2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11199-017-0831-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What We Know and Where We Go from here: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth Hookup Literature

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 83 publications
0
18
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…As is similar to concerns about racially and ethnically diverse samples, research going forward should also be far more inclusive of a variety of sexual identities. Although some research has examined hooking up and casual sex relationships among sexual‐minority populations (e.g., Rupp, Taylor, Regev‐Messalem, Fogarty, & England, ), far more studies should be inclusive of those who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, pansexual, questioning, and queer (see Watson, Snapp, & Wang, ). Researchers in the area of CNM relationships have made sexual identity an important point of consideration in their studies, often finding that sexual‐minority participants are much more positive toward CNM relationships, are more willing to engage in CNM, and a greater proportion (when compared with heterosexual participants) have engaged in CNM relationships (Rubin et al, ).…”
Section: Research In the Next Decade And Beyondmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As is similar to concerns about racially and ethnically diverse samples, research going forward should also be far more inclusive of a variety of sexual identities. Although some research has examined hooking up and casual sex relationships among sexual‐minority populations (e.g., Rupp, Taylor, Regev‐Messalem, Fogarty, & England, ), far more studies should be inclusive of those who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, pansexual, questioning, and queer (see Watson, Snapp, & Wang, ). Researchers in the area of CNM relationships have made sexual identity an important point of consideration in their studies, often finding that sexual‐minority participants are much more positive toward CNM relationships, are more willing to engage in CNM, and a greater proportion (when compared with heterosexual participants) have engaged in CNM relationships (Rubin et al, ).…”
Section: Research In the Next Decade And Beyondmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the growing knowledge in understanding the relationships between and consequences of alcohol and hooking up, it should be noted that there are still several important unexplored or marginally explored directions that warrant further development. First, as highlighted in reviews focused on hooking up behavior (e.g., Heldman and Wade, 2010; Pham, 2017; Watson et al, 2017), much of the research to date on hooking up has been focused on predominantly White, heterosexual, class-privileged college students. There is still a dearth of studies on other groups (e.g., adolescents, older adults, non-college attending young adults, ethnic, and sexual minority groups) and even fewer that investigate the role of alcohol use.…”
Section: Future Directions In Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is also little information on hooking up behavior among sexual minorities. Despite indications that lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals hook up at high rates (Watson et al, 2017), with some studies finding that lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals hook up more than their heterosexual counterparts (Hall et al, 2017), there is even less information on the hooking up and alcohol relationship for these groups. Outside of a few notable studies (Allison and Risman, 2014; Spell, 2016), there is an absence of research on intersectionality of identities and the hooking up – alcohol relationship, regardless of its shown importance.…”
Section: Future Directions In Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We developed a binary variable to reflect participants' self-identified orientation to ensure sufficient power for our analyses: (1) heterosexual; and (2) lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB). Students who selected "I'm not sure" or self-reported as transgender were excluded from the analyses (n = 4; 0.10%) as their hookup experiences may be unique (Watson, Snapp, and Wang 2017). We also developed a binary variable to reflect on-and off-campus residency: (1) on-campus (i.e.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%