Applying a Pattern-Centered Approach to Understanding How Attachment, Gender Beliefs, and Homosociality Shape College Men's Sociosexuality

Abstract

Although early research and the popular press have characterized college men as universal beneficiaries of uncommitted sex, emerging research notes considerable variability in men's sociosexuality (i.e., uncommitted sexual beliefs, desires, and behaviors). This study examined how diversity in sociosexuality is tied to the ways in which attachment orientations, conformity to masculinity norms, and homosocial engagement (i.e., nonromantic same-sex bonds) are organized across individuals. Latent profile analysis of 495 college males (ages 17 to 25, 62% White, 83.5% heterosexual) detected five subgroups: Fully Unrestricted (10% of sample; high on sociosexuality and conformity to masculinity norms); Cognitively Unrestricted (36%; comparable to Fully Unrestricteds but low on sociosexual behavior), Fully Restricted (30%; opposite on all constructs when compared to Fully Unrestricteds); Avoidant (16%; similar to Fully Restricteds but with greater attachment avoidance); and Discrepant (8%; above average on sociosexual behavior but discordant within and across constructs). There were notable demographic, personality, and behavioral differences among the subgroups (e.g., nearly 50% of the Discrepants self-identified as sexual minorities; Fully Restricteds were the most religious; Avoidants were the most shy). Findings indicate that college men's sociosexuality is highly nuanced and suggest the need for additional work to understand how attachment, masculinity norms, and homosociality shape men's sexual relationships.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Calzo is supported by National Research Service Award F32HD066792 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Pediatric Loan Repayment Program award. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of NICHD or NIH. Dr. Calzo would like to thank Drs. L. Monique Ward, John Schulenberg, Robin Edelstein, and Karin Martin for their mentorship on this research, Corissa Carlson for her assistance in data collection and management, and all of the participants in the study for making this research possible.

Notes

¹Participants recruited from registrar office e-mail solicitation were significantly older and more likely to be racial/ethnic minorities than participants recruited from the psychology subject pools. The respondent-driven sample was also significantly older than the subject pool sample. However, method of recruitment was not significantly related to subgroup membership.

*Participant reported having engaged in either vaginal or anal sex.

²Although it is possible that these values overlap, together they provide an estimate of level and frequency of uncommitted sex and new sex partners. The structure of this measure is similar to other measures used to assess discrete risk behaviors, such as alcohol consumption (e.g., Johnston, O'Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg,, 2008).

³This conceptualization may not accurately reflect the level of sexual experience for sexual-minority participants who, for multiple reasons, might not engage in vaginal or anal sex. However, because virginity status is used here as a correlate and not a central behavioral outcome, this conceptualization does not represent a significant limitation.

^a Significantly different from b, c, d.

^b Significantly different from a, c, d, etc.

^‡Participant reports having engaged in either vaginal or anal sex.

^‡Participant reports having engaged in either vaginal or anal sex.

^* p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.