"Hookups": Characteristics and Correlates of College Students' Spontaneous and Anonymous Sexual Experiences.

Adolescents' and young adults' sexual attitudes and behaviors have been the focus of a flurry of research in the past decade, as the threat of HIV/AIDS for these groups has increased dramatically (e.g., Gardner & Wilcox, 1993; Gunn & Furstenberg, 1989). Of great concern are the high-risk behaviors engaged in by many adolescents and young adults (e.g., unprotected sex, large numbers of sex partners, judgment-inhibiting alcohol consumption) (Desiderato & Crawford, 1995). Moreover, the incidence of high-risk sexual practices seems to be on the rise (Maticka-Tyndale, 1991), especially on college campuses where norms of sexual permissiveness and multiple partners are influential (Chng & Moore, 1994). Placing these behaviors in the context of adolescents' and young adults' normative developmental preoccupation with sexual exploration and experimentation (Paul & White, 1990) highlights the complexity of their sexual risk-taking, challenging research and the development of prevention and intervention applications.

This study focuses on a specific risky practice common among contemporary college students: the hookup. Hookup is defined herein as a sexual encounter, usually lasting only one night, between two people who are strangers or brief acquaintances. Some physical sexual interaction is typical, but it may or may not include sexual intercourse. Such sexual experiences are usually spontaneous (i.e., something that "just happens"); alternately, the goal of hooking up is planned but the target of the hookup or the individual with whom the hookup occurs is unknown (see Rodberg, 1999, for a college student's corroboration of the definition of a hookup). In addition, hookups are usually anonymous in that the partners are strangers or only brief acquaintances and rarely continue to build a relationship, let alone see each other again.

This study focuses specifically on college culture in which hookups have become a prominent feature (Rodberg, 1999) and traditional-aged college students whose developmental preoccupations with autonomy and sexual interest and experimentation dovetail with such college cultural norms (Paul & White, 1990). In an effort to more accurately reflect the variations in sexual behaviors that are experienced during hookups, a unique contribution of the present study is the discrimination between coital and noncoital hookup experiences. This study addressed two main questions:

   (1) What social and psychological characteristics differentiate college
   students who engage in hookups from those who don't?

   (2) What characteristics distinguish individuals who have experienced
   hookups with sexual intercourse from those who have experienced noncoital
   hookups?

Casual Sex

An important focus of research on adolescents and young adults is sexual intercourse without commitment or emotional involvement, often referred to as casual sex (e.g., Winslow, Franzini, & Hwang, 1992). Casual sex is the category of sexual behavior into which hookups most closely fit. In most research, attitudes toward casual sex have been examined (e.g., Leigh, Aramburu, & Norris, 1992; Lottes, 1993). In fewer studies, the researchers have examined actual casual sexual behavior among young adults (e.g., Feeney, Noller, & Patty, 1993).

Casual sex often has not been explicitly defined in research literature. When casual sex was explicitly defined, it was operationalized in a variety of ways. Some researchers focused on the "one-night stand," wherein sexual intercourse occurred on one and only one occasion. Sometimes the prior or later relationship between the two individuals was irrelevant (e.g., Simpson & Gangestad, 1991); sometimes it was specified that sexual intercourse occurred during a first meeting and that the relationship may or may not continue (e.g., Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1993). Other researchers used very inclusive operationalizations of casual sex, including scenarios ranging from occasional sex with a partner with whom there was no strong emotional involvement to spontaneous sex with a partner with whom the individual had barely talked before sex (e.g., Winslow et al., 1992).

The common denominator in most studies of casual sex attitudes and behaviors is sexual intercourse in an uncommitted partnership. Whereas sexual intercourse is arguably riskier than many noncoital sexual acts (e.g., risks of pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.), encompassing a broader range of noncoital sexual behaviors in operationalizations of casual sex may more accurately reflect the variety of adolescents' and young adults' casual sexual experiences. In research on sociosexuality, Wright and Reise (1997) made a similar argument in their expansion of the operationalization of promiscuous sexual behavior to include noncoital sexual behaviors in addition to sexual intercourse. It is important to take this one step further, however, to differentiate between individuals who engage in noncoital versus coital casual partnerships, given the different degrees of potential risk involved. It is possible that different predictors underlie these two different forms of sexual experience. For example, individuals who experience sexual intercourse in the context of hookups may be motivated by different psychological (e.g., harm-approach, impulsiveness) and social (high levels of alcohol use) factors than individuals who experience noncoital sexual behaviors in hookups.

Researchers have considered many correlates of casual sex attitudes and behaviors, including psychological (e.g., personality dispositions, self-esteem, attachment style) and social (e.g., alcohol use, Greek membership) variables, and partner gender. Given the complexity of casual sexual experiences of hookups, a multivariate approach to understanding the relative importance of a variety of predictors seems most useful (Harvey & Spigner, 1995). In this study, social variables (alcohol use and alcohol intoxication symptomatology), individual psychological variables (exhibitionism, sensation-seeking, harm-avoidance, dependence, autonomy, and self-esteem), and relational psychological variables (attachment style, love style, fears of intimacy) were considered as possible predictors of coital or noncoital hookup experience. Participant gender was also considered in association with hookup experience.

Social Predictors

College campuses are characterized by sexual permissiveness and patterns of sexual activity with multiple or serial partners (Chng & Moore, 1994). Also prevalent on college campuses is alcohol use, a common coindicator of sexual activities, particularly risky ones (e.g., Desiderato & Crawford, 1995; Leigh & Schafer, 1993; for a review see Leigh & Stall, 1993). Theories abound about why alcohol use co-occurs so frequently with sexual activity. Leigh (1990) hypothesized that the purported disinhibitory powers of alcohol serve as an outcome expectancy, especially for sexually inhibited or nervous individuals. Some researchers argue that this perceived disinhibitory function is the reason for the greater role of alcohol in sexual activities for women (Leigh & Aramburu, 1996). Others argue that alcohol use by a woman is a powerful cue for men of the woman's sexual availability (Corcoran & Thomas, 1991). Reinarman and Leigh (1987) discuss the symbolic association of alcohol with romance. Alcohol may also serve as an anticipatory "excuse function" (Lang, 1985), promoting uncharacteristic behavior that individuals believe they can't be held accountable for when they are drunk (Cooper, Skinner, & George, 1990). Another possibility is that such personality dispositions as risk-taking, sensation-seeking, and impulsivity may underlie both sexual activity and alcohol use (Harvey & Spigner, 1995; Leigh, 1990; Temple & Leigh, 1992).

Alcohol use is strongly associated with casual sexual behavior. Desiderato & Crawford(1995) found that the frequency and quantity of college students' alcohol consumption was associated with the number of sexual partners in the last 11 weeks, and that alcohol consumption preceded the last occurrence of sex. Gold, Karmiloff-Smith, Skinner, and Morton (1992) found intoxication to be a predictive factor at all points in casual sexual encounters (from the beginning of the encounter to the period of sexual contact); the highest level of intoxication occurred at the start of sexual intercourse. Moreover, males and females were found to be more likely to consume alcohol when they were less well acquainted with their partner (Temple & Leigh, 1992). Thus, in the present study it was hypothesized that alcohol use (both in terms of frequency and severity of intoxication symptomatology) would be more prevalent among individuals who experienced hookups. Desiderato and Crawford (1995) asserted that alcohol may reduce effective evaluation and forthright communication; thus, attempts to stop short of sexual intercourse are likely to be ineffective even if present. More specifically, then, it was expected that alcohol use would be most prevalent among individuals who experienced coital hookups, moderately prevalent among individuals who experienced noncoital hookups, and minimally prevalent among individuals who had not experienced hookups.

Individual Psychological Predictors

Research on sociosexuality and individual differences in interest in, and the tendency to engage in uncommitted sexual intercourse has effectively discriminated between individuals with restricted (i.e., nonpermissive) and unrestricted (i.e., permissive) dispositions (e.g., Simpson & Gangestad, 1992). Unrestricted individuals rated attraction and social visibility as more important than personal characteristics in dating partners (Simpson & Gangestad, 1992), suggesting that unrestricted individuals are higher on exhibitionism. Unrestricted individuals were found to be higher on sensation-seeking, such as individual differences in attempts to reach one's optimal level of physical and emotional stimulation (Hernandez & DiClemente, 1992; Seal & Agostinelli, 1994). Sensation-seeking has been found to be positively associated with a range of sexual activities including the number of sex partners (Walsh, 1991) and sexual impulsivity (Zuckerman, Buchsbaum, & Murphy, 1980). Similarly, Winslow et al. (1992) found low impulse control to be a central predictor of risky casual sexual behaviors and resistance to changing sexual practices. Individuals who were unrestricted on sociosexuality also manifested greater disinhibition (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) and less harm-avoidance (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990). Thus, in the present study it was expected that individuals who exhibited unrestricted sociosexuality by experiencing hookups, especially coital hookups, would be higher on exhibitionism, sensation-seeking, and impulsivity, and lower on harm-avoidance. Moreover, this rebellious personality profile also predicts a strident desire for autonomy or freedom from perceived social constraints among individuals who experienced hookups.

Another theme in research on adolescents' and young adults' sexual behavior is peer norms and peer pressure (e.g., Maticka-Tyndale, Herold, & Mewhinney, 1998). Costanzo and Shaw (1966) argued that group pressure is less an issue than individual willingness to conform to group attitudes and norms, especially for females (Brown, 1982). For example, adolescents' perceptions of their friends' liberal sexual attitudes and sexual activity influenced their own sexual choices (Hayes, 1987). Thus, it appears that dependence or overreliance on others' advice and expectations is associated with susceptibility to peer norms and influence. In the present study, it was hypothesized that individuals who had experienced hookups would be higher on dependence or succorance than individuals who had not experienced hookups.

The relationship between self-esteem and casual sexual attitudes and behaviors is complex. Evidence is contradictory regarding whether self-esteem plays a positive or negative function in the initiation of casual sexual behavior. Walsh (1991) suspected that implications of self-esteem for casual sexual behavior fluctuate with changing social norms defining acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Such social norms also likely intersect with sex roles defining the parameters of social- and self-laudatory behavior. For example, Walsh found that college men with high self-esteem had significantly more sex partners. MacDonald, Ebert, and Mason (1987) suggested that self-esteem is a necessary prophylactic for men against risk of rejection faced in sexual encounters. Moreover, sexual behavior was socially rewarding for men (Herold & Mewhinney, 1993). In contrast, adolescent girls with low self-worth were more susceptible to peer influence on sexuality (Whitbeck, Conger, & Kao, 1993). Casual sex may lead to further decline in women's self-esteem (Herold & Mewhinney, 1993), reflecting the costs of violating social expectations and norms. Thus, in the present study it was hypothesized that self-esteem would be a negative correlate of hookups for women and a positive correlate for men.

Relational Psychological Predictors

Internal working models of attachment have been useful in predicting various patterns of adult romantic relating (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), including sexual mating behaviors in both committed and uncommitted romantic relationships (Shaver & Hazan, 1988). Shaver and Hazan offered some initial predictions about sexual experiences characteristic of each attachment style: Secure individuals experience greater mutual intimacy and pleasure in sexual relationships, avoidant individuals tend toward promiscuity in an effort to maintain emotional distance, and anxious individuals use sex to satisfy their needs for security and love. Feeney and colleagues have grounded some of these hypotheses in evidence: Feeney and Noller (1990) found that individuals with an anxious attachment style experienced more frequent, intense, and rapid physical and emotional romantic involvements. Individuals with an avoidant attachment style, in keeping with their characteristic emotional distance, had greater acceptance of casual involvements (Feeney et al., 1993). Thus, it appears that individuals who experience hookups will be more likely to have an avoidant attachment style.

Relatedly, Lee (1973) used the metaphor of "colors of love" to reflect individual differences in approaches to or styles of relating in interpersonal relationships. Lee delineated six love types: Agape (altruistic love), Eros (passionate love), Ludus (game-playing love), Mania (obsessive love), Pragma (practical love), and Storge (friendship love). Individuals with an avoidant attachment style are likely to have a ludic love style, demonstrating low commitment in romantic relationships, the use of sex for fun rather than as an expression of intimacy, and acceptance of multiple relationships (Feeney & Noller, 1990; Frey & Hojjat, 1998; Levy & Davis, 1988). Thus, we expected ludic individuals to be more likely to have experienced hookups. In addition, it was expected that individuals with an erotic love style were more likely to have experienced hookups given their focus on passion and physical pleasure. In contrast, storgic, pragmatic, and agapic individuals were hypothesized to be the least likely to have experienced hookups.

Lastly, Feeney et al. (1993) speculated that avoidant individuals were "possibly using sexual activity to avoid other forms of intimacy such as verbal disclosure" (p. 177). Similarly, Simpson and Gangestad (1991) speculated that one possible motivation underlying engaging in uncommitted sex is the lack of interest in or the capacity for becoming psychologically involved and emotionally close to partners. Thus, it seems likely that fears of intimacy may underlie casual sexual behaviors for some individuals.

Participant Gender

Stereotypes abound regarding women's and men's sexual interests and activities. Traditional gender roles set up different sexual expectations (i.e., a double standard) for men and women: Men are the initiators of sexual activity, women limit and resist sexual activity; men are more sexually active, women tie sex to romance and are more concerned with affection than sex (e.g., DeLamater, 1987; Peplau & Gordon, 1985). Yet, evidence of gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors is mixed. Some studies have found continued prevalence of a gender differential (e.g., Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1993). Others noted convergence in males' and females' sexual attitudes and activities (e.g., Herold & Mewhinney, 1993; Netting, 1992) or at least greater variance within than between the sexes (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). Still others found sex-role-reversed findings. For example, Levinson, Jaccard, and Beamer (1995) found that positive attitudes toward casual sex were more likely to translate into behavior (more casual sex partners) for women than for men.

