Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Sex Res. 2018 Dec 3;56(8):1058–1069. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2018.1542657

The association between sexual behavior and affect: Moderating factors in young women

Rose Wesche 1, Jennifer L Walsh 1, Robyn L Shepardson 2, Kate B Carey 3,4, Michael P Carey 4,5,6
PMCID: PMC6546558  NIHMSID: NIHMS1520087  PMID: 30507324

Abstract

Sexual behavior is associated with increased positive affect and decreased negative affect. However, contextual variables such as partner type, behavior type, and condom use may moderate these associations. The goal of the present research was to examine these contextual moderators using monthly longitudinal data from a sample of young women. Female, first-year college students (N = 477) completed monthly assessments of their sexual behaviors and positive and negative affect. Participants reported more negative affect in months they engaged in sexual behavior compared to months they did not. This association was moderated by partner type, such that only sexual behavior with casual partners was associated with increased negative affect. Participants reported more positive affect during months with kissing/touching only compared to months without sexual behavior; however, this association did not differ significantly from the association between oral/vaginal sex and positive affect. Condom use did not moderate the association between vaginal sex and positive or negative affect. In this sample of young women transitioning to college, engaging in sexual behavior was generally associated with negative affect; however, changes in affect depended on partner type and sexual behaviors. Findings have implications for sexual health education.

Examining associations between sexual behavior and positive and negative affect can provide insight into how engaging in sexual behavior may possibly influence young adults’ emotional health. Previous research has found that young adults report more positive affect and less negative affect during months when they engage in sexual behavior (Dalton & Galambos, 2009) and on days with or following sexual behavior (Burleson, Trevathan, & Todd, 2007; Fortenberry et al., 2005; Shrier, Shih, Hacker, & de Moor, 2007; Vasilenko & Lefkowitz, 2018). However, the contexts within which sexual behavior occurs, such as partner type, behavior type, and condom/contraception use, may moderate these associations.

Emotional Consequences of Sexual Behavior

The normative framework of sexuality development proposes that sexual health includes both physical and emotional components, which can be both positive and negative (Tolman & McClelland, 2011; Halpern, 2010; Harden, 2014). Affect represents one emotional component of sexual health with both positive and negative valences (Harden, 2014); thus, understanding associations between sexual behavior and affect offers a glimpse of young adults’ sexual health. Although we cannot determine a causal relationship between sexual behavior and affect by examining associations between these constructs, one possibility is that engaging in sexual behavior influences positive and negative affect.

Sexual behavior may increase positive affect and decrease negative affect for both psychosocial and physiological reasons. From a psychosocial perspective, engaging in sexual behavior can facilitate emotional bonding, stress relief, and pleasure (Meston & Buss, 2007; Vasilenko, Lefkowitz, & Maggs, 2012). Related to these psychosocial effects, orgasm results in the release of oxytocin, dopamine, and other hormones and neurotransmitters associated with improved affect (Carter, 1992; Krüger, Hartmann, & Schedlowski, 2005; Meston, Levin, Sipski, Hull, & Heiman, 2004).

However, sexual experiences are diverse; assessing contextual moderators of the association between sexual behavior and affect will improve understanding of the circumstances under which sexual behavior is associated with better or worse affect. The normative framework of sexuality development proposes that sexual health is influenced by developmentally-specific features of sexual experiences (Halpern, 2010). Therefore, we focus on moderators that are highly salient in our sample of young adults. More than older adults, who are more likely to be married, young adults move between casual and romantic sexual relationships (Furman & Collibee, 2014; Schick et al., 2010). Although the majority of young adults are sexually active, their sexual encounters frequently include kissing and touching but not oral or penetrative sex (Wesche, Lefkowitz, & Vasilenko, 2017). In addition, condom use is particularly relevant to young adults. People ages 20–24 are most at risk of unintended pregnancy, and women ages 20–24 are most at risk for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2017; Finer & Zolna, 2016). Given the salience of these three factors to young adults’ sexual experiences, partner type (romantic versus casual), behavior type (kissing/touching only versus oral/vaginal sex), and use of safer sex practices (consistent versus inconsistent condom use) may influence associations between sexual behavior and affect.

Partner Type

Research indicates that, relative to romantic partnerships, casual sexual experiences are associated with more negative emotions, such as negative affect and guilt (Vasilenko et al., 2012; Vasilenko & Lefkowitz, 2018). A larger body of research has examined associations between casual sex and depressive symptoms, finding mixed evidence that engaging in casual sexual partnerships is associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms (Bersamin et al., 2014; Carrotte, Vella, Hellard, & Lim, 2016; Fielder, Walsh, Carey, & Carey, 2014; Sandberg-Thoma & Kamp Dush, 2014; Vrangalova, 2015). Less is known about the positive emotions related to casual sex, leading researchers to call for improved understanding of how casual sex is associated with both positive and negative outcomes (Claxton & van Dulmen, 2013; Fielder et al., 2014; Snapp, Ryu, & Kerr, 2015). Assessing both positive and negative affect will provide a more balanced understanding of how casual sex is associated with both positive and negative emotions.

The limited research on positive emotions following casual sexual experiences indicates that, despite the relatively worse outcomes of casual sexual experiences compared to romantic relationships, young adults feel primarily positive about their casual sexual experiences (Owen & Fincham, 2011; Snapp et al., 2015; Vasilenko et al., 2012; Wesche, Claxton, Lefkowitz, & van Dulmen, 2017). This research has compared casual sex to sex with romantic partners (Vasilenko et al., 2012; Vasilenko & Lefkowitz, 2018). However, researchers rarely make separate comparisons between sexual behavior with romantic partners, casual partners, and no sexual behavior. As a result, we know little about how partner type might moderate within-person associations between sexual behavior and affect. Although sexual behavior with casual partners may be less positive/more negative than sexual behavior with romantic partners (Vasilenko et al., 2012; Vasilenko & Lefkowitz, 2018), it may still be experienced positively overall (Vasilenko et al., 2012; Wesche, Claxton, et al., 2017). Therefore, individuals may report more positive and less negative affect at times when they have a casual sexual partner compared to not having sex. However, these associations may be attenuated relative to sexual behavior with a romantic partner. We hypothesize that sexual behavior with casual partners will be associated with smaller variations in affect compared to sexual behavior with committed romantic partners.

Sexual Behavior Type

The normative perspective on adolescent and young adult sexuality development highlights that sexuality includes a range of behaviors (Harden, 2014; Tolman & McClelland, 2011). However, research on sexual behavior and affect has focused almost exclusively on oral and vaginal sex (Burleson et al., 2007; Dalton & Galambos, 2009; Fortenberry et al., 2005; Shrier et al., 2007; Vasilenko & Lefkowitz, 2018). Other physically intimate behaviors, such as kissing and touching, are meaningful to adolescents. Kissing in particular is linked to positive emotions (Heiman et al., 2011). To our knowledge, it is unknown whether the association between sexual behavior and affect differs by behavior type (kissing/touching but no oral/vaginal sex versus oral/vaginal sex). Assessing this difference will expand understanding of the emotional benefits and risks of diverse sexual behaviors.

