Development of the sexual attitudes and experiences scale (SAES).
Development of the Sexual Attitudes and Experiences Scale (SAES)
This study introduces a scale developed to measure the sexual attitudes and sexual experiences of undergraduate college students. The scale addresses the two central themes of sexuality measurement--attitudes and experiences. The attitude and experience components can be used separately or together to assess the relationship between individuals' sexual attitudes and behaviors. The scale is best used for measuring college student attitudes and behaviors and can be used by researchers, instructors, student support services and/or counselors. Sexual behavior shows tremendous variation across individuals and smaller variation across an individual's lifetime. Consequently, the term experience refers to any behavior--current or past. In addition, the associations between attitudes, experiences and self-identification are fluid and can vary in strength across a lifetime. Any measurement of current attitudes is a snapshot of individuals in a particular place in time as attitudes and identity will affect experiences and behavior, just as experiences and behaviors will affect attitudes over time (Breckler & Wiggins, 1993). Sexual attitudes and experiences are critical components of human development and the Sexual Attitudes and Experiences Scale (SAES) will serve to help individuals working with college students to help develop a meaningful understanding of undergraduates' sexual attitudes and experiences.
Measuring Sexual Experiences and Behavior
The Kinsey studies represent the primary source of self-reported data on sexual experiences and the studies greatly influenced the measurement of sexual behaviors (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gabhard, 1953). The Kinsey studies sought to identify what sexual experiences people had, what age they were when they began engaging in sexual behaviors and had a sexual experience, and how often they were currently engaging in sexual behaviors. The Kinsey studies were highly influential due to the nature of the questions asked and the large number of participants. Representing other groundbreaking work, Masters and Johnson (1966) measured physiological responses of male and female volunteers and dispelled the myth that women's sexual responses to intercourse were vastly different from men's and indicated both sexes had very similar physiological responses. Critics of Masters and Johnson and the Kinsey reports note concerns that the findings were not generalizable to the American population (Bajracharya, Sarvela, & Isberner, 1995; Bernstein, Clarke-Stewart, Roy, & Wickens, 1997; Elliot & Brantley, 1997; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980; Hannon, Hall, Gonzalez, & Cacciapaglia, 1999; Kirschner & Sedlacek, 1987).
In the absence of systematic, scientific studies of the American population in the 1950s and 1960s, a series of popular "reports" on sexual practices proliferated to fill the void. Such "reports" included The Playboy Report, The Redbook Report, The Hite Report, and most recently, The Janus Report. These magazine studies were of a sample of convenience via media advertisements and only those that volunteered to complete the surveys for the magazines were included leading Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata (1994) to comment "Of all of the studies that purport to tell about sex in America, the vast majority are unreliable" (p. 15). Currently, there continues to be a variety of measures on sexual practices that provide limited or no psychometric properties (e.g., Cha, 2005; Smith, Nezlek, Webster, & Paddock, 2007; Wells & Twenge, 2005).
Several important studies have been conducted with stratified samples such as the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL) and have corrected for past sampling concerns by also pursuing extensive interviews with smaller random samples (Field, Johnson, Wadsworth, & Wellings, 1995; Johnson, et al., 2005; Wellings, Field, Johnson, & Wadsworth, 1994). The NATSAL has provided excellent data for more than two decades and has been analyzed in terms of several modern concerns such as HIV and AIDS prevalence and incidence rates, planning sexual health interventions, and understanding the epidemiology of sexually transmitted diseases. The NATSAL will likely also prove useful for measuring changes in behavior over time longitudinally and cross-sectionally. The NATSAL questionnaire, although excellent, has unwieldy administration needs for many teaching, research and counseling purposes. It is over 120 pages in length and is supplemented by sixteen hand cards, four smaller "confidential" self-administered questionnaires, a large "life history calendar," and other survey methodologies.
Levels of Sexual Activity in College Students
Lottes (1993) investigated heterosexual college students to specify gender differences and similarities in sexual beliefs and experiences. Lottes found no significant gender differences in age of first intercourse, frequency of intercourse, oral sex participation, prevalence of vaginal or anal sex, rating of how often sex partners satisfied their sex needs and desires, and reaction to recent intercourse. Lottes' research appears to have a high correlation of sexual beliefs and experiences, yet the report of the data was limited and focused on other aspects such as gender roles in dating, sexual decision making, and the status and quality of personal relationships.
In a comprehensive study conducted with 1,752 American college students responding to 150 questions about their sex lives, over 75% of college men and women reported to have had physical sexual experiences (Elliot & Brantley, 1997). In similar percentages, 81% of females and 80% of males said they were not virgins. Of these, about 50% said they were currently involved in a relationship. About 51% of the males and 42% of the females reported a single sexual intercourse encounter with another individual. A significant number of both males and females had sex with someone knowing they had no intention of seeing that person again. Females had a higher percentage of frequency in sex than the males. Approximately 35% of both females and males reported having sex two or three times a week (Elliot & Brantley, 1997).
