↓ Skip to main content

Does Casual Sex Harm College Students’ Well-Being? A Longitudinal Investigation of the Role of Motivation

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
29 news outlets
twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 Mendeley
Title
Does Casual Sex Harm College Students’ Well-Being? A Longitudinal Investigation of the Role of Motivation
Published in
Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10508-013-0255-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhana Vrangalova

Abstract

Engagement in casual sex (or hooking up) is generally feared to have negative well-being consequences; however, empirical evidence is inconclusive, pointing toward potential moderators. Using self-determination theory (SDT), we hypothesized that well-being following hookups would depend on the type and level of motivation for hooking up. A university-wide sample of 528 undergraduates completed online surveys at the beginning (T1) and end (T3) of one academic year. After controlling for demographics, personality traits (i.e., neuroticism and extraversion), prior casual and romantic sex, and T1 well-being, having genital hookups between T1 and T3 for non-autonomous reasons (i.e., due to self-imposed pressures, external contingencies and controls, or complete lack of intentionality) was linked to lower self-esteem, higher depression and anxiety, and more physical symptoms. Autonomous hookup motivation (i.e., emanating from one's self) was not linked to any outcomes. Compared to peers without hookups, those with high non-autonomy in their hookups typically had inferior well-being; this was not true of those with low non-autonomy hookups. Gender differences, implications for SDT and casual sex research, and implications for educational programs and clinical work are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 191 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 20%
Student > Master 23 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 10%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Other 38 20%
Unknown 43 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 92 47%
Social Sciences 21 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 45 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 242. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2021.
All research outputs
#155,271
of 25,459,177 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#110
of 3,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,352
of 323,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#5
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,459,177 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.