- Weekly reflective response that includes two parts, indicated with headers:
o Reading reaction: at least 3-5 sentences reflecting on an aspect of one of the assigned readings for that class. Note, if no assigned reading for that class, you will only need to answer the QOWs. o Question-of-the-Week (QOW): at least 3-5 sentences in response to the specific QOWs posed during class
These can be written using informal, conversational writing style and should only take ~5-10 minutes to complete. Please write the answer these question in a short and simple way.
Marriage Delay, Time to Play? Marital Horizons and
Hooking Up in College
Rachel Allison, Mississippi State University
Barbara J. Risman, University of Illinois at Chicago
Previous research suggests that an increasing age at first marriage has contributed
to the prevalence of sexual hookups on U.S. college campuses. In this article, we use
life course and marital horizons theories to analyze the influence of ideal age at first
marriage on hooking up among unmarried heterosexual college students. Analyses of
the Online College Social Life Survey (N = 17,981) show a positive association
between ideal age at first marriage and hookups for most students, but not for students
whose mothers have no post-secondary education, Asian men, Asian women, and Latina
women. Variation in ideal marriage timing does not account for gender, racial/ethnic,
and class gaps in hookup participation. Results are discussed with reference to the role
of sexuality in processes of stratification throughout young adulthood.
Introduction
Hookups, or sexual encounters outside of romantic relationships, are commonplace among contemporary college students. Between two-thirds and threefourths of students report one or more such experience in studies across diverse
campuses nationwide (Bogle 2008; Fielder et al. 2013; Owen et al. 2010).
Even among students who have never hooked up, the hookup script often
remains a component of normative definitions of college social life (Allison
and Risman 2014; Mullen 2010). While sex outside of relationships is certainly
not new, scholars tracing the emergence of the hookup script note an array of
demographic, economic, and policy changes that have altered the landscape of
sex and romance for today’s college-attending young adults (Heldman and
Wade 2010).
One trend that may have had considerable impact is the rising age at first
marriage. By 2011, the age at first marriage had steadily increased to an alltime high of 28.7 for men and 26.5 for women (Manning, Brown, and Payne
2014). Traditional-aged college students can thus anticipate a period of unmarried “emerging adulthood” (Arnett 2004) of up to a decade in length. The delay
of marital and other highly committed relationships among young adults in college may account in part for the cultural dominance of hooking up. Given an
elongated transition into traditional markers of adulthood, such as marriage,
Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 87, No. 3, August 2017, 472–500
© 2016 Alpha Kappa Delta: The International Sociology Honor Society
DOI: 10.1111/soin.12159
MARITAL HORIZONS AND HOOKING UP IN COLLEGE
473
students commonly experiment with sexual and romantic relationships (Claxton
and van Dulmen 2013; Heldman and Wade 2010; Willoughby 2012).
Recent qualitative studies support this argument, finding that the perceived
advantages of hooking up for some lie in minimizing relational commitment to
make time for self-development and sexual exploration (Bogle 2008; Kimmel
2008). Hooking up has widespread appeal in part because it allows students the
sexual and romantic intimacy they desire without the demands of time- and
emotion-intensive committed relationships (Hamilton and Armstrong 2009;
Kefalas et al. 2011). Yet despite the suggested role of shifting marital time
lines in bolstering hookup culture, few scholars have situated hookups within a
life course framework linking current sexual attitudes and behaviors to an
imagined future. Most research focuses on the individual-level correlates of
hooking up (Bearak 2014; Fuller, Frost, and Burr 2015; Sassler 2010). The
links between ideals for future relationship and family formation and present
sexual attitudes and behaviors are not well understood (Carroll et al. 2007;
Sipsma et al. 2015; Soller and Haynie 2013; Willoughby and Dworkin 2009).