Part of the answer to this puzzle may lie in the specific subculture being studied. Sexuality occupies a central place in adolescent and young adult culture (Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg, 1990). In late adolescence, strong social-motivational factors are at work creating a potent need to comply with perceived peer sexual norms (Winslow et al., 1992). This pressure may generalize across gender, creating as much motivation for females as for males to engage in sexual activity. In fact, research has suggested that such peer influence may exert an even greater impact on adolescent girls' sexual attitudes and behaviors than boys' (Brown, 1982). In support of this convergence, Sprague and Quadagno (1989) suspect that there is more similarity than difference between heterosexual men's and women's sexual needs and motivations (though there may be differences in emotional aftermath). Similarly, research suggests that when selecting casual sexual partners, males and females seek similar mate characteristics and therefore may have similar needs to be fulfilled in the short-term mating context (Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993; Regan, 1998). Thus, in the present study, we expected little difference in males' and females' engagement in hookups or in the predictors of their hookup experience.

Finally, in this multivariate analysis, we explored which variables were most useful in explaining college students' hookup experience.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were a random sample of 555 undergraduate students at a state college in the northeastern United States. Six hundred students were randomly selected (using a random numbers table) from a student roster of all full-time students living on campus. A research assistant delivered a questionnaire packet, including a detailed informed consent form, to each selected student's campus mailbox. If students agreed to volunteer, they signed the informed consent form, completed the questionnaire in private (the questionnaire took approximately 45 minutes to complete), and returned the signed informed consent form and completed questionnaire in separate envelopes marked "confidential" through inter-campus mail. Reminder cards were sent one week after the initial mailing. The response rate was 92.5%.

The sample was comprised of 37.5% males and 62.5% females, ranging in age from 17 to 26 (modal ages were 20 and 21). Juniors (35%) and Seniors (39%) were overrepresented in the sample. Participants were 86% White/non-Hispanic, 6% African American, 4% Hispanic, and 3% Asian students. Participants were predominantly Christian (80%; 62% Roman Catholic). The gender, race, and religion distribution of the sample was representative of the college population. The age range was also representative of the residential college population; there are very few full-time non-traditional-aged students in residence at the college. Sexual orientation was not a conditional factor for participation; 98% of the sample was heterosexual.

Measures

Hookup questionnaire. Participants were provided with our definition of hookup: "A sexual encounter, usually only lasting one night, between two people who are strangers or brief acquaintances. Some physical interaction is typical but may or may not include sexual intercourse," and were asked whether they had experienced one or more hookups. They were asked to estimate how many times they had "hooked up" each year in college, and they were also asked if any of their hookups included sexual intercourse. A three-group hookup experience variable was created based on these questions: 1 = no hookup experience, 2 = hookup experience without sexual intercourse, and 3 = hookup experience with sexual intercourse. Participants were then asked to think about a hookup that was typical of their experiences and to respond to a checklist of potential hookup characteristics and post-hookup feelings. This checklist was generated by focus groups conducted in the past year with college students. Potential hookup characteristics included "We never saw each other again," "I don't remember what we did," "The only way I know what happened is from my friends' stories the next day," "I was drinking alcohol," "My partner was drinking alcohol," "We used a condom," "We used birth control (other than a condom)," "We were at a Greek party/event," "I felt pressured to engage in sexual behavior," "I felt out-of-control," "The hookup evolved into a romantic relationship."

Alcohol consumption frequency and intoxication symptomatology. Participants rated how often they drank alcohol using a 6-point scale, with defined increments ranging from never to every day. In addition, participants rated how often they experienced 11 different intoxication symptoms when they drank alcohol, using a 5-point rating scale ranging from never to always. Symptoms included blurred vision, difficulty walking, lack of awareness of behaviors, vomiting, increased sexual desire, aggressiveness, impaired hearing, slurred speech, difficulty performing simple tasks, passing out, and loss of inhibition. An alcohol intoxication symptomatology score was created by counting the number of symptoms (out of 11 in total) individuals reported experiencing sometimes or more often in connection with alcohol consumption.

Exhibition, sentience, impulsivity, harm-avoidance, autonomy, succorance. Abbreviated subscales of Jackson's Personality Research Form (PRF) (Jackson, 1967) were used to assess six personality variables: Exhibition indicates engaging in dramatic or entertaining behavior and liking being the center of attention; Sentience reflects high sensitivity to various experiences and attention to sensation; Impulsivity taps a tendency toward spontaneity, volatility, and free expression; Harm-avoidance reflects a maximization of personal safety and the avoidance of harm, danger, and risk; Autonomy indicates efforts to break away from restraints and to be free and unattached; and Succorance reflects dependency on others and often is underlain with insecurity and helplessness. The PRF has been extensively validated, including convergent validation through associations with trait attribution and behavioral description data (see Jackson).

The original PRF scales contain 20 items each. Given data collection constraints, we had to abbreviate the six scales. To do so, we administered the full PRF to a separate sample of 206 college students and selected the three items with the highest item-total correlations from each of the six scales listed above. The internal consistency of each of the 3-item subscales was assessed by Cronbach's alpha and ranged from .93 to .97. The abbreviated subscales also necessitated a response format that contributed greater variance to subscale scores. The true/false format of the PRF would limit variability in a 3-item subscale. Thus, a 5-point Likert scale was used ranging from I (not at all like me) to 5 (extremely like me). Items were summed to obtain scale scores.

Harter's Self-Perception Profile for College Students: "What I Am Like." The "What I Am Like" subtest of Harter's Self-Perception Profile for College Students (Neemann & Harter, 1986) contains 54 items assessing college students' global self-worth and perceptions of their competencies or abilities in 12 domains. The Global Self-Esteem subscale (comprising six items) was used in this study.

A format was used for this measure that would reduce the social desirability biases that often plague self-esteem measures (Neemann & Harter, 1986). Each question asked students to indicate which of two types of students they are most like. Participants were then given a choice of endorsing the type as really true for me or sort of true for me. Thus, a 4-point scale was used, ranging from 1 (least adequate/competent self-judgment) to 4 (most adequate/competent self-judgment). The mean of items in the subscale was used in the analyses reported herein. A high score indicated high overall self-satisfaction. Internal consistency of the Global Self-Esteem subscale was assessed via Cronbach's alpha; in the present sample alpha was .92. Some support for convergent validity has been demonstrated (Neemann & Harter, 1986).

Attachment style. Hazan and Shaver's (1987) Close Relationships Questionnaire was used to assess attachment style. The first part of this measure uses a forced-choice format. Respondents were asked to select one of three descriptions of relationship attitudes, expectancies, and experiences that most closely resembles their close relationship experiences. Then, respondents rated each description on a 7-point Likert-type scale to indicate the extent to which each description is reflective of their experiences (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, 7 = very much). This measure has been found to have high predictive validity (Hazan & Shaver).

Love styles. An abbreviated form of Hendrick and Hendrick's (1986) Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) was used to assess love styles. This measure contains six subscales assessing the love styles identified in Lee's (1973) colors of love typology: Agape (altruistic love), Eros (passionate love), Ludus (game-playing love), Mania (obsessive love), Pragma (practical love), and Storge (friendship love). Three of the seven items in each subscale were chosen for the present abbreviated form. Based on a separate sample of 206 college students, the three items with the highest item-total correlation were selected. Internal consistency of these abbreviated scales was assessed by Cronbach's alpha and ranged from .87 to .93. A 5-point scale was used (1 = not at all like me, 5 = extremely like me). Items were averaged to obtain scale scores. An active construct validation program adequately demonstrates the validity (especially convergent validity) of the LAS (see reviews in Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989, 1992).

Fears of intimacy. Hatfield (1984) identified six fears of intimacy in an effort to address the question, "Why are people reluctant to become intimate with others?" (p. 209): fears of (a) exposure, (b) abandonment, (c) angry attacks, (d) loss of control, (e) one's own destructive impulses, and (f) losing one's individuality or being engulfed. For the purposes of the present study, a brief 6-item questionnaire was developed to assess preoccupation with each of these fears. A 5-point Likert rating scale was used (1 = not at all like me to 5 = extremely like me). Each item was used individually to represent a different fear of intimacy.

RESULTS

Hookup Features and Associated Personal Characteristics

Respondents were grouped according to hookup experience: 120 participants had never experienced a hookup (No-HU), 266 had experienced at least one hookup none of which included sexual intercourse (HU), and 169 had experienced at least one hookup including sexual intercourse (HU-Sex). HU and HU-Sex participants reported an average of 10.8 hookup experiences (standard deviation = 13.61, median = 6) with a range of 0 to 65 per year in college. Hookup experience was associated with current romantic relationship involvement ([X.sup.2](2) = 11.52, p [is less than] .003) whereby individuals currently romantically involved were more likely to have no hookup experience as compared with individuals who were not currently romantically involved (26% vs. 16.1%). There was no significant difference between the romantically involved or uninvolved in noncoital hookup experience. Romantically involved individuals were less likely to have coital hookup experience than romantically uninvolved individuals (26% vs. 36.4%). For romantically involved individuals, there was an association between hookup experience and current romantic relationship length (F(2,297) = 15.11, p [is less than] .001): No-HU individuals had significantly longer romantic relationship commitments (m = 28.2 months, sd = 19.95) than either HU (m = 17.41 months, sd = 16.37) or HU-Sex individuals (m = 14.3 months, sd = 14.33).

Seventy-eight percent of males and females experienced hookups. Significantly more males (47.5% of those who had hooked up) than females (33.3%) had engaged in sexual intercourse when they hooked up ([X.sup.2](2) = 8.78, p [is less than] .001). Six percent of HU and 14% of HU-Sex respondents reported that they relied on friends' stories the next day to piece together what had happened during the hookup ([X.sup.2](1) = 8.03, p [is less than] .018). Forty-four percent of HU and HU-Sex respondents experienced hookups at Greek parties or events. In terms of protection against sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, 81% of HU-Sex reported using a condom, 25% of HU-Sex reported using other forms of birth control. Twenty-eight percent of HU and 49% of HU-Sex respondents never saw their hookup partner again ([X.sup.2](1) = 19.55, p [is less than] .001). Only 12% of HU and HU-Sex participants indicated that a hookup had evolved into a romantic relationship; the average duration of the romantic relationship that resulted was 4 months. An average of 16% of HU and HU-Sex respondents felt pressured during the hookup. Twelve percent of the HU and 22% of the HU-Sex respondents felt out of control during the hookup ([X.sup.2](1) = 9.08, p [is less than] .003).

Multivariate Analysis of Hookup Predictors

Descriptive statistics for alcohol use, personality, self-esteem, attachment, love style, and fear of intimacy variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for all Predictor Variables 

Predictor variables                       M      sd    Actual range

Alcohol use
  Alcohol consumption frequency          3.37   1.39      1 - 6
  Alcohol intoxication symptomatology    3.62   2.83      0 - 11
Personality characteristics
  Exhibition                             8.43   2.75      3 - 15
  Sentience                             12.02   2.07      5 - 15
  Impulsivity                            8.29   2.73      3 - 15
  Harm-avoidance                         8.99   2.49      3 - 15
  Autonomy                               8.42   2.59      3 - 15
  Succorance                            10.79   2.29      3 - 15
Self-esteem                             14.94   3.21      5 - 20
Attachment styles
  Secure                                 4.72   1.75      1 - 7
  Anxious / ambivalent                   3.71   1.86      1 - 7
  Avoidant                               3.61   1.81      1 - 7
Love styles
  Agape                                 11.05   2.60      3 - 15
  Eros                                   9.95   2.59      3 - 15
  Ludus                                  7.10   2.92      3 - 15
  Mania                                  7.68   2.96      3 - 15
  Pragma                                 8.24   2.78      3 - 15
  Storge                                10.21   2.80      3 - 15
Fears of intimacy
  Exposure                               2.34   1.17      1 - 5
  Abandonment                            2.20   1.19      1 - 5
  Angry attacks                          2.38   1.24      1 - 5
  Loss of control                        2.14   1.20      1 - 5
  One's own destructive impulses         2.43   1.28      1 - 5
  Losing one's individuality             1.93   1.08      1 - 5

Predictor variables                      Possible range

Alcohol use
  Alcohol consumption frequency              1 - 6
  Alcohol intoxication symptomatology        0 - 11
Personality characteristics
  Exhibition                                 3 - 15
  Sentience                                  3 - 15
  Impulsivity                                3 - 15
  Harm-avoidance                             3 - 15
  Autonomy                                   3 - 15
  Succorance                                 3 - 15
Self-esteem                                  5 - 20
Attachment styles
  Secure                                     1 - 7
  Anxious / ambivalent                       1 - 7
  Avoidant                                   1 - 7
Love styles
  Agape                                      3 - 15
  Eros                                       3 - 15
  Ludus                                      3 - 15
  Mania                                      3 - 15
  Pragma                                     3 - 15
  Storge                                     3 - 15
Fears of intimacy
  Exposure                                   1 - 5
  Abandonment                                1 - 5
  Angry attacks                              1 - 5
  Loss of control                            1 - 5
  One's own destructive impulses             1 - 5
  Losing one's individuality                 1 - 5

Note. n = 555.

A 3 X 2 between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance was performed on alcohol use, personality, self-esteem, attachment, love style, and fear of intimacy variables as dependent variables (DVs). Independent variables were hookup group (No-HU, HU, HU-Sex) and sex (female, male). Results of tests of outliers and assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, linearity, and multicollinearity were satisfactory.

With the use of Wilks' criterion, the combined DVs were significantly associated with both hookup group (F(52,870) = 3.30, p [is less than] .001) and sex (F(26, 435) = 3.64, p [is less than] .001), but only marginally with their interaction (F(52,870) = 1.34, p [is less than] .06). The results reflected a strong association between the combined DVs and hookup group ([[Eta].sup.2] = .30), a moderate association between the combined DVs and sex ([[Eta].sup.2] = .18), and a more negligible association between the combined DVs and the hookup group X sex interaction ([[Eta].sup.2] = .14).

