INFLUENCES ON SEXUAL DECISION MAKING
by
KATHLEEN RISER PIPER, B.S. in El. Ed., B.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
PSYCHOLOGY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
December, 1986
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people, during the course of the last eight years, have been
instrumental in helping me to achieve my goals.
For specific contribu-
tions, I would like to express my gratitude to the following:
To Dick McGlynn, who taught me well, then practiced great patience
and forbearance when I took time out for PTA, Girl Scouts, and other
activities of living and raising a family;
To Dr. George, for his consistently short turn-around time, and
his amazing ability to cut through to the core issues;
To Dr. Halcomb, whose benevolent and perseverant tutelage was as
great a contribution as his knowledge of statistics;
To Jane Winer, whose feedback convinced me of my worth as a
student, and who saw to it that every t was crossed and every i
dotted;
To Susan Hendrick, who faithfully read and critiqued draft after
draft in the beginning stages of this research, and thus helped me
crystallize my thinking;
To my children, Rafe and Erin, who, more often than not, did
without their mother, and as a result, could probably write a book
entitled "One Hundred and One Exciting Ways to Serve Peanut Butter;"
To the.father of my children, Mike Piper, and to my parents,
Winnie and Leroy Riser, without whose financial assistance and
11
unflagging moral support and encouragement I could not have survived
the graduate school experience;
And finally, to those who are not called by name in this
acknowledgment—you know who you are—I say "thank you."
Ill
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . '
ii
LIST OF TABLES
vii
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
Model of Moral Decision Making
4
Moral Sensitivity
6
Moral Judgment
Personal Influence:
10
Moral Sensitivity
and Judgment
16
Interpersonal Values and Influences
21
Summary and Hypotheses
II.
.
23
Hypothesis I
24
Hypothesis II
25
METHOD
26
Participants
26
Procedures
26
Instruments
27
Defining Issues Test (DIT)
27
Saxual Philosophy Inventory (SPI)
29
Inventory of Sexual Decision
Making Factors (ISDF)
Design
IV
31
36
III.
RESULTS
39
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
40
Philosophical and Attitudinal Characteristics
of the Sample
45
Sexual Philosophy
45
Attitudes a hDut Engaging in Premarital
Sexual Intercourse
Reasons for Participating in Intercourse
53
55
....
Reasons for Abstaining from Intercourse
IV.
59
Standards for Premarital Sexual Behavior
62
The Traditional Standard
The Permissiveness with Affection Standard . . .
The Permissiveness without Affection Standard . .
The Double Standard
Beliefs about Gender-Appropriate
62
65
67
69
Roles for Sexual Behavior
69
Results for Experimental Hypotheses
71
Hypothesis I
71
Hypothesis II
72
CONCLUSION
90
Discussion
90
Summary
96
REFERENCES
100
V
APPENDICES
A.
BRIEFING TEXT
104
B.
CONSENT FORM
109
C.
DEFINING ISSUES TEST
Ill
D.
SEXUAL PHILOSOPHY INVENTORY (FEMALE FORM)
119
E.
SEXUAL PHILOSOPHY INVENTORY (MALE FORM)
126
F.
INVENTORY OF SEXUAL DECISION MAKING
FACTORS (FORM A)
133
INVENTORY OF SEXUAL DECISION MAKING
FACTORS (FORM B)
141
G.
VI
TABLES
1.
Age at First Intercourse by Philosophy and Gender
41
2.
Number of Different Intercourse Partners by Gender
42
3.
Sex Guilt by Gender
44
4.
Parental and Peer Disapproval by Gender
46
5.
Sexual Philosophy by Gender
46
6.
Sexual Philosophy by Religious Affiliation
48
7.
Sexual Philosophy by Religious Participation
48
8.
Number of Different Persons Dated in Past Year
9.
10.
by Sexual Philosophy
50
Sexual Philosophy by Dating Status
52
Incidence of Intercourse in Current Relationship
by Sexual Philosophy
54
11.
Justification for Intercourse by Gender
56
12.
Reasons for Abstaining from Intercourse by Gender
60
13.
Most-cited Reasons for Abstaining from Intercourse
by Gender and Virginity Status
Mean Moral Maturity Scores for Sexual
Philosophy Categories
Importance of Discussions with Partner about
Intercourse by Gender and Virginity Status
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
63
"72
77
Importance of Religiosity as Factor in Decision
about Intercourse by Gender and Virginity Status
78
Possibility of Eventual Marriage as Decision
Factor by Gender and Virginity Status
80
Degree of Commitment Between Partners as Decision
Factor by Gender and Virginity Status
80
vii
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Physical Arousal During Date as Decision Factor
by Gender and Virginity Status
82
Physical Arousal Prior to Date as Decision Factor
by Gender and Virginity Status
83
Receptivity to Sexual Advances as Decision Factor
by Gender and Virginity Status
84
Importance of Preplanning to Increase Chances of
Intercourse by Gender and Virginity Status
86
Use of Birth Control as Decision Factor by
Gender and Virginity Status
87
Vlll
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
According to Erikson (1968), the major developmental task during
adolescence involves the acquisition of skills for intimate interpersonal
living, such that developmental energies are directed toward "the
search and pursuit of career, work, and love" (Maier, 1978, p. 120). If
the pursuit of stable love relationship, including and involving the
expression of one's sexuality, represents a healthy and natural progression toward adulthood, then the act of first sexual intercourse stands
as one significant rite of passage in adolescence, and the decisions
young people make about sex are implicated as critical factors in
psychosocial development.
>f Since Kinsey's landmark studies of American sexual behavior were
first reported in 1948 and 1953, there has been an increase in the
reported incidence of premarital intercourse, particularly dramatic in
the female population (Dreyer, 1982; Hopkins, 1979; Zelnik & Kanter,
1981).
Among adolescents the incidence rate for sexual intercourse
exceeded 50% in a national sample of 13-19-year olds (Sorensen, 1973).
In a small sample at a large southwestern university, 74% of participants, whose average age was 19.22, were nonvirgins (Piper, 1985).
This increase in incidence of sexual intercourse has been
accompanied by a decrease in the age at first intercourse (Zelnik &
Kanter, 1981).
Sorensen (1973) reported that 13% of the nonvirgins
in a national sample had had their first intercourse at or before the age
of 12; 65% had experienced intercourse by age 15; and 11% of subjects had
waited until age 18 or 19.
first intercourse was 16.82.
Piper (1985) found that the average age for
Eight percent of the sample had their first
sexual intercourse at age 14; 70% had engaged in first intercourse by
age 18; only 2% had waited until age 20 to experience first intercourse.
The concomitant increase in the incidence of teen-age pregnancy and
abortion is alarming.
O'Connell and Moore (1981) reported that "since
the mid-1950s, the proportion of first births premaritally conceived has
risen approximately 100% for white teenagers" (p. 52), and in 1.972, 37%
of all legal abortions in the United States were performed on women
under the age of 20; 50% were performed on women in their early 20s.
Tietze (1981) reported that in the period between 1961 and 1968, out-ofwedlock births to teen-age girls rose from 41% to nearly 50%. During
that period, the U.S. birthrate declined, but births to teen-age mothers
rose by 3%.
Tietze estimated that if present trends continued, by 1984
21% of females would experience at least one pregnancy before their
18th birthday, 34-39% would become pregnant before the age of 20, and
15% would obtain legal abortions.
Reichelt and Werley (1981) have described the incidence of venereal
disease among teen-agers as "pandemic," with the number of cases almost
quadrupling between 1960 and 1972.
The incidence of sexually-transmitted
disease shows a strong positive relationship to the number of different
lifetime intercourse partners (Sorensen, 1973).
In Piper's (1985)
sample nonvirgins reported an average of three different intercourse
partners; 24% had had more than five different partners.
High incidence rates for adolescent intercourse suggest that sexual
decisions are being made.
The litany of high incidence and negative
consequences of adolescent sexual intercourse provides support for the
notion that America's youth are "looking for love in all the wrong
places," and at younger and younger ages.
The negative consequences
attendant on many of the incidents of intercourse imply that many
decisions are either sadly misinformed or simply uninformed.
That the adolescent is physiologically "ready" to participate in
sex is well documented (Chumlea, 1982; Dreyer, 1982; Sarrell & Sarrell,
1979) . But ver/ little is known about the psychosocial "readiness" of
adolescents to deal with physically and emotionally intimate sexual
behavior.
And even less is known about the decisions which precede the
behavior directly responsible for the observed negative consequences
mentioned above.
Decision making was not even referenced as a factor in
premarital sexual intercourse in Dreyer's (1982) otherwise excellent
review of the literature on adolescent sexual development.
To the extent that negative consequences of adolescent sexual
intercourse reflect real-world dilemmas (such as usually unplanned,
unexpected, and unwanted teen-age pregnancies where adolescents face
the unenviable reality of becoming parents, and possibly breadwinners
and caregivers, themselves), sexual decision making warrants the attention of social scientists.
It is of considerable practical and
theoretical importance to examine some of the influences on the
process by which individuals make decisions about sexual intercourse.
4
Model of Moral Decision Making
Sexual decision making involves the resolution of sensitive issues
regarding the morality of premarital intercourse.
of making sexual decisions proceed?
How does the process
How does one describe the complex
process by which two cooperating individuals arrive at morally acceptable
decisions regarding their mutual sexual expression?
Following Kohlberg's (1969) theory of moral development, Carroll
and Rest (1982) presented a theoretical model of moral decision making
which embraces the inherent complexity of sexual decision making,
outlined the "major psychological components involved in behaving
morally" (p. 434) , and suggested that moral problem solving involves
an ordered progression through, and integration of, the following
component processes:
Recognition and sensitivity: Translating and disambiguating
a given social situation so as to be aware that a moral problem
exists; to be sensitive enough to recognize that someone's welfare is at stake.
Moral judgment: Determining what ideally ought to be done
in the situation, what one's moral ideals call for or which
moral norms apply in the given situation.
Values and influences: Devising a plan of action with one's
moral ideal in mind but also taking into account non-moral
values and goals which the situation may activate, as well as
the influence of situational pressures.
Execution and implementation of moral action: Behaving in
accordance with one's goal despite distractions, impediments,
and incidental adjustments; organizing and sustaining behavior
to realize one's goals, (p. 434)
A decision (either affirmative or negative) may be reached at any
one of the steps, or phases.
Deficiencies in, or differential meaning-
fulness of, any one of the steps result in qualitatively different
decisions.
That is, decisions are arrived at in different ways by
different individuals, and for different reasons.
Although the end-
products of various decisions may appear to be identical, this similarity
can be more apparent than real.
For example, individuals can decide to
engage in sexual intercourse for myriad reasons: because they are in
love, or planning to marry; because they feel pressured by, or obligated
to, their partner; because they believe "everyone else" is doing it;
because the opportunity for intercourse presents itself; because they
are drunk or stoned or horny; because it sounds like fun; or for any
number of other reasons.
Likewise, individuals who abstain from sexual intercourse may do
so for a variety of reasons: because they have not yet formed a clearcut judgment about the moral acceptability of premarital intercourse;
because they believe that sexual intercourse is acceptable only within
the context of marriage; because they want more security or love in
their current relationship; because they fear pregnancy or disease;
because they fear their parents might find out, or for any number of
other reasons.
In all the examples above, the ultimate decision to participate or
not participate in sexual intercourse reflects widely divergent reasons
which are not readily apparent if one looks only at the incidence, or
absence, of the sexual act itself.
Because moral problem solving
involves "interrelated processes" among which there "may at times be
considerable tension" (Carroll & Rest, p. 448), it is necessary to
examine the influences on and among these interrelated processes.
A central assumption of the Carroll and Rest model is that different
individuals will react differently to the demands of any particular phase
or sequence of steps.
That is, individuals will be differentially
sensitive to moral issues and have different moral standards by which
they make judgments.
Individuals will be differentially vulnerable to
the influence of others, and the source and salience of interpersonal
influences will vary, further increasing the complexity of the decision.
The assumption also implicates different sources of influence at
each phase.
In the first two phases, the influences are of an essentially
individual, or personal, nature.
Interpersonal influences become directly
involved in decision making at phase three, and continue into phase four.
The present research is directed toward all phases.
But, before we can
draw valid conclusions about the decision process(es), we must ascertain
that decision making actually has carried over into phase four. Therefore, one requirement of this research is that all those who classify as
nonvirgins (by any measure) do so as a result of their having exercised
volitional control at the time of the reported intercourse (i.e., the
intercourse did not occur as a result of molestation or rape).
Moral Sensitivity
According to Carroll and Rest (1982), moral sensitivity is a matter
of recognizing that someone's welfare is at stake.
Stated another way,
it is the awareness that our own, or someone else's, reputation, or
self-esteem, or future (or whatever) may be at risk depending on sexual
decisions we make (e.g., whether or not to "go all the way" with someone).
Some sexual behaviors are individual (e.g., masturbating, or
fantasizing), so that deciding whether or not to engage in them requires
cooperation only with oneself.
Because sexual intercourse is a social
event requiring at least two participants (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1983),
the decision about whether or not to participate is, ideally, though not
necessarily, socially-based.
Decisions about sexual intercourse can be
made either in isolation or in concert with another person.
Unilateral
decisions about sexual intercourse probably represent the exception, not
the rule in decision making, but do occur.
In fact, decisions about
sexual intercourse may be made in the absence of any existing interpersonal relationship.
Kirkendall (1967) reported that 8% of his
subjects said they had definitely made up their minds not to engage in
intercourse quite ^'independent of any particular heterosexual association"
(p. 203), and the decisions thus made sustained behavior in such a way
that "no later decision-requiring situation arose" (p. 203). Regardless
of the extent to which both "anticipants" participate in the decision,
the decision itself represents a complex exercise in social cooperation,
because sexual intercourse is, by definition, a social phenomenon.
Social cooperation is managed by exercise of the principles of fair
play.
We all have our own ideas about how to "play fair," and we have
expectations about how others should treat us.
Because different people
have different ideas about what their rights and responsibilities ought
to be in a given situation, individual concepts of justice and fair play
reflect a wide range of orientations toward cooperation, from complete
"selfishness" at one pole to total "selflessness" at the opposite.
8
According to Kohlberg (1969), these different orientations toward
justice result in unique modal moral reasoning styles which evoke the
notion of cooperation as a central motivational construct.
He identified
six qualitatively different cognitive organizational schemes, called
stages, which demonstrate increasing adequacy of reasoning on the
dimension of social cooperation.
The stage descriptions, including the
"central concept for determining rights and responsibilities" (Rest,
1979a, p. 22) and the main motive for behavior at each stage, are
contained below.
At the punishment and obedience stage, concepts about mutual
expectations are primitive.
Children know what their caregivers expect
them to do, and not to do; they also know that punishment will attend
any disobedience on their part.
Cooperation is not even conceived of
in this uncritical association of disobedience with punishment. The
main motive is, of course, to avoid punishment by obeying.
Reasoning at the instrumental relativist stage is based on what
satisfies one's own needs, usually without regard for the needs of
another; the main motive is to manipulate others to gain rewards. But,
because they do recognize their own instrumentality in achieving goals,
individuals begin to comprehend ways in which they can cooperate with
someone else and benefit themselves, nevertheless.
Gradually they
come to a very rudimentary notion of reciprocity which is "always
interpreted in a physical pragmatic way" (Gilligan, Kohlberg, Lerner,
& Belenky, 1971).
Cooperative thinking at this level is of the "if
you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" variety.
Thinking at the interpersonal concordance level is based on the
individual's desire to "live up to" the expectations of others. The
individual cooperates because doing so brings coveted social approval.
More than anything, the individual at this stage wants to be viewed
as a "good" boy or girl, and to "fit in" with peers.
Thus, individuals
oriented at this stage interpret cooperation in terms of conformity to
the opinions and wishes of others.
At the law and order stage, the orientation is toward unquestioning
faith in external authority, so that cooperation is interpreted in
terms of "doing one's duty" to maintain the fixed rules of the social
order.
The primary motive at this level is to avoid guilt about,
detection of, or punishment for, infractions of the rules.
An individual oriented at the social contract level of reasoning
is motivated by concern for the welfare of others and desire for their
respect (as distinguished from social approval).
Decisions are based
on considerations of social utility and are arrived at by consensus
with others.
At the ethical principles stage, an individual's conscience
provides the motive force for behavior and supersedes loyalty to the
social order when that order is perceived as unjust.
For this individ-
ual, cooperation with an unfair system is untenable.
Muus (1976)
states that "the individaal governed by universal ethical principles
may practice civil disobedience, not out of disrespect for the law,
but out of respect for a higher morality than the existing law" (p. 46).
10
These stage descriptions demonstrate how the concept of cooperation
evolves in the development of moral reasoning, and reflect the ways in
which different individuals perceive the cooperation demands of a given
situation.
The taxonomy is hierarchical, such that each succeeding
stage is predicated on the ones preceding it, and is characterized by
increasing cognitive sophistication (Jurich & Jurich, 1974).
That is to
say that more differentiated ethical thinking is required to defend the
value positions in succeeding stages. Therefore, if sexual intercourse
requires social cooperation, cognitive moral development is implicated
as a major factor in sexual decision making, and individuals at different
levels of moral maturity will be differentially sensitive to the issues
involved in decisions about premarital sexual intercourse.
^ Moral Judgment
By what standards do individuals judge the morality of sexual behavior?
What influences the judgment of the moral issue of premarital
sexual intercourse?
Individual standards for morally appropriate sexual
behavior are a salient source of personal influence at the moral
judgment phase of decision making about premarital sexual intercourse.
These standards were first articulated by Reiss (1960), and later
extended by Jurich and Jurich (1974).
The traditional standard permits no premarital sex for either gender.
This is the rigid absolute standard formally advocated by most social
institutions (most notably, organized religion).
The orientation is
based on strict adherence to the moral principle of abstinence.
Jurich
and Jurich (1974) reported that those who held to the traditional
11
standard were significantly more religious than any other group, and
significantly more females than males endorsed the traditional standard.
In Peplau, Rubin, and Hill (1977), 18% of the couples interviewed in the
study abstained from intercourse in their relationships, and were thus
classified as maintaining the traditional standard.
The double standard tolerates premarital sex for the male, but not
for the female.
According to Jurich and Jurich (1972), the double
standard differs from the traditional standard in one critical respect.
It is not absolute, but situational, since it permits sexual intercourse
for the male.
The authors submit that this condition generates a set of
behavioral options for the male based on his own sexual standards in
concert with those of his female partner.
Each different situation
(relationship) requires a behavioral approach unique to the individual
participants in that relationship.
Peplau et al. (1977) reported that
their subjects, regardless of gender, overwhelmingly rejected the double
standard, but when attitudes about sex-role appropriate behavior did
differ, the attitudes were usually more permissive for men than for women.
The permissiveness with affection standard legitimizes premarital
sex occurring in the context of a love relationship.
The orientation for
this standard is based on the romantic view of sex as an expression of
emotional closeness, though not necessarily commitment.
Neither Jurich
and Jurich (1974) nor Peplau et al. (1977) reported gender differences
in endorsement rate of the permissiveness with affection standard.
Close
to 80% of Peplau et al.'s respondents said it is "completely acceptable"
to have intercourse with a loved partner; the overall mean rating of
agreement with this standard on their 9-point scale was 8.5.
12
The permissiveness without affection standard allows sex under any
conditions of relationship (i.e., an emotionally close relationship is
not a prerequisite).
The orientation is toward the satisfaction of one's
own needs and desires.
National survey data collected in 1978 revealed
that respondents endorsed this standard over all other options (Glenn &
Weaver, 1979).
standard.
In the Jurichs' (1974) sample, only males espoused this
Peplau et al.'s (1977) couples were less accepting of this
standard; the overall mean rating was 4.7 on a 9-point scale, and
females were significantly less favorable toward it than were males.
The
nonexploitive pemnissiveness without affection standard was
identified in 1974 by Jurich and Jurich.
In brief, this standard allows
for sexual intercourse when and if both parties to the relationship
understand and agree about the meaning of the sexual involvement.
respect and honesty, not love, are the defining imperatives.
Mutual
According
to the Jurichs, the hallmark of this standard is "the recognition by both
parties in the relationship of the shared rights each has as an individual" (p. 740). Their nonexploitive subjects were the least religious in
the sample, and no gender differences obtained.
Peplau et al. (1977)
classified their sexually liberal couples as maintaining a permissiveness
without affection stance in their relationships.
But those authors
described a reciprocity orientation that appears to be better fitted to
the nonexploitive permissiveness standard articulated by Jurich and
Jurich (1974).
According to the Jurichs, nonexploitive individuals are
flexible; they are capable of viewing sex as an expression of emotional
intimacy as well as pleasurable recreation.
13
Reiss (1960) stated that individuals "have a hierarchy of values in
the area of sexual behavior, and the balancing of these values determines
one's standards" (p. 81). This cognitive balancing act--involving values
such as love, commitment, respectability, religiosity, responsibility,
and pleasure—allows individuals to organize a code of sexual behavior
which is right for them.
In other words, knowledge of one's own value
positions regarding sex enables an individual to foinnulate a morally
acceptable philosophy of sexual expression.
D'Augelli (1971, 1972) interviewed college students about their
sexual attitudes and standards, and their sexual decision making and
experience.
Six sexual philosophies, i.e., distinct profies of sexual
attitudes and behavior, emerged (D'Augelli S D'Augelli, 1979).
These
philosophies reflected (a) differences in individual moral standards
for sexual expression (comparable to those outlined by Reiss and by
Jurich and Jurich presented earlier), and (b) differences in sexual
experience and expectations for relationships.
The philosophies were
generally applicable to both males and females, and are described as
follows:
Inexperienced Virgins. These individuals usually have little
dating experience until college. Their dating relationships have
not been serious or involved. They have not thought much about
sex, the relationship they desire, or about themselves. A moralistic tone about sex may be evident. They feel close to their
parents and wish not to hurt them. Their sexual experience has
usually been kissing, necking, or light petting.
Adamant Virgins. These individuals have firm convictions
that intercourse should be saved for marriage: 'Virginity is
a gift for the spouse' is a predominant theme. Premarital
intercourse may be seen as permissible for others. They say
that they do not feel guilty about light or heavy petting but
14
would feel guilty about going further. They often attribute
control to the partner and presently pet with someone special.
They do not usually confine themselves to one partner. The
marriage license is implicitly important in assuring that the
partner is the 'right' one. Their family or religion is often
mentioned as directly influencing their sexual views.
Potential Nonvirgins. These individuals often say that given
the right situation, they would have intercourse. As yet, they
have not been in the right situation and/or have not yet met the
right person. Premarital intercourse is morally acceptable, but
they have a high fear of pregnancy. More security is desirable
than exists in their present relationships, at least at that
point in relationship development, and commitment of some sort
and love are important to them. Yet they seem frustrated by
their cautiousness or inconsistency.
Engaged Nonvirgins. These individuals have had intercourse
usually with one person only. This person is typically considered someone much loved. Often, marriage or some future
commitment is mentioned, but the important thing in justifying
the sexual behavior is mutual love and the commitment to the
relationship. The relationship is described as very close and
extremely important, and the development of that relationship
is of high value to them. They usually have discussed sex
with their partner. Morality is considered an individual's
personal concern.
Liberated Nonvirgins. These individuals engage in sex in
an admittedly freer way than others. They have a looser life- •
style and are not interested in the security of the relation
ship as much as in the relationship itself. Sex within the
context of the meaning of the relationship is important, and
what is stressed is the agreed-upon meaning for the two
partners. The physical act itself is valued for its pleasure.
Reciprocal pleasure-giving as well as other reciprocities are
important.
Confused Nonvirgins. These individuals engage in sex without real understanding of their motivation, the place of sex in
their lives, or its effects on them. There is usually some
ambivalence about having had intercourse under these circumstances, especially with many partners. The relationships
between them and their partners gradually terminate. They seem
generally confused about themselves and may be characterized as
having a diffuse identity. Sex is seen as a pleasure and a
need; it also seems to be the means to an end, an attempt to
establish relationships. (D'Augelli & D'Augelli, 1979, p. 325)
15
Advocates of the different philosophies all had some dating experience, but differed in the amount and quality of sexual experience and in
the number of partners with whom they had shared these experiences.
Inexperienced Virgins were both socially and sexually naive relative to
individuals in the other five classifications.
Adamant Virgins had high
experience levels (excluding intercourse) with several partners.
Relative to others. Potential Nonvirgins were at the medium level of
sexual experience, in terms of both behavior and number of different
partners.
Engaged Nonvirgins had high experience levels in terms of
intercourse, but usually with only one partner.
Liberated Nonvirgins
and Confused Nonvirgins, on the other hand, had high experience levels,
in terms of both intercourse behavior and number of different intercourse
partners.
Individuals who endorsed different philosophies also differed on
their standards for sexual permissiveness.
Adamant Virgins typically
reported that they maintained the traditional standard of abstinence
in their dating relationships.
Inexperienced Virgins and Potential
Nonvirgins both were likely to endorse a permissiveness with affection
standard.
Engaged Nonvirgins and female Confused Nonvirgins appeared
to make sexual decisions based on the permissiveness with affection
standard.
The sexual decisions of male Confused Nonvirgins derived
from either a permissiveness without affection standard or the double
standard.
the
Liberated Nonvirgins patterned their relationships after
nonexploitive permissiveness without affection standard.
16
D'Augelli and D'Augelli (1977) described sexual philosophy as "a
composite variable that taps an individual's articulated concept of his
or her sexuality based on sexual standards, expectations for relationships, and attitudes toward past and future sexual experiences" (p. 51).
Implicit in this description is the assumption that, by late adolescence
an individual has some concept of self as a sexual being, and a system
of beliefs and principles which guides the overt expression of that
sexuality.
Equally implicit is the recognition that this system of
guiding principles is subject to change depending on, and in keeping
with, subsequent sexual learning and relationship experience.
Conceptually, then, sexual philosophy is neither static nor permanent, but dynamic and evolutionary, since it represents an individual's
cognitive posture toward sexual expression as an interpersonal phenomenon.
In short, the philosophy descriptions are distillations of the reasons
college students give to justify their decisions to either engage in,
or abstain from, premarital sexual intercourse.
Sexual philosophy
represents a conceptual integration of the complex interactions between
individual and relationship variables, while at the same time remaining
a source of personal influence in sexual decision making.
Personal Influence: Moral Sensitivity
and Judgment
How is moral sensitivity related to the judgment of moral issues?
What relationship exists between moral development and sexual standards
as sources of personal influence on sexual decisions?
Three studies
have directly addressed the relationship between cognitive moral
17
development and sexual standards and behavior; all three are based on
subjective interview data, and the first two, in particular, produced
data of a qualitative, rather than quantitative, nature.
In the first systematic study of cognitive moral development with
regard to sexual attitudes and behavior, D'Augelli (1971) reported
associations between sexual standards and moral reasoning level in an
all-female sample of college undergraduates.
Students were interviewed
about their personal standards for morally acceptable sexual behaviors,
including premarital intercourse, and subjectively grouped according
to three standards:
permissiveness without affection, permissiveness
with affection, and the traditional standard of abstinence.
To assess
moral reasoning level, D'Augelli used Kohlberg's standard interview
protocols and scoring methods and assigned students to the following
four categories of moral reasoning:
Instrumental Relativist, Inter-
personal Concordance, Law and Order, and Social Contract.
Those
who oriented at an Instrumental Relativist level typically endorsed a
permissiveness without affection standard, and justified their participation in premarital intercourse in terms of egoistic motives for sexual
pleasure with no regard for the well-being of their partner.
Students
who used Interpersonal Concordance reasoning usually advocated the
permissiveness with affection standard, frequently justifying it in
terms of parental approval (or absence of parental disapproval), and
were likely to engage in premarital intercourse.
Those who used Law
and Order reasoning usually justified their choice of the traditional
standard of abstinence by citing religious objections to premarital
18
intercourse, and maintained their virginity.
Finally, those subjects who
reasoned at the Social Contract level were more or less likely to remain
virgins depending on whether they endorsed the traditional standard or
the permissiveness with affection standard.
Advocates of the permissive-
ness with affection standard were more likely to engage in premarital
intercourse, but for either standard the justification for the decision
was consensual validation within either society or the relationship
itself.
In a second study D'Augelli (1972) investigated the relationship
between moral reasoning and the sexual philosophy profiles which had
emerged in the earlier interviews.
This time, both male and female
students were interviewed about their sexual attitudes, decision making,
and practices.
Moral reasoning was assessed using two items from the
Kohlberg Moral Dilemmas Interview (Kohlberg, 1969) and two from the
Sexual Dilemmas Interview (Gilligan, Kohlberg, Lerner, & Belenky, 1971).
Again, four levels of moral reasoning obtained:
Instrumental Relativist,
Interpersonal Concordance, Law and Order, and Social Contract. Advocates
of different philosophies differed in moral maturity.
typically oriented at Law and Order.
Adamant Virgins
Engaged Nonvirgins and female
Confused Nonvirgins oriented at either Interpersonal Concordance or
Social Contract levels; male Confused Nonvirgins used predominantly
Instrumental Relativist reasoning.
oriented at Social Contract.
Liberated Nonvirgins typically
No predominant stage orientation was
reported for Inexperienced Virgins or Potential Nonvirgins.
19
In the third study, Jurich and Jurich (1974) examined the effect of
cognitive moral development on the selection of premarital sexual standards.
They interviewed male and female college students about their
personal attitudes on premarital sexual intercourse and assessed moral
development by use of two standard moral dilemmas and two sexual dilemmas
(Gilligan et al., 1971).
First, two independent judges categorized
students' responses to the attitude questions according to five categories
of sexual standards (traditional, double, permissiveness with affection,
permissiveness without affection, and nonexploitive permissiveness without
affection).
Interrater reliability was 96%. Then, two independent
judges, blind to any other identifying data, and trained using Kohlberg's
methods, scored the responses to the four moral dilemmas (interrater
reliability was .87) . Three separate moral maturity scores were obtained
for each subject based on (1) the two standard dilemmas, (2) the two
sexual dilemmas, and (3) the arithmetic mean of the four dilemmas
combined.
Analysis of variance, using sexual standards as the independent
variable and moral maturity as the dependent variable, demonstrated an
association between moral maturity and sexual standards at the .001
level.
Tests of significance on each of the three measures of moral
maturity indicated identical patterns of relationship to sexual
standards.
The nonexploitive permissiveness without affection group
demonstrated highest levels of moral development (on all three measures
of moral maturity).
The permissiveness with affection group had sig-
nificantly lower moral maturity scores than the nonexploitive group,
20
but significantly higher scores than the remaining three groups.
Advocates of the permissiveness without affection standard demonstrated
the lowest moral maturity scores (on all three measures), followed in
ascending order by the traditional, then the double standard groups,
but these three groups did not differ significantly from each other.
The Jurichs concluded that the selection of sexual standards is dependent
on moral maturity.
That is, an individual would have to achieve a
certain level of moral maturity in order to endorse, and support the
advocacy of, a particular standard.
In the reporting of these three studies, D'Augelli's weakness was
Jurich and Jurich's strength, and vice versa.
Although the philosophy
descriptions are provocative, D'Augelli failed to report objective
criteria (e.g., frequencies, means and standard deviations, or cut-off
points) by which Kohlberg stages or sexual philosophy categories were
assigned.
This inadequacy was due to the qualitative nature of the
data, rather than to any deficiencies in them.
Because the philosophy
formulation provides such a rich description of the psychological
reality of the sexual decision maker, it warrants and invites more
objective inquiry.
Although the methodology relative to the measurement of moral
judgment was superior in the Jurich and Jurich study, the treatment of
sexual standards was neither as fully descriptive nor as compelling as
the philosophy formulation of D'Augelli.
Despite the inadequacies of
reporting, the findings from these three studies strongly suggest a
21
significant relationship between moral development and sexual standards,
or philosophy, in keeping.with the theoretical model of Carroll and Rest.
Interpersonal Values and Influences
So far, the relationship between the personal variables which are
theorized to affect the decision process at phases one and two of the
Carroll and Rest model have been examined.
Personal influences (e.g.,
moral development level, and sexual philosophy) rarely determine en toto
an individual's sexual decisions or behaviors.
The sexual decisions and
behaviors of most people are influenced by interpersonal factors as well,
and phase three of the model directly addresses the impact of interpersonal influences on sexual decision making.
Two demonstrations of
the effects of different interpersonal influence variables on the sexual
decision making of virgins and nonvirgins are reviewed below.
As part of an on-going investigation of anticipated influences on
sexual decision making, Christopher and Gate (1984, 1985) reported
different patterns of influence in an inventory of sexual decision making
factors, depending on individuals' moral standards and sexual experience.
In one study (Christopher & Gate, 1985) individuals who had not
experienced sexual intercourse were grouped according to ideal expectations for commitment level at first intercourse, resulting in four
levels of commitment (casually dating, seriously dating, engaged, or
married) which correspond to the moral standards of Reiss and of Jurich
and Jurich, and are incorporated by the various categories of sexual
philosophy.
Three factors emerged as influencing the sexual decisions
of virgins:
a Physical Arousal factor (reflecting the participant's
£.£.
perceived awareness of his or her own, and partner's, physical arousal
prior to and during the date; communication of that arousal; physical
attractiveness of partner; and "romantic-ness" of the date); a Relationship factor (reflecting the affective qualities, the commitment level,
and length of the relationship); and a Circumstantial factor (reflecting
the preplanning that will occur to increase the chances of intercourse).
Persons who viewed casual dating as an appropriate setting for sexual
intercourse reported that physical arousal and circumstantial factors
would be highly likely to influence their decision; individuals who viewed
marriage as the appropriate setting reported that they would be relatively
uninfluenced by physical arousal or circumstances.
Persons who viewed
sexual intercourse appropriate if engaged or married, or in a serious
dating relationship, reported themselves more likely to be influenced by
relationship considerations than were persons who accepted intercourse
in a casual relationship.
In a second study, different patterns of influence obtained depending on experience level.
For this sample, Christopher and Gate (1984)
used three levels of experience (Inexperienced = 1 intercourse partner.
Moderately experienced = 2-5 previous sexual partners, and Highly
experienced = more than 5 prior sexual partners), a measure which
corresponds roughly to the sexual experience levels of several of the
sexual philosophy descriptions of D'Augelli previously discussed.
For
these nonvirgin students, four factors (analogous to similarly-named
factors derived from the virgin sample) emerged; a Positive Affect/
Communication factor (reflecting the quality and intimacy of the
23
relationship, and the degree to which religion is important); an
Obligation/Pressure factor (reflecting pressure or obligation from partner
and/or peers); an Arousal Receptivity factor (reflecting physical arousal
and the receptivity of partners to each others' sexual advances); and a
Circumstantial factor reflecting external circumstances that impinge on
sexual decisions.
Considerations of relationship were seen as having greatest influence
on the decisions of persons who had had only one intercourse partner, and
least likely to influence the sexual decisions of highly experienced
individuals.
Moderately experienced individuals were moderately
influenced by relationship considerations, relative to other groups.
Highly experienced individuals were more likely to be influenced by
physical arousal factors than were inexperienced individuals.
These findings demonstrate the relationship between individual moral
judgment and the interpersonal influences attendant on sexual decisions.
This relationship, like the one between moral development and sexual
standards, is anticipated by the Carroll and Rest (1982) model of moral
decision making.
Siommary and Hypotheses
If sexual intercourse is a rite of passage in adolescence, then the
sexual decisions young people make are implicated as major factors in
healthy psychosocial development.
Further, the observed negative
consequences of adolescent intercourse indicate that faulty decisions
are being made by many sexually active adolescents.
A multi-phase model
of moral decision making (Carroll & Rest, 1982) was presented which
24
addresses the complexity of the process by which two cooperating
individuals settle the sensitive issue of whether or not to have intercourse together.
The theoretical model suggests that personal and
interpersonal influences interact to affect sexual decisions.
The
findings of D'Augelli (1971, 1972), Jurich and Jurich (1974), and
Christopher and Gate (1984, 1985) support the theory, suggesting some
of the ways in which relationships among personal and interpersonal
variables are structured.
An individual's level of moral reasoning,
his or her sexual philosophy, and certain interpersonal influences
(e.g., physical arousal) appear to be intimately related to the
decisions people make about premarital sexual intercourse.
Until now, research in the area of sexual decision making has been
managed solely by the use of subjective measures for sexual philosophy
and by use of siibjectively-scored measures of moral development. Therefore the purpose of the present research was to objectively quantify
these two variables, then to examine the relationships among moral
development, sexual philosophy, and interpersonal influences as they
relate to sexual decision making.
The following experimental hypotheses
about the variables of interest were generated:
Hypothesis I
The two personal influence phases of an individual's decision to
engage in premarital sexual intercourse will be significantly related.
That is, moral development will be related to sexual philosophy such
that:
Liberated Nonvirgins will demonstrate highest moral develop-
ment scores; Confused Nonvirgins will have lowest moral development
25
scores; and other philosophy categories (Inexperienced Virgins, Adamant
Virgins, Potential Nonvirgins, and Engaged Nonvirgins) will demonstrate
intermediate moral development scores.
Hypothesis II
Personal and interpersonal influences on sexual decisions will
interact such that individuals endorsing different sexual philosophies
will demonstrate different patterns of perceived, or anticipated,
interpersonal influences.
Specifically, that Inexperienced Virgins,
Adamant Virgins, Potential Nonvirgins, and Engaged Nonvirgins will be
most influenced by relationship factors; Liberated and Confused
Nonvirgins will be most influenced by physical arousal factors.
CHAPTER II
IffiTHOD
Participants
Three hundred sixty participants were recruited from the
introductory psychology siibject pool at Texas Tech University.
To
protect the randomness of the sample, volunteers signed up for experimental sessions without knowledge of the nature of the study, but
were awarded bonus points (which counted toward their final course
grade) as compensation for their participation.
To ensure privacy
for participants, data were collected in group settings of 10 to 20
respondents in a room large enough to allow staggered seating
arrangements.
Procedures
Participants were thoroughly briefed by the experimenter regarding
the nature and purposes of the research.
necessary or desired.
No deception was either
Procedures were explained, participants.were
reassured that confidentiality would be maintained, and voluntary
participation was emphasized.
The script that was used in the briefing
of respondents is contained in Appendix A.
The text of the consent
form is contained in Appendix B.
After giving informed consent, participants received the experimental materials, all of which were contained in a manila envelope.
26
On
27
the outside of the envelope, there was a preassigned identification
number (even-numbered for females, odd-numbered for males).
Participants
were directed to transfer the gender-coded identification number on the
envelope to each instrument; then the separate instruments were explained
in reverse order of their administration.
After an instrument had been
explained, participants were directed to replace it in the envelope so
that at the end of the briefing, the only instrument remaining was the
one they were to begin with.
Participants were instructed to work at
their own pace until all relevant materials were completed, then to
return them in the envelope to the experimenter at the front of the
room.
Participants were debriefed individually as work was completed,
given their credit points, and dismissed.
Instruments
Defining Issues Test (DIT)
Moral reasoning was assessed using the DIT (Rest, 1976b).
this instrument is contained in Appendix C.
Text of
The DIT is a standardized
multiple-choice instrument which measures moral reasoning by requiring
subjects to define the critical issues in a series of six moral
dilemmas.
First, the respondents were directed to choose a behavioral
solution (in the form of a "should," a "should not," or "can't decide"
response) to a stated dilemma.
Then, using 5-point scales, they rated
a series of 12 statements as to their importance in choosing that
28
particular solution.
Finally, participants placed the four reasons
they considered most relevant to the decision in rank order of importance,
Responses to the DIT were computer-scored by the Minnesota Moral
Research Projects scoring service.
checks. One is the M score.
There are two built-in reliability
The M score is the sum of the meaningless,
but pretentious-sounding items that are rated as important.
According
to Rest (1979b), these items represent the respondent's tendency to
endorse items for their complexity rather than for their meaning.
Protocols with raw M scores greater than eight were discarded.
second internal reliability check is the Consistency Check.
is based on the consistency exhibited
the items.
The
This check
between ratings and rankings of
If there were inconsistencies on more than two stories, or
more than eight on any one story, or if there were more than nine items
rated the same on any one story, the protocol was dropped.
According
to Rest (1979b), it is typical to lose between 2% and 15% of a sample
due to internal reliability checks.
Fifty-seven cases (16%) of the
sample in the present research were lost due to these reasons.
The DIT locates an individual along a continuum of moral judgment
development (rather than the stage typing of Kohlberg), through the use
of the P% score.
The P% score is the sum of weighted ranks given to
"principled" (Stages 5 and 6) items, with a possible range of 0 to 95.
In a reference sample cf 1734 college students the average P% score was
42.3
(SD = 13.2).
In college samples, scores typically are in the 37-
46 range (Rest, 1979b).
29
According to Rest (1979b), gender has minimal, if any, effects on
moral reasoning scores as measured by the DIT.
In only two of the 22
studies which have assessed sex differences did any such effects obtain,
and then accounted for only about 6% of the variance in the instrument.
Previous research using both standard and sexual dilemmas (D'Augelli,
1972; Jurich & Jurich, 1974) has shown that standard moral dilemmas do as
good a job of measuring moral maturity as do sexual dilemmas (i.e., moral
reasoning is a global construct).
The stages form an invariant, universal
developmental sequence such that "thinking at any one stage is consistently applied to a variety of situations" (xMuus, 1976, p. 46) . In
Jurich's (1974) study, standard and sexual measures were highly
correlated (£ = .96) , leading to the conclusions that both were tapping
the same underlying dimension of cognitive moral development.
Because the DIT is objectively scored, interrater reliability is
not an issue as it is with other measures of moral development.
The P%
index is the most widely used of the various DIT scoring indices, and
has demonstrated the best reliability in replicated samples. Testretest reliabilities for P% scores are generally in the high .70s or
.80s, with Cronbach's alphas generally in the high .70s (Rest, 1979b).
Sexual Philosophy Inventory (SPI)
For purposes of the present research, an instrioment to measure the
construct of sexual philosophy was designed by translating the philosophy
descriptions (D'Augelli, 1972) into first-person statements.
These
translations resulted in separate male and female versions for each
of the six philosophy descriptions.
The versions were identical in
content, the only differences involved gender-specific wording.
The
30
form of the SPI completed by females is contained in Appendix D; the
male form is contained in Appendix E.
A pilot study was conducted, primarily for the purpose of determining the extent to which the experimenter-made instrimient was clear to
respondents.
Data were collected from 68 undergraduates (30 females
and 38 males) from the introductory psychology subject pool.
The
responses of seven participants were discarded due to missing data,
leaving 61 usable cases (27 females and 34 males) for purposes of
statistical analysis.
Participants were presented with all six philosophy statements and
directed to choose "the statement which most closely represents your
thinking about sex."
All wfere able to choose a single statement as
representative of their own sexual philosophy.
of endorsement were^ as follows:
The obtained frequencies
Inexperienced Virgins, 2; Adamant
Virgins, 11; Potential Nonvirgins, 13; Engaged Nonvirgins, 18;
Liberated Nonvirgins, 14; and Confused Nonvirgins, 3.
Chi-square
analyses performed on the frequencies of advocacy demonstrated that
the unequal distributions across categories were not due to chance
2
2
(X = 92.75; 5; £<.01, or to gender (X = -88; 5; n.s.).
Then using sexual philosophy as the independent variable, separate
analyses of variance were performed on five dependent variables: age,
frequency of church attendance; number of different people dated in last
12 months; number of different intercourse partners; and sexual experience.
On the age and church attendance variables, no significant
31
effects obtained.
Because of heterogeneity of variance, square root
transformations were performed on the raw scores of the remaining three
dependent variables.
The transformations did not homogenize the variances
(by either the F^^^ statistic or Cochran's test for homogeneity of
variance)—nevertheless, significant F_ ratios obtained on the separate
analyses of variance for all three:
number of different people dated in
past 12 months (F_ = 4.41; 5,55; £<.01);
number of different intercourse
partners (F_ = 11.97; 5,55; £<.01); and sexual experience (F_ = 451.72;
5,55; p<.01).
Pairwise comparisons between means yielded significant differences
at all levels of sexual philosophy for the number of different people
dated.
Liberated Nonvirgins dated most, followed in descending order
by Potential Nonvirgins, Confused Nonvirgins, Adamant Virgins, Engaged
Nonvirgins, and Inexperienced Virgins.
the intercourse partners variable.
Similar results obtained for
Mean differences were significant
at all levels of sexual philosophy, but in a slightly different order;
Confused Nonvirgins had had the most intercourse partners, followed in
descending order by Liberated Nonvirgins, Engaged Nonvirgins, Potential
Nonvirgins, Adamant Virgins, and Inexperienced Virgins.
In comparing
the means for sexual experience, there were no significant differences
among Confused, Liberated, and Engaged Nonvirgins, but means for these
were significantly higher than those for the remaining categories.
Potential Nonvirgins were significantly more experienced than Adamant
Virgins, who were more experienced than Inexperienced Virgins. Patterns of
observed mean differences on all three variables were remarkably
32
similar to those anticipated by the sexual philosophy formulation of
D'Augelli.
No significant gender differences were noted in the pilot sample.
Three 2 x 6 factorial analyses of variance were performed on the three
dependent variables which demonstrated significant sexual philosophy
effects in the one-factor analyses, using gender and sexual philosophy
as independent variables.
No significant effects for gender obtained
on any of the three dependent measures.
Significant main effects for
sexual philosophy were noted for number of dates (F_ = 3.75; 3,55;
£<.01); for number of intercourse partners (£ = 15.48; 3,55; p<.01);
and for sexual experience {F_ = 4.15; 3,55; £<.01).
On the experience
variable, a significant interaction obtained (F^ = 5.92; 3,55; £<.01),
primarily due to the fact that the mean experience score for female
Adamant Virgins was higher than either male or female Potential Nonvirgin
means.
Apparently female Adamant Virgins in this sample were not as
adamant as their name implies.
Male Adamant Virgins were experientially
very conservative compared to their female counterparts.
D'Augelli
(1972) stated that the philosophy descriptions are equally applicable
to males and females, but failed to report frequency data on the categories.
The finding of no differences in the pilot, together with
D'Augelli's report of no gender differences, led to the expectation of
no differences in an even larger sample.
As part of the pilot, open-ended comments were solicited from all
respondents, but particularly from those who had difficulty deciding
among alternative statements.
Thirty-one of the 68 participants
33
included comments ranging from "This fits me exactly," and "Bingo, this
describes my attitude to a tee," to "I relate to this philosophy at this
time in my life."
The comments were, therefore, very encouraging
relative to the face validity of the instrument.
None of the philosophy statements directly addressed the double
standard, but comments from several male participants indicated that,
although they did endorse a particular philosophy, their actual sexual
practices reflect more of a double standard position.
For example, one
male who endorsed the Potential Nonvirgin philosophy added this classic
comment:
"It's okay to have one night stands occasionally but not with
any type of girl I would want a long term relationship with."
According
to D'Augelli (1972) , the Confused Nonvirgin philosophy is the only one
which is even slightly different for males and females. Males in her
sample who endorsed this philosophy displayed behavior and attitudes
congruent with the double standard, or with the permissiveness without
affection standard.
Therefore, the Confused Nonvirgin description was
adjusted to accommodate these observed differences.
In its present foinn, the SPI consists of six statements in a forcedchoice format, with gender-specific wording, for the sexual philosophy
categories.
In addition, the philosophy descriptions are preceded by
14 items of a background and demographic nature concerning participants'
past and current relationship and sexual experience.
Inventory of Sexual Decision Making
Factors (ISDF)
The ISDF (Christopher & Gate, 1984, 1985) is a 43-item instrument
designed to assess the importance of various influences on sexual decisions.
34
Different forms of the instrument have different instructions for virgins
and nonvirgins:
The former are to rate each item on its anticipated
importance as an influence on the decision to engage in intercourse with
an ideal partner, under the ideal relationship circumstances; the latter
are instructed to rate the items as to perceived influence, keeping
their current, or most recent, intercourse partner in mind.
In the
present research, virgin participants used Form A of the ISDF.
is contained in Appendix F.
Form A
Form B, completed by nonvirgins, is
contained in Appendix G.
During the course of development of the instrument, it was administered to 629 college undergraduates (190 male nonvirgins and 240
female nonvirgins; 52 male virgins, and 139 female virgins) with a mean
age of 19.6 years.
The inventory was then siobjected to separate factor
analyses for virgins and nonvirgins to determine the underlying influences not attributable to sexual experience.
obtained for virgins, four for nonvirgins.
Three orthogonal factors
No reliability data were
reported for the three-factor scales, but the four-factor scales (on
the nonvirgin sample) showed a high-to-moderate degree of reliability,
with Crohnbach's alphas ranging from .67 to .86.
For virgins (Christopher & Gate, 1986), the three factors combined
to account for 76.8% of the variance in the inventory.
The first
anticipated influence factor was labeled Physical Arousal and accounted
for 42% of the variance.
This factor
represents items which reflect
the participants' perceived awareness of his or her own physical arousal
prior to and'during the date, awareness of partner's arousal,
35
communication of chat physical arousal, physical attractiveness of
partner, and how romantic the date is. The second perceived influence
factor was labeled Relationship.
The Relationship factor accounted for
33.9% of the variance, and is composed of items that deal with the
affective qualities of the relationship:
the commitment level, how long
the partners have been dating, mutual discussion of the meaning of
sexual intercourse.
This was the only factor on which gender effects
obtained; females attached significantly more importance to relationship
considerations than did males.
The third factor (accounting for 10.9%
of the variance) was labeled Circumstantial since its items reflect the
preplanning that will occur to increase the chances of intercourse:
if
alcohol and/or drugs are involved, if the date celebrates a special
event, if the opportunity for privacy presents itself.
For nonvirgins (Christopher & Gate, 1984), four factors accounted
for 86.9% of the variance in the Inventory of Sexual Decision Making
Factors.
The first factor (accounting for 41.2% of the variance) was
labeled Positive Affect/Communication.
This factor represents items
reflective of the quality and intimacy of the relationship, and the
degree to which religion is important.
negatively on this factor.
Use of alcohol/drugs loaded
A second factor, called Obligation/Pressure,
accounted for 14.2% of the variance, and is made up of items reflecting
pressure or obligation on the participant from partner and/or peers.
These two factors are conceptually similar to the Relationship factor
which emerged for virgins.
36
The third factor, Arousal/Receptivity, accounted for 23% of the
variance.
This factor relates the physical arousal and the receptivity
of partners to each others' sexual advances.
The fourth factor, account-
ing for 8.5% of the variance, was labeled Circumstantial.
This factor
relates to external circumstances that impinge on decision making.
Therefore, the derived factors for nonvirgins are analogous to similarly
named factors derived from the virgin sample.
In the nonvirgin sample, significant but small gender differences
were reported.
Females perceived more influence from the Positive
Affect/Communication factor (5% variance accounted for) than males. On
the other hand, males attributed slightly more salience to the Obligation/
Pressure factor (3% variance accounted for) than did females.
The ISDF appeared to provide an excellent multidimensional measure
of interpersonal influences, and represented the first time a physical
arousal factor had been included in a measure of interpersonal influence
on sexual decision making.
For purposes of the present research,
individual scores were to be obtained on each of the factors by summing
across the items on the specific factor under consideration.
The result-
ing factor scores were to provide a measure of how salient each was
expected to be in that person's decision regarding premarital intercourse.
Design
The main purposes of the present research were to examine the
relationship between sexual philosophy and moral reasoning, and the
relationship between sexual philosophy and several interpersonal
influence factors.
The approach used by Jurich and Jurich (1974),
37
and recommended by Rest (1979b), was the analysis of variance with a
categorical independent variable.
To that end, the sample was to have
been grouped according to sexual philosophy categories, and separate
analyses of variance performed on two dependent variables:
P% scores of
the DIT, and individual factor scores of the ISDF.
Two unexpected outcomes of the research rendered the planned statistical analyses inappropriate.
First, obtained
gender differences in
the endorsements of sexual philosophy would have required additional'
grouping by gender.
The sample was simply too small to accommodate such
an expanded design.
Second, the factor structure of the ISDF did not
obtain as expected.
The next-best solution was to apply nonparametric
methods, as suggested by Herold and Goodwin (1981).
To test Hypothesis I, the sample was grouped by sexual philosophy,
and t.-tests were performed on the obtained mean P% scores. To test
Hypothesis II, the sample was grouped by gender and virginity status,
and separate chi-square analyses were applied to 15 individual items
from the ISDF.
Additional chi-squares, using gender as the independent variable,
were computed for the following dependent variables:
sexual philosophy;
age; academic classification; virginity status; age at first intercourse;
number of different intercourse partners; sex guilt; parental and peer
attitude toward premarital intercourse; religious affiliation and
participation; dating frequency and status; incidence of intercourse
with current relationship partner; and reasons for engaging in, or
abstaining from, intercourse with a current partner.
38
On variables where significant gender differences did not obtain,
sexual philosophy was treated as the independent variable, and chisquare analyses were performed on the following dependent variables:
religious affiliation and participation; dating frequency and status;
and incidence of intercourse in a current, or most recent, relationship.
Participants' stated reasons for engaging in, or abstaining from,
premarital intercourse were content-analyzed.
Using gender and virginity
status as independent variables, these reasons were subjected to chisquare analyses.
content-analyzed.
Finally, the infoimal comments of participants were
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Data of interest were responses to the Sexual Philosophy Inventory
(SPI), the Defining Issues Test (DIT), and the Inventory of Sexual
Decision Making Factors (ISDF).
The two hypotheses central to this
investigation revolved around sexual philosophy as measured by the SPI:
Hypothesis I specifically dealt with the relationship between sexual
philosophy and moral development as measured by the DIT; Hypothesis II
involved the relationship between sexual philosophy and the factors
influencing decisions about premarital intercourse as measured by the
ISDF.
Effective sample sizes for some variables were different for a
variety of reasons.
Participants sometimes failed to complete one of
the measures, and frequently omitted individual items.
In addition,
the nature of a particular dependent variable under investigation often
made it necessary to consider only the appropriate categories of an
independent variable; for example, in the case of "niimber of different
intercourse partners," only the responses of nonvirgins were relevant.
Therefore effective sample sizes for different variables varied widely,
and are reported as necessary.
The results of this research are presented in three parts: the
sample is described briefly in terms of its demographic characteristics;
a second section deals with the philosophical, attitudinal, and behavioral
39
40
characteristics of the sample; and, in the final section, the results for
the two experimental hypotheses are presented.
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Three hundred sixty unmarried heterosexual students from the introductory psychology subject pool participated in the study; of these,
there were 354 usable cases.
Fifty-four percent of the sample were
females (n_ = 190), and 46% were males (n_ = 164).
The mean age for the
sample (n = 341) was 19.56.
The average age of males was 19.75; the
mean for females was 19.40.
Fifty-nine percent of the sample were
freshmen; 25% were sophomores; 11% were juniors; and 5% were seniors.
Two hundred eight of the 341 participants (51% of females, and 68%
of males) were nonvirgins.
An effective sample of 208 responses pro^
vided data for the "age at first intercourse" variable; these data are
contained in Table 1.
For this group of nonvirgins, the mean age at
first intercourse was 16.83.
Grouping by gender resulted in no
significant differences; for males (n_ = 111) the average age was 16.46
for females (n_ = 97) the average age was 17.14 at the time of first
intercourse.
Likewise, there were no significant differences in mean
ages when the sample was grouped by sexual philosophy categories.
Two hundred fifteen respondents provided the effective sample for
an examination of the niamber of different lifetime intercourse partners.
This variable was measured by four response categories; one, two to
five, six to 10, and more than 10 different intercourse partners. The
sample was grouped by gender, and chi-square analysis was applied.
The results are contained in Table 2.
Significant gender differences
41
TABLE 1:
Age at First Intercourse by Philosophy and Gender.
Sexual Philosophy
Sample
PNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
n
208
73
93
25
17
Age
16.83
16.98
16.91
16.52
15.58
2.46
2.28
1.97
4.32
1.41
Sp^
Males
n
111
33
40
22
16
Age
16.46
16.78
16.57
16.45
15.56
SD
2.69
2.46
2.20
4.61
1.49
97
40
53
17.14
17.15
17.16
17.00
16.00
1,95
2.07
1.95
.66
.00
Females
n
J^
SD
PNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
=
=
=
=
Potential Nonvirgin
Engaged Nonvirgin
Liberated Nonvirgin
Confused Nonvirgin
42
TABLE 2:
Number of Different Intercourse Partners by Gender.
Number of Different Partners
2-5
6.10
10+
Total
Males
16
56
23
19
114
Females
46
40
9
6
101
Total
62
96
32
25
X
215
= 29.36; d£ = 3; £ .001
43
2
obtained in three of the four categories (X = 29.36; df = 3; p<.001)
Twenty-nine percent of the sample reported only one intercourse partner,
and females were much more likely than males to fall into this category.
Males and females were equally likely to report having from two to five
different partners; this category accounted for 45% of the responses.
Males were more likely than females to report more than five different
partners; these two categories together accounted for 26% of the responses
Sex guilt, parental attitude, and peer attitude were each measured
by separate single-item 9-point scales; the sample size for each was 340.
When raw scores for these three variables were summed and averaged, the
standard deviations were so widely divergent that even appropriate
transformations failed to homogenize the variances.
The next best
solution was to group into three levels (high = 7-9; medium = 4-6;
low = 1-3) of sex guilt, parental disapproval, and peer disapproval.
The sex guilt question asked participants to rate their feelings
of guilt relative to their sexual experiences in general.
Responses
were grouped into three levels of guilt, the sample was grouped
according to gender, and chi-square analysis was applied.
There were
2
no gender differences (X = 4.42; df_ = 2; n.s.) in the levels of sex
guilt.
These data are reported in Table 3.
Sixty-eight percent of the
sample reported low sex guilt, 21% reported moderate guilt, and 11%
reported high levels of guilt above sex.
To measure parental attitude and peer attitude, respondents were
asked to indicate how upset their parents would be if they knew they
were having intercourse, then to rate how upset their close friends
44
TABLE 3:
Sex Guilt by Gender.
Low
Medium
High
Total
Males
114
32
11
157
Females
118
40
25
183
Total
232
72
36
340
68
21
11
100
%
2
X =
4.42; df = 2; n.s.
45
would be if they knew.
Three categories each of parental and peer
attitude (extreme disapproval = 7-9; moderate disapproval = 4-6; and low
disapproval = 1-3)were used.
The sample was grouped by gender and
chi-square analysis applied.
Females were more subject to both parental
and peer disapproval than were males.
These data are found in Table 4.
Females were more likely than males to report that their parents (x^ =
34.14; df_ = 2; £<.001) and close friends (x^ = 26.53; df = 2; £<.001)
would be more likely to "be upset" than to approve of their participation
in premarital intercourse.
Philosophical and Attitudinal Characteristics
of the Sample
Sexual Philosophy
Three categories of sexual philosophy accounted for 68% of the
responses:
Inexperienced Virgins, 6%; Potential Nonvirgins, 33%; and
Engaged Nonvirgins, 29%. Males and females were distributed evenly
within these three categories.
There were, however, significant
differences (not observed in the pilot study, nor reported in previous
literature) in the frequencies with which males and females endorsed
2
the remaining three categories of sexual philosophy (X - 47.65; df_ =
5; £<.001).
These data are contained in Table 5.
For Adamant Virgins,
the obtained ratio of females to males was almost 3:1.
By contrast,
virtually all Liberated, and Confused, Nonvirgins were male. These
differences made it necessary to group by gender on variables where
significant gender differences were known to exist, thereby leaving
some philosophy categories with numbers too small to permit planned
comparisons.
46
TABLE 4:
Parental and Peer Disapproval by Gender,
Parental Disapproval
High
Med
Low
Total
57
41
59
157
Females
119
39
25
183
Total
176
80
84
340
Males
X
= 34.14; df = 2; p<.001
Peer Disapproval
Males
6
13
138
157
Females
38
25
120
183
Total
44
38
258
340
X
TABLE 5:
= 26.53; df = 2; p<.001
Sexual Philosophy by Gender,
Sexual Philosophy
PNV
ENV
PNV
IV
AV
Males
11
18
43
45
Females
10
45
69
55
Total
21
63
112
108
X
IV
AV
FNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
=
=
=
=
=
=
Inexperienced Virgin
Adamant Virgin
Potential Nonvirgin
Engaged Nonvirgin
Liberated Nonvirgin
Confused Nonvirgin
24
CNV
Total
17
157
184
27
18
= 47.65; df = 5; p<.001
341
47
Responses to the religious affiliation item were classified into
four groups:
Traditional (Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian,
Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ); Fundamental (Southern Baptist,
Pentecostal, Nazarene, Church cf Christ); Other (Jewish, Moslem); and
No Affiliation.
The religious affiliation of most (54%) of the sample
was a Traditional one.
39% of the sample.
Fundamental religious orientations comprised
Six percent reported having No Affiliation, and 1%
classified as Other.
Because males and females were evenly distributed
2
withm these four groups (X = 6.90; df_ = 3; n. s.) , the entire sample
was grouped by sexual philosophy and chi-square analysis was applied to
the two categories of religious affiliation which together accounted
for 93% of the cases.
The results are contained in Table 6.
Signif-
2
leant differences obtained (X = 20.18; df_ = 5; £< .01) for two
categories of sexual philosophy.
Adamant Virgins were more likely to
report a Fundamental religious orientation than a Traditional one;
Engaged Nonvirgins were more likely to be affiliated with Traditional
religions than with Fundamental ones.
Responses to the religious/spiritual participation item were
grouped according to three categories:
Regular (once a week or more);
Occasional (one to four times per month) ; and Rare or Never (never, or
less than once a month) . These data are contained in Table 7. Of the
341 respondents 41% said they attend church occasionally, and 27%
reported regular attendance.
Thirty-two percent reported they rarely,
or never, attend or participate in spiritual or religious activities.
There were no differences in the participation levels of males and
48
TABLE 6:
Sexual Philosophy by Religious Affiliation.
Sexual Philosophy
PNV
ENV
LNV
IV
AV
Traditional 10
24
58
65
Fundamental
6
39
49
26
16
63
107
91
CNV
Total
12
185
54
131
39
316
93
Religion
Total
X
IV
AV
PNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
=
=
=
=
=
=
TABLE 7:
16
22
17
= 20.18; df = 5; p<.01
Inexperienced Virgin
Adamant Virgin
Potential Nonvirgin
Engaged Nonvirgin
Liberated Nonvirgin
Confused Nonvirgin
Sexual Philosophy by Religious Participation
Sexual Philosophy
IV
AV
PNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
Never
5
5
37
40
15
9
Occasional
7
15
59
44
7
7
139
41
Regular
9
43
16
16
5
2
91
27
Total
21
63
112
100
27
18
341
100
Total
Participation
X
IV
AV
PNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
=
=
=
=
=
=
Inexperienced Virgin
Adamant Virgin
Potential Nonvirgin
Engaged Nonvirgin
Liberated Nonvirgin
Confused Nonvirgin
111
= 86.19; df = 10; p<.001
32
49
2
females (X = 5.59; df_ = 2; n.s.), so all the data were grouped by sexual
philosophy, and treated by chi-square analysis. Significant differences
2
obtained (X = So.19; df_ = 10; £<.001) in four categories of sexual
philosophy.
Adamant Virgins were much more likely to report regular
2
than rare or occasional attendance (x = 56.95; df = 2; p<.001).
Potential Nonvirgins were less likely to report regular attendance and
more likely to report occasional participation in religious or spiritual
2
activities (x = 10.34; df_ = 2; £<.01).
Engaged Nonvirgins were unlikely
to report regular attendance; they usually reported occasional or rare
2
attendance (X = 6.22; df_ = 2; £<.02).
Liberated Nonvirgins were more
likely to say they rarely, or never, went to church than to report
2
regular, or even occasional attendance (X = 6.52; d£ = 2; p<.02).
To examine the dating- patterns of this sample, participants were
questioned about the number of different people dated in the past year
(frequency), and about the nature of the dating relationships reported
(status).
For frequency, the sample was grouped into four levels:
none, one, two to four, and five or more different people. Forty
percent of the sample reported they had dated two to four different
people in the past 12 months; 30% had dated only one person; 26% had
dated five or more different people; and 4% had not dated at all.
Males and females were evenly distributed within each of the four levels
(X = 3.70; df_ = 3, n.s.), so the entire sample was grouped according
to sexual philosophy and chi-square analysis was applied.
are contained in Table 8.
The results
2
Significant differences obtained (x - 104.14;
df = 15; p<.001) in three categories of sexual philosophy.
Inexperienced
50
TABLE 8 :
Number of D i f f e r e n t
Philosophy.
IV
AV
P e r s o n s D a t e d i n P a s t Year by S e x u a l
PNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
Total
Persons Dated
0
2
7
1
9
13
32
39
7
1
101
10
27
42
42
13
3
137
0
16
35
18
7
14
90
21
63
112
100
27
18
341
2 - 4
5+
Total
3
1
0
0
13
X^ = 1 0 4 . 1 4 ; df; = 1 5 ; p < . 0 0 1
IV
AV
PNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
=
=
=
=
=
=
Inexperienced Virgin
Adamant Virgin
Potential Nonvirgin
Engaged Nonvirgin
Liberated Nonvirgin
Confused Nonvirgin
51
2
Virgins were less likely (X = 8.88; df = 5; £<.05), and Confused
2
Nonvirgins were more likely (x = 73.66; df = 5; £<.001), than advocates
of the other philosophies, to report having dated as many as five
different people in the past 12 months.
Adamant Virgins were more
likely than advocates of other philosophies to report having not dated
2
anyone during the past year (X = 10.65; dJE = 5; £<.02) .
Three levels of dating status were examined:
not dating, dating
more than one person, and involvement in a steady relationship.
When
the sample was grouped by gender, males were slightly more likely than
females to report that they were not dating, and more females than males
said they were engaged in steady relationships, but there were no
differences in the frequencies with which males and females reported
dating more than one person.
Overall, gender differences were not
2
significant (X = 3.70; df_ = 3), so all the data were grouped by sexual
philosophy and subjected to chi-square analysis.
contained in Table 9.
The results are
2
Significant differences obtained (X = 84.21;
df = 10; £<.001) in three categories of sexual philosophy.
Inexperienced
Virgins were much more likely to be "not dating" than to be engaged in
"steady" relationships (X^ = 54.32; df = 5; £<.001).
Engaged Nonvirgins
2
demonstrated the opposite effect (X = 16.92; df_ = 5; p<.001); they were
much more likely to be involved in committed relationships than to
report "not dating."
Confused Nonvirgins were much more likely than
advocates of other philosophies to report dating "more than one" person
(X^ = 10.56; df_ = 5; £<.01).
The interpretation that these are true
philosophical differences, and not gender effects, is suggested by two
52
TABLE 9:
Sexual Philosophy by Dating Status.
IV
AV
PNV
ENV
18
16
21
8
24
43
29
10
0
23
48
63
10
21
63
112
LNV
CNV
Total
Status
0
1+
1
Total
Sexual Philosophy;
Dating Status:
IV
AV
PNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
=
=
=
=
=
=
71
13
122
148
100
27
18
341
2
X = 84.21; df = 10; p<.001
Inexperienced Virgin
Adamant Virgin
Potential Nonvirgin
Engaged Nonvirgin
Liberated Nonvirgin
Confused Nonvirgin
0 = Not dating
1 = Steady relationship
1+= Dating more than one person
53
findings mentioned earlier:
males and females were equally likely to
endorse the Inexperienced Virgin and Engaged Nonvirgin philosophy categories; and, although the Confused Nonvirgin philosophy is an essentially
male province, males and females were equally likely to report dating
"more than one" person.
Forty-five percent of the students responding answered in the affirmative to the question asking whether or not participant had engaged in
intercourse with "a current, or most recent, relationship partner."
There were no gender differences in the frequency of "yes" and ''no"
2
swers
to
this
question
(X
= .96; df = 1, n.s.) . The effective sample
an
was grouped by sexual philosophy and chi-square was applied.
are contained in Table 10.
The results
2
Significant differences obtained (x = 104.69
df = 5; p<.001), such that Inexperienced Virgins and Adamant Virgins were
more likely to say they had not had intercourse than to say they had;
Potential Nonvirgins, Liberated Nonvirgins and Confused Nonvirgins were
about equally likely to report the incidence or absence of sexual intercourse; and Engaged Nonvirgins were more likely to say they had
experienced intercourse than to say they had not.
Attitudes about Engaging in Premarital
Sexual Intercourse
In order to examine the reasons students gave for engaging in or
abstaining from sexual intercourse with a current, or most recent,
relationship partner, the responses of the 346 students who answered
the previous item were grouped into two categories; Participating
(Males = 68; Females = 84); and Abstaining (Males = 90; Females = 104).
54
TABLE 10:
Incidence of Intercourse in Current Relationship by
Sexual Philosophy.
Sexual Philosophy
IV
AV
PNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
Total
Yes
0
3
42
75
18
11
149
No
21
60
70
25
9
7
192
Total
21
63
112
100
27
18
341
Intercourse
X^ = 104.69; df = 5; p<.001
IV
AV
FNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
=
=
=
=
=
=
Inexperienced Virgin
Adamant Virgin
Potential Nonvirgin
Engaged Nonvirgin
Liberated Nonvirgin
Confused Nonvirgin
,55
Reasons for Participating in Intercourse
Participators were asked to state, in their own words, the main
reason for their participation in intercourse with their current, or
most recent, relationship partner.
One hundred fifty-two open-ended
responses were content-analyzed and five categories of response were
identified which reflected participants' predominant justifications
for involvement in premarital intercourse.
The sample was divided by
gender and the five reasons were subjected to chi-square analysis.
Results are contained in Table 11. There was a tendency toward differences in the frequencies with which males and females cited some of the
2
reasons, but not to a statistically significant degree (x =9.12;
df = 4, n.s.).
The categories and their descriptions were:
Love and Marriage.
Reasons included in this category revolved
around love and marriage expectations, and frequently took the form of
comments like:
"We love each-othen_very much.
We are talking about
getting married," or "I love her to death and we are planning on
getting married."
Reasons describing time pressures, in terms of
either length of relationship or length of time to marriage, were
frequently mentioned.
A comment typical of this category was:
"I love
him—we have dated off and on for 7-1/2 years and plan to marry after
we both graduate from college."
There was no statistically significant difference in the frequencies with which males and females gave this reason for engaging
in intercourse with a current, or most recent, relationship partner
2
(X =3.79; df_ = 1, n.s.).
Overall, the presence of a love
56
TABLE 11: Justifications for Intercourse by Gender.
-
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Males
10
9
26
20
5
68
Females
]]
15
31
10
6
84
Total
32
24
57
30
9
152
%
21
16
37
20
6
100
= 9.12; df = 4; n.s
1
2
3
4
5
=
=
=
=
=
Love and Marriage
Love
Community
Enjoyment
Pressure/Accident
57
relationship, accompanied by marriage expectations, was given by 21% of
the 152 "participating" individuals.
Love.
The hallmark of this category was the distinction by par-
ticipants between intercourse within and outside of a formally committed
relationship such as marriage or engagement.
themselves were brief and to-the-point:
Frequently, the statements
"I loved her," "I loved him and
he loved me," and "we both felt a lot of love for each other" are
examples.
Statements disclaiming the necessity of a commitment before
intercourse was included in this category, for example, "I don't think
you should be married to have intercourse if you love the other person."
Love is sufficient justification, but it must be "real" love.
"True
love," not necessarily accompanied by formal commitment (like the
promise of marriage) was the defining characteristic of this category.
2
There were no gender differences within this category (x =1.04;
df = 1, n.s.); it was reported with equal frequency by males and females.
Overall, Love was cited as the main reason for engaging in intercourse
with a current, or most recent, relationship partner by 16% of the 152
participants.
Community.
This category reflected respondents' belief in the
"specialness" of their relationships, and the concomitant belief in
sexual intercourse as the best way to communicate with a loved partner.
Sex was portrayed as instriomental in satisfying physical and emotional
needs, proving love, or "showing how much she means to me."
Sex was
the means by which couples determine compatibility, "share everything,"
get closer, and satisfy "the need to feel loved and wanted."
58
There were no gender differences in this category (x^ = .28; df =
1, n.s.); Community was mentioned most frequently as the main reason
for intercourse by 37% of the 152 respondents.
Enjoyment.
This category comprised reasons which suggested that
sex is a naturally-occurring event between two consenting adults, and is,
therefore, appropriate and desirable as a source of satisfaction and
enjoyment for both.
Liking one's partner, but not necessarily loving
him or her, was important.
Respondents frequently cited their "readiness
to experience intercourse, but not necessarily to settle down with one
person.
Comments typical of this category were:
"I wanted to.
I was
comfortable with my decision and didn't and don't feel like I plunged
into anything without first thinking it through;" or "It feels good.
enjoy having intercourse with him.
happens.'
I
My philosophy is 'if it happens, it
If a time comes when sex seems wrong, I will say 'no.'
I do
it because I want to."
Enjoyment was cited as the main reason for intercourse by 20% of
the 152 participants.
Males chose this reason more often than females,
2
but the difference was not statistically significant (x =2.70; df =
1, n.s.).
Pressure/Accident.
The reasons subsumed under this category
reflected the psychological climate that exists when participation in
sexual intercourse has occurred as a result of happenstance rather than
any conscious decision.
The comments which made up this category
evoked a feeling of regret and of things gone wrong:
It was a long time ago.
"I don't know why.
It just happened and I wish it never had," or
59
"She pretty much jumped on me and I wasn't thinking of what I was doing.
If I had not been going out with girls that aggressive, I'd still be
a virgin."
Neither drugs nor alcohol were mentioned with any signif-
icant frequency as factors in this category, or indeed across the
sample of reasons.
Pressure/Accident was cited as the main reason for intercourse in
only 6% of cases, and there were no significant differences in the
frequency with which males and females gave it as the main reason for
2
intercourse (x = .44; df = 1, n.s.).
Reasons for Abstaining from Intercourse
One hundred ninety-six individuals reported nonparticipation in
intercourse in their current, or most recent, relationships; there
were 194 usable cases.
The six-item structured inventory used to
assess the main reasons for nonparticipation in intercourse with a
current, or most recent, relationship partner required abstainers to
choose one of the six, or to list other reasons in their own words.
The stated reasons had to do with not feeling ready to have intercourse,
going against religious joeliefs, fear of pregnancy, fear of_£arental
disapprQvalr7—beii.-eviiig—that premarital intercourse is morally wrong,
and_lookiji^jDr_ waiting for the right person-
The frequencies with
which males and females gave these as reasons they abstain from sexual
intercourse are contained in Table 12.
Fear of pregnancy was cited as the main reason for nonparticipation
by 7% of the individuals in this group of abstainers, and there were no
differences in the frequencies with which males and females endorsed
60
TABLE 12:
Reasons for Abstaining from Intercourse by Gender
Males
Females
Total
Lack of Readiness
27
22
49
"Right" Person
19
21
40
21
Morally Wrong
16
27
43
22
4
13
17
9
7
6
13
7
11
0
11
5
6
(1)
(3)
(2)
15
(7)
(6)
(2)
21
(8)
(9)
(4)
11
(4)
(5)
(2)
90
104
194
100
Religious Objections
Fear of Pregnancy
Partner's No
Combinations
Parental disapproval
Moral objections
Fear of pregnancy
Total
->
25
61
this reason; fear of pregnancy was listed in combination with other
reasons in an additional 2% of the cases.
Fear of parental disapproval
was cited as the main reason for nonparticipation in 4% of the cases,
always in combination with one or more other objections, and virtually
always by females.
Moral objections were listed in combination with
other reasons 5% of the time, and with equal frequency by males and
females.
Accounting for 5% of the responses in the "no participation"
group was an additional all-male category called "Partner's No."
Comments from this group ranged from "she won't let me" to "I respected
this particular girlfriend and she did not wish to participate in intercourse. "
Together, these four reasons accounted for only 23% of the
responses in the abstaining group, and were not included in the
statistical analysis.
Four different reasons for abstaining from intercourse accounted
for the remaining 77% of the responses.
Lack of readiness was cited
as the main reason for nonparticipation in 25% of the cases. Twentyone percent of nonparticipants reported they were waiting for the
"right" person to come along.
That "premarital intercourse is wrong"
was cited by 22% of the respondents as the main reason they abstain.
There were no significant gender differences for any of these three
reasons.
Nine percent of nonparticipants indicated that intercourse
before marriage being "against my religious beliefs" was the main
reason for their nonparticipation, and females were more likely than
males to give this reason as the main one.
Using the four most-cited reasons for nonparticipation, the
responses of 149 abstaining participants were grouped by gender and
62
virginity status and subjected to chi-square analysis.
contained in Table 13.
The results are
There were significant differences depending on
2
gender and virginity status (x = 59.45; df_ = 9; £<.001).
Nonvirgin
Males were more likely to cite lack of readiness and less likely to
report moral or religious objections.
Nonvirgin Females were signif-
icantly less likely to report moral objections, and tended to say they
were "waiting for the right person," but not to a significant degree.
Male Virgins were equally likely to choose any of the four reasons, but
Female Virgins were significantly more likely to report moral and
religious objections than to cite either form of readiness reason.
An assumption of chi-square analysis is that a minimum of 80% of
the cells must have expected frequencies equal to, or greater than,
five.
VThen the sample was grouped by sexual philosophy, this assumption
was not met; therefore, no analysis using sexual philosophy as the
independent variable was performed on either the reasons for engaging
in, or abstaining from, premarital intercourse.
Standards for Premarital Sexual Behavior
Probably the most important, and certainly the most interesting,
results of this research were the voluntary, in-their-own-words statements of the participants themselves.
Their informal comments strongly
supported the efficacy of Reiss' (1960) "standards for premarital sexual
intercourse" as descriptors of the different philosophical viewpoints
operating, among sexual decision makers.
The Traditional Standard
The "traditional" standard of abstinence was well represented in
this sample, and was particularly evident in the comments of females.
63
en
(0
+J
o
O
en
c
en
G
•H
CT.
U
•H
•H
!T
U
•H
>
>
c
en
CU
(N
c
o
o
o
^1
2
<Ti
r-i
03
Q)
CD
g
4-1
P4
en
C
>ja
•H
!T
S-l
•H
<u
en
u
CTi
CM
<N
o
in
>
O
CM
0)
X
H
en
a
G
0
cr
u
•H
>
C
O
2
c:
c:
•H
(TS
+J
e/2
UD
CM
m
'^
C3^
(N
en
CU
a
0
14-1
en
c:
o
en
en
G
•H
CP
S^
•H
>^
"^
>
«
en
O
2
en
G
0
en
G
•H
t3
n3
Q)
n
G
0
en
^
<u
J
o
> i
•H
^
;
u
^
iH
<4-l
fC
•1—1
rH
P.J
X
CP
G
0
U
+J
O
d)
4J
cc;
0
E-t
•H
Cfl
CU
ous
OJ
4J
•H
U
I
+J
CP
•H
«
S
CP
>^
•H
rH
CU
s
cr;
(0
0
64
although there were quite a few males who felt the same way.
Virginity
was portrayed as a precious commodity, almost sacred, to be protected
and presented as a gift to the marriage partner.
put it this way:
One female participant
"I do not believe in sex before marriage.
Virginity
is something you can only give to one person in your ENTIRE life!
I
want to wait and give my virginity to the man I am going to grow old
with."
Sex before marriage was described by many as "against God's law,"
and the threat of divine retribution was often invoked, as in this
example from one female participant:
"I believe strongly that God has
a reason for not allowing sex before marriage.
in marriage later.
people.
It causes difficulties
I don't believe sex before marriage is ok for some
I don't believe it works for anyone.
There will always be a
problem that results from it, whether it is a punishment from God like
AIDS or VD, or if it is just a problem within the marriage later as a
result of the sex before marriage."
Others took a more reasoned approach in presenting their arguments
against premarital sex; one female participant said, "I think sex is
very important but, the most important things in a relationship go
beyond just physical attraction—love, respect, understanding, trust,
etc.
These are the elements of a true relationship and if you love
each other so much and you're going to supposedly get married, why not
wait until you do get married?
I know it's hard sometimes, but why
not avoid all the stress and emotional trauma that comes with sex.
It's a real responsibility-not just something to play around with
65
(pregnancy, etc., could result).
In addition, even though your mate
loves you and you love him and he respects you, I still think it's
really special if you wait because in my opinion no matter what the
circumstances there's just that much more respect in the long run."
Sometimes individuals who spoke out against premarital sex did so out
of sad experience; it was not unusual to find nonvirgin participants who
now hold to the traditional standard.
was typical:
marriage.
The following comment from a male
"I did not keep to the commitment of not having sex before
I know it's wrong to do it before marriage.
would have been strong enough to keep to that,
I just wish I
I got too weak and the
temptation got too strong, I guess. Whatever the reasons, though, I'm
not a virgin.
I still believe it is right to keep your virginity until
marriage and will pass the thought on to my kids. Though I messed up, I
know now that my original thoughts were right.
It just took ray mistakes
to show me that, it's something I regret and have to live with."
The Permissiveness with
Affection Standard
Most popular by far in this sample was the "permissiveness with
affection" standard; for the majority of participants, premarital sex
is morally acceptable in the context of an intimate
ship of long standing.
emotional relation-
That sex is a natural consequence of a close
relationship was mentioned repeatedly by both males and females, but
there were marked differences in the opinions of males and females
about what conditions of relationship must be met for premarital sex
to be justified.
For both, the idea of commitment was important, but
women were more apt to define commitment in terms of eventual marriage.
66
while men appeared to think of commitment in terms of the length of an
on-going relationship.
The promise of marriage, or the security of some sort of commitment,
was almost always mentioned by women as a prerequisite for going all the
way.
They seemed to want reassurance that the relationship was one of
"real" or "true" love, and were careful to make the distinction between
"being in love" and "being easy," insisting that "sex should be used to
express real love feelings and not just SEX."
It was important for
these women to feel that they had found "Mr. Right."
Comments like,
"We are getting engaged this summer and so I feel it is all right to
.^have sex when you know you want to spend the rest of your lives with
each other," and "We are planning to get married and I think it's all
right if you love that person and are committed" were frequent.
Again, there was concern for what God thinks, but these women
seemed to believe that God would understand—"God knows I am in love
and have good intentions"--or that the Biblical proscription against
premarital intercourse does not apply to them:
"My fiance and I
believe that fornication was a term used earlier relating to heathens
who participated in orgies and sexual fantasy.
We don't believe it
relates to two people who are going to get married and are in love.
I do think it is wrong to have a sexual relationship with different
people or casual sex.
Love and understanding have to be present."
For the most part, the depth of commitment in the relationship, or
the promise of eventual marriage, was the deciding factor for tne
majority of women in the sample.
67
Men, on the other hand, mentioned marriage much less frequently,
although it was clear that the idea of sex as "the ultimate expression
of love" was important to them.
They often reported that length of
relationship was a determining factor in the decision to have intercourse:
"We have been dating for four years and the appropriate time
came all by itself."
Men currently engaged in sexual relationships
usually said things like, "We have been together for a long time, and
we love each other," Some individuals who had not engaged in intercourse with their current girlfriends reported that they didn't want
to "rush things," or hadn't "known her long enough yet."
Unlike women, men often reported that sex is an important factor
in determining compatibility—that "having intercourse sometimes helps
me decide how serious any girlfriend feels about our relationship.
should lead up to a serious relationship."
Sex
Both sexes spoke of the
instrumentality of sex in expressing feelings of love, and tended to
describe intercourse as the "best" way of "showing your love," or
"sharing everything."
The Permissiveness without
Affection Standard
"Permissiveness without affection" was also evident, and comments
in this vein were almost always from men.
Some respondents expressed a
decidedly cavalier attitude, apparent in comments like this one:
dated 27 girls in my senior year of high school.
of that too.
I had."
"I
I enjoyed every minute
I did not have intercourse with all of them, but I wish
This attitude is characteristic of "sexual adventurers"
described by Sorenson (1973); that this kind of attitude during early
68
stages of sexual activity may give way to more responsible sexual
attitudes and forms of expression was suggested by this comment:
"I
guess at one time many people would have called me a playboy, I look
back at it as a group of friends (guys) having a lot of fun seeing how
far they could go with who.
I could from them.
In the beginning, I used girls, got what
Now, I don't use anyone."
Many comments reflected the developmental nature of sexual attitudes and behavior, as in the following:
"I have had several partners
but my view has changed in the last couple of years.
I am more ready
now to get involved in a relationship because physical relationships
just get old and tiresome."
Mutual attraction, sexual curiosity, and the desire for physical
pleasure and excitement, were all cited by men and women as sufficient
justification for engaging in intercourse.
Men, however, exhibited an
ambivalence toward sex that was not contained in the comments of women:
while most participants believed that sex was different, and better,
within the context of a "meaningful" relationship, many men declared
that they were simply not ready for that kind of relationship, and
admitted that "a serious relationship may not be the only time that I
would have sex."
One male participant siommed it up this way:
"I
believe in one night stands and look for them, but I also believe sex
is best when you deeply care for someone because it isn't just physical
it's also emotional and psychological.
I don't see anything wrong
with casual sex, although the quality is different when it is meaningful or special."
69
The Double Standard
The "double" standard, reportedly on the wane in other parts of the
country (DeLamater & MacCorquodale, 1979; Jacoby & Williams, 1986;
Peplau, Rubin, & Hill, 1977), was alive and well in this sample, although
clearly as a minority viewpoint.
Men were remarkably candid about its
influence on their thought and behavior with regard to sex, quite
possibly because it was not directly addressed.
The issue was raised by
those men who declared that "casual" sex is acceptable but not with
anyone they would ever consider marrying; women, on the other hand,
almost always stated unequivocally that they would never have sex with
someone they wouldn't marry.
way:
One participant stated his feelings this
"I've never made love with a girlfriend, but I do with girls I
pick up in bars—for the release and also to keep up a stud image. But
I believe strongly in the foundation of marriage and I don't want a
whore for a wife.
So I never date someone I meet at a bar!"
In "double" standard comments, women who engage in sex in the
absence of a strong love relationship were typically portrayed as
objects of scorn and disgust, to be used and discarded; these comments
frequently included some hint of regret about the inequity of the
situation, but in each case, women, not men, were held to be at fault:
"It is unfair, but most guys want a nice girl to marry.
All those
girls that go to bed on the first night are being used and fooled."
Beliefs about Gender-Appropriate
Roles for Sexual Behavior
Participants' informal comments likewise provided strong support
for Ehrmann's (1959) and Peplau et al's. (1977) observations that
70
males are initiators, and females the limiters, of sexual experience.
This phenomenon was particularly apparent from the comments of those
who abstain from intercourse in their current, or most recent, relationships; men frequently reported a girlfriend's reluctance ("I do not feel
she is ready, but know she would to please me"), or refusal ("She won't
let me"), to engage in premarital sex; women never reported a boyfriend's
lack of readiness, but sometimes reported pressure, or urging, from a
boyfriend:
"He wants to but I always find excuses."
Only one man in
the entire sample reported a female initiator, saying that "she pretty
much jumped on me.
If I had not been going out with girls that aggres-
sive, I'd still be a virgin."
Indeed, most men reported that they would not drop a girl simply
because she refused to have sex, and there were several who spoke of
continuing relationships in which sex had once been, but was no longer,
a part of the relationship.
The following comment is one example:
"I
have been dating my girlfriend for the past three years. We started
making love two weeks into our relationship, and then she decided to
stop after about a year.
It bothers me that we stopped, but I would
never cheat on her for sex.
her decision."
I love her with all my heart, and respect
Men frequently referred to their role as initiator,
and to their partner's role as limiter, indicating that they would
make sexual advances to a responsive partner, but would not pressure
her.
There were frequent mentions of the importance of discussion
between partners, and mutual decisions to engage in intercourse, as
71
in the statement of this man:
"We_ wanted to consummate our relationship;
it took two years of discussion"; but more often than not the allusion
was to the male initiator/female limiter notion, as suggested by this
comment:
"Sex is important, and I won't rush it if I really like a
girl . . . you must be patient."
Results for Experimental Hypotheses
Hypothesis I
This hypothesis dealt with the relationship between sexual philosophy and moral development:
specifically, that Liberated Nonvirgins
would demonstrate the highest P% scores, and Confused Nonvirgins would
have the lowest P% scores.
No prediction was made for the other
categories of sexual .philosophy.
The loss of cases on the DIT was slightly greater than the 15%
anticipated.
In all, 57 protocols, representing 16% of the sample, were
dropped due to failure to meet the criteria for internal consistency set
by the test author, leaving a total of 288 usable cases. These were
grouped according to sexual philosophy.
Group means and standard
deviations are contained in Table 14.
Liberated Nonvirgins exhibited the highest average moral maturity
score; and, as a group. Confused Nonvirgins demonstrated the lowest.
This difference was statistically significant (t^ = 1.83; df_ = 35;
£<.05); no other mean differences were significant.
The hypothesis
was supported, but the finding of nonsignificance for other mean differences indicates that the observed orderings of intermediate moral
maturity scores in the present research were the result of chance.
72
TABLE 14: Mean Moral Maturity Scores for Sexual Philosophy
Categories.
Sample
n
288
IV
AV
Sexual Philosophy
PNV
ENV
16
55
95
85
LNG
22
CNV
15
X
29.97
30.43
29.91
29.65
30.83
32.27
25.01
S2
11.88
10.68
11.23
11.25
12.70
13.62
9.82
t = 1.83;
IV
AV
PNV
ENV
LNV
CNV
=
=
=
=
=
=
Inexperienced Virgin
Adamant Virgin
Potential Nonvirgin
Engaged Nonvirgin
Liberated Nonvirgin
Confused Nonvirgin
df = 3 5 ; p < . 0 5
73
D'Augelli and D'Augelli (1979) reported that the categories of sexual
philosophy were arranged, in ascending order of moral maturity scores,
as follows:
Confused Nonvirgins, Adamant Virgins, Inexperienced
Virgins, Potential Nonvirgins, Engaged Nonvirgins, and Liberated
Nonvirgins.
The research of Jurich and Jurich (1974) suggested another comparison:
between the moral maturity scores of individuals who abstain from intercourse for "lack of readiness" reasons (i.e., waiting for the "right"
person), and those who abstain because of moral or religious objections.
Jurich and Jurich would predict that the former (permissiveness with
affection) group would demonstrate higher moral maturity scores than
the latter (traditional standard) group.
However, when this comparison
was made, there were no significant differences in the mean moral
maturity scores of individuals who abstain for moral reasons ( •.,2
A
~
29.10; n_ = 54; S£ = 10.42) and those who say they're waiting for the
"right" person (x^ = 29.60; n_ = 71; SD = 11.65).
The overall mean moral maturity score for this sample was 29.97
(n. = 288, S£ = 11.88), which is considerably lower than expected for a
college sample.
Rest (1979b) reported that the average moral maturity
score for college undergraduates is 42.30 (n. = 2,479, S£ = 13.20).
Scores from the current research were about one full standard deviation below the expected mean.
One explanation for depressed moral maturity scores is provided
by the test author.
Rest (1979b) reported that areas of the United
States noted for their conservative intellectual environments (e.g.,
74
the South and those areas where religious fundamentalism is prevalent)
exhibit the lowest moral maturity scores of any education grouping.
Rest suggests that, in responding to structured moral dilemmas, some
individuals may be "more influenced by a desire to maintain religious
orthodoxy" (p. 7.4) than to entertain their own personal cognitive
appraisal of the situation.
This may, indeed, account for the obtained
low moral maturity scores.
A plausible alternative explanation for depressed scores on the DIT
concerns the efficacy of the instrument itself.
The DIT is outdated;
the stories and situations appear contrived, and are remote from the
mainstream moral issues of the 1980s.
For example, one story (Student
Take-over) is based on the student protest movement of the mid-'60s
Viet Nam war era, a phenomenon of which today's college students may
be only dimly aware.
The immediacy of the instrument could be greatly
improved by exchanging outmoded themes with more current moral issues
such as the nuclear arms race, cigarette smoking and the effects of
second-hand smoke, environmental pollution, world hunger, international terrorism, the AIDS crisis, alcohol and drug addiction, to
name but a few.
As it is, the DIT has little relevance for the
majority of today's research participants.
Hypothesis II
JThis hypothesis dealt with the relationship between sexual philosophy and the factors influencing decisions about premarital intercourse
as measured by the ISDF:
specifically, that inexperienced Virgins,
Adamant Virgins, Potential Nonvirgins, and Engaged Nonvirgins would
75
be most influenced by relationship factors, and that Liberated
Nonvirgins and Confused Nonvirgins would be most influenced by physical
arousal factors.
Unfortunately, the ISDF did not prove to be the definitive instrument it was purported to be.
After data collection began, it was
learned that the data on which the instrument was reported were collected
"seven or eight years go," by the author's own admission (personal
communication), and he could not remember exactly how the individual
factor scores had been computed.
Subsequent factor analysis on the
obtained data failed to yield readily interpretable factors, and grouping by the previously-reported factors produced scores that were
obviously nonsignificant by any grouping (e.g., male-female, virginnonvirgin).
In addition, the unexpected gender-skewed distribution
among categories of sexual philosophy precluded combining male and
female responses.
The planned statistical analyses were clearly
inappropriate; it was impossible to test Hypothesis II directly.
The
best alternative treatment was chi-square analysis of individual items
from the ISDF, treating gender and virginity status, rather than
sexual philosophy, as independent variables.
The responses of 317 participants were grouped by gender and
virginity status, resulting in four categories of the independent
variable:
Male Virgins (n_ = 34); Female Virgins (n_ = 74); Male Non-
virgins (n = 111); and Female Nonvirgins (n = 98).
Fifteen individual
items from the ISDF, selected on the basis of theoretical importance,
were subjected to separate chi-square analyses.
There were tnree
76
categories of response for each dependent variable according to whether
that item was rated "very important," "moderately important," or "not
at all important" in the decision to participate in premarital
intercourse.
Significant differences obtained between groups when the dependent
variable concerned the discussion between relationship partners about
2
the meaning of sexual intercourse (X = 71.04; d£ = 6; £<.001).
These
data are contained in Table 15. Male Nonvirgins were more likely than
2
others to report discussion unimportant (X = 43.11; d£ = 3; £<.001).
2
Female Nonvirgins (X = 14.59; df_ = 3; £<.01), and Female Virgins
2
(X = 11.23; df_ = 3; £<.05) were more likely to say that "how much I've
discussed the meaning of sexual intercourse with my partner" was "very
important."
In all, 66% of females rated it as a very important
component of the decision.
Significant differences also obtained on the two items concerning
the importance of religiosity:
gender and virginity status made a
difference when the importance of the participant's religiosity was
2
rated (X = 50.42; d£ = 6; £<.001), and also when the partner's
religiosity was rated (X^ = 31.25; df = 6; £<.001).
contained in Table 16.
These data are
Male Nonvirgins were much more likely to rate
their own religiosity (X^ = 25.35; df; = 3; £<.001) and that of their
partner (X^ = 12.76; df_ = 3; £<.001) as factors of "no importance" in
sexual decisions than to say they were "very important."
Female
Virgins, in contrast, were more likely to say that both their own
(X^ = 21.64; df; = 3; £<.001) and their partner's (X
= 15.32; df = 3;
77
TABLE 15:
Importance of Discussions with Partner about
Intercourse by Gender and virginity status.
MV
MNV
FV
FNV
Very Important
15
24
48
65
152
Moderately Important
17
49
23
27
116
Not at all Important
2
38
3
6
49
34
111
74
Total
98
= 71.04; df = 6; p .001
MV
MNV
FV
FNV
=
=
=
=
Male Virgin
Male Nonvirgin
Female Virgin
Female Nonvirgin
Total
317
78
TABLE 16:
Importance of Religiosity as Factor in Decision about
Intercourse by Gender and Virginity Status.
Males
Participant's
Religiosity
Females
V
NV
V
NV
Very Important
13
9
39
29
90
Moderately Important
14
56
23
48
141
Not at all Important
7
46
12
21
86
34
111
74
98
317
Total
X
Total
= 50.42; df = 6; £<.001
Partner's
Religiosity
Very Important
13
15
36
25
89
Moderately Important
16
60
26
51
153
Not at all Important
5
36
12
22
75
34
111
74
98
317
Total
X^ = 31.25; df_ = 6; £<.001
V = Virgin
NV = Nonvirgin
£<.001) religiosity were "very important" factors in their decisions about
premarital intercourse than to say they were unimportant.
Significant differences obtained when the dependent variable con2
cerned the possibility of eventual marriage as a decision factor (x =
60.86; d£ = 6; £<.001).
These data are contained in Table 17. The
"possibility that my partner and I might eventually get married" was not
likely to be an important factor in the decision of Nonvirgin Males
2
(X = 38.31; d£ = 3; £<.001) , but was rated as "very important" by 72%
of all female respondents, regardless of virginity status. Female Virgins
2
2
(X = 12.41; d£ = 3; £<.01) and Nonvirgins (x = 8.73; d£ = 3; £<.02) were
more likely to rate the possibility of eventual marriage to their partner
as "very important" than to say it was not important, or only moderately so,
There were significant differences in ratings for the importance of
2
"the degree of commitment between my partner and me" (x = 79.97; df = 6;
2
£<»001). Data are contained in Table 18. Female Virgins (x = 14.06;
2
df = 3; £<.001) and Nonvirgins (x = 18.66; df_ = 3; £<.001) were more
likely to rate commitment as a "very important" factor than to rate it
"moderately," or "not at all" important; 88% of females rated commitment
"very important."
Nonvirgin Males, in contrast, were significantly more
likely to rate this item as only "moderately important" or totally
unimportant (x^ = 46.34; df = 3; £<.001); 62% of male virgins rated
commitment this way.
Significant differences were found when the importance of partic2
ipant's (x^ = 19.93; df = 6; £<.001) and partner's (x = 28.98; df = 6;
£<.001) physical arousal during a date was the issue.
Data are contained
80
TABLE 17:
Possibility of Eventual Marriage as Decision Factor by
Oender and Virginity Status.
Males
V
NV
Females
V
NV
Total
Very Important
21
33
56
68
178
Moderately Important
10
40
14
23
87
Not at all Important
3
38
34
111
Total
52
74
X
317
98
= 60.86; df = 6; £<.001
V = Virgin
NV = Nonvirgin
TABLE 18: Degree of Commitment Between Partners as Decision
Factor by Gender and Virginity Status.
Males
Females
V
NV
V
NV
Total
Very Important
22
42
65
86
215
Moderately Important
10
48
11
74
Not at all Important
2
21
34
111
Total
28
74
X
V = Virgin
NV = Nonvirgin
98
317
= 79.97; df = 6; £<.001
81
in Table 19. Nonvirgin Males were more likely to rate their own physical
arousal during a date as "very important" (and less likely to rate it
unimportant) than either of the other three groups (x = 12.24; df = 3;
£<.01).
Virgin Females were slightly more likely to say their own
physical arousal was unimportant than to rate it "moderately" or "very"
important, but not to a significant degree.
Nonvirgin Males were more
likely to rate a partner's arousal during a date as "very important" than
2
to say it didn't matter (X = 16.88; df = 3; £<.001).
Virgin Females, on
the other hand, were more likely to rate this factor "not at all important"
2
than to say it was "very important" (X = 8.49; d£ = 3; £<.02).
On the items concerning arousal prior to the date, significant
2
differences obtained for participant's arousal (X = 19.43; d£ = 6;
2
£<.01) and for partner's arousal (x = 25.35; d£ = 6; £<.001).
These
data are contained in Table 20. Nonvirgin Males were more likely to rate
2
2
their own (x = 8.28; df_ = 3; £<.02) and their partner's arousal (x =
11.00; df_ = 3; £<.01) "very important" than to say it didn't matter.
Nonvirgin Females were more likely than others to say that neither their
2
partner's arousal (x = 9.01; df^ = 3; £<.02) nor their own arousal
. 2
(X = 7.27; df = 3; £<.05) was a very i n f l u e n t i a l factor in t h e i r
decisions.
Significant differences obtained when the dependent variable con2
cerned the participant's receptivity to sexual advances (x = 24.16;
2
df = 6; £<.001) and the partner's receptivity (x = 39.43; df = 6;
£<.001).
The data are contained in Table 21. Male Nonvirgins were
more likely than others to rate their partner's receptivity as "very
82
TABLE IS: Physical Arousal During Date as Decision Factor by
Gender and virginity Status.
Males
Participant's
Arousal
Females
V
NV
V
NV
Total
Very Important
11
61
24
33
129
Moderately Important
18
46
35
51
150
Not at all Important
5
4
14
14
37
34
111
73
98
316
Total
X
= 19.93; df_ = 6; £<.001
Partner's
Arousal
Very Important
15
66
23
34
138
Moderately Important
14
43
35
49
141
Not at all Important
5
2
16
15
38
34
111
74
98
317
Total
} = 28.98; df = 6; p<f.001
V = Virgin
NV = Nonvirgin
83
TABLE 20: Physical Arousal prior to Date as Decision Factor by
Gender and Virginity Status.
Males
Females
Participant's
Arousal
V
NV
V
Very Importcuit
7
27
10
7
51
Moderately Important
19
58
33
49
159
Not at all Important
8
26
31
42
107
34
111
74
98
317
Total
X
NV
Total
= 19.43; df = 6; £<.01
Partner's
Arousal
9
32
10
10
61
Moderately Important
18
57
34
44
153
Not at all Important
7
22
30
44
103
34
111
74
98
317
Very Important
Total
X
V = Virgin
NV = Nonvirgin
= 25.35; df_ = 6; p<.001
84
TABLE 21:
Receptivity to Sexual Advances as Decision Factor by
Gender and Virginity Status.
Males
Participant's
Receptivity
Female s
V
NV
V
NV
Total
Very Important
18
66
29
37
150
Moderately Important
12
43
33
55
143
Not at all Important
4
2
12
6
24
34
111
74
98
317
Total
X
= 24.16; df = 6; £<.001
Partner's
Receptivity
21
79
29
37
166
Moderately Important
9
31
33
53
126
Not at all Important
4
1
12
8
25
34
111
74
98
317
Very Important
Total
X
V = Virgin
NV = Nonvirgin
= 39.43; df = 6; £<.0Q1
85
2
important," (X = 18.25; df = 3; £<.001) and less likely to rate their
2
own receptivity (X = 9.31; df = 3; £<.01) as unimportant.
Virgin
Females were highly likely to say that receptivity, both their own (x^ =
2
8.34; df_ = 3; £<.02) and their partner's (x = 9.40; df_ = 3; £<.001)
would be an unimportant factor in their decision.
Nonvirgin Females
were more likely to report a partner's receptivity "moderately important,"
2
than to say it was "very important" (X = 9.06; d£ = 3; p<.02).
When the dependent variable of interest concerned the importance of
preplanning to increase the chances of intercourse, significant differences
obtained m
2
both participant's preplanning (X = 22.05; d£ = 6; £<.01) and
2
partner's preplanning (X
= 19.26; d£ = 6; £<.01).
These data are con-
tained in Table 22. Nonvirgin Males, more than others, were willing to
2
2
say that their own (X
= 11.08; df_ = 3; £<.01), or a partner's (X = 6.64;
df^ = 3; £<.05) preplanning to increase the chances of intercourse was
"moderately important," and were less likely to say it was "not important."
The data on the importance of birth control are contained in Table
23.
Overall, 55% of respondents said that their own use of birth control
would be a "very important" factor in the decision to participate or not
2
in premarital intercourse (X = 20.63; df_ = 6; £<.01). Nonvirgin Males
were slightly more likely than others to say it was "moderately impor2
tant" in their decisions to participate (X = 7.58; df_ = 3; £<.05).
Female Virgins were more likely to say it was "very important" than to
rate it "not at all important," and were highly unlikely to give it only
2
"moderate" influence in their decisions to abstain (X = 9.77; d£ = 3;
£<.01).
There were no significant differences in the frequencies with
86
TABLE 22: Importance of Preplanning to Increase Chances of
Intercourse by Gender and Virginity Status.
Participant's
Preplanning
V
NV
Female:5
NV
V
Very Important
1
10
5
3
19
Moderately Important
18
63
25
34
140
Not at all Important
15
38
44
61
158
34
111
74
98
317
Total
Males
Total
X^ = 22.05; df = 6; £<.01
Partner's
Preplanning
2
12
9
4
27
Moderately Important
19
59
23
36
137
Not at all Important
13
40
42
58
153
34
111
74
98
317
Very Important
Total
=•19.26; df = 6; p<.01
V = Virgin
NV = Nonvirgin
87
TABLE 23: Use of Birth Control as Decision Factor by Gender and
Virginity Status.
Males
Participant's Use
Females
V
NV
V
NV
Tota
Very Important
16
49
49
61
175
Moderately Importemt
10
40
7
23
80
Not at all Important
8
22
18
14
62
34
111
74
98
317
Total
X =20.63; df = 6; p<.01
Partner's Use
Very Important
19
59
39
49
166
Moderately Important
7
29
13
24
73
Not at all Important
8
22
22
25
77
34
110
74
98
316
Total
X
V = Virgin
NV = Nonvirgin
= 3.63; df = 6; n.s.
88
which Males and Females or Virgins and Nonvirgins rated their partner's
2
use of birth control (X = 3.63; df_ = 6, n.s.).
Fifty-three percent
rated it as "very important," 23% rated it as "moderately important," and
24% rated it as "not at all important" as a factor in the decision.
Although it was not tested directly as planned, and no statement,
either in support or denial, can be made relative in Hypothesis II, it
is possible to draw some conclusions about the hypothesized relationships
between sexual philosophy and the various influence factors. Overall, a
pattern of gender and virginity status differences in the ratings of
relationship (e.g., discussion, marriage, commitment, use of birth
control) and physical arousal (e.g., "horniness," receptivity) factors
was observed which deserves comment.
Male Nonvirgins typically rated
relationship factors as unimportant, and physical arousal factors as
very important.
Unlike their Nonvirgin counterparts, Male Virgins as
a group exhibited no preferences whatever when asked to rate the
importance of the various influence factors.
Females as a group rated
relationship factors as very important; Virgin Females judged physical
arousal and receptivity unimportant, but Nonvirgin Females said that
receptivity was a moderately important factor in their decisions about
premarital intercourse.
Adamant Virgins, Liberated Nonvirgins, and Confused Nonvirgins all
demonstrated the predicted relationships with the various influence
factors:
Adamant Virgins (usually female virgins) perceived relation-
ship factors as most important; Liberated Nonvirgins and Confused
Nonvirgins (mostly nonvirgin males) placed higher importance on physical
89
arousal factors. Hypothesis II was, therefore, partially and informally
confirmed, not because of the relationship between influence factors and
sexual philosophy, but rather because of the relationship between gender
and the perceived importance of the various influences.
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION
Discussion
Ultimately, the goal of research is to render the world more
understandable to ourselves and others, and to improve, if possible,
the quality of human life.
Although often distracted in 1986 by inter-
national terrorism, tax reform, the "War on Drugs," and other major
social concerns, the popular press continues its focus on issues
engendered by "the sexual revolution," keeping it on the front pages
of our consciousness-
The cover for the October 1986 issue of
Psychology Today was devoted to "Sex and Consequences:
Temptation."
Teenage
Inside were features on sex education ("What Kids Need
to Know") and teen-age pregnancy ("Young, Innocent and Pregnant").
Stark (1986) reported that "one out of ten teen-age girls in the United
States becomes pregnant every year" (p. 28), pointed out the variety of
reasons why teen-agers get pregnant, and discussed the tragic consequences of such pregnancies.
Pregnancy is one of the possible outcomes of a conscious decision
(in the ideal case), by two consenting individuals, acting together,
to engage in sexual intercourse.
Both Gordon (1986) and Stark (1986)
hold faulty decision making by sexually active young people responsible
for the high incidence of unplanned, unwanted teen-age pregnancies.
The negative effects of such pregnancies, to the parties directly
90
91
involved, and to society as a whole, are staggering, producing changes in
the very fabric of American family life as we are used to knowing it. The
implication for sex research is clear:
Investigate sexual decision making
practices in hopes of understanding, and thereby improving, the decision
making skills of persons faced with sexual decisions.
To that end, the
present research sought to identify and explain some of the factors
impinging on the sexual decisions of a sample of students at a large
southwestern university.
Additionally, this research sought objective
verification for certain elements of D'Augelli's subjective obseirvations
of sexual philosophy.
Like D'Augelli's (1972) participants, Inexperienced Virgins in the
present study had little dating experience; Engaged Nonvirgins were
usually involved in steady, or committed, relationships; and Confused
Nonvirgins reported more "dating around" behavior than did others.
Inexperienced Virgins and Adamant Virgins were almost always sexually
naive compared to Engaged Nonvirgins, Liberated Nonvirgins, and Confused
Nonvirgins, who usually were nonvirgins in fact, as well as in philosophy.
Potential Nonvirgins were sometimes virgins, and sometimes not.
D'Augelli's finding that Adamant Virgins were more religious than
advocates of other philosophies was supported and extended in the
present research, which found that Adamant Virgins were more likely to
report regular (as opposed to occasional or rare) church attendance,
and were more likely than advocates of other philosophies to be
affiliated with Fundamentalist denominations.
Liberated Nonvirgins
were the least-churched group in both D'Augelli's and this sample.
The present data provided objective support for D'Augelli's sexual
philosophy formulations.
92
Because D'Augelli (1972) reported no differences in the frequencies
with which males and females endorsed the different categories of sexual
philosophy, no gender differences in preferences for one philosophy over
another were expected in this study.
However, in the present research,
more than two out of three Adamant Virgins were females, and Liberated
Nonvirgins and Confused Nonvirgins were almost always males. This
surprising finding was, in itself, a valuable contribution to the literature, presaging as it did other outcomes not expected from recent
research.
The term sexual philosophy is conceptually compelling, evoking by
its very name all sorts of behavioral and attitudinal possibilities
and connotations. However, the measurement of sexual philosophy in the
instant research represents a crude operationalization of the concept.
The major difficulty in articulating the concept arises principally as
a result of its multidimensionality.
Sexual philosophy has both an
attitudinal component and a behavioral one, and provisions need to be
made for that in measurement.
In the present research, the behavioral
component was more or less implicit in the philosophy descriptions, but
the philosophy designations were not always predictors of actual sexual
experience.
For example. Adamant Virgins, while they may be adamantly
opposed to premarital intercourse, were not always virgins. On the
other hand. Potential Nonvirgins were often nonvirgins in fact, and not
potentially so.
There was even one incidence of a Confused Nonvirgin's
actually being a virgin.
It remains for future research to refine the
concept, and develop a more sensitive measure of sexual philosophy,
\
incorporating such motivational and behavioral information as has been
demonstrated to be relevant (e.g., sexual experience level, dating
status, gender, religiosity, standards for sexual behavior and other
influences like physical arousal and receptivity).
In general, the present research found that cultural and social
expectations, often based on gender and religion, stood in close relationship to the sexual decisions made by the students in this sample. In
fact, despite claims that the sexual attitudes and behaviors of males
and females are converging (Hopkins, 1977; Hunt, 1974; R\ibin, 1971) ,
with females becoming more permissive in both attitudes and behavior
(Sherwin & Corbett, 1985), the present research uncovered evidence to
the contrary.
The findings of this study were consistent with previous
research demonstrating that males generally hold more permissive attitudes toward sex than females do (Carroll, Volk, & Hyde, 1985), are
more behaviorally experienced (Gagnon S Simon, 1973; Hunt, 1973;
Sorenson, 1973), and suffer different, and usually less strict, social
expectations where sex is concerned (Frieze et al., 1978).
In this
sample, males were, on the average, about one year younger than females
at time of first intercourse, reported significantly more different
intercourse partners than females, and were not nearly as subject to
peer and parental disapproval of sexual activity.
That women and men make sexual decisions based on quite different
criteria was strikingly apparent from the informal comments of most
participants.
Indeed, every female respondent in this sample seemed
unable, or perhaps unwilling, to talk about sex outside the context
94
of some sort of relationship, however brief, or meaningless; there was
not a single exception.
Men, on the other hand, appeared to be much
more capable of separating the physical and emotional aspects of sex;
that is, while some male respondents made relationship-oriented comments,
most men were not at all reluctant to contemplate sexual intercourse
exclusive of any requirement for relationship.
Further evidence of gender differences was found which substantiates the research of Christopher and Gate (1984, 1985).
In the
present study, females stereotypically rated relationship factors as
very important in making sexual decisions, while males, in keeping
with traditional expectations, rated circumstantial factors as most
important.
Even on the relatively modern, or progressive, concepts
in sexual decision making (e.g., discussions with a partner and use
of birth control) the genders responded stereotypically.
Physical
arousal, horniness, receptivity, and preplanning to increase the chances
of intercourse were considered as major factors in men's decisions to
have intercourse with a particular partner.
Women said these factors
were unimportant to their decisions; the degree of commitment and the
possibility of eventual marriage to a particular partner were the most
important criteria for women.
It was apparent that religion, in addition to gender, exerted an
important influence on the sexual decisions of most participants in
this study.
In general, the sample was a church-going one. More than
two-thirds of participants reported regular or occasional church
attendance; slightly less than one-third said that they rarely or never
95
attend church.
Ruppel (1969) and Cardwell (1969) found an inverse
relationship between religiosity and sexual permissiveness, and
Rohrbaugh and Jessor (1975) demonstrated that religiosity operates as
a personal control against deviance.
These findings were supported in
the present research; those individuals who were the most attitudinally
and behaviorally conservative were the most religious in the sample,
and those who espoused the most permissive sexual attitudes and behavior
were the least religious, when religiosity was measured by church attendance, or was rated as a factor in sexual decisions.
Religiosity varied
in influence as a factor in sexual decisions, depending on gender and
virginity status.
Sexually naive individuals nearly always gave
religiosity at least moderate influence over their sexual decisions, and
female virgins usually rated it as a very important factor.
males, it was not as important a consideration.
For virgin
Nonvirgins, in contrast,
typically rated religiosity as a factor of little or no influence; in
the decisions of sexually-experienced males, religiosity was simply not
at all important.
Rohrbaugh and Jessor (1975) found no evidence that a strict fundamentalist orientation exerted any greater influence in controlling deviant
behavior than did a more traditional religious orientation.
The present
research, however, found that the least permissive sexual attitudes and
behavior were reported by those with a fundamentalist religious orientation, and the most permissive by those with a less fundamental, more
traditional one.
For the majority of participants in this study, the
practice of religion is a very present influence in their lives, and
96
the more fundamentalist the religious orientation, the more stringent the
influence.
Summary
The results of the present research generally echoed the findings
of other recent sex research.
This sample reported behavior similar to
that exhibited by college students in other parts of the country.
For
example, a clear majority (61%) of 19-year-olds in this sample were
nonvirgins.
sample.
This corresponds to Sorenson's (1973) data from a national
He concluded that, by age 19, over 50% of respondents had had
at least one experience of sexual intercourse.
Likewise, participants
in this study exhibited a variety of philosophical approaches to sexual
behavior, as identified by previous research (Christopher & Gate, 1984,
1985; D'Augelli, 1971, 1972; D'Augelli & D'Augelli, 1977, 1979; Ehrmann,
1959; Jurich & Jurich, 1974; Peplau, Rubin, & Hill, 1977; Reiss, 1960),
and observed gender differences were congruent with those recently
reported by Hendrick, Hendrick, Slapion-Foote, & Foote (1985).
Females, as a group, tended to respond similarly, regardless of
virginity status.
Only among males was there a strong relation between
virginity status and opinion.
Females, for example, tended to rate
discussion as "very important."
Virgin males also rated discussion as
"very important" (in 44% of the cases), and infrequently (in only 6%
of the cases) rated it as "not at all important" to their sexual
decisions.
By way of contrast, 78% of nonvirgin males rated it as only
"moderately," or "not at all important;" they were much more likely to
say it was "not at all important" than to say it was "very important."
97
This pattern of response, with nonvirgin males being very different from
the rest of the sample, and differing in the direction of greater
permissiveness, was consistently repeated.
Frieze et al. (1978) assert that early socialization practices of
the culture (with primary emphasis on gender-appropriate role behavior)
influence an individual's beliefs about life in a gender-typed world.
The observation of this research is that males and females approach
sexual decisions in decidedly different ways.
The philosophical and
behavioral profiles which emerged from this sample reflect the traditionally conservative social, religious, and political characteristics
of the particular geographic region where these data were collected.
Indeed, this conservative intellectual milieu may have contributed to
the observed depressed moral maturity scores.
Gender ideals here are
typically based on stereotypic role expectations for men and women.
The Judeo-Christian ideology upon which many Western religions are
predicated, supports those same restrictive gender ideals in ascribing
higher sexual status and power to men (Frieze et al., 1978).
In the present sample, this sociocultural imprinting was indeed
being reinforced by the high frequency of church attendance and the
religious conservatism characteristic of this geographic locale. The
resultant sexual philosophy is an amalgam of gender-role expectations,
supported by religious belief and practice.
It certainly appears that
this religious reinforcement increases the impact of the traditional
status differential that exists between women and men, and gives rise
to the perpetuation of a stereotypical view of men and women as sexual
beings.
98
One negative effect of the acceptance of such stereotypes is the
perpetuation of the double standard for sexual permissiveness that was
so apparent in the responses of this sample. Both genders are aware of
the continued existence of the double standard, and adjust their behavior
accordingly.
In sexual matters, men are the pursuers, women the pursued,
and "good girls don't."
Recent research on teen-age pregnancy points out that sexual
decisions based only on strict interpretations of what is genderappropriate are clearly maladaptive, and constitute a very real and
present danger to society.
Cassell (1984) reported that girls want to
be "swept away" in order to justify sexual intercourse; Stark (1986)
reported that for teen-agers, sexual activity can be reconciled if it
is spontaneous; for girls to plan for premarital sex is not respectable,
not "nice."
The present data support this notion.
For example, only
virgin women (who probably intend to stay that way until they're
married) rated the use of birth control as "very important" to their
decisions about sex.
Perhaps the fact that neither men nor nonvirgin
women viewed the use of birth control as particularly important
explains in part the high teen pregnancy rate.
If sexually active
individuals are not taking responsibility for birth control, the likelihood of accidental pregnancy is increased.
As long as sexually active young people ignore the importance of
discussion between partners, the degree of commitment in the relationship, the responsible use of birth control, or the importance of
physical arousal and receptivity as meaningful criteria for making
99
sexual decisions, the current confusion will continue.
It remains for us
as researchers, educators, parents, and friends to encourage an approach
to sexual decision making which is based on equality rather than on
exploitation, one which focuses, for example, on the relationship aspects
of sexual decisions.
Good sex education requires more than perfunctory
attention to the biological details of copulation and conception.
Indeed,
responsible sex education should include in-depth exploration of the
cultural scripts and moral values which influence sexual decisions, and
encourage open discussion of the complexities inherent to them.
REFERENCES
Cardwell, J. (1969).. The relationship between religious commitment and
premarital sexual permissiveness: A five-dimensional analysis.
Sociological Review, 30, 72-80.
Carroll, J., & Rest, J. (1982). Moral development. In B. Wolman (Ed.),
Handbook of developmental psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Carroll, J., Volk, K., & Hyde, J. (1985). Differences between males and
females in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 14, 131-139.
Cassell, C. (1984). Swept away. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984.
Christopher, S., & Gate, R. (1984). Factors involved in premarital
sexual decision-making. The Journal of Sex Research, 20, 363=376.
Christopher, S., & Gate, R. (1985). Anticipated influences on sexual
decision-making for first intercourse. Family Relations, 34,
265-270.
Chumlea, W. (1982). Physical growth in adolescence. In B. Wolman (Ed.),
Handbook of developmental psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
D'Augelli, J. (1971) . Moral reasoning, sex guilt, sexual attitudes, and
parental behaviors as related to women's premarital sexual behavior
Unpublished master's thesis. University of Connecticut.
D'Augelli, J. (1972) . The relationship of moral reasoning, sex-guilt,
and interpersonal interaction to couples' premarital sexual
experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Connecticut.
D'Augelli, J., & D'Augelli, A. (1977). Moral reasoning and premarital
sexual behavior: Toward reasoning about relationships. Journal of
Social Issues, 33, 46-66.
D'Augelli, J., & D'Augelli, A. (1979). Sexual involvement and relationship development: A cognitive developmental approach. In R. L.
Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing
relationships. New York: Academic Press.
100
101
DeLamater, J., & MacCorquodale, P. (1979). Premarital sexuality; Attitudes
relationships, behavior. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Dreyer, P. (1982). Sexuality during adolescence. In B. Wolman (Ed.), The
Handbook of developmental psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Driscoll, R., & Davis, K. (1971). Sexual restraints: A comparison of
perceived and self-reported reasons for college students. The
Journal of Sex Research, 7_, 253-262.
Ehrmann, W. (1959). Premarital dating behavior. New York: Holt.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: Norton.
Frieze, I., Parsons, J., Johnson, P., Ruble, D., & Zellman, G. (1978).
Women and sex roles: A social psychological perspective. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company.
Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of
human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.
Gilligan, C , Kohlberg, L. , Lerner, J., & Belenky, M. (1971). Moral
reasoning about sexual dilemmas. Technical reports of the Commission
on Obscenity and Pornography. (Vol. I). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Glenn, N., & Weaver, C. (1979). Attitudes toward premarital, extramarital,
and homosexual relations in the U.S. in the 1970s. The Journal of
Sex Research, 2_, 108-118.
Gordon, S. (1986, October). What kids need to know. Psychology Today,
pp. 22-24.
Hendrick, C , & Hendrick, S. (1983). Liking, loving, and relating.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Hendrick, S., Hendrick, C , Slapion-Foote, M., & Foote, F. (1985).
Gender differences in sexual attitudes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48, 1630-1642.
Herold, E., & Goodwin, M. (1981). Adamant virgins; potential nonvirgins;
and nonvirgins. The Journal of Sex Research, 17_, 97-113.
Hopkins, J. (1977). Sexual behavior in adolescence. Journal of Social
Issues, 33, 67-85.
Hunt, J. (1974). Sexual behavior in the 1970s. Chicago: Playboy Press.
102
Jacoby, A., & Williams, J. (1985). Effects of premarital sexual standards
and behavior on dating and marriage desirability. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. 47, 1059-1065.
Jurich, A., & Jurich, J. (1974). The effect of cognitive moral development upon the selection of premarital sexual standards. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 36, 736-741.
Kirkendall, L. (1967). Characteristics of sexual decision-making. The
Journal of Sex Research, 3_^ 201-211.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental
approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of
socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Maier, H. (1978) . Three theories of child development. New York: Harper
& Row.
Muus, R. (1976). Kohlberg's cognitive-developmental approach to
adolescent morality. Adolescence, 11, 39-59.
O'Connell, M. , & Moore, M. (1981). The legitimacy status of first births
to US women aged 15-24, 1939-1978. In F. Furstenberg, Jr., R.Lincoln.,
& J. Menken (Eds.), Teenage sexuality, pregnancy, and childbearing.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Peplau, L., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating
relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 86-109.
Piper, K. (1985). [Influences on sexual decision-making]. Unpublished
raw data. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University.
Reichelt, P., & Werley, H. (1981). Contraception, abortion and venereal
disease: Teenagers' knowledge and the effect of education. In
F. Furstenberg, Jr., R. Lincoln, & J. Menken (Eds.), Teenage
sexuality, pregnancy, and childbearing. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Reiss, I. (1960). Premarital sexual standards in America. New York:
Free Press.
Rest, J. (1979a). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Rest, J. (1979b). Revised Manual for the Defining Issues Test: An
objective test of moral judgment development. Minneapolis:
Minnesota Moral Research Projects.
103
Rohrbaugh, J., & Jessor, R. (1975). Religiosity in youth: A personal
control against deviant behavior. Journal of Personality, 23,
136-155.
Rubin, I. (1971). New sex findings: Some trends and implications. In
H. A. Otto (Ed.), The new sexuality. Palo Alto: Science and
Behavior.
Ruppel, H. (1969). Religiosity and premarital sexual permissiveness: A
methodological note. Sociological Analysis, 30, 176-188.
Sarrell, L., & Sarrell, P. (1979). Sexual unfolding; Sexual development
and sex therapies in late adolescence. Boston: Little, Brown &
Company.
Sherwin, R., & Corbett, S. (1985). Campus sexual norms and dating
relationships: A trend analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 21,
258-274.
Sorensen, R. (1973). Adolescent sexuality in contemporary America;
Personal values and sexual behavior ages thirteen to nineteen. New
York: World Publishing.
Stark, E. (1986, October). Young, innocent and pregnant. Psychology Today,
pp. 28-35.
Tietze, C. (1981). Teenage pregnancies: Looking ahead to 1984. In F.
Furstenberg, Jr., R. Lincoln, & J. Menken (Eds.), Teenage sexuality,
pregnancy, and childbearing. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Zelnik, M. , & Kanter, J. (1981). Contraceptive patterns and premarital
pregnancy among women aged 15-19 in 1976. In F. Furstenberg, Jr.,
R. Lincoln, & J. Menken (Eds.), Teenage sexuality, pregnancy, and
childbearing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
APPENDIX A
BRIEFING TEXT
104
105
You may have been asked at some time to write an essay on your
philosophy of life, and you may have a good idea about what that means.
On the other hand, you may not have the foggiest notion about it.
You
may have spent a lot of time figuring out the meaning of life, or you
may not have thought about it much.
But everyone has a philosophy of
life, whether or not they can describe it. Your philosophy of life
is made up of all your beliefs, feelings, and experiences about your
past and present, and your expectations for the future.
In this experiment, you will be asked to answer three questionnaires about your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors about sex and other
controversial social issues.
In a way, your opinions represent your
philosophy of life, because they reflect your standards, your feelings,
and your expectations for life in relation to other people.
Your
philosophy is simply an expression of your identity as a human being,
and in that respect, it is unique and individual.
For this study your
responses will be added together with the answers of all the people
who will be participating in this study.
Your ideas will fall in line
with those of other people who think and feel pretty much like you do
about things.
Some of the questions may raise issues which you have never
thought of before, or you may have thought about them, but haven't made
up your mind yet.
You are at a time in your life in which uncertainty
about many things is natural.
The questions are not intended to be an
106
invasion of your privacy, or to influence your thinking in any
direction, but may stimulate your thinking.
Your responses will be kept in strictest confidence.
No one,
including me, will be able to connect your answers with you at any
time.
You will receive one and one-half credit points for your par-
ticipation.
If at any time during the session you feel uncomfortable,
or do not want to answer the questions, you may withdraw from participation without suffering any penalty whatsoever.
even if you fail to complete the experiment.
You will get credit
At the end of today's
session, I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
This study is part of my doctoral dissertation, and it is very
important to the success of the project that the questionnaire not be
discussed by you with anyone after you leave the session, or for as
long as the research is in progress.
Doing that could interfere with
someone who might possibly be a participant at a later time.
I will
be collecting a lot of data, and I need your cooperation very much.
I
know sex is an interesting subject for most of us, but please do not
discuss this study with anyone at all.
If you agree to participate, please PRINT your name on the consent
form the way you want it to appear on your credit slip, then sign and
date it.
Because it will probably take you an hour or so to complete
the three questionnaires, and to give me a headstart on filling out
the credit slips, you can take a 5-minute break to get a drink or whatever—after you have turned in your consent forms. Please take only
five minutes.
We will begin promptly, and no one will be admitted late
to that session.
If you arrive after the "Do not disturb" sign is up.
107
and still want to participate, you will have to sign up for a later
session.
You don't have to leave now, but you may.
(After five
minutes, put the "experiment in progress—do not disturb" sign on the
door, and pass out experimental materials'.)
Now, before doing anything else, check the number on your envelope.
Women, you should have an even niamber (for example 002, 344, 536, etc.);
men should have an odd number (for example 001, 345, 537, etc.) written
on your envelope.
Does everyone have the correct envelope (pause to
check, exchange envelopes if necessary)?
questionnaires you are to complete.
explanatory.
Inside the envelope are the
The instructions should be self-
Follow the directions carefully, and if you have questions,
raise your hand and I will help you.
Be sure and put your ID number
(the one on the envelope, NOT your social security" number) on both of
the other questionnaires you fill out.
Now, take the questionnaire titled "Opinions about Social Problems"
out of the envelope and write your ID number on it.
the questionnaire you are to complete first.
(Pause)
This is
The questionnaire has six
(6) different stories about different problem situations; your task is
to tell me what you think the person should do in each case to solve
the problem.
Each story is followed by some statements which offer
ideas about how to settle the issue, and from among them you will
choose which are important—the ones you think the person should focus
on in making a decision.
Let me go over the sample story with you.
(Read Frank Jones story
aloud and go over steps through Instructions for Part A.)
Notice that
in this example there are only six (6) statements to consider; on the
108
actual stories, there will be 12 statements.
Read one at a time and
put a check mark in the box at the left which indicates how important
you think it ought to be in making the decision.
then read instructions for Part B.)
tant statements in rank order.
(Go through Part A,
Now put the four (4) most impor-
Are there any questions?
(Pause for
questions, then continue.)
You have plenty of time to complete this experiment in the time
allotted.
Consider each item carefully and pace yourself so that you
finish this questionnaire in 30-40 minutes.
The questionnaires in the
envelope should take about 15-20 minutes each.
When you finish, make sure your experimental ID n\imber is on all
three questionnaires you filled out.
Then, put everything into the
envelope, bring it to me at the front of the room, and I will give you
your credit points.
you may leave.
I will answer any questions you may have, then
Are there any questions" (Pause)
(more) questions, you may begin.
If there are no
APPENDIX B
CONSENT FORM
109
110
T h e p r o c e d u r e s for this e x p e r i m e n t
I understand that:
have
been
fully
explained
to m e , and
.1 w i l l be asked to c o m p l e t e two (2) q u e s t i o n n a i r e s about my o p i n i o n s
a b o u t c o n t r o v e r s i a l s o c i a l i s s u e s , i n c l u d i n g my s e x u a l a t t i t u d e s
and
behaviors;
my r e s p o n s e s to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e will NEVER
i d e n t i f y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about me;
be linked
to any
^ s " free to d i s c o n t i n u e my p a r t i c i p a t i o n in this study
w i t h o u t s u f f e r i n g any p e n a l t y w h a t s o e v e r ;
at any
time
at the c o n c l u s i o n of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n , any q u e s t i o n s I
may h a v e about the study will be a n s w e r e d by the i n v e s t i g a t o r ,
to the best of her a b i l i t y ;
I w i l l r e c e i v e one and o n e - h a l f
e x c h a n g e for my p a r t i c i p a t i o n ;
( 1 - 1 / 2 ) credit
points
in
I a g r e e to not d i s c u s s the p r o c e d u r e s or the p u r p o s e of this
e x p e r i m e n t with a n y o n e , s i n c e doing so might bias o t h e r s '
participation;
the p e r s o n s r e s p o n s i b l e for this project are Kathi Piper ( 7 6 5 - 0 A 2 8 )
and D r . Richard M c G l y n n ( 7 4 2 - 3 7 2 9 ) .
M s . Piper or D r . M c G l y n n has
a g r e e d to a n s w e r any q u e s t i o n s that I may have c o n c e r n i n g the
p r o c e d u r e s u s e d , and has i n f o r m e d me that I may c o n t a c t the T e x a s
T e c h U n i v e r s i t y I n s t i t u t i o n a l Review Board for the P r o t e c t i o n of
Human S u b j e c t s by w r i t i n g them in care of the O f f i c e of R e s e a r c h
S e r v i c e s , T e x a s T e c h U n i v e r s i t y , L u b b o c k , T e x a s 7 9 4 0 9 , or by c a l l i n g
742-3884;
in the u n l i k e l y e v e n t that this e x p e r i m e n t c a u s e s any injury to m e ,
t r e a t m e n t is not n e c e s s a r i l y a v a i l a b l e at T e x a s Tech U n i v e r s i t y or the
S t u d e n t H e a l t h C e n t e r , nor is there n e c e s s a r i l y any i n s u r a n c e carried
by the U n i v e r s i t y or its p e r s o n n e l a p p l i c a b l e to cover any such injury,
F i n a n c i a l c o m p e n s a t i o n for any such injury must be provided through
my own i n s u r a n c e p r o g r a m .
I u n d e r s t a n d that I may o b t a i n further
i n f o r m a t i o n about these m a t t e r s by c o n t a c t i n g D r . Donald R. H a r a g a n ,
Vice P r e s i d e n t for R e s e a r c h and G r a d u a t e S t u d i e s , Room 1 1 8 ,
Administration Building, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 79409,
or by c a l l i n g 7 4 2 - 2 1 8 4 .
I hereby
give my c o n s e n t
N a m e of P a r t i c i p a n t
Signature
of P r o j e c t
for my p a r t i c i p a t i o n
(Please
print)
Director
in this
study.
Signature
or A u t h o r i z e d
Representative
Date
Date
APPENDIX C
DEFINING ISSUES TEST
111
112
OPINIONS
ABOUT SOCIAL
PROBLEMS
T h i « q u e s t i o n n a i r e Is aiaed at u n d e r s t a n d i n g how people think about
social p r o b l e a s .
D i f f e r e n t people o f t e n have d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s about
q u e s t i o n s of ri|,ht and w r o n g .
T h e r e are no " r i g h t " a n s w e r s in the way ihut
there a r e right a n a w e r s to oath p r o b l e a s .
Ue would litce you to tell us whut
rou think about s e v e r a l p r o b l e a a t o r i e s .
The papers will be fed to a c o n f u t e .
to find the a v e r a g e for the whole g r o u p , and no one will see your indiviJudl
answers.
Please
give us the f o l l o w i n g
Inforaatlon:
ID'
Classification
Age
In this q u e s t i o n n a i r e you will be aakad to give
several s t o r i e s .
H e r e is a story as an e x a a p l e .
your o p i n i o n s
about
F r a n k J o n e s h a s been t h i n k i n g about buying a c a r . He is a a r r i e d . has tw..
saall c h i l d r e n and e a r n s an a v e r a g e i n c o a e . T h e car he buys will be his
f a a i l y ' a only c a r . It will be used aoatly to get to work and drive around
town, but s o a e t i a e s for vacation tripa a l a o .
In trying to d e c i d e what car to
buy, F r a n k J o n e s realized that there were a lot of q u e s t i o n s to c o n s i d e r .
