Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/249314869
CITATIONS
READS
10
581
2 AUTHORS:
Shannon E Claxton
10 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Emerging
Adulthood
http://eax.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Emerging Adulthood can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://eax.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://eax.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Emerging Adulthood
1(2) 138-150
2013 Society for the
Study of Emerging Adulthood
and SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2167696813487181
ea.sagepub.com
Abstract
Casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs) such as hookups, one-night stands, friends with benefits relationships, and
booty calls have received increasing attention in the past decade. This review examines the role of CSREs during emerging adulthood, as well as similarities and differences among the different types of CSREs. Furthermore, we examine the predictors and
positive and negative consequences of engaging in CSREs. While research in the area of CSREs has provided important information about the development and course of these relationships/experiences, future research should focus on exploring these
relationships/experiences using an integrated theoretical perspective and longitudinal methods, in diverse, noncollege samples.
Keywords
casual sex, sexual behavior, emerging adulthood
individuals in a CSRE mutually affect each other and are interdependent. In other words, some types of CSREs meet the definition
of a relationship (Berscheid & Peplau, 1983). Therefore, the term
CSREs reflects the wide variety of sexual relationships/experiences in which emerging adults engage.
Recently, there has been a shift from studying solely the number of casual or uncommitted sexual partners an individual has to
trying to understand the different forms these CSREs can take.
While previous reviews have focused specifically on hookups
(Garcia et al., 2012; Heldman & Wade, 2010; Stinson, 2010), the
current article examines CSREs broadly, including other
conceptualizations of relationships and experiences such as
friends with benefits (FWB), booty calls, and one-night stands.
Understanding these various CSREs is important, given that the
different types of CSREs increase in prevalence during late adolescence and early adulthood. For example, Fortunato, Young,
Boyd, and Fons (2010) found that 28% of 7th to 12th graders
reported having a hookup. In college populations, the lifetime
prevalence rates for CSREs are greater than 50%, ranging from
60 to 64% for FWB relationships and booty calls (Bisson &
Levine, 2009; Jonason, Li, & Cason, 2009) and between 53 and
84% for hookups and one-night stands (Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008;
Lambert, Kahn, & Apple, 2003; Paul, McManus, & Hayes,
2000). While some studies find gender differences in rates of
CSREs with men reporting engaging in a greater number of
1
Corresponding Author:
Shannon E. Claxton, MA, Department of Psychology, Kent State University,
P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH 44240, USA.
Email: sclaxton@kent.edu
139
CSREs than women (e.g., Grello et al., 2006; Owen & Fincham,
2011a), many studies suggest that rates of CSREs do not significantly differ between men and women (e.g., Bisson & Levine,
2009; Paul & Hayes, 2002). Overall, these findings suggest that
not only do CSREs occur (especially within a college environment), but that a majority of emerging adults, both men and
women, will experience one or more of these CSREs.
Given the high prevalence rates of CSREs, fully understanding these different relationships/experiences and their precursors is crucial. This is especially important considering that
CSREs have been associated with a multitude of potential negative outcomes during emerging adulthood, including lowered
psychological well-being, physical dangers, and negative relationship outcomes (e.g., Fielder & Carey, 2010a). In other
words, CSREs are importantly linked to risky behavior, mental
health, and key developmental tasks of emerging adulthood
(including the successful navigation and establishment of positive romantic relationships).
Forms of CSREs
Hookups
A hookup is one of the most commonly used terms to describe
uncommitted sexual encounters, but it is also one of the least
consistently defined terms in the area of sexuality research. Qualitative research has shown that while male college students
share a vague general understanding of what a hookup is, interpretations of the emotional ties and sexual behavior implied vary
across individuals (Epstein, Calzo, Smiler, & Ward, 2009).
Emerging adults may be drawn to the ambiguity of the term,
which allows a single word to describe a variety of sexual
encounters and sexual behaviors (Epstein et al., 2009; Glenn
& Marquardt, 2001). However, this imprecision creates issues
in conceptualization for researchers.
Specifically, the hookup varies in regard to the types of sexual behaviors it encompasses, the length of relationship, who it
involves, and if it includes or is separate from other CSREs.
Definitions of hookups generally incorporate a great breadth
of sexual activity from kissing to intercourse (Bogle, 2007,
2008; Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009; Stinson, 2010), although
some researchers focus specifically on hookups involving sexual
intercourse or oral sex (e.g., Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008). Many
researchers have either explicitly limited the hookup to a onenight encounter (e.g., Paul et al., 2000) or implied that these relationships do not need to involve interaction past one night (e.g.,
Burdette, Ellison, Hill, & Glenn, 2009). More recent definitions
have moved toward a broader understanding that does not limit
hookups to one-time encounters (see Heldman & Wade, 2010).