Pooled within-cell correlations, adjusted for independent variables, were rarely in excess of .30, making interpretation of univariate F-tests useful in investigating the impact of each main effect on the individual dependent variables. The only pooled within-cell correlations that exceeded .30 were intercorrelations among fears of intimacy. Correlations were not high enough to warrant collapsing individual fears of intimacy, but were high enough to suggest caution in interpreting univariate F-tests for specific fears of intimacy as independent. Univariate F-tests confirm the primary importance of hookup group, the secondary importance of sex, and the slim importance of the interaction between hookup group and sex in association with many of the dependent variables. Results of univariate F-tests are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Univariate F-tests for all Dependent Variables by Hookup Group, Sex, and Hookup X Sex

                                        Independent Variable

Dependent variables                     Hookup group   Sex

  Alcohol use
  Alcohol consumption frequency           .33          1.12
  Alcohol intoxication symptomatology   21.44(***)      .07
Personality characteristics
  Exhibition                             4.47(**)       .38
  Sentience                               .32          2.06
  Impulsivity                            7.76(***)     1.06
  Harm-avoidance                         6.51(***)    12.46(***) m
  Autonomy                               5.77(***)     9.79(***) m
  Succorance                             4.35(**)     18.22(***) f
Self-esteem                              5.06(**)       .63
Attachment styles
  Secure                                 6.68(***)      .08
  Anxious / ambivalent                    .93           .01
  Avoidant                               3.07(*)       4.73(*) m
Love styles
  Agape                                  8.31(***)      .15
  Eros                                  11.93(***)     2.46
  Ludus                                 15.11(***)     7.87(***) m
  Mania                                   .37           .97
  Pragma                                 2.93(*)       1.13
  Storge                                 8.40(***)     2.77
Fears of intimacy
  Exposure                               3.82(*)        .07
  Abandonment                            2.40           .72
  Angry attacks                           .19           .70
  Loss of control                        1.46           .42
  One's own destructive impulses         5.13(**)      6.15(**) m
  Losing one's individuality            12.18(***)     2.57

Dependent variables                     Hookup X Sex

  Alcohol use
  Alcohol consumption frequency          .14
  Alcohol intoxication symptomatology    .17
Personality characteristics
  Exhibition                            2.77
  Sentience                              .29
  Impulsivity                            .73
  Harm-avoidance                         .27
  Autonomy                              1.03
  Succorance                            1.15
Self-esteem                             1.11
Attachment styles
  Secure                                2.12
  Anxious / ambivalent                  1.47
  Avoidant                              1.01
Love styles
  Agape                                 6.31(***)
  Eros                                   .16
  Ludus                                 2.09
  Mania                                 3.31(*)
  Pragma                                2.65
  Storge                                2.48
Fears of intimacy
  Exposure                               .88
  Abandonment                           1.02
  Angry attacks                          .06
  Loss of control                       2.08
  One's own destructive impulses        2.20
  Losing one's individuality            2.17

Note. A Bonferroni-type correction was applied for inflated Type I error. Alpha was assigned such that alphas for the set of DVs did not exceed the critical value of .05 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). For the independent variable Hookup Group, all alphas less than .01 total .05. For the independent variable Sex, all alphas less than .05 total .05. For the Hookup X Sex interaction, only the F for agape was statistically significant. Sex differences are indicated by "m" if males were higher or "f" if females were higher.

(*) p < .05. (**) p < .01. (***) p < .001.

Post hoc comparisons of hookup groups were conducted for statistically significant univariate F-tests (p [is less than] .01) using Duncan's Multiple Range Test (p [is less than] .05). Significantly more alcohol intoxication symptomatology was experienced by HU-Sex individuals (m = 4.57, sd = 2.69) than HU individuals (m = 3.75, sd = 2.80), whose alcohol intoxication symptomatology was greater than No-HU individuals (m = 1.90, sd = 2.34).

No-HU individuals had significantly higher self-esteem (m = 15.72, sd = 3.14) than HU and HU-Sex individuals (m = 14.67, sd = 3.02; m = 14.81, sd = 3.46, respectively). No-HU individuals endorsed a secure attachment style more strongly (m = 5.11, sd = 1.59) than HU and HU-Sex individuals (m = 4.65, sd = 1.71 and m = 4.57, sd = 1.90, respectively).

Post hoc comparisons of hookup groups for personality characteristics are presented in Figure 1. Post hoc comparisons of hookup groups for love styles are presented in Figures 2 and 3. Post hoc comparisons of hookup groups for fears of intimacy are presented in Figure 4.

[Figures 1-4 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In sum, some variables distinguished between individuals who had and had not experienced hookups, regardless of coital experience. Individuals who had not experienced hookups were significantly lower on exhibition, ludus, and fear of one's own destructive impulses, and higher on self-esteem and endorsement of a secure attachment style. Some variables distinguished between individuals who had experienced coital hookups and all other participants (No-HU and HU). Individuals who had experienced coital hookups were significantly higher on impulsivity and eros, and lower on harm-avoidance and succorance. Individuals who had experienced coital hookups were significantly higher on autonomy than individuals who had not experienced hookups.

Some variables distinguished between all three hookup groups in a linear fashion. Alcohol intoxication symptomatology and fear of loss of individuality significantly increased across hookup groups (No-HU [is less than] HU [is less than] HU-Sex). The love styles of storge and agape (for males only) decreased across hookup groups (No-HU [is greater than] HU [is greater than] HU-Sex). For females, the love style of agape was significantly greater for individuals who had not hooked up as compared to individuals who had experienced noncoital hookups.

The association between attachment style and hookup group was also assessed using the forced-choice attachment style assessment. Forty-eight percent of the participants endorsed the secure attachment style, 21% chose the avoidant style, and 31% chose the anxious style. Chi-square tests were conducted for each attachment style (yes = endorsement, no = endorsement of another style) by hookup group. There was a significant association between avoidant attachment style and hookup group ([X.sup.2](1) = 5.88, p [is less than] .05), whereby more individuals with an avoidant attachment style were in the HU-Sex group (36.4% vs. 28.9%) and more individuals who did not endorse the avoidant attachment style were in the No-HU group (23.2% vs. 13.6%).

Discriminant Function Analysis of Hookup Group Membership

A stepwise discriminant function analysis was performed to assess prediction of membership in the three hookup groups from the alcohol use, personality, self-esteem, attachment, love style, and fear of intimacy variables. To be conservative, sex was also entered into the discriminant function analysis in light of the differential sex composition of the hookup groups. Four variables most significantly discriminated among hookup groups: alcohol intoxication symptomatology, the love styles of ludus and storge, and harm-avoidance.

Two discriminant functions were calculated. The two discriminant functions accounted for 91% and 9%, respectively, of the between-group variability. The first discriminant function maximally separated the No-HU group from the HU-Sex group. The second discriminant function differentiated the HU group from the other two groups. The loading matrix of correlations between predictors and discriminant functions (see Table 3) suggested that the best predictors for distinguishing between No-HU respondents and HU-Sex respondents were alcohol intoxication symptomatology and the love style of ludus. To a lesser degree, low scores on the love style of storge were also predictive. The best predictors for distinguishing between HU participants and the other two groups were high harm-avoidance and a ludic love style. Table 4 reports the classification results from the discriminant function analysis.

Table 3. Results of Discriminant Function Analysis of Hookup Predictors

                                        Correlations of predictor
                                             variables with
                                          discriminant functions

Predictor variable entered in
  stepwise discriminant analysis      1                        2

Alcohol intoxication symptomatology    .65                   .23
Love style: Ludus                      .50                   .50
Love style: Storge                    -.43                   .27
Harm-avoidance                         .19                   .94
Canonical R                            .40                   .14
Eigenvalue                             .19                   .02
[X.sup.2]                             90.06(***) (df = 8)
% variance                            91.10                 8.9

Predictor variable entered in
  stepwise discriminant analysis            Exact F (df)

Alcohol intoxication symptomatology    22.9(***) (2,463)
Love style: Ludus                     17.38(***) (4,924)
Love style: Storge                    13.97(***) (6,922)
Harm-avoidance                        11.79(***) (8,920)
Canonical R
Eigenvalue
[X.sup.2]                               8.65(*) (df = 3)
% variance

(*) p < .05. (***) p < .001.

Table 4. Classification Results of Discriminant Function Analysis of Hookup Predictors

                                     Group Membership
               Predicted
Actual group     cases         1            2             3

1 (No-HU)         109      71 (65.1%)   22 (20.2%)    16 (14.7%)
2 (HU)            257      81 (31.5%)   74 (28.8%)   102 (39.7%)
3 (HU-Sex)        169      41 (24.3%)   35 (20.7%)    93 (55.0%)

DISCUSSION

This study identifies and explores a common contemporary sexual behavior pattern on college campuses: hookups. Over three fourths of the participants had experienced at least one hookup; a third of the participants had sexual intercourse with a stranger or brief acquaintance. From the distribution of self-reported frequency of hookups, it can be inferred that some students are hooking up on a weekly basis. The rate of hookups reported in this study seems high in comparison with other studies of contemporary college students' casual sexual behavior. For example, Maticka-Tyndale et al. (1998) reported that 61% of males and 34% of females in their sample of college students planning to participate in spring break activities reported that they had had coitus within 24 hours of meeting a partner; however, 15% of men and 13% of women had engaged in casual sexual intercourse while on spring break. As predicted, social, personality, and individual psychological variables helped to explain the variance among college students' hookup experiences. Furthermore, individuals who typically engage in noncoital hookups are different from individuals who typically engage in coital hookups in terms of social, personality, and individual psychological characteristics. Had previous definitions of casual sex restricted to sexual intercourse been employed in this study, a substantial percentage of potentially risky casual sexual interactions would have been overlooked. Thus, by examining the full range of sexual involvement characteristic of the casual sexual phenomenon of hooking up (i.e., noncoital and coital), we are able to achieve a more differentiated understanding of college students' casual sexual experimentation. Future research should elaborate on this distinction by examining specific sexual behaviors that characterize noncoital hookups.

Hookup Experiences and Degrees of Risk

In some ways, individuals who had not experienced hookups, individuals who had experienced noncoital hookups, and those who had experienced coital hookups can be ordered hierarchically in terms of riskiness: The more sexual involvement in hookup experiences, the more severe the alcohol intoxication symptomatology, the higher the fear of intimacy concerning the loss of individuality through relationships, and the less likely that relationship approaches were based on friendship or altruism. Individuals who had experienced hookups including sexual intercourse were differentiated from all other individuals by high impulsivity, low concern for personal safety, low dependency, their erotic or passionate approach to relationships, and their avoidant attachment style. These individuals also had a higher proclivity toward the attainment of autonomy (evidenced by greater rebelliousness) as compared to individuals who had never hooked up. In contrast, individuals who had never hooked up preferred not to be the center of attention, were not fearful of intimacy owing to their own destructive impulses, and were least likely to have a game-playing orientation to romantic relating. Moreover, these individuals were highest on self-esteem and were more securely attached.

Key distinguishing features of individuals who had experienced coital hookups were alcohol intoxication symptomatology and a ludic (i.e., game-playing) love style. The powerful predictive role of alcohol intoxication symptomatology in coital hookups is consistent with Desiderato and Crawford's (1995) observation that effective evaluation and communication is thwarted upon intoxication, making attempts to stop short of sexual intercourse unlikely and ineffective. It is important to note that frequency of alcohol use was not predictive of hookup experience, whereas intoxication symptomatology was maximally predictive. Actual or perceived symptoms of intoxication play a large role in risky sexual activities (Leigh, 1990; Leigh & Aramburu, 1996). Indeed, the overwhelming majority of hookup experiences included alcohol use by both partners. Intoxication can make a ludic or game-playing love style dangerous. Individuals with a ludic love style are motivated by the thrill of the game. Their goal is likely to be sexual conquest rather than emotional connection; we describe their typical relationship pattern as "conquer then divide." With the perceived or actual alcohol intoxication symptoms of lowered inhibitions and aggressive behavior, such a ludic orientation might be a precursor to coital hookup experiences that are forced and unwanted by the partner.

In contrast, it was difficult to discriminate individuals who had experienced noncoital hookups from others. Key distinguishing features of individuals who had experienced noncoital hookups were high concern with personal safety and a ludic love style. It appears likely that these individuals might be conforming to college culture expectations by engaging in normative "playful" sexual exploration, but their concern about personal safety keeps them from taking the step to sexual intercourse.

Gender Differences in Hookup Experiences and Predictors

While there was no overall sex difference in the likelihood of engaging in hookup experiences, there were sex differences in the prevalence of coital and noncoital hookup experiences. More males reported coital hookups and more females reported noncoital hookups. This is consistent with previous research that has triggered questions about the meaning of such a sex difference. In this predominantly heterosexual sample, perhaps more males are coitally hooking up with a smaller group of females who more frequently coitally hookup.

While there were a few sex differences on some of the personality and individual psychological variables, rarely did males and females differ in terms of social, personality, and individual psychological predictors of hookup experience. Contrary to our prediction based on the continued sexual double standard for men and women that self-esteem would be lower for women who had experienced hookups and higher for men who had experienced hookups, all individuals who had hooked up had lower self-esteem. Only the hookup experience differences on the love style of agape (altruistic love) differed for men and women: females who experienced coital hookups were significantly more agapic or altruistic than males who experienced coital hookups. This finding may reflect differential sex role expectations in the motives for engaging in sexual intercourse. Traditional sex role expectations dictate that females owe sexual gratification to males; thus, capping off a hookup with sexual intercourse might be viewed by a female as an altruistic act--something they must do even if they don't want to. Indeed, even if females did not feel this way during the hookup, they may be more likely to explain or rationalize their sexual behavior this way after the fact because of the societal message that "good girls don't."

It is important to note, however, that the relative absence of differences between males and females in social, personality, and psychological correlates of hookup experiences says little about the phenomenology of hookups. What is the emotional experience of males and females engaging in noncoital or coital hookups? It is possible that gender, or the internalization of the social construction of maleness and femaleness in American culture, is strongly associated with hookup phenomenology. As Edgar and Fitzpatrick (1993) report, gender stereotypes remain very prevalent in casual sex scripts, creating greater guilt among individuals (especially feminine women) who transgress cultural norms (Simon & Gagnon, 1986). Moreover, such strong cultural expectations may prompt individuals to engage in sexual interactions that, while possibly pleasurable, also make them feel uncomfortable or confused. In fact, the emotional phenomenology and emotional risks of casual sexual experiences such as hookups have been understudied in comparison with physical experiences and risks. Future research will explore the emotional experience of hookups for men and women and the degree to which endorsement of traditional or nontraditional gender roles is associated with this phenomenology.

Directionality of Associations Between Hookup Experience and Psychological Factors

The directionality of the present correlational findings remains to be determined. It is most likely that personality traits and some psychological factors (e.g., attachment) predispose individuals to engage in hookups. It is likely that both excessive alcohol use (to the point of intoxication) and casual sexual behavior (especially coital involvement) are rooted in personality traits associated with risk-taking (Leigh & Schafer, 1993). Some factors may have a bidirectional relationship with hookup involvement. Low self-esteem may prompt "self-less" sexual involvements. But hookups that one regrets during or after may diminish self-esteem.

Other factors with interesting potential bidirectional associations with hookup involvement are love styles and fears of intimacy. While certain love styles (e.g., eros, ludus) may drive individuals toward hookups, hookup experiences may also aid in the development of and reinforcement of these "anti-emotional-intimacy" love styles. Likewise, someone who is avoidant or fearful of intimate relationships may desire the anonymity of hookups or may hookup as their best attempt to meet their emotional needs; hookup experiences may also imbue or provide reinforcement for such an avoidant or fearful stance. Individuals who frequently hookup (including sexual intercourse) are less likely to have other, more emotionally-involved romantic relationship experience. Thus, they have little alternate experience to help them desire or work toward another more emotionally-involved relationship style. Indeed, in terms of love styles, it is possible that one's approach to romantic relationships is quite different from their approach to casual sexual relationships; future research might assess love styles within specific relational contexts (romantic relationships, casual sexual relationships) to explore this possibility.

Longitudinal study is needed to tease apart the directional nature of relationships among social and psychological factors and hookup experience. Following adolescents from as early as junior high school through early adulthood would help to untangle triggers to hookups and their sequelae (e.g., psychological health, relational orientation); it is interesting to note that in recording the number of times they had hooked up in each year of college, many of our respondents wrote in frequencies for high school.

Study Limitations and Future Research Directions

Caution must be exercised in generalizing the present findings to the broad college student population and to the still broader young adult population. This study focused on traditional-aged college students at a time when non-traditional-aged college students are the fastest growing segment of the college population. Furthermore, future research must examine hookup phenomena comparatively in nonmatriculated and matriculated young adults to examine the role of college culture in these risky sexual experiences. An important direction for future research on hookups is an examination of racial and ethnic variability in hookup experiences and their correlates. The present sample lacks adequate racial diversity to examine this question. But anecdotal evidence from various focus groups used in the development of this project provides suggestive evidence of differential hookup experiences and correlates among various racial and ethnic groups. For example, African American students reported less anonymity associated with casual sexual behaviors. They perceived sexual interactions with acquaintances as more common than sexual interactions with strangers among African American students; moreover, these interactions often developed into romantic relationships. In other words, hooking up is thought of by African American college students as a step in the development of a romantic relationship rather than as a discrete sexual experience. Networking among friends often resulted in these sexual encounters, whereby friends fixed their friends up with suitable partners. Similarly, Chng and Moore (1994) found less sexual risk-taking among non-White college students than among White students.

Interestingly, the use of condoms and other contraceptives was very high among individuals who experienced coital hookups. This finding is contradictory to research that finds infrequent condom use in high-risk sexual activities (e.g., Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1993), especially those that are unplanned or unexpected (Cooper et al., 1989; Temple & Leigh, 1992). Certainly, condom use is especially important for individuals who repeatedly experience casual sexual interactions with individuals whose sexually-transmitted infection status is unknown (Maticka-Tyndale, 1991) and with whom they do not communicate about such important matters (Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1993). In contrast, however, Temple and Leigh (1992) suggest that sexual protection may be greater in casual encounters: "Sexually active people may be more careful with unknown or `suspicious' partners, or, alternatively, not careful enough with partners about whom they care enough to begin a relationship" (p. 217). This may be tempered, however, by the invincibility myth maintained by many adolescents and young adults. The high frequency of reported condom use in this sample may also be a methodological artifact. We asked individuals to think about a hookup that was typical of their experiences. Many individuals have experienced multiple hookups; moreover, for many individuals their memory of hookup experiences is clouded by simultaneous alcohol use. It is possible that even though condom use is typical for them, some of their hookup experiences might not include condom usage; another possibility is that condom use is not typical for them but they know they should use condoms and they perhaps used them once, so they say it is typical. Future research should examine specific hookup experiences and explore differentiation among hookup experiences to better understand the specific predictors of condom usage and the lack thereof.

The reliability of the data in the present study must also be questioned due to potential bias from the employment of self-report methodology. Self-report bias can be escalated when assessing highly charged and personal topics such as risky sexual behavior. However, Meston, Heiman, Trapnell, and Paulhus (1998) found that self-report instruments when used under anonymous testing conditions are not particularly sensitive to social desirability biases. What response bias remains may be diverse; there may be various images to which respondents are trying to skew their responses. It is just as possible that participants skew their reports of risky sexual behaviors toward the permissive college norm as toward a conservative social norm of sexual restraint (particularly among women). Meston and her colleagues are making important contributions to enhancing our understanding of the role of response biases in sex research.

In the present study, the profile of social and psychological variables used was more successful in distinguishing between individuals who had experienced coital hookups and those who have never hooked up than between individuals who had experienced noncoital hookups and other individuals. Perhaps other variables, such as developmental preoccupations and needs, might help strengthen our understanding of the psychological instigators of hookup experiences among this group of individuals. Indeed, college students' self-reported motivations for engaging in hookups must also be ascertained. It is also important to examine contextual factors predictive of hooking up. For example, college students seem caught between a sexually permissive college culture and a broader culture that is not as accepting of casual sexual behavior. What role does this dissonance play in the predictors of and the experience of hookups? It is possible that for individuals who are especially sensitive to this dissonance, hooking up without sexual intercourse is a comfortable middle road wherein they can enjoy sexual experience without feeling like they are breaking larger cultural mores by "going all the way."

REFERENCES

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1990). Coming of age in the era of AIDS: Puberty, sexuality, and contraception. Milbank Quarterly, 68 (Suppl. 1), 59-84.

Brown, B. B. (1982). The extent and effects of peer pressure among high school students: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 121-133.