Past cross-sectional research on short-term consequences of sex indicates that oral and vaginal sex may be more emotionally intense experiences than kissing or touching (Wesche, Lefkowitz et al., 2017). Therefore, we hypothesize that less physically intimate sexual behavior (kissing and touching only) will be associated with smaller variations in affect compared to sexual behavior that includes oral or vaginal sex.

Condom Use

Research on condom use and affect has produced mixed results. Some research suggests that condomless sexual behavior is not associated with affect or emotion dysregulation (Miller, Vachon, & Aalsma, 2012). Other research has found that individuals are less likely to use condoms on days when they experience more positive affect (Schroder, Johnson, & Wiebe, 2009). However, this study addressed affect prior to sex, which does not provide information about the emotional consequences of sexual behavior. Assessing how the association between sexual behavior and affect differs based on condom use will add to a limited body of research. Because evidence is mixed, we do not make a directional hypothesis about whether vaginal sex without consistent condom use will be associated with smaller/larger variations in affect compared to vaginal sex with consistent condom use.

The Present Research

In the present research, we use monthly longitudinal data from a sample of young women to examine three contextual moderators (i.e., partner type, sexual behavior type, and condom use) of the associations between sexual behavior and affect. We use a within-person design with monthly assessments of sexual behavior and affect. This strategy complements past research using daily measurements (Burleson et al., 2007; Fortenberry et al., 2005; Shrier et al., 2007; Vasilenko & Lefkowitz, 2018); using monthly assessments, we can better determine whether sexual behavior could possibly influence emotional health over a longer time period. The within-person design of this research controls for between-person differences that may act as confounding factors in cross-sectional research, thereby providing clearer evidence consistent with a causal association. In addition, the present research will clarify discrepant findings of past cross-sectional and longitudinal research, helping researchers better understand the circumstances under which sexual behavior carries emotional risks and benefits. However, it is important to note that there are non-causal explanations of associations between sexual behavior and affect. For example, individuals may have sex under certain circumstances to cope with pre-existing feelings (Owen, Fincham, & Moore, 2011); therefore, it is important to interpret the findings of this and all correlational research with caution.

The present research uses data from a study of women’s health during the first year of college. The moderators that we examine may be especially relevant to women. Women are more at risk than men of experiencing negative emotions following sex with casual partners (Fisher, Worth, Garcia, & Meredith, 2012; Kennair, Bendixen, & Buss, 2016; Lewis, Granato, Blayney, Lostutter, & Kilmer, 2012). Women are at risk of becoming pregnant after not using a condom, which may influence their affect during months they use condoms inconsistently. Women may also feel pressure to abstain from oral and penetrative sex due to the sexual double standard (Kreager, Staff, Gauthier, Lefkowitz, & Feinberg, 2016), which may influence their affect during months with kissing/touching only versus oral/vaginal sex.

We test the following hypotheses:

  1. Individuals will report more positive affect and less negative affect during months with sexual behavior compared to months without sexual behavior.

  2. Sexual behavior with casual partners will be associated with less variation in both positive and negative affect compared to sexual behavior with committed romantic partners.

  3. Less physically intimate sexual behavior (kissing/touching only) will be associated with less variation in both positive and negative affect compared to sexual behavior that includes oral or vaginal sex.

  4. Vaginal sex without consistent condom use may be associated with smaller or larger variations in positive and negative affect compared to vaginal sex with consistent condom use. Because evidence is mixed, we do not make a directional hypothesis about condom use.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were first-year female students at a private university in upstate New York. Participants were recruited using a mass mailing to all incoming first-year female students who were between 18–25, U.S. residents, and not scholarship athletes. According to NCAA regulations, scholarship athletes are not allowed to receive compensation from the University; thus, they could not receive payment for participating in the research. In addition, many athletes arrive early on campus (for summer practice), making their social experiences different from most students. Of the approximately 1,400 eligible students who received study invitations by mail, 293 enrolled in the study. Flyers, word of mouth, and the psychology department research pool were also used to supplement recruitment. These recruitment efforts resulted in an additional 190 participants. The sample of 483 women comprised 26% of the incoming first-year female students at the university for the fall 2009 semester. Eligible individuals who consented to the study completed baseline (T1) and 12 monthly follow-up (T2–T13) surveys. Participants received $20 (or credit for one hour of research if from the Psychology department participant pool) for the baseline survey, $10 for each of the next 10 surveys, and $15 and $20 for the final two surveys, respectively. We offered higher compensation at baseline because that survey was the longest, and for the final two surveys to reduce attrition during the summer. All study procedures were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

The present analyses focus on participants who provided complete information for all measures on at least one measurement occasion (5,134 measurement occasions from N = 477 participants; 99% of the original sample). The majority of participants in the analytic sample (70%) identified as White/Caucasian; 12% were Asian; 12% were Black/African American; and 9% were Hispanic (race/ethnicity response options were not mutually exclusive). The majority of participants (95%) were heterosexual; 2% were unsure of their sexual orientation; 2% were bisexual; and 1% identified as gay/lesbian. Less than 1% of participants identified as transgender. At T1, participants ranged in age from 18–21 years old (M = 18.06, SD = 0.29).

Measures

Sexual behavior with casual and romantic partners.

Participants answered two questions about sexual behavior with casual and romantic partners (“In the last month ([name of month]), with how many casual [romantic] partners have you been physically intimate?” A casual partner was defined as “someone whom you were NOT dating or in a romantic relationship with at the time of the physical intimacy, and there was no mutual expectation of a romantic commitment. Some people call these hookups.” A romantic partner was defined as “someone whom you were dating or in a romantic relationship with at the time of the physical intimacy.” Being physically intimate was defined as including kissing, sexual touching, or any type of sexual behavior. Number of partners was dichotomized to indicate whether the participant engaged in any physical intimacy (ranging from kissing to sex) with each type of partner. For analyses in which partner type is not distinguished, participants were considered to have engaged in any sexual behavior if they were physically intimate with either a casual or romantic partner.

Sexual behavior type.

Participants answered several questions indicating the number of casual and romantic partners they gave oral sex to, received oral sex from, and had vaginal sex with (e.g., “Over the last month ([name of month]), with how many casual [romantic] partners have you had vaginal sex [given oral sex, received oral sex]?”) Oral sex was defined as “when either partner puts their mouth on the other partner’s genitals.” Vaginal sex was defined as “when a man puts his penis in a woman’s vagina.” Participants who engaged in any of these behaviors were considered to have engaged in oral/vaginal sexual behavior. Participants who indicated that they were physically intimate with a partner, but did not engage in oral or vaginal sex, were considered to have engaged in kissing/touching only.