Research on sexual activity in the late teenage years is notable for four major trends. First, adolescents show a traditional progression in the sequencing of early sexual activity. A typical romantic relationship begins with kissing, cuddling, and minor petting and then develops into a longer-term relationship that includes heavy petting, and possible sexual intercourse (Brook, Balka, Abernathy, & Hamburg, 1994). Second, the onset of sexual activity is occurring at earlier ages than in previous years for both men and women (Johnson, Wadsworth, Wellings, & Field, 1994). Third, there are clear socio-demographic patterns of sexual activity with socially disadvantaged groups tending to engage in sexual activity earlier than those with more social advantages (Gagnon, 1989; Santelli et al., 2003; West, Wight, & Macintyre, 1993); and, early risky sexual behavior is associated with future risky sexual behavior (Guttmacher Institute, 2006; Charles & Blum, 2008). Finally, when exploring the sexual behaviors of college students, the United States and other industrialized nations have seen a steady rise in sexual activity for women especially since the 1970's "sexual revolution". As a result, liberalized social mores and more reliable birth control coincided with higher levels of premarital sexual activity for women and increased sexual experimentation for both men and women (Allyn, 2001; Hildebrand & Abramowitz, 1984; Kirschner & Sedlacek, 1987; Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, & Kolata, 1994; Robinson & Jedlicka, 1982; Specs, 1987).
Measuring Sexual Attitudes
Researchers have systematically measured college students' sexual attitudes for several decades (e.g., Bromley & Britten, 1938; Ehrmann, 1959; Freedman, 1965; Landis, 1958; Rockwood & Ford, 1945). Surveys administered to college students since the mid 1970s generally show a move toward more liberal attitudes in the areas of petting, premarital sexual intercourse, and sexual acts (e.g., Abdo, 1985; Abler & Sedlacek, 1989; Hoge & Hoge, 1992; Ghule, Balaiah, & Joshi, 2007). However, a gender difference persists such that males held more permissive attitudes toward sex (e.g., sex outside of marriage) (Daugherty & Burger, 1984; Elliot & Brantley, 1997; Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Among college students, men having intercourse with numerous "women is considered 'immoral' by a range of 14% to 30% of males and 40% to 45% of women" (Tucker-Ladd, 2006, p. 1018), and standards for male sexual experiences were more liberal than the standards for female sexual experiences (Jonason & Marks, 2009; Kirschner & Sedlacek, 1987). In addition, the college experience has been shown to be associated with an increase in liberal sexual attitudes (Abler & Sedlacek, 1989).
According to the literature, there are various reliable and valid measurements of sexual altitudes. Hendrick, Hendrick, and Reich's (2006) reliable and valid 23-item Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale covers attitude topics such as permissiveness, birth control, communication, and instrumentality. In addition, several measures are designed to measure more specific sexual attitudes. For example, the Sexual Opinion Survey is an empirically derived 21-item scale that was developed to explore the affective dimension of sexuality (Fisher, 1998), the Reiss Premarital Permissiveness Scale (Reiss, 1967) explores premarital permissiveness and the Premarital Sexual Attitude Scale (Treboux & Busch-Rossnagel, 1995) assesses the influence of peers and parents on adolescence's sexual behaviors. The Trueblood Sexual Attitudes Questionnaire explores changes in attitudes after completing a human sexuality course (Hannon, Hall, Gonzalez, & Cacciapaglia, 1999), and the Cross Cultural Attitudes Scale addresses conservative and liberal sexual attitudes (Leiblum, Wiegel, & Brickle, 2003).
The Relationship Between Sexual Attitudes and Experiences
Investigations into the effects of the study of human sexuality generally support the assertion that sexual experience has a reciprocal relationship with sexual attitudes and a small to medium effect size (Fischer, 1986; Kilman, Wanlass, Sabalis & Sullivan, 1981 ; Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, & Kolata, 1994; Serdahely & Ziemba, 1984; Taylor, 1982). In fields other than sexuality, evidence exists noting the often weak relationship between attitudes and behaviors (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The relationship between attitudes and behaviors can be strengthened when the two are measured closely in time, when multiple behaviors are aggregated, when highly specific attitudes are measured, and when behavioral intentions are measured (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). When inconsistencies have been found in the sexual attitude-behavior relationship, questions have been raised about attitudes changing as an effect of gender and age (Taylor, 1982) resulting in a problem of measuring attitude change over a relatively short time in early adulthood (Stevenson, 1990). In addition, several measurement issues have been raised such as a lack of comparable scales used when measuring attitudes and experiences (Carter & Frankel, 1983; Fisher, 1986; Smith, Flaherty, Webb & Mumford, 1984; Taylor, 1982).
