Reasons to have sex, personal goals, and sexual behavior during the transition to college.

Emerging adults (M=18.99 years, SD=.50) completed cross-sectional questionnaires (N = 943) and targeted follow-up telephone surveys (N = 202) across the transition to college. Gender, personal goals (dating, friendship, academic), and past sexual behavior were examined as predictors of reasons to have and not to have sex. Men rated Self-focused reasons to have sex as more important; women rated Partner-focused reasons to have sex and Ethical reasons not to have sex as more important. Importance of Pregnancy/STD reasons not to have sex did not differ by gender. Before college entrance, sexual history and personal goals predicted endorsement of reasons for/against sex. Personal goals predicted first intercourse during freshman year. Limitations of the study include the single university sample and use of closed-ended self-report measures. Personal goals and reasons for/against sex are associated with sexual behavior and should be addressed in programs designed to promote sexual health among emerging adult college students.

Why do some college students have sex while others do not have sex? The average age of first intercourse in the United States is 17.7 years of age (Else-Quest, Hyde, & DeLamater, 2005). Nationally, 60.5% of twelfth-graders have had sex (Grunbaum et al., 2002). Among the 63.9% of Americans who pursue postsecondary education immediately after graduating from high school (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005) levels of sexual activity are likely lower. For example, one study found that 52% of freshmen in a college sample had ever had sex (Siegel, Klein, & Roughmann, 1999). Those emerging adults who have not are likely to have their first experience with sex during college (Cooper, 2002). Since behavior is often goal directed (Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992; Maggs, 1997), it is especially important to understand students' reasons for having sex.

Campuses provide an important context in which to study reasons to have and not to have sex. The percentage of students who have ever had sex rises steadily during the college years, reaching about 86% by senior year (Siegel et al., 1999). These sexual behaviors place emerging adults at significant risk for unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), especially because significant numbers of college students fail to use contraception and effective methods of disease protection (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000). For example, in a study by Civic (1999), 28% of college undergraduates failed to use consistent contraception. Half of the 19 million STDs occurring annually in the United States are among youth aged 15 to 24 (Weinstock, Berman, & Cates, 2004). More fully understanding reasons for and against sex among college students will inform much-needed sexual health promotion efforts on college campuses.

Although most emerging adults are sexually active (defined as ever engaging in sexual intercourse), there is no theory that adequately describes the development and impact of individual reasons for having or not having sex (Lefkowitz & Gillen, 2005). One reason for the lack of theory is the limited amount of developmental research in this area, despite the fact that understanding the reasons for decisions about sex is vital for creation and refinement of programs to promote sexual health (Cooper, 2002). The current study focuses on developmentally normative personal goals and domain-specific reasons to have and not to have sex among incoming college students.

Gender Differences

Issues such as gender differences in sexual motivations require further investigation (Ozer, Dolcini, & Harper, 2003; Paradise, Cote, Minsky, Lourenco, & Howland, 2001). Research conducted in the 1980s, such as that by Leigh (1989), indicated that men were more interested in pleasure and women were more interested in intimacy, thus emphasizing traditional gender disparities. More recently, Ozer and colleagues (2003) suggested a more complex story. In their sample of African American male and female adolescents aged 14 to 20 years, no gender differences were observed on the most commonly endorsed reason to have sex: pleasure. The majority of young women (82%) and young men (89%) identified "feels good and to satisfy sexual desires" as a reason to have sex. The second primary reason, "having a boyfriend/girlfriend you love" was also identified by a majority of both genders, but more often by female (80%) than by male (66%) adolescents.

Personal Goals During the College Transition

Reasons for engaging in or not engaging in sexual behavior incorporate individuals' values and personal goals (Cooper, Shapiro, & Powess, 1998). Due to new demands and opportunities, the transition to college is an ideal time to examine links between personal goals and potentially risky behaviors, such as sexual activity (Maggs, 1997; Rhoades & Maggs, 2006; Salmela-Aro & Nurmi, 1997). Self-articulated personal goals may direct lives by guiding and organizing future behavior (Cantor et al., 1991; Cantor & Sanderson, 1998; Maggs, Vesterdal, Lee, & Korn, 2005; Nurmi, 1992, 1993). For example, a meta-analysis by Kirby (2002) identified factors associated with early initiation of sex among adolescents, including more perceived social and personal benefits of sex and a lower perceived risk of STDs, as well as nonsexual concerns such as less desire to have friends. This emphasizes the importance of understanding broader personal (e.g., friendship) goals as well as specific reasons for sex.

In response to open-ended questions about personal goals at college entrance, new students overwhelmingly report the importance of "getting good grades" and "making new friends" (Cantor, Norem, Niedenthal, Langston, & Brower, 1987; Maggs et al., 2005; Nurmi, 1993). Maggs and colleagues (2005) determined that academic and friendship goals predicted housing location, Greek affiliation, and alcohol use during the first year of college, beyond the impact of personality traits and adjustment. These results illustrate the pivotal role that personal goals play in guiding emerging adults' transition to college. In addition, dating goals may be particularly important for the study of sexual behavior. With relative consistency, college students rate love, fun, and friendship as relationship goal priorities (Clark, Shaver, & Abrahams, 1999; Roscoe, Diana, & Brooks, 1987). Little research, however, has examined the associations between these goals and behaviors affecting health (Clark et al., 1999; Cooper, 2002). Therefore, we focus on the associations of three salient and developmentally normative personal goals (academic, friendship, and dating goals) with sexual behavior.

