Content uploaded by Shemeka Thorpe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shemeka Thorpe on Nov 16, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tchs20
Culture, Health & Sexuality
An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care
ISSN: 1369-1058 (Print) 1464-5351 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tchs20
First-year college students’ alcohol and hookup
behaviours: sexual scripting and implications for
sexual health promotion
Shemeka Thorpe, Amanda E. Tanner, Kari C. Kugler, Brittany D. Chambers,
Alice Ma, Wendasha Jenkins Hall, Samuella Ware, Jeffrey J. Milroy & David L.
Wyrick
To cite this article: Shemeka Thorpe, Amanda E. Tanner, Kari C. Kugler, Brittany D. Chambers,
Alice Ma, Wendasha Jenkins Hall, Samuella Ware, Jeffrey J. Milroy & David L. Wyrick (2019): First-
year college students’ alcohol and hookup behaviours: sexual scripting and implications for sexual
health promotion, Culture, Health & Sexuality, DOI: 10.1080/13691058.2019.1688868
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2019.1688868
Published online: 05 Dec 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
First-year college students’alcohol and hookup
behaviours: sexual scripting and implications
for sexual health promotion
Shemeka Thorpe
a
, Amanda E. Tanner
a
, Kari C. Kugler
b
, Brittany D. Chambers
c
,
Alice Ma
d
, Wendasha Jenkins Hall
e
, Samuella Ware
a
, Jeffrey J. Milroy
a
and
David L. Wyrick
a
a
Department of Public Health Education, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC,
USA;
b
Department of Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA,
USA;
c
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco,
San Francisco, CA, USA;
d
Department of Applied Health, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville,
Edwardsville, IL, USA;
e
Georgia Health Policy Center, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
ABSTRACT
This study used a sexual scripting framework to analyse data
from the Online College Social Life Survey to examine the role
of individual, (e.g. gender, race and alcohol use), relational
(partner type, condom use behaviours), and contextual factors
(sex ratios and fraternity/sorority affiliation) influencing 4,292
first-year college students’hookup experiences. Results suggest
that hookups are relatively “safe”, with the the majority involv-
ing non-penetrative sexual behaviour, condom use, and familiar
partners. However, alcohol use affected hookup behaviours and
lower levels of condom use were associated with heavy alcohol
use, even with less well known partners. Findings point to the
importance of interventions that reinforce first-year students’
positive behaviours and present them with protective behav-
ioural strategies to use in the context of alcohol, and with
repeat or well-known partners to reduce risk and have enjoy-
able, consensual sexual experiences.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 25 May 2019
Accepted 31 October 2019
KEYWORDS
Casual sex; college
students; hookups; alcohol;
sexual scripts
Introduction
In the US, the transition to college remains a pivotal moment in a young person’s
life typically marked by other changes, such as growing independence, moving out
of the family home, and changes in friends and relationships (HERI 2015; Eagan et al.
2014). During this transition, young adults begin to explore their sexuality as they
navigate through college “hookup”culture. Hookups - casual sex encounters
between individuals without the explicit expectation of a dating or romantic rela-
tionship - are typically discussed as including penetrative behaviours such as vaginal
and anal sex, yet in reality are often characterised by exclusively non-penetrative
CONTACT Shemeka Thorpe sythorpe@uncg.edu
ß2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2019.1688868
behaviours such as kissing, mutual masturbation and/or oral sex (Fielder et al. 2014;
Olmstead, Pasley, and Fincham 2013). Hookups have increasingly become a part of
US college sexual scripts and a normative form of relationship and sexual exploration
(Stinson 2010).
Experimentation with sex and alcohol are a large part of the college hookup script
(Kuperberg and Padgett 2015) and the “college effect”, which includes increased
participation in higher risk behaviours, especially alcohol consumption, in the first
few months of college (DeJong 2017). Recent estimates indicate that 82% of college
students have consumed alcohol in the past year (SAMHSA 2015). Among those
students, nearly 44% report heavy episodic drinking (i.e. 4 or more alcoholic drinks per
occasion for women and 5 or more for men) (SAMHSA 2015) and 16% report having
10 or more drinks at least once within the past 30 days (ACHA 2014). Despite final
year students being more likely to consume alcohol than any other group, first-year
college students are more likely to participate in heavy episodic drinking than their
older peers; over 42% of first-year college students report one or more episodes of
heavy drinking in the last 30 days (NIAAA 2017).
Alcohol use frequently occurs in conjunction with sexual behaviour. Downing-
Matibag and Geisinger (2009) found 80% of students reported using alcohol before
their last hookup. Alcohol consumption also increases participation in sexual risk
behaviours. For instance, alcohol use is associated with an increased number of sex-
ual partners (Patel et al. 2006), reduced condom use (Downing-Matibag and
Geisinger 2009; Gilchrist et al. 2012), and increased participation in a hookups
(Downing-Matibag and Geisinger 2009;Fisheretal.2012; Paul, McManus, and Hayes
2000). The purpose of this study therefore was to investigate the hookup scripts of
first-year college students and explore the role of alcohol on these sex-
ual behaviours.
Theoretical frame
Sexual script theory offers a useful framework for understanding hookup behaviours
on college campuses (Eaton et al. 2016). It posits that individuals have intrapersonal
(individual), interpersonal (relational), and contextual (cultural) scripts and expectations
for behaviours that occur within a sexual interaction (Frith and Kitzinger 2001;
Gagnon and Simon 1973; Wiederman 2005). The hookup script focuses on casual sexual
activity and may consist of kissing only; mutual masturbation; genital stimulation; oral,
vaginal, and/or anal sex; or any combination of these acts (Bogle 2008; Downing-
Matibag and Geisinger 2009;England2010; Fielder and Carey 2010a). What behaviours
are included in the sexual interaction and whether or not protective measures (e.g. con-
doms) are used within a hookup may be affected by the individual and their partners.
Sexual script theory also suggests that cultural scenarios or expectations of behaviours
influence how sexual interactions occur (Gagnon and Simon 1973;Wiederman2005).
Individual and relational scripts
Individual level scripts are where one evaluates and interprets cultural level scripts
to create their own decisions about their sexuality and sexual decision making
2 S. THORPE ET AL.
(e.g. alcohol use before hookups, hookup behaviours). Similar processes occur at
the interpersonal level but focus on the interactions between two or more people
(e.g. partner familiarity, orgasm and the enjoyment of partnered sex).