The links between current behavior and future marriage plans are important because of social class and racial/ethnic diversity in pathways through
young adulthood (Cherlin 2010; Silva 2013). Not all young adults embrace the
focus on the self and the delay of family formation purported to support
hookup culture. The postponement of perceived adult roles and relationships in
favor of sexual experimentation is less frequently adopted by working class
youth, where committed relationships and “early marriage” (Uecker and Stokes
2008) remain more normative. As class is deeply racialized in the United
States, racial and ethnic minority young adults may be less likely than whites
to see the delay of family formation as normative. And even for minority
young adults who do espouse the ideal of relationship delay, marriage ideals
may be differently tied to sexual behavior given racialized and gendered partner
preferences, racial homophily in peer networks, the underrepresentation of
minority students in college, and racially differentiated marital patterns (Allison
and Risman 2014; McClintock 2010; Regnerus and Uecker 2011). It is important to address the relationship between marriage ideals and hooking up given
that both ideals and early sexual experiences are integrally tied to relationship
pathways and family formation behaviors (Barr and Simons 2012; Willoughby
2010). From a life course perspective, gender, racial/ethnic, and/or social class
variation in how students’ marriage ideals influence sexual experiences may be
tied to later demographic variation in relationship and family formation (Carlson 2015; Sassler 2010).
In this article, we situate existing literature on college student hookups
within Carroll et al.’s (2007) marital horizons theory as a way of conceptualizing the role of ideal future marriage timing in college sexual cultures. Within
474
RACHEL ALLISON AND BARBARA J. RISMAN
the life course framework, marital horizons theory posits that anticipated or
desired future transitions shape the behaviors and ideas of emerging adults
(Carroll et al. 2007; Sassler 2010). Using Online College Social Life Survey
(OCSLS) data from 17,981 students, our contributions are threefold. First, we
examine whether the ideal timing of future marriage is related to hookup participation and frequency. Second, we explore variation in the relationship between
ideal timing of future marriage and hookups by gender, race/ethnicity and
social class. Finally, we test whether gender, racial/ethnic, and class variation
in ideal marriage timing help account for demographic disparities in hookups.
Literature
Hooking Up
Sexual activity outside of romantic relationship contexts has become
commonplace among adolescents and young adults, with recent scholarship
calling attention to “hooking up” as a culturally dominant sexual script
among college students (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013; Bogle 2008). Hookups refer to a wide variety of sexual behaviors that take place with little
forethought and no necessary intention of future contact, although such contact is possible (Bogle 2007). While not all students approve of or participate in hooking up, most studies show that a large majority of
undergraduate students will hook up at least once while in college (Fielder
et al. 2013; Kimmel 2008).
A desire to delay very committed relationships to focus on personal and
career development has featured prominently in explanations of the near-ubiquity of hooking up in college (Bogle 2008; Hamilton and Armstrong 2009;
Regnerus and Uecker 2011). Lovejoy summarizes this argument, writing that,
“As a sexual practice, it [hooking up] appears to permit privileged college
women to pursue the self-development goals characteristic of contemporary
early adulthood, including sexual autonomy and exploration, academic achievement, and career advancement” (2015:488). In a context where marriage is
understood to be years into the future, hookups allow young adults to experiment with sexuality outside of the committed relationships that they do not yet
want to develop (Claxton and van Dulmen 2013). In support of this argument,
Kefalas et al. (2011) found that premarital sexual relationships were a “placeholder” for marriage, while young adults pursued education, career training,
and personal development projects meant to prepare them for successful adulthood. In addition, Lyons et al. (2014) found that young adults who had ever
had casual sex, defined as vaginal intercourse outside of commitment, were
more likely than those who had not to agree that they were “too young to be
tied down.”
MARITAL HORIZONS AND HOOKING UP IN COLLEGE
475
A Life Course Approach
Recent scholars have called for the application of a life course framework
to the study of hooking up in order to study hookups as part of variable pathways through young adulthood, rather than as an experience relevant only during the college years (Amato et al. 2008; Heldman and Wade 2010; Lyons
et al. 2014). As a dominant theoretical perspective in the study of family and
relationship formation, the life course approach situates sexual and relationship
events within a larger path-dependent trajectory that extends from the past into
both present and future (Sassler 2010). This approach calls upon scholars to
explore how transitions are understood, how they relate to one another, and
how they shape experiences and life chances over time.
We use marital horizons theory, a recent variant within the life course
framework, to hypothesize that norms around the transition into marriage shape
students’ present-day sexual activities. Developed by Carroll et al. (2007), marital horizons theory situates the anticipation of future marriage as a key predictor of a variety of current actions, including sexual behaviors. Carroll et al.
(2007) posit that the importance placed on marriage, desired marital timing,
and perceived qualities for marriage readiness all shape these behaviors. As the
authors explain, “The central thesis of this theory is that emerging adults’ perceptions of marital importance, timing, and readiness are central factors in
determining subgroup differences in the length of emerging adulthood and the
specific behaviors that occur during this period in the family life cycle” (Carroll
et al. 2007:225).
While Carroll et al.’s (2007) theory highlights several dimensions of marriage anticipation, we focus here on the ideal timing of first marriage. More
broadly, the life course approach “asserts that norms and expectations about the
timing and ordering of events can serve as points of reference, guiding individuals through the life course in a socially prescribed order” (Cherlin et al.
2008:2; emphasis added; see also Crissey 2005). Sassler’s (2010) review of
partnering behaviors also concludes that the desired timing of transitions is a
key predictor of relationship behaviors. Within the marital horizons tradition,
there is evidence that the anticipated timing of marriage shapes the sexual attitudes and behaviors of adolescents and young adults (Sipsma et al. 2015; Soller and Haynie 2013; Willoughby and Dworkin 2009). For instance, Carroll
et al.’s survey of young adults across six college campuses found that “the
desire to delay marriage was found to be associated with increased sexual permissiveness” (2007:238). In their study, young adults became increasingly permissive
across
three
ideal
marital
timing
groups:
21–23, 24–26, and 27+. Based on this research, as well as qualitative studies
of hookup culture, we expect to find that as college students’ ideal age at
476
RACHEL ALLISON AND BARBARA J. RISMAN
marriage increases, so does the likelihood of hookup participation and the frequency of hookups.
Race, Class, and Gender
Literature on how intersections of race, class, and gender matter to sexual and romantic partnering complicates the expected relationship between
ideal marriage timing and hookups. While we expect a positive association,
we also propose two corollary expectations. The ideal age at first marriage
may be less strongly related, or entirely unrelated, to hookups for students
who are socially excluded from hookup culture, possibly including working
class and racial/ethnic minority students. Ideal age at first marriage may also
be less strongly related to hookups for women given the gender inequality
that pervades college hookup culture. Also, if students’ ideal age at first marriage varies systematically by gender, race and ethnicity, and/or social class,
different marital horizons may account in part for demographic variation in
hookup participation.
Some students may be better able to translate desired marital delay into
hookups than others. For one, enacting the hookup script requires the time and
resources more typical of class-privileged students who do not work while
attending college and live independent of families of origin (Allison and Risman 2014). Additionally, Bearak (2014) suggests that working class students
may be less familiar with, and thus able to navigate, the sexual norms and
practices of middle and upper class peers. As a result, students from lower
socioeconomic status backgrounds may be pushed out of hookup culture, even
if they do espouse marital delay and see value in its attendant sexual strategies.
Racial and ethnic minority students, too, are often on the “social margins”
of hookup culture on predominantly white college campuses and may be less
able than white students to translate the ideal of marital delay into hookup
experiences (Bogle 2008). To some extent, the marginalization of minority students within hookup culture may reflect the constraints of social class position.
That is, because minority students are disproportionately likely to come from
working class backgrounds, class-related factors such as time, money, and residential situation are especially influential for minority students’ personal lives.
Beyond social class, however, racial homophily organizes social and sexual
interactions on many college campuses (Bogle 2008; McClintock 2010). Norms
for racial homophily in student networks place minority students at a disadvantage in hookup culture by limiting their available partners in predominantly
white contexts. Partner preferences are also racialized and gendered, further
positioning certain groups as more or less able to enter into sexual and romantic relationships (Kuperberg and Padgett 2016). For some minority groups,
including black men, Latina women, or Asian women, stereotypes of
MARITAL HORIZONS AND HOOKING UP IN COLLEGE
477
hypersexuality or exoticism may increase their desirability as sexual partners
(Lin and Lundquist 2013). For others, controlling images may be more limiting; for instance, black women may be stereotyped as aggressive and unattractive, and stereotypes of Asian men portray them as sexless and effeminate
(Bany, Robnett, and Feliciano 2014; Shek 2006). Kuperberg and Padgett
(2016) find that black women and Asian men and women report fewer hookups
than their white student peers, but are more likely to desire additional opportunities to hook up, suggesting that these groups do not select out of hookup culture but face a particularly constrained opportunity structure.
Further, women may be less able than men to translate their marriage
ideals into hookups given the salience of a “relational imperative” (Hamilton
and Armstrong 2009) that encourages women to value and pursue committed relationships and a sexual double standard that penalizes women for
engagement in sexual activity outside of relationships (Allison and Risman
2013; Bogle 2008).
