Determinants of Variability in College Men's Sociosexuality:A Focus on Avoidance, Bros, and Masculinity Ideologies.

Masculinity;Sociosexuality;Peers/Peer Norms;Hooking Up/Hook Ups;College Students/University Students;Attachment/Attachment Avoidance;Psychology;Social Sciences;Psychology

Calzo, Jerel PasionSchulenberg, John E. ;

University of Michigan

关键词: Masculinity;    Sociosexuality;    Peers/Peer Norms;    Hooking Up/Hook Ups;    College Students/University Students;    Attachment/Attachment Avoidance;    Psychology;    Social Sciences;    Psychology;   

Others  :  https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/78896/jcalzo_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

瑞士|英语

来源: The Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship

【 摘 要 】

Stereotypes about college sexuality often characterize men as relationship-phobic and hook up-focused. Such stereotypes contrast with emerging research noting considerable within-gender variability in men’s sociosexuality (i.e., the orientation towards uncommitted sex). This dissertation explored the diversity in college men’s sociosexuality and investigated the factors contributing to variation in sociosexual beliefs, desire, and behavior. I hypothesized that men’s internal models of relationships (attachment avoidance), the internalization of traditional masculinity ideologies (TMI), and male peer relationships that reinforce TMI (homosociality) contribute to greater engagement in uncommitted sex. Study 1 examined the relative contributions of TMI, attachment avoidance, and homosociality to sociosexuality among 495 undergraduate men. TMI and two dimensions of homosociality (i.e., peer sex norms and sexual storytelling) directly predicted greater sociosexual beliefs, behavior, and desire. TMI also fully mediated the associations of attachment avoidance with sociosexuality. In Study 2 I more directly examined the diversity in participants’ sociosexuality through latent profile analysis.Profiles were based on standardized sociosexuality, homosociality, TMI, and attachment variables. One emerging profile was high on all constructs (Players; 10% of the sample), and one was low on all constructs (Restricted; 30%). Three additional profiles emerged with discrepant patterns: Wannabes (similar to Players, but below average in sociosexual behavior; 36%), Avoidant (similar to Restricteds, but with above average avoidance; 16%), and Discrepant (above average sociosexual behavior, but discordant across constructs; 8%). The latter three subgroups indicate that the key constructs do not always ;;go together,” perhaps explaining the modest associations in Study 1. There were several notable demographic, personality, and behavioral differences between the profiles (e.g., nearly 50% of the Discrepants self-identified as sexual minorities, Restricteds were the most religious, Avoidants were the most shy). Analysis of 15 in-depth interviews in Study 3 further synthesized the results from Studies 1 and 2, highlighted heterogeneity within relationship- and hook up-oriented perspectives, and indicated that the processes shaping sociosexuality may vary for different college sub-populations (e.g., sexual minorities). Findings also provide evidence regarding potential trajectories of change in perspectives that future research can address.