Was it Good for You? Gender Differences in Motives and Emotional Outcomes Following Casual Sex

Abstract

Casual sex, also referred to as a hookup, has been associated with a range of negative emotional outcomes for women, including regret, anxiety, depression and social stigma. However, it has been argued that it is the nature of the sexual motivation, not gender that influences the emotional outcome. This study was designed to ascertain what motivates people to have casual sex, what emotional outcomes follow casual sex and whether there are gender differences among these variables. Seven hundred and one participants (47% men and 52.8% women) completed a 44-item online survey. Gender differences were found for both sexual motivations and emotional outcomes of casual sex, with women generally having more negative emotional outcomes than men. Additionally, a principal components analysis uncovered four reliable principal motivations underlying engagement in casual sex, and three principal emotional outcomes of casual sex. Predictors of negative emotional outcomes included being motivated to regulate negative emotions and to achieve positive emotions. No predictors (apart from being a man) were found for a positive emotional outcome. While the stigma surrounding female sexual agency is diminishing, results generally support the presence of a sexual double-standard which encourages male promiscuity but dissuades female sexual autonomy.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Sexuality & Culture (2022) 26:1339–1359
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-022-09946-w
1 3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Was it Good forYou? Gender Differences inMotives
andEmotional Outcomes Following Casual Sex
BillieE.McKeen1· RyanC.Anderson1 · DavidA.Mitchell1
Accepted: 14 January 2022 / Published online: 11 February 2022
© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
Casual sex, also referred to as a hookup, has been associated with a range of nega-
tive emotional outcomes for women, including regret, anxiety, depression and social
stigma. However, it has been argued that it is the nature of the sexual motivation, not
gender that influences the emotional outcome. This study was designed to ascertain
what motivates people to have casual sex, what emotional outcomes follow casual
sex and whether there are gender differences among these variables. Seven hun-
dred and one participants (47% men and 52.8% women) completed a 44-item online
survey. Gender differences were found for both sexual motivations and emotional
outcomes of casual sex, with women generally having more negative emotional
outcomes than men. Additionally, a principal components analysis uncovered four
reliable principal motivations underlying engagement in casual sex, and three prin-
cipal emotional outcomes of casual sex. Predictors of negative emotional outcomes
included being motivated to regulate negative emotions and to achieve positive emo-
tions. No predictors (apart from being a man) were found for a positive emotional
outcome. While the stigma surrounding female sexual agency is diminishing, results
generally support the presence of a sexual double-standard which encourages male
promiscuity but dissuades female sexual autonomy.
Keywords Hookup· Casual sex· Gender differences· Sexual motivations·
Emotional outcomes
Introduction
Gender differences in attitudes toward casual sex have been widely studied. It has
been reported that between 44 and 75% of young adults between the ages of 18 and
25 have experienced at least one casual sexual encounter within their lives (Flack
* Ryan C. Anderson
ryan.anderson1@monash.edu
1 Department ofPsychology, College ofHealthcare Sciences, James Cook University, 1
University Drive, Douglas,Townsville, QLD4814, Australia
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1340
B.E.McKeen et al.
1 3
et al., 2016; Lyons etal., 2014; Maticka-Tyndale etal., 2003). Casual sex, also
known as a hookup or one-night stand, can be described as engagement in sexual
acts, with the absence of intimacy (Monto & Carey, 2014). Casual sex is a term that
is used to describe a range of sexual behaviours, from a ‘once off’ encounter to fre-
quent encounters of sexual intercourse in the absence of a committed relationship.
It is important to note that participation in a hookup may be spontaneous and/or
the result of impaired decision making, possibly due to alcohol or another external
influencer (Townshend etal., 2014).
Throughout this paper, the term ‘sex’ is used to refer to intimate acts from kiss-
ing to coital intercourse and ‘gender’ is used to refer to male and female identities,
either biological or social. The term ‘hookup’ is used to refer to sexual activity, from
a kiss to coital intercourse, outside of a committed relationship. Sexual expression is
both rich and varied, and engagement in casual sex is by no means limited to the cis-
gender community. For logistical reasons the current study will focus on individuals
that identify as either male or female, but itdraws no distinction based on either
sexual orientation or non-binary gender identity. Previous research has examined
variation in attitudes toward casual sex based on sexual orientation (Bothe et al.,
2018; Fernandez del Rio, 2019) but has largely focused on the cisgender subset of
humanity.
The prevalence of casual sex is difficult to measure, as there is typically a reliance
on self-report measures; however, research suggests that casual sex is becoming
increasingly socially acceptable within Western societies (Farvid & Braun, 2017).
The ready availability of contraception in the 1960s led to a sexual revolution. Sex-
ual norms were liberalised and having sex for pleasure became more acceptable.
Other factors reported to have led to a sexual paradigm shift include the enhanced
availability and use of pornographic material, changes in alcohol consumption
and changes in perceived sexual risk—due at least in part to advances in medical
technology (Heldman & Wade, 2010). Within the past decade, the development of
online dating services have increased opportunities to access a sexual partner (Ran-
zini & Lutz, 2016; Sumter etal., 2017). The development of geo-locative smart-
phone applications and online dating websites has made it easier to meet a casual
sexual partner, with 78.2% of participants from a sample of 395 (men and women
aged between 18 and 34) claiming to have had casual sex with someone they met
through a dating website (LeFebvre, 2018). However, whether or not the liberalisa-
tion of sexual norms and acceptance of sex outside of committed relationships has
net positive outcomes is unclear.
Despite this, there is evidence that young adults are engaging in sexual behaviour
less frequently in current times. Although COVID-19 has had the effect of reduc-
ing sexual activity (Arafat etal., 2020; Gleason etal., 2021; Lehmiller etal., 2021;
Rosenberg etal., 2020), and this trend emerged prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ueda etal. (2020) found that from 2000 to 2018 sexual inactivity increased in the
US among men aged 18–24, and among men and women aged 25–34. The authors
speculate that while it is unclear what is ultimately driving this trend, there are
quite possibly a number of contributing factors such as: changes in sexual norms;
stress and busyness of everyday living limiting leisure opportunities (Wellings
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1341
1 3
Was it Good forYou? Gender Differences inMotives andEmotional…
etal., 2019); and that the supply of entertainment is competing with sexual activity
(Twenge etal., 2017).
Evolutionary and social psychology perspectives suggest that women experience
more negative psychological consequences following casual sex than men, including
regret, anxiety, and decreased overall mental wellbeing (Fisher etal., 2012; Kennair
etal., 2018; Townsend & Wasserman, 2011). In addition to psychological sequelae,
there are also a range of health implications of casual sex. Clearly pregnancy (and
the risk of) is a potential consequence which affects women to a greater extent than
men, but there are also a number of sexually transmitted diseases that disparately
impact women. Due to economic, biological, and social factors, women are more
susceptible to the acquisition of (and often sustain more damage from) diseases
such as the human immunodeficiency virus, chlamydia, syphilis, and herpes simplex
virus type 2 (Madkan etal., 2006).
It has been suggested that “the nature of motivational pursuits cannot be ade-
quately understood in the abstract, but rather we must take into account the rela-
tional context in which one’s needs are pursued” (Cooper etal., 2011, p. 1333).
However, while the weight of empirical literature supports the idea that women
generally experience worse psychological outcomes following casual sex than men,
some research using motivational frameworks has found no significant gender dif-
ferences in emotional outcomes following casual sex (Paul etal., 2000; Vrangalova
& Ong, 2014). These conflicting findings have prompted researchers to investigate
what motivates people to have casual sex, what emotional outcomes follow casual
sex, and whether there are gender differences among these variables.
Evolutionary Perspective
Evolutionary psychologists refer to casual sex as short-term mating and claim
that gender differences in sexual motivations and behaviour are innate and univer-
sal (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Sexual motivation is a psychological construct that
describes the reasons why people pursue sex (Stark et al., 2015). According to
Sexual Strategies Theory (SST), men and women have evolved different underlying
motivations for engaging in sex (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). This evolutionary theory
on human mating was established with findings from a large-scale study, consist-
ing of 10,047 participants across 37 different cultures (Buss, 1989). Participants
were asked to rank desirability of characteristics in short-term and long-term part-
ners, and results indicated gender differences that were consistent cross-culturally.
Men regarded a higher quantity of short-term partners as highly desirable, whereas
women desired the ability for a partner to provide immediate resources and the
potential for him to become a long-term partner (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
Buss and Schmitt (1993) claim that the differences in reproductive benefits can
explain why men report a greater desire to engage in short-term mating and report
more positive emotional outcomes than women (Pillsworth et al., 2004; Trivers,
1972). Compared to female sex cells sperm are small, motile, and inexpensive to
manufacture, thus men can impregnate multiple partners in a short period of time.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1342
B.E.McKeen et al.
1 3
In contrast, women have a higher obligate investment in the gestation process, and a
typically higher investment in the direct child-rearing process, therefore a long-term
partner providing support throughout this process enhances the fitness (and survival
prospects) of the woman and her offspring (Pillsworth etal., 2004; Trivers, 1972).
Evolutionary psychologists recognise that both men and women can benefit from
short-term sexual encounters, however, short-term relationships are considered less
advantageous for women because of the risk of conceiving a child without the sup-
port of a long-term mate, which can be detrimental to fitness and survival (Triv-
ers, 1972). Negative emotions have been described as an evolved adaptation to deter
decision-making that is not beneficial for reproductive success (Dawson & McIn-
tosh, 2006). Regret following short-term mating is an evolved emotional–cognitive
response experienced predominantly by women because it is less reproductively
advantageous to engage in short-term mating (Dawson & McIntosh, 2006). Ken-
nair etal. (2018) found that in both Norwegian (N = 547) and US samples (N = 216),
more women than men regretted engaging in their most recent casual sex encounter
(41% and 50% vs. 26% and 35% respectively). Worry and physical gratification were
measured using single items, compromising the internal validity of the scale used to
measure these variables. Results indicated worry, disgust, and pressure were predic-
tive of regret, but sexual gratification and self-initiation of sex was associated with
less regret. In support of these findings, a large-scale study (N = 24,230), found that
46% of women experienced regret after casual sex compared to 23% of men (Gal-
perin etal., 2013). There was also a substantial gender difference, in the opposite
direction, for regret experienced for not pursuing an opportunity for sex (43% men,
16% women). Findings support the general idea that men desire short-term mating
more than women, and are consistent with an evolutionary perspective. The authors
ultimately suggest that women experience more negative emotions following casual
sex because of the higher obligatory costs of sexual reproduction they have paid
throughout history, and to avoid future decision-making that are not beneficial for
reproduction. However, missed sexual opportunities have historically been associ-
ated with higher reproductive fitness costs for men than for women, thus regret fol-
lowing sexual inaction is higher for them.
The evolutionary perspective focuses on gender differences as a result of evolved
strategies to enhance reproductive success (Galperin etal., 2013), however, this per-
spective does not adequately explain motivations to engage in sexual acts that are not
concerned with reproducing such as same-sex relations and non-penetrative sexual
intercourse. Furthermore, the ease of access to contraception in Western societies
supports the notion that people are having sex for other reasons (Emmerink etal.,
2016). Although environmental conditions are considered to influence the expres-
sion of evolved adaptations, the evolutionary perspective alone does not explain
individual, social, and cultural variation.
Social Perspective
Eagly and Wood (1999) claim that gender differences in sexual motives and behav-
iour originate from social structure. According to Social Structural Theory, gender
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1343
1 3
Was it Good forYou? Gender Differences inMotives andEmotional…
differences develop from the contrasting roles men and women accommodate in
society. Typically, men occupy dominant roles with greater authority and autonomy,
in comparison to women who spend less time in paid occupations and perform more
domestic duties (Eagly & Wood, 1999). These contrasting roles have led to a gender
hierarchy of power and the development of traditional gendered social scripts. Social
scripts are less distinct in gender egalitarian societies, whereby rights, responsibili-
ties and opportunities are less limited by defined gender roles, stereotypes, or dis-
crimination (Darmstadt et al., 2019). This has led to liberalised gendered sexual
norms in Western societies.
To determine whether levels of gender equality influenced sexual motives, Eagly
and Wood (1999) conducted a reanalysis of the data collected by Buss (1989) using
the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) to determine levels of gender equal-
ity among the 37 different regions sampled. The GEM calculates the difference in
men’s and women’s income and representation in political and senior economic
positions. Equal representations depict greater levels of gender equality (Klasen &
Schüler, 2011). Findings indicated that gender differences were attenuated as rates
of gender empowerment increased, supporting the contention that societal factors
influence sexual motives.
Although gender differences are attenuated in higher gender egalitarian soci-
eties, research suggests that men and women are perceived differently for engag-
ing in the same sexual behaviour (Farvid etal., 2017). Most research indicates that
heterosexual men report more previous sexual partners than heterosexual women
(Fisher etal., 2012; LeFebvre, 2018; Maticka‐Tyndale etal., 2003). It is important
to acknowledge that, assuming a 1:1 sex ratio, the reports of heterosexual partners
should be roughly the same for men and women, as each new sex partner for a man
must also be a new sex partner for a woman. There is an implicit understanding
that while it is socially acceptable for a man to be sexually autonomous, a woman’s
sexual agency is discouraged (Farvid etal., 2017). This polarised standard can be
socially damaging for women, leading to social stigma and condemnation of women
who exercise sexual autonomy outside of a committed relationship (Pickel & Gen-
try, 2017). ‘Slut shaming’ refers to the pejorative action of degrading women pre-
sumed to have engaged in sexual behaviour outside of a committed relationship.
Internalisation of this sexual inequality has been associated with negative emotional
outcomes for women (Armstrong etal., 2014).
Uecker and Martinez (2017) collected data via an online survey over a six-year
period from 2005 to 2011. The large sample consisted of 21,549 college students
and indicated that more women (77%) than men (53%) experienced regret after
having sexual intercourse outside of a committed relationship. A mediation analy-
sis revealed that 34% of the total effect was attributable to lack of sexual enjoy-
ment, 29% due to perceived loss of respect, and 12% to a loss of self-respect. The
large sample size provides support for gender differences with results indicating that
women experience more negative consequences following sexual intercourse than
men. In this study participants were not provided with a definition for what consti-
tutes a hookup, asking participants to use whatever definition is used among friends
(Uecker & Martinez, 2017).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1344
B.E.McKeen et al.
1 3
Sexual Motivations andOutcomes
Research using motivational frameworks has reported minimal and non-signif-
icant gender differences in emotional outcomes following sex and argues that
outcomes are different depending on the individual’s sexual motivation. Motiva-
tional theories posit that sex is used strategically to pursue different goals, and
that different motivations explain differences in psychological outcome following
sex (Vrangalova, 2015).
In contrast to research documenting gender differences, Vrangalova and Ong
(2014) found that gender did not moderate wellbeing following casual sex. Levels
of sociosexuality (willingness to engage in casual sex) were measured via a nine-
item survey and participants responded to items measuring previous casual sex
behaviour, and attitudes and desire for casual sex. In a sample of 371 participants,
those that scored highly on sociosexuality reported lower levels of anxiety and
depression, and higher levels of self-esteem and life satisfaction, suggesting that
casual sex can have positive emotional outcomes. The study concluded that there
were no long-term negative consequences on psychological wellbeing following
casual sex. Additionally, Vrangalova (2015) investigated the influence of gender
and motivation on emotional outcome. Using Self-Determination Theory (Deci
& Ryan, 2012), it was hypothesised that people engaging in the same behaviour
would have different psychological outcomes depending on whether the motiva-
tion was autonomous (self-directed), controlled (other-directed) or amotivated (no
intention for behaviour). The longitudinal study consisted of a sample of North
American college students (N = 528) below the age of 24. Participants were asked
to complete surveys at two different time intervals, nine months apart. Depres-
sion, anxiety, self-esteem and physical symptoms were measured as outcome var-
iables. Results suggest that engagement in casual sex did not have a long-term
impact on psychological wellbeing. Motives that were non-autonomous, such as
adhering to peer pressure, were associated with poorer self-esteem and increased
depression and anxiety in male participants only. Participants that engaged in cas-
ual sex for autonomous self-directed reasons, such as to achieve sexual gratifica-
tion or personal satisfaction, reported significantly greater levels of self-esteem
than participants that had no hookups. Vrangalova concluded that casual sex may
increase self-esteem and subsequently enhance positive psychological growth,
but that non-autonomously motivated ‘genital’ hook-ups were associated with
outcomes of poor self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. The study found no sig-
nificant differences between men and women, supporting the argument that other
factors predict emotional outcomes following casual sex. It is important to real-
ize that while findings suggesting no gender differences are noteworthy, they are
somewhat anomalous and stand in contrast to an overwhelming weight of empiri-
cal evidence. There are indications that portions of Vrangalova’s work may be
methodologically problematic. For example, Vrangalova and Ong (2014) statisti-
cally equalized the gender differences they found with transformations (center-
ing) leading to null effects.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1345
1 3
Was it Good forYou? Gender Differences inMotives andEmotional…
The Current Study
Given the inconsistencies in the literature the following hypotheses were
generated:
It was hypothesised that there would be gender differences in the motivations
for engaging in casual sex (1a), and in the outcomes of casual sex (1b).
While a number of studies have looked at the various motivations behind
engaging in casual sex (Grubbs etal., 2019; McMahan & Olmstead, 2021; Sevi
etal., 2018; Vrangalova, 2015), and separately, the outcomes (emotional and oth-
erwise) following casual sex (see Wesche etal., 2020 for a systematic review), far
fewer have examined the relationship between these variables.
Exploratory principal component analyses were conducted separately for (a)
motivations for engaging in casual sex, and (b) outcomes of casual sex. It was
furthermore hypothesised that the outcomes of casual sex will be able to be pre-
dicted by the motivations for casual sex (2).
Methodology
Participants
The current study asked participants to indicate the gender they identify as. Of
the 853 that responded to this question, 399 indicated they were male, 448 indi-
cated that that they were female, and a further 6 indicated ‘other’ or ‘prefer not
to say’. Of those selecting from the male/female binary, a total of 59 (29 men)
indicated that they had not had a hookup experience in the past. A further 27
responded that they were unsure or that they would ‘prefer not to say’ (15 men).
Given that the study was comparing men and women who had hookup
experience, after deletion the eventual sample consisted of 701 men (47%;
M = 32.85 years, SD = 10.83 years) and women (52.8%; M = 28.63 years,
SD = 8.44 years) between the ages of 18–82. The sample was predominantly of
European decent (66.7%), although an additional 12.0% indicated that they were
from North America, and a further 8.9% indicated that they were Asian. The
majority of the sample was heterosexual (75.8%), with 15.8% indicating that they
were bisexual and 8.4% indicating that they were homosexual. Half of the sample
indicated that they were currently in a relationship (49.7%), and a further 43.8%
indicated that they were single.
Sampling Procedure
Participants were recruited by posting the link to the online survey on social net-
working sites such as Reddit and Facebook. The survey link was also uploaded
onto the research study participation management system, Sona to recruit current
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1346
B.E.McKeen et al.
1 3
JCU students. Other participants were recruited by word-of-mouth. James Cook
University (JCU) students enrolled in eligible subjects received credit points for
participation in the survey. Other participants were not incentivised to contribute.
Measures
Previously validated scales were not utilised due to the exploratory nature of the
investigation. The survey was designed to incorporate sexual motives from different
perspectives. With regards to emotional outcomes, items were included to measure
negative, positive and neutral emotional outcomes relating specifically to the casual
sex experience.
A 35-item multidimensional survey was developed and hosted on Qualtrics. The
term hookup was defined for participants on the information sheet and consent sec-
tion of the survey as ‘any sexual activity from a kiss to coital intercourse outside of
a committed relationship’. Participants were explicitly asked to relate questions to
their most recent hookup experience.
The survey itself was organised into two parts and items were designed to be
brief, using informal language to avoid ambiguity and misinterpretation. Part 1 con-
sisted of 22 items regarding motivations to engage in their most recent hookup. Due
to the exploratory nature of this investigation, the items were designed to include
motives derived from evolutionary, social and motivational frameworks. The items
designed to measure motivations from an evolutionary perspective included “I had
a hookup to start a relationship; to end current relationship; did not like current
partner; physically attracted to other person; sexual gratification” (Meston & Buss,
2007). The influence of social factors was measured with items “I had a hookup
to because I felt pressured by others; under the influence of alcohol or other sub-
stance” (Eagly & Wood, 1999; Farvid etal., 2017). From a motivational framework,
items were included to measure avoidant motivations “because I was feeling lonely;
to increase self-confidence; unhappy; miserable; irritable” and approach motiva-
tions “for personal enjoyment; for fun; feel good about myself; to feel loved; seek
affection; sexual satisfaction; physical pleasure” (Cooper etal., 2011; Gray, 1970,
1987). A reliability analysis suggested that this scale had very good internal consist-
ency (α = 0.84).
Part three consisted of 13 statements relating to the emotional outcome following
participant’s most recent hookup. Items were designed to measure a range of subjec-
tive emotional experiences that related to the casual sex experience. Items to meas-
ure negative emotional outcome included “after the hookup, I felt regret; lonely;
rejected; unhappy; negative feelings about myself” (Cooper etal., 2011; Kennair,
2018). Items to measure positive emotional outcome included “my mood improved,
I felt happier, I felt more confident about myself, I felt sexually satisfied, I felt con-
tent” (Cooper etal., 2011). Two items to measure no emotional change included
“after the hookup, I felt the same; my mood did not change”. A reliability analysis
following appropriate item reversal suggested that this scale had very good inter-
nal consistency (α = 0.84). All 35 items in the multidimensional survey measured
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1347
1 3
Was it Good forYou? Gender Differences inMotives andEmotional…
participant’s agreement with statements on a 7-point likert scale (1 = Strongly agree
and 7 = Strongly disagree).
Procedure
Potential participants were presented with a link to an online study. If they chose to
click the link participants were directed to the online survey platform, Qualtrics. Ini-
tially they were shown information concerning the study, and asked to provide their
explicit consent to participate, before being presented with a series of questions ask-
ing about their demographic information (age, gender identity, ethnicity etc.).
In the body of the survey participants were directed to consider their most recent
hookup experience and then asked a sequence of 22 questions regarding their moti-
vations for engaging in the hookup. They were then asked 13 questions about the
emotional outcomes they experienced as the result of this particular hookup. Partici-
pants were told that participation would take no longer than 15min. 95% of partici-
pants completed the survey in 13min or less. The order of the items in part two and
three were randomised in an effort to control for order effects.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
As age has been previously shown to influence attitudes surrounding casual sex
(Le Gall et al., 2002), men and women were initially compared on this dimen-
sion. An independent-samples t-test indicated that men were older than women, t
(619.90) = 5.70, p < 0.001, 95% CIs [2.76, 5.67]. Hence this was used a control vari-
able going forth.
Gender Differences inMotivations
To test the hypothesis that there would be gender differences in sexual motivations
a one-way MANCOVA was performed with gender as the independent variable and
each of the sexual motivation items as dependent variables. There was a difference
in what motivated individuals to engage in their most recent hookup, based on their
gender, F (22, 520) = 3.10, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.12. Additionally, age was a significant
covariate here, F (22, 520) = 2.40, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.09 Individual item scores are
presented in Table1. Here a lower mean indicates greater agreement with the item.
Gender Differences inOutcomes
An additional one-way MANCOVA was performed with gender as the independent
variable and each of the outcome items as dependent variables. There was an overall
difference in the outcomes of an individual’s most recent hookup, based on their
gender, F (13, 507) = 3.28, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.08. Age was a significant covariate
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1348
B.E.McKeen et al.
1 3
Table 1 M (SD) scores separated by gender for each motivation item
Lower scores = higher agreement, *p < .05; **p < .01***p < .001
Motivation (‘I had a hookup…’) Men Women
Because I wanted to start a relationship 4.46 (1.93) 4.30 (2.03)
Because I wanted to build an emotional connection with someone 4.17 (1.99) 3.95 (2.03)
Because I was physically attracted to them 2.07 (1.39) 2.15 (1.35)
Because I wanted to feel close to another person 3.22 (1.79) 3.12 (1.83)
Because I was seeking affection from another person 3.03 (1.89) 2.76 (1.86)
**Because I was feeling miserable 5.09 (1.84) 4.52 (2.06)
*Because I was feeling lonely 3.70 (2.02) 3.22 (1.87)
***Because I felt pressured by the other person 5.79 (1.60) 4.97 (2.01)
Because I was feeling irritable 5.50 (1.69) 5.36 (1.77)
Because I felt unhappy 4.62 (1.97) 4.01 (1.99)
For personal enjoyment 1.62 (.99) 1.97 (1.25)
For fun 1.68 (1.06) 2.02 (1.28)
**For sexual pleasure 1.51 (1.04) 2.06 (1.35)
***For sexual satisfaction 1.56 (1.01) 2.16 (1.38)
Because I was not happy in a current relationship 5.49 (1.92) 5.61 (1.99)
***For sexual gratification 1.75 (1.13) 2.45 (1.53)
*Because I wanted to feel better about myself 3.68 (1.98) 3.25 (1.89)
To increase my self-confidence 3.46 (1.99) 3.37 (1.92)
Because I wanted to feel loved 4.12 (1.97) 3.79 (2.04)
Because I wanted to end a current relationship 6.22 (1.40) 6.23 (1.35)
Because I was under the influence of alcohol 4.41 (2.22) 3.76 (2.31)
Because I did not like my current partner at the time 5.80 (1.69) 5.88 (1.76)
Table 2 M (SD) scores
separated by gender for each
outcome item
Lower scores = higher agreement, *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Outcome (‘After the hookup…’) Men Women
***I felt lonely 4.88 (1.91) 4.06 (1.99)
***I felt unhappy 5.10 (1.81) 4.32 (1.98)
***I felt rejected 5.59 (1.64) 4.82 (2.05)
**I felt regretful 4.87 (1.87) 4.29 (2.08)
***I had negative feelings about myself 5.25 (1.83) 4.51 (2.09)
***I felt sexually satisfied 2.71 (1.38) 3.24 (1.71)
***I felt happier 2.88 (1.47) 3.53 (1.65)
**I felt more confident about myself 2.78 (1.57) 3.28 (1.69)
***I felt content 2.94 (1.55) 3.49 (1.63)
***I was concerned about being nega-
tively judged by others 5.13 (1.93) 4.31 (2.12)
***My mood improved 2.95 (1.38) 3.45 (1.65)
I felt the same 3.87 (1.50) 3.89 (1.59)
My emotions did not change 4.03 (1.78) 4.18 (1.68)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1349
1 3
Was it Good forYou? Gender Differences inMotives andEmotional…
here, F (13, 507) = 1.50, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.04. Individual item scores are presented
in Table2.
Principal Component Analysis ofSexual Motivations
A principal component analysis was performed to determine the underlying struc-
ture of the 22-item survey section that assessed sexual motivations. Oblique rotation
(direct oblimin) was deemed the preferred rotation method as this allows correla-
tion between factors and has been argued to yield more accurate results (Costello
& Osborne, 2005; Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007). The sample size was considered
adequate for a reliable factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sam-
pling adequacy was 0.86 (greater than the minimum required value of 0.6; Kaiser,
1974). Additionally, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, χ2 (231) = 5861.64,
p < 0.001 (Bartlett, 1954), supporting factorability of the data. Visual observation
of the scree plot indicated that five factors should be kept (Cattell, 1966). As can
be seen in Table3, eigenvalues for five factors were greater than one, supporting
that these factors should be retained (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The five factors
together accounted for 68.54% of variance in data. Factors one to four (labelled Reg-
ulation of Negative Emotions, Achievement of Positive Emotions, Intimacy Seeking,
and Unsatisfying Relationship) indicated strong internal consistency (α > 0.85). The
fifth factor (External Influence) however, demonstrated poor internal consistency
(α = 0.49) and was therefore not used as a predictor in further analyses. Factor scores
were computed for the four internally consistent factors for use in further analyses.
Principal Component Analysis ofEmotional Outcomes
To improve interpretation and use a smaller number of dependent variables in
the multiple regression model, a principal component analysis with oblique rota-
tion (direct oblimin) was performed on the 13-item survey measuring emotional
outcomes. Again, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, χ2 (78) = 3864.54,
p < 0.001, supporting the factorability of the data (Bartlett, 1954). Visual observa-
tion of the scree plot indicated that three factors should be kept (Cattell, 1966). As
can be seen in Table4, eigenvalues were greater than one for three factors, suggest-
ing their retention (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The three factor-solution accounted
for 77.16% of the variance in the data. The three subscales have been labelled Posi-
tive Outcomes, Neutral Outcomes, and Negative Outcomes. This scale demonstrated
internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha > 0.64.
Predicting Outcomes
To test the hypothesis that motivation predicts emotional outcome following a
hookup, three multiple regression analyses (one for each outcome) were con-
ducted. Factor scores of the sexual motivations were used as independent vari-
ables to determine the ability to predict emotional outcomes. Factors scores
computed for the three emotional outcomes were used as dependent variables
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1350
B.E.McKeen et al.
1 3
and factor scores computed for motivations were used as independent variables.
Figure1 indicates the independent and dependent variables used in the analyses.
Factor scores were computed for the three factors extracted and used as
dependent variables in further analyses.
Table 3 Factor structure for motivations to engage in casual sex (N = 701)
Factor loadings < .3 are suppressed
Factor loadings
Item 1 2 3 4 5
1. To regulate negative emotions
I had a hookup because I felt miserable .826
I had a hookup because I felt lonely .792
I had a hookup because I was unhappy .843
I had a hookup to feel better about myself .825
I had a hookup because I felt irritable .562
I had a hookup to increase self-confidence .771
2. To achieve positive emotions
I had a hookup for physical pleasure .896
I had a hookup for sexual relief .865
I had a hookup for fun .784
I had a hookup for personal enjoyment .857
I had a hookup for sexual gratification .781
I had a hookup because I was physically attracted .546
3. Unsatisfying current relationship
I had a hookup to end my current relationship .821
I had a hookup because of an argument with partner .912
I had a hookup because I was in an unsatisfying relationship .889
4. Intimacy seeking
I had a hookup because I wanted to start a relationship .778
I had a hookup to build a connection .867
I had a hookup to feel close to another .824
I had a hookup because I wanted to feel loved .717
I had a hookup because I was seeking affection .692
5. External influence
I had a hookup because I was under the influence of alcohol
or other substance
.821
I had a hookup because I felt pressured by others .758
Eigenvalues 6.16 3.88 2.13 1.80 1.11
Percentage variance 27.99 17.65 9.68 8.17 5.05
Coefficient alpha .889 .864 .853 .874 .486
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1351
1 3
Was it Good forYou? Gender Differences inMotives andEmotional…
Table 4 Factor structure for emotional outcomes following casual sex (N = 701)
Factor loadings < .3 are suppressed
Factor loadings
Item 1 2 3
1. Negative emotional outcome
After the hookup, I felt lonely .859
After the hookup, I felt unhappy .915
After the hookup, I felt rejected .817
After the hookup, I felt regretful .878
After the hookup, I had negative feelings about myself .907
After the hookup, I was concerned about being negatively
judged by others
.686
2. Positive emotional outcome
After the hookup, I felt sexually satisfied .846
After the hookup, I felt happier .934
After the hookup, I felt more confident about myself .828
After the hookup, I felt content .884
After the hookup, my mood improved .902
3. Neutral outcome
After the hookup, I felt the same − .931
After the hookup, my emotions did not change − .925
Eigenvalues 6.83 1.92 1.27
Percentage variance 52.57 14.78 9.80
Coefficient alpha .931 .639 .842
Fig. 1 Independent variables and dependent variables used in multiple regression analysis. The dotted
line represents the independent variable which predicts the dependent variable
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1352
B.E.McKeen et al.
1 3
Predicting Emotional Outcomes
As indicated in Table5, negative emotional outcomes were predicted by motiva-
tions to regulate negative emotions and by motivations to achieve positive emo-
tions, F (4, 271) = 6.687, p < 0.001). The two motivations collectively accounted
for 30% of the variance in scores.
There were no sexual motivations that predicted positive emotional outcomes,
F (4,271) = 1.455, p = 0.216.
As indicated in Table 6, the motivation to achieve positive emotions pre-
dicted neutral emotional outcomes, F (4,271) = 6.262, p < 0.001. This motivation
accounted for 29.1% of the variance in scores.
Discussion
It was hypothesised that there would be gender differences in motivations and
emotional outcomes relating to casual sex. These hypotheses were supported,
with overall gender differences for both, and a number of strong gender differ-
ences for individual items. Furthermore, when reduced to discrete factors, moti-
vations predicted emotional outcomes.
Table 5 Multiple regression
analysis for sexual motivation
predicting negative emotional
outcome (n = 276)
CI confidence interval, B unstandardised regression coefficient,
SEB
standard error of the coefficient,
𝛽
standardised coefficient, *p = .001.
Variable B [95% CI]
SEB
𝛽
Intercept .103 [− .001 − .206] .053
Regulate negative emotions .206 [.085 − .326]* .061 .212
Achieve positive emotions − .206 [− .327 − .085]* .061 − .195
Unsatisfying relationship .017 [− .119 − .153] .069 .014
Intimacy seeking .023 [− .101 − .146] .063 .023
Table 6 Multiple regression
analysis for sexual motivation
predicting neutral emotional
outcome (n = 276)
CI confidence interval, B unstandardised regression coefficient,
SEB
= standard error of the coefficient,
𝛽
standardised coefficient,
*p < .001.
Variable B [95% CI]
SEB
𝛽
Intercept − .175[− .283 − .067] .055
Regulate negative emotions − .085[− .210 − .040] .064 − .084
Achieve positive emotions .294[.168 − .420]* .064 .268
Unsatisfying relationship .059[− .083 − .201] .048 .049
Intimacy seeking .050[− .079 − .179] .065 .049
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1353
1 3
Was it Good forYou? Gender Differences inMotives andEmotional…
Gender Differences inMotivations andOutcomes
Although there was an overall gender difference in the motivations for casual sex,
it is noteworthy that men and women similarly endorsed statements such as ‘I had
a hookup for personal enjoyment/fun’. Such findings support the idea that social
stigma surrounding women’s sexual agency is diminishing. There was also a sig-
nificant overall gender difference in emotional outcomes following casual sex, and
differences for 11 of the 13 individual outcome items. Women reported significantly
more negative emotional outcomes than men, including loneliness, unhappiness,
rejection, regret, general negative feelings, and a perception of negative judgment
from others. Conversely, men reported greater sexual satisfaction, happiness, self-
confidence, contentment, and mood improvement. Each of these findings is con-
sistent with the general idea that men experience some kind of emotional enhance-
ment from engaging in casual sex, but for women the emotional effect is reductive.
While the statistical effect-size of the gender difference here was reasonably small
(ηp2 = 0.08), it is worth noting that of the 11 items indicating a gender difference,
women reported a greater agreement to 6, while the reverse was true for five, thus
the average difference misrepresents the more nuanced story.
Women reported significantly more regret, loneliness, unhappiness, rejection
and negative feelings about one’s self in comparison to men following their most
recent hookup experience. It is important to note that this finding is consistent with
research from an evolutionary perspective, which suggests that women experience
more regret than men because short-term sexual relationships are considered less
advantageous for women’s reproductive success, and conversely, advantageous for
men’s reproductive success (Galperin etal., 2013; Kennair etal., 2018). However,
the item that loaded on the same factor as all of these items was ‘concern about
being negatively judged by others’ which supports the sexual double standard from a
social psychological perspective (Eagly & Wood, 1999).
Within Western culture, women are supposedly empowered and gender equality
regulations are in place to enhance equality in opportunities, however, the findings
of this investigation suggest that women do not experience casual sex in the same
way as men. Women reported more concern about being negatively judged by others
after engaging in casual sex than men. There is a risk of social stigma, namely slut
shaming leading to social isolation for women, marking them as lower in status and
less deserving of respect with the risk of social isolation, poor reputation and nega-
tive emotions (Armstrong etal., 2014).
Western culture supports gender equality, and levels of sexual permissiveness are
arguably becoming more liberal. Engagement in casual sex is becoming increasingly
acceptable, and it is noteworthy that the modest effect sizes in gender differences
reported here may suggest that the disparity is decreasing, but the risk of experienc-
ing negative emotional outcomes is still considerably greater for women than it is for
men (Armstrong etal., 2014). Men are rarely threatened with social repercussions in
the same way that women are, therefore expressing sexual autonomy is arguably less
prohibitive for them (Farvid etal., 2017).
While the current study reported considerable gender differences in emotional
outcomes, dissimilar findings of a minimal or null effect may be an artefact of
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1354
B.E.McKeen et al.
1 3
methodological inconsistency. Vrangalova (2015) used a sample of young adults
enrolled in higher education, however, the current sample was more heterogeneous,
and inclusive of adults from more diverse backgrounds with ages ranging from 18 to
82.
Motivations Predicting Emotional Outcomes
The motivation to regulate negative emotions accounted for most of the variance
in the data, suggesting that many individuals engage in casual sex in an effort to
regulate their negative emotions. This motivation was also predictive of negative
emotional outcomes. Having casual sex to manage feelings of loneliness, misery,
unhappiness and irritability may lead to negative emotional outcomes, including
feelings of regret, rejection, unhappiness, loneliness, negative feelings towards one’s
self, and concern about being negatively judged by others. Although, the non-causal
nature of the relationship bears mention, it may just be that a negative mindset is
associated with both problematic motivations for and outcomes of casual sex.
We did not find a motivation that predicted positive emotional outcomes. It may
simply be that a positive emotional outcome following casual sex is too difficult
to reliably predict with only a small (unnuanced) set of variables, or that the more
likely outcome of casual sex may be the reduction of something negative as opposed
to the addition of something positive. However, the motivation, to achieve positive
emotions, was found to predict neutral emotional outcomes. This may suggest that
having sex for personal gratification, enjoyment, or fun can lead to an unchanged
mood and feelings remaining the same.
Strengths, Limitations andRecommendations forFuture Research
While the theme of gender differences in attitudes toward casual sex is by no means
a new one, we believe that the current study is unique in a number of ways. For one,
many studies in this area recruit younger (college-aged) samples. The sample of the
current study, recruited via social media, was heterogeneous (and hence more gen-
eralizable) in terms of both age and ethnicity. Additionally, few studies have previ-
ously attempted to quantify the relationship between emotional motivations for and
the emotional outcomes of casual sex.
In the current study participants were asked to refer to their most recent hookup
experience but were not asked when this experience occurred. Future studies may
wish to quantify this in order to determine whether the passage of time has an impact
on emotional outcomes (or perception thereof). It is reasonable to suggest that as
time passes since one’s last hookup experience, the strength of the emotions associ-
ated with the event may be tempered by temporal distance. Future studies may also
benefit from measuring an individual’s sociosexual orientation and general well-
being as both may be important control variables. For example, an individual that
exclusively seeks short-term mating opportunities and/or is psychologically unwell
is presumably motivated to engage in sexual behaviour for different reasons than a
more stable, relationship oriented person.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1355
1 3
Was it Good forYou? Gender Differences inMotives andEmotional…
The current study clearly defined the term ‘hookup’, based on previous
research in the area (Napper etal., 2016; Owen etal., 2011). Defining the term
for participants was an important component of the study, to ensure that partici-
pants were referring to the same range of sexual behaviours. Research on this
phenomenon is methodologically inconsistent and often uses vague definitions
for casual sex, such as “use whatever term you use with your friends” (Uecker &
Martinez, 2017) and “sexual behavior occurring outside of long-term romantic
relationships” (Vrangalova, 2015). However, the frequency with which an indi-
vidual engaged in casual sex was not measured. Future research may wish to do
so as emotions associated with a behaviour (especially highly valent ones) may
well be enhanced as the frequency of said behaviour increases.
While the current study compared those who identify as male to those who
identify as female, it neglected to gather information regarding transgenderism
and gender identities beyond the traditional binary. Doing so was consistent with
the weight of previous empirical literature (but see Wilson etal., 2010), however,
if for no other reason than scientific rigour, further research into transgender/
non-binary populations is needed. Future studies may wish to consider stratifying
their sample by gender identity in order to gain a more nuanced understanding of
attitudes toward, and emotional outcomes of, casual sex.
Finally, although the sample employed in the current study was ethnically het-
erogeneous, it was predominantly Caucasian. While this is consistent with the
overwhelming majority of previous research, racial discourse in this area is criti-
cal to the ongoing discussion surrounding casual sex. Future studies should con-
sider sampling from non-Western areas, or potentially stratisfying their sample by
race.
The current study makes a unique and meaningful contribution to the litera-
ture in that it established that some (but not all) outcomes of casual sex can be
predicted based on understanding an individual’s motivations for engaging in
such. Namely, people who engage in sex to regulate negative emotions are likely
to experience negative emotional outcomes. It is unclear as to whether this is
because causal sex enhances pre-existing negative emotions or is just not an effec-
tive method for managing such emotions. It may be that the current study was
unable to determine predictors of positive emotional outcomes following casual
sex simply because we did not ask the right questions. Future studies in this area
may consider conducting qualitative interview research in order to gain a richer
and more nuanced understanding of this phenomenon, and potentially insight into
attitudes and behaviors associated with favourable emotional outcomes.
The takeaway message of this research is clear: when engaging in anything
from a kiss to coital intercourse outside of a committed relationship, ensure your
underlying motivation is not to regulate negative emotions.
Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation,
data collection and analysis were performed by BEM, RCA, and DAM, The first draft of the manuscript
was written by BEM, RCA, and DAM, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manu-
script. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1356
B.E.McKeen et al.
1 3
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. This
research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.
Data Availability Data on which this study is based can be found at https:// osf. io/ 35ynj/? view_ only=
870a2 f3e42 3d44e 48366 d41e2 a7428 c2.
Declarations
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of
interest.
Consent to Participate All participants in this study willingly consented to participate in this research.
Consent for Publication All authors of this manuscript hereby consent for it to be published.
Ethical Approval This study received ethical approval from the James Cook University Human Research
Ethics Committee. All standard ethical protocols for conducting research with human participants were
followed.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen
ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Arafat, S. Y., Alradie-Mohamed, A., Kar, S. K., Sharma, P., & Kabir, R. (2020). Does COVID-19 pan-
demic affect sexual behaviour? A cross-sectional, cross-national online survey. Psychiatry Research,
289, 113050. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. psych res. 2020. 113050
Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L. T., Armstrong, E. M., & Seeley, J. L. (2014). “Good girls” gender, social
class, and slut discourse on campus. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(2), 100–122. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 01902 72514 521220
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society, 16(1), 296–298.
Bőthe, B., Bartók, R., Tóth-Király, I., Reid, R. C., Griffiths, M. D., Demetrovics, Z., & Orosz, G. (2018).
Hypersexuality, gender, and sexual orientation: A large-scale psychometric survey study. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 47(8), 2265–2276. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10508- 018- 1201-z
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37
cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0140 525X0 00239 92
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human
mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 295X. 100.2. 204
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree plot test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
1(1), 140–161. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 7906m br0102_ 10
Cooper, M. L., Barber, L. L., Zhaoyang, R., & Talley, A. E. (2011). Motivational pursuits in the context
of human sexual relationships. Journal of Personality, 79(6), 1333–1368. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j.
1467- 6494. 2010. 00713.x
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1357
1 3
Was it Good forYou? Gender Differences inMotives andEmotional…
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommen-
dations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation,
10(1), 7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7275/ jyj1- 4868
Darmstadt, G. L., Heise, L., Gupta, G. R., Henry, S., Cislaghi, B., Greene, M. E., Hawkes, S., Hay, K.,
Heymann, J., Klugman, J., Levy, J. K., & Raj, A. (2019). Why now for a series on gender equality,
norms, and health? The Lancet, 393(10189), 2374–2377. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0140- 6736(19)
30985-7
Dawson, B. L., & McIntosh, W. D. (2006). Sexual strategies theory and internet personal advertisements.
Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 9(5), 614–617. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1089/ cpb. 2006.9. 614
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). The Oxford handbook of human motivation. Oxford University Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions
versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066X.
54.6. 408
Emmerink, P. M., van den Eijnden, R. J., Vanwesenbeeck, I., & ter Bogt, T. F. (2016). The relationship
between endorsement of the sexual double standard and sexual cognitions and emotions. Sex Roles,
75(8), 363–376. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11199- 016- 0616-z
Farvid, P., & Braun, V. (2017). Unpacking the “pleasures” and “pains” of heterosexual casual sex:
Beyond singular understandings. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(1), 73–90. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 00224 499. 2016. 11434 42
Farvid, P., Braun, V., & Rowney, C. (2017). ‘No girl wants to be called a slut!’: Women, heterosexual
casual sex and the sexual double standard. Journal of Gender Studies, 26(5), 544–560. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 09589 236. 2016. 11508 18
Fernández del Río, E., Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J., Castro, Á., & Barrada, J. R. (2019). Sociosexuality and
bright and dark personality: The prediction of behavior, attitude, and desire to engage in casual sex.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15), 2731. https:// doi. org/
10. 3390/ ijerp h1615 2731
Fisher, M. L., Worth, K., Garcia, J. R., & Meredith, T. (2012). Feelings of regret following uncommit-
ted sexual encounters in Canadian university students. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 14(1), 45–57.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13691 058. 2011. 619579
Flack, W. F., Hansen, B. E., Hopper, A. B., Bryant, L. A., Lang, K. W., Massa, A. A., & Whalen, J. E.
(2016). Some types of hookups may be riskier than others for campus sexual assault. Psychological
Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8(4), 413–420. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ tra00 00090
Galperin, A., Haselton, M. G., Frederick, D. A., Poore, J., von Hippel, W., Buss, D. M., & Gonzaga, G.
C. (2013). Sexual regret: Evidence for evolved sex differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42,
1145–1161. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10508- 012- 0019-3
Gleason, N., Banik, S., Braverman, J., & Coleman, E. (2021). The Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
on sexual behaviors: Findings from a National survey in the United States. The Journal of Sexual
Medicine. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jsxm. 2021. 08. 008
Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extroversion. Behavior Research and
Therapy, 8, 249–266. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0005- 7967(70) 90069-0
Gray, J. A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Research in Per-
sonality, 21, 493–509. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0092- 6566(87) 90036-5
Grubbs, J. B., Wright, P. J., Braden, A. L., Wilt, J. A., & Kraus, S. W. (2019). Internet pornography use
and sexual motivation: A systematic review and integration. Annals of the International Communi-
cation Association, 43(2), 117–155. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23808 985. 2019. 15840 45
Heldman, C., & Wade, L. (2010). Hook-up culture: Setting a new research agenda. Sexuality Research
and Social Policy, 7(4), 323–333. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13178- 010- 0024-z
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ BF022 91575
Kennair, L. E. O., Wyckoff, J. P., Asao, K., Buss, D. M., & Bendixen, M. (2018). Why do women regret
casual sex more than men do? Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 61–67. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. paid. 2018. 01. 044
Klasen, S., & Schüler, D. (2011). Reforming the gender-related development index and the gender
empowerment measure: Implementing some specific proposals. Feminist Economics, 17(1), 1–30.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13545 701. 2010. 541860
Le Gall, A., Mullet, E., & Shafighi, S. R. (2002). Age, religious beliefs, and sexual attitudes. Journal of
Sex Research, 39(3), 207–216. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 49020 95521 43
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1358
B.E.McKeen et al.
1 3
LeFebvre, L. E. (2018). Swiping me off my feet: Explicating relationship initiation on Tinder. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 35(9), 1205–1229. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02654 07517 706419
Lehmiller, J. J., Garcia, J. R., Gesselman, A. N., & Mark, K. P. (2021). Less sex, but more sexual diver-
sity: Changes in sexual behavior during the COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic. Leisure Sciences,
43(1–2), 295–304. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01490 400. 2020. 17740 16
Lyons, H. A., Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2014). Young adult casual sexual
behavior: Life-course-specific motivations and consequences. Sociological Perspectives, 57(1),
79–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07311 21413 517557
Madkan, V. K., Giancola, A. A., Sra, K. K., & Tyring, S. K. (2006). Sex differences in the transmission,
prevention, and disease manifestations of sexually transmitted diseases. Archives of Dermatology,
142(3), 365–370. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1001/ archd erm. 142.3. 365
Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S., & Oppermann, M. (2003). Casual sex among Australian schoolies.
Journal of Sex Research, 40(2), 158–169. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 49030 95521 77
McMahan, K. D., & Olmstead, S. B. (2021). Are college students’ perceptions of the developmental fea-
tures of emerging adulthood associated with motivations for sex? Implications for research and pol-
icy. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18, 450–464. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13178- 020- 00457-7
Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(4), 477–
507. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10508- 007- 9175-2
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? The Journal of Sex Research, 51(6),
605–615. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 499. 2014. 906031
Napper, L. E., Montes, K. S., Kenney, S. R., & LaBrie, J. W. (2016). Assessing the personal negative
impacts of hooking up experienced by college students: Gender differences and mental health. The
Journal of Sex Research, 53(7), 766–775. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 499. 2015. 10659 51
Owen, J., Fincham, F. D., & Moore, J. (2011). Short-term prospective study of hooking up among college
students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 331–341. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10508- 010- 9697-x
Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college
students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37(1), 76–88.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 49000 95520 23
Pickel, K. L., & Gentry, R. H. (2017). Slut shaming in a school bullying case: Evaluators ignore level of
harm when the victim self-presents as sexually available. Sex Roles, 76(1–2), 89–98. https:// doi. org/
10. 1007/ s11199- 016- 0662-6
Pillsworth, E. G., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2004). Ovulatory shifts in female sexual desire. Jour-
nal of Sex Research, 41(1), 55–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00224 49040 95522 13
Ranzini, G., & Lutz, C. (2016). Love at first swipe? Explaining Tinder self-presentation and motives.
Mobile Media & Communication, 5(1), 80–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 20501 57916 664559
Rosenberg, M., Luetke, M., Hensel, D., Kianersi, S., Fu, T. C., & Herbenick, D. (2020). Depression and
loneliness during COVID-19 restrictions in the United States, and their associations with frequency
of social and sexual connections. MedRxiv. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1101/ 2020. 05. 18. 20101 840
Sevi, B., Aral, T., & Eskenazi, T. (2018). Exploring the hook-up app: Low sexual disgust and high socio-
sexuality predict motivation to use Tinder for casual sex. Personality and Individual Differences,
133, 17–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2017. 04. 053
Stark, R., Kagerer, S., Walter, B., Vaitl, D., Klucken, T., & Wehrum-Osinsky, S. (2015). Trait sexual
motivation questionnaire: Concept and validation. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(4), 1080–
1091. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jsm. 12843
Sumter, S. R., Vandenbosch, L., & Ligtenberg, L. (2017). Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’
motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 67–78.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tele. 2016. 04. 009
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson.
Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. H. (2011). Sexual hookups among college students: Sex differences
in emotional reactions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1173–1181. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10508- 011- 9841-2
Townshend, J. M., Kambouropoulos, N., Griffin, A., Hunt, F. J., & Milani, R. M. (2014). Binge drinking,
reflection impulsivity, and unplanned sexual behavior: Impaired decision-making in young social
drinkers. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 38(4), 1143–1150. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1111/ acer. 12333
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1359
1 3
Was it Good forYou? Gender Differences inMotives andEmotional…
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection & the Descent of Man,
Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 136–179. http:// joelv elasco. net/ teach ing/ 3330/ trive rs72- paren
talin vestm ent. pdf
Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2017). Declines in sexual frequency among Ameri-
can adults, 1989–2014. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(8), 2389–2401. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10508- 017- 0953-1
Uecker, J. E., & Martinez, B. C. (2017). When and why women regret sex in hookups more than men
do: An analysis of the online college social life survey. The Sociological Quarterly, 58(3), 470–494.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00380 253. 2017. 13317 16
Ueda, P., Mercer, C. H., Ghaznavi, C., & Herbenick, D. (2020). Trends in frequency of sexual activity
and number of sexual partners among adults aged 18 to 44 years in the US, 2000–2018. JAMA Net-
work Open, 3(6), e203833–e203833. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1001/ jaman etwor kopen. 2020. 3833
Vrangalova, Z. (2015). Does casual sex harm college students’ well-being? A longitudinal investigation
of the role of motivation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(4), 945–959. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10508- 013- 0255-1
Vrangalova, Z., & Ong, A. D. (2014). Who benefits from casual sex? The moderating role of sociosexu-
ality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(8), 883–891. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 19485
50614 537308
Wellings, K., Palmer, M. J., Machiyama, K., & Slaymaker, E. (2019). Changes in, and factors associated
with, frequency of sex in Britain: Evidence from three national surveys of sexual attitudes and life-
styles (Natsal). British Medical Journal. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. l1525
Wesche, R., Claxton, S. E., & Waterman, E. A. (2020). Emotional outcomes of casual sexual relation-
ships and experiences: A systematic review. The Journal of Sex Research. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
00224 499. 2020. 18211 63
Wilson, E. C., Garofalo, R., Harris, D. R., & Belzer, M. (2010). Sexual risk taking among transgen-
der male-to-female youths with different partner types. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8),
1500–1505. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2105/ AJPH. 2009. 160051
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com