



































23  
  

Graduate Student Journal of Psychology                                                                             Copyright 2010 by the Department of Counseling & Clinical Psychology  
2010, Vol. 12                                                                                                                        Teachers College, Columbia University                          

 
Engaging in the Hookup Culture: A Self-Discrepancy Perspective 

 
Elizabeth Victor 
Duke University 

 
This study examined the hypothesis that self-concept discrepancies predict engagement in casual 
sexual behavior, or hookups.  One hundred seventy two undergraduate men and women completed 
questionnaires assessing their level of self-discrepancy and their hookup participation.  Contrary to 
the study hypothesis, findings indicate that participants high in actual-ideal self-discrepancy are less 
likely to engage in hookups.  Gender, age, and actual-ought self-discrepancy did not predict hookup 
culture participation.  Differences between ethnic groups in hookup participation are also discussed. 

 
 

A new phenomenon has changed young adult and 
adolescent sexual relationship development, as clear 
boundaries and stages appear to no longer define dating 
relationships (Stanley, 2002).  In fact, Glenn and Marquardt 
(

proper operational definition for the term hooking up, 
young people are left with an inability to forecast what 
physical behaviors are expected from their partners or 
whether there is a possibility for a future committed 
relationship.  Casual sexual encounters, or hookups, 
according to contemporary college students, can refer to a 
wide variety of sexual behaviors ranging from kissing to 
vaginal sex, and usually occur between two people who are 
either strangers or brief acquaintances, typically last only 
one night, and occur between partners who are not in a 
committed relationship (Flack et al., 2007; Paul, McManus, 
& Hayes, 2000).  In addition, Bogle (2008), as well as 
England, Shafer, and Fogarty (2007), reported that hookups 
typically involve moderate to heavy alcohol consumption 
and that most college students report not believing their 
hookup will lead to a future committed relationship.  

Fifty to 75% of college students report engaging in at 
least one hookup in the past year (Glenn & Marquard, 
2001; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000).  The increase of 
casual sexual encounters continues to stir controversy for 
both sexes as females and males struggle to find their role 
in the hookup culture.  Such encounters have serious health 
risks leading both psychologists and education policy 
makers to try to better understand the factors leading to 
participation in the hookup culture.  Past research has 
examined this type of casual sexual behavior during 
adolescence through a cautionary or disease-related lens 
(e.g., Levinson, Jaccard, & Beamer, 1995), suggesting that 
                                                                                                  

The author would like to thank Erel Shvil, MPhil, Dr. Robert 
Thompson, Dr. David Rabiner, and Dr. Wilkie Wilson for their 
guidance and support in completing this research project, as well 
as Lori Kwapil for her efforts in data analysis and collection.  

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to 
Elizabeth Victor, 638 Mag nolia St, Aiken, SC 29801. Email: 
ecv2111@columbia.edu. 

individuals at increased risk for unwanted pregnancy and 
contraction of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), 
including HIV, as individuals are less likely to know about 

 sexual history (Dailey, 1997).  
 
Self-Discrepancy Theory and the Hookup Culture 

Little research has been conducted on why some young 
adults choose to engage in casual sexual activity, while 
others strive for committed romantic relationships with one 
perso
self-concept may offer some explanation for these 
differences.  

Self-Discrepancy Theory (SDT; Higgins, 1989) 
provides a useful frame in which to examine the 
relationship between casual sexual-decision making and 
self-concept among young adults.  SDT is concerned with 
how discrepancies in self-perceptions relate to heightened 
emotional states (i.e., anxiety, stress, and anger).  Higgins 
(1987) defined self-concept in terms of three domains: (1) 
the actual self, or one's representation of the attributes that 

self, or one's representation of the attributes that one would 
like to possess; and (3) the ought self, or the attributes that 
one believes one should possess.  In other words, SDT 
seeks to understand how a person describes themselves in 
three ways: how they think they actually are (to themselves 
and to others in their social network), how they would like 
to be, and how they think they ought to be.  According to 
Higgins (1999), when discrepancies involve the domains of 
the self, emotional vulnerabilities can be heightened (i.e., 
anxiety, stress, and anger).  For example, if a person 

arrogant, but then lists 
humble a
elevated levels of depression-related feelings.  Furthermore, 
a person that uses selfish 
then lists compassionate 
experience anxiety-related feelings.  Discrepancies between 
how one actually is (the actual self) and how one would 
ideally like one to be (the ideal self) represent the absence 
of positive outcomes.  In contrast, discrepancies between the 



