Has Virginity Lost Its Virtue? Relationship Stigma Associated With Being a Sexually Inexperienced Adult

The Journal of Sex Research ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20 Has Virginity Lost Its Virtue? Relationship Stigma Associated With Being a Sexually Inexperienced Adult Amanda N. Gesselman, Gregory D. Webster & Justin R. Garcia To cite this article: Amanda N. Gesselman, Gregory D. Webster & Justin R. Garcia (2016): Has Virginity Lost Its Virtue? Relationship Stigma Associated With Being a Sexually Inexperienced Adult, The Journal of Sex Research, DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1144042 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1144042 Published online: 16 Mar 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3518 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20 Download by: [Indiana University Libraries] Date: 10 October 2016, At: 13:31 THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 00(00), 1–12, 2016 Copyright © The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality ISSN: 0022-4499 print/1559-8519 online DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1144042 Has Virginity Lost Its Virtue? Relationship Stigma Associated With Being a Sexually Inexperienced Adult Amanda N. Gesselman The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington Gregory D. Webster Department of Psychology, University of Florida Justin R. Garcia The Kinsey Institute and Department of Gender Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington While virginity prior to marriage has been historically valued, changing sociosexual scripts in the United States have made premarital sexual activity the norm for young adults, with sexual debut generally occurring in late adolescence. In the current research, we examined the impact of being developmentally off-time with first coitus (i.e., not yet engaging in coitus when most same-aged peers have done so). Specifically, we investigated stigma toward sexually inexper- ienced adults and discrimination regarding romantic relationship formation. Across three methodologically diverse studies we observed that sexually inexperienced adults perceived themselves to be stigmatized due to their inexperience and that sexually inexperienced adults were not highly desired as relationship partners. Even sexually inexperienced adults themselves did not find other inexperienced adults to be attractive relationship partners. Although abstain- ing from sexual activity may bestow some health advantages, our studies show that being a sexual “late bloomer” may result in negative interpersonal consequences such as limited opportunities for romantic relationships. Historically, the considerable value placed on chastity until adults. In three studies, we examined whether sexual marriage set the tone for romantic and sexual relationships, inexperience in adulthood (i.e., being an adult virgin) cre- with virginity valued and negative connotations associated ates a social barrier for future relationships. In Study 1, we with premarital sex (Abbott, 2000; Blank, 2007). But in the sampled both sexually experienced and inexperienced adults contemporary United States, sociosexual norms have changed to investigate what people consider the normal age for significantly over the past century, with most people now sexual debut and examined feelings of stigmatization asso- engaging in premarital sex (e.g., Finer, 2007; Laumann, ciated with abstinence. In Study 2, using a large nationally Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). In this context, little is representative sample of single adults, we examined known about the consequences of not engaging in normative whether sexual inexperience results in discrimination, lead- sexual scripts, including being sexually inexperienced at an age ing to declining opportunities for relationship formation. In when most peers have reached sexual debut. Because both Study 3, using an experimental design, we further romantic and sexual relationship formation is normative in investigated stigma and discrimination associated with sex- adolescence and early adulthood (Finer & Philbin, 2013; ual inexperience and assessed the potential buffering effect Fortenberry, 2003; Garcia & Fisher, 2016; Regan, Durvasula, of romantic relationship experience. Howell, Ureño, & Rea, 2004), sexually inexperienced adults are The current research makes two significant contributions. likely to encounter negative social consequences of being off- First, we focused on sexually inexperienced adults. With time relative to others in their age cohorts and social networks. approximately 1.1 million American men and 800,000 In the current research we assessed perceptions of, and women between 25 and 45 years old characterized as het- attitudes toward, sexual inexperience—defined as the erosexual virgins (Eisenberg, Shindel, Smith, Lue, & Walsh, absence of vaginal penetrative intercourse—in heterosexual 2009), this is an underrepresented demographic that has not been well studied in the social and behavioral science lit- erature. Second, we investigated stigma and discrimination Correspondence should be addressed to Amanda N. Gesselman, The toward those who are sexually inexperienced. Although Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, 1165 E. Third St., Morrison Hall 313, Bloomington, IN 47405. E-mail: angesselman@gmail.com chastity was once valued in romantic and sexual partners,  GESSELMAN, WEBSTER, AND GARCIA various lines of evidence suggest its relative value is chan- those who are not married? Research on “singlism” has ging in the United States. For instance, in a series of studies shown that being single in adulthood is significantly and on human mate choice spanning nearly six decades, the reliably associated with stigma. For example, undergraduate importance of a potential partner’s chastity has demon- students perceived single people to be “maladjusted,” strated some of the most striking changes over time (Buss, whereas married people were more likely to be perceived Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen, 2001). From the first as “happy” and “successful” (DePaulo & Morris, 2006). year of data (1939) to the last (1996), chastity went from Co-occurring with formation of romantic relationships, being rated as the 10th most important trait for both genders late adolescence and young adulthood typically mark the to 16th for men and 17th for women. It is not clear why the onset of sexual experience. The average age of sexual debut value of chastity changed over time, although the authors in the United States is 17 years old for both men and women note the influence of more widely available birth control and (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2013), the sexual revolution of the 1960s as likely contributing and nearly 90% of people between ages 22 and 24 report factors. This raises the question of whether virginity has having had consensual vaginal intercourse (Mosher, Chandra, shifted from a characteristic that was once attractive to one & Jones, 2005). Furthermore, most sexual debut happens that is now undesirable. before first marriage. In one study, by age 20, 75% of In addition, the health protections associated with absti- respondents had engaged in premarital sex, and by age 44, nence often lead to the presumption that those who are 95% had experienced premarital sex (Finer, 2007). Taken sexually abstinent would be perceived positively, that together, in contemporary industrialized societies, population sexual experience in late adolescence and young adulthood statistics suggest that sexual experiences are a standard part is normative, and that in general those who violate norms are of late adolescence and young adulthood. perceived negatively (Dovidio, Major, & Crocker, 2000; Sexual engagement in early adulthood is also part of a Wilson & O’Gorman, 2003). While research shows stigma normalized sexual script (Sprecher & Treger, 2015). associated with being sexually permissive (Conley, Ziegler, Interpersonal sexual scripts contextualize the role of socio- & Moors, 2013; Vrangalova, Bukberg, & Rieger, 2014), cultural norms in shaping individual sexual engagement violation of normative scripts for the timing of sexual debut across the life course (Simon & Gagnon, 1986). These by way of nonengagement is also likely to result in negative scripts influence individuals’ sexual activity and are inter- evaluation. In the current research, we investigated percep- personally dynamic, such that individuals must use their tions of, and stigma toward, sexually inexperienced adults. conception of the social norm to not only reflect their own sexual behavior across the life course but to also reflect the desired sexual archetype of potential partners relative to Norms in Relationship Formation developmental timings. Yet there is a dearth of research Relationship formation is a driving goal of young adult- examining when in the life course prior sexual experience hood (Erikson, 1950). Research on developmental timing is expected, what is considered a late entry into sexual has shown that serious romantic relationships are often relationships, and the perceptions and effects of being off- sought in late adolescence, with most people reporting first time (delayed or not engaged) in sexual experience relative experiences with romantic love around age 17 (Regan et al., to peers. 2004). Moreover, the median age at first marriage in the While research on developmental timing has not specifi- United States is between 26 and 29 years (U.S. Census cally examined being delayed in sexual experience, nearly all Bureau, 2011), indicating that most Americans are engaging developmental goals—including forming partnerships—have in committed romantic relationships by their early to mid- age-defined norms that, once passed, are marked by declining twenties. While research shows that forming relationships opportunities (Wrosch & Heckhausen, 1999). In the context of during late adolescence and young adulthood is typical, relationships, the market for partners dwindles as people pro- other lines of research show that it is also expected—an gress through the life span. A decreasing pool of partners aspect of what gender and sexuality scholars refer to as coupled with stigma associated with being nonnormative compulsory (hetero)sexuality (e.g., Tolman, 2006). This (e.g., stigma toward adult singles; DePaulo & Morris, 2006) implies that relationship engagement follows a social sexual is likely to make it difficult for sexually inexperienced adults to script that is expected and socially enforced, either through enter into relationships. Because humans have evolved a fun- the explicit pressures of others or through internalized social damental interest in partnering (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; standards, causing individuals to center their attitudes and Gray & Garcia, 2013), it follows that not forming such rela- behaviors around the perceived norm. Influential research tionships may have detrimental social and psychological from the 1960s on age-defined social norms found the 19- to effects. For instance, in research focusing on social relation- 25-year-old age range to be the expected time of marriage ships, absence of meaningful relationships relates to depres- for both men and women (Neugarten, Moore, & Lowe, sion and other declines in mental health (e.g., Kearns, Whitley, 1965). Fifty years later, researchers found that 75% of Tannahill, & Ellaway, 2015). Compounding the negative psy- U.S. singles believed the “right” time for marriage is some- chological outcomes, failure to follow social sexual scripts time before age 29 (Gesselman, Garcia, & Fisher, 2015). may result in ostracism from others, as a potential indicator But what of those adults who do not meet expectations— of being unable or unwilling to meet social norms. 2  STIGMA AND SEXUAL INEXPERIENCE Current Research Study 1: “Normal” Age of Sexual Debut and Stigmatization of the Inexperienced In the current research, we investigated stigma—the recognition of one as “different” based on some character- In Study 1, heterosexual adults reported on the ages they istic or group membership and ensuing devaluation perceived as normal for sexual debut in men and women. (Dovidio et al., 2000)—associated with sexual inexperi- They also reported their own perceptions of how they are ence and whether this stigma creates difficulty for forming viewed by others based on their level of sexual (in-) future relationships. We restricted our sample to hetero- experience. sexual participants, as stigma associated with sexuality likely varies in origin and presentation across sexual orientation categories (Herek, 2000). Further, restriction Method to heterosexual samples allowed us to define sexual inex- perience as lack of engagement in penetrative vaginal Participants. Participants were 560 heterosexual intercourse. Most heterosexual individuals understand adults (328 women, 232 men). To increase diversity of our vaginal intercourse as the behavior that defines the loss sample, we recruited from the Psychology Department of virginity (see Sanders & Reinisch, 1999; see also participant pool at a large public university (23.4% of the Sanders et al., 2010) and marks them as sexually experi- sample), Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; 69.3%), and enced from that point forward. Across three diverse stu- Facebook.com through the accounts of 10 research dies, we collectively explored how sexually inexperienced assistants (7.3%). Ages ranged from 18 to 71 years adults think others perceive them due to their level of (in-) (M = 27.5, SD = 10.8). The majority of the sample was experience with sexual behavior; how sexually experi- White/Caucasian (68.2%), 9.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, enced adults actually do perceive their inexperienced 8.8% Black/African American, 6.4% Latino, 0.2% Arab/ counterparts; and whether being sexually inexperienced Middle Eastern, and 0.2% Native American; 5.0% in adulthood affects future relationship opportunities. identified as biracial, and 1.8% as “other.” Regarding In Study 1, we examined the expected age for sexual relationship status, 43.6% were single, 29.5% were debut and perceptions of stigmatization for one’s level of married or engaged, and 26.8% were currently dating. sexual experience. We tested two hypotheses for Study 1. First, consistent with epidemiological reports on sexual Procedure. Participants completed demographics, a debut, we predicted that people would perceive late adoles- detailed sexual history, a brief survey assessing normal cence as the expected age for onset of sexual experience ages for sexual debut, and a measure of perceived stigma. (hypothesis 1). Second, we predicted that sexually inexper- All were completed online. ienced adults would perceive themselves to be stigmatized as a result of their inexperience (hypothesis 2). Measures. In Study 2, we examined whether sexual inexperience Demographics. This category included age, gender, limits dating opportunities. We assessed the likelihood that ethnicity, and relationship status. single adults would enter into a relationship with an adult virgin, and whether such likelihood differed by participant Sexual history. We gave participants a list of sexual gender, age, or sexual history. We tested two hypotheses for behaviors and asked them to indicate which they had experi- Study 2. First, we expected that sexually inexperienced enced and at what age they had first experienced each. For adults would be stigmatized, leading to a lower likelihood the current study, we examined only penetrative vaginal of being chosen as a relationship partner (hypothesis 3). intercourse. Second, we predicted that participants’ sexual history would affect their likelihood of choosing sexually inexper- Normal age for first sexual intercourse. This survey ienced partners, such that those who are sexually experi- included two counterbalanced items: “At what age is it enced would be less likely to consider an inexperienced normal for a woman to have sex for the first time?” and relationship partner (hypothesis 4). “At what age is it normal for a man to have sex for the first Last, in Study 3, we used an experimental design to further time?” Sex was defined as vaginal intercourse. assess whether sexual experience affects a person’s attractive- ness as a potential partner, and whether such effects vary by age Perceived stigma. We adapted Mickelson’s (2001) per- or experience with romantic relationships. We expected the age ceived stigma scale to apply specifically to sexual experience. of sexually inexperienced adults to affect discrimination toward The scale instructed participants to think about their own level them, with older sexually inexperienced adults facing more of sexual experience. Eight items assessed whether partici- stigmatization (hypothesis 5). We also expected that sexually pants felt stigmatized or socially excluded due to their level of inexperienced adults who had prior experience with romantic sexual (in-)experience. Items include “I feel that I am odd or relationships would be perceived more positively, as experience abnormal because of my level of sexual experience” and with romantic relationships provides cues that these adults are “People treat me differently because of my level of sexual still capable of intimately connecting with others (hypothesis 6). experience.” Items were averaged into a composite stigma 3  GESSELMAN, WEBSTER, AND GARCIA variable (α = .83). Responses were made using a 5-point scale inexperienced participants perceived themselves to be (1 = Definitely disagree, 5 = Definitely agree). more stigmatized (M = 2.51, SD = 0.89) than did sexually experienced participants (M = 2.05, SD = 0.80; t500 = 5.65, p < .001, d = 0.51, rp = .25 [.17, .33]; hypothesis 2). We Results also conducted a regression analysis to determine whether, Zero-order correlations for all variables are presented in within the sexually experienced group, greater number of Table 1. Degrees of freedom in our tests fluctuated slightly prior sex partners (M = 8.3, Mdn = 4.0, SD = 12.9) was due to some sporadic missing data, assumed to be missing at related to greater stigma. We log-transformed the sex partner random, and too few to examine possible correlates reliably. count variable to correct positive skew. This test was nonsignificant (p = .71, rp = .02 [−.07, .11]). Sexual History. Of the total sample, 141 participants (25.2%; 79 women, 62 men) had never engaged in vaginal intercourse. Ages of sexually inexperienced participants Discussion ranged from 18 to 52 years (M = 21.7, SD = 5.3). We conducted Study 1 to determine perceptions of normal ages of sexual debut. Consistent with research on Expected Onset of Sexual Experience. Participants actual age at debut (e.g., CDC, 2013), the “normal” age for indicated the “normal” age for sexual debut (vaginal men and women fell between 16 and 18 years, with the intercourse) was 17.6 years (SD = 2.1) for men versus overall average being 17 years of age. Hypothesis 1 was 17.1 years (SD = 2.2) for women (hypothesis 1). We supported. conducted two linear regression analyses to determine We also investigated self-perceptions of stigma based on whether participant gender (coded as −0.5 = female, sexual experience. While scores on the stigma measure did 0.5 = male), participant sexual status (−0.5 = inexperienced, not exceed the scale midpoint (i.e., Ms = 2.1 to 2.5 on a 5- 0.5 = experienced), and their interaction predicted reports of point scale)—and thus do not convey high levels of per- normal age of sexual debut for women (Model 1) and for men ceived stigmatization—sexually inexperienced adults per- (Model 2). For expected sexual debut in women, female ceived themselves to be more stigmatized due to their participants (M = 17.8, SD = 2.1) reported older ages than level of sexual (in)experience than did sexually experienced did men (M = 17.4, SD = 2.1; b = −0.92, t484 = −3.29, adults. Within the experienced group, we found no differ- p = .001, rp = −.15, 95% CI [−.24, −.06]). Sexually ences in self-perceptions of stigma due to number of prior inexperienced participants (M = 18.7, SD = 2.7) reported sex partners, indicating that sexually inexperienced adults older ages than did experienced participants (M = 17.2, perceived greater stigma about their level of sexual (in-) SD = 1.6; b = −1.17, t484 = −4.17, p < .001, rp = −.19 experience than did sexually experienced adults. Hypothesis [−.27, −.10]). The interaction term was not significant 2 was supported. (p = .12, rp = .07 [−.02, .16]). For expected sexual debut in men, sexually inexperienced participants (M = 18.2, SD = 2.8) reported older ages than did experienced participants (M = 16.7, SD = 1.8; t482 = −3.96, p < .001, rp = −.18 Study 2: Sexual Inexperience Affecting Relationship [−.27, −.09]). Participant gender (women: M = 17.0, Opportunities in a Nationally Representative Sample of SD = 2.3; men: M = 17.1, SD = 2.1; p = .45, rp = −.04 U.S. Single Adults [−.13, .05]) and the interaction term (p = .22, rp = .06 [−.03, .15]) were nonsignificant. In Study 2, we assessed discrimination toward sexually inexperienced adults in the form of limited dating opportu- Stigmatization of Sexually Inexperienced Adults. nities. Using a U.S. nationally representative sample, we According to an independent-samples t-test, sexually assessed the likelihood that single adults would enter into Table 1. Zero-Order Correlations for Variables Used in Study 1 Zero-Order Correlations Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Gender −0.09 0.49 — 2. Sex experience (virgin/nonvirgin) 0.22 0.45 −.02 — 3. Number of past sex partners 5.97 11.59 −.00 .32** — 4. Expected age for female sexual onset 18.24 2.83 −.12* −.19** −.07 — 5. Expected age for male sexual onset 17.53 2.81 −.01 −.19** −.05 .83** — 6. Perception of stigmatizationa 2.16 0.85 .04 −.25** −.03 .02 .03 a α = .83. *p < .05; **p < .01. 4  STIGMA AND SEXUAL INEXPERIENCE a relationship with an adult virgin and whether such like- sample mean was 2.41 (SD = 1.02). This mean was sig- lihood differs by participant gender, age, or sexual history. nificantly lower than the theoretical scale midpoint of 2.5 (t4933 = −5.97, p < .001, d = 0.17, rp = .09 [.06, .11]). Although this effect was small, it is the modal effect size in Method social psychology (see Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, Data Collection. Participants were recruited from U.S. 2003, p. 336). Across the sample, there was a low likelihood nationally representative research panels established by of considering getting into a relationship with a virgin. MarketTools. Data were collected in 2012 as part of a Hypothesis 3 was supported. large study on the dating and sexual behaviors of single We conducted a linear regression to determine if demo- American adults. The project was sponsored by the online graphics or sexual history related to likelihood of choosing dating company Match.com; however, participants were not sexually inexperienced adults as partners. The model recruited or in any way drawn from the Match.com included participant age (mean-centered), gender (coded as population or subsidiary sites. Participants were required −0.5 = female, 0.5 = male), participant sexual status to be at least 21 years of age and legally single. All data (−0.5 = inexperienced, 0.5 = experienced), all two-way were collected over the Internet. interactions, and the three-way interaction term. The model was significant (F7,4926 = 141.77, p < .001, R2 = .17; see Questionnaire. Participants reported age, sexual Table 3 for regression coefficients). Younger participants orientation, ethnicity, and gender. For consistency with the (M = 1.95, SD = 0.87; versus M = 2.92, SD = 0.99 for prior study, our analyses included only those who identified older participants), men (M = 2.20, SD = 0.97; versus as heterosexual and who identified as men or women. women: M = 2.60, SD = 1.03), and virgins (M = 1.97, Participants responded to the following item: “How likely SD = 1.00; versus nonvirgins: M = 2.50, SD = 1.01) were are you to consider getting into a committed relationship less likely to consider a relationship with a virgin. with someone who is a virgin?” This item was taken from a These main effects were qualified by two significant two- list of descriptors for potential partners (e.g., “How likely way interactions: age × gender, and gender × participant are you to consider getting into a committed relationship virgin status. For the gender × participant virgin status inter- with … someone who is shorter than you?”). Responses action, we conducted simple effects tests (Cohen, Cohen, were made on a four-point scale (1 = Not at all likely, West, & Aiken, 2003). Overall, men were less likely to 4 = Very likely). Participants also reported whether they consider dating virgins than were women, but this difference had had sexual intercourse. was stronger among nonvirgins (b = −0.41, t4926 = −13.94, p < .001, rp = −.20 [−.17, −.22]) than among virgins Participants. The total sample contained 4,934 single, (b = −0.25, t4926 = −3.62, p < .001, rp = −.05 [−.02, −.08]). heterosexual adults (women = 2,600; men = 2,334). Participant In addition, virgin participants were less likely to consider age ranged from 21 to 76+ years (M = 47.0, SD = 15.5). For dating a virgin than were nonvirgin participants. This differ- race and ethnicity, 76% identified as White, 13% as Black/ ence was larger for women (b = −0.50, t4926 = −10.00, African American, 3% as Asian/Pacific Islander, 5% as p < .001, rp = −.14 [−.11, −.17]) than for men (b = −0.34, Hispanic/Latino, and 1% as North American Indian or t4926 = −6.10, p < .001, rp = −.09 [−.06, −.11]). Alaskan Native. To test simple effects for the age × gender interaction, we recentered age at ±1 SD. There were no gender differences within younger (b = −0.12, t4926 = −1.68, p = .09, rp = −.02 Results [−.05, .01]) or older (b = 0.081, t4926 = 0.59, p = .56, Zero-order correlations for all variables are presented in rp = .01 [−.02, .04]) participant groups. However, younger Table 2. With respect to entering into a romantic relation- participants were less likely to date virgins than were older ship with a virgin, on the four-point likelihood scale the participants, and this effect was more pronounced among Table 2. Zero-Order Correlations for All Variables Used in Study 2 Zero-Order Correlations Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Participant age 27.96 15.50 — 2. Gender −0.03 0.50 −.06** — 3. Sex experience (virgin/nonvirgin) 0.33 0.37 −.14** −.01 — 4. Number of past sexual partners 2.31 3.90 −.07** .17** — — 5. Frequency of sex in past year 7.13 2.79 .33** −.14** — −.16** — 6. Likelihood of relationship with virgin 2.41 1.02 −.33** .20** .20** .02 −.07** **p < .01. 5  GESSELMAN, WEBSTER, AND GARCIA Table 3. Likelihood of Entering Into a Relationship With a status. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was supported, albeit by Virgin, as a Function of Participant Gender, Age, and Sexual a small effect. In addition, sexual history affected consid- Experience (Virgin Versus Nonvirgin) eration of a virgin as a partner, such that sexually inex- Variable b t4926 rp [95% CI] perienced participants were less likely to consider dating virgins. Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Intercept 2.28 — — Gender 0.33 8.76*** .124 [.096, .151] Age −0.02 −18.13*** −.250 [−.276, −.250] Sexual experience (virgin/ 0.42 11.21*** .158 [.131, .185] Study 3: Experimental Manipulation of Romantic and nonvirgin) Sexual Experience in a Young Adult Target Gender × age 0.01 2.88** .041 [.013, .069] Gender × sexual experience −0.16 −2.09* −.030 [−.058, −.002] Age × sexual experience −0.00 −1.49 −.021 [−.049, −.007] Study 2 suggested that discrimination toward sexually Gender × age × sexual 0.02 4.21*** .060 [.032, .088] inexperienced adults exists, limiting their opportunities for experience committed relationships. Thus, we designed an experimental *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. study to further assess discrimination in relationship opportu- nities. Because younger participants were less likely to consider sexually inexperienced adults as relationship partners in Study women (b = 0.024, t4926 = 15.84, p < .001, rp = .22 [.19, 2, we chose to restrict our sample to undergraduate emerging .25]) than it was among men (b = 0.017, t4926 = 10.19, adults to further pinpoint the age at which sexual inexperience p < .001, rp = .14 [.12, .17]). is most detrimental to relationship outcomes. We presented Last, these main effects and two-way interactions were participants with dating profiles of potential partners of varying qualified by a significant three-way interaction among parti- age within the late adolescence to young adulthood life phase. cipant age, gender, and virgin status. We decomposed the We also included varying amounts of experience with romantic three-way interaction by examining the two simple age × relationships in an attempt to understand whether having a gender interactions within virgin and nonvirgin participants. history of romantic relationships would provide a buffer against Among nonvirgin participants, the simple age × gender inter- the stigma of being sexually inexperienced. action was nonsignificant (b = 0.003, t4926 = 1.56, p = .12, rp = .02 [−.01, .05]), such that the simple age effects for men (b = 0.020, t4926 = 14.59, p < .001, rp = .20 [.18, .23]) and Method women (b = 0.017, t4926 = 12.96, p < .001, rp = .18 [.15, .21]) Participants. We recruited 353 heterosexual participants were similarly positive. In contrast, among virgin partici- (240 women, 113 men) from the Psychology Department pants, the simple age × gender interaction was significant participant pool at a large, public university in the (b = −0.016, t4926 = −3.92, p < .001, rp = −.06 [−.08, −.03]), Southeastern United States. The majority of the sample such that the age effect for women (b = 0.030, t4926 = 11.25, identified as White/Caucasian (61.7%), 8.2% Asian/Pacific p < .001, rp = .16 [.13, .19]) was more pronounced than it was Islander, 7.6% Black/African American, 10.4% Latino, 2.3% for men (b = 0.014, t4926 = 4.59, p < .001, rp = .07 [.04, .09]). Arab/Middle Eastern, and 0.6% Native American; 7.9% Hypothesis 4—that sexually experienced participants would identified as biracial, and 1.4% as “other.” Most participants be less likely than sexually inexperienced participants to were single (70.3%), 28.3% were currently dating, and 1.3% choose an inexperienced partner—was not supported. were engaged or married. Participant age ranged from 18 to 26 years (M = 18.6, SD = 1.0). Only 316 participants provided age data. Discussion Because participant age was important to our model, Study 2 allowed us to consider the implications of we used regression-based imputation to estimate ages being sexually inexperienced with respect to dating and for the missing cases (Cohen et al., 2003). The imputa- establishing more enduring romantic relationships. These tion model regressed participant age onto participant findings offer a more holistic understanding of the impact gender, participant sexual status (virgin versus nonvir- of sexual (in)experience on people’s lives, beyond a gin), and their interaction (F3,312 = 53.65, p < .001, strictly sexual engagement (e.g., asking participants if R2 = .340). Although the gender effect was small they would have sex with a virgin), which is a more (b = 0.16, t312 = 1.57, p = .12, rp = .089), both the private context and thus less susceptible to social pres- effect for sexual status (b = 0.39, t312 = 3.96, p < .001, sures. Across the sample, we observed a small difference rp = .219) and the interaction (b = 1.11, t312 = 11.89, between the mean likelihood of entering into a committed p < .001, rp = .558) were substantial. We used these relationship with a virgin (M = 2.41) and the scale’s regression coefficients to predict age estimates for the theoretical midpoint (2.5). This suggests that single adults missing cases. Rerunning the main regression without may be less likely to consider sexually inexperienced these cases produced only a single discrepancy in the adults as committed relationship partners, should they be pattern of significance: The participant gender effect was made aware of a prospective partner’s sexual history reduced to nonsignificance. 6  STIGMA AND SEXUAL INEXPERIENCE Procedure. Participants were asked to help test a new 8. Imagine that you were interested in having a serious online dating website. We provided a false backstory that a relationship with someone. How much would you research team had gleaned all the information on the like to have a serious relationship with this person? target’s profile from observing the target’s living space, similar to research conducted by Gosling (2008). All responses were made on seven-point scales (1 = Not Participants were shown one profile to evaluate. The at all, 7 = Very). Because these items correlated highly, we profile did not include a photograph of the target but did averaged them into a composite (α = .92). Last, participants include gender (opposite gender of the participant), completed the same demographics used in Study 1. relationship status (single), whether the target had children (never), and age. Target age was randomly varied to be 16, 20, or 25 years, to place the target at Results various points in emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2004). The profiles also included a graph of the target’s big five Zero-order correlations appear in Table 4. We conducted personality traits, hobbies, romantic relationship multiple regression analyses with target attractiveness as the experience, and sexual experience. The personality profile outcome measure. The predictor variables were the four and hobbies were consistent across all targets so that they contrast-coded variables for the five levels of sexual experi- could not differentially affect evaluations. ence and romantic relationship experience, target age (16, The target’s supposed amounts of experience with sex 20, and 25 years; centered at 20), participant age (mean- and romantic relationships were presented in separate bar centered), participant gender (−0.5 = female, 0.5 = male), graphs on the profile. Each graph showed two bars reflect- and participant sexual experience (inexperienced = −0.5, ing experience levels: one for target and one for “the aver- experienced = 0.5). Analyses also included all two-way age person in our studies” (i.e., an average based on all faux interactions. participants). The graphs listed arbitrary numbers and had Regression coefficients appear in Table 5. Men (M = 3.83, no axes labels, leaving participants to compare the two bars SD = 1.16) rated targets as more attractive on average than and assume that the target had a low, average, or high level did women (M = 3.54, SD = 1.15). People rated targets with of experience in each. We used a five-cell optimal design to high romantic experience (M = 3.85, SD = 1.14) more attrac- maximize power to detect linear main effects and an inter- tive than targets with low romantic experience (M = 3.32, action while preserving our ability to test for possible non- SD = 1.11); no such effect occurred for target sexual experi- linearity (McClelland, 1997). Specifically, we randomly ence or any other aspect of the experience manipulation. assigned participants to view one of five combinations of Because the congruent (versus incongruent) experience target romantic and sexual experience: low-low, low-high, effect—equivalent to the target sexual experience × target high-low, high-high, and moderate-moderate. romantic experience interaction—was nonsignificant, After viewing the profile, participants reported their per- hypothesis 6 was not supported. Nevertheless, two significant ceptions of the target, completed demographics, and were interactions emerged: participant age × target age, and parti- debriefed. No participants reported suspicion of the decep- cipant sex experience × target sex experience. tion used. The participant age × target age interaction appears in Figure 1. We tested simple effects by recentering the pre- dictors. We first tested the simple effect of participant age at Measures. We assessed participants’ perceptions of each target age. When targets were 16 years, participant age the target with eight items developed for this study. To get a global evaluation of the target, items focused on both 4.1 romantic and sexual attractiveness of the target, and Target age (years) attractiveness as both a short-term and long-term partner. 16 Target's Attractiveness Items included: 3.9 20 25 1. How appealing do you find this person? 3.7 2. How compatible would you be with this person? 3. How attractive do you find this person in general? 4. How attractive is this person for a date? 3.5 5. How likely would you be to recommend this person to a friend as a date? 6. How close is this person to your ideal partner? 3.3 18 19 20 7. Imagine that you were interested in having a one- time sexual encounter with someone. How much Participant Age (Years) would you like to have that one-time sexual encoun- Figure 1. Target’s attractiveness as a function of age of target and ter (a “one-night stand”) with this person? participant. 7  GESSELMAN, WEBSTER, AND GARCIA Table 4. Zero-Order Correlations for All Variables Used in Study 3 Zero-Order Correlations Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Participant age 18.67 1.05 — 2. Participant gender −0.12 0.49 .11* — 3. Participant sex experience 0.14 0.48 .17** .03 — 4. Target age −0.01 0.41 .01 −.03 −.08 — 5. Target sex experience −0.01 0.45 .08 −.06 −.01 −.00 — 6. Target romantic experience 0.00 0.45 −.00 −.02 .07 −.01 .02 — 7. Target moderate experience −0.00 0.40 .01 .00 −.04 −.02 .01 .01 — 8. Target attractivenessa 3.63 1.15 .07 .12* .02 .06 −.12* .21** −.08 a α = .92. *p < .05; **p < .01. Table 5. Target Attractiveness as a Function of Participant Gender, Age, and Sexual Experience, and Target Age, Sexual Experience, Romantic Experience, and Moderate Experience Variable b t321 rp [95% CI] Intercept 3.692 — — Participant gender 0.307 2.30* .127 [.018, .233] Participant age 0.004 0.05 .003 [−.107, .112] Participant sexual experience (virgin/nonvirgin) 0.050 0.36 .020 [−.090, .129] Target age 0.009 0.48 .027 [−.083, .136] Target sexual experience (high versus low) −0.244 −1.64 −.091 [−.198, .019] Target romantic experience (high versus low) 0.574 3.90*** .212 [.105, .314] Target congruent experience (versus incongruent experience) −0.111 −0.38 −.021 [−.130, .089] Target moderate experience (versus other experience levels) −0.147 −0.87 −.049 [−.158, .061] Participant gender × participant age 0.046 0.31 .017 [−.093, .126] Participant gender × participant sex experience 0.107 0.38 .021 [−.089, .130] Participant gender × target age −0.036 −0.94 −.053 [−.162, .057] Participant gender × target sexual experience 0.102 0.34 .019 [−.091, .128] Participant gender × target romantic experience 0.226 0.77 .043 [−.067, .152] Participant gender × target congruent experience −0.204 −0.34 −.019 [−.128, .091] Participant gender × target moderate experience 0.351 1.06 .059 [−.051, .167] Participant age × participant sex experience −0.122 −0.78 −.044 [−.153, .066] Participant age × target age 0.044 2.07* .115 [.006, .222] Participant age × target sexual experience −0.215 −1.34 −.075 [−.183, .035] Participant age × target romantic experience 0.083 0.51 .029 [−.081, .138] Participant age × target congruent experience 0.084 0.26 .015 [−.095, .124] Participant age × target moderate experience −0.333 −1.70 −.094 [−.201, .016] Participant sex experience × target age 0.006 0.19 .010 [−.100, .119] Participant sex experience × target sex experience 0.907 3.21** .176 [.068, .280] Participant sex experience × target romantic experience −0.193 −0.69 −.038 [−.147, .072] Participant sex experience × target congruent experience 0.414 0.75 .042 [−.068, .151] Participant sex experience × target moderate experience 0.197 0.61 .034 [−.076, .143] Target age × target sexual experience −0.003 −0.09 −.005 [−.114, .105] Target age × target romantic experience −0.020 −0.54 −.030 [−.139, .080] Target age × target congruent experience 0.049 0.66 .037 [−.073, .146] Target age × target moderate experience −0.035 −0.84 −.047 [−.156, .063] *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. was slightly—but nonsignificantly—negatively related to p = .085, rp = .10 [−.01, .20]). We also tested target age at target attractiveness (b = −0.17, t321 = −1.43, p = .15, three different levels of participant age: 18, 19, and 20 years rp = −.08 [−.19, .03]). When targets were 20 years, partici- of age. Target age did not relate to attractiveness when pant age was unrelated to target attractiveness (b = 0.004, participants were age 18 years (b = −0.02, t321 = −0.88, t321 = 0.05, p = .96, rp = .00 [−.11, .11]). In contrast, when p = .38, rp = −.05 [−.16, .06]) or 19 (b = 0.024, t321 = 1.20, targets were 25 years, participant age was marginally posi- p = .23, rp = .07 [−.04, .18]); however, target age related tively related to target attractiveness (b = 0.23, t321 = 1.73, positively to attractiveness when participants were age 8  STIGMA AND SEXUAL INEXPERIENCE 4.1 We also sought to investigate moderators of discrimina- Target sexual experience tion toward sexually inexperienced adults. We hypothesized Low that age and prior experience with romantic relationships Target's Attractiveness 3.9 High would impact perceptions of sexually inexperienced adults as (un)attractive dating partners. While targets with more romantic experience were rated as more attractive, there was 3.7 no relation between romantic experience and sexual experi- ence. In addition, we found no significant interaction 3.5 between target age and sexual experience. Thus, people’s perceptions of others’ sexual experience depended largely on their own sexual experience. Both hypothesis 5 and 3.3 hypothesis 6 were unsupported. Virgins Non-virgins Participant Sexual Experience General Discussion Figure 2. Target’s attractiveness as a function of sexual experience of target and participant. While premarital chastity was once historically valued (Abbott, 2000; Blank, 2007), today premarital sex is nor- 20 years (b = 0.07, t321 = 1.96, p = .051, rp = .11 [−.00, mative (Finer, 2007; Fortenberry, 2003). In the current .22]). Hypothesis 5—that target age would affect discrimi- research, we examined how sexually inexperienced adults nation toward sexually inexperienced adults—was not in the United States are perceived and whether their inex- supported. perience is a deterrent to future relationship partners. Across The participant sex experience × target sex experience three studies, two primary results emerged. First, sexually interaction appears in Figure 2. We tested the simple effect inexperienced participants reported higher perceptions of of participant sex experience at each target sex experience sexual-experience-related stigmatization than did partici- level. When targets had low experience, participant sex pants who had engaged in sexual activities—even higher experience was marginally negatively related to target than those with relatively greater numbers of prior sex attractiveness (b = −0.36, t326 = −1.84, p = .067, rp = −.10 partners. This is especially striking when considering that [−.21, .01]); but when targets had high experience, partici- in general individuals who are relatively more sexually pant sex experience was positively related to attractiveness permissive are socially stigmatized (Conley et al., 2013; (b = 0.64, t326 = 3.00, p = .003, rp = .16 [.06, .27]).1 We also Vrangalova et al., 2014). tested target sex experience at different levels of participant Second, in Studies 2 and 3 we found that sexual inex- experience (virgins versus nonvirgins). Among virgins perience can impact perceived attractiveness and future (sexually inexperienced), target sex experience related nega- relationship opportunities, though this pattern is affected tively to target attractiveness (b = −0.70, t321 = −3.26, by the age, gender, and sexual experience level of the p = .001, rp = −.18 [−.28, −.07]). In contrast, among non- perceiver. In Study 2, we surveyed a large nationally repre- virgins (sexually experienced), target sex experience was sentative U.S. sample of single adults on the likelihood of unrelated to attractiveness (b = 0.21, t321 = 1.07, p = .29, choosing a virgin as a committed relationship partner. rp = .06 [−.05, .17]). Participants were generally unlikely to consider a relation- ship with a virgin, though some participants were less likely to consider getting into a relationship with a virgin than Discussion others. In particular, men, younger participants, and those Targets’ levels of sexual experience did affect how who themselves were sexually inexperienced expressed less attractive they were perceived to be, but this differed by desire to have a relationship with a virgin. participants’ own levels of sexual experience. Sexually The preference for sexually experienced partners shown inexperienced participants rated targets with less sexual by younger participants in Study 2 may indicate that late experience as more attractive than targets with more adolescence and young adulthood—the age at which form- experience, whereas sexually experienced participants ing relationships and exploring sexuality are hallmarks were not affected by the target’s level of experience. This (Arnett, 2004)—is the same age at which sexual inexperi- may indicate a pattern of assortative pairing with respect to ence is most detrimental to one’s relationship opportu- partner preferences, where people prefer and potentially nities. While speculative, it is also possible this age effect partner in ways that match sexual experience histories. reflects cultural changes in the value of sexuality, where young adults today place greater emphasis on sexual 1 engagement and ability in their partners than did those in The degrees of freedom are higher for these simple effects tests because the models necessitated collapsing two conditions into one (i.e., past generations. Younger participants were more discrimi- both low sexual experience conditions, both high sexual experience condi- natory about sexually inexperienced partners, despite tions), resulting in fewer parameters to be estimated. increasing age being associated with increasing acquisition 9  GESSELMAN, WEBSTER, AND GARCIA of sexual experience. This might also suggest a possible interaction between the target’s romantic experience and cohort effect where attitudes toward virginity are changing sexual experience. Thus, while romantic relationship with new generations. If that is indeed the case, then sexual experience did not provide a buffer for sexual inexperi- scripts encouraging sexual engagement and proficiency ence, it was an important factor in evaluating partners. may have eclipsed scripts for chastity (for a review of Targets who had higher levels of romantic relationship changes and nuances in modern-day sexual scripts, see experience were rated as the most attractive partners, Bordini & Sperb, 2013). regardless of participant age, gender, or sexual experience. The finding that men were more discriminatory than In other words, nearly all participants preferred partners women in sexually inexperienced partners requires further with higher levels of romantic relationship experience. thought. Men’s disinterest in sexually inexperienced partners While Study 2 suggested that sexual inexperience may contradicts historical sexual scripts that stress feminine chas- limit future relationship opportunities, Study 3 indicated tity and premarital virginity (Abbott, 2000). Women’s lack of that having prior romantic experience may help create discrimination is also curious, considering the influence of those opportunities. This finding is also consistent with sexual scripts that reinforce hegemonic masculinity and, research on human mate copying, wherein both men and along with it, expectations for U.S. men’s heterosexuality, women tend to attribute greater mate value to those for including the presupposition that sexually experienced men whom others have shown a partner preference (Place, are more desirable (Kimmel, 2012). In this light, it is surpris- Todd, Penke, & Asendorpf, 2010). ing that heterosexual women were not more critical of sexu- Although our current exploration of this topic provides a ally inexperienced men as potential partners, and equally strong first step toward understanding preferences and interesting that men were more critical of women who stigma attached to age-related sexual (in)experience, it is embodied notions of virginity. It is worth noting that neither not without limitations. First, it is important to note that our gender roles, sexual scripts, nor evolutionary psychological research has limited generalizability. Because this was the models would have necessarily predicted the direction of first investigation on this specific topic, we included only these findings, indicating the utility of integrative develop- heterosexual participants in our studies to reduce potential mental biopsychosocial frameworks for the study of contem- confounds regarding sexual orientation. This allowed for porary romantic and sexual expression (Garcia, Reiber, using the same terminology across participants and studies, Massey, & Merriwether, 2012; Tolman & Diamond, 2014). and for a more consistent interpretation of results. Future Although a small effect, arguably the most interesting research should expand this investigation to other sexual finding from Study 2 was that virgins were less likely than orientations, and similarly to broader types of sexual nonvirgins to consider a romantic relationship with another experiences. virgin. It remains unclear if this is because those who are The restricted age range of participants in Study 3 also sexually inexperienced perceive themselves as more stigma- limited the generalizability of our findings. We initially felt tized than sexually experienced adults and do not want it that focusing exclusively on emerging adults was a potential multiplied in a dyadic relationship, or if this is because they strength, in part because we hypothesized this life phase seek a partner who brings additional experience to their would show the largest effect. However, future research will partnership. This finding also indicates relationship oppor- need to include participants with a broader age range, to tunities for sexually inexperienced adults may be even more allow for testing whether exiting young adulthood without limited, because even those in the same situation of relative normative sexual experiences results in forms of stigma that inexperience are engaging in discrimination toward them. were not captured when observing only those in this life In Study 3, we incorporated an experimental design to phase. assess the causal effects of sexual and romantic inexperi- The current studies did not assess people’s motivations ence across young adulthood. Contrary to hypothesis 5, for remaining sexually abstinent. Differing reasons may target age did not interact with sexual experience level to lessen self-perceptions of stigma and change evaluations impact people’s perceptions of attractiveness. Taken from others. For instance, abstaining from sex for moral or together with the findings from Study 2, it could be that religious reasons may increase one’s attractiveness to reli- sexual inexperience in late adolescence and young adult- gious others. In contrast, abstaining because of negative hood is not necessarily perceived negatively, so long as attitudes toward sex may decrease one’s ability to enter one is still in that life phase. Because sexual debut gen- into relationships. In a similar vein, we also did not assess erally happens in this age range, sexually inexperienced the extent to which people may divulge their sexual inex- young adults will likely gain that experience in the near perience to others, under what contexts such information future. Thus, it may be that exiting young adulthood would be shared with potential partners, or how sharing this without that experience is what places one in the non- information (versus keeping it to themselves) may affect normative—and thus stigmatized—category, rather than feelings of stigma. Future research should examine people’s just being a (potentially) late bloomer within young intrinsic and extrinsic reasons for sexual inexperience and adulthood. how they might share that information. We found a main effect of romantic relationship experi- Second, the current research had methodological limita- ence on attractiveness of the target, but we did not find an tions. In Study 1, we modified an assessment of perceived 10  STIGMA AND SEXUAL INEXPERIENCE stigma to apply to sexual experience. While results were References consistent with our hypothesis that sexually inexperienced participants would perceive themselves to be more stigma- Abbott, E. (2000). A history of celibacy: From Athena to Elizabeth I, tized than their experienced counterparts, scores on the Leonardo da Vinci, Florence Nightingale, Gandhi, and Cher. New York, NY: Scribner. measure were generally low (Ms ≤ 2.5 on a 5-point scale). Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late It should be noted that we did not test or validate the teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. modified measure beyond an in-lab focus group with Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for research assistants. In addition, in this measure of perceived interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. stigma, we asked participants to think about their level of Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 Blank, H. (2007). Virgin: The untouched history. New York, NY: “sexual experience” rather than directing them to consider Holtzbrinck. their (lack of) engagement in penetrative vaginal inter- Bordini, G. S., & Sperb, T. M. (2013). Sexual double standard: A review of course. Because sexual experience could refer to a multitude the literature between 2001 and 2010. Sexuality and Culture, 17, 686– of behaviors beyond vaginal intercourse, it is possible that 704. doi:10.1007/s12119-012-9163-0 our participants were considering other sexual experiences Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution they had had and then imagining how stigmatized they felt of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491–503. for engaging in those acts. Thus, it would be beneficial for doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00491.x future researchers to include a validated measure or perform Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). Sexual activity between testing with the current measure to ensure validity and males and females: Vaginal sexual intercourse. Key Statistics from the reliability, and to use more specific wording to better pin- National Survey of Family Growth. Retrieved from http://www.cdc. gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/s.htm#vaginalsexual point virginity. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple In Study 2, we employed a very large sample to examine regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). differences between virgins and nonvirgins on a one-item Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. measure. The item assessed whether participants would Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A. C. (2013). Backlash from the consider entering into a committed relationship with some- bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 392–407. one who is a virgin but did not specifically assess whether doi:10.1177/0361684312467169 one would desire, or conversely be averse to, a relationship DePaulo, B. M., & Morris, W. L. (2006). The unrecognized stereotyping and with a virgin. This is an important distinction and would discrimination against singles. Current Directions in Psychological provide stronger evidence for discrimination toward adult Science, 15, 251–254. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00446.x virgins in relationship opportunities. In addition, while the Dovidio, J. F., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull sample mean for this item was significantly below the (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 1–29). New York, NY: scale’s midpoint, we acknowledge the difference is small Guilford Press. and significance testing is influenced by sample size. Our Eisenberg, M. L., Shindel, A. W., Smith, J. F., Lue, T. F., & Walsh, T. J. results thus provide a trend and should be further examined (2009). Who is the 40-year-old virgin and where did he/she come from? with clearer, more robust measures. Data from the National Survey of Family Growth. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 2154–2161. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01327.x Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton. Finer, L. B. (2007). Trends in premarital sex in the United States, 1954– 2003. Public Health Reports, 122, 73–78. Conclusion Finer, L. B., & Philbin, J. M. (2013). Sexual initiation, contraceptive use, and pregnancy among young adolescents. Pediatrics, 131, 886–891. Across three studies, we examined an underrepresented doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3495 demographic—sexually inexperienced adults—to observe Fortenberry, J. D. (2003). Adolescent sex and the rhetoric of risk. In D. Romer the social stigma and discrimination associated with being (Ed.), Reducing adolescent risk: Toward an integrated approach (pp. off-time in sexual debut. Our results suggested that sexually 293–300). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. inexperienced adults may perceive themselves as stigma- Garcia, J. R., & Fisher, H. E. (2016). Why we hook up: Searching for sex or looking for love? In S. Tarrant (Ed.), Gender, sex, and politics: In tized and that they may not be desired as romantic partners, the streets and between the sheets in the 21st century (pp. 238–250). even by those who themselves are sexually inexperienced. New York, NY: Routledge. These findings support a new social sexual script that has Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). largely abandoned virginity as a virtue and instead indicates Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16, that people should have some sexual experience to be pre- 161–176. doi:10.1037/a0027911 Gesselman, A. N., Garcia, J. R., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Assessing the ferred partners. While previous research has suggested it is “right” time for marriage: Evidence from a nationally representative possible for one to have too much sexual experience, we sample of single Americans (Unpublished data). have shown that having no sexual experience may also be Gosling, S. (2008). Snoop: What your stuff says about you. New York, NY: associated with negative evaluations. Because intimate rela- Basic Books. tionships are essential to well-being, especially across the Gray, P. B., & Garcia, J. R. (2013). Evolution and human sexual behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. adult life course, it seems that being a late bloomer with Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions sexual debut could be associated with negative social and in Psychological Science, 9, 19–22. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00051 interpersonal consequences. 11  GESSELMAN, WEBSTER, AND GARCIA Kearns, A., Whitley, E., Tannahill, C., & Ellaway, A. (2015). Loneliness, social Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (1999). Would you say you “had sex” if relations, and health and well-being in deprived communities. Psychology, … ? Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 275–277. Health, and Medicine, 20, 332–344. doi:10.1080/13548506.2014.940354 doi:10.1001/jama.281.3.275 Kimmel, M. (2012). Manhood in America: A cultural history (3rd ed.). Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and New York, NY: Oxford University Press. change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120. doi:10.1007/ Laumann, E., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The BF01542219 social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Sprecher, S., & Treger, S. (2015). Virgin college students’ reasons for and Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. reactions to their abstinence from sex: Results from a 23-year study at McClelland, G. H. (1997). Optimal design in psychological research. a Midwestern U.S. university. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 936–948. Psychological Methods, 2, 3–19. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.1.3 doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.983633 Mickelson, K. D. (2001). Perceived stigma, social support, and depression. Tolman, D. L. (2006). In a different position: Conceptualizing female Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1046–1056. adolescent sexuality development within compulsory heterosexuality. doi:10.1177/0146167201278011 New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2006, 71–89. Mosher, W. D., Chandra, A., & Jones, J. (2005). Sexual behavior and doi:10.1002/cd.163 selected health measures: Men and women 15–44 years of age, United Tolman, D. L., & Diamond, L. M. (2014). Sexuality theory: A review, a States, 2002. Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics, 362, 1–56. revision, and a recommendation. In D. Tolman, L. Diamond, J. Neugarten, B. L., Moore, J. W., & Lowe, J. C. (1965). Age norms, age Bauermeister, W. George, J. Pfaus, & M. Ward (Eds.), APA handbook constraints, and adult socialization. American Journal of Sociology, of sexuality and psychology (1st ed., pp. 3–27). Washington, DC: APA 70, 710–717. doi:10.1086/223965 Books. Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2010). Humans show U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Estimated median age at first marriage: mate copying after observing real mate choices. Evolution and Human 1890 to the present. Current Population Survey, March and Behavior, 31, 320–325. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.001 Annual Social and Economic Supplements, 2011 and earlier. Regan, P. C., Durvasula, R., Howell, L., Ureño, O., & Rea, M. (2004). Retrieved from census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/ms2.xls Gender, ethnicity, and the developmental timing of first sexual and Vrangalova, Z., Bukberg, R. E., & Rieger, G. (2014). Birds of a feather? romantic experiences. Social Behavior and Personality: An Not when it comes to sexual permissiveness. Journal of Social and International Journal, 32, 667–676. doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.7.667 Personal Relationships, 31, 93–113. doi:10.1177/0265407513487638 Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. (2003). One hundred Wilson, D. S., & O’Gorman, R. (2003). Emotions and actions associated years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General with norm-breaking events. Human Nature, 14, 277–304. Psychology, 7, 331–363. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 doi:10.1007/s12110-003-1007-z Sanders, S. A., Hill, B. J., Yarber, W. L., Graham, C. A., Crosby, R. Wrosch, C., & Heckhausen, J. (1999). Control processes before and after A., & Milhausen, R. R. (2010). Misclassification bias: Diversity passing a developmental deadline: Activation and deactivation of in conceptualisations about having “had sex.” Sexual Health, 7, intimate relationship goals. Journal of Personality and Social 31–34. doi:10.1071/SH09068 Psychology, 77, 415–427. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.415 12