Alcohol use is a strong predictor of hookups, especially in social settings (e.g. frater-
nity/sorority parties or clubs) (Fielder and Carey 2010b; Kuperberg and Padgett 2015).
Approximately 65% of US college students report alcohol use before their most recent
hookup (Grello, Welsh, and Harper 2006). Binge drinking prior to, or during hookups
increases sexual risk behaviours depending on their familiarity with partners; and
increased partner familiarity increases the likelihood of unprotected sex, yet decreases
the likelihood of binge drinking (Kuperberg and Padgett 2016a). Hookups, especially
in conjunction with alcohol, may facilitate participation in sexual risk behaviours that
could lead to negative consequences for the sexual, emotional, and physical health
and safety of students (Allison and Risman 2013; LaBrie et al. 2014). Notably, overall
college students tend to experience more positive (e.g. sexual satisfaction, enjoyment,
and pleasure) than negative (e.g. regret and guilt) reactions to a hookup (Owen et al.
2010; Owen and Fincham 2011; Snapp, Ryu, and Kerr 2015). However, women tend to
report fewer orgasms during a hookup regardless of the sexual activities that are
involved (Armstrong, England, and Fogarty 2012; Allison and Risman 2013). Sexual
satisfaction and enjoyment in hookups are higher when college students are
motivated by intimacy and pleasure (Snapp, Ryu, and Kerr 2015) and they report sex
as less pleasurable when under the influence of alcohol (Herbenick et al. 2019)
Cultural scripts
Cultural level scripts refer to norms and contextual factors at the broader level
of society or college campuses in this case. Campus-specific factors such as sex ratios
(i.e. the ratio of female to male students) and the percentage of students affiliated
with fraternities and sororities may influence both the overall prevalence of hookups,
as well as the type of hookup behaviours engaged in by college students. Campus sex
ratios affect sexual partnering opportunities. When one sex significantly outnumbers
the other, the minority sex will have greater opportunities to negotiate sexual
intercourse on their own terms (Baumeister and Vohs 2004; Mahay and Laumann
2004; Regnerus and Uecker 2011). For example, women report having fewer dating
relationships and higher rates of engaging in sexual activity on campuses with higher
proportions of women (Uecker and Regnerus 2010), despite both women and men
both reporting that they desire a relationship (Kuperberg and Padgett 2015). Further,
there may be a decreased ability to negotiate condom use due to limitations of
(hetero)sexual networks from sex ratio imbalances (Adkins et al. 2015). In addition,
there may be increased opportunities, norms and expectations for alcohol consump-
tion through fraternity and sorority culture, resulting in increased acceptability and
social norms related to hookup and/or other casual sexual encounters (Allison and
Risman 2013; Holman and Sillars 2012; Berntson, Hoffman, and Luff 2014). The
intersection of these factors may influence the ways in which college students
negotiate sexual scripts and affect healthy and normative sexual development and
experimentation during this time period.
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 3
Understanding first-year college students’sexual hookup scripts, especially with
alcohol use, is crucial for developing relevant sexual health promotion interventions
that target the intersection between alcohol use and sexual behaviours to promote
safe, consensual, and pleasurable sexual experiences. Accordingly, the purpose of this
analysis was to use a sexual script framework (Gagnon and Simon 1973) to examine
the role of individual (e.g. alcohol use), relational (e.g. partner type) and cultural
(e.g. campus sex ratios and fraternity and sorority affiliation) factors influencing college
students’hookup repertoire and experience (e.g. specific sexual behaviours, condom
use, and enjoyment). Specifically, it addresses the following research questions: 1) Are
there significant differences in individual, relational and cultural factors between first-
year college students’who participate in penetrative and those who participate in
non-penetrative hookup behaviours; 2) is there a significant association between indi-
vidual, relational and cultural factors and penetrative hookups among first-year college
students; and 3) does alcohol use during last hookup vary by relational (e.g. partner
familiarity, orgasm, enjoyment) and cultural (e.g. fraternity and sorority affiliation,
sex ratio) factors?
Methods
Data collection
We conducted secondary data analysis using the Online College Social Life Survey
(OCSLS), consisting of 24,131 college students who represented 21 colleges and
universities nationwide in the USA and 1 community college. Detailed methods are
discussed elsewhere (Armstrong, England, and Fogarty 2012). Students from the
community college were included to offer a more comprehensive investigation. Briefly,
the OCSLS involved a convenience sample of college students who completed a self-
administered survey about their hookup and dating experiences while in college
between autumn 2005 and spring 2011. Participants received no compensation for
completing the survey. A higher proportion of college women (69%) completed the
OCSLS, in comparison to the average sex ratio of college students at these universities
(53% female). We limited our sample to 4,292 (of 8,060; 53.3%) first-year college
students who reported having a hookup since entering college. The Institutional
Review Board at the University of North Carolina Greensboro approved this secondary
data analysis.
Measures
Demographic characteristics
Students’demographic characteristics were assessed including: age, race/ethnicity,
gender identity, and sexual orientation. We developed a binary variable to reflect
participants’self-identified orientation to ensure sufficient power for our analyses: (1)
heterosexual; and (2) lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB). Students who selected “I’m not
sure”or self-reported as transgender were excluded from the analyses (n¼4; 0.10%)
as their hookup experiences may be unique (Watson, Snapp, and Wang 2017). We also
developed a binary variable to reflect on- and off-campus residency: (1) on-campus
4 S. THORPE ET AL.
(i.e. dormitory or other on-campus housing); or (2) off-campus (i.e. fraternity/sorority
housing, apartment or house, off-campus, with parents, or other). Students were asked
how often they attended religious services in the past year; we developed a binary
variable to assess this: (1) once a week or more; or (2) less than once a week. Finally,
mother’s education level was assessed (less than high school, high school graduate
only, some college, bachelor’s degree, and graduate degree) as a proxy measure
of socioeconomic status.
Hookup experiences: Individual and relational factors
To examine the range of hookup experiences, students were provided with the stem:
“The following questions are about any sexual activity that occurred during this [most
recent] hookup,”then asked, “Which sexual behaviours did you engage in?”Response
options included answering yes or no to: kissing, masturbation, breast touching
(given or received), manual-genital stimulation (given and received), oral-genital sex
(given and received), vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse (receptive and/or insertive)
and orgasm (self and perception of partner).
We recoded the original data into two categories: (1) penetrative sex (i.e. vaginal,
and/or anal sex exclusively or in conjunction with kissing, breast touching, manual-
genital stimulation and/or oral sex); or (2) non-penetrative sex (i.e. kissing, touching,
manual-genital stimulation, and/or oral sex). While oral sex could be a penetrative
behaviour, we decided to include it in the non-penetrative category due to the
decreased efficiency of STI transmission (Varghese et al. 2002).
Alcohol use during or prior to hookup was assessed by creating a three-level
variable to reflect the cut-off for heavy episodic drinking among women and men: did
not drink any alcohol; drank between 1 and 3 drinks (women) or 1 and 4 drinks
(men); or drank 4 (women) or 5 (men) drinks or more at one time. Students were also
asked about these hookup events, including if they: used a condom (no/yes), had an
orgasm (no/yes), perceived their partner had an orgasm (no/yes), and how much they
enjoyed the hookup (4-item Likert scale from not at all to very much).
Students provided information about their hookup partner. They indicated their
familiarity with the partner (5-item Likert scale from not at all known to very well
known) and hookup frequency (we developed a binary variable to reflect the number
of hookups with this partner: first hookup with person or repeat hookup with person).
Cultural factors
Information on colleges and universities’gender ratios and the ratio of students
who are members of fraternities and sororities were obtained from their respective
websites to coincide with the end of OCSLS data collection. We standardised these
variables at a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.
Data analysis
SAS (version 9.4) was used for analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated to
describe the sample and t-tests and chi-square tests were used to assess if there were
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 5
differences in hookup behaviours (penetrative vs. non-penetrative) by individual, rela-
tional and cultural factors.
We then used a series of mixed logistic regression models to test the relationship
between alcohol and hookups, focusing on both penetrative (e.g. vaginal and anal
sex) and non-penetrative (e.g. manual-genital stimulation and oral sex) sexual behav-
iours and accounting for the nesting of students within the colleges and universities
included in this analysis. Two sets of regression analyses were conducted to first
estimate the effect of alcohol use on the type of hookup and then to estimate the
effect of alcohol use on condom use among students who engaged in a penetrative
hookup. For each set of regression models, we added interaction terms to assess
whether the effect of alcohol use varied by (a) campus sex ratio, (b) fraternity and sor-
ority affiliation, (c) partner familiarity, and (d) reported orgasm. Dummy variables were
created for each of the interaction terms. Tables present regression coefficients and
odds ratios for all models.
Modern missing data approaches (e.g. PROC MI with FCS statement; SAS 9.4)
were used to impute the data for all our analyses, which enabled us to
maintain the power associated with a full sample (Graham 2012). Most variables had
less than 5% responses missing; the condom use variable however had 9%
responses missing.
Results
Sample characteristics
There was a total of 4,292 first-year college students who reported having a
hookup since starting college. Similar to the overall OCSLS sample, the majority of
the participants were women (69%), White (75%), heterosexual (95%), attended reli-
gious services (62%), and lived on-campus (87%). They had a mean age of 19years
and 33% reported mother’s education as having at least a bachelor’s degree.
Across the institutions, campus gender (women) and Greek (i.e. fraternity/sorority)
concentrations had a mean of 52% (range ¼45%–65%) and 7% (range ¼0%–35%),
respectively.
Around two-thirds (66%) reported that their most recent hookup was exclusively
non-penetrative, whereas 34% reported a penetrative hookup. There were
statistically significant differences in the type of hookup (i.e. penetrative and non-
penetrative) among first-year college students by individual, relational, and cul-
tural factors.
Hookups: demographic differences
College students who were female (68% vs. 63% of males, p<0.001), heterosexual
(67% vs. 57% of LGB, p¼0.003), lived on-campus (67.5% vs. 59.4% of students who
lived off-campus, p<0.001), and had a mother with a graduate degree (69.6% vs.
61.2% of students whose mother had a high school diploma only, p<0.001) were
more likely than others to have a non-penetrative hookup. In contrast, higher pro-
portions of college students who were African American (47% vs. 33% White, 32%
6 S. THORPE ET AL.
Asian, 31% Hispanic, and 36% mixed race, p<0.001) or older (M¼18.7; SD ¼1.2, vs.
M¼18.5; SD ¼0.8, p<0.001) reported penetrative hookups (see Table 1 for more
details). There were significant racial differences in participating in a penetrative
hookup. African American students were 2.11 times more likely to report a penetra-
tive hookup compared to White students (95% CI: 1.41-3.14, p<0.01). See Table 2
for more details.
Table 1. Comparison characteristics and behaviours between first-year college students who had
penetrative vs. non-penetrative hookups.
Non-penetrative sex Penetrative sex X
2
Total
Characteristic %, mean (N¼2,848) %, mean (N¼1,441) p-value (N¼4,292)
Gender 0.00
Female 67.8 (1,996) 32.2 (948) 68.6
Male 63.4 (852) 36.7 (493) 31.3
Race/Ethnicity
African American/Black 53.5 (99) 46.5 (86) 0.00 4.3
Caucasian/White 66.8 (2,144) 33.2 (1,066) 75.2
Asian 67.7 (218) 32.3 (104) 7.5
Hispanic 69.5 (276) 30.5 (121) 9.3
Mixed Race/Other 64.1 (100) 35.9 (56) 3.7
Mean age (SD) 18.48 (0.774) 18.68 (1.182) 0.00 18.5
Sexual Orientation 0.00
Heterosexual 66.9 (2,688) 33.1 (1,332) 95.2
LGB 56.9 (116) 43.1 (88) 4.8
Religiosity 0.06
Religious 67.5 (1,723) 32.5 (831) 62.2
Non-Religious 64.6 (1,002) 35.4 (549) 37.8
Living Arrangements 0.00
Live on-campus 67.5 (2,512) 32.5 (1,211) 86.9
Live off-campus 59.4 (334) 40.6 (228) 13.1
Mother’s education 0.00
Graduate degree 69.6 (667) 30.4 (291) 22.4
Bachelor’s degree 68.0 (967) 32.0 (455) 33.3
Some college 65.4 (660) 34.7 (350) 23.7
High school only 61.2 (403) 38.9 (256) 15.4
Less than high school 64.7 (143) 35.3 (78) 5.2
Gender Ratio: Female 51.65 (3.92) 51.67 (4.00) 0.83 51.7
Fraternity Ratio 7.96 (8.28) 6.43 (6.60) 0.00 7.4
Sorority Ratio 9.36 (7.89) 7.73 (6.61) 0.00
Condom use 14.5 (176) 85.5 (1,036) 0.00 32.4
No alcohol use prior to/during
Some alcohol 69.6 (370) 30.5 (162) 0.10 12.4
Heavy alcohol 67.8 (1,593) 32.2 (757) 0.03 54.8
Experienced orgasm 23.8 (238) 76.2 (762) 0.00 23.3
Partner experienced orgasm 26.8 (393) 73.2 (1072) 0.00 34.1
Enjoyed experience 0.00
Very much 57.3 (1,110) 42.7 (828) 46.2
Somewhat 72.3 (1,195) 27.8 (459) 39.4
Very little 77.9 (326) 22.0 (92) 10.0
Not at all 69.7 (131) 30.3 (57) 4.5
Knew partner 0.00
Very well 53.6 (461) 46.4 (399) 20.0
Moderately well 65.6 (629) 34.4 (330) 22.4
Somewhat 66.7 (588) 33.3 (294) 20.6
A little bit 71.6 (668) 28.4 (265) 21.8
Not at all 76.3 (495) 23.7 (154) 15.2
Repeat partner 54.9 (1,155) 45.1 (950) 0.00 49.0
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 7
Hookups: individual factors
Overall, about 85% of students used a condom within a penetrative hookup. Gender
and age were negatively associated with condom use. Female students were 0.65
times less likely to report condom use compared to male students (95% CI: 0.49-0.87,
p<0.01). As students’age decreased, reported condom use increased; younger first-
Table 2. Multinomial logistic regression analyses predicting penetrative hookup.
95% Confidence Intervals
Odds Ratio Lower Bound Upper Bound
Alcohol use prior to/during
No alcohol use (referent)
Some alcohol use 1.10 0.83 1.47
Heavy alcohol use 1.48 1.21 1.81
Gender
Male (referent)
Female 1.11 0.91 1.35
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White (referent)
African American/Black 2.11 1.41 3.14
Asian 1.06 0.76 1.47
Hispanic 0.97 0.68 1.37
Mixed Race/Other 1.36 0.87 2.13
Mean age (SD) 1.07 0.97 1.18
Sexual Orientation
LGB (referent)
Heterosexual 1.21 0.81 1.81
Religiosity
Non-Religious (referent)
Religious 0.83 0.69 1.00
Living Arrangements
Live off-campus (referent)
Live on-campus 0.98 0.69 1.41
Mother’s education
Graduate degree (referent)
Bachelor’s degree 1.06 0.84 1.34
Some college 1.05 0.81 1.35
High school only 1.331.00 1.76
Less than high school 1.31 0.83 2.06
Gender Ratio: Female 1.01 0.95 1.06
Fraternity Ratio 0.95 0.83 1.10
Sorority Ratio 1.01 0.87 1.18
Experienced orgasm 3.69 2.93 4.64
Partner experienced orgasm 10.04 8.33 12.10
Enjoyed experience
Very much (referent)
Somewhat 0.93 0.77 1.13
Very little 0.88 0.64 1.22
Not at all 1.49 0.96 2.33
Knew partner
Very well (referent)
Moderately well 0.94 0.73 1.21
Somewhat 0.87 0.67 1.14
A little bit 0.77 0.58 1.01
Not at all 0.77 0.56 1.07
Repeat partner 1.82 1.50 2.21
Intercept 0.02 0.00 0.75
Note: p-value <0.05, p-value <0.01.
8 S. THORPE ET AL.
Table 3. Alcohol use and known partner main effects and interactions predicting condom use.
STEP 1
95% Confidence Interval
STEP 2
95% Confidence Interval
Odds
ratio
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Odds
ratio
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Alcohol use prior to/during
No alcohol use (referent)
Some alcohol use 1.34 0.86 2.09 1.03 0.48 2.21
Heavy alcohol use 0.86 0.65 1.14 0.580.37 0.92
Gender
Male (referent)
Female 0.65 0.49 0.87 0.64 0.48 0.86
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian/White (referent)
African American/Black 1.84 0.99 3.41 1.76 0.95 3.27
Asian 1.00 0.62 1.62 0.98 0.60 1.59
Hispanic 1.17 0.71 1.91 1.14 0.69 1.87
Mixed Race/Other 1.37 0.68 2.78 1.32 0.65 2.67
Mean age (SD) 0.85 0.76 0.95 0.86 0.77 0.96
Sexual Orientation
LGB (referent)
Heterosexual 1.96 1.23 3.14 1.98 1.23 3.17
Religiosity
Non-Religious (referent)
Religious 1.01 0.78 1.31 1.00 0.78 1.30
Living Arrangements
Live off-campus (referent)
Live on-campus 1.48 0.98 2.25 1.45 0.96 2.20
Mother’s education
Graduate degree (referent)
Bachelors degree 1.28 0.91 1.80 1.28 0.91 1.80
Some college 1.24 0.86 1.78 1.24 0.86 1.78
High school only 1.31 0.89 1.94 1.30 0.87 1.93
Less than high school 2.00 0.98 4.09 2.121.04 4.34
Gender Ratio: Female 1.01 0.97 1.05 1.01 0.97 1.05
Fraternity Ratio 1.03 0.93 1.14 1.03 0.93 1.13
Sorority Ratio 0.97 0.87 1.08 0.97 0.88 1.08
Experienced orgasm 0.79 0.58 1.07 0.77 0.57 1.04
Partner experienced orgasm 0.87 0.63 1.19 0.88 0.64 1.21
Enjoyed experience
Very much (referent)
Somewhat 1.22 0.91 1.63 1.23 0.92 1.64
Very little 1.52 0.85 2.70 1.49 0.83 2.66
Not at all 0.92 0.48 1.75 0.89 0.47 1.70
Knew partner
Very well (referent)
Moderately well 1.26 0.90 1.76 0.99 0.60 1.63
Somewhat 2.03 1.40 2.96 1.20 0.68 2.14
A little bit 1.481.00 2.17 1.18 0.61 2.30
Not at all 1.801.09 2.97 1.45 0.53 3.96
Repeat partner 0.85 0.63 1.14 0.85 0.63 1.15
Alcohol and Knew Partner Interactions
No Alcohol Knew Partner
Heavy Alcohol Moderately well 1.58 0.79 3.16
Heavy Alcohol Somewhat 2.331.08 5.02
Heavy Alcohol A Little Bit 1.80 0.79 4.10
Heavy Alcohol Not at all 1.47 0.47 4.65
Some Alcohol Moderately well 1.66 0.54 5.10
Some Alcohol Somewhat 3.69 0.81 16.74
Some Alcohol A Little Bit 0.63 0.18 2.25
Some Alcohol Not at all 2.88 0.26 32.20
Intercept 13.55 0.60 304.83 14.77 0.68 322.30
Note: p-value <0.05, p-value <0.01.
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 9
year college students were 0.85 times more likely to report condom use compared to
older first-year college students (95% CI: 0.76–0.95, p<0.01). Sexual orientation was
positively associated with condom use; heterosexual students were 1.96 (95% CI:
1.23–3.14, p<0.01) times more likely to report condom use compared to LGB students.
More than half (55%) of first-year college students reported heavy episodic drinking
prior to, or during, their last hookup experience (68% vs. 32% for non-penetrative and
penetrative hookups, respectively, p¼0.03). Alcohol use was positively associated with
having a penetrative hookup; students who reported heavy alcohol use were 1.48
(95% CI: 1.21-1.81, p<0.01) times more likely to have a penetrative hookup compared
to students who reported no alcohol use (see Table 2). Among students who had
a penetrative hookup, 53% reported heavy episodic drinking and 72% reported using
a condom. Alcohol use was not a significant predictor of condom use/non-use.
See Table 3 for more details.
Hookups: relational factors
First-year college students reported knowing their hookup partner very well (20%),
moderately well (22%), or somewhat well (21%). Further, 15% reported not knowing
their hookup partner at all (76% vs. 24% for non-penetrative and penetrative hookups,
p<.001, respectively). Students who had a penetrative hookup were more likely
to have known their hookup partner very well (47%, p<.001) (see Table 1). Nearly
half (49%) reported hooking up with a repeat partner. Having a repeat partner was
positively associated with having a penetrative hookup; students with a repeat
hookup partner were 1.82 (95% CI: 1.50-2.21, p<0.001) times more likely to report
a penetrative hookup compared to students who did not have a repeat hookup
partner (see Table 2).
Partner familiarity was also associated with condom use. Students who knew their
partner somewhat, a little bit, and not at all were, respectively, 2.03 (p<0.01), 1.48
(p<0.05), and 1.80 (p<0.05) times more likely to report condom use compared to
students who knew their partners very well. Taking into account the interaction
between partner familiarity and alcohol use, students who reported heavy alcohol and
knowing their partner “somewhat well”were 2.33 times more likely to use a condom
compared to students who reported knowing their partner very well (p<0.05
(see Table 3).
Nearly half (46%) of first-year college students reported enjoying their most recent
hookup experience very much, whereas 39% of students enjoyed it somewhat. A size-
able minority of respondents reported experiencing (23%) or believed their partner
experienced (34%) an orgasm during their most recent hookup experience. First-year
college students who had a penetrative hookup were more likely to report they (76%)
or their partner (73%) experienced an orgasm during the hookup compared to
students who had a non-penetrative hookup (24% experienced an orgasm, p<0.001;
27% partner experienced an orgasm, p<0.001) (see Table 1).
Students who experienced, and/or their partner experienced, an orgasm were 2.93
(p<0.01) and 8.33 (p<0.01) times, respectively, more likely to have a penetrative
hookup compared to hookup events where students and/or their partner did not
10 S. THORPE ET AL.
experience an orgasm (see Table 2). Among students who did not enjoy their hookup
at all, 65% reported heavy alcohol use, whereas 48% of students reported heavy alco-
hol if they enjoyed their hookup very much (p<0.01). Among students who used
some alcohol during their hookup, 2% reported not enjoying their hookup at all and
49% reported enjoying it very much (p<0.01).
Hookups: cultural factors
There were no differences in the type of hookup by campus sex ratios. Campuses with
higher levels of fraternity and sorority affiliations reported fewer penetrative hookups
compared to campuses with no fraternity and sorority affiliations (p<.001) (see
Table 1). There was not an interaction between alcohol use and fraternity and sorority
affiliations as it related to penetrative hookups or condom use; see Tables 2 and 3
for more details.
Discussion
The findings of this analysis describe various ways in which first-year college students
experience hookups –with individual, relational, and cultural factors affecting their
sexual hookup scripts (Gagnon and Simon 1973). Despite research suggesting that
hookups are associated with risk (Armstrong, Hamilton, and England 2010; LaBrie et al.
2014), our results suggest that first-year college students’hookups may be relatively
“safe”(e.g. the majority include non-penetrative sexual behaviours, condom use, and
familiar partners) and most report them to be pleasurable experiences. Thus, hookups
may be a normative component of sexual experimentation and development for col-
lege students. Understanding the individual, interpersonal and cultural differences of
hookups are important in aiding the development of interventions to continue to sup-
port first-year college students’positive and healthy sexual decision-making.
These findings highlight the demographic characteristics and behavioural correlates
of hookups. Students who were female and lived on campus were more likely to have
non-penetrative hook-ups. Prior work found that the oral sex was the most reported
sexual behaviour among undergraduate college students with around three-quarters
reporting this behaviour and Black women (58.1%) participating in oral sex less than
White women (71.7%) (Buhi, Marhefka, and Hoban 2010). College women may see this
a safer way to engage in hookup behaviours that protects their reputations under the
sexual double standards that they face in hookup culture (Allison and Risman 2013;
Kettrey 2016; Lovejoy 2015; Wade 2017). Future research is needed to understand
first-year college women’s perceived threat and susceptibility to STIs (including
those that can be transmitted orally) in order to develop health promotion messages
regarding oral sex and barrier method use (e.g. condom and dental dam use).
Students who were older and African American were more likely to have penetrative
hookups. Consistent with other findings (Kuperberg and Padgett 2015), first-year college
students are engaging in hookups. However, first-year students are having fewer hookups
and drinking less alcohol highlighting the need to target interventions at these students
to support the continuation of these lower risk behaviours. Although students of colour
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 11
are less likely to engage in hookups than their White peers, the motivation to engage in
penetrative sex may be related to the possibility of relationship formation (Hall and
Tanner 2016; Kuperberg and Padgett 2016b). These differences may be due to contextual
factors reinforcing sexual scripts; many of the universities in this sample were predomin-
ately White institutions, so students of colour who desire racial homophily were con-
strained to a limited number of potential partners. Thus, continued examination of
hookup behaviours with diverse students is crucial in fully understanding the ways that
students engage in sexual behaviours, particularly within the context of alcohol.
Importantly, the majority of first-year college students who engaged in penetrative
hookups used condoms. In line with extant research (Kuperberg and Padgett 2015,2016a;
Lewis, Miguez-Burban, and Malow 2009; Lewis et al. 2012), heavy alcohol use was associ-
ated with increased penetrative hook-ups, yet most penetrative hookups that occurred
with heavy alcohol use were condom protective. The relationship between alcohol and
condom use was altered based on relational factors (e.g. partner familiarity). Specifically,
among students who reported heavy alcohol use, the likelihood of condom use was
higher with less familiar partners and lower with partners who were very familiar.
Hookups frequently occurred with a well (or moderately) known or repeat partner,
suggesting that hookups could be one way students participate in developmentally
appropriate sexual experimentation and could indicate a step in relationship formation
(Garcia and Reiber 2008; Rhoades and Stanley 2014; Vrangalova, Bukberg, and Rieger
2014). Students were less likely to use condoms with partners who they knew very
well. Students in relationships where they feel close and comfortable with their part-
ners may choose to discontinue condom use and, in some cases, increase hormonal
contraceptive use. (Ott et al. 2002). At the time of data collection, only 49.3% of col-
lege students reported using both a condom and another contraceptive method, how-
ever 61.8% of females reported using pills and 29.0% reported using the withdrawal
method (ACHA 2011). However, it should be noted that based on the OCSLS’defin-
ition of hook-ups these students were not in exclusive relationships with their hookup
partners. Interestingly, although heavy alcohol use increased students’likelihood of
hooking up with someone they knew less well, it also was associated with increased
condom use. Accordingly, the level of partner familiarity should remain a target of
interventions to promote continued condom use even within sexual encounters with
known and repeat partners (LaBrie et al. 2014).
Overall, sexual enjoyment during hookups was endorsed at a high level. Alcohol
played a role in students’reported enjoyment, with higher proportions of students
reporting enjoying the hookup with lower levels of alcohol. This enjoyment aligns
with existing research that suggests college students experience more positive (e.g.
sexual satisfaction) than negative (e.g. regret or guilt) reactions to a hookup (Owen
et al. 2010; Owen and Fincham 2011; Snapp, Ryu, and Kerr 2015; Kuperberg and
Padgett 2016b). Sexual pleasure is an important and appropriate motivation for stu-
dents to engage in hookups (de Jong, Adams, and Reis 2018). Interventions that
approach sexual health from a risk reduction paradigm and frame messaging around
safety (e.g. related to condom use and at the intersection of alcohol and sexual behav-
iours) and pleasure (e.g. increased sexual enjoyment with lower levels of alcohol) may
be more relevant for college students (Ware, Thorpe, Tanner 2019).
12 S. THORPE ET AL.
Campus specific factors were related to hookup scripts; there were less
reported penetrative hookups on campuses with a higher ratio of fraternity and
sorority affiliations. This may be due to social norms around sexual behaviours
that affect the ways in which students associated with fraternities and sororities
are expected to negotiate sexual scripts that may be protective. It could also be
fraternities and sororities have less impact on first-year students who have fewer
interactions with them on their campus (e.g. before rush). Similar to previous
research (Kuperberg and Padgett 2015), this analysis did not find an effect of cam-
pus sex ratios on hookups. Other research using OCSLS data show that on cam-
puses where there are more women than men, women engage in hookups more
with other women, which suggests that sex ratios may shape cultural scripts in
other ways (Adkins et al. 2015; Kuperberg and Padgett 2015). This behaviour may
not yet be reflected in first-year college students’hookup scripts (e.g. more part-
nering with individuals in their residence halls). More work in this area is needed
to understand how other campus factors (e.g. alcohol and sex norms) may affect
the sexual health of students, especially on more diverse campuses (i.e. historic-
ally Black colleges and universities as compared to predominantly White institu-
tions) (Hall and Tanner 2016).
Limitations and future directions
Although this analysis used a large and comprehensive dataset, our analysis is limited
in several ways. First, the term “hookup”was intentionally undefined in the OCSLS,
thus results related to specific sexual behaviours may vary depending on students’
perceptions of what is a hookup, which may vary significantly by a variety of factors
(e.g. race, ethnicity, gender and campus context). Second, while data were obtained
from 22 institutions, they represent a purposive sample of first-year college students
and may not reflect the full sexual repertoire of the larger first-year US college student
population. In particular, the sample was predominantly White and heterosexual,
which may not reflect the variation in behaviours –sexual and alcohol –of a more
diverse college population. Thus, future research should utilise qualitative methods
that allow for diverse students (e.g. students of colour and sexual and gender minor-
ities) to describe their hookup scripts, experiences and motivations. Having sexual
health programming tailored to the definitions and views of what hook-ups might
look like for students of different races and cultures may assist in risk reduction and
promote healthy sexual development, including pleasure.
Conclusions
Hookups, especially during an individual’s transition to college, remain a unique point
of study as they may provide developmentally appropriate avenues for sexual experi-
mentation, agency, and pleasure above and beyond a focus on reducing negative sex-
ual health outcomes (e.g. STI acquisition from condomless penetrative behaviours).
College is one important part of many young people’s transition toward independ-
ence; it is important to help support students attending them to ensure that their
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 13
experiences are healthy, safe, and pleasurable. Thus, as we consider ways to support
college students’sexual health, we need to be innovative and consider the new ways
and methods that young people are meeting partners (e.g. through sexual networking
apps) and using these technologies for improving the sexual health of young people,
particularly at these important transitions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Adkins, T., P. England, B. J. Risman, and J. Ford. 2015.“Student Bodies Does the Sex Ratio Matter
for Hooking up and Having Sex at College?”Social Currents 2 (2): 144–162.
Allison, R., and B. J. Risman. 2013.“A Double Standard for ‘Hooking Up’: How Far Have We
Come toward Gender Equality?”Social Science Research 42 (5): 1191–1206. doi:10.1016/j.ssre-
search.2013.04.006
American College Health Association (ACHA). 2011.“American College Health
Association-National College Health Assessment: Undergraduate Reference Group Executive
Summary, Spring 2011.”https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/ACHA-NCHA-II_UNDERGRAD_
ReferenceGroup_ExecutiveSummary_Spring2011.pdf
American College Health Association (ACHA). 2014.“American College Health Association-National
College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Executive Summary, Spring 2014.”http://www.
acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_ExecutiveSummary_Spring2014.pdf
Armstrong, E. A., P. England, and A. C.K. Fogarty. 2012.“Accounting for Women’s Orgasm and
Sexual Enjoyment in College Hookups and Relationships.”American Sociological Review 77 (3):
435–462. doi:10.1177/0003122412445802
Armstrong, E. A., L. Hamilton, and P. England. 2010.“Is Hooking up Bad for Young Women?”
Contexts 9 (3): 22–27. doi:10.1525/ctx.2010.9.3.22
Baumeister, R. F., and K. D. Vohs. 2004.“Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social
Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions.”Personality and Social Psychology Review 8 (4):
339–363. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2
Berntson,M.A.,K.L.Hoffman,andT.L.Luff.2014.“College as Context: Influences on Interpersonal
Sexual Scripts.”Sexuality & Culture 18 (1): 149–165. doi:10.1007/s12119-013-9180-7
Bogle, K. A. 2008.Hooking up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York: NYU Press.
Buhi, E. R., S. L. Marhefka, and M. T. Hoban. 2010.“The State of the Union: Sexual Health
Disparities in a National Sample of US College Students.”Journal of American College Health
58 (4): 337–346. doi:10.1080/07448480903501780
DeJong, W. 2017.“Evaluating the Efficacy of AlcoholEdu for College.”Washington, DC. Everfi. http://
info.everfi.com/rs/410-YCZ-984/images/White%20Paper%20-%20Evaluating%20the%20Efficacy%20
of%20AlcoholEdu%20for%20College.pdf
de Jong, D. C., K. N. Adams, and H. T. Reis. 2018.“Predicting Women’s Emotional Responses to
Hooking up: Do Motives Matter?”Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 35 (4): 532–556.
doi:10.1177/0265407517743077
Downing-Matibag, T. M., and B. Geisinger. 2009.“Hooking up and Sexual Risk Taking among
College Students: A Health Belief Model Perspective.”Qualitative Health Research 19 (9):
1196–1209. doi:10.1177/1049732309344206
Eagan, K., E. B. Stolzenberg, J. J. Ramirez, M. C. Aragon, M. R. Suchard, and S. Hurtado. 2014.The
American Freshman: National Norms Fall 2014. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research
Institute.
14 S. THORPE ET AL.
Eaton, A. A., S. M. Rose, C. Interligi, K. Fernandez, and M. McHugh. 2016.“Gender and Ethnicity
in Dating, Hanging out, and Hooking up: Sexual Scripts among Hispanic and White Young
Adults.”The Journal of Sex Research 53 (7): 788–804. doi:10.1080/00224499.2015.1065954
England, P. 2010.“The Gender Revolution Uneven and Stalled.”Gender & Society 24 (2): 149–166.
doi:10.1177/0891243210361475
Fielder, R. L., and M. P. Carey. 2010a.“Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Hookups among
First-Semester Female College Students.”Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 36 (4): 346–359. doi:
10.1080/0092623X.2010.488118
Fielder, R. L., and M. P. Carey. 2010b.“Predictors and Consequences of Sexual ‘Hookups’among
College Students: A Short-Term Prospective Study.”Archives of Sexual Behavior 39 (5):
1105–1119. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9448-4
Fielder, R. L., J. L. Walsh, K. B. Carey, and M. P. Carey. 2014.“Sexual Hookups and Adverse Health
Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study of First-Year College Women.”The Journal of Sex Research 51
(2): 131–144. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.848255
Fisher, M. L., K. Worth, J. R. Garcia, and T. Meredith. 2012.“Feelings of Regret following
Uncommitted Sexual Encounters in Canadian University Students.”Culture, Health & Sexuality
14 (1): 45–57. doi:10.1080/13691058.2011.619579
Frith, H., and C. Kitzinger. 2001.“Reformulating Sexual Script Theory Developing
a Discursive Psychology of Sexual Negotiation.”Theory & Psychology 11 (2): 209–232. doi:
10.1177/0959354301112004
Gagnon, J. H., and W. Simon. 1973.Sexual Conduct: The Social Origins of Human Sexuality.
Chicago: Aldine.
Garcia, J. R., and C. Reiber. 2008.“Hook-up Behavior: A Biopsychosocial Perspective.”Journal
of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology 2 (4): 192–208. doi:10.1037/h0099345
Gilchrist, H., C. A. Magee, K. Smith, and S. Jones. 2012.“A Hangover and a One-Night Stand:
Alcohol and Risky Sexual Behaviour among Female Students at an Australian University.”
Youth Studies Australia 31 (June): 35–43.
Graham, J. W. 2012.“Missing Data : Analysis and Design.”http://site.ebrary.com/id/10570904
Grello,C.M.,D.P.Welsh,andM.S.Harper.2006.“No Strings Attached: The Nature of Casual Sex in
College Students.”The Journal of Sex Research 43 (3): 255–267. doi:10.1080/00224490609552324
Hall, W. J., and A. E. Tanner. 2016.“US Black College Women’s Sexual Health in Hookup Culture:
Intersections of Race and Gender.”Culture, Health & Sexuality 18 (11): 1265–1278. doi:10.1080/
13691058.2016.1183046
Herbenick, D., T.-C. Fu, B. Dodge, and J. D. Fortenberry. 2019.“The Alcohol Contexts of Consent,
Wanted Sex, Sexual Pleasure, and Sexual Assault: Results from a Probability Survey of
Undergraduate Students.”Journal of American College Health 67 (2): 144–152. doi:10.1080/
07448481.2018.1462827
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). 2015.“Research Brief: Findings from the 2015
Administration of the Your First College Year (YFCY) Survey.”http://www.heri.ucla.edu/briefs/
YFCY/YFCY-2015-Brief.pdf
Holman, A., and A. Sillars. 2012.“Talk about ‘Hooking Up’: The Influence of College
Student Social Networks on Nonrelationship Sex.”Health Communication 27 (2): 205–216. doi:
10.1080/10410236.2011.575540
Kettrey, H. H. 2016.“What’s Gender Got to Do with It? Sexual Double Standards and Power
in Heterosexual College Hookups.”The Journal of Sex Research 53 (7): 754–765. doi:10.1080/
00224499.2016.1145181
Kuperberg, A., and J. E. Padgett. 2015.“Dating and Hooking up in College: Meeting Contexts,
Sex, and Variation by Gender, Partner’s Gender, and Class Standing.”The Journal of Sex
Research 52 (5): 517–531. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.901284
Kuperberg, A., and J. E. Padgett. 2016a.“Partner Meeting Contexts and Risky Behavior in College
Students’Other-Sex and Same-Sex Hookups.”Journal of Sex Research 54 (1): 1–18.
Kuperberg, A., and J. E. Padgett. 2016b.“The Role of Culture in Explaining College Students’
Selection into Hookups, Dates, and Long-Term Romantic Relationships.”Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships 33 (8): 1070–1096.
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 15
LaBrie, J. W., J. F. Hummer, T. M. Ghaidarov, A. Lac, and S. R. Kenney. 2014.“Hooking up in the
College Context: The Event-Level Effects of Alcohol Use and Partner Familiarity on Hookup
Behaviors and Contentment.”The Journal of Sex Research 51 (1): 62–73. doi:10.1080/00224499.
2012.714010
Lewis, J. E., M.-J. Miguez-Burban, and R. M. Malow. 2009.“HIV Risk Behavior among College
Students in the United States.”College Student Journal 43 (2): 475–491.
Lewis, M. A., H. Granato, J. A. Blayney, T. W. Lostutter, and J. R. Kilmer. 2012.“Predictors of
Hooking up Sexual Behaviors and Emotional Reactions among US College Students.”Archives
of Sexual Behavior 41 (5): 1219–1229. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9817-2
Lovejoy, M. 2015.“Hooking up as an Individualistic Practice: A Double-Edged Sword for College
Women.”Sexuality & Culture 19 (3): 464–492. doi:10.1007/s12119-015-9270-9
Mahay, J., and E. O. Laumann. 2004.“Meeting and Mating over the Life Course.”the Sexual
Organization of the City., edited by E. O. Laumann, S. Ellingson, and J. Mahay, 127–164.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). 2017.“Alcohol Facts and Statistics.”
Accessed May 1 2019. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consump-
tion/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
Olmstead, S. B., K. Pasley, and F. D. Fincham. 2013.“Hooking up and Penetrative Hookups:
Correlates That Differentiate College Men.”Archives of Sexual Behavior 42 (4): 573–583. doi:10.
1007/s10508-012-9907-9
Ott, M. A., N. E. Adler, S. G. Millstein, J. M. Tschann, and J. M. Ellen. 2002.“The Trade-Off
between Hormonal Contraceptives and Condoms among Adolescents.”Perspectives on Sexual
and Reproductive Health 34 (1): 6. doi:10.2307/3030227
Owen, J., and F. D. Fincham. 2011.“Young Adults’Emotional Reactions after Hooking up
Encounters.”Archives of Sexual Behavior 40 (2): 321–330. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9652-x
Owen, J. J., G. K. Rhoades, S. M. Stanley, and F. D. Fincham. 2010.“Hooking Up’among College
Students: Demographic and Psychosocial Correlates.”Archives of Sexual Behavior 39 (3):
653–663. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9414-1
Patel, V. L., L. A. Gutnik, N. A. Yoskowitz, L. F. O’Sullivan, and D. R. Kaufman. 2006.“Patterns of
Reasoning and Decision Making about Condom Use by Urban College Students.”AIDS Care
18 (8): 918–930. doi:10.1080/09540120500333509
Paul, E. L., B. McManus, and A. Hayes. 2000.“Hookups’: Characteristics and Correlates of College
Students’Spontaneous and Anonymous Sexual Experiences.”The.”Journal of Sex Research 37
(1): 76–88. doi:10.1080/00224490009552023
Regnerus, M., and J. Uecker. 2011.Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate,
and Think about Marrying. 1st ed. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Rhoades, G., and S. Stanley. 2014.“Before’IDo’: What Do Premarital Experiences Have to Do
with Marital Quality among Today’s Young Adults?.”National Marriage Project, University of
Virginia. hhtphttp://before-i-do.org/
Snapp, S.,. E. Ryu, and J. Kerr. 2015.“The Upside to Hooking up: College Students’Positive
Hookup Experiences.”International Journal of Sexual Health 27 (1): 43–56. doi:10.1080/
19317611.2014.939247
Stinson, R. D. 2010.“Hooking up in Young Adulthood: A Review of Factors Influencing the
Sexual Behavior of College Students.”Journal of College Student Psychotherapy 24 (2): 98–115.
doi:10.1080/87568220903558596
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 2015.“Behavioral Health
Trends in the United States: Results from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.”
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-FRR1-2014/NSDUH-FRR1-2014.pdf
Uecker, J. E., and M. D. Regnerus. 2010.“Bare Market: Campus Sex Ratios, Romantic
Relationships, and Sexual Behavior.”The Sociological Quarterly 51 (3): 408–435. doi:10.1111/j.
1533-8525.2010.01177.x
Varghese, B., J. E. Maher, T. A. Peterman, B. M. Branson, and R. W. Steketee. 2002.“Reducing
the Risk of Sexual HIV Transmission: Quantifying the per-Act Risk for HIV on the Basis
16 S. THORPE ET AL.
of Choice of Partner, Sex Act, and Condom Use.”Sexually Transmitted Diseases 29 (1): 38–43.
doi:10.1097/00007435-200201000-00007
Vrangalova, Z., R. E. Bukberg, and G. Rieger. 2014.“Birds of a Feather? Not When It Comes to
Sexual Permissiveness.”Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31 (1): 93–113. doi:
10.1177/0265407513487638
Wade, L. 2017.American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus. New York: WW Norton &
Company.
Ware, S., S. Thorpe, and A. E. Tanner. 2019.“Sexual Health Interventions for Black Women
in the United States: A Systematic Review of Literature.”International Journal of Sexual Health
31 (2): 196–120. doi:10.1080/19317611.2019.1613278
Watson, R. J., S. Snapp, and S. Wang. 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. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0831-2
Wiederman, M. W. 2005.“The Gendered Nature of Sexual Scripts.”The Family Journal 13 (4):
496–502. doi:10.1177/1066480705278729
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 17