Based on research indicating that a positive sense of achievement in developmentally normative domains was associated with a positive self-concept (Nurmi, 1993; Silbereisen & Noack, 1990), perceived achievement of dating, friendship, and academic goals is also investigated.

Reasons to Have Sex and Not to Have Sex

Distinguishing specific reasons for and against sex may lead to more precise prediction of sexual behavior as well as an improved understanding of the ways motivation affects behavior (Cooper, Shapiro, & Powers, 1998). Whereas public health research documents the prevalence and health consequences of sexual behaviors across demographic groups, the significance underlying sexual motivations and experiences have received less attention (Brooks-Gunn & Paikoff, 1993; Diamond, Savin-Williams, & Dube, 1999). Hill's (2002; Hill & Preston, 1996) sexual motivation model describes the perceived availability and likelihood of experiencing rewarding interpersonal incentives as a result of sexual behavior. Among college students, the most salient were experiencing pleasure, needing to be valued, providing and receiving comfort, and feeling and expressing affection. Similarly, Cooper and colleagues (1998) distinguished self-focused from other-focused sexual motivations, where the former were motivated by agentic or identity needs (e.g., affirming attractiveness) and the latter were motivated by the desire for intimacy.

A small amount of empirical research has focused on reasons for sexual behavior among adolescents or emerging adults (e.g., Ozer et al., 2003; Paradise, Cote, Minsky, Lourenco, & Howland, 2001). Surveys of adolescents (Eyre & Millstein, 1999; Hill & Preston, 1996; Leigh, 1989) have empirically identified practical reasons for sex (e.g., to reproduce) as well as emotional reasons (e.g., to express closeness). Eyre and Millstein (1999) identified a core set of reasons adolescents have sex that seemed to be true across gender and ethnic lines, including loving the partner, believing that the "time is right," and, for men, sexual opportunism. Reasons not to have sex are especially understudied. Past work has focused on avoiding pregnancy and disease as particularly salient (Leigh, 1989; Sprecher & Regan, 1996).

Leigh (1989) demonstrated in an adult sample that reasons not to have sex also included emotional reasons (e.g., fear of rejection). In a study by Sprecher and Regan (1996) of college students who had never had sex, the most important reason not to have sex for both genders was that students had not found the right person and were not in love. Personal beliefs also were noted as a reason not to have sex (Sprecher & Regan, 1996).

We seek to understand better the motivations for sexual behavior among emerging adults by focusing on reasons for and against sexual activity, as well as how these are associated with past and future sexual behavior. The current study is informed by the models proposed by Hill (2002) and Cooper et al. (1998), focusing on two dimensions of reasons to have sex. In addition, two dimensions of reasons not to have sex were added to assess the evaluation of competing motivations.

Research Questions

The current study investigated emerging adult college students' self-reported reasons to have sex and not to have sex, focusing on variations by gender, sexual history, and personal goals. Short-term longitudinal data were used to predict changes in sexual behavior across the transition to college. Specific research questions were as follows: (1) At college entrance, what reasons for having sex and for not having sex do male and female college students report are most important to them? (2) Are reasons (not) to have sex associated with gender, previous sexual behavior, and an individual's personal dating, friendship, and academic goals among sexually active and abstaining students? and (3) Across the transition to college, are personal goals and reasons (not) to have sex associated with changes in sexual behavior for sexually active individuals (frequency, number of partners) and abstainers (initiation of sex)?

Method

The University Life Transitions (ULTRA) Project utilized a two-wave design. Traditionally aged (M = 18.99 years, SD = .50) incoming first-year students at a large (35,000 students) public university in the Southwest United States were invited to complete surveys as part of free, entertainment-oriented health promotion sessions put on by the university's Campus Health. Data collection followed a dinner the night before 2-day mandatory college orientation sessions during the summer prior to students' first year at university (Time 1; N = 943). All aspects of the study were conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association and were supervised by the university's Institutional Review Board (IRB). Participants were informed of their rights as research participants, including the right not to participate and to refuse to answer any question. The response rate at Time 1 was high (98%). Incentives at Time 1 were t-shirts and entry into raffles for $20. About half (51.4%) of the Time 1 sample were women and the majority (82.8%) were White, with 6.5% Hispanic, 4.1% Multicultural, 3.8% Asian American, 1.9% African American, 0.5% Native American, and 0.2% International students. Nearly half (48.9%) of the full orientation sample had never had sex.

A targeted subsample (N= 202) participated in 10 weekly telephone interviews across the following spring semester (Time 2). Participants were eligible for Time 2 interviews if they (a) were first-year students (96%); (b) were under age 21 (99.8%); (c) lived in on-campus housing (86.3%); (d) reported consuming at least one drink of alcohol during their senior year of high school (because of the larger study's focus on variability in alcohol use; 79.3%); and (e) had indicated their willingness to be contacted for follow-up (64.6%). Of the 390 who met these criteria, 342 telephone numbers were successfully identified and called. Eighty-seven were not reached (e.g., had dropped out of school). Of the 255 contacted, 202 (79.3%) agreed to participate. Time 2 consisted of a series of 10 weekly interviews focused on alcohol use, expectancies, and consequences. Each week a number of unique questions were asked. For the present study, we focus on sexual behavior (assessed in interview 9) and personal goal attainment (interview 8).

The present study focuses on two groups of students. First, the Time 1 data include all participants who responded to the survey at orientation. Second, the follow-up sample includes the 173 participants for whom data were available at Time 1 and sexual behavior data were available at Time 2. All comparisons of change in behaviors involve this latter group only. Compared with Time 1, a higher proportion of the Time 2 participants were female (63%), but there were no differences in age or ethnic background. Forty-five percent of the participants in the Time 2 subsample reported never having had sex at Time 1. Individuals providing Time 2 data did not differ significantly from the full sample on any Time 1 measure of sexual behavior.

Measures

Reasons to have sex and not to have sex. At Time 1, participants rated the importance of five reasons to have sex and five reasons not to have sex on a 5-point scale, 1 = Not at all important to 5 = Very important. The items, listed below, were adapted from Small (1998). The full measure was not used due to a need for brevity in the orientation survey. Items were selected for inclusion based on Cooper et al.'s (1998) distinction between self- and other-focused prosex motivations as well as a focus on the major antisex motivations in the health and moral/ethical domains.

Conceptually similar items were grouped into four constructs, based on these four dimensions and principal components analyses on the 10 reasons ratings. After orthogonal rotation, a clearly interpretable four-factor solution was obtained that explained 69% of the variance in reasons. Eigenvalues ranged from 2.35 to 1.03. The first factor reflected four Self-focused reasons to have sex (4 items, [alpha] = .74): to make you feel loved (CL [component loading] = .81), because it is an important part of a romantic relationship (CL = .73), because it is enjoyable (CL= .70), and to see what it is like (CL = .68). The second factor reflected Ethical reasons not to have sex (3 items, [alpha] = .76): my parent(s) do not approve (CL = .83), it is morally wrong/against my religion (CL = .81), and not old enough (CL = .76). The third reflected two items assessing Partner-focused reasons to have sex (2 items, [alpha] = .35): to express love and intimacy (CL = .74) as a reason for having sex and not being in love (CL = .66) as a reason for not having sex. The low alpha for this factor likely reflects the small number of items as well as the difference in final goal (to have sex vs. to not have sex). The factor is retained, however, because of the relatively high component loadings and the conceptual similarity of the items. The fourth factor included a single item addressing avoiding Pregnancy and STDs as reasons not to have sex (CL = .90). Factor scores were computed using the regression method (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2002) and were used in analyses assessing research questions 2 and 3.

Personal goals. The importance of each of three domains of personal goals (dating, friendship, and academic) was rated by participants in closed-ended responses at Time 1 by completing the statement, "When I think of all my goals for this academic year, [getting good grades, making friends, dating and developing intimacy] is ..." 1 : Not at all important to 5 = Very important. The content validity of these goals was established by comparing open-ended responses from an earlier portion of the survey to the closed-ended measure utilized here (see Rhoades & Maggs, 2006). Near the end of spring semester, individuals were asked if they had achieved their personal goals in these three domains. Participants responded to the questions, "This semester to what extent did you achieve your goals in the area of [dating, friends, or academics]?" using a scale of 1 = Not at all to 5 = Very much.

Sexual behavior. At Time 1, participants reported their average frequency of sexual intercourse in the past 3 months (never, no times in the past 3 months, once or twice in the past 3 months, once or twice a month, once a week or more) and their number of sexual partners in the past 3 months (none, no partners in the past 3 months, 1 person, 2 people, 3 or more people). These categorical response formats were used to reduce participant burden and increase response rate. Unsafe sex at last intercourse, defined as not using an effective method of contraception and/or disease protection, was assessed. Participants indicated which of the following they had used: no method, birth control pills, condoms, Norplant, Depo Provera, withdrawal, rhythm, other, not sure. Reported methods were dichotomously coded with respect to effectiveness of the most effective method. More effective methods were hormonal methods, condoms, and not having sex (coded as safer, 0); less effective strategies, including no method, withdrawal, rhythm, and not sure, were coded as unsafe (1).

Time 2 interviews assessed the frequency of sexual intercourse in the past 2 months (never had sex, did not have sex in the past 2 months, once or twice, up to once a week, 2 to 3 times per week, 4 to 5 times per week, almost every day) and the number of sexual partners in the past 6 weeks ("0" to "6 or more"). Students in the longitudinal sample who had never had sex prior to entering college (n = 82) were coded as either stable abstainers (n = 51) or transitioners (n = 31). Transitioners were participants in the two-wave sample who had never had sex at Time 1 and reported having sex by Time 2.

Results

Plan of Analysis

First, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) examined gender and domain differences in the importance of reasons for having and not having sex, using the Time 1 sample (N = 940). Second, multiple regressions predicted reasons to have sex concurrently for sexually active individuals (n = 439) and abstainers (n = 394); predictors were personal goals and past sexual behavior reported at Time 1. Third, multiple and logistic regression analyses utilized the short-term longitudinal data to investigate whether reasons to have sex and not to have sex were prospective predictors of changes in sexual behavior over the first year of college for those who were sexually active and for abstainers. Steady abstainers and transitioners were also compared on perceived attainment of personal goals at Time 2 using t tests.

Male and Female Students' Most Important Reasons to Have Sex and Not to Have Sex

To assess the relative importance of four types reasons (not) to have sex for men and women, a 2 (Gender) x 4 (Domain) multivariate ANOVA was performed, with domain of reason as a within-subjects factor. Comparisons with significant multivariate F values were followed by Tukey's one-way ANOVA tests to examine mean gender differences within each domain of reasons.

