Printer Friendly

Thirty years of sexual behaviour at a Canadian university: Romantic relationships, hooking up, and sexual choices.

Every 10 years from 1980 to 2010, students in a British Columbia university were surveyed about age of sexual initiation, number of partners, and degree of emotional intimacy within their partnerships. Between 1980 and 1990, the socially acceptable prerequisite for premarital sex appeared to shift from the promise of marriage to mutual love. This change was demonstrated by a fall in the virginity rate among unmarried females, and the rise of monogamous romantic relationships for males. From 1980 through 2010, men reported more sexual partners than did women, with a smaller, though rising, proportion of serious relationships. Since 1990, never-married students were classified into three sexual behavioural groups: monogamists (about 55%), abstainers (30%), and multi-partnered "experimenters" (20% of men throughout each decade, and 7.6% of women in 1990-2000, rising to 14.4% in 2010). Experimenters generally reported concurrent partners, most of them casual. Since 1980, most sexually active students have experienced both romantic relationships and casual sexual partnerships, yet since at least 1990, the majority have been primarily monogamous. This article traces the changes and continuities in romantic relationships, casual sex, and sexual behavioural groups over 30 years, concluding that contrary to the claims of popular media and some academics, casual sex ("hookup culture") has not replaced romantic relationships as the most common form of student sexual behaviour.

KEY WORDS: Student sexual behaviour, romantic relationships, monogamy, hookup culture, casual sex, friends with benefits, sexual revolution, sexual scripts, emerging adulthood

**********

The past decades have been significant for the history of North American sexual expression, with university students in the vanguard. The sexual revolution of the 1960s replaced the promise of marriage with mutual love as the primary criterion for premarital sexual intercourse (Bailey, 1988; Darling, Kallen, & Vandusen, 1984). Some scholars believed this revolution was incomplete, as the goal of gender equality was not achieved and many aspects of sexuality, especially for women, remained restricted (Bailey, 1999; Kalish & Kimmel, 2011). They predicted that as women approached the socioeconomic power of men, the love standard for sexual involvement would be replaced for both genders by the principle of pleasure with consent.

By the turn of this century, some social scientists (e.g., Bogle, 2008; England, Shafer, & Fogarty, 2007) argued this shift was under way. These studies and the journalists who popularized them (e.g., Taylor, 2013) suggested that by the turn of the 21st century, "sexual hookups" had replaced romantic relationships as the most common form of sexual activity among university students. They defined "hookups" as sexual encounters, which might include anything from kissing to sexual intercourse, between near-strangers with no commitment or expectation of commitment to each other. The multi-campus Online College Social Life Survey (OCSLS), based on questionnaires and enhanced by in-depth interviews (England et al., 2007), showed that approximately 75% of the respondents had hooked up, though less than half their hookups included intercourse. Although most hookups led to nothing more lasting, two-thirds of relationships originated as hookups (England et al., 2007). Corroborating these findings with data from the next (2008) wave of the OCSLS, Kalish and Kimmel (2011) concluded: "hooking up is today's culture of courtship" (p. 148).

Student hookup culture has been further explored in a myriad of studies, whose consensus is that most university students (between two thirds and three quarters) have hooked up, with men more likely than women to report the activity (e.g., Fielder & Carey, 2010; Owen & Fincham, 2011b). However when only hookups involving intercourse were counted, the prevalence of hooking up dropped by about half (e.g., LaBrie, Hammer, Ghaidarov, Lac, & Kenney, 2014; Lewis, Granato, Blayney, Lostutter, & Kilmer, 2012).

Some researchers now question the conclusion that hookup culture dominates North American campuses. Monto and Carey (2014) compared US university students from 1988 to 1996 with those of 2004-2012, using randomized national surveys conducted annually. They found that in both eras, over three quarters of sexually active students had committed partners, and less than one third of either group had more than one sexual partner in the year preceding their survey. Although more casual sex was reported over time, relationships were predominant in both eras. A study of 1500 university students from across Canada found that 65.5% of respondents who reported penis-in-vagina intercourse during the previous three months were in a committed relationship at the time (Milhausen et al., 2013). Similarly, most first year women students at a US university, surveyed monthly about sexual activity, reported that sex within romantic relationships was more frequent than hookups in every month (Fielder, Carey, & Carey, 2013).

Researchers have identified several characteristics which distinguish participants in hookups. Students who hook up are more likely to be male (mentioned in nearly every study), non-heterosexual (Watson, Snapp, & Wang, 2017), have a pre-college history of frequent casual sex and heavy alcohol use, and display personality traits such as impulsivity and sensation seeking (e. g., Fielder & Carey, 2010; Olmstead, Pasley, & Fincham, 2013). They are also more likely to be members of fraternities, sororities, or male athletic teams (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Kuperberg & Padgett, 2016), while students who abstain or limit themselves to committed relationships are more likely to be religious, and/or from a minority conservative, often immigrant, subculture (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Fielder, Walsh, et al., 2013; Kuperberg & Padgett, 2016; Olmstead, Billen, Conrad, Pasley, & Fincham, 2013). A three-factor sociosexuality scale, measuring casual sexual behaviour, attitudes, and desire (Simpson and Gangestad, 1991), is used to predict casual sex behaviour among today's emerging adults (e. g., Garcia, Reiber, Massey, & Merriwether, 2012).

The term "emerging adult" refers to people between adolescence and adulthood in modern industrial societies, generally from age 18 (completion of high school) through their late 20s, when most of the cohort has married. This life-stage, when people become independent from their parents but are not yet responsible for their own children, is characterized by identity formation through exploration (Arnett, 2000, 2014). Sexual exploration is guided by easily accessible "sexual scripts" (Kimmel, 2007; Simon & Gagnon, 1984), which portray the distinct behaviours associated with casual and romantic sex. Most emerging adults, especially those in university, enact both scripts, but at different times, with different people, and within different social situations (Arnett, 2014; Fielder, Carey, & Carey, 2013; Reid, Webber, & Elliott, 2015).

In some cases the line between a romantic and a casual relationship can be unclear. Over half of students' reported hookup partners were not strangers, but ex-partners or longtime friends (e.g., Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006; Lewis et al.,

2012). Nearly 60% of university students have had such "friends with benefits," or FWBs (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009; Owen & Fincham, 2011a). FWB relationships can be comfortable, meaningful, pleasurable, and sometimes monogamous (Bay-Cheng, Robinson, & Zucker, 2009; Mongeau, Knight, Williams, Eden, & Shaw, 2013; Wentland & Reissing, 2011), and might be the pathway through which some hookups evolve into commitments (England et al., 2007).

Other research suggests that even hookups between friends are distinctly different from romantic relationships (Olmstead, Pasley, & Fincham, 2013). Only 10-15% of FWB relationships or hookups turn into romances (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Mongeau et al., 2013; Paul, Wenzel, & Harvey, 2008), and only 20% of romantic relationships originate from FWBs or more casual hookups (Owen & Fincham, 2012), far less than the two-thirds reported earlier by England et al. (2007). Hookups that make this transformation are significantly less satisfying, have less intimate communication, and endure for a shorter time than those which have romantic origins (Owen & Fincham, 2012; Paul et al., 2008).

For over 30 years, researchers have followed changes in sexual behaviour at a regional university in the interior of British Columbia (Netting, 1992; Netting & Burnett, 2004). Every 10 years, from 1980 through 2010, students were surveyed about age of sexual initiation, number of partners, and degree of emotional intimacy within their partnerships. While the original questions remained, items were added in each decade to reflect emerging issues. In 1990, when Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) had recently appeared, the survey incorporated questions on monogamy, number of intercourse partners during the past year, and safer sex. In 2000 and 2010, the operational definition of "sexual intercourse" on the survey was expanded to be more inclusive of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, and specific questions on other sexual practices were added.