VICTOR 
  

   24 

actual self and how one believes he or she should or ought 
to be (the ought self) represent the presence of negative 
outcomes (Boldero & Francis, 2005).  For instance, actual-
ideal discrepancy is hypothesized to lead to feelings of 
depression or low self-worth, while actual-ought 
discrepancy is hypothesized to lead to feelings of anxiety or 
preoccupation with moral behavior.  In addition, Higgins 
reports that actual-
global self-esteem (Higgins, 1999).  

The level of discrepancy between these self-concepts 
varies between individuals.  Some people do not have a 
large discrepancy between their actual self-concept and 
their ideal self.  These people are presumed to be more 
motivated and to have greater self-esteem in comparison to 
those with high actual-ideal discrepancies (Strauman & 
Higgins, 1987).  For example, in researching self-
discrepancies as predictors of chronic emotional distress, 
people characterized by an actual-ideal discrepancy 
reported considerable depressive (i.e., dejection oriented) 
symptoms, but fewer anxiety/ paranoid (i.e., agitation-
related) symptoms (Strauman & Higgins, 1987).  In 
addition, these findings have been tested outside of 
normative populations.  In a study of undergraduates 
suffering from major depressive disorder, dysthymia, or an 
anxiety disorder, those with depressive disorders were 
found to have significantly higher actual-ideal 
discrepancies, while anxious participants had significantly 
higher actual-ought discrepancies , 1993).  
However, there has been increasing debate about whether 

depression and anxiety.  Previous studies have reported that 

predictive of self-esteem levels in comparison to studies 
examining personality types or behavior patterns (McDaniel 
& Grice, 2008).  
 
Factors Associated with Hookup Culture Participation  

take part in the hookup culture during college.  Once a 
person leaves their home and parents to venture off to 
college, he or she may encounter significant social pressure 
that will influence his or her future actions in an effort to 
feel accepted by his or her peers.  Given the risk of casual 
sexual decision-making, it is important to explore what 
variables might predict engagement in casual sexual 
encounters.  This study will address gender, ethnicity, and 
self-discrepancy as factors that might be associated with 
engaging in hookups.  

Many previous studies have found that males report 
hooking up more often than women (Grello et al., 2003; 
Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2005); however, others 
have noted a convergence in males and females sexual 
attitudes and activities (Herold & Mewhinney, 1993; 
Feldman & Cauffman, 1999; Paul et al., 2000).  Most 
recently, Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, and Fincham (2010) 
found similar numbers of men and women engaging in 
hookups.  Furthermore, Simpson and Gangestad (1991) 

found variance both within and between the sexes.  For 
example, they found that women who indicated more 
positive attitudes toward casual sex were more likely to 
report engaging in such behavior than women with negative 
attitudes, and with more partners than their male 
counterparts.   

Few documented studies examine age or racial 
differences in hookup engagement (Paul et al., 2000), as 
most studies draw conclusions from largely white 
undergraduate samples (Desiderator & Crawford, 1995; 
Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006).  Previous literature has 
primarily found differences only in Asian American 
samples who tend to report less involvement in hookups 
(Feldman, Turner, & Araujo, 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 
1991).  Whereas Davis and colleagues (2007) reported that 
there were no racial differences found in intentions for 
future casual sex or attitudes toward safer sex, Owen et al 
(2010) found that students of color were less likely to 
engage in casual sexual behaviors.  Weinberg and Williams 
(1988) found that African Americans reported more 
permissive attitudes toward casual sexual behaviors.  Due 
to the insufficient amount of previous research concerning 
this factor of hookup participation, this study will explore 
potential racial differences in hookup participation.  
 
A ims of Cur rent Research  

This study will investigate casual sexual encounters 
through the lens of SDT.  The study will evaluate whether 

-discrepancy levels as defined by self-
discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1989) are predictive of 
hookup culture participation.  Both actual-ought and actual-
ideal discrepancies will be assessed to better understand the 

 

study using the concept of self-discrepancy to further 
understand hookup culture.  Specifically, it is expected that 
a high level of self-discrepancy (either in actual-ideal or 
actual-ought discrepancies) will predict hookup culture 
participation.  Particularly, since a low actual-ideal 
discrepancy (AI) is typically associated with increased self-
esteem, it is reasonable to assume that high AI will be 
predictive of high involvement in the hookup culture.  
Consistent with most previous studies, it is expected that 
males will engage in more hookups and have a greater 
number of partners compared to their female peers.  
Furthermore, Whites are expected to engage in more 
hookups compared to their peers of other ethnicities.  

This study will be the first to investigate how a theory 
of self concept can be used to better understand hookup 
participation.  The investigator is particularly interested in 
understanding casual sexual relationships taking place 
during late adolescence, a period generally associated with 
identity development.  The results of the study might better 
inform college counselors and others in how to provide 
support for college students, including helping students 
combat peer pressure (specifically with regard to casual 
sexual relationships), and mitigating possible tension 



SELF DISCREPANCY THEORY AND HOOKUP PARTICIPATION 
 

   25 

between developing value systems in contrast to established 
family-of-origin values and ideals.   

 
M ethod 

 
Participants 

Male and female undergraduate students attending a 
mid-sized private university in North Carolina were 

psychology department subject pool website and through 
on-campus fliers.  Since the study was administered in early 
August 2008, most freshmen would have only been college 
students for a few weeks and thus were not included in the 
study.  Junior undergraduates were not recruited for the 
study because a disproportionate number of juniors at the 
university study abroad during their fall semester and 
therefore the juniors on campus may not be representative 
of the typical class.  The study sample included 172 

students, ages 18-24 (M = 19.65, SD = 1.82) who 
volunteered to participate in the study. Participants were 
primarily female (n = 119, 69%) and sophomores (n = 113, 
66%).  One hundred twelve (65%) of the participants were 
Caucasian, 32 (19%) were Asian American, 14 (8%) were 

 
 

M easures 

1986). This measure was designed for the purpose of 
-discrepancy score(s) between 

their actual-ideal and actual-ought self attributes.  Although 

individual standpoint and the standpoint of a significant 
other (mother, father, close friend, etc), this study only 

interest with regard to late adolescent sexual decision-
making.  A well-utilized technique for learning about a 
participant's most highly accessible self-state attributes (or 
how a participant feels, thinks, and describes oneself) is to 
use the free-response listing technique found in this 
questionnaire (Strauman & Higgins, 1987).  Participants 
were asked to indicate 10 attributes (adjectives) that 
describe each of the following: 1) the type of person they 
actually are; 2) the type of person they believe they ideally 

would like to be; and 3) the type of person they believe they 
should or ought to be.  

As per Higgins (1987), discrepancy scores were 

attributes between their three selves (i.e., actual self, ideal 
self, and ought self).  A thesaurus was used to determine if 
certain words were synonyms (matches) or antonyms 

Table 1 
 
Participant Characteristics  
Factor      n %  SD M possible range 
Gender  (N = 172)     
 Female     119 69% 
 Male     53 31% 
Ethnicity (N = 172)       
 Caucasian    112 65% 
 African American   14 8% 
 Asian American    32 19% 
 Other     14 8% 
Class Year (N = 172)     
 Sophomore    113 66% 
 Senior     59 34% 
Hookup Participation (N = 172)   
 YES     98  57% 
      Typical level of involvement  171   .99 3.95 1-5 
      Furthest level of involvement  170   1.24 4.59 1-5 
      Number of sexual partners  109   8.67 6.69 0-50 
                 Alcohol consumption frequency  128     1-5 
  YES    81 63%  .99 3.47 2-5 
  NO    47 37% 
      Blackout frequency    81   .76 1.42 2-5 
      Drug use frequency   130   .76 1.29 1-5 
 NO      74 43% 
 
Notes /anal 

 once before or during a hookup were 
included. 



VICTOR 
  

   26 

(mismatches) between their actual self attributes and their 
ideal and ought self attributes.  Synonyms received a -1, 
while antonyms received a +2.  First, the actual-self total 
score was determined by identifying any synonyms or 
antonyms in the list of 10 words.  If a synonym or antonym 
was found, the first word was kept, but the antonym or 
synonym of the word was crossed out.  Therefore, a 
participant could have an actual-self total score of -10 to 
+20, depending on how many synonyms or antonyms were 
listed.  This same process was used for the ideal and ought 
self-lists to get a total score for each list.  Next, all the 
remaining words listed in the actual self were compared to 
all the remaining words listed in the ideal and then, ought 
self.  For instance, if a participant wrote lazy as an actual 
self-attribute and then wrote diligent as an ideal self-
attribute, the participant would be given a score of +2.  
However, if a participant wrote hard working in the actual 
self list and listed diligent in the oughtself list, he would 
receive a -1 score.  Each pair of words was given a score 
and then all the points were tallied at the end to produce an 
actual-ideal and actual-ought discrepancy score.  If a word 
was found in the actual-self to be neither a synonym, nor an 
antonym, the word receives no point and the coder 
continues to the next word. 

Participants also received points based on the degree of 
match or mismatch, which participants indicated on a 1-4 
Likert scale (1= slightly describes an attribute I possess to 
4= extremely describes an attribute I possess) for each 
word they listed.  For example, if a word in the actual-self 
list was synonymous with an ideal-self attribute but differed 
in extent by more than one point (e.g., the participant gave 
the actual-self word a 1 score, while the ideal-self a 3 
score), it was scored as a mismatch of degree, giving the 
participant a +1 score.  If the two words were not 
mismatched by at least 2 points, no points were awarded.  
Each actual-ought and actual-ideal discrepancy score was 
then calculated by summing the weights for all matches and 
mismatches pertaining to that pair of self-states (Scott & 
O'Hara, 1993; Strauman & Higgins, 1988).  Therefore, an 
individual received two final discrepancy scores: an actual-
ideal discrepancy score and an actual-ought discrepancy 
score.  The possible range of scores for each discrepancy 
was -10 to +20.  The more negative a final score, the 

indicating that he or she may be prone to increased anxiety 
and depression levels.  

For this study, the range for the actual-ideal 
discrepancy was -8 to +8 and for the actual-ought 
discrepancy, scores ranged from -8 to +6.  Based on these 
scores, participants were placed into three levels of self-
discrepancy, both for their actual-ideal and actual-ought 

- -
For logistic regression analyses, scores were recoded 

into a positive continuum in order to more easily interpret 
the findings.  The psychometric properties of the Selves 
Questionnaire have been investigated in various studies.  

Reliability data have included an interrater reliability 
coefficient range from .80 to .87 (Higgins et al., 1985; 
Strauman & Higgins, 1987).  Interrater reliability for the 
current study was .87. 

Hookup culture survey.  This measure, designed for 
the purpose of this study, assessed hookup participation, 
level of involvement in the hookup culture, alcohol/drug 
use before and during hookups, and affective reactions to 
hookup participation.  The first section assessed 

hookup, whether or not the individual engages in hookups, 
and the individu
sexual involvement in the hookup culture.  The second 
section of the survey assessed how illicit drugs and alcohol 
may moderate the relationship between hookup culture 
involvement and subsequent negative affect.  The third 
section of the study asked participants to indicate the extent 
to which they experience certain negative (i.e., distress, 
regret, guilt, and shame) and positive (i.e., security and 
confidence) emotions after choosing to participate or not to 
participate in hookups.  Participants were also asked about 
types of social consequences (i.e., less romantic options and 
more time/resources for social networks) they may have 
experienced due to involvement or lack of involvement in 
the hookup culture.  Only the first section of the 
questionnaire was used for data analysis in this paper, as 
future papers intend to examine the role of alcohol/drug 
abuse and the mental health outcomes of hookup behavior. 
At the end of the survey, participants were given space to 
provide any open-ended comments or details they wished to 
reveal that were relevant to the study.  
 