There was a significant main effect of Gender, F (1, 888) = 14.4, p < .001 and a Gender x Domain interaction, F (3, 2664) = 60.7, p < .001. No significant effect of Domain, F (3, 2664) = 0.4, ns, was found. Figure 1 illustrates the mean factor scores for the four domains of reasons for men and women. Based on Tukey-corrected ANOVAs, men rated Self-focused reasons to have sex as more important than did women (F (1, 888)= 78.4, p < .001). Women rated Partner-focused reasons to have sex (F (1, 888)= 80.9, p < .001) and Ethical reasons not to have sex (F (1, 888) = 30.2, p < .001) as more important than did men. Importance of Pregnancy/STD reasons not to have sex did not differ significantly by gender (F (1, 888)= 2.7, ns). The nature of the Gender x Reason interaction is illustrated by the differences in effect sizes for gender, as indicated by [[eta].sup.2], ranging from a nonsignificant 0.3% (Pregnancy/STD Reasons) to a significant 9.1% (Partner-focused reasons).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Predicting Reasons to Have Sex and Not to Have Sex

Hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to test our second research question: whether reasons to have sex and not to have sex were predicted by gender (Step 1), previous sexual behavior (number of partners, frequency of sex, unsafe sex; Step 2), and personal goals (dating, friendship, academic; Step 3). Although frequency of sexual intercourse and number of sexual partners were ordinal variables, they were used in the regression analyses to control for variance associated with sexual behavior. To test whether results differed with alternative coding of the variables, two supplementary analyses were conducted, first using dummy codes and then by coding each ordinal level at the midpoint of the range. The results were not different, and the variance explained by Steps 2 and 3 in these analyses was nearly identical; therefore, the regression results with ordinal sexual behavior predictors are reported to facilitate interpretation.

Gender was entered first as a control comparison. Next, previous sexual behavior was entered to follow temporal ordering of effects. Finally, personal goals were used as predictors of reasons regarding sexual behavior. Criterion variables were the scale scores on the four domains of reasons, as described previously. All data in these analyses were collected at Time 1, and analyses were first performed for sexually active and abstaining students separately. Based on Fisher's z transformations (Neter, Kutner, Nachtsheim, & Wasserman, 1996), none of the bivariate correlations differed between sexually active individuals and abstainers; thus results are presented for all participants together. Table 1 presents these results including bivariate correlations between predictors and criterion variables, standardized regression coefficients, and the proportion of variance explained.

As previously described, the first step demonstrated gender differences in all domains except for Pregnancy/ STD reasons. Predictors entered in the second step explained between 2% and 9% of the variance in reasons. Specifically, incoming students who reported having sex more frequently in the past 3 months rated Ethical reasons not to have sex as less important and Partner-focused reasons to have sex as more important than did participants who had sex less frequently. Those with a greater number of sexual partners rated Partner-focused reasons to have sex as less important than did students who had fewer sexual partners. The personal goals predictors, entered on Step 3, accounted for an additional 2% to 5% of the variance in reasons. Students with more important Dating goals reported that Self- and Partner-focused reasons to have sex and Pregnancy/STD reasons not to have sex were more important to them, and Ethical reasons not to have sex were less important to them than students with less important Dating goals. Academic goal importance was associated with more important Ethical and Pregnancy/STD reasons not to have sex. The full set of predictors accounted for 14% to 16% of the variance in Self-focused, Partner-focused, and Ethical reasons, and 4% of the variance in Pregnancy/STD reasons.

Predicting Changes in Sexual Behavior During the Transition to College

To examine whether personal goals and reasons to have and not to have sex were associated with changes in sexual behavior across the transition to college (research question 3), analyses were conducted with the short-term longitudinal sample using hierarchical multiple and logistic regressions. Outcome variables in these analyses were, for individuals who had previously had intercourse at Time 1, the frequency of intercourse and number of sexual partners at Time 2, and among Time 1 abstainers, first intercourse. Gender and previous sexual behavior (frequency and number of partners among people who reported being sexually active at Time 1) were entered as controls on Step 1, followed by personal goals (Step 2), and the reasons subscales (Step 3).

Change among sexually active students. Among individuals who were sexually active at Time 1, models predicting frequency of sexual behavior and number of sexual partners at Time 2 by gender, sexual history, personal goals, reasons to have sex and reasons not to have sex yielded neither significant steps nor unique predictor variables. Gender did not predict change in frequency or number of partners at Time 2, indicating that men and women did not differ in changes in reported sexual behavior. Neither goals nor reasons predicted changes in sexual behavior among sexually active individuals. We focus, therefore, on Time 1 abstainers, contrasting differences between steady abstainers and individuals who transitioned to sexual activity.

Change among abstainers. Eighty-two students (52 women and 30 men; 45% of the Time 2 sample) had never had sex at Time 1. Between Time 1 (summer prior to college) and Time 2 (spring of freshman year), 31 of these individuals (20 women and 11 men; 37% of individuals who had never had sex at Time 1) had sex for the first time. There were 51 individuals (27% of the Time 2 sample) who were steady abstainers. Logistic regression was used to examine the likelihood of having sex for the first time between Time 1 and Time 2, based on gender, personal goals, and the reasons subscales (see Table 2). Male and female Time 1 abstainers did not differ in their likelihood of initiating sexual intercourse by Time 2. Examining the three domains of goals, students who rated Friendship goals as more important were less likely to transition to sexual intercourse, and those who rated Academic goals as more important were marginally less likely. Dating goal importance did not predict transitioning to sexual intercourse.

