Hooking Up : Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus by Kathleen Bogle (e book reader android txt) 📗

Miller and Gordon (1986) for a discussion of the decline of formal dating in high school.

4. Bianchi and Casper 2000.

5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics 2001.

6. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 2002.

7. The findings from this national study were presented in a report to the Independent Women’s Forum. Although the study was nationally representative and conducted by scholars, the findings, to my knowledge, have never been peer reviewed.

8. Glenn and Marquardt 2001, 4.

9. For evidence of the decline of dating on college campuses, see Horowitz 1987; Moffatt 1989; Murstein 1980; Strouse 1987.

10. For a discussion of the connection between hooking up and rape on the college campus, see Armstrong 2005, Sanday 2006. For an examination of the effects of divorce on college women’s involvement with hooking up, see Glenn and Marquardt 2001.

11. Sherman and Tocantins 2004; McPhee 2002.

12. See C. Wright Mills’s The Sociological Imagination (1959) for his classic statement on seeing personal troubles as public issues.

13. The term “hooking up” has appeared in other studies using college student samples. However, these studies were focused on subject matter outside of consensual intimate interaction, for example, sexual assault on campus (Boswell and Spade 1996) and drug use among college women (Williams 1998). These studies, as well as two nonrepresentative studies that did focus directly on the subject of hooking up (Lambert, Kahn, and Apple 2003; Paul and Hayes 2002) will be discussed in later chapters.

191

192

N OT E S TO C H A P T E R 1

14. Bell and Buerkel-Rothfuss 1990; Bettor, Hendrick, and Hendrick 1995; Cohen and Shotland 1996; Cupach and Metts 1995; Felmlee 1994; Gilbert et al.

1999; Hogben, Byrne, and Hamburger 1996; Laner and Ventrone 2000; Mongeau, Serewicz, and Therrien 2004; Mongeau and Johnson 1995; Morr and Mongeau 2004; Seal, Agostinelli, and Hannett 1994; Smith, Byrne, and Fielding 1995; Sprecher 1990; Sprecher and Sedikides 1993.

15. Baldwin and Baldwin 1988; Carroll and Carroll 1995; Cooper 2002; Dermen, Cooper, and Agocha 1998; Desiderato and Crawford 1995; Hammer et al. 1996.

16. Paul, McManus, and Hayes 2000.

17. Paul, McManus, and Hayes 2000, 79.

18. Paul, McManus, and Hayes 2000, 84. The Paul, McManus, and Hayes (2001) College of New Jersey study used a narrow definition of hooking up that represents only a portion of what hooking up encompasses. Their definition states that hooking up occurs between “strangers or brief acquaintances” and usually lasts “only one night.” However, my data suggest that hooking up covers a much wider set of scenarios in terms of how hookup partners meet and whether there is an ongoing relationship after the initial hookup.

The major drawback of the Glenn and Marquardt (2001) Institute for American Values study is that they only examined the sexual attitudes and behaviors of college women.

19. Glenn and Marquardt 2001, 4. Despite the contribution of these first scholarly studies on hooking up, they have many limitations. Because both studies were primarily based on quantitative methods, they could not, by design, analyze the hooking-up phenomenon in depth. In fact, many studies on sexual behavior rely on quantitative research. For example, see Laumann et al.

1994. Findings from this type of research identify rates and trends of sexual behavior (i.e., what people are doing.) However, statistics cannot reveal the meanings men and women give to a sex act and the context in which sexual activity takes place (i.e., why people are doing it). Thus, survey findings alone cannot fully reveal the complexity and variations in how the hookup system operates on campuses.

20. Vaughan 1986. Inspired by Diane Vaughan’s classic 1986 work, Uncoupling, I designed my research as a qualitative study.

21. By contrast, in both prior studies on hooking up, the researchers sup-plied the definition of hooking up used in their survey instruments. Although both studies used focus groups or interviews to inform their definition of hooking up, they were not fully able to capture the variations in how hooking up works from the definitions they employed. See Bogle 2005 for a full discussion on this.

22. The Institute for American Values study focused only on college women in the United States.

N OT E S TO C H A P T E R 2

193

23. The first wave of data collection consisted of 58 interviews for my doctoral dissertation (November 2001–March 2003). A second wave of data collection began after my degree was conferred in January 2004 (N = 18).

These interviews were added to ensure that theoretical saturation was reached (Glaser and Strauss 1967).

24. Glenn and Marquardt 2001; Williams 1998.

25. Examining how homosexual college students and recent alumni sexually interact and form potential relationships is an entire study in itself and beyond the scope of the present study.

26. Eble 1996; Murray 1991.

27. Goffman 1959.

28. Gagnon and Simon 1973. See also Simon and Gagnon 1984, 1986, 1987.

29. According to scripting theorists, cultural influences do not merely socialize individuals to learn how to constrain their “natural” sexual urges; rather, “sexual scripts specify with whom people have sex, when and where they should have sex, what they should do sexually, and why they should do sexual things” (Laumann et al. 1994, 6). Thus, sexual behavior is scripted in the sense that a given culture defines what is sexual and how sexual behavior should commence (Gagnon and Simon 1973).

30. Gagnon and Simon 1973; Laumann et al. 1994.

31. Gagnon and Simon 1973.

32. Ibid.

33. Kass and Kass 2000. See Carpenter (1998) for a discussion of how scripts for sexuality and romance are presented to teenage girls in Seventeen magazine.

34. See Laws and Schwartz (1977) for a discussion of how scripting theory can be used to understand the “social construction of female sexuality.” 35. Bailey 1988.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 2

1. Lipson 2002.

2. Prior to the twentieth century, although a particular script generally dominated a society, there was also quite a bit of variation in the local practices for intimate partnering. The local variations likely persisted because of the lack of mass communication throughout this time period (Shorter 1975).

Scholars have had to look to other sources, such as diaries, letters,