The 1990 and 2000 results indicated three sexual behaviour groups. Abstainers, monogamists, and multi-partnered "experimenters" were found to have significantly different patterns of partner choice, intimacy, and risk-taking (Netting, 1992; Netting & Burnett, 2004). The current article continues the analysis of sexual behaviour and intimacy of partnerships through 2010, using items included in at least three of the four surveys. Results for risk-taking and safer sex are currently under analysis.

Arising from gaps in previous scholarship, the following research questions emerged:

1. On this British Columbia campus between 1980 and 2010, did "hooking up" (sex with friends, acquaintances, or strangers) replace committed relationships? How have the relative proportions of monogamists and experimenters changed over time?

2. What demographic and social factors contributed to the choice of monogamy or experimentation as a student's usual sexual lifestyle?

3. To what extent did students take part in both behavioural patterns?

METHODS

Participants

For all four survey administrations, a sample was drawn from introductory through advanced undergraduate classes in different university departments. With each successive decade, the sample was larger and more representative. By 2010, the small convenience sample of 1980 had evolved into a random selection of classes from every faculty, with an over-sample of departments with male student majorities. This enabled us to avoid the large predominance of female respondents common to many studies of student sexual behaviour. In 2010, numbers of male and female respondents were almost equal (469 men and 461 women), while the population of the university was only 40% male. This overrepresentation was not problematic because statistics for each gender were calculated and presented separately. Table 1 presents descriptive data from the four samples, which totaled 2009 students.

The current analysis is limited to students who had never married, to be comparable with reports on earlier study cohorts (Netting, 1992; Netting & Burnett, 2004) and with previous research on North American college students going back to the first decade of the 20th century. A key variable in the early research was rate of virginity, a question thought not applicable after marriage (Darling et al., 1984). Our final sample of never-married students over four decades was 1684 (gender: 46.4% male; age: M = 21.08, SD = 3.11, Mdn = 20). The age range was 15-44, with 67.8% aged 17 through 21, 23.8% from 21 through 25, 6.5% 26-30 and only 1.8% over 30 years old.

In this analysis students who self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (totaling about 1% of the 1990 respondents and 5% of those from 2000 and 2010) are included with students who identified as heterosexual. We believed that without the LBGTQ+ minority, we could not adequately represent overall patterns of sexual behaviour and intimacy. In addition, we had almost no valid data on sexual orientation for the first two cohorts. In 1980 there were no questions about sexual orientation, and in 1990 not one never-married student identified as bi- or homosexual. This likely reflected less respondents' actual orientation than the campus atmosphere in 1990, as well as students' unwillingness to self-identity as other than heterosexual on an in-class questionnaire.

Procedure

With approval from the institutional Research Ethics Board, questionnaires were administered in university classes by the principal investigator or a student research assistant. To ensure comparability of the data over time, this method was maintained through 2010 rather than changed to an online instrument. Instructors and students had the right to refuse to participate; on each questionnaire was a tear-off information page specifying that respondents could leave any question blank, and/or abandon the questionnaire at any point, and explaining that consent was implied by filling out and submitting a questionnaire. No compensation for participation was offered. Anonymity was protected by providing respondents a blank page with which to cover their answers, and by shuffling the questionnaires after collection, so none could be linked to a particular class or faculty. Our perception is that participation was high; almost all teachers accepted us into their class and nearly every student present filled out a questionnaire.

Measures

The instrument, which took approximately 20 min to complete, increased from 16 items in 1980, through 50 in 1990, to 90 in 2000 and 2010. Most questions had a multiple-choice format. The wording of a few questions was altered over time to clarify meaning. In each decade, preliminary versions of the questionnaire were discussed by students in small groups, and pre-tested by students who would not be in the final sample. Questions judged ambiguous or confusing were revised accordingly.

Demographics

Students identified their gender (male/female), age, current marital status (single/cohabiting/married/separated/divorced/ widowed), sexual orientation (heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual; 1990-2010) and whether they had ever been legally married (yes/no). Data on ethnicity were not collected, but in all likelihood reflected the overall student population, predominantly White with a small Asian minority increasing from nearly zero in 1980 to approximately 10% by 2010. We did not inquire about year in college, but judging from the classes sampled, we estimate a slight underrepresentation of first-year students. Virtually all respondents would have been undergraduates, as graduate programs on this campus began only in 2005. In 2010 post-graduate students, only 4.6% of the student population, were very unlikely to be enrolled in the courses sampled.

Sexual Behaviour

In this paper, all data on sexual behaviour and sexual partnerships refer to those which included sexual intercourse. Respondents were asked whether they had ever had sexual intercourse (yes/no), age of first intercourse, number of intercourse partners so far in their lifetime, number of intercourse partners in the previous year (asked from 1990 on), and self-identification as currently monogamous or not (from 1990 on).

In 1980 and 1990, no definition of sexual intercourse was presented in the questionnaire, under the (now questioned) assumption that the term referred only to penile-vaginal penetration. By 2000, researchers realized this definition excluded students with same-sex partners or with some disabilities, and the questionnaire allowed respondents to privately substitute their own definition if they felt penile-vaginal penetration was inappropriate in their case. In 2010, the qualification was refined to read:
   The next set of questions refer to "sexual intercourse," which, to
   allow results from this survey to be comparable over time and with
   other studies, generally refers to penile-vaginal intercourse.
   However, this definition may not be applicable to some respondents,
   for reasons of sexual orientation, disability, or others. In these
   cases, please answer questions using whatever definition you feel
   expresses maximum physical intimacy for you and your partner(s).


Researchers have found that for most contemporary youth, "sexual intercourse" continues to refer mainly to penile-vaginal penetration (e.g., Sewell & Strassberg, 2015; Trotter & Alderson, 2007). This finding suggests that the data on sexual intercourse for all four survey administrations are likely comparable, despite differences in questionnaire wording.

Intimacy Between Sexual Intercourse Partners

The question "In your lifetime, with how many partners did you have sexual intercourse?" was followed by, "How many of these partners were: (a) serious lovers (1980-90)/ committed partners (2000-2010), (b) friends, (c) acquaintances, and (d) strangers. The numbers should add up to the number in the previous question." Each of these four responses were divided by the respondent's total, creating four new variables: proportion of respondent's lifetime partners who were (a) committed/serious, (b) friends, (c) acquaintances, and (d) strangers. To enable comparisons with earlier hookup studies, these proportions were also used to create dichotomous variables showing whether a respondent had ever had sex with a friend, an acquaintance or stranger, and/or any uncommitted partner.

Sexual Behaviour Groups

From 1990 on, with the addition of questions on monogamy and number of partners in the past year, researchers distinguished three sexual behaviour groups (Netting, 1992; Netting & Burnett, 2004), defined as follows:

1. Abstainers, who included (a) virgins reporting they had never had sexual intercourse and (b) non-virgins reporting intercourse experience, but no intercourse partner within the previous year.

2. Monogamists, who self-identified as currently monogamous, and indicated at least one intercourse partner in the previous year.

3. Experimenters, who self-identified as currently not monogamous, and indicated more than one intercourse partner in the previous year.

There were a few cases where classification into a sexual behaviour group was difficult because of missing or inconsistent data. For example, some respondents identified as non-monogamist but reported only one partner in the past year. The principal investigator or co-author read through the questionnaires of ambiguous cases and attempted a classification based on answers to related questions. After this procedure, only 45 of the 1874 respondents from 1990 through 2010 remained unclassified. Twenty-nine of these respondents were never-married, and made up 1.8% of the never-married total of these three cohorts. These 29 were excluded from analyses which required information on sexual behaviour group.

Data Analysis

Data was entered into SPSS (v 23), and analyzed with appropriate statistical tests. To assess changes over time, especially the question of whether hooking up had replaced romantic relationships as the norm on this campus, [chi square] tests and/or analyses of variance were used to compare sexual behaviours among cohorts. We ran a logistic binary regression to assess the impact of demographic variables and past casual sex experience upon choice of sexual behaviour group (monogamy or experimentation).

RESULTS

Changes and Continuities over Time

Descriptive statistics of key sexual behaviours of never-married students, 1980-2010, indicate that males reported consistently higher numbers of sexual partners, both in the current year and in their lifetime. However, there was little difference by gender in age of first intercourse (about 17 years old) and proportion of students who had experienced sexual intercourse (70-80%), except for the small sample of women in 1980 (see Table 2).

One-way ANOVAs by cohort, conducted separately for males and females, showed little variation over time for having had sexual intercourse, age of first intercourse, and numbers of partners for lifetime and for the current year. For women, the only significant change was in the proportion who had experienced sexual intercourse, F(3, 895) = 4.614, p = .000, [[eta].sup.2] = .015, with a dramatic fall in virginity rate between 1980 and later cohorts, f(895) = -2.290, p = .022, [r.sup.2] = .006. Among men, the only significant difference between cohorts was in age of first intercourse, F(3, 607) = 3.750, p = .011, [[eta].sup.2] = .018, with a slight increase in age between 1980 and 90 and 2000-2010, t(607) =-2.623, p = .009, [r.sup.2] = .011 (see Table 2A).

Respondents categorized each of their partners, past and present, as serious/committed, friend, acquaintance, or stranger. Intimacy between partners over time was analyzed for men and women separately with one-way ANOVAs by cohort. While tables show actual proportions, before performing any statistical comparison on a proportion-derived variable, the arcsine transformation was used. This brought variable distributions closer to normality, as verified by reduction in skewness and kurtosis.

For women, by far the largest percentage of reported partners was within a serious/committed relationship: over 60% in the early years and slightly less by 2010. Strangers made up a very small proportion, somewhat more were acquaintances, and the remainder were friends (see Table 3). The most important shift for women was the gradual increase of friends as sexual partners, the proportion rising to 27% in 2010, F(3, 587) = 2.936, p = .033, [[eta].sup.2] = .015. Among men, the proportion of serious/committed relationships has always been smaller than for women, but their proportion has increased significantly after 1980, growing into the largest sexual partner category among males, t(536) = -2.451, p = .015, [r.sup.2] = .011 (see Table 3A).

Table 4 reports the distribution of sexual behaviour groups by cohort and gender. For men, the [chi square] analysis showed no significant difference over time, [chi square] (4) = 3.623, p = .459, T = .003. For women, some change did occur, [chi square] (4) = 17.129, p = .002, T = .008 (see following paragraph).

Monogamy was dominant for both genders in each cohort (see Table 4). Fifty-seven to 66% of all women were monogamous; for each decade this statistic was over 80% for those who were sexually active during the past year (514 out of 608, or 84.5%). For men, the monogamous percentage was lower (44-55%), but still included over two thirds of men sexually active in the past year (373 out of 532, or 70.1%). The second-largest behavioural group was that of abstainers, including about 30% of students. Except for a rise in female abstinence in 2000, this percentage has been nearly constant in all three decades despite the declining proportion of virgins, as the abstinent group also includes non-virgins who had no sexual intercourse in the previous year. Experimenters, whom the literature describes as participants in "hookup culture," have always been the smallest of the three groups, consisting of approximately 20% of men since 1990, and nearly doubling among women from 7.6% (1990, 2000) to 14.4% in 2010, [chi square] (1) = 10.115, p = .001, T = .01 (see Table 4A).

It is important to determine whether these behavioural groups represent anything more enduring than a short-term behavioural difference at the time of the survey. Current relationships for monogamists were relatively long-lasting (M = 1.9 years, Mdn = 1.5 years for 2000-2010, the cohorts who answered this question), suggesting fairly consistent monogamy for a group with average age of 21.2, and sexually active for a mean of 4.0 (Mdn - 3) years (data not shown).

Since there was little change among cohorts in age of first intercourse, number of partners, or distribution of behavioural groups, we combined the 1990-2010 cohorts and examined differences between abstainers, monogamists, and experimenters, with special attention to those who were currently sexually active.

For both genders, experimenters had significantly more lifetime partners, men: F(2, 581) = 21.195, p = .000, [r.sup.2] = .055; women: F(2, 651) = 14.268, p = .000, [r.sup.2] = .040, and a larger proportion of casual partners (acquaintances and strangers), men: F(2, 512) = 21.648, p = .000, [r.sup.2] = .077; women: F(2, 559) = 14.836, p = .000, [r.sup.2] = .046. In contrast, monogamists had significantly larger lifetime proportions of serious/ committed partners, men: F(2, 513) = 27.093, p = .000, [r.sup.2] = .094; women: F(2, 566) = 19.859, p = .000, [r.sup.2] = .065 (see Tables 5A-1 and 5A-2). Table 5B shows, by behavioural group, the proportion of respondents who ever had nonserious sexual partners, and of which type. These results indicate two different, enduring patterns of behaviour, with most students participating in long-lasting relationships, and a minority having multiple partners without commitment.

The data in Table 5B also demonstrates overlapping behaviour between the two groups. Most experimenters had at least one serious/committed partner (only 28% of experimenter males and 8% of experimenter females had none). Among monogamists, 52% of males and 48% of females had had sex with a friend (FWB relationship) while 42% of monogamist males and 31% of monogamist females had had sex with at least one acquaintance or stranger ("casual hookup") (see Table 5B). Moreover, this overlap occurred in every decade (statistics not shown).

Prediction of Sexual Behaviour Group

Binomial logistic regression (forced entry method) was used to predict which sexually active students were likely to become experimenters rather than monogamists (see Table 6). Abstention was not predicted, as we had no data on religion, religiosity, or ethnic background, which other studies have found influential in students' choice not to engage in sexual intercourse (e.g., Kuperberg & Padgett, 2016). Independent variables were those which earlier research had found relevant: gender, current age, sexual orientation, age of first intercourse, and lifetime proportion of partners who were "casual" (acquaintances and/or strangers). This was our best indicator of "unrestricted" (high) sociosexuality, as it strongly represented casual sex activity but was not part of our definition of experimenter, and was highly correlated with one of Simpson and Gangestad's (1991) original variables, number of one-night stands, for which we had partial data. The first regression model also used cohort and interactions between all independent variables, but these were dropped because all were statistically insignificant. The insignificance of cohort was evidence that the predictive equation had changed very little over our time period.

The logistic regression model significantly predicted choice of sexual behaviour group, [chi square] (5) = 112.393, p = .000, Nagelkerke's [R.sup.2] = .176. The strongest predictors of experimentation were having a large lifetime proportion of casual sex partners, p = .000, OR = 4.803, 95% CI [3.219, 7.166]; being male, p = .000, OR = .521, 95% CI [0.368, 0.736]; and being non-heterosexual, p = .008, OR = 2.654, 95% CI [1.284, 5.484]. Females were 0.59 times as likely as males to be experimenters (i.e., slightly more than half as likely), while non-heterosexuals were twice as likely as heterosexuals to choose the experimental lifestyle (see Table 6). Males with earlier sexual initiation were more likely to be experimenters, as were females who were younger at time of the survey (binomial logistic regressions for each gender available upon request).

DISCUSSION

This paper aimed to trace changes and continuities in sexual behaviour and the intimacy of relationships for students of one university from 1980 through 2010. With data from pencil and paper surveys administered in university classes at 10 year intervals, we tested the claim that by the 21st century "hookup culture" had replaced romantic relationships as the main form of sexual behaviour among university students. We found that throughout these years, the majority of sexually active students were in committed relationships, while a minority were mainly having casual sex with multiple partners. Yet most sexually active students in all four decades had engaged in sexual intercourse with both casual and committed partners. This fits the theory that university students, as emerging adults, are constructing their personal identities through exploration (Arnett, 2000, 2014).

Patterns of Sexual Behaviour in and out of Relationships

Throughout the past generation, student sexual behaviour at this university has demonstrated much continuity but also undergone some change. In 1980 nearly 40% of never-married women reported as virgins, while their male counterparts reported more of their intercourse partners had been acquaintances or strangers than had been serious lovers/committed partners. This gender difference is consistent with the double-standard of the "marriage only" scenario, in which a young woman waits for sex until her boy friend proposes, and a young man satisfies his sexual needs with casual partners (Darling et al., 1984).

In contrast to 1980, our combined data from 1990 through 2010 show that the percentage of female virgins dropped to 23%, while about half of men and approximately 60% of women were in committed sexual relationships. We believe this change reflects the transition to what social historians call the love standard, permitting penetrative sex for couples who love each other, even if they recognize their relationship might not last forever.

Since at least 1990, alongside the monogamous plurality there has been a persistent group of "experimenters," approximately 20% of men and a percentage of women nearly doubling over time to 14.4%. Experimenters' sexual behaviour is distinct from that of monogamists, involving concurrent sexual partners and lower degrees of emotional intimacy. This group appears to follow the "pleasure with consent" standard, but has never gained the dominance predicted in some early accounts of the sexual revolution. Results from this study are consistent with those of Armstrong, Hamilton, & England (2010), Arnett (2014), Fielder, Carey, & Carey (2013), Milhausen et al. (2013), and Monto & Carey (2014), who also found that committed monogamous relationships remain the prevalent pattern of student sexual behaviour.

In predicting which students would choose experimental, rather than monogamist behaviour, this study confirmed many earlier findings. A multi-partnered lifestyle is more likely for males than females, for non-heterosexuals than heterosexuals, and for those whose history already includes a large proportion of casual sex partners. Morover, this study demonstrates that predictors of student sexual lifestyle have not changed significantly over 30 years.

If we look at our data from another angle, emphasizing that among currendy sexually active, unmarried respondents, 53% of the men and 36% of the women had ever had a casual hookup (sexual intercourse with an acquaintance or stranger), and that 61% of the men and 53% of the women had ever had a FWB (sexual intercourse with a friend), we would have results very similar to those of many hookup studies (see Table 5B). However, this interpretation would miss the longstanding existence of behavioural differences between a majority that generally reserves sexual intimacy for committed monogamous relationships and a minority for whom casual sex is habitual.

Another important finding of this study is that "hookup culture" is not new. Since 1980 a large proportion of sexually active students reported having intercourse with a friend ("friends with benefits") and/or intercourse with an acquaintance or stranger ("casual sex"), and by 1990 it was clear that this number included many who were primarily monogamous. Conversely, nearly all experimenters have had some committed partners. This finding supports Monto and Carey (2014), who found a similar pattern as far back as 1988, and adds evidence to the argument that students enact different sexual patterns in different circumstances (Reid et al., 2015) and at different times in their lives (Fielder, Carey, & Carey, 2013).

The evidence-based finding of distinct yet flexible sexual behaviour norms can be linked to theories of exploration and identity formation during emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000, 2014; Swidler, 2001), with use of sexual "scripts" (Kimmel, 2007; Simon & Gagnon, 1984), "discourses" (Phillips, 2000) or "narratives" (Wood, 2001): all referring to apparently contradictory scenarios, which are well-known, reinforced among friends, and available for personal use.

In summary, this study found the following answers to our research questions:

1. Over the past 30 years, most sexually active students were in committed monogamous relationships. Those who habitually engaged in casual sex with multiple partners remained a minority. Reports of "hookup culture" becoming the new normal for university students are greatly exaggerated.

2. Students most likely to choose experimentation over monogamy are male, non-heterosexual, and those who already have a pattern of many casual partners.

3. Most sexually active students in every decade have had both casual and committed sex, exploring both sexual scripts but generally settling into the one which they feel fits better into their own emerging identity.

Limitations

This study, limited to one Canadian university, cannot be generalized to the rest of North America. However, our findings on types of sexual partners and the persistence of commited relationships are consistent with those of a national Canadian survey (Milhausen et al., 2013) and a long series of national US surveys (Monto & Carey, 2014), and therefore might contribute to our understanding of student sexual behaviour elsewhere.

Second, our 1980 survey, with limited questions and small sample size, was inadequate as a baseline measure. Our data from 1980, with its wide CIs, should be seen only as a rough indication of student sexual behaviour in that era. Similarly, along with most other studies which include students from varied sexual orientations, our study's non-heterosexual sample was too small for valid or reliable comparison with the heterosexual majority. Watson et al. (2017) suggest using an enlarged, over-representative sample of a population's LBGTQ+ community or drawing LBGTQ+ respondents from several universities, possibly giving this larger group additional questions on issues specific to their community.

Another limitation of this study is that many findings have low effect sizes, leaving the majority of variation unexplained. This reflects the reality that a great many factors influence the sexual choices of today's emerging adults. Cultural heritage, religious beliefs, family history, alcohol use, peer norms, and personality measures are some of the relevant variables not covered, an important omission in our prediction of experimenter lifestyle. Our work would also have benefited from the addition of more options for gender and sexual orientation, and specific items to check reliability, validity, and social desirability bias.

Implications for Future Research

Both the findings and the limitations of this study suggest paths for future research. First, the study of sexual behaviour at this university should be continued in future decades, retaining the core questions of earlier years while adding new ones. For example, we should ask about origins of existing committed partnerships, participation in peer subcultures, and use of online dating sites.

Since even a more comprehensive questionnaire could not explain all the decisions faced continually by every respondent, future surveys should include a qualitative component. In personal interviews, a subsample of respondents could explore reasons for partner choice and the meanings that committed relationships and casual sex hold in their lives. Such qualitative data would do much to illuminate the processes university students use as they construct their own sexual lifestyles.

CONCLUSION

Although this study is limited to one university, its strength is its long timespan. This enabled the most important finding, that one overall pattern has prevailed at this university since at least 1990. In each cohort, sexually active students included a monogamous majority and a multi-partnered minority, with most student histories containing both committed and casual partnerships. The coexistence of seemingly contradictory behaviours, backed by alternative scripts/discourses/ narratives, applies not only to sexual behaviour, but also to most other aspects of modern life in industrial societies (Arnett, 2000, 2014; Swidler, 2001). Choice of career, religion, sexual orientation, and even gender itself are now left to individuals rather than being decided by families or determined by social standards. Although many emerging adults go through a period of uncertainty, false starts, and reversals, this frustrating yet stimulating process may be essential to creating a coherent identity, in which sexual lifestyle plays an important part.

Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank Unit 6 of the I. K. Barber School of Arts and Science, UBC-Okanagan, for generously supporting the project; the UBC-0 Research Ethics Board, for its vote of confidence; Dr. Brian O'Connor, for his statistical guidance; and our dedicated team of research assistants, Michole Goutier, Madeleine Henderson, Tassani Hoskyn, Kayla Pagliocchini, and Kim Seida. A preliminary version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Sociological Association, June 3-8, 2013, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Nancy S. Netting, Unit 6, I. K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences, UBCOkanagan, 1147 Research Road, Kelowna, British Columbia, V1V 1V7. E-mail: nancy.netting@ubc.ca.

doi: 10.3138/cjhs.2017-0035

REFERENCES

Armstrong, E.A., & Hamilton, L.T. (2013). Paying for the party: How college maintains inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674073517.

Armstrong, E.A., Hamilton, L.T., & England, P. (2010). Is hooking up bad for young women? Contexts. Retrieved from https:// contexts.org/articles/is-hooking-up-bad-for-young-women/ https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2010.9.3.22.

Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480. http://dx.doi.orgl0.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469 Medline: 10842426.

Arnett, J.J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780199929382.001.0001.

Bailey, B. (1988). From front porch to back seat: Courtship in twentieth century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bailey, B. (1999). Sex in the heartland. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bay-Cheng, L.Y., Robinson, A.D., & Zucker, A.N. (2009). Behavioral and relational contexts of adolescent desire, wanting, and pleasure: Undergraduate women's retrospective accounts. Journal of Sex Research, 46(6), 511-524. http://dx.doi.org10.1080/ 00224490902867871 Medline: 19343570.

Bisson, M.A., & Levine, T.R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(1), 66-73. http://dx.doi.org10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2 Medline: 17851750.

Bogle, K.A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. London, NY: New York University Press.

Darling, C.A., Kallen, D.J., & Vandusen, J.E. (1984, Oct). Sex in transition, 1900-1980. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13(5), 385-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02088637 Medline:24306834

England, P., Shafer, E.F., & Fogarty, A.C.K. (2007). Hooking up and forming romantic relationships on today's college campuses. In M.S. Kimmel & A. Aronson (Eds.), The gendered society reader (3rd ed., pp. 531-547). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Fielder, R.L., Carey, K.B., & Carey, M.P. (2013). Are hookups replacing romantic relationships? A longitudinal study of first-year female college students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(5), 657-659. http://dx.doi.org10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.001 Medline:23298995.

Fielder, R.L., & Carey, M.P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of sexual "hookups" among college students: A short-term prospective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(5), 1105-1119. http:// dx.doi.org10.1007/s10508-008-9448-4 Medline: 19130207.

Fielder, R.L., Walsh, J.L., Carey, K.B., & Carey, M.P. (2013). Predictors of sexual hookups: A theory-based, prospective study of first-year college women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1425-1441. http://dx.doi.org10.1007/s10508-013-0106-0 Medline 23657811.

Garcia, J.R., & Reiber, C. Massey, & Merriwether. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 161-176. http://dx.doi.org10.1037/a0027911 Medline 23559846.

Grello, C.M., Welsh, D.P., & Harper, M.S. (2006). No strings attached: the nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 43(3), 255-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00224490609552324 Medline: 17599248

Kalish, R., & Kimmel, M. (2011). Hooking up: Hot hetero sex or the new numb normative? Australian Feminist Studies, 26(67), 137-151. http://dx.doi.org10.1080/081646492011.546333

Kimmel, M. (Ed.). (2007). The sexual self: The construction of sexual scripts. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Kuperberg, A., & Padgett, J.E. (2016). The role of culture in exploring college students' selection into hookups, dates, and longterm relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(8), 1070-1096. http://dx.doi.org10.1177/0265407515616876

LaBrie, J.W., Hammer, J.F., Ghaidarov, T.M., Lac, A., & Kenney, S. (2014). Hooking up in the college context: The event-level effects of alcohol use and partner familiarity on hookup behaviors and contentment. Journal of Sex Research, 5(1), 62-73. http:// dx.doi.org10.1080/00224499.2012.714010 Medline:23127230.

Lewis, M.A., Granato, H., Blayney, J., Lostutter, T.W., & Kilmer, J.R. (2012). Predictors of hooking up: Sexual behaviors and emotional reactions among US college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(5), 1319-1329. http://dx.doi.org10.007/s10508-011-9817-2 Medline:21796484.

Milhausen, R.R., McKay, A., Graham, C.A., Crosby, R.A., Yarber, W.L., & Sanders, S.A. (2013). Prevalence and predictors of condom use in a national sample of Canadian university students. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 22(3), 142-151. http://dx.doi.org 10.3138/cjhs.2316

Mongeau, P.A., Knight, K., Williams, J., Eden, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Identifying and explicating variation among friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50(1), 37-47. http:// dx.doi.org10.1080/00224499.2011.623797 Medline:22046972.

Monto, M.A., & Carey, A.G. (2014). A new standard of sexual behavior? Are claims associated with the "hookup culture" supported by General Social Survey data? Journal of Sex Research, 51(6), 605-615. http://dx.doi.org10.1080/00224499.2014.90631 Medline:24750070

Netting, N.S. (1992). Sexuality in youth culture: identity and change. Adolescence, 27(108), 961-976. Medline: 1471572

Netting, N.S., & Burnett, M.L. (2004). Twenty years of student sexual behavior: subcultural adaptations to a changing health environment. Adolescence, 39(153), 19-38. Medline: 15230063

Olmstead, S.B., Billen, R.M., Conrad, K.A., Pasley, K., & Fincham, F.D. (2013). Sex, commitment, and casual sex relationships among college men: A mixed-methods analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(4), 561-571. http://dx.doi.org10.1007/ s10508-012-0047-z Medline:23297148.

Olmstead, S.B., Pasley, K., & Fincham, F.D. (2013).Hooking up and penetrative hookups: Correlates that differentiate college men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(4), 573-583. http:// dx.doi.org 10.1007/s10508-012-9907-9 Medline 22886349.

Owen, J., & Fincham, F.D. (2011a). Effects of gender and psychosocial factors on "friends with benefits" relationships among young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 311-320. http:// dx.doi.org10.1007/s10508-010-9611-6 Medline:23049207.

Owen, J., & Fincham, F.D. (2011b). Young adults' emotional reactions after hooking up encounters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 321-330. http://dx.doi.org10.1007/s10508-010-9652-x Medline:20809375.

Owen, J., & Fincham, F.D. (2012). Friends with benefits relationships as a start to exclusive romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(7), 982-996. http:// dx.doi.orglO. 1177/0265407512448275

Paul, E.L., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. (2008). Hookups: A facilitator or a barrier to relationship initiation and intimacy development? In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 375-390). NY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.

Phillips, L.M. (2000). Flirting with danger: Young women's reflections on sexuality and domination. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Reid, J.A., Webber, G., & Elliott, S. (2015). "It's like being in church and being on a field trip": The date versus party situation in college students' accounts of hooking up. Symbolic Interaction, 38(2), 175-194. http://dx.doi.org10.1002/SYMB.153

Sewell, K., & Strassberg, D.S. (2015). How do heterosexual undergraduate students define having sex? A new approach to an old question. Journal of Sex Research, 52(5), 507-516. http:// dx.doi.orglO. 1080/00224499.2014.888389 Medline:24742052.

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J.H. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02701260

Simpson, J.A., & Gangestad, S.W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870-883. http://dx.doi.org10.1037/0022-3514.60-6.870

Swidler, A. (2001). Talk of love: How culture matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Taylor, K. (2013, July 12). Sex on campus: She can play that game, too. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. com/2013/07/14/fashion/sex-on-campus-she-can-play-thatgame-too.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Trotter, E.C., & Alderson, K.G. (2007). Students' definitions of having sex, sexual partner, and virginity loss: The influence of participant gender, sexual experience, and contextual factors. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 16(1-2), 11-29.

Watson, R.J., Snapp, S., & Wang, S. (2017). What we know and where we go from here: A review of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth hookup literature. Sex Roles, 77(11-12), 801-811. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1007/s111199-017-0831-2

Wentland, J., & Reissing, E.D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sexual relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20(3), 75-91.

