Abstract
The present study used a longitudinal, online diary method to examine trajectories of psychological recovery and sexual experience following a romantic relationship breakup among 170 undergraduate students. Consistent with popular beliefs about rebound and revenge sex, having sex to cope with distress and to get over or get back at the ex-partner were elevated immediately following the breakup and then declined over time, as did the probability of having sex with a new partner. Also consistent with popular lore, those who were “dumped” by their partners were more distressed and angry and more likely to have sex to cope and to get back at or get over their ex-partner. Finally, individuals who reported having sex to cope with negative feelings or to get over their ex-partner at the beginning of the study were more likely to have sex with a stranger and to continue having sex with new partners over time. Results were discussed in terms of widely held but largely untested beliefs about rebound and revenge sex.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We tested for nonlinear effects of both scales given that equality between partners (the mid-point of our scale) might not lay equidistant between the two poles, as a linear model assumes. Consistent with this possibility, several non-linear effects were found for both commitment and partner initiation. Plotting the non-linear interactions revealed that findings for those who chose the mid-point of the scale were more similar to those observed for individuals who were more committed to the relationship and did not want the breakup than to findings observed for those whose partner was more committed and did not want the breakup. Although such findings do not alter the basic conclusions drawn from the present study, they do substantially increase its complexity. For these reasons, we elected not to include the results of the nonlinear tests of commitment and initiation effects.
Three outcomes were dichotomized in the present study due to low base rates: anger, rebound sex, and revenge sex. To determine whether our results were affected by dichotomizing these three outcomes, analyses reported in Tables 2 and 3 for these outcomes were re-estimated using a log transformed version of each variable. Results were identical in terms of sign (i.e., either both positive or both negative) and significance (i.e., either both significant or both non-significant) across the two analyses for all three normative trajectories reported in Table 2. Results were likewise identical in terms of sign and significance for the predictors of variability in the rebound sex trajectory reported in Table 3. Slight differences between the dichotomous and transformed continuous outcomes were found, however, for anger and revenge sex. Specifically, the significant effects of partner initiation on anger and revenge sex reported in Table 3 were weaker and non-significant (though still the same sign) using the transformed continuous measures, whereas the corresponding non-significant effects reported in Table 3 for commitment were stronger and significant. Thus, there is instability across alternative operationalizations of the outcome measures in which effect emerges (partner initiation or commitment) in the multivariate context. However, given that both partner initiation and commitment are significant positive predictors of anger and revenge motives when estimated independently of one another, and that partner initiation and commitment are positively correlated (r = .47), we believe that both patterns of results can be seen as supporting the same general conclusion: Consistent with rebound lore, those who were more psychologically invested in the lost relationship (whether indexed by a measure of psychological commitment or the fact that the partner initiated the breakup) experienced more anger and stronger revenge sex motives. In the end, we opted to report the results of the dichotomous analyses because of their greater interpretability. Details of the analyses of the transformed continuous outcomes are available from the second author on request.
References
ABC News. (2004, October 21). The American sex survey: A peek beneath the sheets. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/959a1AmericanSexSurvey.pdf.
Anderson, E. R., Greene, S. M., Walker, L., Malerba, C., Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2004). Ready to take a chance again: Transitions into dating among divorced parents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 40, 61–75.
Bancroft, J., Janssen, E., Strong, D., Carnes, L., Vukadinovic, Z., & Long, J. (2003). The relation between mood and sexuality in heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 217–230.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cooper, M. L., Shapiro, C. M., & Powers, A. M. (1998). Motivations for sex and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: A functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1528–1558.
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 871–884.
DiTommaso, E., Brannen-McNulty, C., Ross, L., & Burgess, M. (2003). Attachment styles, social skills and loneliness in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 303–312.
Fine, M. A., & Sacher, J. A. (1997). Predictors of distress following relationship termination among dating couples. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 381–388.
Frazier, P. A., & Cook, S. W. (1993). Correlates of distress following heterosexual relationship dissolution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 55–67.
Gall, T. L., Evans, D. R., & Bellerose, S. (2000). Transition to first-year university: Patterns of change in adjustment across life domains and time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 544–567.
Gebhardt, W. A., Kuyper, L., & Greunsven, G. (2003). Need for intimacy in relationships and motives for sex as determinants of adolescent condom use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 154–164.
Grossbard, J. R., Lee, C. M., Neighbors, C., Hendershot, C. S., & Larimer, M. E. (2007). Alcohol and risky sex in athletes and non-athletes: What roles do sex motives play? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 566–574.
Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895–910.
Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Long-distance romantic relationships: Sex differences in adjustment and breakup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 254–265.
Kessler, R. C. (1995). The national comorbidity survey: Preliminary results and future directions. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 5, 139–151.
Leigh, B. C., Temple, M. T., & Trocki, K. F. (1993). The sexual behavior of US adults: Results from a national survey. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 1400–1408.
Mehta, P. D., & West, S. G. (2000). Putting the individual back into individual growth curves. Psychological Methods, 5, 23–43.
Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507.
Owen, J., Fincham, F. D., & Moore, J. (2011). Short-term prospective study of hooking up among college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 331–341.
Patrick, M. E., Maggs, J., Cooper, M. L., & Lee, C. M. (2011). Measurement of motivations for and against sexual behavior. Assessment, 18, 502–516.
Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. (2008). Breaking up romantic relationships: Costs experienced and coping strategies deployed. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 164–181.
Perilloux, C., Duntley, J. D., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Susceptibility to sexual victimization and women’s mating strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 783–786.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6 hierarchical linear modeling [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Santelli, J. S., Brener, N. D., Lowry, R., Bhatt, A., & Zabin, L. S. (1998). Multiple sexual partners among U.S. adolescents and young adults. Family Planning Perspectives, 30, 271–275.
Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). The emotional sequelae of non-marital relationship dissolution: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships, 12, 213–232.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971–980.
Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 147–160.
Smith, T. W. (1991). Adult sexual behavior in 1989: Number of partners, frequency of intercourse and risk of AIDS. Family Planning Perspectives, 23, 102–107.
Sprecher, S. (1994). Two sides to the breakup of dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, 199–222.
Tashiro, T., & Frazier, P. (2003). “I’ll never be in a relationship like that again”: Personal growth following romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships, 10, 113–128.
Wade, L. D., & DeLamater, J. D. (2002). Relationship dissolution as a life stage transition: Effects on sexual attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 898–914.
Watts, C., Cox, T., & Robson, J. (1983). Morningness-eveningness and diurnal variations in self-reported mood. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 113, 251–256.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barber, L.L., Cooper, M.L. Rebound Sex: Sexual Motives and Behaviors Following a Relationship Breakup. Arch Sex Behav 43, 251–265 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0200-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0200-3