Procedure 

Individuals wishing to participate in the study 
completed anonymously an online survey.  Participants 
were able to access the website at any time on a computer 
of their choice.  The entire survey took no longer than 45 
minutes to complete.  

Participants began the survey by viewing a consent 
form and then filling out Part 1 of the Modified Selves 
Questionnaire (MSQ; Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 
1986).  Next, participants completed the Hookup Culture 
Survey.  All participants responded to questions about 
demographics, level of sexual involvement that they define 
as a hookup, and their engagement in the hookup culture; 
however, participants answered a different set of questions 
based on their response to the question of whether or not 
they participated in the hookup culture.  

Participants either received one hour of class credit by 
the psychology subject pool coordinator or entered into a 
drawing for one of six $50 cash prizes. When the study 
ended, six names were randomly drawn from a collection of 
all non-subject pool participants and given $50 cash prizes. 
Of the participants, 117 students were entered into the 
drawing and 55 students were given 1 hour of credit for an 
introductory psychology course.  



SELF DISCREPANCY THEORY AND HOOKUP PARTICIPATION 
 

   27 

 
Results 

 
Descr iptive Statistics 

 Hookup participation.  This study surveyed 172 
sophomore and senior undergraduates.  Sixty-five percent 
(n = 112) were Caucasian (see Table 1 for descriptives).  
Fifty-seven percent (n = 98) indicated that they have 
participated in the hookup culture.  The average number of 
hookup partners was 6.69 (SD = 8.67) and the mode was 1 
partner.  Since participants were asked to indicate their own 
definition of a hookup, it should be noted that each person 
indicated their participation in hookups based on their 
personal definition.  When defining a hookup, 12% (n = 21) 

involvement, while 65% (n =  1
as the minimal level.  Only 13% (n =  23) of the students 

n = n =1) 

is 
a colloquial American expression that is synonymous with 
French kissing, defined as open-mouth kissing that involves 

definitions, typical level of intimacy was categorized into 
three groups based on level of sexual involvement and 
potential risk-taking opportunity (e.g., low condom use, risk 
of STD infection): high intimacy, or engagement in oral 
and/or vaginal sex; medium intimacy, or petting; and low 
intimacy Of those 
participating in the hookup culture, 48% reported that they 
typically make out during a hookup and 38% reported 
having anal or vaginal sex at least once during a hookup.  
Sixty-three percent (n = 81) of participants reported using 
alcohol at least once during or before a casual sexual 
encounter.  

Self-discrepancy.  Of the 172 participants, 13% 
reported low actual-ought (AO) discrepancy, 68% reported 
medium levels of AO discrepancy, and 19% reported high 
levels of AO discrepancy.  Participants generally reported 
higher levels of actual-ideal AI discrepancy than AO 
discrepancy.  Thirteen percent reported low AI discrepancy, 
56% reported medium AI discrepancy, and 31% reported 
high AI discrepancy. 
 
Gender , E thnicity, and Hookup Participation 

To test the hypothesis that gender differences exist in 
hookup participation, (specifically that men will be more 
likely to engage in hookup culture), a chi-square test of 
independence was conducted.  Gender differences were not 
significant, 2(1) = 0.947, ns.  Gender differences for AO 
and AI self-discrepancy levels were also not significant, 
²(1) = .067, ns; and ²(1) = .880, ns, respectively.  

To test the hypothesis that Whites would engage in 
more hookups than their ethnic minority counterparts, a chi-
square test of independence was conducted.  Hookup 
participation differed significantly by ethnicity ( 2 = 0.002, 
p < .01), suggesting that White undergraduate students in 
their sample are more likely to engage in hookups than 
undergraduates of other ethnicities. Because minority 
subsamples were collapsed due to small sample size, we 
could not explore group differences.  However, the 
significant difference in ethnicity may be due to the 
responses of Asian Americans individuals.  These 
individuals responded almost exactly opposite of their 
Caucasian and African American counterparts.  For 
instance, 72% (n = 23) of the Asians reported not 
participating in the hookup culture.  These individuals 
constitute almost one-third of the subsample choosing to 
forgo participation in the hookup culture.   
 
