2013). The interplay between online and offline explorations of identity, relationships, and sex: A mixed-methods study with LGBT youth. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 421– 434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00224499.2012.661489

Eagly, A. H., Eastwick, P. W., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2009). Possible selves in marital roles: The impact of the anticipated division of labor on the mate preferences of women and men. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 35, 403– 414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672 08329696

Erichsen, K., Dignam, P., & Knox, D. (2016). From hookup to husband: Transitioning a casual to a committed relationship. Paper, Southern Sociological Society, Atlanta, April.

Eshbaugh, E. M., & Gute, G. (2008). Hookups and sexual regret among college women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 77–90. http:// dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.1.77-90

Fielder, R. L., & Carey, M. P. (2010a). Predictors and consequences of sexual “hookups” among college students: A short-term prospective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1105–1119. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1007/s10508-008-9448-4

Fielder, R. L., & Carey, M. P. (2010b). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual hookups among first-semester female college students. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 36, 346 –359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 0092623X.2010.488118

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: A reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Fishbein, M., & Yzer, M. C. (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 13, 164 –183. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00287.x

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Daigle, L. E. (2005). The discovery of acquaintance rape: The salience of methodological innovation and rigor. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 493–500. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/0886260504267761

Freitas, D. (2013). The end of sex: How hookup culture is leaving a generation unhappy, sexually unfulfilled, and confused about intimacy. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16, 161–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027911

Gotta, G., Green, R. J., Rothblum, E., Solomon, S., Balsam, K., & Schwartz, P. (2011). Heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male relationships: A comparison of couples in 1975 and 2000. Family Process, 50, 353– 376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2011.01365.x

Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 255–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552324

Gute, G., & Eshbaugh, E. M. (2008). Personality as a predictor of hooking up among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 25, 26 – 43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370010701836385

Halpern-Felsher, B. L., Cornell, J. L., Kropp, R. Y., & Tschann, J. M. (2005). Oral versus vaginal sex among adolescents: Perceptions, atti- tudes, and behavior. Pediatrics, 115, 845– 851. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1542/peds.2004-2108

Kim, J. L., Sorsoli, C. L., Collins, K., Zylbergold, B. A., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 145–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490701263660

Krahé, B., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Bieneck, S. (2003). Men’s reports of nonconsensual sexual interactions with women: Prevalence and impact. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 165–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1022456626538

Kuperberg, A., & Padgett, J. E. (2015). Dating and hooking up in college: Meeting contexts, sex, and variation by gender, partner’s gender, and class standing. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 517–531. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/00224499.2014.901284

Lewis, M. A., Atkins, D. C., Blayney, J. A., Dent, D. V., & Kaysen, D. L. (2013). What is hooking up? Examining definitions of hooking up in relation to behavior and normative perceptions. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 757–766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.706333

Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2005). Adoles- cents’ involvement in non-romantic sexual activity. Social Science Re- search, 34, 384 – 407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.03 .001

Owen, J., Fincham, F. D., & Moore, J. (2011). Short-term prospective study of hooking up among college students. Archives of Sexual Behav- ior, 40, 331–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9697-x

Owen, J. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). “Hooking up” among college students: Demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 653– 663. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10508-008-9414-1

Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Frisco, M. L. (2006). Parental involvement, family structure, and adolescent sexual decision making. Sociological Perspectives, 49, 67–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sop.2006.49.1.67

Reece, M., & Dodge, B. (2004). A study in sexual health applying the principles of community-based participatory research. Archives of Sex- ual Behavior, 33, 235–247.

Regan, P. C., & Dreyer, C. S. (1999). Lust? Love? Status? Young adults’ motives for engaging in casual sex. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11, 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J056v11n01_01

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

239HOOKING UP AMONG DIVERSE GROUPS

Reiber, C., & Garcia, J. R. (2010). Hooking up: Gender differences, evolution, and pluralistic ignorance. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 390 – 404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/147470491000800307

Rhodes, F., Stein, J. A., Fishbein, M., Goldstein, R. B., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (2007). Using theory to understand how interventions work: Project RESPECT, condom use, and the integrative model. AIDS and Behavior, 11, 393– 407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10461-007-9208-9

Rupp, L. J., Taylor, V., Regev-Messalem, S., Fogarty, A. C., & England, P. (2014). Queer women in the hookup scene: Beyond the closet? Gender & Society, 28, 212–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891 243213510782

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1007/BF01542219

Stinson, R. (2010). Hooking up in young adulthood: A review of factors influencing the sexual behavior of college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 24, 98 –115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 87568220903558596

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. H. (2011). Sexual hookups among college students: Sex differences in emotional reactions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1173–1181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011- 9841-2

Uecker, J. E., Pearce, L. D., & Andercheck, B. (2015). The four U’s: Latent classes of hookup motivations among college students. Social Currents, 2, 163–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2329496515579761

Weaver, S. J., & Herold, E. S. (2000). Casual sex and women: Measure- ment and motivational issues. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexual- ity, 12, 23– 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J056v12n03_02

Williams, C. D., & Harper, S. (2014). Toward complex and inclusive studies of sex scripts, college students’ sexual behaviors, and hookup cultures on U.S. campuses. Masculinities & Social Change, 3, 271–298.

Received September 22, 2016 Revision received February 10, 2017

Accepted February 10, 2017 �

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

240 HALL, KNOX, AND SHAPIRO