Additionally, research on hooking up consistently finds gender, racial/ethnic, and social class gaps in hookup participation whereby white students, the
class privileged, and men take part at higher rates (Bogle 2008; Brimeyer and
Smith 2012; Owen et al. 2010). However, little research has focused explicitly
on racial/ethnic or social class patterns of hookup involvement, part of a larger
paucity of studies seeking to explain, and not merely document, demographic
differences in measures of non-relational sex (Bearak 2014). Here, we suggest
that variation in students’ marital horizons may account for these gaps, at least
in part.
An underlying principle of marital horizons theory is that young adults
have clear, distinct orientations to marriage that incorporate ideal marital time
lines. Importantly, these “marriage mentalities” vary by gender, race, and class
(Carlson 2015; Carroll et al. 2007; Halpern-Meekin 2012; Willoughby and Hall
2014). For instance, Kefalas et al.’s (2011) interview study with a diverse
group of adults 21–38 found that “naturalists” who entered into early marriage
were from rural areas and less class-privileged backgrounds compared to the
marriage “planners” who delayed marriage in favor of educational attainment.
Similarly, Willoughby and Hall (2014) found that college students’ marital
paradigms fell into three categories. What they call Enthusiast, Delayer, and
Hesitant paradigms contained different assumptions about ideal marital timing.
Further, the distribution of students across these paradigms varied by demographics, including social class and race.
Armstrong and Hamilton’s (2013) ethnographic study of white college
women coresiding on one dormitory floor represents the most comprehensive
explanation of classed patterns of hookup participation. Their study reveals that
the view of college as an “experience” linked to self-development is a
478
RACHEL ALLISON AND BARBARA J. RISMAN
class-specific perspective reflecting both the social norms and structural opportunities of the class privileged (Hamilton and Armstrong 2009; Mullen 2010).
Working class youth do not equally embrace the strategy of delaying commitment and family formation in order to focus on self-development, upward
mobility, and relationship experimentation (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013).
The result is a quicker transition into perceived adult roles for working
class young adults (Regnerus and Uecker 2011). For instance, Manning,
Brown, and Payne (2014) show that in 2010, the median age at first marriage
for women with less than a high school education was 4 years lower than that
of college-educated women. Additionally, Amato et al. (2008) latent class analysis of 18- to 23-year-old women’s family formation pathways found that
socioeconomic family background was related to the timing of family formation, with results demonstrating “the remarkably advantaged status of women
in the college-no family formation class” (2008:1283). As a result of class differentiated family formation time lines, college hookup culture is often perceived as confusing, undesirable, and unattainable to less class-privileged
college students (Allison and Risman 2014; Hamilton and Armstrong 2009).
As Armstrong et al. conclude about the previously mentioned study, “The
notion that youth should participate in hookups was foreign to less-affluent
women, whose expectations about appropriate relationship time lines were
shaped by a different social world” (2014:112).
There is also substantial evidence for racial and ethnic variation in ideal
marital timing. Although Willoughby (2010) found no difference in anticipated
age at first marriage between white and non-white young adults, most studies
conclude that Asian and black young adults have slightly higher ages of ideal
first marriage compared to both white and Hispanic or Latina/o young adults
(Carlson 2015; Cheng and Landale 2011; Crissey 2005; East 1998; Fuller,
Frost, and Burr 2015; Gassanov, Nicholson, and Koch-Turner 2008; Manning,
Longmore, and Giordano 2007; Plotnick 2007). Crissey (2005), for example,
found that African American adolescents anticipated marrying later than whites,
with no difference between white and Mexican adolescents. Other studies have
found that Hispanic youth desire an earlier transition into marriage than their
white peers (East 1998; Gassanov, Nicholson, and Koch-Turner 2008). If
minority students’ lower hookup frequency than whites is a result of an earlier
desired transition into marriage, this may only be true for Latina/o students.
Low rates of hookup participation among black and Asian students are less
likely to be accounted for by marriage ideals. Instead, we argue that the seeming paradox of higher ideal ages at first marriage than whites, but lower rates
of hookup participation among black and Asian groups reflect the intersections
of campus demographics with partner preferences, as described above. Kimmel
has suggested that tokenism may also account for racial differences in hookup
MARITAL HORIZONS AND HOOKING UP IN COLLEGE
479
participation, as “minority students on largely white campuses often feel that
everything they do is seen not in terms of themselves as individuals but representative of their minority group” (2008:203).
