1
Running head: HOOK UPS
Article Critique: Short-Term Prospective Study of Hooking Up Among College Students
by
Michelle Aucoin
201101357
Presented to Dr. A. Weaver
in Psychology 100.14
Introductory Psychology
Department of Psychology
St. Francis Xavier University
November 21, 2011
2
HOOK UPS
What ever happened to dating and getting to know each other? Owen, Fincham, and
Moore (2011) found that hook ups are very common in growing young adults today. The
researchers stated, “Hook ups are casual sexual encounters (ranging from kissing to intercourse)
between two people with no clear mutual expectation of further interactions or a committed
relationship”(Owen et al., 2011, p.331). Hook ups are not to be confused with friends with
benefits relationships, where friends engage in casual sex, usually more than once (Bison &
Levine, 2007; Glenn & Marquardt, 2001; Owen & Fincham, 2010a; as cited in Owen et al.,
2011). Hook ups have been associated with a range of positive and negative physical and
psychological sufferings (Owen et al., 2011). There have been many studies on this new trend
and its’ predictors, including the short-term study by Owen, Fincham, and Moore of hooking up
among college students.
The purpose of the study of hooking up among college students was to examine the
predictors of hooking up in young adults. This study was examined by a correlational study,
which is to monitor how variables are naturally connected in the real world without any effort to
change them(Gazzaniga, Heatherton & Halpern, 2010). Owen et al., (2011) collected data by the
most common method of collecting data, a survey, from 394 college students twice within the
semester. Data was collected by an on-line survey once during the first week of classes and again
at the end of the semester. At Time 1, the first week of classes, the participants were asked
questions based on the hook-up definition in the survey. The participants were asked how many
people they engaged in hook ups with in the past year and what type of physical intimacy did
they engage in during these encounters. The participants were given four options, “kissing”,
“petting”, “oral sex” and “intercourse (vaginal, anal)” (Owen et al., 2011). These four options
were then narrowed down to penetrative hook ups and non-penetrative hook ups. Penetrative
3
HOOK UPS
hook ups are oral sex or intercourse sex, while non-penetrative hook ups are stated as kissing or
petting. The participants were then further asked about their depression and lonesomeness
symptoms, how they felt after hooking up, their views of religion, and their thoughtfulness
(Owen et al., 2011). To test their depression and loneliness levels, they were given the Center for
Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (Radloff, 1977; as cited in Owen et al., 2011) and the
UCLA scale, respectively. Next, the participants were asked about their feelings reasonably after
their hook up. Furthermore, their views of religion and their attendance at religious events was
questioned along with their thoughts on relationships, using the Relationship Awareness Scale
(Owen et al., 2011). This information was assessed; and then at Time 2, they were questioned
again based on their hook ups within the four month semester. A main point this time was to
assess their alcohol use within these four months. They were asked how many days had they
drank an alcoholic beverage within the last 30 days, how many drinks they had consumed on
those days they were drinking, and how often they had had five or more alcoholic drinks in one
day.
After all of the results were analyzed, the researchers were able to give predictors and
effects of hook ups among young adults in college. First, there was support in the study that
young adults would be more likely to hook up over the four month semester if they had hook up
experience in the past. Still another predictor of hooking up is greater alcohol use. Those who
had penetrative hook up encounters stated greater alcohol use than those who had nonpenetrative hook ups or none at all. Also, it was reported that those who had engaged in both
non-penetrative and penetrative hook ups were less lonely than those who did not engage in hook
ups. However, their depression level, their views of religion, and their reflection on relationships
were all insignificant and unrelated to their hook up encounters throughout the semester (Owen
4
HOOK UPS
et al., 2011). Also, their previous emotions after their hook ups at Time 1 were considered, and it
was found that previous positive reactions after their encounters were a predictor for penetrative
hook ups, and there was no effect for previous negative emotions (Owen et al., 2011). In
addition, the study identified that women consuming alcohol is a greater predictor of hook up
encounters than alcohol consumption is for men. As well, symptoms of despair and
lonesomeness at Time 1 will regulate the association between their symptoms and hook ups at
Time 2, meaning that, at Time 2, these young adults actually felt less lonely and depressed after
their hook ups than the young adults who did not engage in hook ups. The researchers have
found many predictors and effects of hooks up among college students.
There were both strengths and limitations in this study. First, even though there was a
large number of participants, there was selection bias in the study. Each participant chosen was a
college student in one particular course at a southeastern University in the United States (Owen
et al., 2011). Resemblance shows that there was causality. There was definitely no
randomization. The majority of the population was not included in this study and did not have a
chance to be. When people do not have a chance to be part of the study, this is a limitation
because through selection bias, there was no random sample of the population of all college
students. There was also homogeneity among the participants, meaning they were very similar to
one another. Each participant was a college student at a southeastern University in the United
States. Not only were all of the participants from the same university, they all belonged to an
introductory course on families (Owen et al., 2011). Similarity is also a limitation because there
is no variation among the participants. Also, the ratio of women to men was not a strength in the
study. There were 93 men and 301 women in the sample. This is a 1-3 ratio. Moreover, it is
possible there was a third variable that the researchers did not include in the study. A third
5
HOOK UPS
variable problem is when the independent variable cannot be directly maneuvered and thus it is
not assured that a different, unmeasured variable is not the actual cause of alterations in the
dependent variable (Gazzaniga et al., 2010). A third variable is a limitation because it is
incapable of saying that the correlation equals the causation. Similarly, there is a limitation in the
loss of information of the time between when the participants are answering the survey and their
last hook up encounter. This could be an affect because rapid reactions and longtime reactions
may be very different, whether good or bad. Similarly, there is also a loss of information with the
time that has passed, so memory of that encounter may not be as complete or accurate as it could
be.
Even though there are many limitations in this study, there are also many strengths. One
strength of the study was that the ages of participants ranged from 17-25 (Owen et al., 2011).
The study was researching young adults, therefore it was beneficial that the ages were fluctuated
between all ages of young adults. Also, there was a large sample of young adults. These young
adults may have been too alike, but there was a sample of 394 students. A large sample in a
study is a strength because the greater the sample, the greater are the results. Further, this study
was replicated more than once by other researchers and found close results. Replication is a
strength in a study because this confirms results of an experiment. Likewise, a survey method is
a strength of the study because it is relying on naturally occurring relationships, in a real world
setting. Evidently, there are both limitations and strengths to Owen, Fincham, and Moore’s
study.
Overall, Owen, Fincham, and Moore’s study of college students hooking up has found
that hook up encounters are not simply positive or negative among growing young adults
concerning distress psychologically (Owen et al., 2011). Despite the limitations of the study by
6
HOOK UPS
Owen, Fincham, and Moore, the predictors on hooking up between college students reflect their
attitude towards previous encounters, consumption of alcohol, situational and subjective aspects
as well as your mere appeal to hook up. Individuals beginning adulthood, nonetheless, should
evaluate why they are driven to hook up encounters and reflect on the possible consequences of
their happiness and relationships.
7
HOOK UPS
References
Bisson, M.A., & Levine, T.R. (2007). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66-73.
Gazzaniga, M.S., Heatherton, T.F., & Halpern, D.F. (2010). Psychological Science – Third
Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
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.
Owen, J., & Fincham, F.D. (2010a). Effects of gender and psychosocial factors on “friends with
benefits” relationships among young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:
10.1007/s10508-010-9611-6.
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. doi: 10.1007/s10508-0109697-x