Download Cognitive Dissonance and Sexual Regret Among College Students

HOOKING UP ON CAMPUS: COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
AND SEXUAL REGRET AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
____________
A Thesis
Presented
To the Faculty of
California State University, Chico
____________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Communication Studies
____________
by
© Anna Lind Thomas 2010
Spring 2010
HOOKING UP ON CAMPUS: COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
AND SEXUAL REGRET AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
A Thesis
by
Anna Lind Thomas
Spring 2010
APPROVED BY THE INTERIM DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF
GRADUATE, INTERNATIONAL, AND INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES:
Mark J. Morlock, Ph.D.
APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Ruth Guzley, Ph.D.
Graduate Coordinator
Michelle Givertz, Ph.D., Chair
Ruth Guzley, Ph.D.
Lyndall Ellingson, Ph.D.
PUBLICATION RIGHTS
No portion of this thesis may be reprinted or reproduced in any manner
unacceptable to the usual copyright restrictions without the written permission of the
author.
iii
DEDICATION
For my mom, Christine. Making you proud has been one of the greatest joys
of my life. In fact, it’s been darn right fun.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I’d like to thank the chair of my committee, Dr. Michelle Givertz, for her
investment of time and dedication to my thesis. You set the bar incredibly high, and I was
determined to meet your expectations. Thank you for believing in me, I hope I made you
proud. I would also like to thank Dr. Ruth Guzley and Dr. Lyndall Ellingson for agreeing
to serve on my committee. Your encouragement, suggestions, and criticisms were instrumental to my success, and I thank you. To my colleagues in Residential Life, thank you
for your endless support and encouragement. We are the only ones who really know what
it’s like to do what we do—I couldn’t have done this without you. To my crew—my
Resident Advisors—you inspire me every day. I’m crazy about you all. To my family:
Mom, Dad, Jenny, Christian and the babies . . . I love you all so much, I can’t wait to
come home. And finally, I want to thank my beloved husband Rob for bragging to complete strangers about my “smarts.” You make me feel like the most beautiful, most intelligent woman in the world. With you, I can do anything.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Publication Rights ......................................................................................................
iii
Dedication ..................................................................................................................
iv
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................
v
List of Tables .............................................................................................................
viii
Abstract ......................................................................................................................
ix
CHAPTER
I.
II.
Introduction ..............................................................................................
1
Background ..................................................................................
Statement of Problem ...................................................................
Purpose of Study and Theoretical Foundation ............................
Limitations ...................................................................................
Definition of Terms......................................................................
1
2
5
6
7
Review of Literature ................................................................................
8
Hookup Culture versus Casual Sex..............................................
Hookup Trends and Outcomes.....................................................
Alcohol Use and Unwanted Sex ..................................................
Sexual and Relationship Values...................................................
Sexual Double Standard ...............................................................
Motivation for Sexual Conformity...............................................
Sexual Regret ...............................................................................
The Present Study ........................................................................
Cognitive Dissonance Theory ......................................................
8
9
10
13
17
23
26
29
30
vi
CHAPTER
III.
PAGE
Method .....................................................................................................
36
Participants ...................................................................................
Procedure .....................................................................................
Measures ......................................................................................
36
36
37
Results ......................................................................................................
41
Hookup and Sexual Behavior ......................................................
Sexual Attitudes ...........................................................................
Religiosity ....................................................................................
Sexual Regret ...............................................................................
Dissonance ...................................................................................
Intercorrelations Between Variables ............................................
Sexual Attitudes, Sexual Behaviors, and Cognitive
Dissonance .................................................................................
Dissonance and Sexual Regret .....................................................
Sex Difference in Sexual Regret and Cognitive Dissonance .......
Dissonance Reduction Strategies .................................................
41
46
46
46
48
49
Discussion ................................................................................................
57
Sexual Behaviors .........................................................................
Dissonance and Sexual Regret .....................................................
Associations Between Variables ..................................................
Sex Differences in Cognitive Dissonance and Sexual Regret .....
Dissonance Reduction Strategies .................................................
Limitations and Future Directions ...............................................
Conclusion ...................................................................................
58
58
63
64
64
65
69
References ..................................................................................................................
71
IV.
V.
vii
51
53
54
55
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1.
Sexual Behavior Frequencies for Predictor and Outcome Variables..........
42
2.
One-way Analysis of Variance Summary Table Comparing Sex
with Sexual Behaviors ..............................................................................
45
3.
Responses to Sexual Regret Item by Percent ..............................................
47
4.
Multiple Regression Analysis for Predicting Male Sexual Regret
from Sexual Attitudes, Religiosity, Sexual Behavior, and Dissonance ....
48
Multiple Regression Analysis for Predicting Female Sexual Regret
from Sexual Attitudes, Religiosity, Sexual Behavior, and Dissonance ....
49
Multiple Regression Results for Predicting Male Dissonance from
Sexual Attitudes, Religiosity, and Sexual Behavior .................................
50
Multiple Regression Results for Predicting Female Dissonance from
Sexual Attitudes, Religiosity, and Sexual Behavior .................................
51
8.
Intercorrelations Between Study Variables ................................................
52
9.
Dissonance Correlations Between Attitude/Behavior Groups ....................
53
10.
One-way Analysis of Variance Summary Table Comparing Sex with
Sexual Regret and Dissonance ..................................................................
54
5.
6.
7.
viii
ABSTRACT
HOOKING UP ON CAMPUS: COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
AND SEXUAL REGRET AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
by
© Anna Lind Thomas 2010
Master of Arts in Communication Studies
California State University, Chico
Spring 2010
This study investigated the psychological consequences of hooking up within
the framework of cognitive dissonance theory. Participants were 134 male and 158
female (N = 292) college students attending a mid-sized university in the Western United
States. Hypothesis 1 predicted that individuals with conflicting sexual attitudes and behaviors would experience dissonance. The results of the present study indicate that students
with the combination of conservative sexual values and fewer sexual experiences were
more likely to experience dissonance than any other group. In support of hypothesis 2,
the results of the study revealed that there was a significantly positive correlation
between dissonance and sexual regret. In addition, post hoc analyses revealed that dissonance was the best predictor of regret. Hypothesis 3 predicted there would be significant differences between males and females in reports of dissonance and sexual regret. In
partial support of this hypothesis, the results showed that females reported experiencing
dissonance significantly more than males. From those experiencing dissonance, research
ix
question 1 sought to determine how dissonance was reduced. The majority (63%; 43%
males, 76% females) reduced their dissonance by changing an attitude or behavior more
than any other reduction strategy. Within the framework of cognitive dissonance theory,
this study was able to demonstrate that sexual attitudes inconsistent with sexual behaviors
can cause dissonance and that dissonance is positively associated with sexual regret.
x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background
Today’s college students live in an environment saturated with sex. They are
exposed to sexual content on a regular basis from the Internet, the media, and countless
other sources during a time when self-exploration and experimentation are driving forces
in their lives. It shouldn’t be a surprise, then, that many college students are having sex ─
and a lot of it ─ often outside the context of a committed relationship. However, what is
surprising is that, while sexual experimentation appears to be a socially acceptable rite of
passage when one enters college, it does not come without the potential for serious consequences, not just physically, but emotionally and socially ─ especially for women.
On most college campuses, a widely accepted sexual practice is called “hooking up,” that explicitly permits a sexual interaction without romance, commitment, or
even affection (Glenn & Marquardt, 2001). Although there is new attention focused on
the hookup phenomenon, casual sex has been occurring on college campuses for decades.
The hookup culture stems from the many social changes that arose in the mid 1960s,
most notably the sexual revolution. Coeducation rose substantially and more students
began living on campus. Residence halls typically restricted contact between the sexes
and took on a “parental role,” monitoring student behavior (Glenn & Marquardt). However, students were rebelling against rules that restricted access between sexes and soon
1
2
administrators were forced to set aside such policies in favor of co-ed dormitories (Bogle,
2005). Traditional dating scripts, where a date occurs first and then perhaps a sexual
encounter happens later (Bogle), was no longer the dominant script for developing relationships. Students postponed marriage and sex outside of marriage was not as taboo as it
had once been. The “college experience” became a rite of passage, where partying and
sexual experimentation became commonplace. According to Bogle (2008), on campuses
today, the hookup culture has flourished as casual relationships have become socially
acceptable and students have gained limitless access to each other. The hookup script, a
reversal of the dating script, has become increasingly dominant as college students
“become sexual first and then maybe someday go on a date” (Bogle, 2005, p. 2).
Through her interviews with college students, Bogle (2005) found that they
knew what dating was, but rarely went on dates. In fact, many students reported that they
had never been on a date. Since hooking up rarely leads to monogamous relationships,
going on a traditional date isn’t necessary, especially when the allure of parties, bars, or
night clubs facilitates easy access between the sexes and countless opportunities for
sexual interaction.
Statement of Problem
Risky sexual behavior on college campuses has been a major concern for decades as the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STI) and AIDS have threatened the
health and lives of college students. Recently, however, researchers are finding that hookup behaviors may also come with serious emotional and psychological consequences
including sexual regret, shame, embarrassment, depression, sexual assault, and rape
3
(Flack et al., 2007; Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006; Oswalt, Cameron, & Koob, 2005;
Seaman, 2005). Given the many negative physical and psychological outcomes that may
emerge from hooking up, the current study investigated various factors and outcomes
connected to the behavior, including hookup trends and outcomes, alcohol use, unwanted
sex, sexual values, the sexual double standard, and sexual regret. The hookup phenomenon was then examined within the theoretical framework of cognitive dissonance theory.
A study conducted by Paul, McManus, and Hayes (2000) reported that 78% of
males and females experienced a hookup while in college. The self-reported hookup frequencies suggest that some college students were hooking up on a weekly basis with one
or multiple partners. Despite the fact hooking up appears to occur regularly, many studies
show that most college students have regrets about one or more of their hookup experiences (Bogle, 2007; Eshbaugh & Gute, 2008; Oswalt et al., 2005; Paul & Hayes, 2002).
Regret may combine with emotions such as anger, shame, and embarrassment (Seaman,
2005), or more severe conditions such as depression or other psychological disorders
(Grello et al., 2006). In addition, reports of unwanted sex, including accounts of sexual
assault or rape, are frequently reported within the context of a sexual hookup experience
(Flack et al., 2007).
Studies have also shown that hooking up is often a much different experience
for males than for females. Females report sexual regret significantly more than men
(Oswalt et al. 2005), as well as reporting more anger, shame, embarrassment depression,
unwanted sex, sexual assault and rape (Flack et al., 2007; Grello et al., 2006; Oswalt
et al., 2005; Seaman, 2005). The startling differences between men and women within
hookup culture may be a result of the sexual double standard that still exists in today’s
4
society. Hooking up, even with multiple women, often provides social rewards for men.
In stark contrast, hooking up with multiple men often leaves women vulnerable to negative labeling and unfavorable reputations (Bogle, 2007). The sexual double standard is
likely to increase sexual regret among females, causing psychological distress that may
have an impact on many aspects of their lives.
Considering the various negative psychological consequences that may occur
after a hookup, this study explored the sexual phenomenon within the theoretical construct of cognitive dissonance theory. Festinger (1957) argued that inconsistency between
pairs of cognitions would cause psychological discomfort. This discomfort, or dissonance, may lead to regret and motivate individuals to make inconsistent cognitions consonant through dissonance reduction processes. Exploring what is happening cognitively
when a student’s sexual attitudes clash with his or her sexual behaviors provides an
explanation as to why students may be experiencing psychological discomfort. In addition, students may also report the use of dissonance reduction strategies, and if so, provide insight as to how students may rationalize their behavior, enabling themselves to
continue hooking up throughout college.
Based on the investigations of previous studies exploring hookup factors, outcomes, and cognitive dissonance theory, three hypotheses and one research question were
explored in this study. Dissonance theory assumes that an inconsistency between pairs of
cognitions will cause psychological discomfort known as cognitive dissonance. As a
result, hypothesis 1 (H1) predicts that respondents reporting sexual attitudes inconsistent
with sexual behaviors will experience some degree of cognitive dissonance.
5
Within dissonance theory, O’Keefe (2007) suggests that regret can be a result
of dissonance and can motivate dissonance reduction. Several studies have shown that
sexual regret is a common response to the aftermath of a hookup encounter (Bogle, 2007;
Eshbaugh & Gute, 2008; Oswalt et al., 2005). Based on the possible relationship between
dissonance and regret, hypothesis 2 (H2) predicts post-hookup cognitive dissonance will
correlate significantly with reports of sexual regret.
In addition, the majority of studies exploring sexual regret show that female
respondents are far more likely to report regret or shame after a sexual hookup (Bogle,
2007; Oswalt et al., 2005). Based on these findings, hypothesis 3 (H3) predicts females
will experience cognitive dissonance and sexual regret significantly more than men.