Current research remains inconsistent regarding if hookups
occur only with relatively unknown individuals or if hookups
also occur among friends. Some researchers limit hookup definitions to strangers or acquaintances (e.g., Barriger & VelezBlasini, 2011; Paul et al., 2000), others specifically include
140
One-Night Stands
From a historical perspective, the one-night stand is not new.
However, it is just within the past 50 years that one-night stands
have been recognized as an important topic of study in the scientific literature. For example, the one-night stand was recognized as a prominent relationship among homosexual men in
the late 1960s, lasting only a brief period of time (a few minutes
or hours to a full day or weekend) and occurring between individuals who did not know each other, or knew little about each
other (e.g., Sonenschein, 1968). The specific study of a onenight stand became more common over time, appearing in qualitative accounts of sexual behavior (e.g., Townsend, 1987) and
with a high percentage of individuals reporting having had a
one-night stand by the late 1980s (e.g., Snyder, Simpson, &
Gangestad, 1986). In more recent decades, the one-night stand
has become both a common lay term and scientific topic of
investigation (e.g., Wentland & Reissing, 2011).
Because one-night stands are, according to some researchers,
synonymous with hookups (e.g., Owen & Fincham, 2011b),
141
Reoccurring
Friends with
benefits
Booty calls
Strangers/
Acquaintances
Friends
One-night
stands
One time
Figure 1. Booty calls, friends with benefits, and one-night stands positioned based on the closeness of the individuals (x-axis) and the frequency
of the sexual contact (y-axis).
Booty Calls
The literature on booty calls is relatively new, emerging in the
last 5 years. A booty call has been defined as a communication
initiated towards a non-long-term relationship partner with the
Dimensions of CSREs
While terms and definitions for the various CSREs may vary,
there are at least two dimensions on which CSREs differ. Specifically, relationships/experiences vary on the number of times
the encounter occurs (i.e., one-night stands happen once,
whereas booty calls and FWB relationships reoccur) and how
close the individuals are before the event occurs (strangers/
acquaintances vs. friends). FWB relationships, booty calls, and
one-night stands can be placed in distinct categories based on
these two dimensions (see Figure 1). This also suggests that
researchers may need to examine the possibility of a new
142
Predictors
Researchers have unearthed a number of predictors of engagement in CSREs. With few exceptions (see Fielder & Carey,
2010a; Owen, Fincham, & Moore, 2011), research on predictors of CSREs has, however, been cross-sectional. This
research has primarily focused on closeness and intimacy, personality, personal and religious values, alcohol use, situational
triggers, and partner characteristics.
Personality
Personality characteristics have also been found to be related to
CSRE involvement. Gute and Eshbaugh (2008) found that neuroticism and extroversion were positively associated with hooking up, whereas agreeableness and conscientiousness had a
negative relationship to hooking up behaviors. Other personality
traits such as impulsivity and sensation seeking have also been
positively related to engagement in casual sex (see Hoyle, Fejfar,
& Miller, 2000 for a review). While the relationship between
impulsivity and sexual risk taking has a somewhat weak effect
size, sensation seeking has been associated with engaging in
unprotected sex, having multiple partners, high-risk sexual behaviors (including casual sex), and the overall number of sexual
partners an individual has had (see Hoyle et al., 2000). It appears
that high sensation seekers evaluate these high-risk sexual activities as less perilous than individuals who are lower on sensation
seeking (Hoyle et al., 2000). Finally, narcissism and psychopathy have also been linked to greater CSRE involvement (Jonason
et al., 2012). While research is still needed to fully understand
the mechanisms that drive the relationships between personality
and engagement in CSREs, it appears that both specific traits
such as sensation seeking and impulsivity as well as broader personality dimensions (i.e., openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism) are associated
with involvement in CSREs.
Alcohol Use
Alcohol use (both frequency and quantity) has been consistently associated with higher numbers of sexual partners and
143
Consequences of CSREs
Negative Psychological Outcomes
Research on CSREs thus far has primarily focused on the
potential negative outcomes of these relationships/experiences.
Research findings demonstrate that there are a number of negative emotional effects associated with engaging in CSREs
including feeling used, regret, guilt, shame, and anger (Eshbaugh & Gute, 2008; Fisher et al., 2012; Glenn & Marquardt,
2001; Paul & Hayes, 2002; Paul et al., 2000). Individuals who
engage in CSREs are also at risk for depression (Grello et al.,
2006). Furthermore, there is evidence that these effects may
persist across time. Fielder and Carey (2010a) found evidence
in a prospective study of first-semester college students that
144
Physical Dangers
Positive Outcomes
145
Distinctiveness of CSREs
While researchers treat CSREs as distinct categories, there
remains a lack of research scientifically testing this assumption. This is problematic considering that the boundaries
between these different relationships/experiences are not
always clear and because one CSRE can morph into another,
with a one-night stand transitioning into a booty call or FWB
relationship, or, occasionally, a committed relationship (Bogle,
2007). Indeed, evidence from qualitative and quantitative studies suggests that the different CSREs may be more similar than
they are different (Epstein et al., 2009; Jonason et al., 2011).
