Share This Article:

Individual Differences in First and Fourth Year College Women’s Short Term Mating Strategy Preferences and

Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:79KB) PP. 966-973
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2012.311145    4,286 Downloads   6,029 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Using survey methodology, a cross sectional study was undertaken to ascertain whether first and fourth year college women have different perceptions and behavior associated with short term mating preferences. It was hypothesized that after incurring significant negative or costly experiences associated with hooking up, fourth year women would prefer men who had qualities associated with a desired long term partner as opposed to characteristics associated with short term mating partners. The results were partially consistent with the hypothesis. Reported preferences in a desired partner and perspective on hooking up differ between first and fourth year groups. No difference was found between frequency and willingness to hookup between the two groups. The findings are explained in terms of evolutionary theory, social exchange theory, and sexual script concepts.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Cohen, M. & Wade, T. (2012). Individual Differences in First and Fourth Year College Women’s Short Term Mating Strategy Preferences and. Psychology, 3, 966-973. doi: 10.4236/psych.2012.311145.

References

[1] Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36, 715-729. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.7.715
[2] Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating and relationships on campus. New York: New York University Press.
[3] Boswell, A. A., & Spade, J. Z. (1996). Fraternities and collegiate rape culture: Why are some fraternities more dangerous places for women? Gender and Society, 10, 133-147. doi:10.1177/089124396010002003
[4] Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate Preferences: Evolutionary hypothesis tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00023992
[5] Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
[6] Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19-31. doi:10.1080/00224499809551914
[7] Crawford, C. B., & Anderson, J. L. (1989). Sociobiology: An environmentalist discipline? American Psychologist, 44, 1449-1459. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1449
[8] Costanzo, P. R., & Shaw, M. E. (1966). Conformity as a function of age level. Child Development, 37, 967-975. doi:10.2307/1126618
[9] Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003
[10] Flack, W. F., Daubman, K. A., Caron, M., Asadorian, J., D’Aureli, N., Hall, A., Gigliotti, S., Michener, E., & Wheeler, E. (2007). Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among University students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 139-157. doi:10.1177/0886260506295354
[11] Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulation sexual script theory: Developing a discursive psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory Psychology, 11, 209-232. doi:10.1177/0959354301112004
[12] Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-644. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0000337X
[13] Garcia, J. R., & Reiber, C. (2008). Hook-up behavior: A biopsychosocial perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 192-208.
[14] Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right. New York: Institute for American Values.
[15] Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. The American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597-606. doi:10.1086/222355
[16] Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951
[17] Lambert, T. A., Kahn, A. S., & Apple, K. J. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 129-133. doi:10.1080/00224490309552174
[18] LaPlante, M. N., McCormick, N., & Brannigan, G. G. (1980). Living the sexual script: College students views of influence in sexual encounters. The Journal of Sex Research, 16, 338-355. doi:10.1080/00224498009551090
[19] O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1992). College students’ incorporation of initiator and restrictor roles in sexual dating interactions. The Journal of Sex Research, 29, 435-446. doi:10.1080/00224499209551658
[20] Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (2003). Sexual scripts: Origins, influences and changes. Qualitative Sociology, 26, 491-497.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.