Finally, dissonance theory assumes that individuals experiencing cognitive dissonance
will use dissonance reduction strategies to alleviate the psychological discomfort. This
study assumes that college students experiencing cognitive dissonance after a hookup
will also report attempts to reduce the dissonance. As a result, research question 1 (RQ1)
asks, How will college students experiencing cognitive dissonance after hooking up
choose to reduce their dissonance?
Purpose of Study and Theoretical Foundation
Hookup culture is a complex system set in place for socialization and companionship among college students (Bogle, 2005). However, if hookup culture is such a
widely accepted and common fixture to today’s college campus, then why are students
experiencing negative emotional consequences? Much of the literature on hooking up
focuses on frequencies, predictors, and outcomes of sexual behavior. Paul et al., (2000),
6
one of the first teams of researchers to examine the characteristics and correlates of hookup culture, raised the question, “What role does dissonance play in the predictors of and
the experience of hookups” (p. 87)? The present study attempted to address this question
by examining hookup behaviors within the theoretical framework of cognitive dissonance
theory.
Oswalt et al. (2005) found that the most reported reason for sexual regret was
that the encounter conflicted with the student’s sexual values. This reveals that college
students’ liberal sexual behavior may be in conflict with their more conservative sexual
values. As a result, cognitive dissonance theory serves as a guide to our understanding of
what may be occurring cognitively after a hookup encounter. This study is able to go
beyond the description and outcomes of hookup culture and sexual regret investigated by
previous studies. Dissonance theory provides theoretical explanations as to why sexual
regret may be occurring and provides the ability to predict what variables may cause psychological discomfort after a hookup experience.
Limitations
There are important limitations to the study that must be considered when
interpreting the results. First, the sample was not random. As a result, Caucasians and
heterosexuals were over represented in the sample. It is not possible to draw generalizations about ethnic minorities or non-heterosexual hookup behaviors from the study. In
consideration of this limitation, a larger sample size was sought to generate as much
diversity as possible. Another implication of a nonrandom sample is the potential for a
selection bias. Due to the nature of the topic, it is possible that those experiencing the
7
most amount of dissonance declined participation due to the anxiety of addressing issues
that have caused psychological discomfort. In addition, the reliability of the self-reported
methodology of dissonance and sexual regret also raises the potential for bias. Based on
social constructions of appropriate sexual behavior, males may skew their responses to fit
sexual permissiveness norms, and females may skew their responses towards sexual
restraint. Despite this limitation, Meston, Heiman, Trapnell, and Paulhus (1998) found
that self-reported instruments used under anonymous testing conditions are not typically
sensitive to biases based on social influences.
Definition of Terms
Hookup/Hooking up: A physical and/or sexual behavior that explicitly permits a
sexual interaction without romance, commitment, or affection (Glenn & Marquardt,
2001). A hookup can describe kissing to sexual intercourse, occurring between strangers,
classmates, acquaintances, or friends. It is not a precursor to a romantic relationship and
often occurs after a night of drinking where one or both partners are intoxicated (Bogle,
2007).
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Hookup Culture versus Casual Sex
Casual sex behavior among heterosexual college students is a prominent and
widely accepted part of campus culture (Paul et al., 2000). Researchers have been investigating the sexual attitudes and behaviors of college students in the past decade as concern over sexually transmitted infections (STI) and the threat of HIV/AIDS have been on
the rise. Of particular concern are the multiple high-risk behaviors (e.g., alcohol and drug
use) college students engage in that may be connected to risky casual sex encounters
(Paul et al., 2000).
Paul et al. (2000) define casual sex as “sexual intercourse without commitment or emotional involvement” (p. 76). The term casual sex, however, no longer seems
to accurately describe a more complex sexual behavior prevalent on campus. Adolescents
and young adults use the term “hooking up” to describe a wider range of sexual involvement and emotional attachment. Researchers have attempted to define this complex cultural phenomenon and the definition has evolved as researchers have taken a closer look
at the varying levels of sexual and emotional involvement surrounding a hookup encounter. Paul et al. define a hookup as a “sexual encounter, usually lasting only one night,
between two people who are strangers or brief acquaintances. Some physical interaction
is typical but may or may not include sexual intercourse” (p. 76).
8
9
Bogle (2005) found this particular definition does not reflect the full range of
behavior reported by students. While a hookup may resemble a one-night stand, that is
only one possible hookup scenario. A hookup can involve two people who are strangers,
acquaintances, or close friends engaging in an array of behaviors including kissing, sexual touching, oral sex, and sexual intercourse. The encounter may happen once or it may
happen multiple times (Bogle, 2007). The hookup partners may have no emotional
attachment or they may care for each other. In other words, the terms “casual sex” and
“hooking up” are not synonymous. Rather, “casual sex” fits under the umbrella term of
“hooking up.” Students may use the term hooking up to describe a casual sex encounter
resembling Paul et al.’s (2000) definition, but they may also use the term to describe
heavy kissing that happens regularly between two friends. Regardless, a common element
between the varying circumstances of a hookup is that the physical encounter is not necessarily a precursor to a relationship, and there are no guarantees anything will evolve
past a physical or sexual interaction (Bogle, 2007).
Hookup Trends and Outcomes
Hooking up has become a common practice on college campuses. Respondents from the Paul et al. (2000) study self-reported hookup frequencies that suggest they
are hooking up on a weekly basis with one or multiple partners. The risky practice can
often produce devastating effects if it results in pregnancy, infection of a sexually transmitted disease, sexual assault, rape, or experiences of emotional trauma from a casual sex
or hookup encounter (Paul & Hayes, 2002). Paul et al. conducted one of the largest studies in the northeastern United States. From a random sample of 555 undergraduate
10
students, 78% of males and females reported experiencing a hookup at least once while in
college. Of males, 47.5% reported having intercourse during the hookup, compared to
33.3% of females. Nearly half of the hookups (44%) reported happened at Greek socials
(parties at fraternity or sorority houses) or other events (Paul et al.). The results of the
study indicate that not only is hooking up a common practice, but it is a dominant script
in how heterosexual males and females “connect” on campus. Unlike casual sex or onenight stands, the act of hooking up is more than sexual gratification ─ it is a byproduct of
a larger culture set in place for socialization and companionship (Bogle, 2005).
Bogle (2005) describes possible outcomes after a hookup ranging from exclusive relationships to never seeing each other again. Some students develop a friendship
and hook up repeatedly. This is referred to as “friends with benefits” and is defined as a
cross-sex relationship where the couple engages in sexual activity, but does not consider
the friendship to be romantic (it should be noted that same-sex gay and lesbian couples
may experience “friends with benefits” relationships as well) (Hughes, Morrison, &
Asada, 2005). Some students begin to date, and in the current context, that means they
spend time together outside of the club, bar, or party scene. Dating, at times, evolves into
an exclusive relationship. More often, however, Bogle found that hooking up led to
“nothing - no ongoing relationship of any sort” (p. 4).
Alcohol Use and Unwanted Sex
A key element linked to hooking up is alcohol use. As a result, the relationship between the two cannot be ignored. Hooking up on college campuses generally
occurs at the end of an evening spent at a party or bar after alcohol has been consumed
11
(Bogle, 2005). The Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism (2002) reports that in the span of two weeks, two out of five college students
consumed alcohol in extreme excess within a short period of time, otherwise known as
binge drinking. The report revealed that binge drinking is directly associated with highrisk sexual behavior because
alcohol impairs information processing and reasoning and heightens the salience of simple cues to action (such as sexual arousal) while blunting the
more distal consequences of behavior (such as risk of HIV infection). (p. 7)
The report goes on to explain that students who drink are two to three times more likely
to have multiple partners.
The study conducted by Paul et al. (2000) revealed that 22% of the respondents who reported having sexual intercourse in the context of a hookup felt “out of control” due to alcohol consumption. In fact, alcohol intoxication was one of the most distinguishing predictors of students who engaged in coital hookups. Paul and Hayes (2002)
asked 187 participants to describe their hookup experiences. Thirty-two percent of the
respondents reported that drinking alcohol was the main factor leading to their hookup
experiences. Other factors included flirting/attraction (43%), hanging out and talking
(30%), attending parties (20.5%), dancing (10%), and a friend’s arrangement (5%)
(p. 645). Kalish (2003) hypothesized that the “relationship between the parties, location,
use of alcohol, and campus social capital increase the likelihood of engaging in
penetrative sexual behaviors” (p. 1). The results of Kalish’s study indicated that one of
the most significant variables of a hookup was “beer drinking.”
Bogle (2008) poses that a hookup may not always be due to alcohol intoxication, rather, students may also be abusing alcohol in order to hook up. Alcohol reduces
12
inhibitions, increases courage, and alleviates anxiety which makes the social pressures of
hookup culture easier to navigate. Bogle also found that alcohol may be used to justify
behavior. “If students regret their choices later, or have misgivings about going too far,
they can tell themselves and others: ‘I was drunk’” (p. 3). This implies that students find
alcohol to be a suitable excuse to avoid responsibility from any negative consequence
that may emerge from a sexual hookup encounter.
An alarming outcome to alcohol abuse is the heightened threat of unwanted
sex or a sexual assault. For many students, this may lead to shame that later evolves into
regret or other more severe psychological consequences. A sexual interaction is considered unlawful if one or both of the parties is unable to consent to sex, including situations where someone is unable to consent due to intoxication (Bogle, 2005). The Task
Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2002)
reported that 40% of college students surveyed indicated regular use of alcohol, noting
serious consequences including sexual assault and victimization. In fact, some female
college students reported that while under the influence, it was easier to give in to a sexually coercive male than to resist his advances.
In the first study of unwanted sexual experiences in hookup culture, researchers defined unwanted sex as “a general concept that includes sexual assault or rape, but
may also incorporate any behavior involving sexual contact experienced as harmful or
regretful during or following the incident” (Flack et al., 2007, p. 140). The study
indicated that 23% of women and 7% of men reported experiencing an unwanted sexual
encounter. Seventy-eight percent of all unwanted sex (vaginal, anal, and oral) took place
during a hookup. Flack et al. (2007) reported that “judgment impaired by alcohol and
13
drugs” was the most frequently cited reason for unwanted sex (62.2%). Other frequently
reported reasons were “happened before I could stop it” (37.8%), “taken advantage of
because I was wasted” (32.4%), “thought I wanted it at the time” (32.4%), and “easier to
go along with it than cause trouble” (24.3%). The results of the study supported the
hypothesis that “hooking up is a risk factor for unwanted intercourse” (Flack et al.,
p. 147).
Sexual and Relationship Values
In addition to alcohol, the likelihood of a hookup occurring may also depend
on the student’s sexual values. One’s sexual values often dictate how he or she will
behave sexually outside and within committed relationships. Sexual values may also
serve as a compass as to how one perceives acceptable or unacceptable sexual behavior
and may enable or prevent hookup encounters. However, if students make sexual decisions contradicting their value set, sexual values may be the driving force to a negative
psychological reaction after a hookup encounter. In contrast, more liberal sexual values
may enable a student to experiment freely with his or her sexuality without negative psychological consequences.
Sexual values often develop within the home, or with the guidance of a parent
or parental figure. However, religion, peer influence, and society also play a major role in
the development of sexual values, especially during emerging adulthood (the period from
the late teens to mid-20s). Knox, Cooper, and Zuzman (2001) measured the sexual values
of unmarried undergraduates by determining the value system that may be responsible for
guiding the decisions students make regarding their sexual choices. Participants answered
14
a questionnaire that revealed the value system that most represented their beliefs on sexual behavior. Knox et al. (2001) define sexual values in terms of absolutism, relativism,
and hedonism. Absolutism reflects a belief in abstinence until marriage and/or and abidance of religious or moral codes, which dictate what is right or wrong. Relativism
represented the belief that sexual activity should depend on the nature of the relationship
and how two people feel about one another. Hedonism represented the belief that sex is
always acceptable as long as it is between two consenting adults.
Knox et al. (2001) sampled 620 never married undergraduates at a large
southeastern university. The results of the study showed that 80% of both women and
men reported relativistic sexual values more than hedonism and absolutism. However,
18.7% of males identified as hedonistic, compared to only 3.6% of women. Females
reported absolutist values more frequently at 11.9%, compared to males at 8.3%. The
results of this study show that while both men and women share dominant relativistic
values, men may be more likely to hold hedonistic values and women more absolutistic.
In a similar study with a sample of 783 undergraduate students, men and women reported
relativism as the dominant sexual value at 62.1%. Hedonism followed at 24.6% and
absolutism at 13.4%. Again, men were significantly more hedonistic at 36.7%, compared
to women at 12.5%. Women were more absolutist at 15.1%, compared to men at 11.6%
(Richey, Knox, & Zusman, 2009).
The results of these two studies reveal that most college students believe sex
should remain within in the context of a relationship, reflecting relativistic sexual values.
However, research also reveals that most students are regularly engaging in hookup
15
behaviors (Oswalt et al., 2005). This suggests that some, if not most, of the students
hooking up are doing so despite the fact it contradicts with their sexual values.
In a study examining relationship values, Meier, Hull, and Ortyl (2009) sampled 49,897 young adults from across the nation and found that nearly all the participants
adhered to the “dominant relationship values inherent in the romantic love ideology”
(p. 510). In other words, participants rated love, faithfulness, and lifelong commitment as
extremely important for marriage or long-term relationships. Despite the high rating by
both sexes, there were differences, as the romantic love ideology was more predominant
for females than for males. Females valued love at 91.15%, faithfulness at 93.36%, and
lifelong commitment at 82.79%, compared to males who rated love at 76.39%, faithfulness at 85.02%, and lifelong commitment at 71.43%.
It is important to note that all of the participants in the Meier et al. study were
in middle school through high school. Unless there are dramatic changes within their
family or personal life that could influence their belief system, they are likely to carry
their relationship values with them if they attend college. Once immersed in a collegiate
hookup culture which emphasizes sex more and relationships less, it is important to consider that heterosexual undergraduate students may be experiencing conflict between
their relationship values, sexual values, and the widely accepted hookup culture on campus. Alternatively, some college students may not apply their relationship values with
hookup behaviors, as most students are aware that hookup encounters rarely indicate a
relationship will form (Bogle, 2005). In other words, one may hold a romantic love ideology but not invoke these values in their decisions to engage in hookup behaviors as
they do not consider the encounter to be related to a romantic relationship.
16
In addition to sexual values and relationship values, religiosity is another
important element to understanding a student’s hookup behaviors or a student’s level of
regret after a hookup encounter. Oswalt et al. (2005) identified four reasons for sexual
regret and the most common response was “participants’ decisions were inconsistent with
their values” (37%). In measuring sexual regret and casual sex, Eshbaugh and Gute
(2008) found that religious participants were more likely to report regret than nonreligious participants.
It is important to discuss, however, that religious affiliation is not an accurate
predictor of hookup behavior. Brudette, Ellison, Hill, and Glenn (2009) conducted a
study to examine the impact of both individual religious beliefs and institutional religious
involvement on hookup behaviors. In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with a
sample consisting of 1,000 female college students. According to the authors, the results
of the analysis reveal important patterns. First, Catholic women were four times more
likely to hook up than women with no religious affiliation. In fact, Catholic affiliation
increased the odds of hooking up by 72%. Second, conservative Protestant college
women were far less likely to experience a hookup than those with no religious
affiliation.
The results can be explained by church attendance. College women who
attended church services regularly were far less likely to hook up than those who did not,
and Protestant college women reported attending church services at a much higher rate
than other college women. Brudette et al. propose the results imply that students who
attend church services regularly most likely have religious networks that may influence
sexual behavior while in college. In contrast, Catholic college women in the study were
17
less likely to report attending regular religious services. The authors found that, unlike
Protestant churches, Catholic churches invest few resources in youth ministry and education. Brudette et al. state that “this lack of spiritual nurturing may lead some Catholics to
rebel against the normative constraints of the Church” (p. 545). The results of this study,
as well as religiosity variables measured in the Oswalt et al. (2005) and Eshbaugh and
Gute (2008) studies, reveal that religiosity is another important element to understanding
sexual values, and, as such, hookup behaviors on college campuses.
Sexual Double Standard
A consistent finding across all studies measuring hookup behaviors and sexual/relationship values lies in the differences reported by heterosexual men and women.
The results of the studies on sexual values show that there are differences between the
sexes. While both men and women are more likely to report relativistic attitudes, as mentioned previously, men report hedonistic values more than women and women report
absolutism more than men. These differences may be a result of society’s sexual double
standard.
There is a perception that hooking up is an equally acceptable practice for
both male and female college students, however, Seaman (2005) found the behavior
seems to have an unsettling effect for women. Seaman, a reporter for Time magazine,
participated in ethnographic research for two years to uncover the real story of college
life today compared to the tumultuous late 1960s. He was granted access to live with students in residence halls across North America, usually 12 weeks at a time, at 13 different
colleges and universities. Seaman interviewed students as well as faculty and staff and
18
found that as women gain more collegiate success and honors, their stress levels are
raising with the higher achievements and expectations. Many women are now abusing
alcohol as frequently as men and “demanding equal access to sexual gratification and
freedom from the bonds of commitment to a relationship” (p. 50).
This shift in female sexual attitudes is more in line with male sexual attitudes,
however, it hasn’t created an equal experience for the sexes. According to Seaman, at this
point in our cultural revolution, women still haven’t reached sexual equality and find
themselves caught between “old traditions and new expectations” (p. 50). These conflicting dynamics are creating a confusing environment for today’s female college students. Seaman wrote that many women reported feelings of anger or shame, or felt
incomplete or unsatisfied by casual sexual encounters. Many felt compelled to gain
information about the male in order to build some sort of relational bond. The ambiguous
nature of the hookup caused women to attempt to “legitimize the hook up so as not to
leave the encounter undefined” (p. 46). This suggests an unsettling reaction by the female
to an experience that is supposed to be considered a widely accepted and socially encouraged practice among her peers.
Oswalt et al. (2005) found that 72% of the sexually active college students in
their sample regretted at least one sexual encounter. However, their study also indicated
that there are clear sex differences showing that women were more likely to report sexual
regret of action (engaging in a sexual act) ,whereas men were more likely to report
regrets of inaction (wishing they had engaged in a sexual act). Consistent with these
results, Paul and Hayes (2002) asked participants to report their feelings after a typical
19
hookup. The researchers found that women were more likely to ruminate about a hookup
and experience shame, while men were more likely to report feeling satisfied.
In the same vein, Bogle (2007) conducted in-depth interviews in order to
investigate the sexual double standard occurring within hookup culture. The sample
included 76 college students and young alumni from two northeastern universities. Upon
first entering college, Bogle (2007) found that both men and women prefer to be single
and enjoy the party/hookup scene as a way of experimenting and discovering what is
available relationally and sexually. After the first year of college, however, women
“became increasingly relationship-oriented” (p. 5). Some women were still willing to
engage in hookup behaviors, but they desired that the hookup evolve into some type of
relationship. Bogle’s study supports the findings of Seaman’s (2005) research, where
female respondents often desired to follow up with their partner after a hookup to legitimize the encounter.
Bogle also found that both men and women were aware of their opposing
hookup expectations. Male college students reported being aware of the female’s desire
for the hookup to evolve in to a relationship, so they “developed strategies for communicating their lack of interest in pursuing anything further” (p. 6). A common strategy was
avoidance, either by not returning calls or making up excuses so as not to meet again.
Through several hookup experiences, many female respondents learned not to expect a
relationship to develop. Many of the women Bogle spoke to “found that men’s desire to
avoid relationships often forced hookup partners to remain just that” (p. 7). Some female
respondents indicated that they continued to hook up despite their unfulfilled expecta-
20
tions, but often stopped hooking up with a partner when they found that the male began
to speak to, or hook up with, other females (Bogle).
Bogle argues that men have far more freedom to be sexually active within
hookup culture: “For women who are active participants, the hook up system is fraught
with pitfalls that can lead them to being labeled a ‘slut’” (p. 9). The data collected from
the interviews revealed that women were labeled negatively if they
hooked up too often, went too far during an initial hook up, hooked up during
the same semester with guys that were friends or fraternity brothers, or conducted themselves in an overtly sexual manner (in terms of their style of dress,
etc.) at social gatherings where hooking up was possible. (p. 9)
The hookup culture that both men and women embrace and enjoy when they first arrive
at college ends up having far more negative consequences for females. The sexual double
standard “leads to an environment where women need relationships to protect their
reputations” (p. 9).
Sex differences and consequences of hooking up may be explained by gender
role social constructions. Within hookup culture, both sexes may be acting out and responding to gender role expectations set by society. Male and female sex is considered an
innate, biological dichotomy, whereas “gender is a socially derived, complex system of
values and behavioral expectations” (Metts, 2006, p. 26). Simply stated, gender is considered fluid and socially constructed whereas biological sex is not (Metts).
Dating is considered to be a socially scripted relationship sequence constructed for mate selection, and men and women go about this selection process differently. In general, men look for attractiveness as a proxy for fertility, whereas women
look for personality characteristics, status, power, and financial security (Metts). Metts
21
poses, “the stereotypical masculine gender role in relationship initiation is characterized
by control and proactive moves and the feminine counterpart by submission and reactive
moves” (p. 27). When it comes to first date sex, “women link sexual intimacy more
closely to emotional intimacy than do men” as a result of the socially constructed double
standard (p. 31). In other words, traditional dating scripts socialize men to desire frequent
sexual encounters with multiple partners, whereas women are socialized to desire sexual
experiences within monogamous relationships (Sprecher et al., 1998). Despite evidence
that hookup scripts are a reversal to dating scripts (Bogle, 2005), women must still battle
the western sociocultural expectation that a sexual experience is not acceptable outside of
marriage, while it is a reinforced aspect of masculinity for their male partners (Paul &
Hayes, 2002).
Milhausen and Herold (1999) conducted a qualitative study measuring college
women’s perceptions of the sexual double standard. Of the 165 women interviewed, 95%
reported that they believed a societal sexual double standard exists. Forty-nine percent
reported that they perceived the double standard as women being harshly labeled and
penalized for having multiple sexual partners. Comments included “women have to be
careful not to ruin their reputations” (p. 364). Forty-eight percent believed men were
rewarded for having multiple sexual partners. Comments included “guys are admired by
their peers” and “encouraged by their friends” (p. 364). Ten percent indicated that women
are not encouraged to enjoy sex for pleasure. One respondent commented, “Culturally
speaking, women have been restricted into thinking that their sexual needs are not as
important as men’s and that [sex] is disgusting” (p. 364). Nine percent agreed with the
sexual double standard that, indeed, it is more natural for men to seek sex for pleasure.
22
One respondent commented, “Naturally, men seem to have a stronger (less controllable)
sex drive, and act upon it” (p. 364). While almost every female respondent reported that a
societal sexual double standard exists, most believed women enforced the double standard more than men. The majority of respondents reported that women judge women
more harshly for promiscuous behavior than do men (Milhausen & Herold). This particular study reveals that while women feel oppressed under the sexual double standard,
women are essentially oppressing themselves, and each other.
Eshbaugh and Gute (2008) pose that the differences in regret between sexes
may be explained from an evolutionary perspective. Since females are the ones who are
impregnated, they have a higher parental investment and seek males that offer good
genes, resources, and security. As a result, a long-term mating strategy is most useful.
Men, theoretically, are able to escape the responsibilities of pregnancy and impregnate
multiple women, therefore seeking multiple females who are healthy and fertile for
reproduction. Buss (1998) argues,
Because men and women differ in minimum obligatory parental investment,
men devote a larger proportion of their total mating effort than do women to
short-term mating. To produce a single child, women must undergo the burdens of a nine-month gestation, which is costly in time, energy, opportunity
costs, increased vulnerability, and risk during childbirth. This is the minimum
investment, and it is obligatory. Men’s minimum obligatory investment is a
single act of sexual intercourse. (p. 22)
Males often invest much more, of course, but the fact still remains that a man can
impregnate multiple women, resulting in a higher number of children, whereas a female
can have intercourse with hundreds of men and still only produce one child.
As a result, Buss (1989) argues that a male’s desire for short-term mating may
be out of an effort to not be out-produced by other men. So, they must solve the
23
following problems to succeed: (a) partner number, (b) identification of sexually
accessible women, (c) identification of fertile women, and (d) minimal commitment and
investment. It is obvious that if men are engaging in short-term mating, women are too.
However, from an evolutionary perspective, Buss poses that women engage in short-term
mating for different reasons. Women need (a) immediate resources for themselves and
their offspring; (b) mate insurance or “alternatives” should their regular mate become
injured, die, or leave the relationship; and (c) genetic benefits through mating with
superior men.
Regardless of whether the sexual double standard emerges from centuries of
social construction or centuries of evolution, the fact still remains that women navigating
the present hookup culture are battling a system that does not accept female participation
as it does male participation. Campus hookup culture can only thrive if females are active
participants, however, female sexual hookup behavior is not viewed as positively as it is
for men. The system encourages female participation, while simultaneously punishing
those who are active within it.
Motivation for Sexual Conformity
As discussed earlier, hooking up is more than just sexual gratification ─ it is a
byproduct of a larger culture set in place for socialization and companionship (Bogle,
2005). If navigated properly, engaging in hookup behaviors may have many social
rewards for both men and women. Students anticipate positive consequences such as
heightened social status and, therefore, anticipate heightened self-esteem and selfconfidence (Paul & Hayes, 2002). It is the socialization that occurs within hookup culture
24
that may heavily influence an individual’s decision to engage in risky casual sex
behaviors.
By the time students reach emerging adulthood, they may find themselves
engaging in higher rates of risk-taking behavior such as casual and unprotected sex
(Arnett, 2000). This is due to this period in their lives being primarily a time of selfexploration where a desire to have several differing experiences before settling down into
the responsibilities of adulthood is most prevalent. For many students attending and
residing at universities, most of the time is spent with friends, where they experience
much more face-to-face time with their peers than their parents (Lefkowitz, Boone, &
Shearer, 2004). This daily peer interaction leads to the desire to form intimate relationships where social identification and influence runs high.
A study conducted by Mewhinney, Herold, and Maticka-Tyndale (1995)
found that a common reason reported by students for engaging in sexual hookup
encounters on spring break was the perceived normative acceptance. Early psychological
studies found that there is a need for individuals to be accepted by a group of which they
desire to be a part, and that they learn to conform in order to be socially accepted by their
peers (Argyle, 1957). Research on conformity and social pressure shed light on the
potential impact a social group will have on a student’s sexual attitudes and behaviors.
Paul and Hayes (2002) discovered that an individual’s dependence on their friends’
liberal sexual opinions and advice has an influence on their own sexual choices. Once
more, college students with low self-esteem may look for cues and validation from outside sources (Spitzberg, Kam, & Roesch, 2005) and be highly influenced by the opinions
and ideals of others. This approval-based conformity is known as normative influence
25
(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). It involves individuals going along with the group, or mimicking group behaviors in order to be more liked within their social network (Griskevicius et
al., 2006). According to a classic study by Asch (1956), people were more likely to conform, not because they were in agreement, but because it was easier than facing the
consequences of going against the group. Normative influence can be powerful, as often
times those going against the group will be rejected or ridiculed (Griskevicius et al.,
2006). These early concepts of social influence speak to how a student may be influenced
by their social group to adhere to the sexual behaviors and attitudes of their peers.
According to research by Lefkowitz et al. (2004), students with conservative
sexual attitudes felt less comfortable talking about sexual behaviors and feelings than
their more liberal counterparts. This lack of comfort could be due to their attitudes not
fitting in with campus sexual “norms,” as well as when comparing their experiences with
that of their social group. Lefkowitz et al. (2004) state that “it is likely that there is bidirectionality; students influence each other’s behaviors through their conversations, while
at the same time, their conversations reflect their experiences” (p. 348). This discomfort
of not being able to relate sexually to their social group is reflected in a narrative study by
Beausang (2000) where a student reported
Most of my friends were having sex and I with an exception of two friends
were not. We were known as the “virgins.” Most of my friends would sit
around and talk about their sexual experiences and I would just sit there
quietly just taking it all in. Sometimes I felt inferior to my friends because I
hadn’t had sex yet . . . sometimes I would get so frustrated that I wanted to
just have sex so that I would get it over with and I wouldn’t be labeled a virgin anymore. (p. 184)
26
The female’s desire to be a part of this conversation rather than be an outsider reveals a
desire to identify with her peers. Her desire is so strong, in fact, it causes her to consider
losing her virginity to be rid of the virgin label that separates her from her friends.
Theoretical perspectives such as normative influence and conformity show
that social influence, even in deviant behavior, is a very real aspect of the interpersonal
human experience (Lefkowitz et al., 2004). But how does this relate to the current hookup culture on college campuses? The importance of understanding the multiple layers of
hookup culture is the first step towards addressing three large student issues on campus:
alcohol abuse, sexual assaults, and the spread of STIs. However, it is also important to
understand the effect hooking up has in this context because of emotional and psychological considerations, such as shame, regret, and embarrassment.
Sexual Regret
Regret is an emotion often experienced when an individual feels they have
caused harm to themselves (intrapersonal) or to others (interpersonal) (Zeelenberg &
Breugelmans, 2008). Many of today’s college students use the word regret to describe
how they feel about one or more of their hookup experiences (Bogle, 2007; Eshbaugh &
Gute, 2008; Oswalt et al., 2005; Paul & Hayes, 2002). In a study reviewing college
women’s bad hookup and rape scripts, Littleton et al. (2009) discovered that 56.9% of the
women reporting bad hookups experienced negative psychological and social consequences. Many of the females interviewed said the hookup was a result of manipulation
(69%) or alcohol consumption (69%). As a result, many experienced shame, embarrassment, or regret following the encounter. Oswalt et al. (2005) found that 72% of sampled
27
sexually active college students regretted at least one sexual encounter. Similarly, the
study by Paul and Hayes (2002) asked participants to report their feelings after a typical
hookup. The most common response was “regretful or disappointed (35%)” (p. 648).
Females were more likely to ruminate about a hookup and experience shame, while men
were more likely to report feeling satisfied. The study also revealed that during a typical
hookup, a majority of students reported “feeling good, aroused or excited,” as opposed to
only 8% that reported feelings of regret or embarrassment (p. 645). However, when asked
to report feelings after a hookup, the most common response was regret and disappointment (35%) (Paul & Hayes, 2002).
In a similar study, Eshbaugh and Gute (2008) surveyed 152 female participants to investigate female casual sex and sexual regret. The results of their study confirmed that hooking up was a predictor of sexual regret among women. The results indicated that engaging in sexual intercourse once and only once and engaging in intercourse
with someone known for less than 24 hours were the best predictors of sexual regret. The
results also show that religious participants were more likely to report regret than nonreligious. The concept of conflict due to sexual values is also revealed from the results of a
study by Oswalt et al. (2005). They identified four reasons for sexual regret; the most
common response was “participants’ decisions were inconsistent with their values”
(37%) (p. 666).
In a report for the Independent Woman’s Forum focused on hookup culture
and its effect on college women, Glenn and Marquardt (2001) conducted in-depth interviews in the U.S. with 62 undergraduate women on 11 college campuses. In addition, the
researchers held telephone interviews with a national sample of 1,000 unmarried hetero-
28
sexual undergraduate women. Many of the college women interviewed for the study
shared a wide variety of feelings after hooking up. Most women felt awkward (64%) or
confused (57%) because they weren’t sure if the encounter would lead to a relationship.
They worried about the possibility of running into their hookup partner on campus and
having to “pretend” an intimate encounter hadn’t occurred between them (Glenn &
Marquardt). In addition, 44% reported feeling disappointed and some felt empty (27%) or
exploited (23%) after the sexual encounter (Glenn & Marquardt).
Some college students also experience depression as a result of casual sex
behavior (Grello et al., 2006). One study focused on the nature of casual sex on campus
and a portion of the study was dedicated to understanding the psychological functioning
of casual sex. From a sample of 404 undergraduate students, Grello et al. found that the
females who reported the highest levels of depressive symptomatology were also the
most likely to have engaged in casual sex. For females, as their sexual partners increased
over the course of the year, so did their symptoms of depression. Those with the highest
number of sexual partners suffered depression pathology symptoms the most. In contrast,
the males who reported the lowest levels of depressive symptoms were also most likely to
have had casual sex. In addition, males and females who had feelings of regret about a
casual sex encounter had more symptoms of depression than those who did not have
regrets (Grello et al.). It’s important to note that Grello et al. focused on casual sex behaviors that may or may not reflect hookup behaviors. Hookups that are physical interactions, but do not include sexual interactions, are not reflected in the data.
29
The Present Study
College students are in an environment where hooking up is a campus norm
and is viewed positively. Despite this, students still report conflicting emotions after sexual encounters, including anger and shame (Seaman, 2005). College students are stuck
between two opposing social forces: a college campus that is conducive to hooking up
and a larger society that disproves of casual sex and hookup behaviors, especially for
women (Esbaugh & Gute, 2009; Paul et al., 2000). The goal of this study was to explore
this particular phenomenon in greater depth. First-year students may be coming to
campus with a set of values and ideals about sexual behavior learned from their families,
churches, and social networks. It is likely that upon arrival to campus, many may be
swept up into the campus culture and social norms, including excessive alcohol consumption and casual “hookup” sexual behavior. As a result of their sexual behaviors
conflicting with their sexual values and attitudes, the present study sought to examine this
hookup behavior within the theoretical framework of cognitive dissonance. Given the
many negative consequences that may occur after a hookup, exploring what is happening
cognitively when a student’s sexual attitudes clashes with his or her sexual behaviors
provides an explanation as to why students may be experiencing psychological discomfort. As a result, the distress of dissonance may lead to feelings of sexual regret or
depressive symptoms. Students may then report the use of dissonance reduction strategies
in order to cope with their dissonance, providing insight as to how students may rationalize their behavior, enabling them to continue hooking up throughout college.
30
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Over 40 years ago, Festinger (1957) introduced the theory of cognitive dissonance. Festinger argued that inconsistency between pairs of cognitions will cause psychological discomfort. This discomfort, known as cognitive dissonance, will motivate us to
make our inconsistent cognitions consistent by utilizing dissonance reduction strategies.
Dissonance theory is an attitude theory based on the concept of cognitive consistency. More specifically, the theory is concerned with the relationship among cognitive
elements. Cognitive elements are our attitudes, beliefs, opinions, or bits of knowledge we
possess (O’Keefe, 2002). Three possible relationships may exist between our cognitions.
One example would be cognitions that are irrelevant to one another. For instance, a college student’s cognition that they enjoy drinking alcohol at parties is irrelevant to their
belief that tuition will be raised next year. A second possible relationship between cognitions is that they are consistent or consonant. For instance, the cognition that one enjoys
drinking alcohol at parties is consistent or consonant with the cognition that drinking at a
party will help to make new friends. A final relationship between cognitions is inconsistency or dissonance. The student’s positive attitude towards drinking at a party would be
inconsistent or dissonant with their belief that drinking alcohol could also cause them to
act in embarrassing or regretful ways in front of their new friends.
At the crux of cognitive dissonance theory lies the idea that persons will seek
to maximize psychological consistency (consonance) between cognitive elements and
will experience psychological discomfort if there are inconsistencies (dissonance). The
magnitude of psychological discomfort caused by dissonance depends on the importance
of the cognitive elements and the ratio of consonant to dissonant elements. Cognitions are
31
not always binary ─ in fact, an attitude may have clusters of both consonant and dissonant cognitions (O’Keefe, 2002). For instance, college students may enjoy drinking alcohol at parties because it alleviates anxiety, releases inhibitions, and enables them to make
social connections more easily. However, one may also believe that drinking at parties
may result in risky sexual behaviors he or she would not partake in if sober. The amount
of dissonance experienced depends on the relative size of the two clusters (O’Keefe). If
drinking at parties brings substantial social rewards and the negative consequences seem
minimal in comparison, then the consonant elements outnumber the dissonant elements
and less dissonance is experienced. However, if the individual also has absolutist or relativistic sexual values and drinking alcohol at parties increases the likelihood that they will
engage in sexual acts with strangers or brief acquaintances ─ the dissonant elements may
outnumber the consonant elements and the psychological distress of dissonance will
increase.
According to Festinger (1957), individuals experiencing cognitive dissonance
will become motivated to alleviate the discomfort by attempting to reduce the cognitive
discrepancy. Festinger believed that humans are not “rational” beings, rather, humans
“rationalize” behavior. One way to rationalize inconsistency between attitudes and
behaviors is to utilize dissonance reduction strategies. Festinger (1975) identified three
methods of reducing dissonance: The first is modification of an attitude or behavior
(attitudinal or behavioral change). For instance, the college student who enjoys drinking
alcohol at parties, but also believes drinking causes one to behave in embarrassing or
regretful ways, may choose to change his or her attitude towards the consequences. They
may decide that being intoxicated doesn’t cause embarrassing behavior ─ rather their
32
behavior is funny, entertaining, and well received by their peers. Alternatively, they may
decide to change their behavior and limit, or even stop, the amount of alcohol consumed
to avoid engaging in behaviors they may later regret.
The second reduction strategy is the addition or deletion of cognitive elements
related to the attitude (adding new behaviors or attitudes that are consistent with past
behaviors or attitudes or deleting those that are inconsistent). Instead of changing their
attitude, students may add a consonant element and decide that hooking up with someone
at the end of a party will elevate self-esteem and social status. Therefore, the dissonant
cognition that alcohol will cause them to do something they may later regret is outweighed by the consonant attitude that drinking is necessary to release inhibitions and
provide the “liquid courage” that will help them achieve their social and sexual goals.
The third reduction strategy is the minimization of the importance of one or
more dissonant elements (trivialization). Students’ fear that drinking may cause regretful
behavior can be minimized by convincing themselves that everyone at the party is drinking and behaving in the same ways. By normalizing the behaviors, the student is able to
devalue the dissonant cognition and perhaps reduce dissonance.
Like all good theories, dissonance theory has not remained static. Aronson
(1968) was the first to argue that dissonance is not simply aroused by inconsistent attitudes and behaviors, rather the cognition of “self” must be activated for one to experience
cognitive dissonance (Cooper, 1999). More specifically, one’s behavior must cause he or
she to feel personally responsible for an aversive event. It is the personal experience, the
perception of self in relation to an adverse event, that propels dissonance reduction.
Cooper (1999) states “that is why the consequence, the unwanted result of the person’s
33
behavior, is so critical in driving the dissonance engine. It is the essential ingredient, the
primary reason for people engaging in the effort of dissonance reduction” (p. 151).
Perception of self combined with choice and responsibility for aversive consequences creates an unexpected, but important, consideration for the phenomenon of
regret to emerge from cognitive dissonance. If we have inconsistent cognitions after we
make a decision to behave in a particular way, we will experience psychological
discomfort (cognitive dissonance). This discomfort my cause reflection on alternative
behavioral choices, and, as such, lead to regret of the specific behavioral choice. The
experience of regret will motivate dissonance reduction (O’Keefe, 2002). Regret does not
always occur immediately after a decision has been made. On some occasions, regret
may not occur until much later. For instance, a female may not experience regret after a
hookup until she realizes that the encounter will not lead to a relationship. Once she
makes the realization that her behavior had an aversive consequence (no romantic relationship), she may regret the hookup if her behavior was inconsistent with her sexual
values.
Regret may also cause focused attention on the dissonant cognitions associated with the choice. The undesirable aspects of the choice (i.e., becoming intoxicated
and having sex with someone they just met) are pitted against the desirable aspects of the
options not chosen (i.e., abstaining from alcohol and making wise sexual choices), causing regret to emerge. The individual begins to engage in dissonance reduction strategies
by evaluating the alternative options he or she could have chosen differently, alleviating
psychological discomfort. It appears, then, that regret may be a precursor as well as a
motivational ingredient in dissonance reduction (O’Keefe, 2002).
34
Despite many studies investigating the effects of hooking up on campus, sexual regret, and cognitive dissonance, very little research has examined post-hookup regret
in the context of dissonance theory. Several studies have confirmed that many college
students have experienced regret after one or more hookup experiences (Bogle, 2007;
Eshbaugh & Gute, 2008; Oswalt et al., 2005). If regret often emerges after experiencing
cognitive dissonance and acts as motivation to dissonance reduction (O’Keefe, 2002), it
is reasonable to assume that many of the college students reporting sexual regret are
experiencing it as a result of cognitive dissonance. The psychological discomfort may
cause them to reduce their dissonance by (a) changing their attitudes on hooking up,
casual sex, or hookup culture in general, (b) changing their hooking up or party behaviors, (c) adding or deleting cognitive elements related to the attitude/behavior, or
(d) trivializing their sexual choices by devaluing their initial attitudes on sexual behavior
and hooking up.
One of the few studies reporting on cognitive dissonance and sexual behavior
sought to report the type of dissonance experienced and reduction strategies used by
Christian lesbians. Mahaffy (1996) found that 38% of respondents reported dissonance
between their religious beliefs and their identity as a lesbian. Respondents reduced their
dissonance by changing their attitudes (believing God made them who they are and,
therefore, accepts their sexual orientation), changing their behaviors (leaving the church),
and trivializing (reporting that the bible was written by man, not God, so views on sexual
immorality are not a reflection of God’s acceptance). While this particular study does not
contribute to our understanding of heterosexual hookup behavior among college students,
35
it does reveal that when sexual values and attitudes are dissonant with sexual behavior,
cognitive dissonance and, therefore, dissonance reduction can occur.
Based on previous studies exploring campus hookup culture, sexual regret,
and cognitive dissonance, three hypotheses and one research question were explored in
this study. Dissonance theory assumes that an inconsistency between pairs of cognitions
will cause psychological discomfort known as cognitive dissonance. As a result, H1 predicts that respondents reporting sexual attitudes inconsistent with sexual behaviors will
experience some degree of cognitive dissonance.
Within dissonance theory, O’Keefe (2007) suggests that regret can be a result
of dissonance and can motivate dissonance reduction. Several studies have shown that
sexual regret is a common response to the aftermath of a hookup encounter (Bogle, 2007;
Eshbaugh & Gute, 2008; Oswalt et al., 2005). Based on the possible relationship between
dissonance and regret, H2 predicts post-hookup cognitive dissonance will correlate significantly with reports of sexual regret.
In addition, the majority of studies exploring sexual regret show that female
respondents are far more likely to report regret or shame after a sexual hookup (Bogle,
2007; Oswalt et al., 2005). Based on these findings, H3 predicts females will experience
cognitive dissonance and sexual regret significantly more than men. Finally, dissonance
theory assumes that individuals experiencing cognitive dissonance will use dissonance
reduction strategies to alleviate the psychological discomfort. This study assumes that
college students experiencing cognitive dissonance after a hookup will also report
attempts to reduce the dissonance. As a result, RQ1 asks, How will college students
experiencing cognitive dissonance after hooking up choose to reduce their dissonance?
CHAPTER III
METHOD
Participants
Students living in residence halls were solicited to participate in the study
through recruitment at residence hall meetings at a mid-sized residential university in the
western United States. Students were invited to participate if they were over 18 years old.
Participation was voluntary; no compensation was provided.
Out of all the returned questionnaires, nine were discarded because of incomplete or missing data. The final sample consisted of 134 males and 158 females
(N = 292). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 22 years old, with a mean age of 18
(SD = 1.4) for both males and females. As far as class level, 89% of participants were
first-year students, 5% second-year, 5% third-year, and 2% fourth-year students. Collectively, the sample was 71% Caucasian, 15% Hispanic, 6% Asian or Pacific Islander, and
3% African American. In terms of sexual orientation, 96% of participants reported being
heterosexual, 2% homosexual, 2% bi-sexual, and 1% unknown.
Procedure
At the end of the residence hall meetings, students were invited to complete
the questionnaire. Participants were given a packet containing a cover letter with instructions, a consent form, and the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were then placed
36
37
in a secure box, identifiable only by code numbers. Participants were instructed not to
write their names on any of the study materials.
Measures
Hookup Questionnaire and Sexual Behaviors were assessed by a two-item
hookup questionnaire (Paul et al., 2000) and an eight-item sexual behavior questionnaire
adapted from Eshbaugh and Gute (2008). The hookup questionnaire provided participants
with a definition of a “hookup,” as defined by Paul et al. (2000), that was expanded to
consider Bogle’s (2005) additions to the definition. Participants were asked to respond to
two items on hookup behaviors, based on the definition provided. The sexual behavior
section asked participants about their sexual practices including (a) age of first intercourse, (b) number of intercourse partners in the first year, and (c) number of oral sex
partners in the last year.
Sexual Attitudes was determined by using the permissiveness scale extracted
from a multidimensional Sexual Attitudes scale (S. Hendrick & C. Hendrick, 1987). The
permissiveness scale consists of 21 items measured on a five-point interval scale ranging
from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Example items include “Casual sex is
acceptable,” “It is possible to enjoy sex with a person and not like them very much,” and
“Sex without love is meaningless.” The reliability for this scale was α = .87 for males and
α = .81 for females.
Religiosity was determined by using measures from the Lefkowitz, Gillen,
Shearer, and Boone (2004) study. Frequency of attendance at religious services was
assessed by asking participants to report the number of times they attended religious
38
services during the past 12 months. Religion in daily life and religious adherence were
determined using an eight-item measure. Example items include “Which of the following
statements comes closest to your belief about God?” with responses ranging from 1 (“I
am sure that God exists and that he is active in my life”) to 5 (“I don’t believe in a personal God or higher power”), and “When you have a serious personal problem how often
do you take religious advice or teaching in to consideration?”, with responses ranging
from 1 (almost always) to 5 (never). In addition, four different sex-related domains using
birth control, premarital sex, extramarital sex, and abortion were assessed. Respondents
were asked to indicate on a five-point scale the extent to which they followed religious
beliefs in these various sex-related domains, with response categories ranging from 1 (not
at all) to 5 (very closely) (Lefkowitz et al., 2004). The reliability for this scale was
α = .89 for males and α = .90 for females.
Sexual Regret was measured using items from Oswalt et al. (2005). Participants were asked to respond to two items. The first item, “Have you ever regretted your
decision to engage in sexual activity?”, had response categories ranging from 1 (never) to
5 (always). Participants could choose “not applicable” as an option if they had not
engaged sexual activity. The second item asked participants to choose reasons for their
regret from an available list. Oswalt et al. (2005) developed eight regret options from
previous discussions with students. Example options include “Felt pressure from partner,” “Disagreed with morals and values,” and “Wanted to wait until marriage” (Oswalt
et al.).
Cognitive Dissonance was measured using a four-item scale created to determine magnitude of dissonance. The scale was adapted for purposes of this study. Influ-
39
enced by the Mahaffy (1996) study determining if Christian lesbians experienced dissonance between their sexuality and religious beliefs, open-ended questions were used to
measure the magnitude of dissonance between participants’ attitudes and hookup
behaviors. Example items include
Have you experienced tension between your beliefs and values about sex and
a hookup experience you engaged in while in college? If no, you are finished
with the survey. Otherwise, please describe why you think you felt tension
between your sexual values and sexual behaviors.
The responses were then coded in terms of magnitude of dissonance. Responses including non-sexual physical interactions and/or reported feelings of “awkwardness” after a
hookup were coded as 1 (minimal dissonance). Responses where participants desired a
relationship and felt rejected or reported feelings of “embarrassment” were coded as
2 (mild dissonance). Responses including statements that sexual behavior was out of character, contradicted their perception of self, as well as responses resisting responsibility
(i.e., blaming behavior on alcohol or drug intoxication), were coded as 3 (strong dissonance). Responses including strong feelings of shame, anger, or disappointment in themselves, or reports of behavior directly conflicting with absolutist or relativistic values,
were coded as 4 (severe dissonance).
Dissonance Reduction Strategies were measured using a three-item scale, also
adapted from Mahaffy (1996). The first item asked, “How did you relieve the tension?”
Respondents chose from six possible responses. Responses were chosen based on dissonance reduction strategies identified in Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance theory.
Responses indicate change of attitude, change of behavior, addition or deletion of cognitive elements, or trivialization. Depending on what response participants chose, they were
40
then directed to open-ended questions. For example, if respondents answered question 1
(“I changed my feelings/opinions about hooking up and sex”), they were directed to
question 1b (How did your feelings/opinions change about hooking up and sex?”).
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Hookup and Sexual Behavior
As a preliminary analysis to testing the hypotheses and research question,
descriptive statistics of hookup and sexual behaviors were calculated. Table 1 shows the
frequencies, percentages, and sex differences for hookup and sexual behaviors. Number
of hookups ranged from 0 ─ 50 or more. A majority of participants (70%; 73% males,
67% females) had hooked up at least once within the last year. Thirty-six percent experienced 1 ─ 5 hookups (31% males, 39% females), 14% experienced 6 ─ 10 (16% males,
13% females), 7% experienced 11 ─ 15 (11% males, 3% females) and 14% experienced
16 or more hookups (15% males, 13% females) within the last year.
A majority of participants (72%; 79% males, 66% females) also had at least
one sexual intercourse partner in the last year. Number of reported sexual partners ranged
from 0 ─ 15 for both males and females. Sixty percent (64% males, 56% females) had
one to three partners, and 12% (15% males, 10% females) had four or more. Number of
oral sex partners yielded similar results. A majority (74%; 79% males, 69% females)
reported having at least one oral sex partner. Number of reported oral sex partners ranged
from 0 ─ 15. Sixty percent (61% males, 60% females) had one to three partners, and 13%
(18% males, 10% females) reported having four or more. Fourteen percent (14% males,
15% females) of participants reported engaging in anal sex, 31% (40% males, 24%
41
42
Table 1
Sexual Behavior Frequencies for Predictor and Outcome Variables
Total
Variable
Males
Females
n
%
n
%
n
%
88
30
36
27
52
33
1-5
104
36
42
31
62
39
6-10
41
14
21
16
20
13
11-15
19
6.5
15
11
4
2.5
16-20
11
4
6
4.5
5
3
21-25
6
2
4
3
2
1
26-30
4
1
0
0
4
2.5
31-35
2
1
2
1.5
0
0
36-40
5
2
2
1.5
3
2
41-45
1
0.3
0
0
1
1
46-50
1
0.3
1
1
0
0
4
5
3.7
5
3
Number of hookups
0
50 or more
10
Number of sexual intercourse partners
0
82
28
28
21
54
34
1-3
174
60
86
64
88
56
4-6
29
10
16
12
13
8
7-9
3
1
2
1.5
1
1
10-12
2
1
1
1
1
1
13-15
2
1
1
1
1
1
cont’d
43
Total
Variable
Males
Females
n
%
n
%
n
%
0
0
0
0
0
0
13-15 years
40
14
21
16
19
12
16-18 years
160
55
79
60
81
52
19-20 years
12
4
6
4.5
6
4
21 years or older
3
1
0
0
3
2
I have not had
sexual intercourse
76
26
28
21
48
30
2
1
2
1.5
0
0
13-15 years
72
25
33
24.6
39
25
16-18 years
144
49
73
55
71
45
19-20 years
11
4
4
3
7
4
3
1
0
0
3
2
60
20
22
16
23
23
77
26
28
21
49
31
1-3
176
60
82
61
94
60
4-6
28
10
17
13
11
7
7-9
6
2
4
3
2
1
10-12
4
1
3
2
1
1
13-15
1
1
0
0
1
1
Age of first intercourse
12 years or under
Age of first oral sex
12 years or under
21 years or older
I have not had oral
sex
Number or oral sex partners
0
cont’d
44
Total
Variable
Males
Females
n
%
n
%
n
%
Yes
42
14
19
40
23
14
No
250
86
115
60
135
86
Anal sex
Sexual intercourse with someone once and only once
Yes
91
31
53
40
38
24
No
201
69
81
60
120
76
Sexual intercourse with someone known less than 24 hours
Yes
54
19
39
29
15
10
No
238
82
95
71
143
90
Received or performed oral sex from someone known
less than 24 hours
Yes
59
20
45
34
14
9
No
232
80
88
66
114
91
females) reported having had sexual intercourse with someone once (i.e., one night
stand), 19% (29% males, 10% females) reported having had sexual intercourse with
someone they knew less than 24 hours, and 20% (34% males, 9% females) reported
having oral sex with someone they knew less than 24 hours.