Below t h e r e Is a list of soae of these q u e s t i o n s .
If you w e r e Frank J o n e s , how iaportant
in d e c i d i n g what c a r to buy?
would each of theae q u e s t i o n s be
I n s t r u c t i o n s for Part A:
(Saaple Question)
On the left hand s i d e , check o n e of the s p a c e s by e a c h a t a t e a e n t of a
conalderation.
For i n s t a n c e , if you think that s t a t e a e n t II is not iaportant
in a a k l n g a d e c i s i o n about buying a c a r . check the s p a c e on the r i g h t . )
IMPORTANCE:
^reat
Much
Sone
Little
No
/
/
y
y
/
y/
I. W h e t h e r the car d e a l e r w a s in the
aaae block as where Frsnk l i v e s .
(Note that in this s a a p l e , the
person taking the q u e s t i o n n a i r e
did not think thia was i a p o r t a n t
in Baking a d e c i s i o n . )
2. Would a used car be a o r e e c o n o a i c a l
in the long run than a new c a r .
(Note that a check waa put in the
far left space to i n d i c a t e the
opinion that this Is sn i a p o r t a n t
issue in asking a d e c i s i o n about
buying a c a r . )
3. W h e t h e r the color was g r e e n , F r a n k ' s
favori te c o l o r .
1*, W h e t h e r the cubic inch d i s p l a c e a e n t was
at least 2 0 0 . (Note that if you are
unsure about what "cubic inch
d i s p l a c e a e n t " a e a n s , then aark it
"no l a p o r t a n c e . " )
5. Would a l a r g e , rooay car be better than
a coapact c a r .
6. W h e t h e r the front c o n n i b i l i e s w e r e
d i f f e r e n c i a l . (Note that if a s t a t e a e n t
s o u n d s like g i b b e r i s h or n o n s e n s e to
YOU,
Instructions
for Part
B: ( S a a p l e
aark
It
"no
1mnnrtanrg>" 1
Question)
Froa the list of q u e s t i o n s a b o v e , aelect the aost i a p o r t a n t o n e of the w h o l e
group.
Put the n u a b e r of the aoac i a p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n on the top line b e l o w .
Do l i k e w i s e for your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th aost i a p o r t a n t c h o i c e s .
(Note that the
top c h o i c e s In this c a s e will c o a e froa the s t a t e a e n t s that were checked on
the far left-hand side -- s t a t e a e n t a t1 and IS were thought to be very
iaportant.
In d e c i d i n g what is the aost i a p o r t a n t , a person would re-read 12
and I S , and then pick one of thea aa the aost i a p o r t a n t , then put the other
one as "second aost i a p o r t a n t , " and so o n . )
MOST
SECOND MOST
IMPORTANT
THIRD MOST
_i_
O
J a a e s R e s t , 1972
All r i g h t s r e s e r v e d
IMPORTANT
FOURTH MOST
r
IMPORTANT
113
HEINZ AND THE DRUG
In Europe a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer.
There
was one drug that the docto rs thought might save her.
It was a form of radium
that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered.
The drug was
expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what che drug cost
to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2000 for a small dose of
the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow
the money, but he could onl y get together about $1000, which is half of what
it cost. He told the drugg ist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell
it cheaper or let him pay 1 ater. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the
drug and I'm going to make money from It." So Heinz got desperate and began
to think about breaking int o the nan's store to steal the drug for his wife.
Should Heinz steal the drug?
Should steal it
(Check one)
Can't decide
Should not steal it
IMPORTANCE:
Great
Much
Some
Little
No
1. Whether a community's laws are going to be
upheld.
2. Isn't it only natural for a loving husband
to care so much for his wife that he'd
steal?
3. Is Heinz willing to risk getting shut ob <j
burglar or going to jail for the chance
that stealing the drug might help?
4. Whether Heinz is a professional wrestler,
or has considerable influence with
professional wrestlers?
5. Whether Heinz is stealing for himself or
doing this solely to help someone else.
6. Whether the druggist's rights to his
invention have to be respected.
7. Whether the essence of living is more
encompassing than the termination of
dying, socially and individually.
8. What values are going to be the basis for
governing how people act towards eacli other.
9. Whether the druggist is going to be allowed
to hide behind a worthless law which only
protects the rich anyhow.
10. Whether the law in this case is getting in
the way of the most basic claim of any
member of society.
11. Whether the druggist deserves to be robbed
for being so greedy and cruel.
12. Would stealing in such a case bring about
more total good for the whole society or
not.
From the list of questions above, select the four most important:
Most
important
Second most
Third most
Fourth most
important
important
important
114
STUDENT
TAKE-OVER
At H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y a g r o u p of s t u d e n t s , called the S t u d e n t s for a
D e m o c r a t i c S o c i e t y ( S D S ) , b e l i e v e that the U n i v e r s i t y should not have an army
ROTC p r o g r a m .
SDS s t u d e n t s are a g a i n s t U . S . i n v o l v e m e n t in C e n t r a l A m e r i c a n
a f f a i r s , and the army t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m h e l p s send men to p l a c e s like
N i c a r a g u a . T h e SDS s t u d e n t s d e m a n d e d that H a r v a r d end the army ROTC t r a i n i n g
p r o g r a m as a u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e .
T h i s would mean that H a r v a r d s t u d e n t s could
not get army t r a i n i n g as part of their r e g u l a r c o u r s e work and not get c r e d i t
for it t o w a r d s their d e g r e e s .
A g r e e i n g with the SDS s t u d e n t s , the H a r v a r d p r o f e s s o r s voted to end the
R O T C p r o g r a m as a u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e .
But the P r e s i d e n t of the U n i v e r s i t y
stated that he w a n t e d to k e e p the army p r o g r a m on c a m p u s as a c o u r s e . T h e SDS
s t u d e n t s felt that the P r e s i d e n t was not g o i n g to pay a t t e n t i o n to the
f a c u l t y vote or to t h e i r d e m a n d s .
S o , o n e day last A p r i l , two hundred SDS s t u d e n t s walked into che
u n i v e r s i t y ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b u i l d i n g , and told e v e r y o n e else to get o u t .
They said they w e r e d o i n g this to force H a r v a r d to get rid of the army
t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m as a c o u r s e .
Should
the s t u d e n t s
Yes,they
should
have t a k e n o v e r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
take it o v e r
Can't d e c i d e
building?
No,they
(Check
shouldn't
one)
take
over
IMPORTANCE:
Great
Much
Some
Little
No
1. Are the s t u d e n t s doing this to really help
o t h e r p e o p l e or are they doing it Just for
kicks?
2. Do the s t u d e n t s have any right to take over
p r o p e r t y that d o e s n ' t belong to t h e m ?
3. Do the s t u d e n t s r e a l i z e that they might be
a r r e s t e d and fined, and even e x p e l l e d from
school?
4. Would taking over che b u i l d i n g in the long
run b e n e f i t more p e o p l e to a g r e a t e r e x t e n t ?
5. W h e t h e r Che p r e s i d e n t stayed w i t h i n the
l i m i t s of his a u c h o r i c y In i g n o r i n g the
faculty voce .
6. W i l l the t a k e o v e r a n g e r the public and give
all s c u d e n c s a bad n a m e ?
7. Is Caking over a b u i l d i n g c o n s i s c e n c with
B^rinciples of J u s t i c e ?
8. Would a l l o w i n g one s c u d e n c c a k e - o v e r
e n c o u r a g e many o c h e r s C u d e n C t a k e - o v e r s ?
9. Did Che p r e s i d e n c bring chis o l s u n d e r s c a n d i n g on h i m s e l f by being so u n r e a s o n able and u n c o o p e r a t i v e ?
1 0 . W h e t h e r r u n n i n g the u n i v e r s i c y o u g h c Co be
in Che h a n d s of a few a d m i n i s c r a c o r s or in
Che h a n d s of all Che p e o p l e .
1 1 . Are Che s C u d e n C s f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p i e s • w h i c h
Chey b e l i e v e are a b o v e Che law?
1 2 . W h e c h e r or noc u n i v e r s i c y d e c i s i o n s ought to
be r e s p e c t e d by s t u d e n t s .
From
Che lisc of q u e s c i o n s a b o v e , s e l e c c
Che four m o s c
Most
importanc
Second
Third
important:
mosc
mosc
F o u r t h most
imporcanc
important
importanc
115
ESCAPED
PRISONER
A man had b e e n s e n t e n c e d to p r i s o n for 10 y e a r s .
After one year,
h o w e v e r , he e s c a p e d from p r i s o n , m o v e d to a new a r e a of the c o u n t r y , and took
on the n a m e of T h o m p s o n .
For 8 y e a r s he w o r k e d h a r d , and g r a d u a l l y he saved
e n o u g h m o n e y to buy h i s o w n b u s i n e s s .
He w a s fair to h i s c u s t o m e r s , g a v e his
e m p l o y e e s top w a g e s , and g a v e m o s t of h i s own p r o f i t s to c h a r i t y .
Then one
d a y , M r s J o n e s , an old n e i g h b o r r e c o g n i z e d him as the man w h o had e s c a p e d from
p r i s o n 8 y e a r s b e f o r e , and w h o m the p o l i c e had been l o o k i n g f o r .
Should M r s . Jones report
prison?
(Check one)
Should
report
Mr. Thompson
him
to the
p o l i c e and
Can ' t decide
have
him
sent
back
Should
not
report
to
him
IMPORTANCE:
Great
Much
Some
Little
No
1. H a s n ' t M r . T h o m p s o n been good e n o u g h for
s u c h a long t i m e to p r o v e he isn't a bad
person?
2 . t v e r y t i m e s o m e o n e e s c a p e s p u n i s h m e n t for
a c r i m e , d o e s n ' t that just e n c o u r a g e m o r e
crime?
3. W o u l d n ' t we be b e t t e r off w i t h o u t p r i s o n s
and the o p p r e s s i o n of our l e g a l s y s t e m s ?
4 . H a s M r . T h o m p s o n r e a l l y paid his debt to
society?
5. W o u l d s o c i e t y be f a i l i n g w h a t M r . T h o m p s o n
should fairly expect?
6. W h a t b e n e f i t s w o u l d p r i s o n s be apart from
s o c i e t y e s p e c i a l l y for a c h a r i t a b l e m a n ?
7. H o w c o u l d a n y o n e be so c r u e l and h e a r t l e s s
a s to send M r . T h o m p s o n to p r i s o n ?
8 . W o u l d it be fair to all the p r i s o n e r s w h o
had to s e r v e out t h e i r full s e n t e n c e s if
M r . T h o m p s o n w a s let o f f ?
9. W a s M r s . J o n e s a good f r i e n d of M r .
Thompson?
1 0 . W o u l d n ' t it be a c i t i z e n ' s d u t y to r e p o r t
an e s c a p e d c r i m i n a l , r e g a r d l e s s of the
c i rcumstances?
1 1 . H o w w o u l d the w i l l of the p e o p l e and the
p u b l i c Rood best be s e r v e d ?
1 2 . W o u l d g o i n g to p r i s o n do any good for M r .
T h o m p s o n or p r o t e c t a n y b o d y ?
From
the
list
of q u e s t i o n s
above, select
the
four m o s t
Most
important:
import an t
Second
Third
Fourth
most
most
most
important
important
important
116
THE
DOCTOR'S
DILEMMA
A lady w a s d y i n g of c a n c e r w h i c h c o u l d not be c u r e d and she had o n l y
a b o u t six m o n t h s to l i v e .
S h e w a s in t e r r i b l e p a i n , but she was so w e a k chat
a good d o s e of p a i n - k i l l e r l i k e m o r p h i n e w o u l d m a k e her d i e s o o n e r .
S h e -as
d e l i r i o u s and a l m o s t c r a z y w i t h p a i n , and in her c a l m p e r i o d s , she w o u l d ask
the d o c t o r to g i v e her e n o u g h m o r p h i n e to k i l l h e r .
S h e said she c o u l d n ' t
s t a n d the p a i n and that s h e w a s g o i n g to d i e in a few m o n t h s a n y w a y .
What
should
the d o c t o r
do?
(Check
He s h o u l d g i v e the lady an
o v e r d o s e t h a t w i l l m a k e her
one)
Can't
S h o u l d not g i v e
the o v e r d o s e
decide
die
IMPORTANCE:
Great
Much
Some
Little
No
1. W h e t h e r the w o m a n ' s f a m i l y is in f a v o r of
g i v i n g her the o v e r d o s e or not
T". is the d o c t o r o b l i g a t e d by the s a m e l a w s
as e v e r y b o d y e l s e if g i v i n g her an o v e r d o s e
w o u l d be the s a m e a s k i l l i n g her
W h e t h e r p r o p l e w o u l d Ee mucfi b e t t e r off
without society regimenting their lives
and e v e n t h e i r d e a t h s .
4 . W h e t h e r the d o c t o r c o u l d m a k e it a p p e a r
l i k e an a c c i d e n t ^
5. D o e s the s t a t e h a v e the r i g h t to f o r c e
c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e on t h o s e w h o d o n ' t
w a n t to li ve .
_ ^
6. W h a t is the v a l u e of d e a t h p r i o r to
s o c i e t y ' s p e r s p e c t i v e on p e r s o n a l v a l u e s
7. W h e t h e r the d o c t o r h a s s y m p a t h y tor the
w o m a n ' s s u f f e r i n g or c a r e s m o r e a b o u t
what society might think
8. Is h e l p i n g to end a n o t h e r ' s life e v e r a
r e s p o n s i b l e act of c o o p e r a t i o n .
"91 W h e t h e r o n l y God s h o u l d d e c i d e w h e n a
l e r s o n ' s l i f e s h o u l d end
1 0 . W h a t v a l u e s the d o c t o r h a s set for h i m s e l f
in h i s o w n £ e r s o n a l c o d e of behaviour
1 1 . C a n s o c i e t y a f f o r d to let e v e r y b o d y end
t h e i r l i v e s w h e n they w a n t to,
1 2 . C a n s o c i e t y a l l o w s u i c i d e s or m e r c y k i l l i n g
and s t i l l p r o t e c t t h e l i v e s of i n d i v i d u a l s
w h o w a n t to l i v e .
From
the
list
of
questions
above,
select
the
four m o s ^
Most
important
important
Second
Third
Fourth
most
most
most
important
important
importanc
117
WEBSTER
M r . W e b s t e r w a s the o w n e r and m a n a g e r of a g a s s t a t i o n .
He w a n t e d to
h i r e a n o t h e r m e c h a n i c Co h e l p h i m . but good m e c h a n i c s w e r e hard to f i n d .
The
only p e r s o n he found w h o s e e m e d to be a good m e c h a n i c w a s M r . L e e . but he was
Chinese.
W h i l e M r . W e b s t e r h i m s e l f d i d n ' t h a v e a n y t h i n g a g a i n s t O r i e n t a l s , he
w a s a f r a i d to h i r e M r . L e e b e c a u s e many of h i s c u s t o m e r s d i d n ' t like
Orientals.
H i s c u s t o m e r s m i g h t t a k e their b u s i n e s s e l s e w h e r e if M r . Lee was
w o r k i n g in the g a s s t a t i o n .
W h e n M r . L e e a s k e d M r . W e b s t e r if he c o u l d h a v e the j o b , M r . W e b s t e r said
that he had a l r e a d y h i r e d s o m e b o d y e l s e .
But M r . W e b s t e r r e a l l y had not h i r e d
a n y b o d y , b e c a u s e he c o u l d not find a n y b o d y w h o w a s a good m e c h a n i c b e s i d e s M r .
Lee.
What
should
Should
Mr. W e b s t e r have
have
hired
Mr.Lee
done?
(Check
Can't
one)
decide
Should
not
have
hired
him
IMPORTANCE:
Great
Much
Some
Little
No
1. D o e s the o w n e r of a b u s i n e s s h a v e the right
to m a k e his own b u s i n e s s d e c i s i o n s or n o t ?
2 . W h e t h e r t h e r e is a law that f o r b i d s r a c i a l
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n in h i r i n c for i o b s .
3. W h e t h e r M r . W e b s t e r is p r e j u d i c e d a g a i n s t
O r i e n t a l s h i m s e l f or w h e t h e r he m e a n s
n o t h i n g p e r s o n a l in r e f u s i n g the j o b .
4. W h e t h e r h i r i n g a good m e c h a n i c or p a y i n g
a t t e n t i o n to his c u s t o m e r s ' w i s h e s w o u l d
be best for his b u s i n e s s .
5. W h a t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s o u g h t to be
r e l e v a n t in d e c i d i n g how s o c i e t y ' s r o l e s
are filled?
6. W h e t h e r the g r e e d y and c o m p e t i t i v e
c a p i t a l i s t i c s y s t e m o u g h t to be c o m p l e t e l y
abandoned.
7. Do a m a j o r i t y of p e o p l e in M r . W e b s t e r ' s
s o c i e t y feel l i k e h i s c u s t o m e r s or a r e a
majority against prejudice?
8 . W h e t h e r h i r i n g c a p a b l e men like M r . Lee
w o u l d use t a l e n t s t h a t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e
be lost to s o c i e t y .
9. W o u l d r e f u s i n g the job to M r . L e e be
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h M r . W e b s t e r ' s own m o r a l
beliefs?
1 0 . C o u l d M r . W e b s t e r be so h a r d - h e a r t e d as
to r e f u s e the j o b , k n o w i n g how m u c h it
m e a n s to M r . Lee?
1 1 . W h e t h e r the C h r i s t i a n c o m m a n d m e n t to love
your f e l l o w man a p p l i e s in t h i s c a s e .
1 2 . If s o m e o n e ' s in n e e d , s h o u l d n ' t he be
h e l p e d r e g a r d l e s s of w h a t you get back
from h i m ?
From
the
list
of q u e s t i o n s
above, select
the
four m o s t
Most
important:
important
Second
Third
Fourth
most
most
most
important
important
important
118
NEWSPAPER
F r e d . a s e n i o r In h igh s c h o o l , wanted to p u b l i s h a m i m e o g r a p h e d n e w s p a p e r f o r s t ud e n t s so th at he could e x p r e s s many of his o p i n i o n s .
He wanted
to s p e a k o u t aga i nst some of the s c h o o l ' s r u l e s , like the rule f o r b i d d i n g
h o y s t o w e a r long h a i r .
W h e n P r e d s t a r t e d h is n e w s p a p e r , he asked his p r i n c i p a l for p e r m i s s i o n ,
T h e pr i nc i p a l said it wo uld be all right if b e f o r e every p u b l i c a t i o n Fred
w o u l d t u r n in all h i s ar t i d e s for Che p r i n c i p a l ' s a p p r o v a l .
Fred agreed
a n d t u r n e d in s e v e r a l ar t i d e s for a p p r o v a l .
The p r i n c i p a l a p p r o v e d all of
t h e m a n d Fred p u b l i s h e d two I s s u e s of the paper In the next two w e e k s ,
B u t the p r i n c i p a l h ad not e x p e c t e d that F r e d ' s n e w s p a p e r would r e c i e v e
s o m u c h a tten t l o n .
Stud e n t s w e r e so e x c i t e d by the paper that they began to
o r g a n i z e prot e s C s a g a i n s t the hair r e g u l a t i o n and o t h e r s c h o o l r u l e s .
Angry
p a r e n t s o bjec ted to Fred 's o p i n i o n s .
They phoned the p r i n c i p a l t e l l i n g him
t h a t t h e news paper w a s u n p a t r i o t l c and should not be p u b l i s h e d .
As a result
o f t h e r i sing e x c i t e m e n t , Che p r i n c i p a l o r d e r e d Fred Co sCop p u b l i s h i n g .
H e g a v e a 8 a r e a s o n that F r e d ' s a c t i v i t i e s w e r e d i s r u p t i v e to Che o p e r a t i o n
o f t h e s c hool
Should
the p r i n c i p a l
Should
stop
scop
it
the n e w s p a p e r ?
Can't
decide
(Check
one)
Should
not a t o p
it
IMPORTANCE;
Great
Much
Some
Little
No
1. Is Che p r i n c i p a l m o r e r e s p o n s i b l e Co
S C u d e n C s or Co Che p a r e n c s ?
~2~. Did Che p r i n c i p a l g i v e his word chac The
n e w s p a p e r could be p u b l i s h e d for a long
d o e , or did he Just p r o m i s e to a p p r o v e
the n e w s p a p e r one Issue at a time?
3. Would Che s c u d e n t s sCart p r o t e s t i n g even
more if Che p r i n c i p a l s C o p p e d Che n e w s p a p e r ?
~. When Che w e l f a r e of Che s c h o o l Ts"
C h r e a c e n e d , d o e s Che p r i n c i p a l have Che
right to g i v e o r d e r s to s t u d e n t s ?
~.Does
the p r i n c i p a l have the freedom of
speech to say " n o " In this c a s e ?
If the princ ipal s t o p p e d the n e w s p a p e r
would he be p r e v e n t i n g full d i s c u s s i o n of
Important pr o b l e m s ?
7. W h e t h e r the p r i n c i p a l ' s o r d e r would make
Fred 1 ose fa 1th In the p r i n c i p a l .
8. W h e t h e r Fred w a s r e a l l y loyal Fo his sc^hoo I
and p a t r i o t i c to his c o u n t r y
What e f f e c t w o u l d s t o p p i n g Che paper have*
on the s t u d e n t ' s e d u c a t i o n in c r i t i c a l
t h i n k i n g and J u d g m e n t s ?
10. W h e t h e r Fred was in any way v i o l a t i n g flie
r i g h t s of ot h e r s in p u b l i s h i n g his own
opinio ns.
11. W h e t h e r the p r i n c i p a l should be I n f l u e n c e d
by sone angry p a r e n t s when it Is Che
p r i n c i p a l chac k n o w s best what Is going on
In the s c h o o l .
12. W h e t h e r Fred w a s using the n e w s p a p e r to
stir up hatred and d i s c o n t e n t .
From
the list of q u e s t i o n s
a b o v e , select
the four m o s t
Host
Important:
Imporcanc
Second
Third
mosc
raosC
F o u r t h most
important
ImporCant
Important
APPENDIX D
SEXUAL PHILOSOPHY INVENTORY (FEMALE FORM)
119
120
Fill
Out
This
Questionnaire
Second
^ID #
First, please put your assigned ID# in the blank on the right
above.
This questionnaire concerns your dating and sexual history. Some
of the questions require you to circle or check the appropriate response,
On the others, please fill in the blanks.
Please answer ALL the questions. If you skip even one of the questions, I will be unable to use any of your answers. Please answer as
truthfully as you can. If at any time you feel uncomfortable, or do not
want to continue, you may withdraw without penalty. Return your materials to me; I will give you your bonus points, and you may leave.
Age:
2.
Classification (check one) : Fr
Soph
Jr
Sr
3.
Religion:
Please be specific; for example - Methodist, Church of Christ,
Pentecostal, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, etc. If you do not have
a religion, write N/A in the blank.
4.
On the average, how often do you attend or participate in spiritual
or religious activities? (check one)
Never, or less than once a month
1-4
times a month
once a week or more
5.
How often are you currently dating or going out with someone?
(check one)
do not date
less than once a week
once a week or more
121
6.
What is your present dating status? (check one)
^living with boyfriend
engage d
_steady relationship with one boy
_dating more than one boy
not dating
Have you had sexual intercourse with your current or more recent
boyfriend? (Check either "yes" or "no" below, then give the one
most important reason why you have or have not had intercourse
with your current or most recent boyfriend).
If your answer was "yes," write the answer to the second part in
your own words.
If your answer was "no," check the blank beside the reason that
is most important (or fill in your own reason) in your decision
to not have intercourse.
Yes, because
_No, because (Check one)
_I do not feel ready to have intercourse
It is against my religious beliefs
Fear of pregnancy
Fear of parental disapproval
I believe that intercourse before marriage is wrong
Have not met a boy I wanted to have intercourse with
Other, please specify_
122
Answer the next three questions using a 9-point scale of agreement/
disagreement. Place a check above the number that indicates how you
feel.
8.
Hardly any of my close friends have had sexual intercourse.
1
No
9.
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
Yes
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Yes
How many different boys have you dated in the last 12 months?
(check one)
None
12.
3
My close friends would be upset if I told them I was having
intercourse.
1
No
11.
9
Yes
My parents would be upset if I told them I was having intercourse,
1
No
10.
8
One
Two
Three
Four
5 or more
Please designate the behaviors in which you have participated by
filling in how old you were the first time you remember them
happening. If you have not participated in a particular behavior,
write N/A in the blank beside it.
French kissing
Boyfriend caressing your breasts with his hands
Boyfriend caressing your genitals with his hands
Boyfriend caressing your breasts with his mouth
Caressing boyfriend's genitals with your hands
Sexual intercourse with a boyfriend
Orally stimulating boyfriend's genitals
Boyfriend orally stimulating your genitals
123
13.
How many different intercourse partners have you had? (Check one
unless your answer is more than 10, then instead of checking,
please write the approximate number of different partners in the
blank.)
None
14.
2-5
6-10
More than 10
In general, how guilty do you feel about your sexual experiences:
1
2
Not at all
guilty
8
9
Very
Guilty
Please read each of the 6 statements that follow and decide which
one is most like you. Place a check mark in the blank beside the statement which most closely represents your thinking about sex.
If none of the statements really fits your thinking about sex, use
the space at the end to tell me how and where I missed the boat in
describing your ideas about sex. Please indicate if there is one philosophy that is almost, but not quite, correct for you. What, specifically,
made it difficult for you to choose the one statement that is most like
you? Use the space at the end to add anything you think would help me
better understand your sexual philosophy.
_1.
I haven't dated much, either in high school, or since I came
to college, and have never been seriously involved with a
boy. I haven't actually thought much about the kind of
relationship I want, but I have always been taught that sex
belongs in marriage. I have a very close relationship with
my parents, and I wouldn't want to do anything that would
hurt or disappoint them if they knew. Sometimes I feel
inferior that I am still a virgin at my age, but mostly I
think I am just not ready to take that step.
I have a firm belief that intercourse should be saved for
marriage. I don't feel guilty about making out with guys,
but I would never let myself go all the way. My family
and my church provide strong support for my belief that
virginity is a gift I bring to my husband. Love is not a
good enough reason—marriage gives sexual union its true
meaning. Sex before marriage may be okay for other people—
but I want to be a virgin on my wedding night.
124
3.
I believe that sex is something you lead up to in a
relationship. l think it is mainly a matter of finding the
right person. To me, it's morally acceptable, but I'm
afraid of getting pregnant. I would really need to feel a lot
of security in a relationship, because the ideas of commitment
and love are important to me. On one hand, I believe that sex
belongs m marriage, but when I think I'm in love, my standards
kind of get messed up. And yet, sometimes I think I am too
cautious about sex. I think I'll know when the right person
comes along.
4.
I believe that sex is an important part of a deep love relationship. When you are in love, you just naturally want to show
that love in every way you can, especially if you would like
for a relationship to develop into some future commitment, like
marriage. Making love is just a special way of communicating
with that special person in your life. Sex can strengthen a
relationship, but shouldn't be used just to keep two people
together.
^-
^ ^ o ^ that I view sex in a freer way than do many others. I'm
more interested in the quality of the relationship I'm, having
with a man than in whether or not it lasts forever. For me,
the relationship should be a good one, a meaningful one—but
not necessarily having anything to do with love—for intercourse
to be acceptable. I really enjoy sex, and most of the time, the
men I have had sex with have been good friends, but I wouldn't
call all of them steady boyfriends. Having sex with someone is
stimulating and fun. It just adds another dimension to a good
relationship.
^6.
I've had sexual intercourse with several different guys, and
I don't feel guilty about that. I'm not always looking for
"meaningful" sex—sometimes I just want the physical release.
I think one-night stands are okay, but not with anyone I
would ever consider marrying. I'm sure that someday I will
settle down with one special guy but I can't just sit around
and wait until then. But sometimes I d£ feel confused, and
wonder if I really understand the meaning of sex in my life.
What I really want is to have a lasting relationship with
someone, but so far, nothing has developed into anything
meaningful.
Please add YOUR ideas and comments (Use back of page, if necessary):
125
The last questionnaire you are to complete, the Inventory of
Sexual Decision Making Factors has two different forms—Foinm A and
Form B. In the envelope, find both forms of the questionnaire.
We are limiting our study to those instances of premarital intercourse in which both you and your partner had free will to choose to
participate or not participate, so please use that definition in
deciding which form to use.
If you have never engaged in sexual intercourse voluntarily,
use Form A.
If you have ever experienced sexual intercourse with someone you
wanted to do it with, use Form B.
Before you begin, please put the form you don't use back in the
envelope, and be sure to put your ID# on the form you use.
APPENDIX E
SEXUAL PHILOSOPHY INVENTORY (MALE FORM)
126
127
Fill
Out
This
Questionnaire
Second
^ID #
First, please put your assigned ID# in the blank on the right
above.
This questionnaire concerns your dating and sexual history. Some
of the questions require you to circle or check the appropriate response,
On the others, please fill in the blanks.
Please answer ALL the questions. If you skip even one of the questions, I will be unable to use any of your answers. Please answer as
truthfully as you can. If at any time you feel uncomfortable, or do
not want to continue, you may withdraw without penalty. Return your
materials to me; I will give you your bonus points, and you may leave.
1.
Age:
2.
Classification (check one) : Fr
3.
Religion
Please be specific; for example - Methodist, Church of Christ,
Pentecostal, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, etc. If you do not
have a religion, write N/A in the blank.
4.
On the average, how often do you attend or participate in spiritual
or religious activities? (check one)
Soph
Jr
Sr
Never, or less than once a month
1-4
times a month
once a week or more
5.
How often are you currently dating or going out with someone?
(check one)
^do not date
less than once a week
once a week or more
128
6.
What is your present dating status? (check one)
^living with girlfriend
^engaged
^steady relationship with one girl
_dating more than one girl
not dating
Have you had sexual intercourse with your current or most recent
girlfriend? (Check either "yes" or "no" below, then give the one
most important reason why you have or have not had intercourse
with your current or most recent girlfriend).
If your answer was "yes," write the answer to the second part in
your own words.
If your answer was "no," check the blank beside the reason that
is most important (or fill in your own reason) in your decision
to not have intercourse.
Yes, because
I do not feel ready to have intercourse
It is against my religious beliefs
Fear of pregnancy
Fear of parental disapproval
I believe that intercourse before marriage is wrong
Have not met a girl I wanted to have intercourse with
Other, please specify_
129
Answer the next three questions using a 9-point scale of agreement/
disagreement. Place a check above the number that indicates how you
feel.
8.
Hardly any of my close friends have had sexual intercourse.
1
^
^
4
b
6
7
8
N°
9.
My parents would be upset if I told them I was having intercourse,
1
No
10.
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
Yes
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Yes
How many different girls have you dated in the last 12 months?
(check one)
None
12.
3
My close friends would be upset if I told them I was having
intercourse.
1
No
11.
9
Yes
One
Two
Three
Four
5 or more
Please designate the behaviors in which you have participated by
filling in how old you were the first time you remember them
happening. If you have not participated in a particular behavior,
write N/A in the blank beside it.
French kissing
Caressing girlfriend's breasts with your hands
Caressing girlfriend's genitals with your hands
Caressing girlfriend's breasts with your mouth
Girlfriend caressing your genitals with her hands
Sexual intercourse with a girlfriend
Girlfriend orally stimulating your genitals
Orally stimulating girlfriend's genitals
130
13.
How many different intercourse partners have you had? (Check one
unless your answer is more than 10, then instead of checking,
please write the approximate number of different partners in the
blank.)
None
14.
1
2-5
6-10
More than 10
In general, how guilty do you feel about your sexual experiences?
1
2
Not at all
guilty
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Very
guilty
Please read each of the 6 statements that follow and decide which
one is most like you. Place a check mark in the blank beside the
statement which most closely represents your thinking about sex. Use
the space at the end to add anything you think would help me better
understand your sexual philosophy.
If none of the statements really fits your thinking about sex,
use the space at the end to tell me how and where I missed the boat in
describing your ideas about sex. Please indicate if there is one philosophy that is almost correct for you. What, specifically, made it
difficult for you to choose one statement that is most like you?
I haven't dated much, either in high school, or since I
came to college, and have never been seriously involved
with a girl. I haven't actually thought much about the kind
of relationship I want, but I have always been taught that
sex belongs in marriage. I have a very close relationship
with my parents, and I wouldn't want to do anything that
would hurt or disappoint them if they knew. Sometimes I
feel inferior that I am still a virgin at my age, but
mostly I think I am just not ready to take that step.
I have a firm belief that intercourse should be saved for
marriage. I don't feel guilty about making out with girls,
but I would never let myself go all the way. My family
and my church provide strong support for my belief that
virginity is a gift I bring to my wife. Love is not a
good enough reason—marriage gives sexual union its true
meaning. Sex before marriage may be okay for other
people—but I want to be a virgin on my wedding night.
131
_3.
I believe that sex is something you lead up to in a relationship. I think It IS mainly a matter of finding the right
person. To me, it's morally acceptable, but I'm afraid of
getting a girl pregnant. I would really need to feel a lot of
security m a relationship, because the ideas of commitment
and love are important to me. On one hand, I believe that sex
belongs in marriage, but when I think I'm in love, my standards
kind of get messed up. And yet, sometimes I think I am too
cautious about sex. I think I'll know when the right person
comes along.
4.
I believe that sex is an important part of a deep love relationship. When you are in love, you just naturally want to show
that love in every way you can, especially if you would like
for a relationship to develop into some future commitment, like
marriage. Making love is just a special way of communicating
with that special person in your life. Sex can strengthen a
relationship, but shouldn't be used just to keep two people
together.
5-
1 ^ o w that I view sex in a freer way than do many others. I'm
more interested in the quality of the relationship I'm having
with a girl than in whether or not it lasts forever. For me,
the relationship should be a good one, a meaningful one—but
not necessarily having anything to do with love—for intercourse
to be acceptable. I really enjoy sex, and most of the time, the
girls I have had sex with have been good friends, but I wouldn't
call all of them steady girlfriends. Having sex with someone is
stimulating and fun. It just adds another dimension to a good
relationship.
^6.
I've had sexual intercourse with several different girls, and
I don't feel guilty about that. I'm not always looking for
"meaningful" sex—sometimes I just want the physical release.
I think one-night stands are okay, but not with anyone I would
ever consider marrying. I'm sure that someday I will settle
down with one special girl but I can't just sit around and
wait until then. Sometimes I do^ feel confused, and wonder if
I really understand the meaning of sex in my life. What I
really want is to have a lasting relationship with someone,
but so far, nothing has developed into anything meaningful.
Please add YOUR ideas and comments (Use back of page, if necessary):
132
The last questionnaire you are to complete, the Inventory of
Sexual Decision Making Factors has two different forms—Foinn A and
Form B. In the envelope, find both forms of the questionnaire.
We are limiting our study to those instances of premarital intercourse in which both you and your partner had free will to choose to
participate or not participate, so please use that definition in
deciding which form to use.
If you have never engaged in sexual intercourse voluntarily,
use Form A.
If you have ever experienced sexual intercourse with someone you
wanted to do it with, use Form B.
Before you begin, please put the form you don't use back in the
envelope, and be sure to put your ID# on the form you use.
APPENDIX F
INVENTORY OF SEXUAL DECISION MAKING
FACTORS (FORM A)
133
134
Form A
ID#
Please put your ID# on the blank at top right.
The following questions are designed to investigate which factors
are important in a person's decision to have sexual intercourse. More
specifically, we would like to examine what factors you expect will be
important to you in your decision to have sexual intercourse for the
first time.
The 37 statements in this section are possible factors that may,
or may not, be important influences on your decision to have sexual
intercourse. Please consider each statement and rate it on how
important you think it will be in your decision. Place a check mark
in the blank over the number which reflects how important you think it
will be. A "1" indicates that you expect this to be not at all an
influence on your decision. A "7" indicates that you expect this will
be a very important influence on your decision to have intercourse.
1.
How much I like my partner.
1
2
Not at all
important
2.
5
6
7
Very
important
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
5
6
7
Very
important
5
6
7
Very
important
How much I love my partner.
1~
2
Not at all
important
4.
4
Moderately
important
How much my partner likes me.
"l~
2
Not at all
important
3.
4
3
4
Moderately
important
How much my partner loves me.
IT
~2~
Not at all
important
3
4
Moderately
important
135
5.
How much I've discussed the meaning of sexual intercourse with
my partner.
1
2
Not at all
important
6.
5
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
Very
important
How religious my partner is.
1
2
Not at all
important
10.
4
Moderately
important
How religious I am
1
2
Not at all
important
9.
Very
important
How many dates I'd had with this partner,
1
2
Not at all
important
8.
5
How much my partner has discussed the meaning of sexual intercourse with me.
1
2
Not at all
important
7.
4
Moderately
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
How aware I am of my partner's feelings
1
2
Not at all
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
136
11.
How aware my partner is of my feelings.
1
2
Not at all
important
12.
5
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
Very
important
Amount of physical arousal I feel during the date.
1
2
Not at all
important
16.
4
Moderately
important
How romantic the date is
1
2
Not at all
important
15.
Very
important
The degree of commitment between my partner and me.
1
2
Not at all
important
14.
5
The possibility that my partner and I may eventually get married.
1
2
Not at all
important
13.
4
Moderately
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
Amount of physical arousal my partner feels during the date
1
2
Not at all
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
137
17.
How receptive I am to my partner's sexual advances during the date.
1
2
Not at all
important
18.
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
How attractive my partner is.
1
2
Not at all
important
22.
Very
important
How aroused my partner is prior to the date; that is, how horny
my partner is.
1
2
Not at all
important
21.
5
How aroused I am prior to the date; that is, how horny I am.
1
2
Not at all
important
20-
4
Moderately
important
How receptive my partner is to my sexual advances during the date.
1
2
Not at all
important
19.
3
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
How attractive I am to my partner.
1
2
Not at all
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
138
23.
How obligated I feel to have intercourse with my partner.
1
2
Not at all
important
24.
5
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
imoortant
How many of my friends are engaging in sexual intercourse.
1
2
Not at all
important
28.
4
Moderately
important
How much I feel pressured by my partner for intercourse.
1
2
Not at all
important
27.
Very
important
How much I pressure my partner for intercourse.
1
2
Not at all
important
26.
5
How obligated my partner feels to have intercourse with me
1
2
Not at all
important
25.
4
Moderately
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
How many of my partner's friends are engaging in sexual intercourse.
1
2
Not at all
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
139
29.
The amount of preplanning I engage in prior to the date to
increase the chance of sexual intercourse occurring (for example,
special setting, availability of liquor, etc.).
1
2
Not at all
important
30.
6
7
Very
important
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
The amount of alcohol and/or other drugs my partner consumes
during the date.
~Y~
2
Not at all
important
33.
5
The amount of alcohol and/or other drugs I consume during the date.
1
2
Not at all
important
32.
4
Moderately
important
The amount of preplanning my partner engages in prior to the
date to increase the chances of sexual intercourse.
1
2
Not at all
important
31.
3
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
If the date marks a special event (such as the celebration of
a birthday, anniversary, graduation, etc.).
~~l~
"l"
Not at all
important
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
140
34.
If the opportunity for privacy presents itself.
1
2
3
Not at all
important
35.
"6"
^T
Very
important
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
5
~6~
1"
Very
important
My use of birth control.
1
2
3
Not at all
important
37.
-r
Availability of birth control,
1
2
Not at all
important
36.
4
Moderately
important
4
Moderately
important
~1~
Very
important
My partner's use of birth control.
1
2
Not at all
important
3
4
Moderatly
important
5
6
7
Very
important
le-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-klt
This completes your participation
Please be sure your ID# is on all three of the questionnaires you
filled out, then put all the materials back into the envelope, and
bring it to the front of the room. If you have questions, I will be
happy to answer them as best I can before you leave today, or you may
contact me by leaving a note in my mailbox in the Lobby of the
Psychology Building. I will get in touch with you as soon as possible
If you do not have questions, you may pick up your bonus points and
leave. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this
study.
APPENDIX G
INVENTORY OF SEXUAL DECISION MAKING
FACTORS (FORM B)
141
142
Form B
ID#
Please put your ID# in the blank at top right.
The following questions are designed to investigate which factors
are important in a person's decision to have sexual intercourse. More
specifically, we would like to examine what factors were important to
you in your decision to have sexual intercourse for the first time
with your most recent intercourse partner. This may be either the
person you're going with now, or if you're not currently involved,
your most recent partner.
The 37 statements in this section are possible factors that may,
or may not, have been important influences on your decision to have
sexual intercourse. Please consider each statement and rate it on how
important you think it was in your decision. Place a check mark
in the blank over the number which reflects how important you remember
it being. A "1" indicates that this was not at all an influence on
your decision. A "7" indicates that this was a very important
influence on your decision to have intercourse.
1.
How much I liked my partner.
1
2
Not at all
important
2.
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
5
6
7
How much my partner liked me.
T"
2
Not at all
important
3.
3
3
4
Moderately
important
Very
important
How much I loved my partner,
-J2
Not at all
important
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
143
4.
How much my partner loved me.
1
2
Not at all
important
5.
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
How much I had discussed the meaning of sexual intercourse with
my partner.
1
2
Not at all
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
How much my partner had discussed the meaning of sexual intercourse
with me.
1
2
Not at all
important
7.
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
How religious I was.
1
2
Not at all
important
9.
5
How many dates I'd had with this partner.
1
2
Not at all
important
8.
4
Moderately
important
Very
important
How religious my partner was
1
2
Not at all
important
4
Moderately
important
5
7
Very
important
144
10.
How aware I was of my partner's feelings.
1
2
Not at all
important
11.
5
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
How romantic the date was.
1
2
Not at all
important
15.
4
Moderately
important
The degree of commitment between my partner and me
1
2
Not at all
important
14.
Very
important
The possibility that my partner and I might eventually get married.
1
2
Not at all
important
13.
5
How aware my partner was of my feelings
1
2
Not at all
important
12.
4
Moderately
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
Amount of physical arousal I felt during the date
1
2
Not at all
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
145
16.
Amo\ant of physical arousal my partner felt during the date.
1
2
Not at all
important
17.
7
Very
important
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
How aroused my partner was prior to the date; that is, how horny
my partner was.
-]—
"2~
Not at all
important
21.
6
How aroused I was prior to the date; that is, how horny I was.
1
2
Not at all
important
20.
5
How receptive my partner was to my sexual advances during the date.
1
2
Not at all
important
19.
4
Moderately
important
How receptive I was to my partner's sexual advances during the
date.
1
2
Not at all
important
18.
3
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
5
6
7
How attractive my partner was
-J-
-Y~
Not at all
important
3
4
Moderately
important
Very
important
146
22.
How attractive I was to my partner.
1
2
Not at all
important
23
5
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
How much I felt pressured by my partner for intercourse.
1
2
Not at all
important
27.
4
Moderately
important
How much I pressured my partner for intercourse
1
2
Not at all
important
26.
Very
important
How obligated my partner felt to have intercourse with me.
1
2
Not at all
important
25.
5
How obligated I felt to have intercourse with my partner.
1
2
Not at all
important
24.
4
Moderately
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
How many of my friends were engaging in sexual intercourse.
1
2
Not at all
important
4
Moderately
important
5
Very
important
147
28.
How many of my partner's friends were engaging in sexual
intercourse.
1
2
Not at all
important
29.
6
7
Very
important
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
The amount of alcohol and/or other drugs I consumed during the
date.
1~
2
Not at all
important
32.
5
The amount of preplanning my partner engaged in prior to the date
to increase the chances of sexual intercourse.
~r~
2
Not at all
important
31.
4
Moderately
important
The amount of preplanning I engaged in prior to the date to
increase the chance of sexual intercourse occurring (for example,
special setting, availability of liquor, etc.).
1
2
Not at all
important
30.
3
3
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
The amount of alcohol and/or other drugs my partner consumed
during the date.
1
2
Not at all
important
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
148
33.
If the date marked a special event (such as the celebration of a
birthday, anniversary, graduation, etc.).
1
2
Not at all
important
34.
Very
important
3
5
'~e~
~T~
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
"6~
T"
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
5
6
7
Very
important
5
6
7
Very
important
4
Moderately
important
3
My use of birth control.
1
2
Not at all
important
37.
—
Availability of birth control.
1
2
Not at all
important
36.
4
—
Moderately
important
If the opportunity for privacy presented itself.
1
2
Not at all
important
35.
3
3
My partner's use of birth control.
1
2
Not at all
important
3
4
Moderately
important
*************
This completes your participation
Please:be sure that your ID# is on all three questionnaires you filled
out, then put all the materials back into the envelope, and bring it
to the front of the room. If you have questions, I will be happy to
answer them as best I can before you leave today, or you may contact
me by leaving a note in my mailbox in the Lobby of the Psychology
Building. I will get in touch with you as soon as possible. If you
do not have questions, you may pick up your bonus points and leave.
Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this study.