In regards to a relationship existing between sexual attitudes and experiences in college students, Robinson and Jedlicka (1982) found that college students' attitudes towards sexual experiences fluctuated; however, the levels and numbers of sexual experiences had not changed. While many college age students are engaging in sexual intercourse with increasing numbers of partners, the reporting of attitudes more readily reflects changes in cultural mores. For instance, recent research indicates teenagers who opt to wear "purity rings" or wear or cite other pledges not to engage in intercourse until marriage, are just as likely to engage in premarital sex as teens who do not, and less likely to take sexually transmitted infection or disease precautions (Rosenbaum, 2009). Tucker-Ladd (2006) indicated it is not unusual for experiences to differ from stated attitudes, especially when the issue is emotional and confusing. In addition, attitudes have been found to often change over time as a "catch-up" with behaviors and experiences (Tucker-Ladd, 2006).
Need for a New Scale
Despite the existence of several good sexual experience and sexual attitude scales, the Sexual Attitudes and Experiences Scale (SAES) was developed to provide a short, efficient scale designed for use with college students that specifically allows for a direct comparison of sexual attitude and experience relationships. In addition, like other scales, the SAES can be easily administered and interpreted, and can be used to examine gender differences and change in attitudes and behaviors over time.
Development and validation of the scale took place in several stages in this Institutional Review Board approved study. First, in a pilot study, a pool of 58 items from previous research was reviewed by experts to establish content and face validity. Second, in Study 1, 202 undergraduate participants completed a 67-item version to further refine the scale and demonstrate reliability. In Study 2, a larger sample of 455 undergraduates completed the final version of the scale in order to conduct a factor analysis and explore the relationship between the attitude and experience subscales. Finally, in Study 3, 195 undergraduate students were administered the survey to examine gender differences.
A fifty-eight item instrument was developed from work by Allgeier and Allgeier (1998) designed for use in college courses and previously untested for psychometric properties. The items were modified with permission from the publisher of Houghton Mifflin. The instrument was administered to nine panel experts who were in the field of higher education, counseling and psychology and had knowledge of test organization and interpretation, as well as constructive critiquing of questionnaires and instruments. Instructions encouraged the panel to add written comments and constructive criticism on the survey concerning the instrument format and content, and were asked to provide any oral or written feedback to the researcher regarding the construction and implementation of the survey. Items were considered to have face validity when five or more experts agreed that it represents the attitude or experience described. An item was altered when three of the nine experts indicated it was inappropriate or confusing. An item was removed from the instrument if two of the nine experts identified it as not representative of appropriate sexual attitudes and sexual experiences among undergraduate college students (e.g., miscarriage, wet dreams). Finally, items were constructed to reflect sexuality aspects the expert panel felt were not adequately covered (e.g., experience with formal sex education). Overall, twelve items in the attitude section were maintained, ten were deleted and ten additional items were developed regarding sexual education received at home and attitudes specific to sexual behavior such as touching others' genitalia. In the experience subscale, six items were deleted and several were modified to correspond to the attitude items.
Participants for Study 1 were 202 (out of 205 where three declined to participate) undergraduates from a public western university who were solicited as volunteers from large classes. Students enrolled in two general education courses volunteered to participate in the study, represented a wide range of academic backgrounds and were representative of the university's undergraduate population in terms of gender and ethnic breakdown. The sample (N=202) consisted of 47% males and 52% females. In terms of ethnicity, 86% of the sample was Caucasian, 4% "other," 3% Asian, 3% Hispanic/Latino, 2% African American and 1% American Indian. Sixty-two percent were between the ages 17 and 19, 25% were between the ages 20-21, 8% at the 22-23 age range, 3% at the 24-25 age range, and 2% were 26 years old or older. With respect to student classification at the undergraduate level, 55% were freshmen, 23% were sophomores, 11% were juniors, and 10% were seniors. A majority (74%) of the respondents indicated they were single, and 98% indicated they consider themselves as heterosexual.
Participants completed the revised Sexual Attitudes and Experiences Survey (SAES) which consisted of demographic questions (age and gender), 30 sexual attitudes statements and 30 sexual experiences statements. The respondents were also asked to provide written feedback on whether they agree on the statements being representative in the attitudes and experiences sections and any other comments or concerns in which they may have. Respondent feedback yielded only minor modifications to the scale.
A larger sample of 505 participants was collected for Study 2 in order to conduct a factor analysis on the scale. Fifty surveys were not included in the analysis because of incomplete data. This sample, independent of Study 1, consisted of 455 undergraduates (35% males; 65% females) who were solicited as volunteers from numerous general education classes and completed the survey in its entirety. In terms of ethnicity, 84% of the sample was Caucasian, 6% Hispanic/Latino, 4% "other," 3% Asian, 2% African American and .5% American Indian. Fifty-two percent were between the ages 17 and 19, 35% were between the ages 20-21, 7% at the 22-23 age range, 3% at the 24-25 age range, and 3% were 26 years old or older. With respect to student classification at the undergraduate level, 39% were freshmen, 34% were sophomores, 18% were juniors, and 8% were seniors. A majority (70%) of the respondents indicated they were single, and 97% indicated they considered themselves as heterosexual. Respondents completed the final version of the SAES consisting of 30 sexual attitude items, 30 sexual experience items and demographic questions. The 30 sexual attitude statements required answers on a 5-point Likert-type scale of strongly approve to strongly disapprove with a neutral point. Higher scores on attitude items indicated stronger disapproval. The 30 sexual experiences statements required answers on a five option scale indicting a numerical response ranging from "never", to "only once", "2-4 times" "5-7 times" or "8 or more times" thereby creating an ordinal scale of level of experience. Lower scores on experience items indicated more experience. Upon receiving the survey, most respondents completed the survey in approximately 8 minutes. Table 1 displays each attitude item with the mean and standard deviation for the item and Table 2 displays each experience item with the mean and standard deviation for the item.
