Added: Leshawn Trapp - Date: 27.11.2021 04:54 - Views: 32848 - Clicks: 4698
Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. Little research has been done on hookups and most existing research is cross-sectional and has not investigated the antecedents or consequences of hookups. To our knowledge, this study provides the first prospective investigation of the hypothesized predictors of penetrative sex hookups i.
A total of first-semester college students females, 31 males completed an anonymous survey early in their first semester; the survey assessed 18 potential predictors of hooking up that were identified from theory and past research. At the end of their first semester, students again responded to a survey and provided data on their oral and vaginal sex hookup behavior occurrence and of partnersdistress, and self-esteem.
Pre-college hookup patterns, peak intoxication level, and situational triggers for hookups were consistent predictors of oral and vaginal sex hookup behavior and of hookup partners in the first semester of college. Penetrative sex hookups increased psychological distress for females, but not for males. Implications for education and intervention as well as suggestions for future research are discussed. Popular books e. Potential predictors of sexual hookups have been suggested by both theory and research.
Triandis suggested that attitudes and norms influence behavioral intentionswhich—along with situational factors and prior experience with a behavior—determine whether an individual will engage in a future sexual behavior.
Evolutionary theories e. This perspective suggests that gender should be an important predictor of hookup behavior; that is, because males accrue advantages from having multiple partners, they should be more likely to engage in hookups. In contrast, females would be expected to eschew sexual encounters devoid of emotional intimacy in order to find a mate who invests more in the relationship. Sociocultural perspectives might challenge this view, and suggest that, because gender roles are socially constructed, differences between men and women should diminish as social norms change to be more egalitarian.
Social-cognitive theory Bandura, provides a more general framework for understanding how the social environment shapes behavior. This approach recognizes the powerful role that modeling and vicarious learning play in the formation of behavior patterns. In addition, the immediate social environment of the college campus represented by social norms and the larger cultural context, transmitted through mass mediawould also be expected to shape sexual behavior.
In addition to these theoretical frameworks, prior qualitative and quantitative research has identified other potential predictors of hookups, comprising person characteristics, parental influences, and situational social-cultural factors. At least four person variables might be expected to influence hookup behavior: religiosity, gender, career-mindedness, and the desire to be carefree.
As noted earlier, gender is likely to influence hookup behavior. Based on interviews with high-achieving female college and high school students, Stepp suggests that, for some females, career-mindedness i. Similar to the qualitative findings from SteppGlenn and Marquardt suggested that the desire to be carefree in college may motivate hookup behavior, especially for high-achieving adolescent females. They argued that young women who strive for self-sufficiency and independence prefer hookups to traditional committed relationships because hookups provide sexual interaction with interesting or attractive men without compromising their freedom or independence.
Several parental factors may influence hookups. Alcohol use, social norms, and exposure to media messages about sexuality emerge as likely influences on hookups. Paul et al. Moreover, Owen et al. Social norms have also been implicated as possible determinants of sexual hookups. Finally, mass media e. In summary, based on several social-cognitive theories, as well as empirical evidence, we identified a large of plausible predictors of hookup behavior, from the individual to the sociocultural level.
At the time of its initiation, this study was the first prospective study of predictors of hooking up. Therefore, we explored the utility of a wide variety of hypothesized predictors of hookup behaviors in college students. The purpose of this exploratory study was to conduct an initial evaluation of the strength of these hypothesized predictors in order to improve our conceptual understanding of, and future Ladies seeking real sex Glenn on, hookup behavior.
Sexual behavior may involve risk for physical and mental health. Physical health consequences include unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections STIsand sexual assault. Unintended pregnancies are relatively rare on most college campuses Scholly et al. Challenges limiting such research include the relatively low base rates of some outcomes, the high cost and perceived invasiveness of biological testing, and the stigma and legal issues associated with sexual assault.
Hookups might also be expected to have mental health consequences, which are easier to investigate. As a result, hooking up may lead to short-term psychological distress for women. In a cross-sectional study of college students, Grello et al. In contrast, men who had engaged in casual sex had lower levels of distress than virgins or men who had engaged in sex with only romantic partners.
Distress increased for women, but not for men, as the of partners increased. The temporal sequence of the hookups and distress remains unclear due to the use of a cross-sectional de. Another recent cross-sectional study revealed that male and female college students have different emotional reactions to hookups Owen et al. Females were more likely than males to report a negative reaction to hookups over the past year, and females were less likely than males to report a positive reaction. In the only study to examine self-esteem related to hooking up in college students, Paul et al. The purposes of this study were: 1 to explore a range of possible predictors of sexual hookups as suggested by theory and research and 2 to investigate the short-term psychological consequences of hooking up in college students.
Unlike cross-sectional Ladies seeking real sex Glenn e. Thus, when students arrived on campus T1we assessed pre-college hookup behavior and hypothesized predictors of future hookups; at the end of their first semester T2we assessed collegiate hookup behavior and psychological consequences. We focused on penetrative sex i. This prospective de permitted evaluation of two sets of hypotheses:. We also predicted interactions between gender and five predictors, such that the likelihood of T2 hookup behavior would be increased for females but not males who reported greater distress, lower self-esteem, greater career-mindedness, greater desire to be carefree in college, and greater parental discouragement of relationships.
We predicted that females who transitioned from no penetrative sex hookups at study entry to a penetrative sex hookup by the end of their first semester would report increased distress and decreased self-esteem. The sample was representative of the typical psychology class from which they were recruited. On average, females reported 2. Descriptive information i. Only gender was used as a predictor. Sexual history i. These responses also provided the pre-college of oral vaginal sex hookup partners.
