A double standard for “Hooking Up”: How far have we come toward gender equality?
Abstract
While sexual attitudes have liberalized in the past half century, research is mixed as to whether attitudes have become less gendered over time. Recent studies on college students' sexual and romantic relationships suggest that a sexual double standard continues to organize sexuality on many campuses. Data from the Online College Social Life Survey shed light on students' evaluation of casual sex, or "hooking up." In addition to exploring gendered attitudinal patterns, we use gender structure theory to explore how individual characteristics and normative expectations of campus group affiliations shape attitudes. While three quarters of students do not hold different standards for men and women's hooking up, attitudes are more conservative than liberal, with almost half of students losing respect for men and women who hook up "a lot." However, men are more likely to hold a traditional double standard, while women are more likely to espouse egalitarian conservative attitudes. Individual characteristics, including age, religion, race, social class and sexual orientation are frequently related to sexual attitudes, as are number of hook ups, fraternity/sorority affiliation and varsity athletic participation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Women typically experience more negative consequences for engaging in hookups while men receive more positive reinforcement.
“Women typically experience more negative consequences for engaging in hookups while men receive more positive reinforcement (Allison and Risman 2013; Hamilton and Armstrong 2009; Reiber and Garcia 2010).”
From Social Motivations for College Hookups. (2021) · cites this paper as Allison and Risman 2013
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 82 · Cited by 183
- Authors
- Allison, R., & Risman, B. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Allison, Rachel
- ORCID
- Allison, Rachel
- Venue
- Social Science Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-09
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1191-1206
- ISSN
- 0049-089X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2110961596
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 82
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 46.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Science Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Sexual Relationships
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Sexuality, and Education
- Keywords
- hooking up, sexual double standard, gender equality, university students, casual sex, romantic relationships, gender norms, varsity athletics, sexual orientation, race, social class, age
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review