In an effort to determine whether there were significant differences in the sexual and hookup behaviors of males and females, a one-way ANOVA was conducted.
Table 2 shows the results of the one-way ANOVA, treating sex (i.e., male/female) as the
independent variable and “number of sexual intercourse partners,” “number of oral sex
partners,” “sexual intercourse once and only once,” “sexual intercourse with someone
45
Table 2
One-way Analysis of Variance Summary Table Comparing Sex with Sexual
Behaviors
Source
df
SS
MS
F
Number of sexual intercourse partners
Between groups
1
2.76
2.76
Within groups
290
166.51
.57
Total
191
169.27
1
3.37
3.37
Within groups
290
176.12
.61
Total
191
179.49
4.81*
Number of oral sex partners
Between groups
5.55*
Sexual intercourse once/only once
Between groups
1
1.74
1.74
Within groups
290
60.99
.21
Total
191
62.64
8.29**
Sexual intercourse; known less 24 hours
Between groups
1
2.79
2.79
Within groups
290
41.23
.14
Total
191
44.01
1
3.91
3.91
290
47.96
.16
191
51.87
19.62***
Oral sex; known less 24 hours
Between groups
Within groups
Total
23.66***
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
known less than 24 hours,” and “oral sex with someone known less than 24 hours” as the
dependent variables. Results of the analysis revealed significant sex differences with men
46
reporting more sexual intercourse partners (F (1, 290) 4.8, p < .05) and oral sex partners
(F (1, 290) 5.6, p < .05). Men also reported more casual sex experiences than women.
Compared with females, results of the analysis revealed significant sex differences with
men reporting more sex with someone once and only once (F (1, 290) 8.29, p < .01),
sexual intercourse with someone known less than 24 hours (F (1, 290) 19.62, p < .001),
and oral sex with someone known less than 24 hours (F (1, 290) 23.66, p < .001).
Sexual Attitudes
Sexual attitudes ranged from 1 (very conservative) to 2 (to very liberal) .
Overall, participants reported moderate sexual attitudes (M = 2.48, SD = .67). Males
reported slightly more liberal sexual attitudes (M = 2.90, SD = .60) and women reported
slightly more conservative sexual attitudes (M = 2.14, SD = .51).
Religiosity
Religiosity ranged from 1 (very religious) to 6 (not religious). Overall, participants reported being moderately religious (M = 3.82, SD = 0.83) with females reporting
slightly higher levels of religiosity (M = 3.61, SD = .87) than males (M = 4.06,
SD = 0.72).
Sexual Regret
Sexual regret ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Respondents could also
indicate that they had not engaged in sexual intercourse. Of the participants who indicated being sexually active, 68% (66% male, 70% female) indicated experiencing some
level of regret after at least one sexual encounter. In response to the question, “Have you
47
ever regretted a decision to engage in sexual activity?”, 36% (35% males, 31% females)
answered “rarely” and 35% (28% males, 31% females) answered “sometimes.” Reports
of regret by sex appear in Table 3. The most common explanation for regret was “alcohol
influenced my decision” (25%; 26% males, 23% females). Other common responses
were “having sex disagreed with morals and values” (11%; 9% males, 13% females), “I
felt pressure from partner” (10%; 5% males, 15% females), and “I did not want same
thing as partner” (9%; 12% males, 6% females).
Table 3
Responses to Sexual Regret Item by Percent
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Most times
Always
Men (n = 119)
34.5
34.5
28
1
2.5
Women (n = 134)
30
31
31
3
5
Combined (n = 254)
32
32
30
2
4
In an effort to investigate the best predictors of sexual regret, multiple regression analyses were conducted. In order to conduct this analysis, a sexual behavior variable was created by converting each of the following items, “Please estimate how many
times you have hooked up in the last year,” “Please indicate the number of intercourse
partners in the last year,” and “Please indicate the number of oral sex partners in the last
year,” into z scores. The z scores for each item were then summed and divided by three to
create the sexual behavior variable.
Sexual behavior, sexual attitudes, religiosity, and dissonance were entered
simultaneously in a single block as independent variables, and sexual regret was treated
48
as the dependent variable. For purpose of comparison, these analyses were conducted
separately for males and females. Results of these analyses appear in Tables 4 and 5. For
Table 4
Multiple Regression Analysis for Predicting Male Sexual Regret from
Sexual Attitudes, Religiosity, Sexual Behavior, and Dissonance
B
SEB
β
Sexual attitudes
.20
.21
.13
Religiosity
-.12
.13
-.11
Sexual behavior
-.09
.13
-.08
Dissonance
.22
.08
.33*
Variable
Note: R² = .15; adjusted R² = .10; F (4, 69) = 3.12*
* p < .05
both males and females, dissonance was a significant predictor of sexual regret (males:
F (4, 69) = 1.91, p < .01, females: F (4, 76) = 3.78, p < .001). For females, sexual attitudes was also a significant predictor of sexual regret F (4, 76, p < .05).
Dissonance
The primary researcher coded dissonance responses into the four magnitude of
dissonance categories: minimal, mild, strong, and severe. Of the respondents that had
experienced a hookup and/or sexual experience, 48% (42% males, 54% females) indicated that they had experienced dissonance. In terms of magnitude of dissonance, 32%
(17% males, 42% females) reported severe dissonance, 24% (39% males, 14.5% females)
reported strong dissonance, 25% (19% males, 29% females) reported mild dissonance,
and 19% (25% males, 14.5% females) reported minimal dissonance.
49
Table 5
Multiple Regression Analysis for Predicting Female Sexual Regret
from Sexual Attitudes, Religiosity, Sexual Behavior, and Dissonance
B
SEB
β
.45
.22
.24*
-.21
.12
-.19
Sexual behavior
.04
.16
-.02
Dissonance
.24
.06
Variable
Sexual attitudes
Religiosity
.43**
Note: R² = .23; adjusted R² = .19; F (4, 676) = 5.53*
*p < .05; **p = .01
In an effort to investigate the best predictors of dissonance, multiple regression analyses were conducted. Sexual behaviors, sexual attitudes, and religiosity were
entered simultaneously in a single block as independent variables, and dissonance was
treated as the dependent variable. For the purpose of comparison, these analyses were
conducted separately for males and females. Results of these analyses appear in Tables 6
and 7. For females, only sexual attitudes F (4, 67 = 10.28, p < .01) was a statistically
significant predictor of dissonance. For males, none of the variables was significant
predictors of dissonance.
Intercorrelations Between Variables
To investigate the relationships between magnitude of dissonance, religiosity,
sexual behavior, sexual attitudes, and sexual regret, correlations were computed and
results are presented in Table 8. For males, dissonance was significantly positively
associated with sexual regret (r = .37, p < .001), religiosity was significantly positively
50
Table 6
Multiple Regression Results for Predicting Male Dissonance from Sexual
Attitudes, Religiosity, and Sexual Behavior
Variable
Sexual attitudes
Religiosity
Sexual behavior
β
B
SEB
.40
.31
.17
-.29
.19
-.19
.20
.00
.001
Note: R² = .17; adjusted R² = .13; F (4, 61) = 3.17*
* p < .05
associated with conservative sexual attitudes (r = .20, p < .05), and sexual behavior was
significantly positively associated with liberal sexual attitudes (r = .38, p < .001). For
females, dissonance was significantly positively associated with sexual regret (r = .35,
p < .001), high religiosity was significantly positively associated with conservative
sexual attitudes (r = .28, p < .01), sexual behavior was significantly positively associated
with liberal sexual attitudes (r = .42, p < .001), and sexual regret was significantly positively associated with liberal sexual attitudes (r = .23, p < .01). For both males and
females, the correlations revealed that dissonance was positively associated with sexual
regret, religiosity was positively associated with conservative sexual attitudes, and sexual
behavior was positively associated with liberal sexual attitudes. For females, results
revealed sexual regret was positively associated with liberal sexual values.
51
Table 7
Multiple Regression Results for Predicting Female Dissonance from Sexual
Attitudes, Religiosity, and Sexual Behavior
B
SEB
β
-1.17
.41
-.34*
Religiosity
.09
.21
.05
Sexual behavior
.38
.30
.14
Variable
Sexual attitudes
Note: R² = .26; adjusted R² = .22; F (4, 61) = 4.57*
* p < .05
Sexual Attitudes, Sexual Behaviors,
and Cognitive Dissonance
Hypothesis 1 predicted that respondents reporting sexual attitudes inconsistent
with sexual behaviors would experience some degree of cognitive dissonance. To test this
hypothesis, the sample was separated into four groups based on mean scores created from
the sexual behavior and sexual attitudes variables. Sexual attitudes below the mean were
considered conservative and those above the mean were considered liberal. Sexual behaviors below the mean were considered low and above the mean were considered high.
From these categories, four groups were created: conservative/high, liberal/high, conservative/low and liberal/low. Individuals who had not engaged in hookups or sexual
activity were excluded from analysis.
To investigate what combination of sexual attitudes and behaviors within
these four groups was associated with dissonance, a correlation was computed between
each group and the variable magnitude of dissonance. Table 9 reveals that only the
“conservative sexual values/low sexual behaviors” group was significantly negatively
Table 8
Intercorrelations Between Study Variables
Females
Variable
1
2
3
4
1. Dissonance
-
-.08
.18
-.13
2. Religiosity
-.18
-
.09
.28**
3. Sexual behavior
.05
-.49
-
.47**
4. Sexual attitudes
-.02
.38*
-
5. Sexual regret
.37**
.20*
-.18
.05
.03
Males
(SD)
Scale
range
.92
(1.36)
1-2
(.87)
4.06
(.71)
1-5
-.11
(.74)
.12
(.82)
0-1
.23**
2.14
(.51)
2.90
(.60)
1-5
-
2.23
(1.08)
2.03
(.94)
1-6
5
M
(SD)
.35**
1.50
(1.66)
-.03
3.60
.13
M
Note: Correlations for females appear in the upper portion of the matrix and correlations for males appear in the lower portion.
* p < .05; ** p < .01
53
Table 9
Dissonance Correlations Between Attitude/Behavior Groups
1
2
M
(SD)
1. Magnitude of dissonance
-
-.18
1.44
(1.65)
2. Conservative attitudes/high sexual behavior
-.18
-
1. Magnitude of dissonance
-
.02
1.13
(1.49)
1.42
(1.60)
.56
(1.10)
2. Liberal attitudes/high sexual behavior
.02
1. Magnitude of dissonance
-
2. Conservative attitudes/low sexual behavior
-.22*
1. Magnitude of dissonance
-
2. Liberal attitudes/low sexual behavior
a
-.22*
a
-
a
Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.
*p < .05
associated with dissonance (r = -.233, p = .05). The results reveal that the combination of
conservative sexual attitudes and low sexual behaviors is associated with a higher magnitude of dissonance.
Dissonance and Sexual Regret
Hypothesis 2 predicted cognitive dissonance would correlate significantly
with sexual regret. To investigate if there was an association, magnitude of dissonance
was correlated with sexual regret. As shown in Table 8, the results revealed that there
was a significantly positive association between magnitude of dissonance and sexual
regret for males (r = .37, p < .001) and females (r = .35, p < .001).