Logistic Regressions  

Logistic regression analyses were conducted using 
SPSS 18.0.  Separate logistic regression analyses were 
conducted using gender, ethnicity, actual-ideal self-
discrepancy, and actual-ought self-discrepancy as predictors 
of participation in hookups (a binary dependent of yes or 
no) (see Table 2).  Inc
low actual-ideal self-discrepancy significantly predicted 
greater hookup participation (See Table 2).  No other results 
were significant. To control for combined effects, an 
additional logistic regression was conducted combining all 
the predictor variables (age, gender, and ethnicity) into the 
model with actual-ideal self-discrepancy (see Table 3).  
Results indicate that actual-ideal self-discrepancy predicts 
whether one will participate in hookups or not, above and 
beyond the other variables (B = -0.13; 95% CI 0.78  0.98).  
In addition, ethnicity also predicted hookup participation 
above and beyond the other variables (B = -0.33; 95% CI 
0.52  0.99), such that Whites were more likely to engage 
in hookup culture than their ethnic minority counterparts.   

 
Discussion 

 
The goal of this study was to investigate the variables 

ther or not to 
participate in college hookup culture.  Specifically, this 

self-discrepancy theory can be used as a tool for better 
understanding engagement in the hookup culture.  It was 
observed that AI discrepancy scores were predictive of 
hookup participation.  The results were particularly 

 
 



VICTOR 
  

   28 

discrepancy scores actually served as a protective factor for 
engaging in hookups.  There are many assumptions as to 
why this outcome occurred.  It is possible that young adults 
entering college want to be a part of what they believe the 
majority of students are taking part in.  In this case, 
engaging in the hookup culture may be seen as a way to 
gain social acceptance (Levinson, Jaccard, & Beamer, 
1995).  For example, some researchers believe that 
normative sexual standards on campus may cause some 
students to feel that they must conform to personal and 
social expectations and behavior to engage in casual sex 
(DeLamater & MacCorquodale, 1979).  These perceived 
normative standards may dictate what individuals believe to 
be the accepted rate and level of physical intimacy expected 
during hookups within a particular campus culture, despite 

Maticka-Tyndale, 1995).  Therefore, students may feel that 

which may entail engaging in casual sexual relationships.  
Therefore, individuals who engage in hookups are aligning 
their actual self and ideal self, which leave them feeling 
more secure and less anxious or depressed.  Given that low 
AI discrepancy is asscociated with high self-esteem 
(McDaniel & Grice, 2008), it is likely that those who 
particpate in hookups would report high self-esteem before 
ever engaging in such casual sexual behaviors.    Although 
this study did not find an association between actual-ought 
self-discrepancy and hookup culture participation, many 
interesting descriptive statistics were observed.  More than 
half of participants reported engaging in at least one hookup 
and 38% reported engaging in vaginal or anal sex at least 
one time during a hookup.  These findings point to the 
magnitude of hookup culture engagement and the potential 

for unsafe sex leading to sexually transmitted infections and 
unintended pregnancies. 
 
L imitations 

The primary limitation of the study is the concerns 
about the validity and reliability of the self-report methods.  
Although students were given complete anonymity, 
selective self-monitoring of positive aspects (Strecher et al., 
1986) and temporal distance from the described events may 
impact recall (Downey et al., 1995).  

Furthermore, the sample is from a highly selective 
private university in the southeast, which may not be 
representative of colleges across the country, both in terms 
of ethnicity and socioeconomic status.  It is important to 
also de-bunk previous findings that the majority of casual 
hookups occur between strangers or brief acquaintances.  
Since the university students involved in this particular 
study attend a small, private college, hooking up may not be 
as anonymous or casual as it typically is on other college or 
univerisity campuses.  Further research is needed to 
understand what differences exist between the hookup 
cultures of  small liberal arts colleges versus larger, public 
colleges or universities.  Finally, since the majority of the 
sample was Caucasian (65%), few conclusions can be 
drawn about other racial and ethnic 
participation.   
 
