Running

head: SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP

Self-Authoring the Hook Up Nicole Ponticorvo Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP For many students, college is a time where issues of identity, sexuality and intimacy are explored at great lengths. One means of this exploration involves the hook up culture, which

pervades todays college campuses nationwide. Although hooking up does not have a precise meaning [since] it can mean kissing, sexual intercourse, or any form of sexual interaction generally seen as falling in between those two extremes (Bogle, 2008, p. 27), this paper will operate from the following definition of the hook up as any one-time or regular physical interaction between two individuals, who may or may not previously know each other, that occurs outside of any monogamous relationship. According to Bogle (2008), a series of changes in the culture, as well as in the environment of the college campus, created the possibility for a new sexual script to emerge (p. 8)the hook up script. Since both men and women engage in the college hook up culture, the emergence of the hook up script (Bogle, 2008) underlies many students expressions of intimacy and sexual development in college. In order to further examine the hook up script, the question as to what are the meaning making processes behind typical hook up behavior must be addressed. In other words, why are college students opting in or out of the hook up culture? Furthermore, how does a students developmental phase toward selfauthorship affect his or her decision to engage in or resist the hook up culture? Given that the motivation to engage in the hook up culture may change over time due to ones developmental journey, Marcia Baxter Magoldas theory of self-authorship (2001) is employed in this paper in order to decipher the developmental experiences of college students through the lens of intimacy exploration and the hook up. Using the theory of self-authorship, the meaning making processes behind the intimate behaviors of college students are explored based on Baxter Magoldas phases: Following Formulas, Crossroads, Becoming the Author of Ones Life and Internal Foundation, as well as along the epistemological, intrapersonal and

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP interpersonal dimensions (2001). Exploring the self-authorship developmental process for college students in relation to the hook up culture can help student affairs professionals better understand the reasons why college students may or may not follow the hook up script and, consequently, aid students along their developmental journeys toward finding their own voices. While much of the literature surrounding the hook up culture focuses on defining the

hook up culture and exploring its physical and psychological consequences, I believe it is equally important to consider the meaning behind hooking up as students move along on their journeys toward self-authorship. As students travel through each self-authorship phase, they use different meaning making structures to reconcile their sexual behaviors and choices. For instance, I hypothesize that college student in the following formulas phase would be much more likely to engage in the hook up culture, whereas a college graduate moving from crossroads to becoming author of ones life would probably be more likely to date or commit to monogamous relationship. On each of the epistemological, intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions, college students utilize drastically different meaning making structures that guide their intimate, sexual behaviors based upon their phase of self-authorship. In order to demystify the normative hook up culture, it is important to look directly to the meaning that guides college students intimate behaviors. In the following narrative, I examine current literature surrounding the college hook up culture, extrapolate Baxter Magoldas theory of self-authorship (2001) through the lens of the hook up, propose a research plan designed to investigate the developmental process of college students through the lens of the hook up culture and, finally, suggest potential implications for student affairs professionals.

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP Literature Review

As cited in Kahn et al. (2000) and Paul et al. (2000), [r]esearchers have found that up to three-quarters or more of undergraduate students report having engaged in a hook-up (Arnold, 2010, p. 1). Given the hook ups prevalence in American college culture, almost every piece of literature attempts to define the hook up and hook up culture. A hook up can describe anything including a one-time sexual encounter, acquaintances that meet regularly for sex and friends whose relationship is solely sexual, as cited in Paul (2006) and Paik (2010) (Kalish & Kimmel, 2011, p. 141). According to some researchers, [p]art of what makes the hook-up culture so difficult to define and describe is the simple fact that young men and women experience it in very different ways. . . playing the same game. . . by a different set of rules (Kalish & Kimmel, 2011, p. 141). By nature of varying definitions, literature surrounding the hook up culture proves inconsistent and overly broad. For instance, a great deal of the literature focuses on the alcohol as fuel for the hook up culture or the physical, physiological and emotional effects of hooking up, specifically on women. While the following literature does not discount such valuable research, it conversely focuses on four common themes from hook up culture research: negotiating a new identity within the pre-existing hook up culture, conforming to peer group norms, freedom/moratorium in college, the double standard and, finally, transition to relationships. Identity within the Pre-existing Hook Up Culture When students enter college, they are met with a myriad of new freedoms to which they were not typically accustomed in high school. With these new freedoms come challenges, particularly with regards to negotiating their new identities within the pre-existing framework of the hook up culture. Coined by Arnold (2010) as emerging adulthood, the period between ages 18 and 28 is often characterized by feeling in between childhood dependence on parents and

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP

adult self-reliance (p. 5). As a result of this in between period of confusion, undergraduates are preoccupied with issues of identity and intimacy (Arnold, 2010, p. 2). As women engage is riskier sexual behaviors, they struggle to effectively integrate [their] new identity with the existing hooking-up culture on college campuses (Kooyman, Pierce & Zavadil, 2011, p. 5). In addition to complicating identity development, the hook up culture also challenges [college womens] need for intimacy and relationship (Kooyman, Pierce & Zavadil, 2011, p. 9). Along with general identity development, sexual identity development is another important aspect of self-definition that is often explored during the college years (Arnold, 2010). [T]he superficial and alcohol-fueled hook-up culture is a poor match for the conscious reflection and consideration of alternatives that characterize the deepening of self-knowledge and the commitment to an explored self-definition that is required to achieve sexual identity synthesis (Arnold, 2010, p. 4). According to the current literature, the hook up culture seems to work against identity development in college. Since much of the literature focuses solely on female college students, the male experience is often omitted from research. Conforming to Peer Group Norms An overarching concept found throughout virtually all research regarding the hook up culture is the notion of peer group norms. Since [p]eer acceptance and approval continues to be a driving force in relation to sexual behavior in college (Stinson, 2010, p. 103), college students will often engage in casual sexual encounters in order to gain this acceptance from their peer group. Furthermore, as cited in Lambert et al. (2003), a college student may think he or she is the only one who has reservations about the hook up culture, so instead of following their personal convictions, he or she conforms instead (Stinson, 2010, p. 103). Prevailing norms even challenge personal agency and free will. Despite personal disagreement with the hook up script,

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP one may hook up or go along with the norm of the group because of a desire to fit in despite

[ones] own discomfort with or disapproval of the action (Kooyman, Pierce & Zavadil, 2011, p. 7). The practice of conforming merely perpetuates the hook up culture. Even [s]tudents who feel uncomfortable about the sexualized college peer culture, for example, tend to keep their reservations private because they wish to avoid judging others or because they are themselves conflicted about the hook-up scene (Arnold, 2010, p. 5). With identities tied to the normative peer group, these students are unlikely to resist the perceived group culture or to see alternative routes to status and belonging (Arnold, 2010, p. 3). Since the hook up culture is the dominant forum for socializing and expressing sexuality (Arnold, 2010, p. 7) at todays colleges and universities and [m]ost undergraduates lack the mature competence and cognitive complexity to analyze and withstand normative peer behavior (p. 8), it is a difficult structure to challenge. Freedom/Moratorium in College With the dramatic increase of freedom and perceived sense of independence, the hook up culture can flourish virtually unchecked. Erik Erikson (1986) clearly encapsulates this notion with the term psychological moratorium, which is a period of role suspension removed from the demands of parents and highly supervised activities while not yet restricted by the responsibilities of earning a living or maintaining ones own family (Arnold, 2010, p. 2). Arnold (2010) reframes this moratorium to encompass the ages from 18 to 28, calling it [e]merging adulthood. . .in which young people postpone adult commitments such as career, marriage/committed long-term partnership, parenting and financial independence (p. 4). Without the demands of true adulthood, many college students can easily avoid commitments in their sexual lives. College students living on campus simply have more freedom to be sexually

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP active than most enjoyed in high school (Gilmartin, 2006, p. 429); therefore, the hook up culture persists. The Double Standard Though seemingly simple, the hook up culture is quite complex in nature. Despite the pursuit of sexual gratification for both parties, the current literature presents the double standard with regards to the sexes. Hooking up enhances his reputation whereas it can damage hers

(Kalish & Kimmel, 2011, p. 142). Beyond the traditional double standard, the hook up culture is complex as it relates to men and women. As cited in Gilmartin (2006) and Bogle (2008), [s]everal researchers who have interviewed college students found women stuck between being expected to hook up and meet the sexual desires of college men but also remain respectable at the same time (Stinson, 2010, p. 109). Trying to fulfill dual rolls, young women must constantly negotiate who they are and what they stand for, sexually and otherwise, in relational systems for which terms are almost invariably set by the imperatives of dominant masculinities (Gilmartin, 2006, p. 450). While hooking up can be seen as a means for women to exert their sexual agency and explore their erotic selves, it also structures that very erotic exploration into definable and normative constructs, constraining the very impulses it enables (Kalish & Kimmel, 2011, p. 138). While some of the literature asserts that [h]ooking up was initiated by men and made possible by womens complicity (Gilmartin, 2006, p. 447), other research affirms the possibility that women hook up for their own enjoyment. Some American women hook up to achieve a relationship or to express their feelings towards a male partners, in line with traditional notions of femininity; some do it to have fun or to enjoy their own sexuality, which would be seen as more transgressive (Kalish & Kimmel, 2011, p. 145-146).

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP Transition to Relationships A point on which most of the literature base seems to agree is that hooking up tends to

fade, if not disappear completely, after college. Once the psychological moratorium of emerging adulthood is over, hooking up becomes a less viable activity. Given that college graduates perceive their actions now count toward desired adult goals or committed long-term relationships and marriage (Arnold, 2010, p. 2), the hook up script generally does not support their long-term plans. After college, young adults have developed a more integrated sense of self and have more permanent goals for their adult years (Stinson, 2010, p. 106), which does not support hooking up. While current literature acknowledges the development of self and sexual identity exploration in college students, commonly women, who engage in the hook up culture, it falls short of adequately examining the meaning making processes behind casual sexual encounters. Furthermore, the fact that college women are the primary focus on the current literature calls for more research addressing the meaning behind male engagement in the hook up culture. Since none of the literature attempts to claim that all college students hook up, the question arises as to why that is the case. Why do some college students hook up, while others do not? Despite the fact that the literature asserts that many college graduates refrain from their old hook up behaviors, it does not explore what shifts in students to render this change. The fact that little is known about the process by which college womens sexual attitudes and behaviors change over time (Gilmartin, 2006, p. 430) challenges researchers to do more to examine the phenomenon. Something happens within the individuals development to render this change in behavior. Taking a specific look into the self-authorship development of college students will serve to

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP better explain their sexual behaviors, particularly the hook up, and how such may change over time based on their phase on the journey toward becoming authors of their own lives. The Proposed Theory

In order to set the stage for exploration into the meaning making behind college students participation in the hook up culture, I decided to employ Baxter Magoldas theory of selfauthorship (2001). Within the context of the hook up culture, the theory of self-authorship can be used as a guide to project meaning onto the intimate, sexual behaviors of traditional-aged college students, attempting to explain why college students may or may not hook up. Self-authorship theory involves phases on an individuals journey to finding his or her internal voice and, consequently, reaching self-authorship. Although the hook up culture tends to connote meaningless sexual encounters, I argue that it is important to remember that there are always meaning making structures at work behind behaviors, including the hook up. Examining each phase at a time, I explore the possible meaning making structures at work as students travel toward self-authorship within the college hook up culture. Why Self-Authorship Theory Considering the complexity of the college student experience and the wide range of experiences affecting development during college, Baxter Magoldas multi-phase, multidimension theory of self-authorship allows for a complex analysis of the individual. Since selfauthorship theory involves phases of development on multiple dimensions, it provides the opportunity to analyze a persons self-authorship development in a far more specific fashion. The fact that an individual can experience different phases of development on the three dimensions illustrates the unique variability of self-authorship theory, which accounts for a more comprehensive developmental picture of the individual. Given the normative presentation of the

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP

10

college hook up culture within the current literature base, it is evident that college students come into contact with the hook up script on multiple dimensions relating to the campus culture authority (epistemology), individual (intrapersonal) and peer dynamic (interpersonal). For this reason, the meaning behind a students interaction with the hook up culture must be examined on each of the aforementioned dimensions. Dimensions Before delving into the four phases of self-authorship theory, it is important to illustrate the three dimensions on which college students can experience their journeys toward selfauthorship. Answering the question how do I know, the epistemological dimension addresses the movement from accepting knowledge from authorities to constructing knowledge oneself (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. 18). While the epistemological dimension deals with the individuals belief system, whether external or internal, the intrapersonal dimension answers the question who I am and is most often referred to as identity of self-evolution (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. 18). Beyond the individuals self-definition, the intrapersonal dimension takes the individuals interaction with others into account, answering the what relationships do I want with others question and acknowledging that the formation of identity is closely tied to the relationships one has with external others (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. 18). The following subsections will explore how college students interact differently with the hook up culture depending on their phase toward self-authorship. Following Formulas Since the following formulas phase involves adhering to the external norm on the epistemological, intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions, authority is accepted as truth, the self is defined through external forces and relationships are formed with the desire to gain

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP

11

external approval (Baxter Magolda, 2001). In this phase, college students would likely engage in the hook up culture because they see it as the normative authority regarding sexual relationships.
Self-Authorship & The Hook Up Culture
Epistemological (How do I know?) Following Formulas Believes in the hook up culture and follows it as the dominant authority for intimate relationships Sense of self is determined through peer groups and casual sex partners Participates in the hook up culture to gain peer group acceptance and approval Crossroads Questions hook up culture and sees the need to develop own vision for sexual desires; however, hook up culture is still the dominant script Realizes dilemma of external definition through the hook up culture; sees need for sexual identity separate from the hook up culture Realizes dilemma of external approval from peer groups and casual sexual partners; sees need to give the self importance in intimate relationships Becoming the Author of Ones Life Chooses ones beliefs in the context of what the hook up cultures dominance Chooses ones intimacy values; establishes identity independent of the hook up culture Acts true to the self in all intimate, sexual relationships, mutually negotiating how sexual needs are met Internal Foundation Grounded in internal belief system independent of hook up culture Grounded in internal sense of self; sexual identity is not established through external forces Relationships with others are grounded in mutuality and a desire for approval does not drive sexual encounters/relationships

Intrapersonal (Who am I?)

Interpersonal (What relationships do I want with others?)

As they explore their sexual identities, they buy into the hook up cultures mystique regarding non-committal, emotionless and no-strings-attached sexual experiences in college. As the dominant script on college campuses, the hook up script is the authority that students in the following formulas phase follow. On the intrapersonal dimension, a college student may define him or herself through others. Consistent with much of the literature, college students may define themselves through those with which they hook up, in a potentially positive or negative sense. For instance, they may define themselves in a positive light because of the sexual satisfaction they give their hook up partner; however, they could conversely define themselves negatively through the meaningless and empty encounter with their hook up partner. Since peer group relationships would be overtly important to an externally defined college student, he or she may engage in casual sexual behavior for peer group approval. Although this meaning making structure seems more plausible for college men who may hook up in order to gain approval from their male friends and fit in, college women may very well be seeking the same external approval. Looking at the meaning making behind college students following external formulas,

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP it is clear that college students that decide to hook up are most often not acting true to themselves; instead, they are following the authority of the normative college hook up culture, defining themselves through others and, simply, seeking approval. Crossroads

12

For college students who had previously followed external formulas, participating in the hook up culture in order to adhere to the peer group norm and gain acceptance, moving into the crossroads phase compels them to call their sexual behaviors into question. Since [s]ome formulas led to crisis whereas other formulas simply left participants feeling unfulfilled (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. 93), the crossroads phase provides a check system on the powerful external formulas once blindly followed. Within the context of the hook up culture, a college student in crossroads has realized that following the hookup script has not given him or her the reward once expected. Whether hooking up did not fulfill the individuals intimate sexual needs or latent desire for a relationship or did not elicit the sought-after peer approval, the crossroads brings the need for internal agency into the students consciousness. The realization that external sources of belief and definition [are] insufficient for happiness [brings] acute awareness that internal sources of belief and definition were necessary (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. 93). For this reason, external belief in the hook up culture and self-definition through the dominant peer group culture that supports hooking up are no longer accepted by the individual. Instead, the individual sees the need for his or her own agency in pursuing an independent sexual identity through intimacy, cultivating a sexual identity separate from the dominant hook up culture and abandoning the need for peer group approval. While college students in crossroads may question their involvement in the dominant hook up culture and see the need for an independent vision of their sexual identity on the epistemological dimension, they likely would not be able to completely

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP disengage from the hook up culture. Both in the intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions, college students experience a personal dilemma of externally defining themselves and seeking approval; however, they have not quite reached the phase of self-authorship in which they can

13

effectively cultivate their own visions, define their sexual identities and bring themselves to their sexual relationships. In most cases, college students in crossroads still strive to seek acceptance from their peer group or even approval from their casual sexual partners. Becoming the Author of Ones Life Once college students have come to terms with the dilemmas and questions associated with the crossroads and enter the becoming the author of ones life phase, they are able to resist the powerful force of the dominant hook up culture. Given that this phase marks reshaping what [one] believed (epistemology), [ones] sense of self (intrapersonal), and [ones] relationships with other (interpersonal) (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. 119), the hook up culture as an external formula no longer defines ones beliefs, sense of self and relationships with others. As a result, the individual asserts agency over the hook up culture, deciding to not believe in the inevitability of the hook up script, forging an identity outside of peer group and hook up culture norms and remaining true to the self within all relationships, including those of the intimate nature. While one would not follow the external formula of the hook up culture to define his or her sexual identity, he or she still establishes an identity within the context of such external forces. Ones decision not to engage in the hook up culture would come from keen awareness of its existence and dominance; nevertheless, an individual in this phase would likely not blindly follow the hook up culture and would instead look toward mutually negotiated relationships to fulfill their sexual needs and desires.

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP Internal Foundation Looking even further into ones development toward self-authorship, the internal foundation phase operates strongly against the college hook up culture. Coming much later in

14

adulthood, this phase involves [t]he solidifying of the internal self, belief system, and approach to relationships[, which] create[s] both a solid foundation and openness to ambiguity and change (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. 155). As a result, the casual, externally defined hook up culture is completely replaced with the steady, companionate relationship framework. On the epistemological dimension, an individual would not engage in the hook up culture because he or she is grounded in his or her beliefs regarding intimacy and sexual relationships and not vulnerable to the authority of the hook up culture script. On the intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions, the individual defines the self internally as opposed to through sexual encounters and engages in mutually satisfying sexual relationships where agency is shared and external approval is not the overarching objective. Research Design In order to fully explore the self-authorship development of college students that interact with the hook up culture in college, I would employ a qualitative research approach because it is useful in revealing the meanings people ascribe to particular events or activities (Esterberg, 2002, p. 2). To explore the meaning making processes behind the casual sexual encounters of the hook up culture, I would gather a sample of approximately 10 traditional-age first year college students at Rutgers University, including five men and five women. Interviewing both men and women would help me discern the potential difference in meaning making structures behind hooking up depending on ones biological sex. Participants would be selected at random from a cross-section of residential and non-residential students, so that differences in living situation are

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP

15

addressed. To ensure long-term participation, monetary compensation will be provided. I would conduct two, bi-annual semi-structured individual interviews with each of the participants lasting 30 minutes throughout each year of college. All interviews would be conducted individually so as to protect the privacy of participants and facilitate truthful responses for what can be considered a sensitive and personal subject. By conducting a longitudinal study, I would explore each students journey toward self-authorship. My interview protocol would include both questions geared toward exploring ones self-authorship phase and, more specifically, delving into the meaning making behavior behind ones participation in the hook up culture. Implications and Discussion While the hook up culture unarguably dominates the sexual interactions of college and university students, the topic is often taboo within social research. By exploring how a students developmental phase toward self-authorships affects his or her decision to engage in or resist the hook up culture, I introduce a different angle to research surrounding the hook up culture that is currently lacking. In order to properly examine the hook up script and college students diverse expressions of intimacy, it is important to not only look at the behavior, but also the meaning students ascribe to the behavior. Since the motivation and meaning ascribed to ones decision to engage in or reject the hook up culture may change over time as one progresses further toward self-authorship, my exploration of the hook up culture through the lens of Baxter Magoldas selfauthorship theory (2001) expands conversation of the sexual expressions of college students. While all students travel through the following formulas, crossroads, become author of ones life and internal foundation phases on the journey toward developing ones true voice, selfauthorship theory has not been employed to help explain students sexual behaviors and initiate productive dialogue with them. For many students, college is the time where they first explore

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP their sexual identities and express intimacy in vastly different ways. As a result, the hook up

16

culture has evolved into the dominant social script for collegiate intimacy. [I]t is imperative that we recognize, understand, and are willing to discuss the hookup culture (Stinson, 2010, p. 110) with our students in order to help them work through any ambivalence, frustration, and anxiety they have regarding the social environment of college (p. 110). By expanding our understanding of the hook up culture to encompass self-authorship theory, I introduce a more complex way of examining the meaning making behind hooking up, which can help professionals assist students struggling on their journeys toward self-authorship. Since [s]uccessful journeys, even short ones, require good company (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. xv), it is vital that student affairs practitioners are aware of the self-authorship development of their students within the context of intimate sexual behaviors and the dominant college hook up culture. As student affairs professionals, we cannot simply ignore the pervasive hook up culture; instead, we must seek to explain why our students choose to or not to engage in casual sexual behaviors in college. Exploring how students interact with the hook up culture informs practice by providing professionals with the tools and background knowledge to engage in meaningful conversations with students as they navigate their journeys toward self-authorship. Once student affairs professionals understand the possible meaning making structures behind sexual intimacy at each phase of self-authorship development, the hook up culture will become more of a tool to help explore and explain sexual identity and intimate behaviors within a developmental context. While it is important to research the negative aspects of the hook up culture, it is arguably more imperative to understand how a students developmental phase contributes to the likelihood they will engage in the hook up culture, so that student affairs professionals can serve as good company for the journey toward self-authorship.

SELF-AUTHORING THE HOOK UP References

17

Arnold, K. D. (2010). College student development and the hook-up culture. Journal of College & Character, 11(4). Retrieved from http://journals.naspa.org/jcc Baxter Magolda, M. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York, NY: New York University Press. Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGrawHill. Gilmartin, S. K. (2006). Changes in college women's attitudes toward sexual intimacy. Journal Of Research On Adolescence (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 16(3), 429-454. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00501.x Kalish, R., & Kimmel, M. (2011). Hooking up. Australian Feminist Studies, 26(67), 137151. doi:10.1080/08164649.2011.546333 Kooyman, L., Pierce, G., & Zavadil, A. (2011). Hooking up and identity development of female college students. Adultspan: Theory Research & Practice, 10(1), 4-13. Stinson, R. D. (2010). Hooking up in young adulthood: A review of factors influencing the sexual behavior of college students. Journal Of College Student Psychotherapy, 24(2), 98-115. doi:10.1080/87568220903558596