Previous research finds gender differences in both hookup participation
and ideal age at first marriage, with the scripts for both relationship contexts
organized according to gender-specific norms (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013;
Bogle 2007; Crockett and Beal 2012; Manning, Longmore, and Giordano
2007; Willoughby 2010). On average, young women expect to marry at somewhat earlier ages than men and report fewer hookups (Heldman and Wade
2010; Plotnick 2007; Uecker and Regnerus 2010). An earlier ideal age at marriage may help to explain gender differences in hookups.
Research Questions
The literature reviewed above suggests a positive relationship between
ideal age at first marriage and hookups such that greater ideal age at first marriage is tied to a greater number of hookups. However, previous research also
suggests that there may be no relationship between ideal age at first marriage
and hookups for those students who desire an early transition into marriage or
who remain on the margins of college social life, possibly including working
class and some racial/ethnic minority students. And variation in ideal age at
first marriage may partially account for gender, racial/ethnic, and/or social class
differences in hookup participation. Thus, we pose the following three research
questions:
1 What is the relationship between ideal age at first marriage and the
frequency of hookups in college?
H1: Ideal age at marriage will be positively associated with hookup frequency.
2 Does the relationship between ideal age at first marriage and hookup
frequency in college vary by gender, race/ethnicity, and/or social class?
H2: Ideal age at marriage will be unrelated to hookup frequency for
women.
H3: Ideal age at marriage will be unrelated to hookup frequency for
working class students.
H4a: Ideal age at marriage will be unrelated to hookup frequency for
Asian men.
H4b: Ideal age at marriage will be unrelated to hookup frequency for
black women.
480
RACHEL ALLISON AND BARBARA J. RISMAN
3 Does gender, racial/ethnic, and/or social class variation in ideal age at
first marriage account for similar differences in hookup participation?
H5: Ideal age at marriage partially mediates social class differences in
hookup frequency.
H6: Ideal age at marriage partially mediates differences in hookup frequency between white and Latina/o students.
H7: Ideal age at marriage partially mediates gender differences in
hookup frequency.
Methods
Data
To answer the above questions, we analyze data from the Online College
Social Life Survey (OCSLS), a survey of college students’ sexual and romantic
attitudes and experiences that was developed at Stanford University in 2005.
Between 2005 and 2011, data collection efforts included 22 college and university campuses in the United States, including the university where both authors
were affiliated at the time of data collection. Student participants were recruited
through offering a small amount of extra credit in a variety of courses in the
social sciences and humanities. While many of these courses were in sociology,
only 11 percent of participants report majoring in sociology. Data collection by
the authors focused on large lower-level courses that enroll students across
diverse majors. These data are by no means representative of any larger population, with public, research-oriented universities predominant among participating schools. Nevertheless, the extension of extra credit for survey completion
guaranteed near-total participation at the classroom level, reducing selection
bias in the sample (Bearak 2014; McClintock 2010). Further, the survey was
administered online, was taken privately, and took 15–20 min to complete, factors that decrease social desirability bias and improve the validity of responses.
The final dataset (2011) includes responses from 24,131 students.
In this article, we restrict our sample to self-identified heterosexual undergraduate students who expect to marry in the future. Thus, we exclude graduate
students, homosexual students, and bisexual students, those unsure of their sexual orientation, married students, and those who do not want to marry or are
unsure whether they want to marry. After these exclusions, 19,569 respondents
were retained. We also omitted those with missing data on any measure used
in regression analyses. We excluded an additional 8 percent of respondents due
to missing data for a final sample size of 17,981.
MARITAL HORIZONS AND HOOKING UP IN COLLEGE
481
Measures
Our dependent variable assesses hookup frequency. The OCSLS asked
about hookups with both strangers and known partners. Prior to answering survey questions about hookups, respondents were instructed to “use whatever
definition of a hookup you and your friends generally use. It doesn’t have to
include sex to count if you and your friends would call it a hook up.” Our
measure derives from the questions, “Since you started college (counting during
summers or during a term abroad), how many people have you hooked up with
in the case where you were not already in a romantic relationship with the person but you did know him or her?” and “How many people have you hooked
up whom you didn’t know before that night?” Response options ranged from 0
to 15, with 15 indicating 15 or more hookups.1 These questions were combined
as a measure of total hookup frequency.
Independent variables include ideal age at first marriage, mother’s education, sex, and race/ethnicity. Respondents who indicated that they did expect to
marry in the future were prompted, “How old would you ideally like to be
when you get married?” This is a continuous measure. We use mother’s education as the sole measure of social class available in the dataset. While we are
limited in measuring the multidimensionality of social class position, our decision is in line with other analyses using parental education exclusively as a
proxy for class (Bearak 2014; Crockett and Beal 2012; Silva 2013). Respondents were asked, “What level of education has your mother completed?”
Response options were less than high school, high school graduate only, some
college, bachelor’s degree, and graduate degree. These were coded as a series
of dummy variables. Responses to “Which sex are you?” were grouped into
male and female; transgender students (N = 36) were recoded as male or
female. Racial/ethnic identity was assessed from the question “If you had to
pick one racial or ethnic group to describe yourself, which would it be?”
Response options included white, black, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino,
Vietnamese, South Asian, Other Asian, Native American, Mexican American,
Puerto Rican, Other Hispanic, and Other. These were coded into white, black,
Asian, Latina/o, and other categories, with Native American respondents categorized under “other” due to small numbers.
Control Variables
In testing our hypotheses, we necessarily include covariates that may affect
associations between ideal age at first marriage and hooking up. We control for
age, year in school, religious affiliation, and religious service attendance, as
these variables are related to hooking up (Bogle 2008; Brimeyer and Smith
2012; Davidson et al. 2008; Fielder et al. 2013; Hamilton and Armstrong
482
RACHEL ALLISON AND BARBARA J. RISMAN
2009; McClintock 2010; Owen et al. 2010; Uecker and Regnerus 2010). We
also control for three factors related to marriage expectations. We control for
the relationship status of students’ parents, as experiences of adult relationships
directly shape young adults’ expectations for their own relationships (Fuller,
Frost, and Burr 2015; Halpern-Meekin 2012). We also control for the geographic type of the area where respondents attended high school, as geographic
location matters to marriage ideals (Kefalas et al. 2011). Finally, we control for
whether students were born in the United States or not, as nativity influences
the anticipated timing of adult role transitions such as marriage (East 1998;
Glick et al. 2006). The measurement of all controls is detailed in Appendix 1.
Results
Table 1 presents a demographic description of the OCSLS sample used
for analysis (N = 17,981). The sample is predominately female (69%) and
white (65%), with 6 percent black students, 14 percent Asian students, 10 percent Latina/o students, and 5 percent from an “other” racial/ethnic group.
Exactly half of students are 18–19 years of age and 61 percent are in their first
or second year of college. About 50 percent of students’ mothers earned either
a bachelor’s or a graduate degree. Of the remaining half of students, a quarter
reported mothers with some college education and the final quarter reported
that their mothers had a high school diploma only or less than a high school
education.2
Table 2 presents the mean ideal age at first marriage and the mean number
of hookups for the entire sample and then by sex, race/ethnicity, and mother’s
education. Standard deviations are reported in parentheses. Independent samples
t-tests test for sex differences in ideal age at first marriage and hooking up,
while one-way ANOVAs test for differences across race/ethnicity and mother’s
education. While ANOVAs show whether there are overall significant differences in means, they do not tell us how these means differ. Thus, we also computed post hoc Bonferroni corrections for pairwise group mean comparison in
order to ascertain which group means differed.
For the entire sample, the mean ideal age at first marriage was 26.69. This
average was significantly higher for men (27.64) than women (26.27,
t = 27.2835, p = .0000). A one-way ANOVA revealed between group differences in ideal age at first marriage by mother’s education (F = 13.44,
p = .0000). The Bonferroni correction shows that significant differences exist
between the “graduate degree” category and each other category of education.
Students whose mothers have a graduate degree have a higher mean ideal age
at first marriage (27.03) than students whose mothers have any other level of
education measured here. In addition, one-way ANOVA results with Bonferroni
correction show between group differences in ideal age at first marriage by race
MARITAL HORIZONS AND HOOKING UP IN COLLEGE
483
Table 1
Demographic Description of Sample
%
Sex
Male
Female
Age
18–19
20–21
22–23
24+
Year
1–2
3–4
5+
Race/Ethnicity
White
Black
Asian
Latina/o
Other
Mother’s Education
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