Condom use.

Participants who indicated that they engaged in vaginal sex with either casual or romantic partners answered the question, “When you have had vaginal sex with a casual [romantic] partner over the last month ([name of month]), how often have you used a condom?” Response options ranged from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“always”). We considered participants who reported always using condoms with their casual and romantic partners in the past month to have used condoms consistently. We considered participants who did not always use condoms with both romantic and casual partners to have used condoms inconsistently.

Affect.

Participants responded to items from the Positive and Negative Affect Scale- Short Form (PANAS; Thompson, 2007), reporting the extent to which they had experienced each of 10 emotions during the past month. Five items measured positive affect (e.g., “attentive”) and five items measured negative affect (e.g., “upset”). Response options ranged from 1 (“very slightly or not at all”) to 5 (“extremely”). The sum of the items of each subscale was used in analyses (Cronbach’s alpha = .77 - .86 across measurement occasions for positive affect; .76 - .86 for negative affect).

Binge drinking frequency.

We controlled for number of days that participants engaged in binge drinking each month. Participants responded to the open-ended question, “On how many days (0-[number of days in the month]) in the last month ([name of month]) have you had 4 or more drinks on one occasion?” Responses were capped at 13 days, which corresponded to the 75th percentile + 3*the interquartile range + 1. We controlled for binge drinking frequency because of its known associations with affect (Howard, Patrick, & Maggs, 2015) and sexual behavior, including casual sex and condomless sex (Brown & Vanable, 2007; Patrick & Maggs, 2009). In addition, there is evidence that alcohol use is associated with negative emotional outcomes of sexual behavior (Lewis et al., 2012; Wesche, Claxton, et al., 2017).

Analysis Strategy

We used multilevel models to examine within-person associations between sexual behavior and positive and negative affect. Model 1 measured the association between monthly sexual behavior and affect (Hypothesis 1). Model 2 measured how sexual behavior with casual and romantic partners was associated with affect (Hypothesis 2). Model 3 measured how physical intimacy with kissing/touching only and with oral/vaginal sex were associated with affect (Hypothesis 3). Model 4 measured how vaginal sex with consistent condom use and vaginal sex without consistent condom use were associated with affect (Hypothesis 4).

In all models, we controlled for race/ethnicity (whether the participant reported Hispanic, Black, or Asian heritage, coded as 0 = No, 1 = Yes, with participants who reported none of these identities as the reference group); monthly frequency of binge drinking; month of data collection, including both linear and quadratic trends centered on the first occasion of data collection (T1); and whether the measurement occasion was a summer month (June, July, or August). These control variables are each associated with affect and/or sexual behavior (Brondolo et al., 2008; Golder & Macy, 2011; Howard et al., 2015; Patrick & Maggs, 2009; Santelli, Lowry, Brener, & Robin, 2000). We specifically chose to code for summer months because affect may differ when students are in school, compared to summer months (Baum et al., 2014; Hanson & Lang, 2011). We also controlled for between-person effects of sexual behavior and binge drinking, which are averages of each variable across measurement occasions (e.g., proportion of months with sexual behavior). In Models 3 and 4, we controlled for within- and between-person effects of having a casual partner because this variable is associated with sexual behavior type and condom use (Kiene, Barta, Tennen, & Armeli, 2009; Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2014; Wesche, Lefkowitz et al., 2017). We centered between-person sexual behavior variables and binge drinking on the sample grand mean. We centered within-person binge drinking on the person-mean.

In unreported analyses for Model 3, we included an interaction term for sexual behavior with a casual partner*oral/vaginal sex to determine whether partner type moderated the association of oral/vaginal sex with affect. In Model 4, we included an interaction term for vaginal sex with a casual partner*consistent condom use to determine whether partner type moderated the association between vaginal without consistent condom use and affect. These interactions in Models 3 and 4 were not significant and were dropped from the final analyses.

Results

The majority of participants (84%) engaged in any sexual behavior during the study, and 62% engaged in vaginal sex. Table 1 presents the percent of months characterized by various partner types, sexual behavior types, and condom use, among all months with sexual behavior. Intraclass correlations, which indicate the extent to which an individual’s affect scores are correlated across time points, were r = .56 for positive affect and r = .51 for negative affect.

Table 1.

Percent of Months Characterized by Each Predictor, Among All Months when Sexual Behavior was Reported

Percent of months
Casual partners only 36%
Romantic partners only 56%
Both romantic and casual partners 9%
Kissing and/or touching only 75%
Oral and/or vaginal sex 25%
Consistent condom use (among months with vaginal sex) 57%
Open in a new tab

Sexual Behavior and Daily Affect

In Model 1, we examined the associations between engaging in any sexual behavior and positive and negative affect (Hypothesis 1). These results are summarized in Table 2. Positive affect did not differ in months with versus without any sexual behavior (estimate = 0.18, standard error = 0.12, p = .14). Participants reported more negative affect in months when they engaged in any sexual behavior compared to months when they did not engage in any sexual behavior (estimate = 0.38, standard error = 0.12, p < .01), contrary to Hypothesis 1.

Table 2.

Multilevel Model Results, Model 1: Association of Any Sexual Behavior with Affect

Positive Affect Negative Affect
Estimate Standard Error Estimate Standard Error
Level 1: Month
 Intercept 16.59*** 0.32 10.40*** 0.29
 Sexual behavior 0.18 0.12 0.38** 0.12
 Binge drinking frequency 0.03 0.02 <0.01 0.02
 Month −0.46*** 0.05 −0.32*** 0.05
 Month squared 0.04*** 0.01 0.03*** 0.01
 Summer −0.49* 0.22 −0.93*** 0.22
Level 2: Person
 Sexual behavior 0.22 0.48 0.65 0.43
 Binge drinking frequency −0.05 0.07 <−0.01 0.06
 Black/African American −0.48 0.49 0.52 0.44
 Hispanic −1.00 0.54 0.87 0.48
 Asian −1.88*** 0.49 −0.09 0.44
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001

Number of subjects: 477

Number of observations: 5,134

No statistically significant associations between sexual behavior and affect were found at the between-person level (positive affect: estimate = 0.22, standard error = 0.48, p = .64; negative affect: estimate = 0.65, standard error = 0.43, p = .13). In other words, individuals who engaged in any sexual behavior during more months of the year did not differ in positive or negative affect compared to individuals who engaged in any sexual behavior less frequently.

Differences by Partner Type

In Model 2, we separated the association of sexual behavior with affect into two terms. The terms compared months with no sexual behavior (the reference category) to months with sexual behavior with casual partners and months with sexual behavior with romantic partners, respectively. These results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

Multilevel Model Results, Model 2: Associations of Sexual Behavior with Casual and Romantic Partners with Affect

Positive Affect Negative Affect
Estimate Standard Error Estimate Standard Error
Level 1: Month
 Intercept 16.53*** 0.32 10.48*** 0.29
 Sexual behavior with casual partner −0.02 0.13 0.66*** 0.12
 Sexual behavior with romantic partner 0.12 0.13 0.20 0.13
 Binge drinking frequency 0.04 0.02 <−0.01 0.02
 Month −0.47*** 0.05 −0.31*** 0.05
 Month squared 0.04*** 0.01 0.03*** 0.01
 Summer −0.52* 0.22 −0.89*** 0.22
Level 2: Person
 Sexual behavior with casual partner 0.59 0.70 −0.23 0.63
 Sexual behavior with romantic partner 0.30 0.45 0.82* 0.41
 Binge drinking frequency −0.07 0.08 0.02 0.07
 Black/African American −0.51 0.49 0.53 0.44
 Hispanic −0.98 0.54 0.82 0.48
 Asian −1.86*** 0.49 −0.09 0.44
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001

Number of subjects: 477

Number of observations: 5,122

Positive affect: Difference = −0.14, Standard error of difference = 0.16, p = .39

Negative affect: Difference = 0.46, Standard error of difference = 0.16, p < .01

For positive affect, neither of the coefficients for sexual behavior with casual or romantic partners was statistically significant (casual partner: estimate = −0.02, standard error = 0.13, p = .87; romantic partner: estimate = 0.12, standard error = 0.13, p = .38). In order to determine whether the associations between sexual behavior and positive affect were significantly different based on partner type (Hypothesis 2), we compared these coefficients to each other using PROC MIXED. The coefficients for casual versus romantic partners did not differ significantly from each other (difference = −0.14, standard error = 0.16, p = .39). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

Compared to months without sexual behavior, participants reported more negative affect in months with sexual behavior with casual partners (estimate = 0.66, standard error = 0.12, p < .001). However, individuals’ negative affect did not differ in months with sexual behavior with committed romantic partners compared to months without sexual behavior (estimate = 0.20, standard error = 0.13, p = .13). In order to determine whether the associations between sexual behavior and negative affect were significantly different based on partner type (Hypothesis 2), we compared these coefficients to each other using PROC MIXED. The coefficients for casual versus romantic partners differed significantly from each other (difference = 0.46, standard error = 0.16, p < .01), indicating that association between sexual behavior with casual partners and negative affect was stronger than the association between sexual behavior with romantic partners and negative affect. Thus, although we found differences based on partner type, these differences were not consistent with Hypothesis 2.

No statistically significant associations between sexual behavior and positive affect were found at the between-person level (casual partner: estimate = 0.59, standard error = 0.70, p = .40; romantic partner: estimate = 0.30, standard error = 0.45, p = .51). For negative affect, there was no significant between-person association between sexual behavior with casual partners and negative affect (estimate = −0.23, standard error = 0.63, p = .72). However, individuals who engaged in sexual behavior with romantic partners during more months of the year reported more negative affect overall compared to individuals who engaged in sexual behavior with romantic partners less frequently (estimate = 0.82, standard error = 0.41, p = .04).

Differences by Behavior Type

In Model 3, we separated the association of sexual behavior with affect into two terms. The terms compared months with no sexual behavior (the reference category) to months with kissing/touching only and months with oral/vaginal sex, respectively. These results are summarized in Table 4. Compared to months without sexual behavior, individuals experienced more positive affect during months with kissing/touching only (estimate = 0.49, standard error = 0.18, p = .01). Compared to months without sexual behavior, positive affect did not differ in months with oral/vaginal sexual behavior (estimate = 0.19, standard error = 0.16, p = .23). In order to determine whether the associations between sexual behavior and positive affect were significantly different based on type of sexual behavior (Hypothesis 3), we compared these coefficients to each other using PROC MIXED. The difference in the coefficients for kissing/touching only versus oral/vaginal sexual behavior was not statistically significant (difference = −0.30, standard error = 0.16, p = .06). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Table 4.

Multilevel Model Results, Model 3: Associations of Kissing/Touching and Oral/Vaginal Sex with Affect

Positive Affect Negative Affect
Estimate Standard Error Estimate Standard Error
Level 1: Month
 Intercept 16.67*** 0.36 10.40*** 0.32
 Kissing/touching only 0.49** 0.18 −0.03 0.18
 Oral/vaginal sex 0.19 0.16 0.05 0.15
 Casual partner −0.27 0.15 0.61*** 0.15
 Binge drinking frequency 0.04 0.02 −0.01 0.02
 Month −0.47*** 0.05 −0.31*** 0.05
 Month squared 0.04*** 0.01 0.03*** 0.01
 Summer −0.54* 0.22 −0.92*** 0.22
Level 2: Person
 Kissing/touching only −0.55 1.05 0.58 0.95
 Oral/vaginal sex 0.18 0.50 1.05* 0.46
 Casual partner 0.42 0.76 −0.23 0.68
 Binge drinking frequency −0.07 0.08 0.01 0.07
 Black/African American −0.53 0.50 0.51 0.45
 Hispanic −1.02 0.54 0.82 0.49
 Asian −1.87*** 0.49 −0.09 0.44
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001

Number of subjects: 477

Number of observations: 5,116

Positive affect: Difference = −0.30, Standard error of difference = 0.16, p = .06

Negative affect: Difference = 0.08, Standard error of difference = 0.16, p = .60

Compared to months without sexual behavior, negative affect did not differ either in months with kissing/touching only or in months with oral/vaginal sex (kissing/touching only: estimate = −0.03, standard error = 0.18, p = .85; oral/vaginal sex: estimate = 0.05, standard error = 0.15, p = .75). There was no significant difference in the coefficients for kissing/touching only versus oral/vaginal sexual behavior (difference = 0.08, standard error = 0.16, p = .60). Thus, contrary to Hypothesis 3, kissing/touching only was not associated with smaller changes in negative affect compared to oral/vaginal sex.

No statistically significant associations between sexual behavior and positive affect were found at the between-person level (kissing/touching only: estimate = −0.55, standard error = 1.05, p = .60; oral/vaginal sex: estimate = 0.18, standard error = 0.50, p = .72). For negative affect, there were no between-person effects of kissing/touching only on negative affect (estimate = 0.58, standard error = 0.95, p = .54). However, individuals who had oral/vaginal sex during more months reported more negative affect (estimate = 1.05, standard error = 0.46, p = .02) compared to individuals who engaged in oral/vaginal sex less frequently.

Differences by Consistent Condom Use

In Model 4, we focused on the association of vaginal sex with affect. We included two terms, which compared months with no vaginal sex (the reference category) to months with vaginal sex with consistent condom use and months with vaginal sex without consistent condom use, respectively. These results are summarized in Table 5. For both positive affect and negative affect, neither the coefficient for vaginal sex with consistent condom use (positive affect: estimate = 0.10, standard error = 0.17, p = .55; negative affect: estimate = −0.20, standard error = 0.17, p = .23) or vaginal sex without consistent condom use (positive affect: estimate = −0.04, standard error = 0.18, p = .84; negative affect: estimate = −0.06, standard error = 0.18, p = .72) was statistically significant. Compared to months without vaginal sex, affect did not differ in months with vaginal sex with either consistent or inconsistent condom use. In order to determine whether vaginal sex without consistent condom use was associated with smaller changes in affect compared to vaginal sex with consistent condom use (Hypothesis 4), we compared these coefficients to each other using PROC MIXED. There was no significant difference in the coefficients for sexual behavior with versus without consistent condom use for either positive affect (difference = −0.14, standard error = 0.19, p = .45) or negative affect (difference = 0.14, standard error = 0.18, p = .44). Thus, contrary to Hypothesis 4, vaginal sex without consistent condom use was not associated with different variations in affect compared to vaginal sex with consistent condom use.

Table 5.

Multilevel Model Results, Model 4: Associations of Vaginal Sex with Consistent Condom Use and Vaginal Sex without Consistent Condom Use with Affect

Positive Affect Negative Affect
Estimate Standard Error Estimate Standard Error
Level 1: Month
Intercept 16.82*** 0.19 11.03*** 0.17
 Vaginal sex with consistent condom use 0.10 0.17 −0.20 0.17
 Vaginal sex without consistent condom use −0.04 0.18 −0.06 0.18
 Casual partner −0.26 0.20 0.23 0.19
 Binge drinking frequency 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02
 Month −0.47*** 0.05 −0.33*** 0.05
 Month squared 0.04*** 0.04 0.03*** 0.01
 Summer −0.54*** 0.22 −0.99*** 0.22
Level 2: Person
 Vaginal sex with consistent condom use 1.34 0.73 0.92 0.66
 Vaginal sex without consistent condom use −0.34 0.55 1.00* 0.50
 Casual partner 0.99 0.98 0.03 0.89
 Binge drinking frequency −0.07 0.07 0.01 0.07
 Black/African American −0.50 0.49 0.44 0.45
 Hispanic −1.01 0.53 0.81 0.49
 Asian −1.86*** 0.48 −0.15 0.44
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05,

***

p < .001.

Number of subjects: 477

Number of observations: 5,115

Positive affect: Difference = −0.14, Standard error of difference = 0.19, p = .45

Negative affect: Difference = 0.14, Standard error of difference = 0.18, p = .44

No statistically significant associations between vaginal sex and positive affect were found at the between-person level (vaginal sex with consistent condom use: estimate = 1.34, standard error = 0.73, p = .06; vaginal sex without consistent condom use: estimate = −0.34, standard error = 0.55, p = .31). For negative affect, individuals who engaged in vaginal sex without consistent condom use during more months of the year had more negative affect overall compared to individuals who engaged in vaginal sex without consistent condom use less frequently (estimate = 1.00, standard error = 0.50, p = .04).

Discussion

In contrast with the majority of past research on sexual behavior and affect, the young women in this sample experienced more negative affect in months they engaged in sexual behavior compared to months they did not. This association was limited to months with sexual behavior with casual partners. Participants experienced more positive affect during months with kissing/touching only as compared to months without sexual behavior. We did not find that condom use moderated the association between vaginal sex and positive or negative affect. These findings advance understanding of how contextual factors influence associations between sexual behavior and emotional well-being.

Casual and Romantic Partners

These findings add to a growing body of research on casual sex and emotional health. Women reported more negative affect in months with casual sexual partners compared to months without sexual behavior. This finding is consistent with other research demonstrating that sexual behavior with casual partners is associated with decreases in emotional health compared to no sexual behavior (Furman & Collibee, 2014; Sandberg-Thoma & Kamp Dush, 2014). In addition, the association between sexual behavior with casual partners and negative affect was stronger than this association for sexual behavior with romantic partners. These divergent associations corroborate prior research, which demonstrated that casual partners are associated with worse affect compared to romantic partners (Vasilenko & Lefkowitz, 2018).

Although past research and the present findings indicate that individuals report more negative affect at times they have casual partners, research also indicates that young adults feel positively about their casual sexual experiences (Owen & Fincham, 2011; Wesche, Claxton, et al., 2017). Integrating these findings suggests that sexual behavior with casual partners may be associated with both positive and negative outcomes. Although young adults may evaluate their casual sexual encounters positively, they may still feel worse overall during months they have casual sex. Our finding may also indicate that women are more likely to seek out casual partners during months when they have more negative affect. In this case, additional research is needed to determine whether positive evaluations of casual sexual encounters correspond to improved affect. In addition, past research suggests that women have worse emotional reactions to casual sex than men (Fisher et al., 2012; Kennair et al., 2016; Lewis et al., 2012). The present research also suggests that casual sex can be an emotionally negative experience for women; future research should continue to assess whether gender predicts emotional outcomes of casual sex.

Relationship and sexual educators interested in reducing negative outcomes of sexual experiences may consider teaching young women that casual partners are associated with increased negative affect; this knowledge may influence young women’s decisions to engage in casual sexual experiences. However, additional longitudinal research is needed before determining whether recommendations about casual sex are warranted. The direction of the association between casual sex and affect cannot be determined from these data. Past research indicates that there are pre-existing differences in emotional health between people who do and do not have casual sex (Dubé et al., 2017; Fielder & Carey, 2010a; Fielder et al., 2013; Sandberg-Thoma et al., 2014). Furthermore, young adults may use sexual behavior with casual partners to cope with negative feelings (Owen et al., 2011). Additional research is warranted to address the direction of the association between casual sex and affect.

In addition, our sample was limited to first-year college women; as these young women gain experience with casual sex during college, associations between sexual behavior and negative affect may weaken. If casual sex leads to with negative affect throughout college, engaging in sexual behaviors with casual partners may decline over time without intervention. According to a feed-forward model of behavior, negative affect following sexual behavior with casual partners may lead to negative expectations of future casual sexual encounters (Dawson, Shih, de Moor, & Shrier, 2008; Lee, Maggs, Neighbors, & Patrick, 2011). Therefore, after experiencing negative affect following casual sex, young women may avoid future casual sex. Additional longitudinal research is needed to determine whether this is the case.

Another unexpected finding was that affect did not differ during months when participants engaged in sexual behavior with romantic partners compared to months they did not engage in sexual behavior. This finding contrasts with past research finding that being in a romantic relationship is associated with fewer depressive symptoms compared to being single (Braithwaite, Delevi, & Fincham 2010; Whitton, Weitbrecht, Kuryluk, & Bruner, 2013). One explanation for these seemingly contradictory findings is that the benefits of romantic relationships lie outside of sexual behavior. It may be that the emotional intimacy or companionship associated with romantic relationships, which is often lacking in casual relationships (Fahs & Munger, 2015; Lovejoy, 2015), is primarily responsible for associated improvements in mood. Another explanation for this finding is that our monthly measurement strategy did not allow us to capture associations between sex with a romantic partner and affect at the hourly, daily, or weekly levels. For example, affect may improve when an individual has sex with a romantic partner, but return to baseline within hours after a sexual encounter (Shrier, Koren, Aneja, & de Moore, 2010). Therefore, we cannot definitively say that sex with a romantic partner is not associated with affect simply because our findings at the monthly level were not statistically significant. Additional research with more frequent measurement of affect is needed to determine how short-term variation in affect differs for sexual encounters with romantic versus nonromantic partners, and whether fading associations between sex and affect account for our null findings at the monthly level.

Kissing and Touching

Kissing and touching offer emotional and physical intimacy without the risk of unintended pregnancy and with relatively low risks of sexually transmitted infections (Thompson, Anisimowicz, & Kulibert, 2017). The reward-to-risk ratio of kissing and touching may explain our finding that women reported more positive affect during months when they engaged in only kissing and touching compared to months when they engaged in no sexual behaviors. Oral and vaginal sex were not associated with affect. By engaging only in kissing and touching, the emotional benefits of sexual behavior are unmitigated by worries of negative physical consequences (e.g., unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections). Confidence in this interpretation should be tempered, however, because the difference in the associations of kissing/touching only and oral/vaginal sex with affect were not statistically significant. Furthermore, at least one past study using a mixed-gender sample found that engaging in only kissing was associated with fewer positive and negative emotional consequences of sexual behavior compared to engaging in oral and/or vaginal sex (Wesche, Lefkowitz, et al., 2017). Additional research is needed to clarify these discrepant findings. One possible explanation is that the monthly time scale of measurement in the present study masked short-term variation in affect, instead of a true null association between oral/penetrative sex and affect.

The finding that kissing and touching, but not oral and penetrative sex, were associated with more positive affect than not engaging in sexual behaviors suggests prevention possibilities. Although sexual motives are complex and multidimensional, many young adults are motivated to use sexual behavior to cope with negative emotions or to feel good about themselves (Cooper, Shapiro, & Powers, 1998; Patrick, Maggs, Cooper, & Lee, 2010). If kissing and touching lead to positive affect, teaching young adults that kissing and touching offer equal or greater affective benefits as other behaviors may encourage these individuals to prioritize kissing and touching over penetrative sexual behaviors. Sexual educators may consider informing participants that the goal of feeling good can be achieved as easily by kissing and/or touching as by engaging in more physically risky sexual behaviors.

Condom Use

Compared to months without vaginal sex, affect did not differ in months with vaginal sex with either consistent or inconsistent condom use. This finding adds to existing evidence that condom use is not associated with affect (Miller et al., 2012). Inconsistent condom use may be associated with both negative outcomes, such as worry about pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, and positive outcomes, such as greater sense of intimacy and physical pleasure. Thus, the contrasting consequences may balance each other, leading to no association between consistent condom use and affect. Future research should consider more specific emotional consequences of condom use.

Another explanation for our results is that associations between condom use and affect are driven primarily by stable, between-person differences. At the person level, we found that women who reported inconsistent condom use during more months reported more negative affect. These findings mirror past research, which has found between-person (Miller et al., 2012), but not within-person (Schroder et al., 2009), associations between condom use and negative affect. Therefore, certain women who are predisposed to have higher levels of negative affect may also be predisposed to avoid using condoms. Additional research is needed to identify which mechanisms may mediate this between-person association.

Limitations and Future Directions

The results of the present research must be interpreted in light of its limitations, which suggest directions for future research. Our sample was composed entirely of female first-year college students. Moderators of the association between sexual behavior and affect may differ for men or in other young adult populations. In addition, only one-quarter of first-year students enrolled in the study. These women may differ from women who did not enroll in ways (e.g., better mental health) that limit the generalizability of our findings. In the future, researchers may seek out samples from other populations, including men, non-college-attending young adults, and clinical populations, in order to increase the generalizability of findings on sexual behavior and affect.

Our measurement strategies also limited the results of this manuscript. Our measure of sexual behavior was not comprehensive; in particular, it excluded anal sex and toy play. Although anal sex is relatively rare (Lindberg, Jones, & Santelli, 2008; McBride & Fortenberry, 2010), and little is known about the prevalence of toy play among college students, it is possible that we miscategorized a small proportion of events as kissing/touching only when they may have included penetrative behaviors. The monthly assessment of sexual behavior and affect in the present research is both a strength and a limitation. Monthly data enable measuring within-person associations between sexual behavior and affect, and eliminate between-person differences that may confound results. However, it is possible that unmeasured time-varying associations explain our findings. For example, months with sexual behavior may also be characterized by more leisure time, which could potentially account for the sexual behavior-affect link. The possibility of reverse causality also exists; we cannot determine whether people may have chosen to engage in sexual behavior in certain months because their mood was better. For these reasons, we cannot make causal statements about the nature of the associations between sexual behavior and affect.

Further, the monthly time scale of measurement in the present study limits the conclusions we can draw about short-term and long-term outcomes. For example, day-to-day or moment-to-moment variation in affect following sexual behavior may differ from monthly variation; past research has found that at the daily level, sexual behavior is associated with improvements in affect, in contrast with our findings (Burleson et al., 2007; Fortenberry et al., 2005; Shrier et al., 2007; Vasilenko & Lefkowitz, 2018). It is also unclear how daily or momentary outcomes affected our results; for example, a participant may have engaged in sexual behavior with a partner the day of taking a survey or weeks prior to taking a survey. Additional research that disaggregates momentary, daily, and monthly associations between sexual behavior and affect would clarify conflicting results of multiple studies.

The present research does not address how the association between sexual behavior and affect may influence long-term behavioral and emotional outcomes. For example, if sexual behavior improves affect, this improvement may influence expectancies, which influence future behavior (Lee et al., 2011). In addition, short-term emotional outcomes of sexual behavior may affect long-term outcomes such as depression (Strokoff, Owen, & Fincham, 2015). Research measuring outcomes of sexual behavior over longer intervals is necessary to understand how sexual experiences shape short-term and long-term behavior and emotional health.

Additional longitudinal research can also determine how associations between sexual behavior with casual partners and emotional outcomes change over time. The present research focused on the first year of college. Negative emotional outcomes of casual sex may become less intense as individuals gain experience with casual sex over time. A contrasting possibility is that sexual behavior with casual partners may become less emotionally satisfying as individuals move closer to the median age at first marriage (Copen, Daniels, Vespa, & Mosher, 2012). Simultaneously, sex with romantic partners may become more emotionally satisfying as relationships become more serious, committed, and longer-lasting (Meier & Allen, 2009; Seiffge-Krenke, 2003; Shulman & Connolly, 2013).

Future research might explore why, and under what circumstances, sexual behavior is linked to emotional and physical health outcomes. For example, is the association between sexual behavior and affect mediated by sexual pleasure, emotional connection, or other variables? Additional research is also needed to understand what relationship processes contribute to negative emotional outcomes of sexual behavior with casual partners. We found that casual sex was more strongly associated with negative affect than sexual behavior with romantic partners. However, we cannot determine what aspects of casual versus romantic relationships account for this difference. For example, characteristics of sexual experiences may differ between casual and romantic sexual relationships. Communication about sexual behaviors may improve the quality of sexual experiences (Mark & Jozkowski, 2013), thereby improving affective outcomes of sexual behavior. Communication tends to be suboptimal in casual sexual partnerships (Bisson & Levine, 2009; Knight, 2004) and may mediate associations between sexual behavior with casual partners and negative affect. However, it is also possible that our findings are an artifact of relationship status—i.e., other characteristics of casual versus romantic relationships, apart from sexual experiences, explain our findings. For example, the emotional intimacy that characterizes romantic relationships may account for differential associations between casual sex versus sex with romantic partners and affect.

Conclusion

The present research offers evidence that some of the contexts of sexual behavior moderate its associations with positive and negative affect. In particular, sexual behavior in young women was associated with improvements in affect when it involved only kissing and/or touching, but not oral and/or vaginal sex. Sexual behavior was associated with worse affect when it occurred with a casual partner. Incorporating these findings into sex and relationship education programs may improve the emotional outcomes of young women’s sexual behavior.

Acknowledgment:

The authors thank Annelise Sullivan for her assistance with data collection.

This work was supported by grants R21 AA018257, T32 MH019985, P30 MH052776, and K01 MH099956