An additional data set was gathered to further explore gender comparisons both between and within the subscales. This final sample was independent of Study 1 and Study 2, and consisted of 195 undergraduate college students with comparable demographics and trends in sexual attitudes and experiences as in Study 2.
The data analysis from Study 2 yielded reliability results and associations between the sexual attitude and sexual experience subscales, and Study 3 explored gender comparisons.
The SAES instrument demonstrated a high degree of internal consistency as measured by Cronbach's Alpha and the item total statistics. The attitude subscale alpha was [alpha] = 0.90, the experience subscale alpha was [alpha] = 0.81 and the overall alpha was a = 0.90.
Attitude-Experience Associations Overall, there was a strong positive relationship between an aggregate of the sexual attitudes and an aggregate of the sexual experiences, r (455) = .58,p < .001. Table 3 provides the bivariate correlations between the individual attitude and experience items in order of strongest to weakest (.04-.67).
In terms of the correlation between attitudes and experiences in Study 2, there was not a significant gender difference: male participants r (157) = .52, p < .001; female participants r (298) = .62, p < .001. However, for the purposes of determining differences between males and females within each of the subscales, a second data collection of 195 participants (Study 3) revealed the mean of each of the subscales, which was calculated by adding up the item scores within each subscale.
To examine potential gender differences on the attitudes subscale of the SAES, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. In Table 4, this analysis revealed significant differences between the total attitude subscale scores of males and females on the SAES, F(1,193) = 4.58,p = .034. Results revealed female participants (M = 76.22, SD = 18.23) indicated more conservative sexual attitudes than the male participants (M = 71.09, SD = 14.98), as the higher the scores on the attitudes subscale, indicate the more one disapproves.
Next, the potential gender differences on the experiences subscale of the SAES were examined with an analysis of variance. In Table 4, the analysis also revealed significant differences between the total experience scores of males and females on the SAES, F(1, 186) = 20.40, p < .001. Results indicated female participants (M = 72.42, SD = 13.37) were more liberal in their sexual experiences than the male participants (M = 81.00, SD =12.61), as the higher the scores on this subscale indicate the least amount of experiences.
The SAES offers a reliable and easy-to-administer scale that allows the user to directly compare sexual attitudes with corresponding sexual experiences. The instrument is considered stable, consistent, and applicable to the undergraduate student population.
Nature of Relationship
In this study, the aggregate sexual attitudes and sexual experiences were found to be moderately correlated, indicating there was a significant relationship between undergraduate students' sexual attitudes and experiences. Although this is somewhat inconsistent with the review of literature of sexual attitudes and sexual experiences that has found small or nonsignificant relationships, the restricted age range of the participants may be contributing to a higher association. In addition, higher correlations should be expected due to the match between the specificity of the experience and the attitude being measured. Low correlations were seen between attitudes toward same sex behaviors (such as anal sex) and their corresponding experience item. One factor affecting these low correlations is the truncated variance for many of the same-sex behaviors. Consequently, individuals with liberal attitudes may not have experienced same sex behavior due to sexual preference rather than attitude toward the behavior. Truncated variance in either variable being correlated has been found to reduce the size of the correlation.
When dealing with attitudes and experiences, it is difficult to determine if respondents' attitudes are being driven by experiences or experiences driven by attitudes. The associations likely indicate a reciprocal relationship which Fishbein and Ajzen's (1981) Theory of Reasoned Action generally argues that experiences are a result of attitudes. However, experiences also influence attitudes as supported by previous investigations into the effects of sexual experiences on one's sexual attitudes (Fischer, 1986; Kilman, Wanlass, Sabalis & Sullivan, 1981; Serdahely & Ziemba, 1984; Taylor, 1982).
The SAES assesses current sexual attitudes and previous sexual experiences, implicating our experiences likely shape our attitudes. However, exploring how attitudes shape experiences would be a beneficial goal. Future research may wish to focus on more longitudinal designs that allow for assessing change over time.
Implications and Applications
This study is important in that it presents a reliable and valid way to measure sexual attitudes and sexual experiences of men and women. The development and validation of this survey will help instructors in human sexuality, college level counselors, advising educators, and student health services become more aware of the relationships that may exist between sexual attitudes and experiences of undergraduate college students. This awareness provides a deeper understanding of college students, which in turn helps student affairs, counselors and educators in an advisory role to competently prepare for interactions with students. Further development of this instrument can provide for further exploration of sexual attitudes and experiences specific to undergraduate college students. A more clear understanding of the relationship of sexual attitudes and experiences is called for in order to help in the modification and reevaluation of sexuality related educational and support services for this age group.
