1. If You’ve Done it Before, Will You Do it Again? Factors Affecting Willingness to Participate in Controversial Sexual Relationship Types Miranda Dempewolf, Lakin Douglas, Mallorie Miller, Katrina Smith, & Kristina Hood, Ph.D. If You’ve Done it Before, Will You Do it Again? Factors Affecting Willingness to Participate in Controversial Sexual Relationship Types Miranda Dempewolf, Lakin Douglas, Mallorie Miller, Katrina Smith, & Kristina Hood, Ph.D. Mississippi State University INTRODUCTION MATERIALS Willingness to Participate Scale: Self-reported on a scale ranging from 1 as very unwilling to 5 as neither willing nor unwilling to 11 as very willing to engage in a type of relationship Religious Involvement Index: Duke Religion Index (DUREL, 2010). A brief questionnaire assessing religious involvement in personal life, such as time spent in meditation or prayer Demographics: 19 item inventory, including age, sex, ethnicity, and level of sexual activity DISCUSSION Previous involvement in the specific relationship type was the strongest predictor of willingness to engage again in that relationship type; participants who had already engaged in hookups, stayovers, or friends with benefits arrangements were more willingly to participate in them again. Males and participants with low religious involvement reported more willingness to participate in the controversial relationship types. Our findings support the Theory of Parental Involvement and Buss & Schmidt’s findings that males prefer and are more willing to engage in these controversial relationship types. As a result of the differences between sexes and their willingness to engage, males and females are more likely to seek and engage in different types of relationships. This disparity can lead to misunderstandings about the nature of a new relationship. In addition, those who have previously engaged in controversial relationship types, regardless of sex, are likely to continue to engage in those same short-term mating arrangements. Further research should be conducted to asses other major factors that influence willingness to engage in certain relationship types. REFERENCES Buss, D., & Schmidt, D. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. Copen, C., Daniels, K., and Mosher W. (2013). First premarital cohabitation in the United States: 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 64, 1 Rowatt, W. C., & Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Associations between religious orientation and varieties of sexual experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 455–465. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 136–179. METHOD Participants were 316 students at a large southeastern university who received class research credit. There were 217 female and 99 male participants. In a pilot study, participants were asked about relationship history and attitudes toward relationship types. In the present study, we examined the three most controversial relationship types, as assessed from responses in the pilot study: hookups, friends with benefits arrangements, and stayovers. ModelStandardized Coefficients tR2R2 R 2 Change Beta 1 Sex-.224-4.876**.348 Previous Involvement -.522-11.375** 2 Sex-.211-4.559**.367.019* Previous Involvement -.502-10.930** DUREL-.101-2.173* Sexually Active.0982.163* Table 1. Hooking Up Previous involvement was the best predictor of willingness to participate, β = -.502, t(315) = -10.930, p < 0.001. ModelStandardi zed Coefficien ts tR2R2 R 2 Change Beta 1 Sex-.301-6.469**.337 Previous Involvement -.454-9.754** 2 Sex-.269-5.824**.379.042** Previous Involvement -.418-9.094** DUREL-.201-4.360** Sexually Active.0651.447 ModelStandardize d Coefficients tR2R2 R 2 Change Beta 1 Sex-.230-4.857**.305 Previous Involvement -.481-10.153** 2 Sex-.208-4.337**.330.025** Previous Involvement -.455-9.615** DUREL-.147-3.056** Sexually Active.0731.569 Table 2: Friends with Benefits Previous involvement was the best predictor of willingness to participate, β = -.418, t(315) = -9.094, p < 0.001 Table 3: Stayover Previous involvement was the best predictor of willingness to participate,, β = -.455, t(315) = -9.615, p < 0.001. According to Sexual Strategies Theory (Buss & Schmidt, 1993), human mating includes long-term and short-term strategies which depend on multiple contextual factors, such as the availability of partners and cultural norms. The Theory of Parental Investment (Trivers, 1972) reasons that females invest more resources in their offspring, so they should be more discriminating in their choices of mates. Compared to women, men typically show a greater preference for short-term mates (Buss & Schmidt, 1993). Individual differences such as religious orientation affect mating strategies and attitudes toward casual sex (Rowatt & Schmidt, 2003). The United States is experiencing a rise in non-traditional relationship arrangements, such as cohabitation and friends with benefits arrangements (Copen, Daniels, & Mosher, 2013). A major tenet of behavioral and social psychology is that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Embarking on the college journey, most students enter a world distant from their families and home churches. Many experiment with new relationship dynamics, while others avoid unfamiliar territory. Thus, the current study sought to examine whether previous experiences in controversial relationships, religious involvement, sex, and sexually activeness will influence one‘s willingness to participate in various sexual relationships types. RESULTS Three hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted, comparing sex, previous involvement, DUREL score, and sexual activeness as factors for willingness to participate in a each specific type of relationship. Previous involvement, sex, and religious involvement were the best predictors of willingness to participate in these specific relationship types. Sexual activity was a significant predictor of willingness to participate in hooking up relationships but not in friends with benefits or stayovers. RESULTS CONT.