References

  1. Baum KT, Desai A, Field J, Miller LE, Rausch J, & Beebe DW (2014). Sleep restriction worsens mood and emotion regulation in adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 180–190. 10.1111/jcpp.12125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bendixen M, Asao K, Wyckoff JP, Buss DM, & Kennair LEO (2017). Sexual regret in US and Norway: Effects of culture and individual differences in religiosity and mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 246–251. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.054 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bersamin MM, Zamboanga BL, Schwartz SJ, Donnellan MB, Hudson M, Weisskirch RS, … & Caraway SJ (2014). Risky business: Is there an association between casual sex and mental health among emerging adults? Journal of Sex Research, 51, 43–51. 10.1080/00224499.2013.772088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bisson MA, & Levine TR (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73. 10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Braithwaite SR, Delevi R, & Fincham FD (2010). Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Personal Relationships, 17, 1–12. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01248.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brondolo E, Brady N, Thompson S, Tobin JN, Cassells A, Sweeney M, … & Contrada RJ (2008). Perceived racism and negative affect: Analyses of trait and state measures of affect in a community sample. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27, 150–173. 10.1521/jscp.2008.27.2.150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown JL, & Vanable PA (2007). Alcohol use, partner type, and risky sexual behavior among college students: Findings from an event-level study. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2940–2952. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Burleson MH, Trevathan WR, & Todd M (2007). In the mood for love or vice versa? Exploring the relations among sexual activity, physical affection, affect, and stress in the daily lives of mid-aged women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 357–368. 10.1007/s10508-006-9071-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carrotte ER, Vella AM, Hellard ME, & Lim MS (2016). Mental health and associated sexual health behaviours in a sample of young people attending a music festival in Melbourne, Victoria. Community Mental Health Journal, 52, 1082–1088. 10.1007/s10597-015-9981-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carter CS (1992). Oxytocin and sexual behavior. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 16, 131–144. 10.1016/S0149-7634(05)80176-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). STDs in adolescents and young adults. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats16/adolescents.htm
  12. Claxton SE, & van Dulmen MH (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 138–150. 10.1177/2167696813487181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cooper ML, Shapiro CM, & Powers AM (1998). Motivations for sex and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: A functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1528–1558. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1528 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Copen CE, Daniels K, Vespa J, & Mosher WD (2012). First marriages in the United States: Data from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 49, 1–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dalton AL, & Galambos NL (2009). Affect and sexual behavior in the transition to university. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 675–687. 10.1007/s10508-008-9401-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dawson LH, Shih MC, de Moor C, & Shrier L (2008). Reasons why adolescents and young adults have sex: Associations with psychological characteristics and sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 225–232. 10.1080/00224490801987457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dubé S, Lavoie F, Blais M, & Hébert M (2017). Psychological well-being as a predictor of casual sex relationships and experiences among adolescents: A short-term prospective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1807–1818. 10.1007/s10508-016-0914-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fahs B, & Munger A (2015). Friends with benefits? Gendered performances in women’s casual sexual relationships. Personal Relationships, 22, 188–203. 10.1111/pere.12073 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fielder RL, & Carey MP (2010). Predictors and consequences of sexual “hookups” among college students: A short-term prospective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1105–1119. 10.1007/s10508-008-9448-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fielder RL, Walsh JL, Carey KB, & Carey MP (2013). Predictors of sexual hookups: A theory-based, prospective study of first-year college women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1425–1441. 10.1007/s10508-013-0106-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fielder RL, Walsh JL, Carey KB, & Carey MP (2014). Sexual hookups and adverse health outcomes: A longitudinal study of first-year college women. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 131–144. 10.1080/00224499.2013.848255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Finer LB, & Zolna MR (2016). Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011, New England Journal of Medicine, 374, 843–852. 10.1056/NEJMsa1506575 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fortenberry JD, Temkit MH, Tu W, Graham CA, Katz BP, & Orr DP (2005). Daily mood, partner support, sexual interest, and sexual activity among adolescent women. Health Psychology, 24, 252–257. 10.1037/0278-6133.24.3.252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Furman W, & Collibee C (2014). Sexual activity with romantic and nonromantic partners and psychosocial adjustment in young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1327–1341. 10.1007/s10508-014-0293-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Golder SA, & Macy MW (2011). Diurnal and seasonal mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength across diverse cultures. Science, 333, 1878–1881. 10.1126/science.1202775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Halpern CT (2010). Reframing research on adolescent sexuality: Healthy sexual development as part of the life course. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 42, 6–7. 10.1363/4200610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hansen B, & Lang M (2011). Back to school blues: Seasonality of youth suicide and the academic calendar. Economics of Education Review, 30, 850–861. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.04.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Harden KP (2014). A sex-positive framework for research on adolescent sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 455–469. 10.1177/1745691614535934 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Heiman JR, Long JS, Smith SN, Fisher WA, Sand MS, & Rosen RC (2011). Sexual satisfaction and relationship happiness in midlife and older couples in five countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 741–753. 10.1007/s10508-010-9703-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Howard AL, Patrick ME, & Maggs JL (2015). College student affect and heavy drinking: Variable associations across days, semesters, and people. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29, 430–443. 10.1037/adb0000023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kennair LEO, Bendixen M, & Buss DM (2016). Sexual regret: Tests of competing explanations of sex differences. Evolutionary Psychology, 14, 1–9. 10.1177/1474704916682903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kiene SM, Barta WD, Tennen H, & Armeli S (2009). Alcohol, helping young adults to have unprotected sex with casual partners: findings from a daily diary study of alcohol use and sexual behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 73–80. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.05.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Knight K (2014). Communicative dilemmas in emerging adults’ friends with benefits relationships challenges to relational talk. Emerging Adulthood, 2, 270–279. 10.1177/2167696814549598 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kreager DA, Staff J, Gauthier R, Lefkowitz ES, & Feinberg ME (2016). The double standard at sexual debut: Gender, sexual behavior and adolescent peer acceptance. Sex Roles, 75, 377–392. 10.1007/s11199-016-0618-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Krüger TH, Hartmann U, & Schedlowski M (2005). Prolactinergic and dopaminergic mechanisms underlying sexual arousal and orgasm in humans. World Journal of Urology, 23, 130–138. 10.1007/s00345-004-0496-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee CM, Maggs JL, Neighbors C, & Patrick ME (2011). Positive and negative alcohol-related consequences: Associations with past drinking. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 87–94. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.01.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lehmiller JJ, VanderDrift LE, & Kelly JR (2014). Sexual communication, satisfaction, and condom use behavior in friends with benefits and romantic partners. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 74–85. 10.1080/00224499.2012.719167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lewis MA, Granato H, Blayney JA, Lostutter TW, & Kilmer JR (2012). Predictors of hooking up sexual behaviors and emotional reactions among US college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1219–1229. 10.1007/s10508-011-9817-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lindberg LD, Jones R, & Santelli JS (2008). Noncoital sexual activities among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 231–238. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.12.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lovejoy MC (2015). Hooking up as an individualistic practice: A double-edged sword for college women. Sexuality & Culture, 19, 464–492. 10.1007/s12119-015-9270-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Mark KP, & Jozkowski KN (2013). The mediating role of sexual and nonsexual communication between relationship and sexual satisfaction in a sample of college-age heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 39, 410–427. 10.1080/0092623X.2011.644652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. McBride KR, & Fortenberry JD (2010). Heterosexual anal sexuality and anal sex behaviors: A review. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 123–136. 10.1080/00224490903402538 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Meier A, & Allen G (2009). Romantic relationships from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 308–335. 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01142.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Meston CM, & Buss DM (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507. 10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Meston CM, Levin RJ, Sipski ML, Hull EM, & Heiman JR (2004). Women’s orgasm. Annual Review of Sex Research, 15, 173–257. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Miller DJ, Vachon DD, & Aalsma MC (2012). Negative affect and emotion dysregulation: Conditional relations with violence and risky sexual behavior in a sample of justice-involved adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1316–1327. 10.1177/0093854812448784 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Owen J, & Fincham FD (2011). Young adults’ emotional reactions after hooking up encounters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 321–330. 10.1007/s10508-010-9652-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Patrick ME, & Maggs JL (2009). Does drinking lead to sex? Daily alcohol–sex behaviors and expectancies among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23, 472–481. 10.1037/a0016097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Patrick ME, Maggs JL, Cooper ML, & Lee CM (2011). Measurement of motivations for and against sexual behavior. Assessment, 18, 502–516. 10.1177/1073191110372298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sandberg-Thoma SE, & Kamp Dush CM (2014). Casual sexual relationships and mental health in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 121–130. 10.1080/00224499.2013.821440 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Santelli JS, Lowry R, Brener ND, & Robin L (2000). The association of sexual behaviors with socioeconomic status, family structure, and race/ethnicity among US adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1582–1588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Schick V, Herbenick D, Reece M, Sanders SA, Dodge B, Middlestadt SE, & Fortenberry JD (2010). Sexual behaviors, condom use, and sexual health of Americans over 50: Implications for sexual health promotion for older adults. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 315–329. 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02013.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Schroder KEE, Johnson CJ, & Wiebe JS (2009). An event-level analysis of condom use as a function of mood, alcohol use, and safer sex negotiations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 283–289. 10.1007/s10508-007-9278-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Shrier LA, Koren S, Aneja P, & de Moor C (2010). Affect regulation, social context, and sexual intercourse in adolescents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 695–705. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9394-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Shrier LA, Shih MC, Hacker L, & de Moor C (2007). A momentary sampling study of the affective experience following coital events in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, e1–e8. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Shulman S, & Connolly J (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 27–39. 10.1177/2167696812467330 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Seiffge-Krenke I (2003). Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence of a developmental sequence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 519–531. 10.1080/01650250344000145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Snapp S, Ryu E, & Kerr J (2015). The upside to hooking up: College students’ positive hookup experiences. International Journal of Sexual Health, 27, 43–56. 10.1080/19317611.2014.939247 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Strokoff J, Owen J, & Fincham FD (2015). Diverse reactions to hooking up among US university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 935–943. 10.1007/s10508-014-0299-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Tolman DL, & McClelland SI (2011). Normative sexuality development in adolescence: A decade in review, 2000–2009. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 242–255. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00726.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Thompson ER (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 227–242. 10.1177/0022022106297301 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Thompson AE, Anisimowicz Y, & Kulibert D (2017). A kiss is worth a thousand words: The development and validation of a scale measuring motives for romantic kissing. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. Advance online publication. 10.1080/14681994.2017.1386299 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Vasilenko SA, & Lefkowitz ES (2018). Sexual behavior and daily affect in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood. Advance online publication. 10.1177/2167696818767503 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Vasilenko SA, Lefkowitz ES, & Maggs JL (2012). Short-term positive and negative consequences of sex based on daily reports among college students. Journal of Sex Research, 37–41. 10.1080/00224499.2011.589101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Vrangalova Z (2015). Hooking up and psychological well-being in college students: Short-term prospective links across different hookup definitions. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 485–498. 10.1080/00224499.2014.910745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Wesche R, Claxton SE, Lefkowitz ES, & van Dulmen MHM (2017). Evaluations and future plans after casual sexual experiences: Differences across partner type. Journal of Sex Research. Advance online publication. 10.1080/00224499.2017.1298714 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Wesche R, Lefkowitz ES, & Vasilenko SA (2017). Latent classes of sexual behaviors: Prevalence, predictors, and consequences. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14, 100–111. 10.1007/s13178-016-0228-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Whitton SW, Weitbrecht EM, Kuryluk AD, & Bruner MR (2013). Committed dating relationships and mental health among college students. Journal of American College Health, 61, 176–183. 10.1080/07448481.2013.773 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES