Sex for you, but not for me: discontinuity in undergraduate emerging adults' definitions of "having sex".

Studies by Arnett (1994, 1997, 1998, 2000) have provided strong empirical support for emerging adulthood as a developmental period for 18-to-28-year-olds in affluent, industrialized cultures. Distinctly different from those Erikson (1968) labeled young adults, emerging adults have deferred completing the developmental tasks once deemed critical in the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Arnett's conceptual revision characterizes emerging adults by their high degree of freedom for identity exploration. Central among their developmental tasks is constructing an ideology of coherent beliefs and values (Arnett, 1997, 1998). In the United States, many of the tasks of emerging adulthood unfold for 62% of high school graduates in the college environment (Lefkowitz, 2005).

Since 1998, motivated by the national discussion about President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinksy, several researchers have attempted to define which behaviors undergraduates consider sex (e.g., Bogart, Cecil, Wagstaff, Pinkerton, & Abramson, 2000; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007; Pitts & Rahman, 2001; Randall & Byers, 2003; Richters & Song, 1999; Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). Only two of these studies (Peterson & Muehlenhard; Randall & Byers) have explored whether undergraduates' definitions of sex are consistent across contexts. Randall and Byers sought to determine which sexual behaviors participants associated with the terminology "having sex," "sexual partner," and "unfaithful" Peterson and Muehlenhard (2007) investigated whether undergraduates adjust their definition of having sex based upon "the anticipated consequences of applying a label" (p. 257) to themselves.

The present study of 839 undergraduate emerging adults is the first to investigate if this population would apply a different standard to themselves when labeling a behavior they participate in as having sex than they would apply to their significant other (boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, or wife) if the significant other were engaging in the same behavior outside the primary relationship. It was our desire to determine if undergraduate emerging adults' criteria for evaluating a behavior as having sex are objective and context-free or subjective and context bound. If, as Chng and Moore (1994) and Paul, McManus, and Hayes (2000) have asserted, American undergraduates are maturing in sexually permissive environments conducive to sexual activity with multiple or serial partners, the way undergraduate emerging adults label sexual behaviors has important implications for the accuracy of sexual self-disclosure in their dating relationships and for the usefulness of sexual histories taken by health care providers.

Review of Literature

Relevant Emerging Adulthood Literature

Several studies (Arnett, Ramos, & Jensen, 2001; Jensen, 1997a, 1997b) have used Shweder's ethics of autonomy, community, and divinity (Shweder, Much, Mahapastra, & Park, 1997) as a framework to explore emerging adults' development of an ideology or value system. Acting according to the autonomy ethic, a person views himself or herself as the primary moral authority, restricted in decisions only by personal preference. In the ethic of community, commitments to others form a compass for beliefs and values. Acting according to the divinity ethic, the individual sees himself or herself as subject to a higher spiritual or natural order. Undergraduate emerging adults have been found to rely heavily on the ethic of autonomy, significantly less on the ethic of community, and little on the ethic of divinity (Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1993; Jensen, 1995).

Several studies have investigated emerging adults' sexual attitudes and behavior in the college environment (Lefkowitz, 2005; Lefkowitz, Boone, & Shearer, 2004; Lefkowitz, Gillen, Shearer, & Boone, 2004), suggesting that the college environment exerts a strong influence on the majority of this population's sexual attitudes and behaviors. According to Lefkowitz (2005), Miller and Moore (1990), and the National Center for Health Statistics (2000), it is the literature's consensus that undergraduate emerging adults are more likely to engage in casual sex than are high school students. In her examination of changes in emerging adults' perceptions of sexuality as they transitioned to a university environment, Lefkowitz (2005) found that at the time of transition, some participants identified universities as environments with sexual climates that depart from those of their earlier life contexts. American society's relaxed views on premarital sex are reflected in American colleges' disengagement in undergraduate life from parental-style oversight (Arnett, 2004; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994).

Literature Examining How Undergraduates Define Sex

Sanders and Reinisch (1999), collecting sexual history data from a random, stratified sample of 599 American undergraduates, asked participants to indicate if their participation in a range of 11 behaviors would constitute having "had sex" (e.g., "Would you say you 'had sex' with someone if the most intimate behavior you engaged in was.... You had oral (mouth) contact with a person's genitals? You touched, fondled, or manually stimulated a person's genitals? A person touched, fondled, or manually stimulated your breasts or nipples?"). The most surprising and widely reported finding was that 60% of the sample did not label their participation in oral-genital contact as sex. Nineteen percent of the sample did not consider their participation in penile anal intercourse sex. For all but two of the 11 behaviors, males were more likely to consider a behavior sex; however, the differences reached significance for only three behaviors: "You touch other's breasts/nip-nipples"; "Oral contact on other's breasts/nipples"; "Person touches your genitals."

Pitts and Rahman (2001) replicated Sanders and Reinisch's (1999) study using a sample of 314 undergraduates in the United Kingdom. Consistent with the U.S. sample, 66% of the U.K. sample did not view oral sex as sex, and 20% did not consider penile-anal intercourse an act that constitutes sex. Similar to the Sanders and Reinisch study, males were significantly more likely than females to consider deep kissing and genital fondling (both for participants fondling and for having their genitals fondled) as sex. Penile-anal intercourse was the only behavior females were significantly more likely than males to consider sex.

Richters and Song (1999), while not replicating Sanders and Reinisch's (1999) study, asked 545 first-year Australian university students to identify which of the following are "having sex": deep kissing, mutual masturbation, oral sex with or without orgasm, and vaginal and anal intercourse with or without ejaculation. Forty-six percent did not consider oral sex without orgasm sex; 42% did not consider oral sex with orgasm sex. Approximately 10% did not consider anal intercourse sex. Older students were more likely to consider nonintercourse activities sex. Men were more likely than women to consider noncoital activities as sex.

Bogart, Cecil, Wagstaff, Pinkerton, and Abramson (2000) sought to determine if undergraduates reading scenarios about hypothetical characters the authors referred to as "actors" (a male and a female undergraduate) believed the actors would consider their own behaviors sex. Consistent with Sanders and Reinisch (1999) and Pitts and Rahman (2001), 60% of 223 participants did not think the actors would consider engaging in oral-genital sex as sex, and 20% did not think the actors would consider engaging in penile anal intercourse sex. Bogart and colleagues found no significant gender differences in their participants' assessments of whether the characters would consider behaviors sex. Participants indicated that characters would be more likely to consider intercourse sex if orgasm occurred, and that the character who achieved orgasm would be more likely to consider the encounter sex than would his or her partner.

Carpenter (2001) explored undergraduates' definitions of sex indirectly, conducting semistructured interviews with 61 young adults to examine the meanings they assign to virginity loss. She found that individuals use ambiguous definitions of virginity loss as tools for constructing their personal and social sexual identities. Approximately one-fourth of respondents indicated that participation in heterosexual oral-genital contact constituted virginity loss. That finding is consistent with Sanders and Reinisch's (1999) and Pitts and Rahman's (2001) description of undergraduates' belief in technical virginity (i.e., maintaining virginity by engaging in oral-genital contact, penile-anal penetration, or both as a substitute for penile vaginal penetration). Carpenter did not ask participants if they believed the behaviors representing potential virginity loss constitute sex. Carpenter did find gender differences in the "interpretive frames" men and women used for viewing virginity: 61% of women, but only 36% of men, viewed virginity as a "gift"; 57% of men, but only 21% of women, saw virginity as a stigma.

Like the present study, Randall and Byers' (2003) survey of 164 heterosexual Canadian university students also included reference to significant others. The study's purpose was to examine which sexual behaviors the participants associated with the phrase "having sex," how they define someone as a sexual partner, and how they determine whether someone has been unfaithful. Randall and Byers reported that "significantly more behaviors were included in students' unfaithful definition than were included in the sexual partner definition and significantly more behaviors were included in the sexual partner definition than in the having sex definition" (p. 87). The difference in the quantity of terms associated with the three conditions implies that participants believe a person does not need to "have sex" or be a "sexual partner" in order to be unfaithful. Randall and Byers found no significant gender differences for any of the three conditions. While Randall and Byers explored the role of context by asking the same participants to evaluate three different conditions, the methodology could have introduced carry-over effects (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).

Peterson and Muehlenhard (2007) investigated undergraduates' use of "motivated definitions" (Schiappa, 2003) to describe sexual behaviors in which they engaged, that is, whether they adjust or change their definition of having sex based upon "the anticipated consequences of applying a label" (p. 257) to themselves. They found undergraduates less likely to consider behaviors they engaged in as having sex if the behaviors reflected socially undesirable activities, such as an extramarital affair, or if they represented an attempt to maintain technical virginity. Definitions of sex, they found, are inconsistent, influenced by personal motives, particularly for women, who were more likely to see "having sex" as a negative term.

Research Questions

This study focused upon three research questions. To replicate surveys by Sanders and Reinisch (1999) and Pitts and Rahman (2001), we sought, first, to answer the question, "Which behaviors do participants consider having sex if they engage in the behaviors?" Second, we desired to learn if, for this population, the label "having sex" is contextual. Would they apply a different standard to themselves when labeling a behavior as having sex than they would apply to their significant other (boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, or wife) if the significant other were engaging in the same behavior outside the primary relationship? This question was a response to Sanders and Reinisch's call for research exploring extramarital and extrarelational sexual contexts; an opportunity to build upon Randall and Byers's (2003) question of whether definitions of sex are contextual without using their value-laden term "unfaithful"; and an attempt to provide another vehicle for assessing if undergraduate emerging adults use motivated definitions. Third, we explored the question, "Are there gender differences in labeling behaviors as having sex both for oneself and for situations where one's significant other is engaging in the behavior outside the relationship?"

Method

After obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval from both universities, a questionnaire was administered to students enrolled in an undergraduate, liberal arts course at a medium-sized Midwestern university in 1999 (n = 492) and to a human sexuality class at a large Midwestern university in 2001 (n = 371). The samples were combined (N= 863) for analyses because no significant differences between groups were found for age, t(861)= .88, p= .19; gender, [X.sup.2](1)=2.20, p= .14; or ethnicity, [X.sup.2](3)= 1.99, p = .57. Participants answered 96 items pertaining to demographics, religious background, political attitudes, relationship and sexual history, and attitudes about what behaviors constitute "sex." Twenty-four surveys (3%) were unusable and removed from the sample because participants did not answer all items pertinent to the following analyses. Participants' ages ranged from 18 through 24. Twenty-one percent of participants indicated they were freshmen, 30% sophomore, 11% junior, and 38% senior. Sixty percent of the sample was female, and more than 90% were White. Sixty-four percent indicated that they were currently in a romantic relationship. Only 1% responded that they were legally married. Ninety-six percent of the sample identified as heterosexual; 2% as bisexual; and 2% as homosexual. The composition of our nonheterosexual subsample mirrored Sanders and Reinisch (1999) and Pitts and Rahman (2001), who reported results for 96% and 97% heterosexual participants, respectively.

A between-participants design, rather than a within-participants design, was used to avoid carry-over effects. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. With the exception of 11 items, each group completed the same questionnaire. Under a section headed "Attitudes and Opinions About Sexuality," Form A employed the items used by Sanders and Reinisch (1999), asking participants if each of 11 behaviors constituted having sex if they themselves engaged in the activity. Form B asked participants to assess if each of the same behaviors constituted having sex if their significant other engaged in the activity with someone else outside the current relationship. (Exact wording is displayed in Table 1.) The order of items as presented to participants was identical to that given by Sanders and Reinisch. On Form B, significant other was defined as "your actual or hypothetical boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, or wife," and another person was defined as "someone other than you." Form A was completed by 53% of participants (54% of women and 53% of men); Form B was completed by 47% of participants (46% of women and 47% of men). Participants were unaware that two versions of the questionnaire were used. The paper-and-pencil questionnaires were administered during class time by teaching assistants. The instructor was not present when participants completed surveys.

Results

Research Question 1: Which behaviors do participants consider "having sex" if they engage in the behaviors?

Descriptive statistics for Form A are displayed in Table 1. In this study, the percentages of students considering oral sex and anal sex to be having sex were similar to the percentages found by Sanders and Reinisch (1999). Sixty-one percent of this sample did not consider performing oral sex to be having sex, and 60% did not consider receiving oral sex to be having sex. In addition, anal sex was not labeled sex by 19% of the sample.

Research Question 2." Is the label "having sex" contextual?

Descriptive statistics for Form A and Form B are displayed separately in Table 1. The only behavior that all participants considered having sex on both Form A and Form B was vaginal intercourse. On Form A, 81% of participants indicated that anal sex was having sex, whereas 83% indicated anal sex was having sex on Form B. Performing oral sex was considered sex by 39% and 63% of participants on Form A and Form B, respectively. Results for receiving oral sex were similar; 40% (Form A) and 60% (Form B) of participants indicated receiving oral sex was having sex. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to compare by form the proportions of participants who considered each behavior sex. Participants applied a different standard to themselves when labeling a behavior as sex than they applied to their significant other for nine of the 11 sexual behaviors, p < .01; see Table 1. For all behaviors except vaginal and anal intercourse, results revealed a significant main effect by form. Participants were more likely to consider a behavior having sex when asked about a significant other engaging in the behavior outside the primary relationship than when asked about themselves engaging in the behavior.

Research Question 3: Are there gender differences in labeling behaviors as "having sex?"

Effects for gender were assessed separately for Form A and Form B. On both forms, all behaviors except for performing oral sex, anal intercourse, and vaginal intercourse were significantly more likely to be perceived as having sex by men than by women (Table 1). We tested interactions for gender by form (A vs. B) for the 11 behaviors using a 2 x 2 univariate analysis of variance with gender and form as independent variables. For two items, interactions emerged as significant. For receiving oral contact on breasts, significant variance was accounted for by a gender-by-form interaction, F(1, 826)=5.22, p=.02. Further analysis revealed that on Form A, 8% of women reported that receiving oral stimulation on breasts was sex, whereas on Form B, 16% reported that their partner receiving oral stimulation on breasts was having sex. This difference was significant, F(1,515) = 6.86, p = .009. The difference between responses on Form A and Form B for men, however, was even stronger. Whereas 14% of men indicated this behavior was having sex on Form A, 33% of men indicated it was having sex on Form B (partner receives oral stimulation on breasts), F(1, 343)= 18.07, p < .0001. Results were similar for the interaction effect of form and gender on receiving manual stimulation on breasts, F (1, 826)=4.62, p < .01. Only 7% of women indicated that this behavior was having sex on Form A, whereas 16% of women identified it as sex when their partner received manual stimulation on breasts (Form B). This difference was significant, F(1, 515)= 9.76, p = .002, yet the relationship between the beliefs expressed on the two forms regarding whether receiving manual contact with breasts constituted having sex was stronger for men, F(1,343)= 19.34,p < .0001. On Form A, 13% of men indicated that receiving manual contact with breasts was having sex, but 32% of men reported it as "having sex" on Form B (i.e., for their significant other).

Discussion

"What Is Sex?" Revisited

The results of this study's investigation into which behaviors undergraduates consider having sex (Form A's 11 items), including the percentage of participants who did not consider oral sex as having sex, is consistent with previous research (e.g., Bogart et al., 2000; Pitts & Rahman, 2001; Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). In our study, 59% of men did not consider engaging in oral sex as having sex when they perform it, and 54% did not consider it having sex when they receive it. For 64% of women, participating in oral sex does not constitute having sex whether they are performing or receiving. The percentage of participants who did not consider anal intercourse having sex (21% of men and 18% of women) is also consistent with findings by Bogart, Cecil, Wagstaff, Pinkerton, and Abramson; Pitts and Rahman; and Sanders and Reinisch.

Definitional Discontinuity: Sex for You, But Not for Me

With the exceptions of anal and vaginal intercourse, participants were significantly more likely to identify behaviors their significant others (boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife) engaged in outside the primary relationship as having sex than they were to consider their own participation in the same behaviors as having sex. Without directly asking if their significant others had been "unfaithful" by engaging in the 11 behaviors, the findings show that participants are more likely to consider nine of 11 behaviors having sex in the context of their partners engaging in extramarital or extrarelational behaviors.

These early twenty-first-century Midwestern undergraduate emerging adults appear to have altered their definitions of nine sexual behaviors depending upon whether they were labeling their own behavior or their significant other's. Because Forms A and B were not equivalent (participants were not asked about their own behavior in a context that could be construed as cheating on a significant other), we do not claim the presence of a double standard. These findings offer compelling evidence, however, that this sample does not subscribe to a definition of having sex that is stable across situations, a phenomenon that we refer to as definitional discontinuity.

It is certainly plausible that definitional discontinuity can, in part, be explained by the participants' use of motivated definitions. That is, their definitions of having sex, when applied to themselves, are influenced by their motives to avoid the negative consequences of applying the label. Additional explanations are suggested by viewing the findings through the lens of FAE and through recent emerging adulthood research on moral development and the influence of the college environment.

Fundamental Attribution Error

When committing FAE, as when using motivated definitions, individuals attempt to view themselves positively. Fundamental attribution error (FAE) explains how they arrive at favorable self-estimates by comparing themselves with others. According to Sundberg (1996), FAE is

   the tendency of an observer to perceive another person's behavior
   as caused by internal, personal characteristics or dispositions
   rather than external, situational influences. Conversely, the
   behaving person (the actor) tends to see his or her own behavior as
   caused by the situation. (p. 366)

A participant's responses to the questions presented on Form A (Is this behavior "having sex" if you engage in it?) can be informed largely by any combination of three sources: the criteria he or she would always use to answer this question regardless of any personal experience or role in the situation; the person's personal history with the behavior; and the cultural norms suggesting whether the behavior is sex. According to FAE, wanting to view themselves positively compared with others, emerging adults may view a sexual behavior, if in fact they have engaged in it, as having occurred within a context, perhaps with a set of extenuating circumstances. They might invoke rationalizations: "We were both drunk, so it didn't mean anything." "It's the only time I've ever had a one-night stand, so it's not like I'm a slut." "Back then I was going through a phase that I'm out of." According to Baron and Garaziano (1991), "They have a lifetime of previous behavior against which to compare it" (as cited in Sundberg, 1996, p. 366). We would argue that participants committed FAE, cutting themselves a break, perhaps absolving themselves of having sex and therefore the various ethical and moral implications of an act connoting intercourse.