Self-esteem was measured with the Rosenberg scale. Self-esteem was used as a predictor of T2 hookups and as a consequence of T1 hookup transition. Distress was used as a predictor of T2 hookups and as a consequence of T1 hookup transition. Social norms were assessed following published procedures Carey et al. Students also rated the extent to which a typical male and female freshman would agree with those statements.
A positive value indicates that the typical same-sex student is perceived to be more permissive than the participant. To assess descriptive norms at T1, students estimated the percentage of male and female freshmen who had engaged in oral and vaginal sex with a casual partner before college. A positive value indicates that the student overestimated the prevalence of hooking up. Peak intoxication level was assessed using peak blood alcohol content BAC in the past month.
Participants indicated the of standard drinks i. Situational triggers for oral vaginal sex hookups were assessed with three items adapted from Apostolopoulos et al. Perceived parental attitudes toward hooking up were assessed with items adapted from Daugherty and Burger Parental marital status was assessed by asking students if their biological parents were currently married. Parental discouragement of relationships was assessed with two items deed to capture this construct: a my parents encourage me to avoid getting too serious in romantic relationships while I am young, and b my parents would be disappointed if I got engaged or married while I was still in college.
Desire to be carefree in college was assessed with seven items e. Media exposure was assessed using seven items asking participants how many hours they spend in a typical week 1 watching television, 2 listening to music, 3 watching music videos, 4 reading popular magazines, 5 watching movies, 6 using social networking websites, and 7 reading campus newspapers. The of hours spent using all seven media types were summed to create a composite media exposure score. The dichotomous outcome variable T2 oral vaginal sex hookup behavior i.
Students enrolled in an Introductory Psychology course responded to electronically-posted invitations to participate in a study of the health behaviors and interpersonal relationships of young adults. After receiving an overview of the study, students provided written consent and completed a self-administered, anonymous survey in small groups with ample privacy.
The initial survey was administered in mid-to-late September T1 ; the follow-up survey was administered 10 weeks later, during the last two weeks of the semester T2. Predictor variables were assessed at T1, and criterion variables were assessed at T2. Each survey took 30 minutes to complete. Upon completion, students received course credit. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board. The code allowed the T1 and T2 data to be linked but also to remain anonymous. Prior to running any statistical tests, the data were examined for outliers and checked for univariate and multivariate normality.
All p -values were two-tailed unless otherwise indicated, with alpha set at. When a directional effect was hypothesized i. Stepwise regression was used for model development due to the large of predictors included, the lack of research on predictors of hooking up, and the absence of theoretical rationale for entering certain predictors first.
The first step in the model development process was univariate analyses to determine which predictors to test in the exploratory multivariate model. Stepwise logistic regression was conducted using an entry probability of. For the two logistic regression models, the continuous variables selected by the stepwise regression procedure were checked for linearity in the logit; there were no violations of this assumption. Next, all potential interactions between variables selected in the stepwise regression were tested. ificant interactions and the predictors were then entered simultaneously into another regression model.
Models were also run with and without any interactions to determine if the interactions should be retained in the final model. Paired samples t -tests were used for the specific tests of hypothesis two. Two separate repeated-measures analyses of variance ANOVAs were conducted on distress and self-esteem for further analysis of the effect of hookup transition group among women; the within-groups independent variable was time, and the between-groups independent variable was hookup transition group. These four outcomes were selected because of their public health importance i.
In the stepwise regression procedure, three predictors entered the model: situational triggers for oral sex hookups, peak intoxication level, and pre-college oral sex hookup behavior.
There were no ificant interactions. Parameter estimates and odds ratios for the final model are displayed in Table II. B coefficients represent logits. For this model, cwhich is equivalent to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and ranges from.
Chance prediction is represented by a c of. In the stepwise regression procedure, six predictors entered the model: pre-college vaginal sex hookup behavior, peak intoxication level, HLIN-SOD, situational triggers for vaginal sex hookups, gender, and distress. None of the interactions between these six predictors was ificant.
The six predictors were entered as predictors for the multivariate model. The four- five- and six-predictor models produced lower deviances and AICs than the three-predictor model; however, they each included at least one non-ificant predictor.
The three-predictor model also resulted in a higher percentage of correct ID and specificity than the four- and five-predictor models. Parameter estimates and odds ratios for the final model appear in Table III. The DV in this model was T2 of oral sex hookup partners. In the stepwise regression procedure, four predictors entered the model: situational triggers for oral sex hookups, of oral sex hookup partners, peak intoxication level, and parental discouragement of relationships.
Parameter estimates for the final model are displayed in Table IV. The DV in this model was T2 of vaginal sex hookup partners. In the stepwise regression procedure, five predictors entered the model: situational triggers for vaginal sex hookups, peak intoxication level, of vaginal sex hookup partners, gender, and parental attitudes.
The five predictors and one interaction were entered as predictors of T2 of vaginal sex hookup partners. Thus, the final model included the following predictors: situational triggers for vaginal sex hookups, peak intoxication level, gender, of vaginal sex hookup partners, and the interaction of situational triggers for vaginal sex hookups and gender.Ladies seeking real sex Glenn
email: [email protected] - phone:(545) 112-2641 x 4033
FIRST-YEAR COLLEGE WOMEN’S MOTIVATIONS FOR HOOKING UP: A MIXED-METHODS EXAMINATION OF NORMATIVE PEER PERCEPTIONS AND PERSONAL HOOKUP PARTICIPATION