Future Research Directions 

Despite the limitations of the current study, it marks 
the first integration of self-discrepancy theory with sexual 
relationship development in late adolescence.  Further 
research is needed to establish whether self-descrepancy 
theory can be used to predict why some young adults 

 

Table 2  
 
Logist ic Regression Analysis Predict ing Hookup Part icipa tion from Actual -Ideal (AI) Sel f Discrepancy, Actual-
Ought (AO) Sel f Discrepancy, Gender, and Ethnici ty. 
Predictor B SE Exp(B) 95% CI for Exp(B) 
AI Self Discrepancy -.15* .06 .87 .76 .96 
AO Self Discrepancy -.11 .07 .90 .78 1.04 
Gendera -.12 .33 .85 .44 1.64 
Ethnicity -.37* .15 2.25 .51 .93 
Note. Hookup Participation (dependent variable) coded as yes = 1, no = 0. aDummy coded as men = 1, women = 0. *  p < .05.   
 
 
Table 3 
 
Mul tivaria te Model Predict ing Hookup Part icipa tion from Actual -Ideal (AI) Sel f Discrepancy, Controll ing for Age, 
Gender, and E thnicity. 
Predictor B SE Exp(B) 95% CI for Exp(B) 
AI Self Discrepancy -.13* .06 .88 .78 .98 
Age .00 .35 1.00 .75 1.34 
Gendera .01 .17 1.01 .50 2.02 
Ethnicity -.33* 2.93 .72 .52 .99 
Note. Hookup Participation (dependent variable) coded as yes = 1, no = 0. aDummy coded as men = 1, women = 0. *  p < .05.   
 



SELF DISCREPANCY THEORY AND HOOKUP PARTICIPATION 
 

   29 

choose to engage in casual sexual behavior, while others 

parents, and education policy makers could then begin to 
develop prevention strategies to reduce risky sexual 
decision making.  Steps could be made to target certain 
students at risk for engaging in hookups.  Furthermore, if 
SDT is helpful is understanding hookup participation, 
clinical researchers could then investigate how SDT might 
mediate the relationship between engagement in certain 
sexual behaviors and psychological outcome effects (i.e., 
regret, self-esteem, shame, and confidence).  By 
understanding the role of self-concepts in young adult 
decision-making, we can better understand why people 
engage in certain sexual behaviors and the effects of 
engaging in these behaviors on mental and physical health. 

 
References 

 
Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and 

relationships on campus. New York, NY: New York 
University Press. 

Boldero, J., & Francis, J. (1999). Ideals, oughts, and self 
regulation: Are there qualitatively distinct self-
guides? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 343-355. 

Boldero, J., & Francis, J. (2000). The relation between self 
discrepancies and emotion: The moderating roles of self-
guide importance, location relevance, and social self-
domain centrality. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 78, 38-52. 

Dailey, D. M. (1997). The failure of sexuality education: 
Meeting the challenge of behavioral change in a sex-
positive context. Journal of Psychology and Human 
Sexuality, 9, 87-97. 

DeLamater, J., & MacCorquodale, P. (1979). Premarital 
sexuality. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 

Desiderator, L. L., & Crawford, H. J. (1995). Risky sexual 
behavior in college students: Relationships between 
number of sexual partners, disclosure of previous risky 
behavior, and alcohol use. Journal of Youth and 
Adolescence, 24, 55-67. 

Downey, L., Ryan, R., Roffman, R., & Kulich, M. (1995). 
How could I forget? Inaccurate memories of sexually 
intimate moments. The Journal of Sex Research, 32, 
177-191.  

Eisenberg, M. E., Ackard, D. M., Resnick, M. D., & 
Neumark-Sztainer, D. N. (2009). Casual sex and 
psychological health among young adults: Is having 

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41, 
231-237. 

Eshbaugh, E., & Gute, G. (2008).  Hookups and sexual 
regret among college women.  The Journal of Social 
Psychology, 148, 77-89.  

Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a 
predictor of adult romantic relationships.  Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291. 

Feeney, J. 
interactions with the opposite sex: Influence of 
attachment style and gender. Journal of Adolescence, 
16, 169-186. 

heart: Attitudes, behaviors, and correlates of sexual 
betrayal in late adolescents. Journal of Research on 
Adolescence, 9, 227-252. 

Feldman, S. S., Turner, R. A., & Araujo, K. (1999). 
Interpersonal context as an influence on sexual 
timetables of youths: Gender and ethnic effects. Journal 
of Research on Adolescence, 9, 25-52. 

Flack, W. F., Daubman, K. A., Caron, M. L., Asadorian, 

factors and consequences of unwanted sex among 
university students: Hooking up, alcohol, and stress 
response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 139-
157. 

Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001).Hooking up, hanging 
out, and hoping for Mr. Right: College women on dating 
and mating today. New York, NY: Institute for 
American Values.  

Grello, C. M, Welsh, D. P., Harper, M. S., & Dickson, J. 
W. (2003). Dating and sexual relationship trajectories 
and adolescent functioning. Adolescent and Family 
Health, 3, 103-112. 

Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No 
strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college 
students. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 266-267. 

Hallfors, D. D., Waller, M. W., Bauer, D., Ford, C. A., & 
Halpern, C. T. (2005). Which comes first in 
adolescence sex and drugs or depression? American 
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29, 163-170. 

Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D. (1993). Gender 
differences in casual sex and AIDS prevention: A 
Survey of dating bars. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 
36-42. 

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating 
self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340. 

Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What 
patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? Advances 
in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 93-136. 

Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. 
(1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: 
How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy 
influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 51, 5-15. 

Kosunen, E., Kaltiala-Heirno, R., Rimpela, M., & 
Laippala, P. (2003). Risk-taking sexual behavior and 
self-reported depression in middle adolescence a 
school-based study. Child: Care, Health, and 
Development, 29, 337-344. 

Levinson, R. A., Jaccard, J., & Beamer, L. (1995). Older 

perception and psychosocial motivations. Journal of 
Youth and Adolescence, 24, 349-364. 



VICTOR 
  

   30 

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the 
self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and 
motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. 

McDaniel, B. L., & Grice, J. W. (2008). Predicting 
psychological well-being from self discrepancies: A 
comparison of idiographic and nomothetic measures. 
Self and Identity,7, 243-261. 

Mewhinney, D. M., Herold, E. S., & Maticka-Tyndale, E. 
(1995). Sexual scripts and risk-taking of Canadian 
university students on spring break in Daytona Beach, 
Florida. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 4, 
273-288.  

Owen, J. J., Rhoades, G. K, Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. 

Demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives of 
Sexual Behavior, 39, 653-663. 

Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The causalities of 

Journal 
of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 639-661. 

Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, K. A. (2000). 
cteristics and correlates of college 

experiences. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76-88. 
Shaver, P., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the 

study of love. Journal of Social and Personal 
Relationships, 5, 473-501.  

Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality 
and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology, 60, 31-51. 

Stanley, S. M. (2002). What is it with men and 
commitment, anyway? Keynote address presented at the 
6thAnnual Smart Marriages Conference, Washington, 
DC. 

Strauman, T. J. (1989). Self-discrepancies in clinical 
depression and social phobia: Cognitive structures that 
underlie emotional disorders? Journal of Abnormal 
Psychology, 98, 14-22. 

Strauman, T. J. (1992). Self-guides, autobiographical 
memory, and anxiety and dysphasia: Toward a cognitive 
model of vulnerability to emotional distress. Journal of 
Abnormal Psychology, 101, 87-95. 

Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-discrepancies 
as predictors of vulnerability to distinct syndromes of 
chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality,56, 
685-707. 

Weber, C. (Ed.). (2002).  (4th ed., 
Vols. 1-4). Chicago: Webster Press. 

Weinberg, M. S., & Williams, C. J. (1988). Black sexuality: 
A test of two theories. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 197-
218. 

  