When Form B participants were asked if their significant others' behavior constituted having sex when that person engaged in oral-genital contact outside the relationship, participants may have been more likely to view their partner as having engaged in a negative behavior explainable as a character flaw or personal limitation. Through the lens of FAE, participants' reflections might look something like this: "Of course, it's sex. He'd be cheating on me!" Participants do not give significant others the behavioral leeway they afford themselves.

Interpretation Suggested by Emerging Adulthood Research

Findings in moral development research regarding the autonomy ethic's centrality over community and divinity in undergraduate emerging adulthood (Jensen, 1997a, 1997b) also suggest an explanation for the definitional discontinuity. In contrast to their peers not enrolled in college, these emerging adult samples showed an approximately equal application of autonomy and community (Arnett, Ramos, & Jensen, 2001), and in contrast to older adults, who applied the three ethics about equally (Jensen, 1995), this population sees itself as the primary moral authority restricted in choices only by their personal preference. Therefore, it is not surprising that they would hold themselves to a more lenient standard regarding which behaviors constitute having sex.

Moreover, experiencing the college social context, a significant environmental shift in sexual attitudes and behavior from what preceded it (Lefkowitz, 2005), might also contribute to definitional discontinuity. Evidence may be present in Eccles and colleagues' (2003) suggestion that emerging adults who do not attend college may "miss out on the developmental moratorium of exploration and experimentation enjoyed by those who attend college full-time" (p. 392). Does this environment contribute to this group's deferring development of "adult" ethics of community and divinity? Does the campus environment contribute to a phenomenon described by Cote (2000) in which "a growing segment of the population has a poorly developed sense of conscience and a poorly developed sense of ego mastery but a well-developed sense of pleasure and immediate gratification?" (p. 218). Determining if, in fact, definitional discontinuity in labeling behaviors as "having sex" is developmentally unique to undergraduate emerging adults will require research on this issue that systematically compares undergraduate emerging adults with their peers who do not attend college as well as with older adults.

Males' Classification of Behaviors as "Sex"

Consistent with earlier studies (e.g., Pitts & Rahman, 2001; Sanders & Reinisch, 1999), males were significantly more likely to identify behaviors they engage in as having sex than were female respondents, doing so for eight of the 11 behaviors on Form A. One explanation for these findings can be found in the sexual double standard: There is greater culturally sanctioned sexual permissiveness for men than for women (Crawford & Popp, 2003). American undergraduate males have been culturally conditioned to view behaviors they engage in as sex because young males who participate in sexual behaviors view themselves as becoming men; they are meeting developmental criteria valued by peers, the undergraduate environment, and the larger American culture. It is socially desirable for them to see their behaviors as sex. Young women, however, have traditionally been subject to negative judgment in the culture if they engage in sex. Asked if their behaviors are sex, they are, consistent with the sexual double standard, more likely to minimize their participation in these same behaviors by not labeling them as having sex. Therefore, the significant gender differences on Form A also reflect support for Peterson and Muehlenhard's (2007) finding that women are much more likely to use motivated definitions to minimize their participation in sexual behaviors that would reflect negatively upon them.

On Form B, males were significantly more likely to consider eight of 11 behaviors having sex when their significant others engage in those behaviors outside the primary relationship. An explanation for this finding can only be surmised. Although we cannot confirm it, it is plausible that males, when thinking about their significant others engaging in sexual behaviors with other males, demonstrate an element of consistency in their thinking: those behaviors represent having sex because other males are engaging in them, just as they represent sex when they engage in the behaviors themselves (as seen on Form A). The same logic may be evident in the females' responses. That is, they are less likely than males to see the behaviors their partners engage in outside the relationship as having sex because, if those behaviors are not considered having sex for them, the behaviors, similarly, are viewed as not having sex for the females hypothetically engaging in them with the participants' partners. If this is an accurate account, it supports the conclusion that Form A reflects the sexual double standard--males associate more behaviors with sex than females do because "having sex" is a desirable masculine attribute. They approach Form B with the same sensibility. The consistency breaks down for both males and females, however, when confronted with the context of an unfaithful partner's sexual behaviors and the difference in the quantity of behaviors identified as having sex for oneself versus having sex for the significant other.

Our finding for gender interactions by form, for both receiving oral stimulation on breasts and for receiving manual stimulation on breasts, is not surprising given our largely heterosexual sample. Males are significantly more likely than females to see their partners (the majority of whom are presumably female in this sample) as having sex when receiving oral and manual breast stimulation due to the culture's view of female breasts as more erotic than male breasts.

Limitations

Our results do not provide a direct explanation for why participants engage in definitional discontinuity; however, we infer that they are conceptualizing their own behavior in ways different from how they are conceptualizing their significant others' involvement with the same behaviors in a hypothetical context of unfaithfulness. Additional data would contribute to our understanding of what factors influence the discontinuity.

We did not ask participants about their personal experiences engaging in the 11 behaviors on Forms A and B. Determining if there is significant overlap between participants' experiences with these behaviors and their labeling those behaviors as having sex might provide further insight, as well as support for Peterson and Muehlenhard's (2007) finding that undergraduates' decisions to label an experience as "sex" often appear to be influenced by the consequences of applying this label. Nor did we ask participants if they had been unfaithful to a partner, if a partner had been unfaithful to them, and what behaviors they and their partners engaged in during those experiences. Doing so would have provided a means for determining if participants' involvement in extramarital or extrarelational behaviors (their own and their partners') is related to which behaviors they consider to be having sex for themselves and their partners.

Implications

The specificity with which undergraduate emerging adults define behaviors as "having sex" carries important health and relationship implications. For example, near the beginning of new romantic relationships, wanting to avoid exposure to sexually transmitted infections, it is common for partners to candidly discuss their sexual histories. Based upon our findings on Form A (Pitts & Rahman, 2001; Randall & Byers, 2003; Richters & Song, 1999; and those of Sanders & Reinisch, 1999), however, when asked the number of partners with whom they have had sex, most undergraduate emerging adults will likely exclude mention of partners with whom they have engaged in sexual behaviors short of penile-vaginal intercourse. Screening out those partners provides an incomplete picture of the person's sexual lifestyle and, more important, provides incomplete and inaccurate data for the partner to use to assess personal risk.

Form B in our study showed that persons hold their significant others to different standards than they do themselves when their partner is unfaithful, as evidenced by the differences in their classifications of a variety of sexual behaviors. We can infer from our findings, however, that the person who underreports sexual activity based on confining his or her definition of sex to penile-vaginal intercourse risks compromising trust in the relationship. Such an outcome is certainly conceivable under circumstances where, several months after the initial disclosure of sexual histories, the current intimate partner learns that his or her significant other did not identify past participation in several high-risk behaviors because the partner did not view engaging in them as having sex. Relevant to this issue is Cochran and Mays's (1990) study, which demonstrated that asking partners directly about risk histories may not result in more accurate reporting. Of their sample of 665 college students, they found that 34% of men and 10% of women had told a lie to a partner in order to have a sexual encounter. On the other hand, 47% of men and 60% of women had experienced being lied to for purposes of sex.

Our findings are important to consider in light of studies on sexual-history taking in health care settings. Is this population under-reporting sexual risk to clinicians and physicians? Sexual history interviews, according to, Kurth, Holmes, Hawkins, and Golden (2005), "are the starting point for clinical STI/HIV care, counseling, and prevention, and provide the most readily accessible source of behavioral data related to sexual risk" (p. 373). Currently, this body of research indicates that approaches for collecting these data are highly variable (Kurth et al., 2005). Without asking questions about specific sexual behaviors, a physician may not be able to assess a patient's risk of sexually transmitted infection. Asked simply if she is having sex, a 21-year-old undergraduate woman who does not consider her experience with oral-genital contact or penile-anal intercourse sex for herself might lead her physician to presume she is not at risk for sexually transmitted infection.

Continued research into this population's use of discontinuous, context-based definitions of sex holds promise for three groups: for emerging adults attempting to navigate intimate, sexual relationships; for clinicians needing more precise techniques for assessing high-risk sexual behaviors; and for scholars seeking a more informed understanding of sexuality among undergraduate emerging adults.

References

Arnett, J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 289-296.

Arnett, J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469480.

Arnett, J. J. (1997). Young people's conceptions of the transition to adulthood. Youth and Society, 29, 1-23.

Arnett, J. J. (1998). Learning to stand alone: The contemporary American transition to adulthood in cultural and historical context. Human Development, 41, 295-315.

Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood." The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.

Arnett, J. J., Ramos, K. D., & Jensen, L. A. (2001). Ideological views in emerging adulthood: Balancing autonomy and community. Journal of Adult Development, 8, 69 79.

Bogart, L. M., Cecil, H., Wagstaff, D. A., Pinkerton, S. D., & Abramson, P. R. (2000). Is it "sex"?: College students' interpretations of sexual behavior terminology. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 108-116.

Carpenter, L. M. (2001). The ambiguity of "having sex": The subjective experience of virginity loss in the United States. The Journal of Sex Research, 38, 127-139.

Chng, C. L. & Moore, A. (1994). AIDS: Its effects on sexual practices among homosexual and heterosexual college students. Journal of Health Education, 25, 154-160.

Cochran, S. D. & Mays, V. M. (1990). Sex, lies, and HIV [Letter to the editor]. The New England Journal of Medicine, 322, 774.

Cote, J. (2000). Arrested adulthood: The changing nature of maturity and identity. New York: New York University Press.

Crawford, M. & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13-26.

Eccles, J., Templeton, J., Barber, B., & Stone, M. (2003). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: The critical passage ways to adulthood. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes, & K. A. Moore (Eds.), Well-being. Positive development across the life course (pp. 383-06). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., & Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613-628.

Jensen, L. A. (1995). Habits of the heart revisited: Autonomy, community, and divinity in adults' moral language. Qualitative Sociology, 18, 71-86.

Jensen, L. A. (1997a). Culture wars: American moral divisions across the adult lifespan. Journal of Adult Development, 4, 107-121.

Jensen, L. A. (1997b). Different worldviews, different morals: America's culture war divide. Human Development, 40, 325-344.

Kurth, A. E., Holmes, K. K., Hawkins, R., & Golden, M. R. (2005). A national survey of clinic sexual histories for sexually transmitted infection and HIV screening. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 32, 370-376.

Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality." Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lefkowitz, E. S. (2005). "Things have gotten better": Developmental changes among emerging adults after the transition to university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 40-63.

Lefkowitz, E. S., Boone, T. L., & Shearer, C. L. (2004). Communication with best friends about sex-related topics during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12, 217 242.

Lefkowitz, E. S., Gillen, M. M., Shearer, C. L., & Boone, T. L. (2004). Religiosity, sexual behaviors, and sexual attitudes during emerging adulthood. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 150-159.

Miller, B. C. & Moore, K. A. (1990). Adolescent sexual behavior, pregnancy, and parenting: Research through the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1025-1044.

National Center for Health Statistics. (2000). Health, United States, 2000. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service.

Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). "Hookups": Characteristics and correlates of college students' spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76-88.

Pedhazur, E. J. & Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Peterson, Z. D. & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2007). What is sex and why does it matter? A motivational approach to exploring individuals' definitions of sex. The Journal of Sex Research, 44, 256-268.

Pitts, M. & Rahman, Q. (2001). Which behaviors constitute "having sex" among university students in the UK? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 169-176.

Randall, H. E. & Byers, E. S. (2003). What is sex? Students' definitions having sex, sexual partner, and unfaithful sexual behaviour. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 87-97. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from Expanded Academic ASAP Plus database.

Richters, J. & Song, A. (1999). Australian university students agree with Clinton's definition of sex [Letter to the editor]. British Medical Journal, 318, 1011-1012.

Sanders, S. A. & Reinisch, J. M. (1999, January 20). Would you say you "had sex" if...? Journal of the American Medical Association, 281,275-277.

Schiappa, E. (2003). Defining reality: Definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The "big three" of morality (autonomy, community, divinity), and the "big three" explanations of suffering. In A. Brandt & D. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and Health. New York: Routledge.

Sundberg, N. D. (1996). Fundamental attribution error. In R. J. Corsini & A. J. Auerbach (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of psychology (2nd ed., pp. 366-367). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Gary Gute and Elaine M. Eshbaugh

Design, Textiles, Gerontology, and Family Studies, University of Northern Iowa

Jacquelyn Wiersma

The Prevention and Methodology Centers, The Pennsylvania State University

Correspondence should be addressed to Gary Gute, University of Northern Iowa, Design, Textiles, Gerontology, and Family Studies, 235 Latham Hall, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0332. E-mail: gary.gute@ uni.edu

Table 1. Comparisons of Percentages Indicating Behavior Is
"Having Sex" by Gender and Form

                                                        Percentages
                                                         Indicating
                                                         Behavior Is
                                                        "Having Sex"

Behavior                                                Women      p

You engaged in deep kissing with a person. *               5.3
                                                                  .004
Your S.O. and another person engaged in deep              13.3
  kissing. **
Another person touched, fondled, or manually               7.1
  stimulated your breasts or nipples.*
                                                                  .002
Another person touched, fondled, or manually              15.9
  stimulated your S.O.'s breasts or nipples. **
You touched, fondled, or manually stimulated a             5.3
  person's breasts or nipples. **
                                                                  .001
Your S.O. touched, fondled, or manually stimulated        19.3
  another person's breasts or nipples. **
You had oral contact with a person's breasts or            5.2
  nipples. **                                                     .001
Your S.O. had oral contact with another person's          19.6
  breasts or nipples. **
A person had oral contact with your breasts or             8.3
  nipples. *                                                      .002
Another person had oral contact with your S.O.'s          15.8
  breasts or nipples. **
You fondled a person's genitals. *                        12.7
                                                                  .001
Your S.O. touched, fondled, or manually stimulated        28.2
  another person's genitals.**
A person fondled your genitals. *                         13.9
                                                                  .001
Another person touched, fondled, or manually              29.2
  stimulated your S.O.'s genitals. **
You had oral contact with a person's genitals.            36.2
                                                                  .001
Your S.O. had oral contact with another person's          61.9
  genitals.
A person had oral contact with your genitals. *           36.5
                                                                  .001
Another person had oral contact with your S.O.'s          56.0
  genitals. *
You engaged in anal intercourse with a person.            81.6
                                                                  .959
My S.O. and another person engaged in penile-anal         83.7
  intercourse.
You engaged in vaginal intercourse with another          100        --
  person.
My S.O. and another person engaged in vaginal            100        --
  intercourse.

                                                        Percentages
                                                         Indicating
                                                         Behavior Is
                                                        "Having Sex"

Behavior                                                 Men       p

You engaged in deep kissing with a person. *              11.9
                                                                  .003
Your S.O. and another person engaged in deep              24.4
  kissing. **
Another person touched, fondled, or manually              12.6
  stimulated your breasts or nipples.*
                                                                  .001
Another person touched, fondled, or manually              32.1
  stimulated your S.O.'s breasts or nipples. **
You touched, fondled, or manually stimulated a            14.2
  person's breasts or nipples. **
                                                                  .001
Your S.O. touched, fondled, or manually stimulated        32.7
  another person's breasts or nipples. **
You had oral contact with a person's breasts or           14.2
  nipples. **                                                     .001
Your S.O. had oral contact with another person's          33.3
  breasts or nipples. **
A person had oral contact with your breasts or            13.7
  nipples. *                                                      .001
Another person had oral contact with your S.O.'s          32.9
  breasts or nipples. **
You fondled a person's genitals. *                        19.3
                                                                  .001
Your S.O. touched, fondled, or manually stimulated        45.5
  another person's genitals.**
A person fondled your genitals. *                         19.9
                                                                  .001
Another person touched, fondled, or manually              46.5
  stimulated your S.O.'s genitals. **
You had oral contact with a person's genitals.            40.9
                                                                  .001
Your S.O. had oral contact with another person's          65.2
  genitals.
A person had oral contact with your genitals. *           45.5
                                                                  .001
Another person had oral contact with your S.O.'s          66.5
  genitals. *
You engaged in anal intercourse with a person.            79.4
                                                                  .567
My S.O. and another person engaged in penile-anal         81.9
  intercourse.
You engaged in vaginal intercourse with another          100        --
  person.
My S.O. and another person engaged in vaginal            100        --
  intercourse.

                                                        Percentages
                                                         Indicating
                                                         Behavior Is
                                                        "Having Sex"

Behavior                                               Overall     p

You engaged in deep kissing with a person. *               7.9
                                                                  .001
Your S.O. and another person engaged in deep              17.2
  kissing. **
Another person touched, fondled, or manually               9.3
  stimulated your breasts or nipples.*
                                                                  .001
Another person touched, fondled, or manually              22.4
  stimulated your S.O.'s breasts or nipples. **
You touched, fondled, or manually stimulated a             8.8
  person's breasts or nipples. **
                                                                  .001
Your S.O. touched, fondled, or manually stimulated        24.7
  another person's breasts or nipples. **
You had oral contact with a person's breasts or            8.8
  nipples. **                                                     .001
Your S.O. had oral contact with another person's          25.1
  breasts or nipples. **
A person had oral contact with your breasts or            10.4
  nipples. *                                                      .001
Another person had oral contact with your S.O.'s          22.6
  breasts or nipples. **
You fondled a person's genitals. *                        15.1
                                                                  .001
Your S.O. touched, fondled, or manually stimulated        35.1
  another person's genitals.**
A person fondled your genitals. *                         16.3
                                                                  .001
Another person touched, fondled, or manually              36.0
  stimulated your S.O.'s genitals. **
You had oral contact with a person's genitals.            39.4
                                                                  .001
Your S.O. had oral contact with another person's          63.1
  genitals.
A person had oral contact with your genitals. *           40.0
                                                                  .001
Another person had oral contact with your S.O.'s          60.2
  genitals. *
You engaged in anal intercourse with a person.            80.8
                                                                  .703
My S.O. and another person engaged in penile-anal         83.0
  intercourse.
You engaged in vaginal intercourse with another          100        --
  person.
My S.O. and another person engaged in vaginal            100        --
  intercourse.

* Gender difference for item was significant p < .05.

** Gender difference for item was significant p < .01.

p values in the table indicate significant differences between
Form A and Form B.

Note. S.O. refers to significant other.