54
Table 10
One-way Analysis of Variance Summary Table Comparing Sex with Sexual
Regret and Dissonance
Source
df
SS
MS
F
1
19.02
19.02
8.20*
Within groups
212
493.83
2.33
Total
213
512.85
1
2.68
2.68
251
258.75
1.03
252
261.43
Dissonance
Between groups
Sexual regret
Between groups
Within groups
Total
2.60
*p < .05
Sex Differences in Sexual Regret
and Cognitive Dissonance
Hypothesis 3 predicted that females would experience cognitive dissonance
and sexual regret more than males. A one-way ANOVA was conducted, treating sex as
the independent variable and magnitude of dissonance and sexual regret the dependent
variables. Table 10 shows that for sexual regret, there was not a statistically significant
difference between males and females (F (1, 251 = 2.6), p = ns). However, there was a
significant difference between males and females in magnitude of dissonance F (1, 201 =
21.75), p < .01. Females were more likely to experience a higher magnitude of dissonance as a result of a hookup.
55
Dissonance Reduction Strategies
Research question 1 sought to determine what dissonance reduction strategies
were used by respondents experiencing dissonance. The majority of respondents (63%;
43% males, 76% females) reduced their dissonance by changing an attitude or behavior,
13% (20% males, 7% females) reported adding consonant or deleting dissonant cognitions, 10% (20% males, 3% females) reported trivializing their hookup behaviors, and
14% (17% males, 12%) reported they had never dealt with their dissonant cognitions.
Frequencies for each of the reduction strategies were computed and example
explanations of each strategy are provided. Thirty-nine percent (20% males, 50%
females) reported reducing dissonance by changing their hookup or party behaviors.
Example responses from two females include “I don’t go out as much anymore” and “I
feel that I am still going to kiss whoever I want, but when it comes to sex, the next guy I
do sleep with ─ I want to know them and have deep feelings for them and no more one
night stands!”
Twenty-five percent (23% males, 26% females) reported reducing dissonance
by changing their feelings/opinions about hooking up and sex. For example, one female
responded by saying, “I realized it is not healthy emotionally or physically and it all
changed when I broke someone’s heart because of my hook up behavior. It forced me to
put it all in perspective.” One male response was “Now that I’ve lost my virginity, I
really don’t care as much.”
Ten percent (20% males, 3% females) reported reducing dissonance by trivializing their hookup behaviors by reporting that they realized hooking wasn’t a big deal or
problem in their lives. An example response from a male included “I practice safe sex, I
56
don’t peer pressure, I don’t take advantage of women. I don’t feel addicted to hooking up
either.”
Eight percent (14% males, 3% females) reduced their dissonance by adding
positive cognitions. Examples of a male response were “It’s fun, meet more people, possibly spark future engagements” and “You build a relationship with that person, you feel
good. It also raises your self-esteem.” Five percent (6% males, 5% females) deleted dissonant cognitions. An example response from a male included “I am numb to the guilt.
Now that I’ve done it, it’s too late to take it back.”
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This study investigated the psychological consequences of hooking up within
the framework of cognitive dissonance theory. Festinger (1957) argued that inconsistency
between pairs of cognitions would cause psychological discomfort. This discomfort, or
dissonance, motivates individuals to make inconsistent cognitions consonant through
dissonance reduction processes. Hypothesis 1 predicted that individuals with conflicting
sexual attitudes and behaviors would experience dissonance. The results of the present
study indicate that students with the combination of conservative sexual values and fewer
sexual experiences were more likely to experience dissonance than any other group.
In support of hypothesis 2, the results of the study revealed that there was a
significantly positive correlation between dissonance and sexual regret. Hypothesis 3
predicted there would be significant differences between males and females in reports of
sexual regret and dissonance. In partial support of this hypothesis, the results showed that
females reported experiencing dissonance significantly more than males. From those
experiencing dissonance, research question 1 sought to determine how dissonance was
reduced. The majority (63%; 43% males, 76% females) reduced their dissonance by
changing an attitude or behavior more than any other reduction strategy.
The results of this study are consistent with, and contribute to, the existing
literature on the effects of hooking up. Examining hooking up through the frame of
57
58
cognitive dissonance theory expands our understanding of this cultural phenomenon
occurring on college campuses. This study reveals the factors that contribute to the experience of dissonance (conservative sexual attitudes and fewer sexual/hookup encounters),
as well as some of the differences between sexes (females were more likely to experience
dissonance than males) associated with the phenomenon. Moreover, the results of this
study are consistent with what the theory predicts ─ that the experience of dissonance
may lead to regret, which may motivate dissonance reduction processes. As expected, in
this study there was a significant correlation between dissonance and sexual regret.
Sexual Behaviors
The sexual behaviors reported by students in the present study resembled the
behaviors reported in previous studies on hookup behaviors (Paul et al., 2000). In the
present study, 70% of participants had experienced at least one hookup within the last
year and 31% had experienced a sexual encounter resembling a one night stand. Considering a hookup does not necessarily involve sexual intercourse, examining the full range
of sexual behaviors enabled a deeper understanding of college students’ casual sexual
experiences as a reference to our understanding of sexual regret and dissonance. Comparable to the Paul et al. (2000) study, the results of the current study revealed significant
sex differences with men reporting more sexual intercourse partners, oral sex partners,
and more casual sex experiences.
Dissonance and Sexual Regret
Sixty-eight percent of the sampled sexually active college students regretted at
least one sexual encounter. These results are consistent with the Oswalt et al. (2005)
59
study that reported 72% of participants indicated sexual regret. Twenty-five percent of
participants in the current study associated their regret with alcohol intoxication, and 11%
indicated regret stemmed from the behavior being in disagreement with their morals and
values. In addition, the most significant predictor of sexual regret was dissonance. These
results can be explained by cognitive dissonance theory. According to the theory, if we
have inconsistent cognitions after we make a decision to behave in a particular way, we
will experience psychological discomfort, or dissonance. This discomfort may cause
individuals to reflect on alternative behavioral choices, and, as such, lead to regret of the
specific behavioral choice (O’Keefe, 2002). The results of the study indicate that individuals may have experienced regret as a result of cognitive dissonance.
From the respondents who had experienced a hookup or sexual experience,
nearly half (48%) indicated they had experienced cognitive dissonance. The magnitude of
dissonance ranged from minimal to severe. It’s important to note that the following
example responses discussed were chosen as the best exemplary representation of each
magnitude of dissonance. Female responses tended to be more elaborative than male
responses, resulting in more female responses chosen.
Responses coded as minimal dissonance included non-sexual physical interactions and/or reported feelings of “awkwardness” after a hookup. An example response
from a male experiencing minimal dissonance was “Other people’s beliefs have influenced my willingness to hook up.” In this specific example, the male respondent indicated his dissonance was a result of others beliefs, not his own. Since the cognition of
“self” was not indicated, the dissonance experienced, if any, was minimal.
60
Responses where participants desired a relationship and felt rejected or
reported feelings of “embarrassment” were coded as mild dissonance. An example
response from a female who indicated mild dissonance was
I felt that the hookup went too far. We didn’t have sex and I wasn’t interested
in a relationship, but he told me that he wanted me as a girlfriend and when I
didn’t give him what he wanted he stopped contacting me. I regret ever having
contact with him because people like that disgust me.
In this example, the female’s perception of what the hookup “meant” did not match that
of her partner and she was rejected as a result. The statement implied her belief that
hookups are acceptable as long as they are with a friend. However, the male’s negative
reaction may have caused her to no longer perceive him as a “friend.” Dissonance may
have forced her to evaluate her behavior and regret the decision to hook up with a person
she deemed “disgusting.”
Responses including statements that the sexual behavior was out of character,
contradicted their perception of self, as well as responses resisting responsibility (i.e.,
blaming behavior on alcohol or drug intoxication), were coded as strong dissonance. An
example of strong dissonance from a female participant was “I was not in love with him
or in a relationship. I always told myself I would be under those circumstances, but I
failed to keep my promise.” This statement suggested a contradiction in her perception of
self, and implied her sexual attitudes were fairly conservative. Since she behaved sexually in a way that contradicted her attitudes, it appears the inconsistency between cognitions caused her to experience strong dissonance.
61
Last, responses including strong feelings of shame, anger, or disappointment
in themselves, or reports of behavior directly conflicting with absolutist or relativistic
values, were coded as severe dissonance. Examples from female respondents included
I am a Christian. I try to be the best Christian I can in every area of my life,
but I have failed in waiting until marriage to have sex. My virginity should
have been a gift for my husband, a symbol of us joining together in the eyes of
God. Now I can never give that gift to my husband, and I know that every
time I have sex, I am hurting my Father in heaven.
This statement may reveal a deep disappointment in her failure to uphold her absolutistic
sexual values. It is clear her sexual behavior is in direct conflict with her sexual values,
and, as a result, she appears to be experiencing severe dissonance. Another female participant appeared to experience dissonance because the encounters rarely had the outcome she desired:
[The hookup] was so impulsive and sometimes I didn’t know how to say no,
or just got speechless so I went with it. I don’t like feeling used, but it has
seemed to happen a lot and I hate it. I just always hope the person actually
likes me . . . I know better now, but I have so much regret.
The response may suggest that had the hookups resulted in a relationship, or had the male
indicated a desire to pursue the encounter further, she may not have experienced dissonance. Seaman (2005) found that females in his study tried to legitimize the relationship
after a hookup encounter. While this participant does not indicate an attempt to legitimize
the hookup with her partners, she does imply that she experienced dissonance because the
males never legitimized the relationship afterwards. The feeling of being used by someone who does not “like her” may have triggered the experience of dissonance.
If there was no conflict between attitudes and behaviors, it was assumed that
dissonance would not occur. In line with this assumption, responses from participants
62
who indicated they had not experienced dissonance revealed no conflicts between cognitions. For example, as one female respondent explained,
I engage in hooking up in a really healthy way. I have sex for me, because I
want to. I think it’s ok to have sex before marriage as long as you’re healthy,
use a condom, be sober and know that you’re emotionally ready. I only have
sex if those things are true.
The participant indicated that she only engages in sexual behavior consonant with her
attitudes. Another example from a female respondent not experiencing dissonance
included “I have my own beliefs and my own spiritual practices that teach me to live and
experience life freely. Life should not be restricted based off society’s influences.”
As discussed here, respondents were able to indicate if they had experienced
dissonance, and provide explanations for their experience. However, the results revealed
that only those in the conservative attitudes/low sexual behavior group had a significantly
negative association with dissonance. This suggests that those with conservative values
reported cognitive dissonance from the few sexual hookup encounters they had experienced. It can be assumed that when it comes to dissonance and sexual regret, it only
takes one sexual hookup to cause psychological distress. It is not surprising that those in
the liberal sexual attitudes group were not as likely to experience dissonance. Liberal
sexual attitudes should be consonant with consensual sexual behavior, and the results
support the assumption of dissonance theory. The combination of conservative sexual
attitudes/high sexual behavior, however, was not significantly correlated with dissonance.
This may be due to the fact participants within this group may have already reduced their
dissonance, therefore indicating they had not experienced dissonance because their sexual
behavior had already been rationalized.
63
Associations Between Variables
What may cause dissonance and sexual regret may also depend on several
different variables, including religiosity, sexual attitudes, and sexual behavior. Researchers have indicated that hooking up and religiosity should be examined more closely
(Oswalt et al., 2005; Paul et al., 2000). As a result, several correlations were computed to
help uncover the relationships between variables. For males and females, conservative
sexual attitudes were associated with high religiosity and low sexual behaviors. A surprising finding was that for females, sexual regret was significantly associated with liberal sexual attitudes. Since sexual behavior was significantly associated with liberal sexual attitudes, it’s possible that the higher amount of sexual experiences allowed more
opportunities for regret to occur. Many of the response categories for regret were not
attitude based (e.g., didn’t use a condom, infected with an STI), so it is plausible that
those with liberal attitudes and higher sexual encounters had more opportunities to
experience regret from the consequences of their sexual choice, not from the attitude
behind their choice.
As predicted by hypothesis 2, there was a significantly positive relationship
between dissonance and sexual regret for both males and females. This is not surprising
as cognitive dissonance theory poses that dissonance may cause regret to occur. In line
with dissonance theory, the results show that as dissonance increases, sexual regret also
increases. In addition, the results revealed that out of all the variables (sexual attitudes,
sexual behavior, dissonance, and religiosity) dissonance was a significant predictor of
regret for both males and females. In line with previous studies, the effect was small.
However, the predictor variable explained 10% variance for males and 19% variance for
64
females. Sexual attitudes was an additional significant predictor of sexual regret for
females only. As with dissonance, there was a small effect size.
Sex Differences in Cognitive Dissonance
and Sexual Regret
Hypothesis 3 predicted there would be significant differences between males
and females in reports of dissonance and sexual regret. Consistent with Oswalt et al.,
(2005) the results revealed that there were no significant differences between males and
females with regard to sexual regret. However, in support of the hypothesis, females
reported dissonance significantly more than men. This may be explained by the nature of
the two psychological experiences. Respondents indicated an array of explanations for
experiencing regret and some responses were not related to sexual values or attitudes. For
instance, some regretted a sexual experience because they developed an STI, didn’t wear
a condom, or didn’t want the same thing as their partner. As a result, regret tends to stem
from the consequences of a behavior. Dissonance, on the other hand, typically occurs due
to an attitude being inconsistent with a behavior. In situations where behavior is contradictory to attitudes, dissonance is likely to occur because the individual chooses to
behave and takes responsibility for the behavior. However, in cases where a student
develops an STI, or later finds their partner wanted different things from the encounter,
the individual may feel regret but not feel responsible for the consequence.
Dissonance Reduction Strategies
Research question 1 sought to determine which strategies were used to reduce
dissonance. The results of this study provide insight as to how students could experience
65
dissonance and regret, yet continue to engage in hookup behaviors. Over half the
respondents (63%) reduced their dissonance by changing an attitude or behavior.
Examples of changing a behavior included attending less parties or drinking less alcohol.
By doing so, their behaviors were able to become consonant with their attitudes. Some
respondents changed their attitudes by changing their sexual attitudes from conservative
to more liberal. It is possible that some students had more conservative attitudes and less
sexual experiences when they first arrived to campus, but due to social pressure and/or an
increase in independence, soon began to adopt the values of their peers or modify their
own values. Thirteen percent of participants reported adding consonant or deleting dissonant cognitions. Rationalization was accomplished by adding cognitions such as “You
build a relationship with that person, you feel good. It also raises your self-esteem.” This
response is consistent with Paul and Hayes (2002), who noted that students may hook up
because they anticipate heightened self-esteem and self-confidence. Participants also
deleted cognitions indicating guilt or remorse. Finally, 10% of respondents were able to
rationalize their behavior by trivializing their hookup encounters. By trivializing, or normalizing their hookup behaviors, some students were able to reconcile their conflicting
emotions.
Limitations and Future Directions
There are important limitations to the study that must be considered when
interpreting the results. First, the sample was not random: Caucasians and heterosexuals
were over-represented in the sample. It is not possible to draw generalizations about ethnic minorities or non-heterosexual hookup behaviors from the study. Another implication
66
of a nonrandom sample is the potential for a selection bias. Due to the nature of the topic,
it is possible that those experiencing the most amount of dissonance declined participation due to the anxiety of addressing issues that have caused psychological discomfort. In
addition, the reliability of the self-reported methodology of dissonance and sexual regret
also raises the potential for bias. Although Meston, Heiman, Trapnell, and Paulhus (1998)
found that self-reported instruments used under anonymous testing conditions are not
typically sensitive to biases based on social influences, respondents may still skew their
responses to fit that of social norms. Based on social constructions of appropriate sexual
behavior, males may skew their responses to fit sexual permissiveness norms, and
females may skew their responses towards sexual restraint. Considering the limitations of
the current study, questions emerge for future research. For instance, do sexual and ethnic
minorities hook up as often as Caucasian heterosexual students? If so, are there any significant differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, or Caucasians and ethnic
minorities? What are these differences, if any? Finally, after a hookup, are minorities as
likely to experience dissonance and sexual regret?
The additional insight this study provides into hookup culture is particularly
useful for university officials, as well as those working in the residential life field on college campuses. Understanding hookup culture, and the varying factors involved in hookup behaviors, is the first step towards addressing the negative physical and emotional
consequences that may result from this behavior. Most colleges and universities are well
equipped to educate students on the consequences of risky sexual behavior, alcohol
abuse, and sexual assault and rape on campus. However, there seems to be limited
education on hookup culture and the potential emotional consequences, such as disson-
67
ance and sexual regret, that may lead to depressive symptoms. Students arrive to campus
with varying religious backgrounds, sexual values, and personality characteristics. As a
result, not everyone will respond to a hookup experience in the same way. While some
may enjoy the sexual experimentation, others may suffer with negative emotional consequences from regret to depression. By recognizing and predicting the potential risks
involved, university officials and residential life staff may be more proactive in educating
students on the dynamics of hookup culture on campus. By doing so, students may be
more prepared to navigate this complex culture and make more responsible and emotionally sound choices regarding their sexual hookup behavior.
In addition, the present study contributes to the study of communication and
to the existing literature on the sexual phenomenon of “hooking up” by providing a theoretical explanation for the psychological discomfort that may occur after a hookup
encounter. Cognitive dissonance theory is a theory of intrapersonal communication as
one addresses their inner conflict between inconsistent cognitions. Given the many negative consequences that may occur after a hookup, exploring what is happening cognitively when students’ sexual attitudes clash with their sexual behaviors provides an
explanation as to why students may be experiencing psychological discomfort and how
they are rationalizing their sexual behavior. Moreover, this study makes the argument that
hookup culture is a network set in place for socialization and companionship. Due to
social conformity, many individuals engage in hookup behaviors because of the perceived social acceptance and influential sexual talk among their peers. Communication
scholars may want to explore the impact of social conformity within hookup culture more
closely in future research.
68
When considering the historical context, varying factors, and outcomes to
hookup culture, a fascinating element isn’t how much sexual behavior and sexual equality has changed over the past 50 years, but rather, how much hasn’t changed. Since the
sexual revolution of the 1960s and ’70s, there is no doubt a dramatic shift occurred on
college campuses where sexual experimentation that was once taboo became a socially
acceptable rite of passage. However, despite hookup culture’s normative acceptance,
previous research, along with this study, provides evidence that some students are experiencing negative outcomes to what is perceived as a positive sexual experience. Furthermore, the sexual double standard creates a more emotionally risky environment for
women engaging in sexual hookup behaviors. The minimal sexual progress over the past
50 years raises the question: Is the perceived acceptance of party and hookup behaviors
on campus a façade, reflecting an evolving sexual saturation of the media, rather than
reflecting the actual human experiences of risky sexual behavior? Or, perhaps Festinger’s
(1957) theory provides a simple explanation: when our behavior conflicts with our attitudes we experience psychological discomfort. Just as it was 50 years ago, the United
States is still a country operating under Judeo-Christian values, despite the sexual saturation in the media that may allude otherwise. It’s not surprising, then, that Knox et al.
(2001) found that most of their participants held relativistic sexual attitudes. If most students have fairly conservative sexual values, and studies also show most college students
are experiencing hookups, cognitive dissonance theory tells us that negative
psychological reactions to hookup behaviors may be a likely outcome. Unless there are
dramatic shifts towards more liberal personal values and attitudes surrounding casual sex
69
behaviors in American culture, we should not expect the outcomes of hookup behaviors
to change anytime soon.
Conclusion
Paul et al. (2000) were one of the first teams of researchers to examine hookup culture. Based on their findings, the question was raised, “What role does dissonance
play in the predictors of and the experience of hookups” (p. 87)? The present study was
able to address this question by examining the relationship between hookup behaviors
among college students and the experience of cognitive dissonance. The findings support
the assumptions of cognitive dissonance theory on multiple levels. First, conservative
sexual values and sexual experiences (even a limited amount) were significantly associated with dissonance. Consistent with Mahaffey (1996), this supports the idea that when
attitudes are in conflict with behavior, dissonance may occur. Second, the results revealed
that there is a significant relationship between dissonance and sexual regret. In line with
the theory, the results revealed that dissonance is a significant predictor of sexual regret.
And last, the current study revealed those experiencing dissonance chose to reduce their
dissonance in order to reconcile their conflicting cognitions. Most chose to change their
behaviors and/or attitudes in order to reduce their cognitive dissonance, however, all of
the reduction strategies were represented in this study, including adding and deleting
attitudes and trivialization.
While many students do not become infected by an STI or become pregnant
due to their sexual choices in college, many will experience dissonance and sexual regret.
Considering the variables involved in their sexual choices (i.e., alcohol use, sexual
70
values, the sexual double standard, sexual conformity, and religiosity), this study
supports the notion that sexual education considering only the physical consequences
may not be enough to address the holistic experience of sexual hookups while in college.
Sexual education including the potential emotional and psychological consequences of
some sexual choices could be a great benefit to many students as they continue to
develop their academic, spiritual, and sexual identities.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Argyle, M. (1957). Social pressure in public and private situations. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 172-175.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. American Psychologist, 55(1), 469-480.
Aronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory: Progress and problems. In R. Abelson,
E. Aronson, W. McGuire, T. Newcomb, M. Rosenberg, & P. Tannnenbaum
(Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 5-27). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a
unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9),
1-70.
Beausang, C. C. (2000). Personal stories of growing up sexually. Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 2(3), 175-192.
Bogle, K. (2005, August). The shift from dating to hooking up: What scholars have
missed. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association , Philadelphia, PA.
Bogle, K. A. (2007, August). Hooking up and the sexual double standard among college
students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, New York City, New York.
Bogle, K. A. (2008, March 21). Hooking- up: What educators need to know. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4. Retrieved from http://www. chronicle.com
Burdette, A. M., Ellison, C. G., Hill, T. D., & Glenn, N. D. (2009). Hooking up at college: Does religion make a difference? Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 48(3), 535-551.
Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. The
Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 19-31.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
72
73
Cooper, J. (1999). Unwanted consequences and the self: In search of the motivation for
dissonance reduction. In E. Harmon-Jones & M. Judson (Eds.), Cognitive
dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 149-173).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social
influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology,51(3), 629-636.
Eshbaugh, E. M., & Gute, G. (2008). Hookups and sexual regret among college women.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(1), 77-89.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford Press.
Flack, W., Daubman, K. A., Caron, M. L., Asadorian, J. A., D’Aureli, N. R., Gigliotti, S.
N., … Stine, E. (2007). Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex
among university students: Hooking up, alcohol and stress response. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 22(2), 139-157.
Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out and hoping for Mr. Right:
College women on dating and mating today. New York: Institute for American Values.
Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of
casual sex in college students. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(3), 255-267.
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T.
(2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate
strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
91(2), 281-294.
Hendrick, S., & Hendrick, C. (1987). Multidimensionality of sexual attitudes. The Journal of Sex Research, 23(4), 502-526.
Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. (2005). What’s love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network support on
friends with benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1),
49-66.
Kalish, R. (2007, August). Sexual scripts and hook ups among college students: Evidence
from the college social life survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Sociological Association, New York City.
Knox, D., Cooper, C., & Zusman, M. E. (2001). Sexual values of college students. College Student Journal, 35(1), 24-28.
74
Lefkowitz, E. S., Boone, T. L., & Shearer, C. L. (2004). Communication with best friends
about sex-related topics during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 33(4), 339-351.
Lefkowitz, E. S., Gillen, M. M., Shearer, C. L., & Boone, T. L. (2004). Religiosity, sexual behaviors, and sexual attitudes during emerging adulthood. The Journal of
Sex Research, 41(2), 150-159.
Littleton, H., Tabernik, H., Canales, E. J., & Backstrom, T. (2009). Risky situation or
harmless fun? A qualitative examination of college women’s bad hook up and
rape scripts. Sex Roles, 60(11/12), 793-804.
Mahaffy, K. A. (1996). Cognitive dissonance and its resolution: A study of lesbian
Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(4), 392-402.
Meier, A., Hull, K. H., & Ortyl, T. A. (2009). Young adult relationship values at the
intersection of gender and sexuality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3),
510-525.
Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. The Journal of Sex Research, 35,
148-157.
Metts, S. (2006). Gendered communication in dating relationships. In B. J. Dow & J. T.
Wood (Eds.), The sage handbook of gender and communication (pp. 25-40).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mewhinney, D. M., Herold, E. S., & Maticka-Tyndale, E. (1991). Sexual scripts and risktaking of Canadian university students on spring break in Daytona Beach,
Florida. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 4(4), 31-49.
Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist?
Perceptions of university women. Journal of Sex Research, 36(4), 361-368.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Oswalt, S. B., Cameron, K. A., & Koob, J. J. (2005). Sexual regret in college students.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(6), 663-669.
Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The casualties of “casual” sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students’ hookups. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 19(5), 639-661.
Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates
of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. The
Journal of Sex Research, 37(1), 76-88.
75
Richey, E., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. (2009). Sexual values of 783 undergraduates.
College Student Journal, 43(1), 1-6.
Seaman, B. (2005). Binge. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Spitzberg, B., Kam, J., & Roesch, S. (2005). You’re nobody ‘til somebody loves you:
Seeking esteem and commitment through manipulation. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York.
Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Metts, S., Fehr, B., & Vanni, D. (1998). Factors associated
with distress following the breakup of a close relationship. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 15, 791-809.
The Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
(2002, April). High-risk drinking in college: What we know and what we need
to learn. Retrieved from www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/media/
FINALPanel1.pdf
Warner, R. (1963). The confessions of Saint Augustine. New York: New American
Library.
Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2008). The role of interpersonal harm in distinguishing regret from guilt. American Psychological Association, 8(5), 589596.