Chng, C. L., & Moore, A. (1994). AIDS: Its effects on sexual practices among homosexual and heterosexual college students. Journal of Health Education, 25, 154-160.

Cooper, M. L., Skinner, J. B., & George, W. H. (1989). Alcohol use and sexual risk-taking among adolescents: Methodological approaches for addressing causal issues. In D. Seminara, O. R. Watson, & A. Pawlowski (Eds.), Alcohol, immunomodulation, and AIDS (pp. 35-46). New York: Alan Liss.

Corcoran, K. J., & Thomas, L. R. (1991). The influence of observed alcohol consumption on perceptions of initiation of sexual activity in a college dating situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 500-507.

Costanzo, P., & Shaw, M. (1966). Conformity as a function of age level. Child Development, 37, 967-975.

DeLamater, J. (1987). Gender differences in sexual scenarios. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Females, males, and sexuality (pp. 127-139). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Desiderato, L. L., & Crawford, H. J. (1995). Risky sexual behavior in college students: Relationship between number of sexual partners, disclosure of previous risky behavior, and alcohol use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 55-67.

Edgar, T, & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1993). Expectations for sexual interaction: A cognitive test of the sequencing of sexual communication behaviors. Health Communication, 5, 239-261.

Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Patty, J. (1993). Adolescents' interactions with the opposite sex: Influence of attachment style and gender. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 169-186.

Frey, K., & Hojjat, M. (1998). Are love styles related to sexual styles? The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 265-271.

Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69-96.

Gardner, W., & Wilcox, B. L. (1993). Research on adolescent sexual behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 249-257.

Gold, R. S., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Skinner, M. J., & Morton, J. (1992). Situational factors and thought processes associated with unprotected intercourse in heterosexual students. AIDS Care, 4, 305-323.

Gunn, J. B., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1989). Adolescent sexual behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 249-257.

Harvey, S. M., & Spigner, C. (1995). Factors associated with sexual behavior among adolescents: A multivariate analysis. Adolescence, 30, 253-264.

Hatfield, E. (1984). The dangers of intimacy. In V. J. Derlega (Ed.), Communication, intimacy, and close relationships (pp. 207-220). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Hayes, C. (1987). Risking the future (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 502-511.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 784-794.

Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (1992). Liking, loving, and relating (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Hernandez, J. T., & DiClemente, R. J. (1992). Self-control and ego identity development as predictors of unprotected sex in late adolescent males. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 437-447.

Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D.- M. K. (1993). Gender differences in casual sex and AIDS prevention: A survey of dating bars. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 36-42.

Jackson, D. N. (1967). Personality Research Form manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press.

Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969.

Lang, A. R. (1985). The social psychology of drinking and human sexuality. Journal of Drug Issues, 2, 273-289.

Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills, Canada: New Press.

Leigh, B. C. (1990). The relationship of sex-related alcohol expectancies to alcohol consumption and sexual behavior. British Journal of Addiction, 85, 919-928.

Leigh, B. C., & Aramburu, B. (1996). The role of alcohol and gender in choices and judgments about hypothetical sexual encounters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 20-30.

Leigh, B. C., Aramburu, B., & Norris, J. (1992). The morning after: Gender differences in attributions about alcohol-related sexual encounters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 343-357.

Leigh, B. C., & Schafer, J. C. (1993). Heavy drinking occasions and the occurrence of sexual activity. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 7, 197-200.

Leigh, B. C., & Stall, R. (1993). Substance use and risky sexual behavior for exposure to HIV: Issues in methodology, interpretation, and prevention. American Psychologist, 48, 1035-1045.

Levinson, R. A., Jaccard, J., & Beamer, L. (1995). Older adolescents' engagement in casual sex: Impact of risk perception and psychosocial motivations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 349-364.

Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles compared: Their relations to each other and to various relationship characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 439-471.

Lottes, I. L. (1993). Nontraditional gender roles and sexual experience of heterosexual college students. Sex Roles, 29, 645-669.

MacDonald, N., Ebert, P., & Mason, S. (1987). Marital status and age as related to masculine and feminine personality dimensions and self-esteem. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 289-298.

Maticka-Tyndale, E. (1991). Modification of sexual activities in the era of AIDS: A trend analysis of adolescent sexual activities. Youth and Society, 23(10), 31-49.

Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D. (1998). Casual sex on spring break: Intentions and behaviors of Canadian students. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 254-264.

Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 148-157.

Neemann, J., & Harter, S. (1986). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for College Students. Denver, CO: University of Colorado.

Netting, N. S. (1992). Sexuality in youth culture: Identity and change. Adolescence, 27, 961-976.

Paul, E. L., & White, K. M. (1990). The development of intimate relationships in late adolescence. Adolescence, 25, 375-401.

Peplau, L. A., & Gordon, S. L. (1985). Women and men in love: Gender differences in close heterosexual relationships. In V. E. O'Leary, R. K. Unger, & B. S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 257-292). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Phillis, D. E., & Gromko, M. H. (1985). Sex differences in sexual activity: Reality or illusion? The Journal of Sex Research, 21, 437-448.

Regan, P. C. (1998). What if you can't get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1294-1305.

Reinarman, C., & Leigh, B. C. (1987). Culture, cognition, and disinhibition: Notes on sexuality and alcohol in the age of AIDS. Contemporary Drug Problems, 14, 435-460.

Rodberg, S. (1999). Woman and man at Yale. Culturefront Online, Spring. Retrieved May 6, 1999 from the World Wide Web: (http:://www.culturefront.org).

Seal, D. W., & Agostinelli, G. (1994). Individual differences associated with high-risk sexual behavior: Implications for intervention programs. AIDS Care, 6, 393-397.

Shaver, P., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 473-501.

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, U15U, 97-120.

Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870-883.

Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31-51.

Sprague, J., & Quadagno, D. (1989). Gender and sexual motivation: An exploration of two assumptions. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2(1), 57-76.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics, (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.

Temple, M. T, & Leigh, B. C. (1992). Alcohol consumption and unsafe sexual behavior in discrete events. The Journal of Sex Research, 29, 207-219.

Walsh, A. (1991). Self-esteem and sexual behavior: Exploring gender differences. Sex Roles, 25, 441-450.

Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Kao, M. (1993). The influence of parental support, depressed affect, and peers on the sexual behaviors of adolescent girls. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 261-278.

Winslow, R. W., Franzini, L. R., & Hwang, J. (1992). Perceived peer norms, casual sex, and AIDS risk prevention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1809-1827.

Wright, T. M., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Personality and unrestricted sexual behavior: Correlations of sociosexuality in Caucasian and Asian college students. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 166-192.

Zuckerman, M., Buchsbaum, M., & Murphy, D. (1980). Sensation-seeking and its biological correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 187-214.

Manuscript accepted October 28, 1999

Elizabeth L. Paul, Brian McManus, and Allison Hayes The College of New Jersey

Address correspondence to Elizabeth L. Paul, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, The College of New Jersey, P.O. Box 7718, Ewing, NJ 08628-0718; e-mail: [e-mail].