The use of the SAES in applied settings rests primarily on the relationship between attitudes and experiences as well as on the importance of individuals exploring and understanding the range of human attitudes and experiences. Understanding whether one's sexual experiences are congruent to one's attitudes provides personal awareness into one's own sexuality. Weerakoon and Wong (2003) stated "sexuality is an area where self-reflection and self-assessment play an important role" (para. 36). In addition, the ability to compare one's attitudes and experiences with peers could facilitate a deeper insight into one's self (Butler, Hartzell, & Sherwood-Puzzello, 2007).
In a therapeutic setting, the SAES can be used to help students explore possible discrepancies between behaviors and attitudes. Fromson (2006) argues that discrepancies between actual and ideal selves tend to lead to "dejection-related emotions such as sadness and shame" (p. 333). Motivation for change is enhanced when an individual is aware of perceived discrepancies between their current situation and their wishes for the future, and will seek understanding in integrating the two. Individuals can explore the consistencies (or the lack thereof) in their own attitudes and experiences as a component of elaborating on normal ambivalence toward one's own sexuality, ideally allowing for personal responsibility of sexual interactions (Holt & Kaiser, 2009). A focus of counseling in higher education is often facilitating personal congruence, meaning the student will work toward bringing behavior and attitudes into alignment with beliefs and values (or vice versa).
College courses that have a focus on human sexuality, health education or gender issues could benefit from the use of the SAES. For example, a simple approach would be to have college level students complete the attitudes subscale of the survey at a different time than the experiences subscale. Upon completion, feedback could be provided on whether their experiences were congruent with their attitudes and discussion could ensue to discover possible incongruencies and the reasoning behind such.
Another application could be to explore consequences of one's sexual behavior, especially when incongruent with one's attitudes, and to implement prevention programs and social policy for health and psychological concerns. Additional uses could augment further understanding and exploration of sexual health issues, public policy, survivors of sexual abuse, and various issues in health related fields. Administering the SAES in conjunction with additional validated and reliable instruments (e.g., Sexual Deception Scale, Sexual Opinion Survey, Attitudes toward Women's Genitals Scale) could provide insight and awareness into one's own sexuality as well as current trends in sexual attitudes and behaviors. Finally, the SAES could be used in research or educational settings to assess and monitor change over time and/or changes in the relationships between the attitudes and experiences and other outcome variables of interest such as social liberalism and conservatism.
Limitations and Strengths
The findings from this study must be interpreted with caution due to the overrepresentation of single (71%), Caucasian (84%) and heterosexual (97%) students in the sample. Further research is needed to determine if the findings are representative of the general population of male and female undergraduate college students. Additional research with a culturally and sexually diverse sample as well as a more age varied sample would provide more edification in societal norms and trends. In addition, the relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and sexual attitudes and behaviors are relatively understudied. Another limitation of this study related to the sensitive nature of the subject of this study: self-reporting of sexual attitudes and experiences may be skewed due to the lack of accurate recall or reluctance to disclose personal sexual information. Finally, future research on the SAES should explore a possible ordering effect of item administration, a possible differentiation between wanted and unwanted sexual experiences, and potentially a differentiation between sexual experimentation with friends and sexual experiences with romantic partners.
Overall, as a valid measure of sexual attitudes and sexual experiences, the core strength of the SAES is the ability of respondents, educators, counselors, student support services, and researchers to directly compare sexual attitudes and experiences. The SAES is reliable and allows for easy interpretation, and having the ability to directly compare and contrast sexual attitudes and experiences is important and advantageous to sexual understanding and sexual health.
Abdo, J. (1985). A Study of sexual attitudes, sexual behaviors, and religiosity of community college students. Dissertations Abstracts International, 46.
Abler, R., & Sedlacek, W. (1989). Freshman sexual attitudes and behaviors over a 15-year period. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 201-209.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Allgeier, E., & Allgeier, A. (1998). Sexual interactions: Basic understandings; Instructor's resource manual and test bank. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Allyn, D. (2001). Make love not war: The Sexual revolution: An Unfettered history. Boston: Little, Brown.
Bajracharya, S., Sarvela, P., & Isberner, F. (1995). A Retrospective study of first sexual intercourse experiences among undergraduates. Journal of American College Health, 43, 169-177.
Bernstein, D., Clarke-Stewart, A., Roy, E., & Wickens, C. (1997). Psychology, 4th ed. Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Breckler, S. J., & Wiggins, E. C. (1993). Emotional responses and the affective component of attitude. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 281-296.
Bromley, D., & Britten, F. (1938). Youth and sex: A Study of 1300 college students. New York: Harper & Row.
Brook, J., Balka, E., Abernathy, T., & Hamburg, B. (1994). Sequence of sexual behavior and its relationship to other problem behaviors in African American and Puerto Rican adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 107-114.
Butler, S., Hartzell, R., & Sherwood-Puzzello, C. (2007). Perceived benefits of human sexuality peer facilitators. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 10. Retrieved from http://www.ejhs.org/volume 10/peer.htm
Carter, J., & Frankel, E. (1983). The effects of a teacher training program on family life and human sexuality in the knowledge and attitudes of public school teachers. Journal of School Health, 53, 459-462.
Cha, E. S. (2005). Predictors of sexual behavior among Korean college students: Testing the theory of planned behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Charles, V.E. & Blum, R.W. (2008). Core competencies and the prevention of high risk sexual behavior. In N.G. Guerra and C.R Bradshaw (Eds.) Core competencies to prevent problem behaviors and promote positive youth development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 122, 61-74.
Daugherty, L., & Burger, J. (1984). The Influence of parents, church, and peers on the sexual attitudes and behaviors of college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 351-359.
Elliot, L., & Brantley, C. (1997). Sex on campus: The Naked truth about the real sex lives of college students. New York: Random House.
Ehrmann, W. (1959). Premarital dating behavior. New York: Holt.
Field, J., Johnson, A., Wadsworth, J., & Wellings, K. (1995). National survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles, 1990. London: Social and Community Planning Research. Retrieved from http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findingData/sn Descritpion.asp?sn=3434
Fischer, G. (1986). College student attitudes towards forcible date rape: Changes after taking a human sexuality course. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 12, 42-46.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewoods Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Fisher, W. (1998). The Sexual Opinion Survey. In C. Davis, W. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, and S. Davis (Eds.), The Handbook of Sexuality Related Measures (pp. 218-223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fisher, T. (1986). Parent-child communication about sex and young adolescents' sexual knowledge and attitudes. Adolescence, 21, 517-527.
Freedman, M. (1965). The Sexual behavior of American college women: An Empirical study and an historical survey. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 11, 33-47.
Fromson, P. (2006). Self-discrepancies and negative affect: The Moderating roles of private and public self-consciousness. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 34(4), 333-349. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Gagnon, J. (1989). Sexuality across the life course in the United States. In C. Turner, H. Miller, & L. Moses (Eds.), AIDS: Sexual behavior and intravenous drug use (pp. 500-503). Washington, DC: National Academy.
Ghule, M., Balaiah, D., & Joshi, B. (2007). Attitudes toward premarital sex among rural college youth in Maharashtra, India. Sexuality and Culture, 11(4), 1-17.
Guttmacher Institute. (2006). Facts on sex education in the United States. New York:
Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs.fb_sexEd200 6.html
Harmon, R., Hall, D., Gonzalez, V., & Cacciapaglia, H. (1999). Revision and reliability of a measure of sexual attitudes. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 2. Retrieved from http://www.ejhs.org/volume2/hannon.htm.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Reich, D. A. (2006). The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 76-86.
Hildebrand, M., & Abramowitz, S. (1984). Sexuality on campus: Changes in attitudes and behaviors during the 1970's. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 534-538.
Hoge, D., & Hoge, J. (1992). The Return of the fifties? Value trends at the University of Michigan, 1952 to 1989. Sociological Quarterly, 33, 611-623.
Holt, E., & Kaiser, D. (2009). The First step series: Art therapy for early substance abuse treatment. Arts in Psychotherapy, 36(4), 245-250. doi: 10.1016/j .aip.2009.05.004.
Johnson, A., Fenton, K., Copas, A., Mercer, A., McCadden, A., Carder, C., Ridgway, G., Wellings, K., Macdowall, W., & Nanchahal, K. (2005). National survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles H, 2000-2001. London: National Centre for Social Research. Retrieved from http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findingData/rel atedStudyListForSN.asp?sn=5223
Johnson, A., Wadsworth, J., Wellings, K., & Field, J. (1994). Sexual attitudes and lifestyles. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific.
Jonason, P. & Marks, M. (2009). Common vs. uncommon sexual acts: Evidence for the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 60, 357-365.
Kilman, R, Wanlass, R., Sabalis, R., & Sullivan, B. (1981). Sex education: A Review of its effects. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10, 177-205.
Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., Martin, C., & Gebhard, P. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Kirschner, T., & Sedlacek, W. (1987). Sex differences in student sexual attitudes and behaviors:
A Ten-year comparison. The College of Student Affairs Journal, 8, 4-12.
Landis, J. (1958). Building a successful marriage. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Leiblum, S., Wiegel, M., Brickle, F. (2003). Sexual attitudes of US and Canadian medical students; the role of ethnicity, gender, religion and acculturation. Sexual & Relationship Therapy, 18 (4), 473-491.
Lottes, I. L. (1993). Nontraditional gender roles and the sexual experiences of heterosexual college students. Sex Roles, 29, 645-669.
Masters, W., & Johnson, V. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little, Brown.
Michael, R., Gagnon, J., Laumann, E., & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A Definitive survey. New York: Little, Brown.
Oliver, M., & Hyde, J. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A Meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.
Reiss, I. (1967). The Social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York: Reinholt & Winston.
Robinson, I., & Jedlicka, D. (1982). Change in sexual attitudes and behavior of college students from 1965-1980: A Research note. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 237-240.
