This document summarizes research on casual sex and well-being. It finds that whether casual sex is positively or negatively related to well-being depends on two factors: 1) The motivation behind the casual sex encounter (autonomous vs. non-autonomous motivation) and 2) An individual's level of sociosexuality. When casual sex is motivated by autonomous reasons and among individuals higher in sociosexuality, it is associated with greater well-being, whereas non-autonomous casual sex relates to lower well-being. Authenticity in casual sex encounters and relationships is important for buffering against distress and enhancing well-being.

2. Sexual behavior lacking emotional
attachment and/or romantic commitment
between partners:






One-night stands
Sex on the same night
Friends with Benefits
Fuck buddies
Short-term mating
Flings

3. 
Up to 80% at least one CS;

~10% undergrads have CS regularly;

CS occurs early in one’s sexual history;

Replacing dating as primary method of
relationship development on campuses?

4. 
Mixed cross-sectional
findings:
› Many null
› Some negative, esp. teens
and girls
› Some positive, esp. men

Mostly null longitudinal
findings:
› Teens
› Undergrads

5. MODERATORS!
Not all casual sex encounters are equally
harmful/beneficial
 Not all people are equally sensitive to this
harmful/beneficial effects


6. 

Acting in congruence with self, one’s true
desires, values; being ‘true’ to oneself
Higher authenticity  higher well-being:
› Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000);
› Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987);
› Self-concordance model (Sheldon & Hauser-Marko, 2001);
› Self-authenticity (Kernis, 2003).

Two aspects of authenticity:
› Why you do it (encounter-level): CS Motivation (Study 1)
› Who does it (trait-level): Sociosexuality (Study 2)

7. Online longitudinal survey at Cornell
 Email sent to all freshmen and juniors
(~6,500) in September 2009
 T1 (start of semester) – 872, 59% f (13% RR)
 T2 (end of semester) – 671, 63% f (77% ret)
 T3 (end of year) – 560, 64% f (64% ret)
 Weekly diary (12 weeks over Fall
semester) – 230 single students – 65% f


8. Behaviors vary in levels of selfdetermination, i.e. intentionality (Ryan &
Deci, 2000)
 Higher intentionality  higher
psychological & physical well-being
across a variety of domains (e.g.
work, relationships, education, health, ther
apy, dating sex)

Vrangalova, Z. (in press). Arch Sexual Behavior

9. Nonautonomous
motivation
Autonomous
motivation

10. 
Autonomous:
› pleasure, novelty, desire
› exploring, experimenting

Nonautonomous:
› low self-esteem,
› need for self-
affirmation, peer pressure or
social status,
› relationship development
› coerced, tricked into,
› Intoxication

11. N = 562 (60% f)
 Any casual sex at T1 – T3: 37%

› One-time & longer-casual
› Any genital touching

CS Motives T1-T3 for all CS experienced
› 8 reasons on a scale of 1 (none) to 7 (all of
my hookups)
› Factor analysis confirms Autonomous vs.
Nonautonomous distinction

12. 
H1: Among the CS experienced:
› Autonomous CS  Greater well-being
› Nonautonomous CS  Lower well-being

H2: Among the whole sample:
› Self-determined CS group ≥ No CS group
› Non self-determined CS group < No CS
group

Gender differences?

15. › Buffering effects against distress
(depression, anxiety, & physical symptoms)
› Thriving effects in positive wellbeing (selfesteem)

16. Individual differences in people’s
willingness to engage in uncommitted
sexual relationships
 Desire – motivational component; result
of testosterone and environmental
conditions
 Attitude – evaluative disposition for self
and others; result of culture
 Behavior – result of desires + personal
and (non)social external constraints

17. 
H1: SOI will moderate between-person
effects of CS between T1-T3 on T3
wellbeing
CS: penetrative (oral, vaginal, or anal)
one-time or longer casual: 33%
 N = 528
 Controls: school year, race, SES, &
relationship status


18. 3.8
No CS
Had CS
Self Esteem
3.6
ns
ns
3.4
3.2
Low SOI (-1 SD)
High SOI (+1 SD)
3.2
2.8
p < .05
ns
3
p < .05
ns
2.4
Depression
Anxiety
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.2
Low SOI (-1 SD)
High SOI (+1 SD)
Low SOI (-1 SD)
High SOI (+1 SD)

19. 
H: SOI will moderate within-person effects of
weekly CS on weekly wellbeing
252 of single T1 participants (65% female)
 12 weeks online survey

› Weekly well-being (self-esteem, life
satisfaction, depression, and anxiety)
› Did they have partnered sex (any intimate
contact, from making out to intercourse?
› Up to 4 partners:
 Types of sexual activities (kissing to intercourse)
 Type of encounter – casual or not

20. 230 participants with at least 6 reports
 2510 weekly reports
At least 1 penetrative sexual encounter:
 On 9% (204) weekly reports

› 90% only 1 partner (range 1 to 3)

By 35% (80) participants
› 44% only 1 week (range 1 to 9)

Higher SOI  higher likelihood of weekly
casual sex, OR=2.31*** [1.84, 2.89]

21. 
Level 2 (between-person): T1 measures
› Moderator: SOI-R (Asendorpf & Penke, 2009)
› Controls: Gender, Race, School Year

Level 1 (within-person): Weekly measures
› Outcome: Weekly well-being
› Predictor: Had casual sex (Y/N)
› Controls: Lagged effects of well-being

Effects of interest:
› 2-way cross-level interaction CS & SOI
› 3-way cross level interaction w/ gender

22. 4.1
ALL PARTICIPANTS
No CS
Had CS
3.8
p < .05
3.9
3.6
Life Satisfaction
Self Esteem
ALL PARTICIPANTS
3.7
ns
3.5
p < .01
3.4
3.2
3.3
3
3.1
ns
2.8
Low SOI (-1 SD)
High SOI (+1 SD)
Low SOI (-1 SD)
High SOI (+1 SD)

23. 2.2
2.2
MEN
WOMEN
Anxiety
2
2
1.8
1.8
1.6
p < .01
ns
1.6
ns
1.4
p < .05
1.4
1.2
1.2
Low SOI (-1 SD)
Low SOI (-1 SD)
High SOI (+1 SD)
2.2
2.2
MEN
WOMEN
2
2
Depression
ns
1.8
High SOI (+1 SD)
p < .08
1.8
ns
1.6
ns
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.2
Low SOI (-1 SD)
High SOI (+1 SD)
Low SOI (-1 SD)
High SOI (+1 SD)

24. › Buffering effects against distress
(depression, & anxiety)
› Thriving effects in positive wellbeing (selfesteem & life satisfaction)

25. Few main effects: CS is not a stressor
uniformly affecting all people short-term
(weekly) or longer-term (9 months)
 It depends on authenticity:

› Why you do it (encounter-specific): CS
motivation
› Who does it (trait-level): Sociosexuality

Authenticity in CS:
› Buffering effects against distress
(depression, anxiety, & physical symptoms)
› Thriving effects in positive wellbeing (self-esteem
& life satisfaction)

26. Research: Need to move away from
main effects, and toward a more
nuanced understanding of the CS –
wellbeing link.
 Education, policy, clinical practice:
Teach youth how to recognize whether
and when it is good/bad for them, and
say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ accordingly.


27. 
Funding:
› The Foundation for Scientific Study of
Sexuality
› The Society for the Psychological Study of
Social Issues
› Cornell University Human Ecology Alumni
Association
› American Institute of Bisexuality

Help with data collection/preparation:
› Rachel Mack
› Melany Bradshaw
› Vickie Liang