Personal goal attainment. To understand better the underlying meaning of these associations of personal goals with initiation of sexual intercourse, we conducted a follow-up analysis examining data collected at Time 2 regarding whether students felt they had achieved their personal goals in each of the three goal domains. Three t tests were used to determine whether individuals who had never had sex at Time 1 differed in their reported attainment of personal goals based on whether they had initiated sexual intercourse by Time 2. Time 1 abstainers who had sex for the first time by Time 2 reported significantly greater achievement of their Dating goals (M : 3.84, SD : 1.19) compared with steady abstainers (M : 2.76, SD = 1.35; t = -3.66, p < .01, [[eta].sup.2] = .15). No differences between these groups were found in reported achievement of Friendship (t = -.49, ns) or Academic (t = -.45, ns) goals.

Discussion

First-year college students' reasons to have and not to have sex differed by personal goals and prior sexual behavior. Cross-sectional findings from incoming students surveyed at college orientation showed that students who viewed dating goals as more important tended to endorse self-focused reasons to have sex. Students who reported more frequent sexual intercourse and fewer lifetime sexual partners tended to endorse partner-focused reasons to have sex. In other words, students who had fewer but steadier partners reported more important partner-focused reasons to have sex. This suggests that partner-focused reasons to have sex may reflect a desire for intimacy with a long-term sexual partner, rather than a series of partners over time. Predictors of viewing ethical reasons as important deterrents of having sex were previously having sex less frequently, reporting less important dating goals, and reporting more important academic goals than other students. Finally, students who rated dating and academic goals as more important also viewed pregnancy/ STD reasons as important for not having sex. This may reflect the fact that individuals who date (and have sex) more often may experience salient concerns about getting pregnant or contracting an STD, and students who have important academic goals may be more conscientious and more determined not to be distracted from their studies.

Prospective findings suggested that, among individuals who had never had sex, those who rated friendship goals as more important were less likely to transition to having sex during their first year of college. Given that friendship goals are highly salient among college students (Cantor et al., 1987; Nurmi, 1993) and that these goals predict college activity involvement (Maggs et al., 2005), this result is not surprising. For students focused on friendship among their peers, coupling into sexual relationships may be less of an immediate priority. Similarly, the tendency for students who rated academic goals as more important to be less likely to initiate sexual intercourse suggests a goal directedness of behavior in which new students may choose to focus on different aspects of college academic and social life.

Among abstainers at college orientation, dating goal importance did not uniquely predict transitioning to sexual behavior. Students who had sex for the first time during their first year of college, however, reported greater achievement of dating goals than did individuals who continued to abstain from sexual behavior. This pattern of results is consistent with a process in which transitioners would have been more likely to have experienced at least one romantic and intimate relationship, while abstainers may or may not have had the opportunity to date or to become involved in romantic relationships. This may suggest that some individuals had little opportunity to achieve their goals, regardless of the goal's importance to them, or, alternatively, that dating and sexual behavior may not be intrinsically linked for some individuals (Diamond et al., 1999).

Gender: Similarities and Differences

In terms of reasons to have sex, males rated self-focused reasons, which included feeling loved, sex as an important part of a romantic relationship, enjoyment, and to see what it is like, as more important than did females. Females rated partner-focused reasons, which included expressing love and intimacy as a reason for having sex and not being in love as a reason for not having sex, as more important than did males. With respect to reasons not to have sex, females rated ethical reasons as more important than did males, but males and females did not differ in their endorsement of avoiding pregnancy and STDs as important reasons to avoid sex. Neither sexual behavior reported at college orientation nor changes in sexual behavior differed by gender.

These findings are consistent with Ozer and colleagues' (2003) argument that the ways in which gender affects reasons to have sex are complex and that traditional ideas about gender differences may not be as applicable as once thought. Focusing on the similarities in sexual behavior and the concerns both men and women have about avoiding physical or health consequences, it would seem that college students of both genders are relatively parallel in their experience. Significant differences in the ethical reasons to avoid sex and in both reasons to have sex, however, suggest that the motivations underlying apparently similar behaviors may differ. At the same time, Lefkowitz and Gillen (2005) noted that observed gender differences should be interpreted with caution because they may merely reflect differences in reporting. It is important to acknowledge and understand the gender differences, but they should not be overstated. We echo Leigh (1989), who suggested that "perhaps we should concentrate on the many similarities in motivations among the groups, rather than on their small differences" (p. 208).

Implications for Understanding the Development of Risk Behavior

Important developmental changes in sexual behavior occur during the transition to college. In the present sample, at college entry almost half (49%) had never had sex. Of the follow-up sample, 45% had never had sex at orientation, but by the spring of the first year of college this number dropped to just over one quarter (28%). This suggests that the first year of college represents a point of transition during which it may be especially important to understand motivations for and against sex. Personal goals explained a significant amount of variance in transitioning to sex during the first year of college. It is important to recognize that motivations for sex may stem largely from positive expected consequences, such as intimacy and pleasure, and understanding these motivations and goals should be considered seriously in basic and applied research (Levinson, Jaccard, & Beamer, 1995). For instance, individuals who had sex for the first time during their first year of college reported achieving their dating goals more often than did individuals who had never had sex.

Future research should address these goals and extend the current work by investigating change in motivations over time. For example, dating goals are particularly fluid, changing over the course of a particular relationship and developmentally across years and partners (Mongeau, Serewicz, & Therrien, 2004; Roscoe et al., 1987). Developmental models describing the meaning of sexual behavior and changes over time are lacking. Innovative methodology, including diary and other repeated measures designs, would better capture the ways in which motivations both affect behavior and change in response to experiences, partners, and developmental and social role transitions (e.g., Hoppe et al., 2000; Leigh, 2000; Morrison, Gillmore, Hoppe, Leigh, & Rainey, 2003). Intensive longitudinal research investigating sexual behavior and its meaning would increase our understanding of how reasons for sex change developmentally through adolescence and into adulthood. Since Erikson (1968), intimacy has been viewed as a central theme of the period of the lifespan now described as emerging adulthood. Brooks-Gunn and Paikoff (1993) described normative developmental challenges facing adolescents that include accepting feelings of sexual arousal, understanding that sexual behaviors should be mutually voluntary, and practicing safe sex. These challenges involve complex emotions, motivations, and interactions such that they are likely to remain salient tasks beyond adolescence and throughout the period of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000; Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002).

Informing Prevention Science

The college transition is an optimal time implementation of programs aimed to promote sexual health (e.g., Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002; Turrisi, Jaccard, Taki, Dunnam, & Grimes, 2001). It may be more effective to acknowledge reasons important to individuals engaging in unsafe behaviors rather than focusing on reasons (e.g., ethics and pregnancy/STD) that are less important to them. The current data inform prevention efforts by suggesting that self-focused reasons to have sex (including pleasure and comfort) may be more important reasons to have sex among individuals with riskier sexual behavior. Similarly, understanding healthy patterns of mutual sexual relationships and responsible behavior that are consistent with emerging adults' personal values and beliefs could provide important insights. For example, innovative programs might speak to the possibility of both expressing intimacy and using condoms (Eyre & Millstein, 1999), given that individuals in long-term relationships (e.g., over 6 months) are less likely to use condoms than those in the early stages of relationships (e.g., Bankole, Darroch, & Singh, 1999).

Strengths and Limitations

The results of this study need to be interpreted in light of its strengths and limitations. A major strength is the two-wave data across the transition to college, and the ability to examine predictors of initiation of sex among a subsample of participants. A second strength is the very high initial response rate in the baseline surveys of incoming college students (98%). While response rates are somewhat lower for questions relating to sexual behaviors (89% of eligible students provided data at Time 1, 86% of eligible students at Time 2), such representation of the targeted college student sample is unprecedented in work on sexual motivations, which has been challenged by low response rates from mailed and other survey methods (e.g., 24% in Leigh, 1989; 52% volunteer rate in Conti, 2000). Third, despite limitations noted below, support for the validity of the reasons to have sex and not to have sex measures is found in the fact that such reasons are concurrently predictive of sexual behavior prior to the college transition.

Nonetheless, there are a few important limitations. First, similar to prior research (e.g., Conti, 2000; Siegel et al., 1999), only one university was assessed, limiting generalizability. Second, no measure of relationship status was included either at baseline or at follow-up. Therefore, the context in which individuals are engaging in sex is unknown, although some reasons to have and not to have sex may be unique to a specific relationship status. For instance, Leigh (1989) reported that variance in sexual frequency explained by reasons was 9% for those in relationships and 18% for singles. We are unable to test these potential differences. Third, measures of reasons to have sex may reflect gendered social desirability bias since we relied on self-reports.

Fourth, our closed-ended measures assessed a restricted range of reasons regarding sex and personal goals. Although domains measured were based on past research (e.g., Cantor et al., 1987; Cooper et al., 1998; Small, 1998), others may have been important to participants. In addition, goal content was not assessed, although the content of a goal is likely important in determining its relation to the behavioral outcomes (Nurmi, 1993). This also may have contributed to our null findings linking dating goals with sexual behavior, because students may have important goals to develop intimacy with romantic partners without being sexually active. Finally, effectiveness of contraception and disease prevention strategies is indicated only for the most recent occasion of sexual intercourse. This may over- or underestimate the safety of individuals' behavior over time. It will be important for future studies to utilize more comprehensive measures for capturing patterns of sexual behavior including consistency of protection.

This study advances our understanding of the motivations behind college students' engagement in sexual behavior, including reasons specific to sex and overall developmentally normative personal goals. Gender differences in college students' reasons to have sex and not have sex have been elucidated in a cross-sectional comparison at college entrance. In addition, the prediction of transitioning to first-time sexual intercourse across the transition to college by reported personal goals and the felt achievement of dating goals among individuals who transitioned to sex highlights the importance of personal goal setting for health behaviors. Since reasons to have sex are associated with sexual behaviors, they should be addressed in programs designed to promote sexual health among emerging adult college students. Specifically, the relation between personal goals and specific reasons to have or not to have sex can inform motivational interventions. To fully understand sexual motivations, and to increase the amount of explained variance of sexual behaviors, potentially important influences such as family (parent, sibling) relationships, ethnic background, and peer group norms also should be addressed. Future directions should involve formulation and testing of theory regarding these motivations and applying the empirical findings to health promotion strategies.

References

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Bankole, A., Darroch, J. E., & Singh, S. (1999). Determinants of trends in condom use in the United States, 1988-1995. Family Planning Perspectives, 31,264-271.

Brooks-Gunn, J. & Paikoff, R. (1993). "Sex is a gamble, kissing is a game": Adolescent sexuality and health promotion. In S. G. Millstein, A. C. Petersen, & E. O. Nightingale (Eds.), Promoting the health of adolescents: New directions for the twenty-first century (pp. 180-208). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cantor, N., Norem, J. K., Langston, C., Zirkel, S., Fleeson, W., & Cook-Flannagan, C. (1991). Life tasks and daily life experiences. Journal of Personality, 59, 425-451.

Cantor, N., Norem, J. K., Niedenthal, P. M., Langston, C. A., & Brower, A. M. (1987). Life tasks, self-concept ideals, and cognitive strategies in a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1178-1191.

Cantor, N. & Sanderson, C. (1998). The functional regulation of adolescent dating relationships and sexual behavior: An interaction of goals, strategies and situations. In J. Heckhausen & C. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life span (pp. 185 215). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Health, United States. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Civic, D. (1999). The association between characteristics of dating relationships and condom use among heterosexual young adults. AIDS Education and Prevention, 11, 343-352.

Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 707 720.

Conti, R. (2000). College goals: Do self-determined and carefully considered goals predict intrinsic motivation, academic performance, and adjustment during the first semester? Social Psychology of Education, 4, 189-211.

Cooper, M. L. (2002). Alcohol use and risky sexual behavior among college students and youth: Evaluating the evidence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Suppl, 14, 101 117.

Cooper, M. L., Shapiro, C. M., & Powers, A. M. (1998). Motivations for sex and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: A functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1528-1558.

Diamond, L. M., Savin-Williams, R. C., & Dube, E. M. (1999). Sex, dating, passionate friendships, and romance: Intimate peer relations among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development (pp. 175-210). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & DeLamater, J. D. (2005). Context counts: Long-term sequelae of premarital intercourse or abstinence. The Journal of Sex Research, 42, 102-112.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton.

Eyre, S. L. & Millstein, S. G. (1999). What leads to sex? Adolescent preferred partners and reasons for sex. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 277-307.

Furby, L. & Beyth-Marom, R. (1992). Risk taking in adolescence: A decision-making perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 1-44.

Grunbaum, J. A., Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., Williams, B., Ross, J. G., Lowry, R., & Kolbe, L. (2002). Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States, 2001. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 51, 1-64. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control.

Hill, C. A. (2002). Gender, relationship stage, and sexual behavior: The importance of partner emotional investment within specific situations. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 228-240.

Hill, C. A. & Preston, L. K. (1996). Individual differences in the experience of sexual motivation: Theory and measurement of dispositional sexual motives. The Journal of Sex Research, 33, 27-43.

Hoppe, M. J., Gillmore, M. R., Valadez, D. L., Civic, D., Hartway, J., & Morrison, D. M. (2000). The relative costs and benefits of telephone interviews versus self-administered diaries for daily data collection. Evaluation Review, 24, 102-116.

Kirby, D. (2002). Antecedents of adolescent initiation of sex, contraceptive use and pregnancy. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26, 473-485.

Lefkowitz, E. S. & Gillen, M. M. (2005). "Sex is just a normal part of life": Sexuality in emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 235-255). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Leigh, B. C. (1989). Reasons for having and avoiding sex: Gender, sexual orientation, and relationship to sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 199-209.

Leigh, B. C. (2000). Using daily reports to measure drinking and drinking patterns. Journal of Substance Abuse, 12, 51-65.

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

Maggs, J. L. (1997). Alcohol use and binge drinking as goal-directed action during the transition to postsecondary education. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 345-371). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Maggs, J. L., Vesterdal, W. J., Lee, C. M., & Korn, M. E. (2005). Niche selection among emerging adults at university: Do personal characteristics predict residence hall activities? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Mongeau, P. A., Serewicz, M. C. M., & Therrien, L. F. (2004). Goals for cross-sex first dates: Identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual factors. Communication Monographs, 71, 121-147.

Morrison, D. M., Gillmore, M. R., Hoppe, M. J., Leigh, B. C., & Rainey, D. (2003). Adolescent drinking and sex: Findings from a daily diary study. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35, 162 168.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Digest of education statistics, 2004. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/

Neter, J., Kutner, M., Nachtsheim, C., & Wasserman, L. (1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th ed.). Chicago: McGraw-Hill.

Nurmi, J. (1992). Age differences in adult life goals, concerns and their temporal extension: A life course approach to future-oriented motivation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 15, 487-508.

Nurmi, J. (1993). Adolescent development in an age-graded context: The role of personal beliefs, goals, and strategies in the tackling of developmental tasks and standards. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 169-189.

Ozer, E. J., Dolcini, M. M., & Harper, G. W. (2003). Adolescents' reasons for having sex: Gender differences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 317-319.

Paradise, J. E., Cote, J., Minsky, S., Lourenco, A., & Howland, J. (2001). Personal values and sexual decision-making among virginal and sexual experienced urban adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28, 404-409.

Rhoades, B. L. & Maggs, J. L. (2006). Do academic and social goals predict planned alcohol use among college-bound high school graduates? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 913-923.

Roscoe, B., Diana, M. S., & Brooks, R. H. (1987). Early, middle, and late adolescents' views on dating and factors influencing partner selection. Adolescence, 85, 59-68.

Salmela-Aro, K. & Nurmi, J. (1997). Positive and negative self-related goals and subjective well-being: A prospective study. Journal of Adult Development, 4, 179-188.

Schulenberg, J. E. & Maggs, J. L. (2002). A developmental perspective on alcohol use and heavy drinking during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Suppl, 14, 54-70.

Siegel, D. M., Klein, D. I., & Roghmann, K. J. (1999). Sexual behavior, contraception, and risk among college students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25, 336-343.

Silbereisen, R. K. & Noack, P. (1990). Adolescents' orientations for development. In H. Bosma & S. Jackson (Eds.), Coping and self-concept in adolescence (pp. 112-127). Berlin: Springer.

Small, S. A. (1998). Assessing adolescents' perceptions of the costs and benefits of engaging in sexual intercourse. In C. M. Davies, W. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 47-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sprecher, S. & Regan, P. C. (1996). College virgins: How men and women perceive their sexual status. The Journal of Sex Research, 33, 3-15.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2002). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Turrisi, R., Jaccard, J., Taki, R., Dunnam, H., & Grimes, J. (2001). Examination of the short-term efficacy of a parent intervention to reduce college student drinking tendencies. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, 366372.

Weinstock, H., Berman, S., & Cares, W., Jr. (2004). Sexually transmitted diseases in American youth: Incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36, 6-10.

This manuscript is based in part on a presentation given at the meetings of the Second Annual Conference on Emerging Adulthood (Miami, Florida, February 2005). Data collection for the ULTRA Project and manuscript preparation were funded by grants to J. Maggs from the Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA13763) and funding to M. Patrick by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA 017629).

Correspondence should be addressed to Megan E. Patrick, Human Development & Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, 110 South Henderson Building, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: [e-mail]

Megan E. Patrick, Jennifer L. Maggs, and Caitlin C. Abar The Pennsylvania State University

Table 1. Hierarchical Multiple Regressions Predicting Reasons to
Have Sex and Not to Have Sex

                                   Reasons to Have Sex

                                      Self-Focused

                              r        [beta]     [DELTA][R.sup.2]

Step 1 Gender              .27 ***     .27 ***         .08 ***
Step 2 Sexual behavior,                                .02 ***
past 3 months
  Frequency                .14 ***     .12
  Number of partners       .14 ***     .01
  Unsafe sex (a)           .18 ***     .06
Step 3 Personal Goals                                  .05 ***
  Dating                   .27 ***     .21***
  Friendship               .09 **      .06
  Academic                -.03        -.05
Total [R.sup.2]                                        .15 ***

                                  Reasons to Have Sex

                                  Partner-Focused

                             r         [beta]     [DELTA][R.sup.2]

Step 1 Gender             -.30 ***    -.30 ***         .09 ***
Step 2 Sexual behavior,                                .03 ***
past 3 months
  Frequency               -.02         .29 ***
  Number of partners      -.12 ***    -.35 ***
  Unsafe sex (a)          -.05         .00
Step 3 Personal Goals                                  .03 *
  Dating                   .08 *       .13 ***
  Friendship               .12 ***     .06
  Academic                 .06         .02
Total [R.sup.2]                                        .l4 ***

                                  Reasons Not to Have Sex

                                         Ethical

                              r         [beta]    [DELTA][R.sup.2]

Step 1 Gender             -.18 ***      -.18 **        .03 ***
Step 2 Sexual behavior,                                .09 ***
past 3 months
  Frequency               -.30 ***      -.21 **
  Number of partners      -.30 ***      -.12
  Unsafe sex (a)          -.25 ***       .06
Step 3 Personal Goals                                  .03 ***
  Dating                  -.18 ***      -.15 ***
  Friendship              -.04          -.03
  Academic                 .09 **        .11 **
Total [R.sup.2]                                        .16 ***

                                  Reasons Not to Have Sex

                                     Pregnancy/STD

                              r         [beta]    [DELTA][R.sup.2]

Step 1 Gender             -.05         -.05            .00
Step 2 Sexual behavior,                                .02 **
past 3 months
  Frequency               -.13 ***     -.11
  Number of partners      -.12 **      -.03
  Unsafe sex (a)          -.08 *        .03
Step 3 Personal Goals                                  .02 **
  Dating                   .08 *        .07 *
  Friendship               .09 *        .04
  Academic                 .10 **       .08 *
Total [R.sup.2]                                        .04 **

Note. n = 834, Time 1 sample. (a) Less effective methods of
contraception and disease prevention. * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.

Table 2. Hierarchical Multiple Regressions Predicting First Time Sexual
Intercourse During the First Year of College

First Time Sexual Intercourse             [beta]             (SE)

Step 1 Gender                              -.11              (.49)
Step 2 Personal goals
  Dating                                    .24              (.30)
  Friendship                              -1.88 *            (.86)
  Academic                                -1.34 ([dagger])   (.71)
Step 3 Reasons
  Self-Focused reasons to have sex         -.15              (.28)
  Partner-focused reasons to have sex      -.22              (.32)
  Ethical reasons not to have sex          -.35              (.30)
  Pregnancy/STD reasons not to have sex    -.40              (.31)

First Time Sexual Intercourse             [e.sup.b]         (95% CI)

Step 1 Gender                              .90              (.35-2.33)
Step 2 Personal goals
  Dating                                  1.28              (.70-2.31)
  Friendship                               .15 *            (.03-.83)
  Academic                                 .26 ([dagger])   (.07-1.06)
Step 3 Reasons
  Self-Focused reasons to have sex         .86              (.50-1.49)
  Partner-focused reasons to have sex      .80              (.43-1.50)
  Ethical reasons not to have sex          .71              (.39-1.27)
  Pregnancy/STD reasons not to have sex    .67              (.36-1.24)

First Time Sexual Intercourse             [chi square]

Step 1 Gender                             .05
Step 2 Personal goals
  Dating
  Friendship
  Academic                                13.07 **
Step 3 Reasons
  Self-Focused reasons to have sex
  Partner-focused reasons to have sex
  Ethical reasons not to have sex
  Pregnancy/STD reasons not to have sex   3.49

Note. N - 82, Abstainers at Time 1 who were included in the follow-up
sample. * p < .05 two-tailed; ** p < .0l two-tailed;
([dagger]) p < .05, one-tailed.