Wood, J.T. (2001). The normalization of violence in heterosexual romantic relationships: Women's narratives of love and violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(2), 239-261. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0265407501182005

Nancy S. Netting (1) and Meredith K. Reynolds (2)

(1) Department of Sociology, University of British Columbia-Okanagan, Kelowna, BC

(2) Department of Psychology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT
Table 1. Descriptive Data for Student Samples, 1980-2010

                           1980

Marital Status       N      %       M Age
                                     (SD)
Males
  Never Married      25    48.1   20.6 (3.5)
  Ever Married       27    51.9   33.9 (6.8)
  Total Males        52    100    27.5 (8.7)

Females
  Never Married      36    43.4   20.1 (2.5)
  Ever Married       47    56.6   31.8 (6.7)
  Total Females      83    100    26.7 (7.8)

All
  Never Married      61    45.2   20.3 (2.9)
  Ever Married       74    54.8   32.5 (6.8)
  Total Sample      135    100    27.0 (8.1)

                           1990

Marital Status       N      %       M Age
                                     (SD)
Males
  Never Married      94    80.3   21.8 (4.5)
  Ever Married       23    19.7   36.1 (8.4)
  Total Males       117    100    24.6 (7.8)

Females
  Never Married     115    58.4   21.7 (4.4)
  Ever Married       82    41.6   36.9 (7.5)
  Total Females     197    100    28.0 (9.5)

All
  Never Married     209    66.6   21.8 (4.5)
  Ever Married      105    33.4   36.7 (7.6)
  Total Sample      314    100    26.7 (9.1)

                           2000

Marital Status       N      %       M Age
                                     (SD)
Males
  Never Married     212    86.5   21.8 (2.9)
  Ever Married       33    13.5   32.8 (8.0)
  Total Males       247    100    23.2 (5.5)

Females
  Never Married     327    85.8   20.8 (3.1)
  Ever Married       54    14.2   33.9 (8.9)
  Total Females     383    100    22.6 (6.3)

All
  Never Married     539    86.1   21.2 (3.1)
  Ever Married      287    13.9   33.5 (8.6)
  Total Sample      630    100    22.8 (6.0)

                           2010

Marital Status       N      %       M Age
                                     (SD)
Males
  Never Married     451    96.4   20.9 (2.6)
  Ever Married       17    3.6    31.0 (8.7)
  Total Males       469    100    21.3 (3.6)

Females
  Never Married     424    92.0   20.9 (2.8)
  Ever Married       37    8.0    30.8 (8.9)
  Total Females     461    100    21.7 (4.5)

All
  Never Married     875    94.2   20.9 (2.7)
  Ever Married       54    5.8    30.8 (8.8)
  Total Sample      930    100    21.5 (4.1)

Note. Numbers in table may not sum to total
number due to missing data.

Table 2. Sexual Behaviour of Never-Married Students, 1980-2010

Sexual Behaviour                                  1980

Males                                   N         %        95% Cl

  Never had sexual intercourse          7        28.0   [10.4, 45.6]
  Ever had sexual intercourse           18       72.0   [54.4, 89.6]
  Total                                 25

If had sexual intercourse ...         M(SD)                 Mdn
Number of lifetime partners         5.2 (4.8)               4.0
Number of partners previous year                  NA
Age of first sexual intercourse     16.5 (1.0)              16.5
N                                                 18

Females                                 N         %        95% Cl
  Never had sexual intercourse          14       38.9   [23.0, 54.8]
  Ever had sexual intercourse           22       61.1   [45.2, 77.0]
  Total                                 36
If had sexual intercourse ...         M (SD)                Mdn
Number of lifetime partners         4.8 (5.7)               3.0
Number of partners previous year                  NA
Age of first sexual intercourse     17.4 (1.9)              17.0
N                                                 22

Sexual Behaviour                                  1990

Males                                   N         %        95% Cl

  Never had sexual intercourse          21       22.3   [13.9, 30.7]
  Ever had sexual intercourse           83       111    [69.3, 86.1]
  Total                                 94

If had sexual intercourse ...         M (SD)                Mdn
Number of lifetime partners         7.5 (9.4)               4.5
Number of partners previous year    2.0 (2.1)               4.5
Age of first sexual intercourse     16.4 (2.6)              17.0
N                                                 72

Females                                 N         %        95% Cl
  Never had sexual intercourse          23       19.6   [12.3, 26.9]
  Ever had sexual intercourse           90       80.4   [73.1, 87.7]
  Total                                113
If had sexual intercourse ...         M (SD)                Mdn
Number of lifetime partners         5.6 (7.2)               3.0
Number of partners previous year    1.4 (1.4)               1.0
Age of first sexual intercourse     17.0 (1.9)              17.0
N                                                 90

Sexual Behaviour                                  2000

Males                                   N         %        95% Cl

  Never had sexual intercourse          32       15.5   [10.6, 20.4]
  Ever had sexual intercourse          175       84.5   [79.6, 89.4]
  Total                                207

If had sexual intercourse ...         M (SD)                Mdn
Number of lifetime partners         6.1 (1.9)               3.0
Number of partners previous year    2.1 (1.7)               1.0
Age of first sexual intercourse     17.2 (1.9)              17.0
N                                                170

Females                                 N         %        95% Cl
  Never had sexual intercourse          92       28.3   [23.4, 33.2]
  Ever had sexual intercourse          233       71.7   [66.8, 76.6]
  Total                                325
If had sexual intercourse ...         M (SD)                Mdn
Number of lifetime partners         4.6 (6.0)               3.0
Number of partners previous year    1.6 (1.2)               1.0
Age of first sexual intercourse     17.1 (1.9)              17.0
N                                                228

Sexual Behaviour                                 2010

Males                                   N         %        95% Cl

  Never had sexual intercourse          92       20.6   [16.8, 24.4]
  Ever had sexual intercourse          356       79.4   [76.6, 83.2]
  Total                                448

If had sexual intercourse ...         M (SD)                Mdn
Number of lifetime partners         7.1 (11.1)              4.0
Number of partners previous year    2.2 (2.5)               1.0
Age of first sexual intercourse     17.1 (1.8)              17.0
N                                                353

Females                                 N         %        95% Cl
  Never had sexual intercourse          83       19.6   [15.8, 23.4]
  Ever had sexual intercourse          340       80.4   [76.6, 84.2]
  Total                                423
If had sexual intercourse ...         M (SD)                Mdn
Number of lifetime partners         5.5 (6.2)               3.0
Number of partners previous year    1.8 (1.7)               1.0
Age of first sexual intercourse     17.0 (1.9)              17.0
N                                                339

Note. NA = question not asked. Numbers in table
may not sum to total number due to missing data.

Table 2A. Statistical Significance and Effect Sizes for
Table 2: Changes by Cohort, 1980-2010

Sexual Behaviour          n      F       P      [eta]
                                                 (a)
Males
  Ever had sexual        774   1.354    .256    .005
  intercourse

  Age of first sexual    611   3.750   .011 *   .018
  intercourse (d)

  Total lifetime         759   0.441    .724    .001
  partners (d)

  Total partners         576   0.348    .706    .001
  previous year (d)

Females
  Ever had sexual        899   4.614   .000 *   .015
  intercourse

  Age of first sexual    669   0.358    .783    .002
  intercourse (d)

  Total lifetime         679   1.139    .333    .005
  partners (d)

  Total partners         629   2.476    .085    .008
  previous year (d)

Sexual Behaviour         Contrast (b)     t        P      [r.sup.2]
                                                             (c)
Males
  Ever had sexual
  intercourse

  Age of first sexual    1980-90 vs.    -2.623   .009 *     .011
  intercourse (d)        2000-2010

  Total lifetime
  partners (d)

  Total partners
  previous year (d)

Females
  Ever had sexual        1980 vs.       -2.290   .022 *     .006
  intercourse            1990-2010

  Age of first sexual
  intercourse (d)

  Total lifetime
  partners (d)

  Total partners
  previous year (d)

(a) SSB / SST.

(b) When the ANOVA showed significance, a contrast was used to
focus on the most salient difference over time. For males in this
analysis, this occurred between 1980 and 90 and 2000-10; for
females, between 1980 and the three later cohorts.

(c) [r.sup.2] = [t.sup.2] / ([t.sup.2] + df). This formula for
[r.sup.2] used because it results in a more conservative effect
size compared to alternatives.

(d) If ever experienced sexual intercourse.

* p < .05

Table 3. Intimacy Level of Relationships, Never-Married,
Sexually Experienced Students, 1980-2010 (%)

                             1980                  1990

Intimacy Level          %        95% Cl       %        95% Cl

Males
  Serious, committed   22.6   [3.3, 41.9]    41.1   [29.1, 53.1]
  Friends              48.5   [25.4, 71.6]   29.1   [18.1, 40.1]
  Acquaintances +      28.9   [8.0, 50.0]    31.9   [20.6, 43.2]
  strangers
    Acquaintances      13.1    [0, 28.7]     11.6   [3.8, 19.4]
    Strangers          15.8    [0, 32.6]     20.3   [10.5, 30.1]
  n                     18                    65

Females
  Serious, committed   66.9   [47.2, 86.6]   69.5   [59.4, 79.6]
  Friends              19.1   [2.7, 35.5]    20.3   [11.4, 29.2]
  Acquaintances +      14.0    [0, 28.5]     11.4   [4.4, 18.4]
  strangers
    Acquaintances      7.4     [0, 18.3]     7.8     [1.9,13.7]
    Strangers          6.6     [0, 17.0]     3.6      [0, 7.7]
  n                     22                    79

                             2000                  2010

Intimacy Level          %        95% Cl       %        95% Cl

Males
  Serious, committed   50.0   [41.3, 58.7]   46.8   [41.4, 52.2]
  Friends              27.0   [19.3, 34.7]   25.9   [21.2, 30.6]
  Acquaintances +      23.0   [15.7, 30.3]   27.7   [22.9, 32.5]
  strangers
    Acquaintances      14.4   [8.3, 20.5]    17.7   [13.6, 21.8]
    Strangers          8.6    [3.7, 13.5]    10.0   [6.8, 13.2]
  n                    128                   330

Females
  Serious, committed   63.6   [56.3, 70.9]   58.6   [53.2, 64.0]
  Friends              22.2   [15.9, 28.5]   26.7   [21.9, 31.5]
  Acquaintances +      14.1   [8.9, 19.4]    14.3   [10.5, 18.1]
  strangers
    Acquaintances      9.4    [5.0, 13.8]    10.2   [6.9, 13.5]
    Strangers          4.7     [1.5, 7.9]    4.1     [1.9, 6.3]
  n                    168                   322

Note. Table 3 shows actual percentages,
as opposed to arcsine transformation.

Table 3A. Statistical Significance and Effect Sizes
for Table 3: Changes by Cohort, 1980-2010

Intimacy Level              n      F       P      [[eta].sup.2]
                                                       (a)
Males
  Proportion of serious/   540   2.787   .040 *       .015
  committed partners

  Proportion of friends    541   3.006   .030 *       .017

  Proportion of            539   1.469    .224        .008
  acquaintances +
  strangers

Females
  Proportion of serious/   596   1.537    .204        .008
  committed partners

  Proportion of friends    591   2.936   .033 *       .015

  Proportion of            589   0.080    .971        .0004
  acquaintances +
  strangers

Intimacy Level             Contrast (b)     t        P      [r.sup.2]
                                                               (c)
Males
  Proportion of serious/     1980 vs.     -2.451   .015 *     .011
  committed partners        1990-2010

  Proportion of friends      1980 vs.     2.738    .007 *     .014
                            1990-2010
  Proportion of
  acquaintances +
  strangers

Females
  Proportion of serious/    1980-2000     1.974    .049 *     .007
  committed partners         vs. 2010

  Proportion of friends     1980-2000     -2.489   .013 *     .010
                             vs. 2010
  Proportion of
  acquaintances +
  strangers

(a) [SS.sub.B] / [SS.sub.T] Calculated from 1-way ANOVA, after
arcsine transformation, which brought distribution of independent
variables closer to normality.

(b) When the ANOVA showed
significance, a contrast was used to focus on the most salient
difference over time. For males in this analysis, this occurred
between 1980 and the three later cohorts; for females, between 2010
and the three earlier cohorts.

(c) [r.sup.2] = [t.sup.2] / ([t.sup.2] + df).

* p < .05

Table 4. Sexual Behavioural Groups among
Never-Married Students, 1990-2010 (%)

                                   1990            2000

Sexual Behavioural Group      %        95% Cl       %

Males
  Abstainers                 34.1   [24.4, 43.8]   25.1
    Abstinent virgins        23.1   [14.4, 31.8]   16.4
    Abstinent non-virgins    11.0   [4.6, 17.4]    8.7
  Monogamists                44.0   [33.8, 54.2]   54.9
  Experimenters              22.0   [13.5, 30.5]   20.0
  n                           91                   195

Females
  Abstainers                 25.8   [17.7, 33.9]   35.5
    Abstinent virgins        19.6   [12.2, 27.0]   28.6
    Abstinent non-virgins    6.2    [1.7, 10.7]    6.8
  Monogamists                66.1   [57.3, 74.9]   57.1
  Experimenters              8.0    [3.0, 13.0]    7.5
  n                          112                   322

                                 2000            2010

Sexual Behavioural Group        95% Cl       %        95% Cl

Males
  Abstainers                 [19.0, 31.2]   27.5   [23.4, 31.6]
    Abstinent virgins        [11.2, 21.6]   20.2   [16.5, 23.9]
    Abstinent non-virgins    [4.7, 12.7]    7.3     [4.9, 9.7]
  Monogamists                [47.9, 61.9]   50.2   [45.6, 54.8]
  Experimenters              [14.4, 25.6]   22.2   [18.4, 26.0]
  n                                         450

Females
  Abstainers                 [30.3, 40.7]   25.2   [21.1, 29.3]
    Abstinent virgins        [23.7, 33.5]   19.6   [15.8, 23.4]
    Abstinent non-virgins     [4.0, 9.6]    5.6     [3.4, 7.8]
  Monogamists                [51.7, 62.5]   60.4   [55.7, 65.1]
  Experimenters              [4.6, 10.4]    14.4   [11.1, 17.8]
  n                                         424

Sexual Behavioural Group     [x.sup.2]     p       T
                                (a)               (b)
Males
  Abstainers
    Abstinent virgins
    Abstinent non-virgins      3.623     .459     .003
  Monogamists
  Experimenters
  n

Females
  Abstainers
    Abstinent virgins
    Abstinent non-virgins     17.129     .002 *    .008
  Monogamists
  Experimenters
  n

(a) Comparing abstainers, monogamists, and experimenters.

(b) Goodman and Kruskal's T (tau), with sexual behavioural group
dependent. T chosen as effect size, because, like r2 measures, it
ranges from 0 to 1, indicating proportion of variance in dependent
variable explained by independent variable.

* p < .05

Table 4A. Never-Married Female Students: Sexual Behavioural Group
(Non-Experimenters vs. Experimenters) by Cohort, 1990-2000 vs. 2010

                     1990-2000     2010

Sexual Behavioural    n      %      n      %
Group

Non-Experimenters    401   92.3    363   85.6
Experimenters        33     7.6    61    14.4
Total                434   100.0   424   100.0

Sexual Behavioural   [X.sup.2]     p      T (a)
Group

Non-Experimenters
Experimenters
Total                 10.115     .001 *    .01

(a) Goodman and Kruskal's T (tau), with sexual behavioural group
dependent. T chosen as effect size, because, like [r.sup.2] measures,
it ranges from 0 to 1, indicating proportion of variance in dependent
variable explained by independent variable.

* p < .05

Table 5A-1. Characteristics of Male Sexual Behaviour Groups,
Never-Married Students, 1990-2010 (Continuous Variables)

Male Sexual         Total      Abstainers (a)   Monogamists
Behaviour

Age
  M (SD)         21.3 (3.0)      20.9 (2.8)     21.4 (3.2)
  n                  728            201             372

Age of first sexual intercourse
  M (SD)         17.0 (2.0)      17.6 (1.9)     17.2 (2.0)
  n                  582             55             369

Total lifetime partners
  M (SD)         6.9 (10.4)      3.1 (3.6)       5.7 (9.8)
  n                  584             55             372

Proportion of serious/committed partners (c)
  M (SD)         .466 (.392)    .522 (.444)     .547 (.399)
  n                  516             47             331

Proportion of acquaintances/strangers (c)
  M (SD)         .271 (.317)    .304 (.407)     .211 (.295)
  n                  515             46             330

                                                     Monogamists vs.
                                                      Experimenters

Male Sexual      Experimenters     F        p        t      [r.sup.2]
Behaviour                                                      (b)

Age
  M (SD)          21.5 (3.0)     1.822     .162    -.330      .000
  n                   155

Age of first sexual intercourse
  M (SD)          16.4 (1.7)     13.710   .000 *   4.731      .037
  n                   158

Total lifetime partners
  M (SD)          11.2 (157)     21.195   .000 *   -5.808     .055
  n                   157

Proportion of serious/committed partners (c)
  M (SD)          .254 (.255)    27.093   .000 *   7.312      .094
  n                   138

Proportion of acquaintances/strangers (c)
  M (SD)          .405 (.292)    21.648   .000 *   -6.538     .077
  n                   139

(a) For all variables except age, only respondents who have
experienced sexual intercourse are included.

(b) [r.sup.2] = [t.sup.2] / ([t.sup.2] + df).

(c) Actual proportions, as opposed to arcsine transformation.

* p < .05

Table 5A-2. Characteristics of Female Sexual Behaviour Groups,
Never-Married Students, 1990-2010 (Continuous Variables)

Female Sexual       Total      Abstainers (a)   Monogamists
Behaviour

Age
  M (SD)         21.0 (3.2)      20.5 (3.1)     21.2 (3.1)
  n                  851            248             510

Age of first sexual intercourse
  M (SD)         17.1 (1.9)      17.5 (2.1)     17.1 (1.9)
  n                  642             50             501

Total lifetime partners
  M (SD)          5.1 (6.2)      4.0 (5.0)       4.7 (5.9)
  n                  654             49             512

Proportion of serious/committed partners (c)
  M (SD)         .608 (.354)    .571 (.387)     .654 (.351)
  n                  569             42             444

Proportion of acquaintances/strangers (c)
  M (SD)         .144 (.229)    .211 (.311)     .117 (.210)
  n                  562             42             439

                                                     Monogamists vs.
                                                      Experimenters

Female Sexual    Experimenters     F        P        t      [r.sup.2]
Behaviour                                                      (b)

Age
  M (SD)          21.1 (3.5)     3.766    .024 *    .293      .000
  n                   93

Age of first sexual intercourse
  M (SD)          16.7 (1.8)     2.542     .079    1.614      .004
  n                   91

Total lifetime partners
  M (SD)           8.2 (7.6)     14.268   .000 *   -5.178     .040
  n                   93

Proportion of serious/committed partners (c)
  M (SD)          .382 (.249)    19.859   .000 *   6.262      .065
  n                   83

Proportion of acquaintances/strangers (c)
  M (SD)          .252 (.245)    14.836   .000 *   -5.190     .046
  n                   81

(a) For all variables except age, only respondents
who have experienced sexual intercourse are included.

(b) [r.sup.2] = [t.sup.2] / ([t.sup.2] + df).

(c) Actual proportions, as opposed to arcsine transformation.

* p < .05

Table 5B. Never-Married, Sexually Active Students,
1990-2010 (Dichotomous Variables) (a)

Sexual Behaviour                Total   Monogamists   Experimenters

Males
  Proportion whose partners     .269       .363           .043
  were all serious/committed

    n                            469        331            138

  Proportion whose partners     .224       .199           .283
  were never serious/
  committed

    n                            469        331            138

  Proportion who ever had       .613       .517           .842
  sexual intercourse with
  friend

    n                            470        331            139

  Proportion who ever had       .531       .415           .806
  sexual intercourse with
  acquaintance/stranger

    n                            469        330            139

Females
  Proportion whose partners     .366       .423           .060
  were all serious/committed

    n                            527        444            83

  Proportion whose partners     .089       .090           .084
  were never
  serious/committed

    n                            527        444            83

  Proportion who ever had       .527       .484           .756
  sexual intercourse with a
  friend

    n                            522        440            82

  Proportion who ever had       .358       .308           .630
  sexual intercourse with
  acquaintance/stranger

  n                              520        439            81

Sexual Behaviour                [X.sup.2]     p      T (b)

Males
  Proportion whose partners      50.461     .000 *   .108
  were all serious/committed

    n

  Proportion whose partners       3.881     .049 *   .008
  were never serious/
  committed

    n

  Proportion who ever had        43.605     .000 *   .093
  sexual intercourse with
  friend

    n

  Proportion who ever had        59.917     .000 *   .128
  sexual intercourse with
  acquaintance/stranger

    n

Females
  Proportion whose partners      39.739     .000 *   .075
  were all serious/committed

    n

  Proportion whose partners       .028       .866    .000
  were never
  serious/committed

    n

  Proportion who ever had        20.515     .000 *   .039
  sexual intercourse with a
  friend

    n

  Proportion who ever had        30.882     .000 *   .059
  sexual intercourse with
  acquaintance/stranger

  n

(a) Table shows actual proportions; arcsine transformation
used to calculate statistics.

(b) Goodman and Kruskal's T (tau), with sexual
behavioural group independent.

* p < .05

Table 6. Binomial Logistic Regression to Predict Experimentation
versus Monogamy by Gender, Age, Sexual Orientation, Lifetime
Proportion of Casual Partners, and Age of First Sexual
Intercourse: Never-Married Sexually Active Students, 1990-2010

Component           B       Wald        P       OR
Variable                  [X.sup.2]

Gender            -.653    13.624     .000 *   .521

Lifetime          1.569    59.062     .000 *   4.803
proportion of
casual partners

Sexual            .976      6.945     .008 *   2.654
orientation
(heterosexual
vs. non-
heterosexual)

Age               -.067     5.174     .023 *   .935

Age of first      -.092     3.997     .046 *   .912
sexual
intercourse

Constant          1.294     1.792      .181    3.646

Component           95% Cl OR       Reference        Probability
Variable                             Category         Ratio (a)

Gender             [.368, .736]        Male        .144/.244 = 0.59
                                                    (Female:Male)

Lifetime          [3.219, 7.166]   See note (b)
proportion of
casual partners

Sexual            [1.284, 5.484]   Heterosexual    .366/.178 = 2.0
orientation                                       (non-heterosexual:
(heterosexual                                       heterosexual)
vs. non-
heterosexual)

Age                [.833, .991]      per year

Age of first       [.834, .998]      per year
sexual
intercourse

Constant

Note. OR = odds ratio. Cl = confidence interval. Overall Model: N =
926. [X.sup.2](5) = 112.393, p = .000 *, Nagelkerke [R.sup.2] =
.176

(a) Calculated from regression equation, while holding all other
independent variables at their means. This method is not useful
unless the independent variable is dichotomous, for the probability
ratio varies with every change of level of the IV.

(b) From
arcsine transformation, 0 vs. 1, representing actual proportions of
0 vs. .71

* p < .05
COPYRIGHT 2018 SIECCAN, The Sex Information and Education Council of Canada
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Netting, Nancy S.; Reynolds, Meredith K.
Publication:The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality
Date:Apr 1, 2018
Words:10371
Previous Article:How contingencies of self-worth influence reactions to emotional and sexual infidelity.
Next Article:Young women's perceptions of the impact of their body image on their sexual experiences.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters