Sex Roles

, Volume 62, Issue 9–10, pp 661–669 | Cite as

To Hook Up or Date: Which Gender Benefits?

  • Carolyn Bradshaw
  • Arnold S. KahnEmail author
  • Bryan K. Saville
Original Article


Hooking up on college campuses has become more frequent than dating in heterosexual sexual interaction. Analysis of the relative benefits and costs associated with dating and hooking up suggest that women benefit more from dating while men benefit more from hooking up. U.S students (150 women, 71 men) at a midsized southeastern university indicated preferences for dating and hooking up across a number of situations and indicated the perceived benefits and risks associated with each. As hypothesized, in most situations women more than men preferred dating and men more than women preferred hooking up. Both genders perceived similar benefits and risks to dating and hooking up; differences provided insight into the sexual motives of college women and men.


Dating Hooking up Gender differences 


  1. Bartoli, A. M., & Clark, M. D. (2006). The dating game: Similarities and differences in dating scripts among college students. Sexuality & Culture, 10, 54–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, L. L., & Shotland, R. L. (1996). Timing of first sexual intercourse in a relationship: Expectation, experiences, and perceptions of others. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Eshbaugh, E. M., & Gute, G. (2008). Hookup and sexual regret among college women. Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 77–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader (pp. 48–78). New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  7. Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sexing college students. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 255–267.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gute, G., & Eshbaugh, E. (2008). Personality as a predictor of hooking up among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 25, 26–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2005). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  10. Himadi, W. G., Arkowitz, H., Hinton, R., & Perl, J. (1980). Minimal dating and its relationship to other social problems and dating adjustment. Behavior Therapy, 11, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahn, A. S., Fricker, K, Hoffman, J. L., Lambert, T. A., & Tripp, M. C. (2000, March). Hooking up: A dangerous new sexual behavior? Poster presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  12. Knox, D., & Wilson, K. (1981). Dating behaviors of university students. Family Relations, 30, 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lambert, T. A., Kahn, A. S., & Apple, K. J. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 129–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Laner, M. R., & Ventrone, N. A. (2000). Dating scripts revisited. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leck, K. (2006). Correlates of minimal dating. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 549–567.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Leigh, B. C. (1989). Reasons for having and avoiding sex: Gender, sexual orientation, and relationship to sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lenton, A. P., & Bryan, A. (2005). An affair to remember: The role of sexual scripts in perceptions of sexual intent. Personal Relationships, 12, 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Loangmore, M. A. (2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of “nonrelationship” sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 459–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Medley-Rath, S. R. (2007). Am I still a virgin?: What counts as sex in 20 years of Seventeen. Sexuality and Culture, 11, 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mongeau, P. A., & Carey, C. M. (1996). Who’s wooing whom II? An experimental investigation of date-initiation and expectancy violation. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 195–213.Google Scholar
  22. Mongeau, P. A., Morr Serewicz, M. C., & Therrien, L. F. (2004). Goals for cross-sex first dates: Identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual factors. Communication Monographs, 72, 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mongeau, P. A., Jacobsen, J., & Donnerstein, C. (2007). Defining dates and first date goals: Generalizing from undergraduates to single adults. Communication Research, 34, 526–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morr Serewicz, M. C., & Gale, E. (2008). First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship. Sex Roles, 58, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., & Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable? The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid, and men’s attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Öner, B. (2000). Relationship satisfaction and dating experience: Factors affecting future time orientation in relationships with the opposite sex. Journal of Psychology, 134, 527–536.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, 639–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, K. A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Phillips, L. M. (2000). Flirting with danger: Young women’s reflections on sexuality and domination. NYU Press.Google Scholar
  31. Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1995). Gender differences in beliefs about the causes of male and female sexual desire. Personal Relationships, 2, 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roscoe, B., Diana, M. S., & Brooks, R. H. (1987). Early, middle, and late adolescents’ views on dating and factors influencing partner selection. Adolescence, 85, 59–68.Google Scholar
  33. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, G., Mysak, K., & Michael, S. (2008). Sexual double standards and sexually transmitted illnesses: Social rejection and stigmatization of women. Sex Roles, 58, 391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the decent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolyn Bradshaw
    • 1
  • Arnold S. Kahn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bryan K. Saville
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyJames Madison UniversityHarrisonburgUSA

Personalised recommendations