Rockwood, L., & Ford, M. (1945). Youth, marriage, and parenthood. New York: John Wiley & Jones.
Rosenbaum, J.N. (2009). Patient teenagers? A Comparison of the sexual behavior of virginity pledgers and matched nonpledgers. Pediatrics, 123(1), 110-120.
Santelli, J., Rochat, R., Hatfield-Timajchy, K., Gilbert, B., Curtis, K., Cabral, R., Hirsch, J., Schieve, L (2003). The Measurement and meaning of unintended pregnancy. Perspectives on Sexual Reproductive Health, 35 (2), 94-101.
Serdahely, W., & Ziemba, G. (1984). Changing homophobic attitudes through college sexuality education. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 109-116.
Smith, C. V., Nezlek, J. B., Webster, G. D., & Paddock, E. L. (2007). Relationships between daily sexual interactions and domain-specific and general models of personality traits. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 497-515.
Smith, E, Flaherty, C., Webb, L., & Mumford, D. (1984). The long-term effects of human sexuality training programs for public school teachers. Journal of School Health, 54, 157-159.
Spees, E. (1987). College students' sexual attitudes and behaviors, 1974-1985: A Review of the literature. Journal of College student Personnel, 28, 135-140.
Stevenson, M. (1990). Tolerance for homosexuality and interest in sexuality education. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 16, 194-197.
Taylor, M. (1982). A Discriminate analysis approach to exploring changes in human sexuality attitudes among university students. Journal of American College Health, 31, 124-129.
Treboux, D. & Busch-Rossnagel, N.A. (1995). Age differences in parent and peer influences on female sexual behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence 5(4): 469-487.
Tucker-Ladd, C. (2006). Psychological self help: Dating, love, marriage and sex. Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalselfhelp.org/ Chapter10/.
Weerakoon, P. & Wong, W. (2003). Sexuality education online for health professionals. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 6. Retrieved from http://www.ejhs.org/volume6 /SexEdAbst.html
Wellings, K., Field, J., Johnson, A. M., & Wadsworth, J. (1994). Sexual behavior in Britain: The National survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles. London: Penguin Books.
Wells, B.E. & Twenge, J.M. (2005). Changes in young people's sexual behavior and attitudes, 1943-1999: A Cross-temporal meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 9,246-261.
West, P., Wight, D., & Macintyre, S. (1993). Heterosexual behavior of 18-year-olds in the Glasgow area. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 367-396.
CASEY T. TOBIN, PHD
University of Wisconsin- La Crosse
Table 1 Attitude items with descriptive statistics Item Mean SD (n = 455) a. Strongly approve b. Approve somewhat c. Neutral d. Disapprove somewhat e. Strongly disapprove Note: the higher the score, the higher the disapproval 1. Education about sexuality in Prade school. 2.42 0.23 2. Education about sexuality in middle school. 1.63 0.88 3. Education about sexuality in high school. 1.31 0.71 4. Education in the home about sexuality between 3.41 1.19 the ages 1 and 5. 5. Education in the home about sexuality between 2.68 1.22 the ages 6 and 10. 6. Education in the home about sexuality between 1.55 0.77 the ages 11 and 15. 7. Education in the home about sexuality between 1.29 0.66 the ages 16 and up. 8. Friends of the same fender discussing sex. 1.50 0.84 9. Friends of the opposite ,ender discussing sex. 1.60 0.84 10. Friends of the same gender looking at and/or 4.13 1.10 touching each other's genitals. 11. Friends of the opposite gender looking at 2.90 1.42 and/or touching each other's genitals. 12. Sexual relations between two people of the 3.51 1.40 same gender. 13. Sexual relations between two people of the 1.39 0.81 opposite gender. 14. Sexual feelings towards someone of the same 3.58 1.36 ender. 15. Sexual feelings towards someone of the 1.31 0.69 opposite gender. 16. Individuals of the same gender erotically 3.70 1.39 kissing one another. 17. Individuals of the o s nosite fender 1.50 0.85 erotically kissing one another. 18. Receiving oral sex. 1.81 1.10 19. Giving oral sex. 2.07 1.21 20. Masturbation (self-stimulation). 2.56 1.30 21. Oral genital stimulation between two people 1.66 0.94 of the same gender. 22. Oral genital stimulation between a man and a 3.67 1.38 woman. 23. Anal sexual relations between two people of 3.38 1.37 the same gender. 24. Anal sexual relations between a man and a 4.09 1.18 woman. 25. Use of contraception/birth control. 1.27 0.74 26. Abortion when a woman is pregnant due to rape 1.88 1.26 or incest or when her health is endangered. 27. Abortion when a woman requests for whatever 3.03 1.56 reason. 28. Group sex (sexual relations among three or 3.53 1.39 more consenting partners). 29. Partner exchange (couples exchanging partners 4.19 1.17 for purposes of sexual relations). 30. Legal availability of erotic materials 2.48 1.30 (books, magazines, movies, etc.) for adults. Table 2 Experience items with descriptive statistics Item Mean SD (N=455) a. 8 or more times b. 5-7 times c. 2-4 times d. Only Once e. Never Note: the lower the score the higher the number of experience 1. Received sex education in grade school. 