Advertisement

Sexuality & Culture

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 149–165 | Cite as

College as Context: Influences on Interpersonal Sexual Scripts

  • Marit Ann Berntson
  • Kristi L. Hoffman
  • Tracy L. Luff
Original Paper

Abstract

Scripting theory (Gagnon and Simon in Sexual conduct: the social sources of human sexuality, Aldine, Chicago, 1973; Simon and Gagnon in Arch Sex Behav 13:97–120, 1986; Qual Sociol 26:491–497, 2003) is used to examine the impact of religion, gender, social class, and race as well as the college social environment on sexual interaction. Research has investigated how social networks and contexts shape sexual scripts. College campuses are important contexts for sexuality, locating students within peer networks and, given the emergence of a hookup culture, presenting them with multiple options for sexual behavior. Survey data collected from 614 students on two campuses revealed that many types of hooking up and sexual relationships are common. These intimate interactions are conceptualized as interpersonal scripts and classified as relational, recreational, or a combination of those scripts. Findings suggest that hooking up varies by gender, race, alcohol consumption, and perceptions of the hooking up behavior of close friends, but not by social class, Greek affiliation, religiosity, religious attendance, or perceptions of campus norms. Relationships vary only by perceptions of close friends’ participation in relationships. The implications of college as a social context for sexual scripts are discussed.

Keywords

Hooking up Sexual relationships Gender differences Sexual scripts College students 

