I Have,” I Would,” I Won’t” Hooking Up Among Sexually Dive.docx

“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
mailto:[email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000223

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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
.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.
.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.
.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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.497985
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.497985
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198110385775
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00031.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00031.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000502
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000502
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v47n02_01
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1001963413640
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1001963413640
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.661489

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.661489
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208329696
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208329696
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.1.77-90
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.1.77-90
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9448-4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9448-4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2010.488118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2010.488118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00287.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00287.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260504267761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260504267761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027911
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2011.01365.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552324
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370010701836385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-2108
http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-2108
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490701263660
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022456626538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022456626538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.901284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.901284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.706333
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.03.001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.03.001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9697-x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9414-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9414-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sop.2006.49.1.67
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.
.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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/147470491000800307
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10461-007-9208-9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243213510782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243213510782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01542219
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01542219
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87568220903558596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87568220903558596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9841-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9841-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2329496515579761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J056v12n03_02“I Have,” “I Would,”
“I Won’t”: Hooking Up Amon ...Literature
ReviewMethodMeasuresHookup profileIndividual and family
background informationPersonal outlook and beliefsSexuality
and datingResultsDiscussionLimitationsReferences
Report: Research Article Summary
Part I:
Read the article assigned to your lab and then answer the
questions in Part I below.
Do not find your own
article for this assignment; use the one assigned to your lab.
The questions for Part I should be answered in complete

sentences, using your own words without using direct quotes.
You do not need to cite your source when answering these
questions as it is implied that your answers are derived from the
research article.
1.What is the hypothesis/hypotheses of the study? Restate it in
your own words.
2. Identify and describe 2 –3 studies in the Introduction that
support the hypothesis/hypotheses. That is, what past research
did the authors cite to support the hypotheses they’ve
generated?
3. Who were the participants in the study?
4. What are the main conceptual variables used in this study?
How was each variable operationally defined?
5. Identify the claim of the article, and explain the method the
researchers used to support that particular claim (e.g., “The
authors made a frequency claim...The research method used to
support the claim was...”).
6. What were the main findings of the article? In your
response, discuss whether the authors’ hypotheses were
supported or not supported.
Part II:
After answering the questions in Part I, summarize the article in
a paragraph. In writing your summary, limit yourself to 8
sentences, making sure to address each of the following
components in your summary:
Citation of the authors & publication date;
Purpose and/or hypotheses of the study;

Brief description of sample;
Brief description of the variables;
Brief description of how they collected their data;
Main findings & significance
After writing the summary, address the following bullet points
in another paragraph. You may use “I” in writing this
paragraph.
Describe a limitation to the research study. This should be a
limitation that the researchers did not mention in the articlethat
is your own perception of what was missing or what could have
been done more effectively in the research study.
Describe how a follow-up research study could address this
limitation. This future research suggestion should include a
hypothesis and a research method that will test the hypothesis.
Note that this future research suggestion should be your own
suggestion and not one mentioned in the article.
Describe an application of this research study. How could you
or (someone else) apply these results appropriately?
Include a full reference-style APA-formatted citation at the
end.
(See the example)

Guéguen et al. (2008) hypothesized that louder music in a bar
would be related to higher levels of beer consumption. Using
an observational approach, Guéguen et al. (2008) observed 40
men who ordered a beer in a bar that was playing either loud or
soft music. They found that the louder the music, the more beer
patrons drank, and the faster they finished their drinks. Sound
level did not affect the number of gulps it took to finish an 8 oz.
glass of beer. Guéguen et al. (2008) noted that bar owners
should be aware of how environmental conditions influence the
drinking behaviors of their patrons, as 1000s die every year
from alcohol consumption.
A limitation of this study was that they only looked at beer
drinkers would they have found the same results if they also
looked at hard alcohol consumption? Future research on this
subject could use an experimental approach to include different
kinds of alcohol, with the hypothesis being that louder music
will cause people to drink more beer or hard alcohol. An
application of this study would be to have bar owners put signs
up in the bar alerting people to watch how much they drink if
there is loud music
playing.

I Have,” I Would,” I Won’t” Hooking Up Among Sexually Dive.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to I Have,” I Would,” I Won’t” Hooking Up Among Sexually Dive.docx

Similar to I Have,” I Would,” I Won’t” Hooking Up Among Sexually Dive.docx (18)

More from wilcockiris

More from wilcockiris (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

I Have,” I Would,” I Won’t” Hooking Up Among Sexually Dive.docx