3.92 1.02 2. Received sex education in middle school. 3.25 1.03 3. Received sex education in high school. 3.14 1.31 4. Received education about sexuality in the home 4.67 0.81 between ages 1 and 5. 5. Received education about sexuality in the home 4.13 1.07 between ages 6 and 10. 6. Received education about sexuality in the home between the ages 11 and 15. 3.31 1.29 7. Received education about sexuality in the home 2.95 1.45 between the ages 16 and 8. Discussion of sex between friends of the same 1.56 1.18 gender. 9. Discussion of sex between friends of the 1.61 1.07 opposite gender. 10. Looking at or touching each other's genitals with friends of the same gender. 4.73 0.79 11. Looking at or touching each other's genitals with friends of the opposite gender. 2.82 1.72 12. Sexual intercourse with someone of the same 4.85 0.70 gender. 13. Sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite 2.38 1.70 gender. 14. Experienced feelings of sexual arousal towards someone of the same gender. 4.611 1.00 15. Experienced feelings of sexual arousal towards someone of the opposite gender. 1.31 0.85 16. Erotically kissing someone of the same gender. 4.75 0.79 17. Erotically kissing someone of the opposite 1.47 1.13 gender. 18. Receiving oral-genital stimulation (oral sex). 2.13 1.56 19. Giving oral-genital stimulation (oral sex). 2.30 1.61 20. Self-stimulation (masturbation). 2.64 1.76 21. Oral genital stimulation with someone of the 4.86 0.67 same gender. 22. Oral genital stimulation with someone of the 2.11 1.60 opposite gender. 23. Anal sexual relationship with someone of the 4.94 0.44 same gender 24. Anal sexual relationship with someone of the 4.48 1.01 opposite gender. 25. Use a method of contraception. 2.28 1.75 26. Experienced abortion due to rape, incest, or 4.94 0.43 because health was endangered (by self or by partner). 27. Experienced abortion for other reasons than stated in above (by self or by partner). 4.91 0.45 28. Experienced group sex (sexual relations among you and at least two other partners). 4.85 0.54 29. Experienced partner exchange (you and your partner have exchanged sexual relations with other 4.91 0.47 partners. 30. Use erotic materials. 3.66 1.60 Table 3 Attitude-Experience Correlations for Factors with Analogous Experiences Correlation A20. Masturbation (self-stimulation). .67 A1l. Friends of the opposite gender looking at and/ .58 or touching each other's genitals. A18. Receiving oral sex. .53 A19. Giving oral sex. .52 A8. Friends of the same gender discussing sex. .42 A14. Sexual feelings towards someone of the same .41 gender. A30. Legal availability of erotic materials books, .41 magazines, movies, etc. for adults. A5. Education in the home about sexuality between .37 the ages 6 and 10. Al. Education about sexuality in grade school. .36 A9. Friends of the opposite gender discussing sex. .36 A10. Friends of the same gender looking at and/or .33 touching each other's genitals. A16. Individuals of the same gender erotically .33 kissing one another. A4. Education in the home about sexuality between .32 the ages I and 5. A25. Use of contraception/birth control. .31 A28. Group sex (sexual relations among three or .24 more consenting partners). A29. Partner exchange (couples exchanging partners .23 for purposes of sexual relations A6. Education in the home about sexuality between .22 the ages I 1 and 15. A17. Individuals of the opposite gender erotically .21 kissing one another A7. Education in the home about sexuality between .20 the ages 16 and up. A12. Sexual relations between two people of the .17 same gender. A2. Education about sexuality in middle school. .17 A22. Oral genital stimulation between two people of .14 the same gender. A27. Abortion when a woman requests for whatever .13 reason. A3. Education about sexuality in hi school. .12 A24. Anal sexual relations between two people of .11 the same gender. A13. Sexual relations between two people of the .11 opposite gender. A15. Sexual feelings towards someone of the .11 opposite gender. A23. Anal sexual relations between a man and a .10 woman. A21. Oral genital stimulation between a man and a .05 woman. A26. Abortion when a woman is pregnant due to rape .04 or incest or when her health is endangered. Gender Comparisons on Attitudes and Experiences n M SD F p level Attitude Females 102 76.22 * 18.23 Subscale Males 93 71.09 * 14.98 Total 195 73.77 * 16.91 (1,193)= .034 4.58 Experience Females 98 72.42 ** 13.37 Subscale Males 90 81.00 ** 12.61 Total 188 76.53 ** 13.67 (1,186) = .000 20.4 * the higher the score, the more one disapproves ** the lower the score, the more experiences one has
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Tobin, Casey T.|
|Publication:||College Student Journal|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2011|
|Previous Article:||Roots and wings: recognizing and accommodating the needs of undergraduate students.|
|Next Article:||Potential pitfalls of ethnocentricism in a globalizing world.|