Applying a pattern-centered approach to understanding how attachment, gender beliefs, and homosociality shape college men's sociosexuality.
Applying a pattern-centered approach to understanding how attachment, gender beliefs, and homosociality shape college men's sociosexuality.
复制标题
应用以模式为中心的方法来理解依恋、性别信仰和同性恋如何塑造大学生的社会性行为。
DOI：
10.1080/00224499.2012.724119
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Calzo,JerelP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Calzo,JerelP
尽管早期的研究和大众媒体都把大学男生描述为不承诺性行为的普遍受益者，但新的研究指出，男性的社会性存在相当大的差异（即，未承诺的性信仰，欲望和行为）。这项研究探讨了社会性取向的多样性如何与依恋取向、男性气质规范的一致性和同性社会参与（即，非浪漫的同性债券）是在个人之间组织的。495名大学男生的潜像分析（年龄17至25岁，62%白色，83.5%异性恋）检测到五个亚组：完全不受限制（10%的样本;高度社会性和符合男性规范）;认知不受限制（36%;与完全不受限制者相当，但社会性行为较低），完全受限制（30%;与完全不受限制的人相比，所有结构都相反）;回避型（16%;与完全受限制的人相似，但具有更大的依恋回避）;和不一致型（8%;高于社会性行为的平均水平，但在结构内部和结构之间不一致）。有显着的人口统计学，个性和行为的差异之间的亚组（例如，近50%的持不同政见者自认为是性少数;完全限制者是最虔诚的;回避者是最害羞的）。研究结果表明，大学男性的社会性是非常微妙的，并建议需要额外的工作，以了解如何附件，男性气质规范，和同性恋塑造男性的性关系。
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.