Very few studies have collected information about multiple
CSREs in a single-study design, so we know little about if these
CSREs have any differential outcomes and predictors.
The few researchers who have examined multiple relationships/experiences at a time have found limited evidence for
differences in associated constructs. For example, Jonason, Luevano, and Adams (2012) found evidence that narcissism was
associated with preferences for one-night stands and FWB relationships, whereas psychopathology was associated with bootycall relationships. Jonason, Li, and Richardson (2011) also found
differences in terms of the types of sexual and emotional acts
found in booty calls, one-night stands, and committed romantic
relationships. Bay-Cheng, Robinson, and Zucker (2008) found
that for women, FWB relationships were associated with higher
ratings of desire, wanting, and pleasure than hookups.
Qualitative research has also suggested that there are both
similarities and differences between CSREs. For example, a
qualitative research study of 19 college-age males conducted
by Epstein, Calzo, Smiler, and Ward (2009) found that while
men provided separate scripts for hookups and FWB relationships, their real-life experiences involved alterations that
blurred the boundaries between the two types of experiences.
Wentland and Reissing (2011) found that when describing
CSREs, individuals reported some clear differences between
one-night stands, booty calls, fuck buddies, and FWB relationships in regard to the frequency of contact, the type of contact
(sexual or sexual and social), personal disclosure, discussion of
relationship, and existence of a friendship between individuals.
However, future research is needed to fully understand these
Generalizability
We know little about the presentation of different CSREs
across ethnic, sexual orientation, and educational backgrounds.
Limited research in the area of cultural and ethnic differences
has suggested that the rates of CSRE engagement may vary
by ethnicity. For example, Owen et al. (2010) found that Caucasian students were significantly more likely to have hooked
up in the past year than students from other ethnicities (except
multiethnic). However, they did not find ethnic differences in
emotional reactions to hooking up. Eisenberg, Ackard,
Resnick, and Neumark-Sztainer (2009) found in a sample of
1,311 emerging adults that the percentage of individuals reporting that their last sexual partner was casual varied by ethnicity.
Specifically, 42.9% of Black and 26.4% of Hispanic males
(compared to 28.5% of White males) reported that their last
sexual partner was casual. For females, 36.4% of Native American females and 18.5% of Hispanic females (compared to
15.7% of White females) reported that their last partner was
casual. Thus, findings on ethnicity and CSREs seem to be
inconsistent depending on if the research is examining an individuals last partner or CSRE partners over a longer time
period. While it appears that there may be differences in the
rates of CSREs among different ethnic groups, research has not
yet examined differences in the presentation, predictors, and
outcomes of CSREs in these different subgroups.
Furthermore, most of this research has occurred within the
United States and Canada, leaving questions regarding how
CSREs vary across countries. Cultures differ regarding their
acceptance and representations of sexuality (e.g., Higgins,
Zheng, Liu, & Sun, 2002; Sprecher & Hatfield, 1996). Therefore, the implications and outcomes of engaging in CSREs may
vary based on cultural values regarding sexual behavior outside
of marriage (see Christensen, 1969). Specifically, engaging in
CSREs may have more negative outcomes (e.g., guilt) within
sexually restrictive cultures than in sexually permissive
cultures.
Similarly, we know very little about CSREs within nonheterosexual individuals. While research has focused on casual
sex in gay menespecially in relation to the spread of HIV
(e.g., Prestage et al., 2001; van den Boom, Stolte, Stanfort, &
Davidovich, 2012) and use of the Internet for solicitation of
casual sex (e.g., Brown, Maycock, & Burns, 2005)this
research has not been integrated with the literature on CSREs.
146
Currently, few studies on CSREs include homosexual participants or have examined differences between heterosexual and
homosexual individuals in the practice of CSREs. As such, our
understanding of CSREs across various sexual orientations is
limited. Furthermore, emerging adulthood is a time when individuals are often exploring their sexual identity, and this may
have important implications for their relationships/experiences
(see Morgan, 2013 for a review).
Likewise, most of the research on CSREs has been conducted
using convenience samples of college students. Given that overall romantic relationship patterns vary between individuals who
do and do not attend college (Goldstein & Kenney, 2001), CSRE
involvement may also differ depending on educational status.
Marriage tends to occur earlier among individuals who do not
attend college and who are from a lower socioeconomic status
(Uecker & Stokes, 2008), so these individuals may not spend
as much time exploring different relationships and experiences
(or conversely, may explore a variety of relationships/experiences earlier in life). Furthermore, college students cannot truly
represent the population of single, emerging adults because
many aspects of the college setting are atypical (Bogle, 2007,
2008). For example, college campuses tend to offer a great deal
of freedom, without the same restrictions faced by individuals in
a more traditional workforce. As such, it is not clear whether
CSREs manifest in the same way in noncollege populations.
Future Directions
Given the nature of the unanswered questions about engagement in CSREs, there are several clear avenues for future
research. First, we recommend that scholars come together and
develop consistent definitions of the different CSREs. Second,
studies need to be employed that include multiple forms of
CSREs in the same study, so that we can empirically examine
the differences and similarities between the various CSREs.
Incorporating multiple CSREs will also allow researchers to
investigate if it is the types of CSREs, or simply the dimensions
among which CSREs vary, that are associated with differential
outcomes. In addition to these two core recommendations,
there is a need for studies that (a) are theoretically informed,
(b) extend knowledge beyond cross-sectional samples of college students, (c) understand CSREs as they relate to key
aspects of emerging adulthood, and (d) investigate how media
exposure affects engagement in CSREs.
147
Conclusion
CSREs, including FWB relationships, booty calls, and one-night
stands, are highly prevalent during emerging adulthood, especially within college populations. Research has revealed that
these relationships/experiences vary on several aspects, including how well two individuals know each other before engaging
in casual sexual activities and whether or not the sexual activity
reoccurs. However, the current research on CSREs remains in
many ways disjointed, especially regarding conceptualization
and operational definitions of these different CSREs. The current
article calls for a more comprehensive and consistent study of
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
References
148
149
Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2008). Relational maintenance behaviors of friends with benefits: Investigating equity and relational
characteristics. Human Communication, 11, 71-86.
Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings
attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of
Sex Research, 43, 255-267. doi:10.1080/00224490609552324
Gute, G., & Eshbaugh, E. M. (2008). Personality as a predictor of
hooking up among college students. Journal of Community Health
Nursing, 25, 26-43. doi:10.1080/07370010701836385
Halpern-Felsher, B. L., Millstein, S. G., & Ellen, J. M. (1996). Relationship of alcohol use and risky sexual behavior: A review and
analysis of findings. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19, 331-336.
Hamilton, L., & Armstrong, E. A. (2009). Gendered sexuality in
young adulthood double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23, 589-616. doi:10.1177/0891243209345829
Hatfield, E., Hutchison, E.S.S., Bensman, L., Young, D.M., & Rapson,
R.L. (2012). Cultural, social, and gender influences on casual sex:
New developments. In J.M. Turner, & A.D. Mitchell (Eds.), Social
psychology: New developments (pp. 1-37). Hauppauge, NY: Nova
Science.
Heldman, C., & Wade, L. (2010). Hook-up culture: Setting a new
research agenda. Sex Research and Social Policy, 7, 323-333.
Higgins, L. T., Zheng, M., Liu, Y., & Sun, C. H. (2002). Attitudes to
marriage and sexual behaviors: A survey of gender and cultural
differences in China and United Kingdom. Sex Roles, 46, 75-89.
Hoyle, R. H., Fejfar, M. C., & Miller, J. D. (2000). Personality and
sexual risk taking: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality,
68, 1203-1231. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00132
Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. J. K. (2005). Whats 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, 49-66. doi:10.1080/
10570310500034154
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Cason, M. J. (2009). The booty call:
A compromise between mens and womens ideal mating strategies. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 460-470. doi:10.1080/
00224490902775827
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Richardson, J. (2011). Positioning the
booty-call relationship on the spectrum of relationships: Sexual but
more emotional than one-night stands. Journal of Sex Research,
48, 486-495. doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.497984
Jonason, P. K., Luevano, V. X., & Adams, H. M. (2012). How the dark
triad traits predict relationship choices. Personality and Individual
Differences, 53, 180-184. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.007
Kalichman, S. C., Sarwer, D. B., Johnson, J. R., Ali, S. A., Early, J., &
Tuten, J. T. (1994). Sexually coercive behavior and love styles: A
replication and extension. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 6, 93-106.
Lambert, T. A., Kahn, A. S., & Apple, K. J. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 129-133. doi:
10.1080/00224490309552174
Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2011). Sex differences in approaching friends with benefits relationships. Journal of
Sex Research, 48, 275-284. doi:10.1080/00224491003721694
Leichliter, J. S., Chandra, A., Liddon, N., Fenton, K. A., & Aral, S. O.
(2007). Prevalence and correlates of heterosexual anal and oral sex
150
Author Biographies
Shannon E. Claxton is an experimental social psychology
graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Kent State
University. Her research interests include adolescent and
young adult romantic relationships, casual sexual relationships
and experiences, and quantitative methodology.
Manfred H. M. van Dulmen is an associate professor in the
Department of Psychology at Kent State University. His
research interests include interpersonal relationships, developmental psychopathology, and methodology/measurement.