References

  1. Albanesi, H. (2010). Gender and sexual agency: How young people make choices about sex. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequence: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banker, J. E., Kaestle, C. E., & Allen, K. A. (2010). Dating is hard work: A narrative approach to understanding sexual and romantic relationships. Contemporary Family Therapy, 32, 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barriger, M., & Vélez-Blasini, C. J. (2013). Descriptive and injunctive social norm overestimation in hooking up and their role as predictors of hook-up activity in a college student sample. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartoli, A. M., & Clark, M. D. (2006). The dating game: Similarities and differences in dating scripts among college students. Sexuality and Culture, 10, 54–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bersamin, M. M., Paschall, M. J., Saltz, R. F., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2012). Young adults and casual sex: The relevance of college drinking settings. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 274–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. P. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Boswell, A. A., & Spade, J. Z. (2000). Fraternities and collegiate rape culture: Why are some fraternities more dangerous places for women. In M. Hutter (Ed.), The family experience: A reader in cultural diversity (pp. 89–100). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  10. Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A. S., & Saville, B. K. (2010). To hook up or date: Which gender benefits? Sex Roles, 62, 661–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burdette, A. M., Ellison, C. G., Hill, T. D., & Glenn, N. (2009). ‘Hooking up’ at college: Does religion make a difference? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chia, S. C., & Gunther, A. C. (2006). How media contribute to misperceptions of social norms about sex. Mass Communication & Society, 9, 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corcoran, K. J., & Thomas, L. R. (1991). The influence of observed alcohol consumption on perceptions of initiation of sexual activity in a college dating situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 500–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davidson, J. K, Sr, Moore, N. B., Earle, J. R., & Davis, R. (2008). Sexual attitudes and behavior at four universities: Do region, race, and/or religion matter? Adolescence, 43, 189–220.Google Scholar
  15. DesJardins, S. L. (2001). A comment on interpreting odds-ratios when logistic regression coefficients are negative. AIR Professional File, 81, 1–10.Google Scholar
  16. Downing-Matibag, T. M., & Geisinger, B. (2009). Hooking up and sexual risk taking among college students: A health belief model perspective. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 1196–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellingson, S., Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., & Mahay, J. (2004). The theory of sex markets. In E. O. Laumann, S. Ellingson, J. Mahay, A. Paik, & Y. Youm (Eds.), The sexual organization of the city (pp. 3–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. England, P., Shafer, E. F., & Fogarty, A. C. K. (2007). Hooking up and forming romantic relationships on today’s college campuses. In M. Kimmel (Ed.), The gendered society reader (pp. 531–547). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Epstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). “Anything from making out to having sex”: Men’s negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fielder, R. L., & Carey, M. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of sexual “hookups” among college students: A short-term prospective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1105–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, T. D. (2007). Sex of experimenter and social norm effects on reports of sexual behavior in young men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisher, T. D., Moore, Z. T., & Pittenger, M. J. (2012). Sex on the brain? An examination of frequency of sexual cognitions as a function of gender, erotophila, and social desirability. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freitas, D. (2008). Sex and the soul: Juggling sexuality, spirituality, romance, and religion on America’s college campuses. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Grazian, D. (2007). The girl hunt: Urban night life and the performance of masculinity as collective activity. Symbolic Interaction, 30, 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guerrero, L. K., & Mongeau, P. A. (2008). On becoming ‘more than friends’: The transition from friendship to romantic relationship. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 175–194). New York: Tyler & Francis.Google Scholar
  28. Hamilton, L., & Armstrong, E. A. (2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23, 589–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heldman, C., & Wade, L. (2010). Hook-up culture: Setting a new research agenda. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7, 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holman, A., & Sillars, A. (2011). Talk about “hooking up”: The influence of college student social networks on nonrelationship sex. Health Communication, 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
  31. Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, J. K. (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, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kunkel, D., Biely, E., Eyal, K., Cope-Farrar, K., Donnerstein, E. F., & Fandrich, R. (2003). Sex on TV 3: Content and context. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  33. Lambert, T. A., Kahn, A. S., & Apple, K. J. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). Social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mahay, J., Laumann, E. O., & Michaels, S. (2001). Race, gender, and class in sexual scripts. In E. O. Laumann & R. T. Michaels (Eds.), Sex, love, and health in America: Private choices and public policies (pp. 197–238). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Markle, G. (2008). “Can women have sex like a man?” Sexual scripts in Sex and the City. Sexuality and Culture, 12, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin, P. Y., & Hummer, R. A. (1989). Fraternities and rape on campus. Gender & Society, 3, 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mongeau, P. A., Knight, K., Williams, J., Eden, J., & Shaw, C. (2011). Identifying and explicating variation among friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, dio,. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.623797.Google Scholar
  40. Owen, J. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Effects of gender and psychosocial factors on ‘friends with benefits’ relationships among young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Owen, J. J., Fincham, F. D., & Moore, J. (2011). Short-term prospective study of hooking up among college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Owen, J. J., Rhodes, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). ’Hooking up’ among college students: Demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 & Personal Relationships, 19, 639–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Penhollow, T., Young, M., & Bailey, W. (2007). Relationship between religiosity and “hooking up” behavior. American Journal of Health Education, 38, 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and understanding survey research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  47. Robinson, D. T., Gibson-Beverly, G., & Schwartz, J. P. (2004). Sorority and fraternity membership and religious behaviors: Relation to gender attitudes. Sex Roles, 50, 871–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ronen, S. (2010). Grinding on the dance floor: Gendered scripts and sexualized dancing at college parties. Gender and Society, 24, 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose, S., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28, 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity and manhood acts. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scott-Sheldon, L. A., Carey, K. B., & Carey, M. P. (2008). Health behavior and college students: Does Greek affiliation matter? Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (2003). Sexual scripts: Origins, influences and changes. Qualitative Sociology, 26, 491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stinson, R. D. (2010). Hooking up in young adulthood: A review of factors influencing the sexual behavior of college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 24, 98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weschler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Davenport, A., & Castillo, S. (1995). Correlates of college student binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 921–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. Family Journal, 13, 496–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Willoughby, B. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2009). The impact of living in co-ed resident halls on risk-taking among college students. Journal of American College Health, 58, 241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marit Ann Berntson
    • 1
  • Kristi L. Hoffman
    • 1
  • Tracy L. Luff
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SociologyRoanoke CollegeSalemUSA
  2. 2.Division of Social SciencesConcord UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations