Using the Online College Social Life Survey, we examine whether the sex ratio of the student body of a college or university affects whether heterosexual students hook up, have relationships, have intercourse, or have attitudes favorable toward casual sex. The gendered dyadic power model predicts that, if men are more interested in having sex than women, as the ratio of women to men goes up, men will increasingly have the upper hand and more sex will occur. Consistent with the prediction, we find that where the ratio of women to men is higher, students of both sexes hook up more and accumulate more sexual partners, but inconsistent with it, students are no more likely to have intercourse in a given hookup where the ratio of women is higher.
AckerJoan. 2006. Class Questions, Feminist Answers. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
2.
AllisonRachelRismanBarbara J. 2013. “A Double Standard for ‘Hooking Up’: How Far Have We Come toward Equality?” Social Science Research42(5):1191–1206.
3.
AllisonRachelRismanBarbara J. 2014. “‘It Goes Hand in Hand with the Parties’: Race, Class, and Residence in College Student Negotiations of Hooking Up.” Sociological Perspectives57(1):102–23.
4.
ArmstrongElizabeth A.EnglandPaulaFogartyAlison. 2010. “Orgasm in College Hookups and Relationships.” Pp. 362–77 in Families as They Really Are, edited by RismanBarbara J. New York: W.W. Norton.
5.
ArmstrongElizabeth A.EnglandPaulaFogartyAlison. 2012. “Accounting for Women’s Orgasm and Sexual Enjoyment in College Hookups and Relationships.” American Sociological Review77(3):435–62.
6.
ArmstrongElizabeth A.HamiltonLaura T. 2013. Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
ArmstrongElizabeth A.HamiltonLaura T.EnglandPaula. 2010. “Is Hooking Up Bad for Young Women?” Contexts9(3):22–27.
8.
BaumeisterRoy T.CataneseKathleen R.VohsKathleen D. 2001. “Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence.” Personality and Social Psychology Review5(3):242–73.
9.
BogleKathleen A.2008. Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York: New York University Press.
ConleyTerri D.2011. “Perceived Proposer Personality Characteristics and Gender Differences in Acceptance of Casual Sex Offers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology100:309–29.
12.
DiPreteThomas A.BuchmannClaudia. 2013. The Rise of Women: The Growing Gender Gap in Education and What It Means for American Schools. New York: Russell Sage.
13.
EmersonRichard. 1976. “Social Exchange Theory.” Annual Review of Sociology2:335–62.
14.
EnglandPaulaBearakJonathan. 2014. “The Sexual Double Standard and Gender Differences in Attitudes toward Casual Sex among U.S. University Students.” Demographic Research30(46):1327–38.
15.
EnglandPaulaShaferEmily FitzgibbonsFogartyAlison C. K. 2008. “Hooking Up and Forming Romantic Relationships on Today’s College Campuses.” Pp. 531–47 in The Gendered Society Reader, 3rd ed., edited by KimmelMichaelAronsonAmy. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
GuttentagMarciaSecordPaul F. 1983. Too Many Women? The Sex Ratio Question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
17.
HamiltonLauraArmstrongElizabeth. 2009. “Gendered Sexuality in Young Adulthood: Double Binds and Flawed Options.” Gender & Society23(5):589–616.
18.
HarknettKristenMcLanahanSarah. 2004. “Racial and Ethnic Differences in Marriage after the Birth of a Child.” American Sociological Review69(6):790–811.
19.
LundbergShellyPollakRobert A. 1996. “Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage.” Journal of Economic Perspectives10:139–58.
20.
OwenJesseFinchamFrank D. 2011. “Young Adults’ Emotional Reactions after Hooking Up Encounters.” Archives of Sexual Behavior40:321–30.
21.
PaulElizabeth L.McManusBrianHayesAllison. 2000. “‘Hookups’: Characteristics and Correlates of College Students’ Spontaneous and Anonymous Sexual Experiences.” Journal of Sex Research37(1):76–88.
RegnerusMark D.2012. “Mating Market Dynamics, Sex-Ratio Imbalances, and Their Consequences.” Society49(6):500–505.
24.
RegnerusMark D.UeckerJeremy E. 2011. Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
ReidJulie A.ElliottSinikkaWebberGretchen R. 2011. “Casual Hookups to Formal Dates: Refining the Boundaries of the Sexual Double Standard.” Gender & Society25(5):545–68.
26.
RismanBarbara J.DavisGeorgiann. 2013. “From Sex Roles to Gender Structure.” Current Sociology61(5–6):733–55.
27.
SteppLaura Sessions. 2007. Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both. New York: Riverhead Books.
28.
TrentKatherineSouthScott J. 2011. “Too Many Men? Sex Ratios and Women’s Partnering Behavior in China.” Social Forces90(1):247–68.
29.
UeckerJeremy E.2012. “Social Context and the Sexual Behavior of Elite College Freshmen.” Presented at the annual meetings of the Population Association of America, San Francisco, CA, May 5.
30.
UeckerJeremy E.RegnerusMark D. 2010. “Bare Market: Campus Sex Ratios, Romantic Relationships, and Sexual Behavior.” The Sociological Quarterly51:408–35.
U.S. Department of Education. 2005–2011. “Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.” Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved March17, 2015 (http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/).
