Impact of personal and organizational religiosity on college student sexual behavior.
|Abstract:||Associations between religiosity and sexual attitudes and behaviors among college students have been documented. The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which personal religiosity and organizational religiosity were predictive of sexual behaviors. Data were collected at a southeastern university using a self-report questionnaire. Results for females indicated the set of predictors was statistically significant for seven of the eight sexual behaviors (all except for anal intercourse in the last month). Results for males were not statistically significant. Understanding how personal religiosity and religious organizations influence sexual behavior may be of value in developing health promotion programs.|
Sex (Religious aspects)
College students (Surveys)
College students (Sexual behavior)
Penhollow, Tina M.
|Publication:||Name: American Journal of Health Studies Publisher: American Journal of Health Studies Audience: Professional Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Health Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 American Journal of Health Studies ISSN: 1090-0500|
|Issue:||Date: Wntr, 2012 Source Volume: 27 Source Issue: 1|
|Topic:||Event Code: 290 Public affairs Canadian Subject Form: Sexual behaviour; Sexual behaviour|
|Product:||Product Code: E197500 Students, College|
|Geographic:||Geographic Scope: Zambia Geographic Code: 6ZAMB Zambia|
Centuries of religious tradition often determine the cultural norms and sexual behaviors of a society. While sexual decisions are based on personal choices, these choices are impacted by a multitude of enivronmental social influences (Helm, McBride, Knox, & Zusman, 2009). Religiosity is one of these influences which plays a major role in an individual's sexual decision-making (Penhollow, Young, & Denny, 2005). Past research has found that religiosity is an important factor in influencing the sexual attitudes and behaviors of college students (i.e. Agha, Hutchinson, & Kusanthan, 2006; Fehring, Cheever, German, & Philpot, 1998; Fox & Young, 1989; Penhollow, Young, & Bailey, 2007; Pluhar, Frongillo, Stycos, & Dempster McCain, 1998; Rowatt & Schmitt, 2003). In these various studies religiosity has been measured in assorted ways, sometimes using a single item dealing with religious affiliation and at other times using lengthy, multidimensional scales.
For example, Agha and co-workers (2006) examined the relationship of a single item measure of religious affiliation on sexual initiation and condom use at first sexual intercourse in a sample of young women in Zambia. An example of a more complex, multi-item scale was the abbreviated version of the Faulker and DeJong five dimensional religiosity scale (based on work by Glock, 1962 and Glock & Stark, 1966) used by Young and co-workers (1998) in their study of sexual satisfaction in marriage. Additionally, Rowatt and Schmitt (2003) used Allport and Ross's (1967) intrinsic-extrinsic model of religiosity to examine the relationship of religiosity to restricted/unrestricted sexuality and found that intrinsic religious orientation was positively associated with more restricted sexuality and sexual desire. Ahrold and Meston (2010) found that intrinsic religiosity was the most significant predictor of conservative sexual attitudes among college females. The majority of studies, however, that have examined the relationship between religiosity and sexual health have used measures such as religious affiliation or worship attendance, rather than a more comprehensive measure (Young, 2011).
Religiosity variables might also be considered relative to the individual's relationship with a religious organization. Membership, or religious affiliation, is one aspect of that relationship. More than simple membership, however, is the degree to which the organization influences the individual's values and behavior. A third factor to be considered is the interpretation the individual places on the position or teaching of the organization. Thus, an individual who is a member of a religious organization, whose values and behaviors are greatly influenced by the organization, and who believes the organization proscribes certain behaviors, may be much less likely to participate in such behaviors than non-members, members who are not particularly influenced by the organization, or members who differently interpret the organization's teaching. In this study we introduced a measure of organizational religiosity, which attempted to describe the relationship of the individual to his/her religious organization and its teaching concerning sexual behavior.
Religiosity also involves an individual's feelings, doctrinal beliefs and behavior. For example, this might include the individual's view of him/herself as a religious person, feelings of a close/personal relationship with God, belief in eternal life, as well as individual religious attendance. Measures such as these have sometimes been used in previous studies (Penhollow et al., 2005; 2007; Young, Hubbard, & Fox, 1992). For this study we combined these items in a single measure of personal religiosity. Additionally, we were interested in the interaction between organizational and personal religiosity.
Religiosity may play a role in reducing sexual risk behaviors, however, religiosity may not impact all sexual behaviors in the same way (Manlove, Logan, & Ikramullah, 2008). For example, religious organizations generally prohibit permissiveness, premarital sexual intercourse, and adultery, but may be unclear regarding other forms of sexual behavior. Additionally, most research that has examined the relationship between religiosity and sexual behavior, has included measures of sexual behavior that focus on participation in sexual intercourse (e.g. Davidson, Moore, & Ullstrup, 2004; Haglund & Fehring, 2010; Simons, Burt, & Peterson, 2009; Stulhofer, Damir, Nika, Valerio, & Ivan, 2011), but has rarely examined other sexual behaviors.
Exceptions to this include work by Penhollow, Young, and Denny (2005) who demonstrated that for both female and male college students those who reported less frequent worship attendance and weaker religious feelings were more likely to report participating in a variety of sexual behaviors. For females, those who attended worship services less frequently were more likely to report participation in sexual intercourse (ever, in the last year, and in the last month), giving oral sex ever (and in the last month), receiving oral sex ever (and in the last month), and anal intercourse ever compared to those who attended worship services more frequently. For seven behaviors (all except for receiving oral sex in last month), females who indicated stronger religious feelings were less likely to report participation in the behaviors than those indicating less religious feelings. For males, three of the eight sexual behavior variables (participation in sexual intercourse in the last year, giving oral sex ever, and receiving oral sex in the last month) were associated with lower levels of worship attendance. For two behaviors (participation in sexual intercourse in the last year and receiving oral sex in the last month), males who indicated stronger religious feelings were less likely to report participation in the behaviors than those indicating less religious feelings. More recently, Penhollow, Young, and Bailey (2007) found that for both male and female college students religiosity made a difference in whether or not they had hooked-up and whether or not they had engaged in sexual intercourse during a hook-up. For both males and females religious attendance and religious feelings predicted hooking up (ever) and frequency with which hook-ups included sexual intercourse.
Empirical evidence has demonstrated that strength of religious conviction and participation in religious activities may be more important than religious denomination or affiliation in predicting whether or not an individual has non-marital sex (Brewster, Cooksey, Guilkey, & Rindfuss, 1998). Regardless of religious affiliation, those who consider themselves to be more religious have a more conservative view regarding premarital sexual intercourse and are less likely to have experienced sexual intercourse (Helm et al., 2009). For example, across 52 cultures, Rowatt and Schmitt (2003) indicated self-reported religiosity was positively correlated with self-described sexual restraint among men and women. Other research has found higher degrees of religiosity were associated with negative attitudes toward nonprocreative sexual activities, greater sex guilt (Fox & Young, 1989; Runkel, 1998; Young, Hubbard, & Fox, 1992), less likelihood of engaging in sexual intercourse, fewer sexual partners (Davidson et al., 2004; Laumann, Gagnon, Micheal, & Michaels, 1994), delaying oral sex (Vazsonyi & Jenkins, 2010), as well as higher degree of marital expectations (Ellison, Burdette, & Glenn, 2010).
It is important to spend effort understanding variables, such as religiosity, which have an influence on premarital sexual activity among college students, as this population is more likely to engage in a number of behaviors that place them at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unintended pregnancy (Ratliff-Crain, Kelli, & Dalton, 1999). According to the CDC (2010), individuals are more likely to be sexually active during emerging adulthood compared to high school, but they are also less likely to use condoms. A study by Reinisch, Hill, Sanders, and Ziemba-Davis (1995) revealed that college students participate in comparatively higher levels of risky behaviors, including unprotected sexual intercourse with casual partners. Understanding how religiosity impacts sexual behavior may provide an important tool for campus ministries, student health centers, health educators, and other faculty who teach coursework dealing with sexuality issues to encourage students to reduce sexual health risk behaviors.
The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the relationship of religiosity to sexual behavior among college students. This study attempted to extend past research by including measures of individual religiosity, but also placing them within the context of the individual and his/her relationship with organizational religion. Understanding how individual religiosity and religious organizations together and separately influence sexual behavior may be of value in developing effective programs aimed at reducing sexual risk-taking among young adults. The researchers hypothesized that personal and organizational religiosity would distinguish between those who had and those who had not participated in selected sexual behaviors for both females and males.
Data were collected from a convenience sample of undergraduate students enrolled in several different introductory health and wellness courses at a large public southeastern university. These classes were used for the study because they attract a cross-section of male and female college students from diverse majors and year in college. Students voluntarily completed a questionnaire during normally scheduled class times in their regular classroom setting. Participants included in the data analyses were single and less than 26 years of age. Participation rate was approximately 95%. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was granted prior to the implementation of the study.
The testing instrument was a questionnaire that included religiosity items, items dealing with the influence of religious organization on personal values and behavior, and items dealing with sexual behavior. As noted by previous researchers (Anastasi & Urbana, 1997; Dollinger & Malmquist, 2009), from a psychometric standpoint, multiple-item measures have several advantages over single items. Multiple-item scales provide the data needed to compute internal consistency and allow the researcher to sample a broader range of content to address the full range of a construct. Thus, religiosity items were organized into two scales, one dealing with personal religiosity and the other dealing with organizational religiosity.
For the purpose of this study, students were asked about their participation (yes or no) in the following sexual behaviors: 1) sexual intercourse ever, 2) sexual intercourse in the last month, 3) giving oral sex ever, 4) giving oral sex in the last month, 5) receiving oral sex ever, 6) receiving oral sex in the last month, 7) anal intercourse ever, and 8) anal intercourse in the last month. The first six items are commonly used in studies regarding sexual behavior, and a limited number of studies have examined participation in anal sex (Flannery, Ellingson, Votaw, & Schaefer, 2003; Penhollow et al., 2005).
The questionnaire included the following personal religiosity variables: 1) Frequency of attendance at worship services (ritualistic dimension); five categories ranging from "never" to "more than once per week" 2) Degree of religious feelings (experiential dimension); five categories ranging from "deeply religious" to "not at all religious." Belief in a relationship with God and life after death were also addressed: 3) I feel that I have a very close and personal relationship with God (experiential dimension); five categories ranging from "I feel this way almost all of the time" to "I have never felt this way", 4) I know that when I die that I will have eternal life in a place that some people call heaven (ideological dimension); five categories ranging from "I feel this way almost all of the time" to "I have never felt this way." Participants' personal religiosity score was the sum of the scores on these for religiosity items. Items such as these have been frequently used in the literature. They address what Glock and Stark (1966) and Faulkner and DeJong (1965) called the experiential, ideological, and ritualistic dimensions of religiosity.
Organizational religiosity was explored using the following three items: 1) I am a member of a church or religious organization (ritualistic dimension); (yes/no), 2) This church or religious organization greatly influences my values and behavior (ideological dimension); five categories ranging from "strongly agree" to "not a member", and 3) My perception of the message this organization gives its members about sexual behavior is--response options for this question were: "a person should not engage in sex outside of marriage", "a person should not engage in sex outside of a committed relationship", "a person may engage in sex even if they are not in a committed relationship", "engaging in sex outside of a committed relationship is the expected norm", and "I don't believe that this organization gives its members messages about sexual behavior" (ideological dimension). This item was scored as "yes" if the student indicated "a person should not engage in sex outside of marriage." Otherwise this variable was scored "no." Organizational religiosity was scored "1" "0" or "-1"; "1" if the student indicated that he/she (a) was a member of a church or religious organization, (b) strongly agreed or agreed that the organization greatly influences their values and behavior, and (c) indicated the message that the organization gives its members about sexual behavior was a person should not engage in sex outside of marriage; otherwise this variable was scored "0" (the organizational message to its members about sexual behavior did not matter). This variable was scored "-1" if the organizational message to its members about sexual behavior was that sex outside of marriage is okay. Religious organizational influence was computed and then standardized to a z score, which was the variable entered into the logistic regressions for the various sexual behaviors.
Researchers utilized SPSS programs to complete the data analysis. Data were analyzed using frequency counts, confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha, and logistic regression. Data for males and females were analyzed separately. The level of significance was set at p < .05.
DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS
The total sample consisted of (N = 584) participants with 34% male and 66% female. The percentage of women in our sample is greater than the percentage of women in the university population. The majority of the participants were White (86%), which was representative of the overall college population. Blacks accounted for 9%, and the remaining 5% included Asian, American Indian/Pacific Islander, and other ethnicities.
FREQUENCY/PERCENTAGES OF BEHAVIORS
The clear majority of students reported participation (ever) in sexual intercourse (72%), giving oral sex (71%), and receiving oral sex (78%), with a smaller number of students reporting participation in anal intercourse (15%). A greater percentage of males, as compared to females, reported sexual intercourse ever (78% vs. 67%), giving oral sex ever (73% vs. 67%), receiving oral sex ever (84% vs. 72%), and anal sex ever (18% vs. 14%). Table 1 illustrates frequencies of sexual behaviors by gender.
FREQUENCY/PERCENTAGES OF RELIGIOSITY VARIABLES
The majority of females (83%) and males (72%) reported they were a member of a church or religious organization. The majority of the females strongly agreed (39%) or agreed (41%) that their church or religious organization influences their values and behavior. Likewise, the majority of males strongly agreed (33%) or agreed (35%) that their church or religious organization influences their values and behavior. A preponderance of the females (88%) and males (78%) reported that their perception of the message the organization gives its members relative to sexual behavior is that a person should not engage in sex outside of marriage.
A great percentage of females considered themselves to be religious (47%) or deeply religious (16%). This compared to less than half of the males (39% religious, 8% deeply religious). Less than one fourth of the females (20%) and the males (18%) reported attending worship services at least once per week. Nearly one third of the females (32%) and the males (31%) reported they have a very close and personal relationship with God almost all of the time. Less than half of the females (41%) and just under one third of the males (30%) indicated they have a very close and personal relationship with God a good part of the time. The majority of both females (62%) and males (56%) reported that when they die they will have eternal life in a place that some people call heaven and feel this way almost all of the time. Table 2 illustrates frequencies of religiosity variables by gender.
Confirmatory principal components factor analysis using varimax rotation was conducted for variables measuring personal religiosity. Factor analysis confirmed the existence of a single personal religiosity factor, which represented three of Glock's five dimensions of religiosity. Components of the personal religiosity factor included: religious feelings (factor loading = .852), have a close and personal relationship with God (factor loading = .844), know will have eternal life in heaven (factor loading = .799), and religious attendance (factor loading = .697). All items loaded > .60, indicating all items loaded heavily on this single factor. Internal consistency was found to be adequate for the scale (Cronbach's alpha = .811).
Logistic regression was conducted to determine whether a set of three predictor variables: personal religiosity, organizational religiosity, and the interaction between these two variables was predictive of each of the eight sexual behaviors. Separate analyses were conducted for females and males.
Logistic regression indicated that for females the three religiosity variables, as a set, did distinguish between those who had and who had not ever participated in sexual intercourse (R2 = .143, % concordant = 72.4, p < .0001), sexual intercourse in the last month (R2 = .109, % concordant = 60.0, p < .0001), giving oral sex ever (R2 = .076, % concordant = 70.5, p < .01), giving oral sex in the last month (R2 = .037, % concordant = 62.8, p < .05), receiving oral sex ever (R2 = .106, % concordant = 74.3, p < .0001), receiving oral sex in the last month (R2 = .040, % concordant = 63.5, p < .05), and participation in anal intercourse ever (R2 = .070, % concordant = 85.8, p < .01). Personal religiosity made a unique contribution to distinguishing between participants and non-participants for sexual intercourse ever (95% CI = 1.43-2.96, p < .01), sexual intercourse in the last month (95% CI = 1.25-2.36, p < .01), giving oral sex ever (95% CI = 1.19-2.35, p < .01), giving oral sex in the last month (95% CI = 1.01-1.87, p < .05), receiving oral sex ever (95% CI = 1.44-3.17, p < .01), receiving oral sex in the last month (95% CI = 1.03-1.91, p < .05), and anal intercourse ever (95% CI = 1.13-2.67, p < .05). The interaction of personal and organizational religiosity made a unique contribution in two of the eight analyses: sexual intercourse ever (95% CI = 1.17-2.67, p < .01) and sexual intercourse in the last month (95% CI = 1.17-2.33, p < .01). Whenever religiosity is a significant predictor, more religious individuals were less likely to have participated in the sexual behavior. Organizational religiosity did not make a unique contribution toward distinguishing between participants and non-participants for any of the eight behaviors. The amount of variation for which the religiosity variables accounted was relatively small ranging from R2 = .037 (giving oral sex in the last month) to R2 = .143 (sexual intercourse ever). Percent concordant values ranged from 60% (sexual intercourse last month) to 86% (anal intercourse ever).
Logistic regression indicated that for males the three religiosity variables, as a set, did not distinguish between those who had and who had not ever participated in any of the eight sexual behaviors. Neither personal religiosity nor organizational religiosity made a unique contribution to distinguishing between participants and non-participants for any of the sexual behaviors for males. Table 3 illustrates logistic regression analyses for sexual behaviors by gender.
The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the relationship of religiosity to sexual behavior among college students. The study included measures of individual religiosity, but also placed them within the context of the individual and his/ her relationship with organizational religion. Results showed that for females a set of religiosity variables distinguished between participants and non-participants for seven of the eight sexual behaviors examined (all behaviors except for anal intercourse in the last month). Personal religiosity made a unique contribution to explaining the variation between participants and non-participants for seven of the eight behaviors (all behaviors except for anal intercourse in the last month). Organizational religiosity by itself did not significantly predict any sexual behaviors in any of the analyses. Interaction of personal and organizational religiosity did make a unique contribution for two behaviors (sexual intercourse ever and sexual intercourse in the last month). The direction of the interaction indicates that level of religiosity makes more of a difference if the church message matters and the message is no sexual intercourse outside of marriage.
Results for males revealed that the set of personal and organizational religiosity variables did not predict any of the eight sexual behavior variables. Thus, the hypothesis that personal and organizational religiosity would distinguish between those who had participated in selected sexual behaviors and those who had not engaged in selected sexual activities for both females and males was only partially supported, as this was only the case for females. The sample size for males was smaller than for females, making it more difficult to find significance. However, the odds ratios were also weaker for males, and odds ratios are independent of sample size.
Religiosity predictors of sexual activity reported in the literature are consistent with the present investigation. The personal religiosity factor, which made a unique contribution to distinguishing between those who did and those who did not participate in a number of selected sexual behaviors, included individual items which are representative of the experimental, ideological, and ritualistic dimensions of religiosity. Individual items measuring personal religiosity included: frequency of religious attendance (ritualistic dimension), religious feelings (experimental dimension), having a close and personal relationship with God (experimental dimension), and knowing whether or not one is going to have eternal life in heaven when they die (ideological dimension). Comparable with the present findings, both the ritualistic dimension (religious attendance) and the experiential dimension (religious feelings) of religiosity have been utilized and identified as main predictors of sexual behaviors among college students (Fox & Young, 1989; Penhollow et al., 2005; 2007; Rowatt & Schmitt, 2003; Young et al., 1992). Although these variables have not commonly been examined in previous research, the religiosity factor in the present study also included items representing the experimental dimension of religiosity (having a close and personal relationship with God) and the ideological dimension (knowing whether or not they will have eternal life in heaven when they die).
A number of previous studies have solely examined females in their investigations of religiosity and sexual behavior (Ahrold & Meston, 2010; Brewster et al., 1998; Burdette et al., 2009; Davidson et al., 2004; Ellison et al., 2010; Flannery et al., 2003). These researchers may have delimited their work to females because it seems that religious influence may often be sex-specific, with sexuality of young women being more susceptible to religious norms than that of their male counterparts. For example, Stulhofer and colleagues (2011) reported that among first year undergraduates, religiousness was negatively correlated with basic knowledge of human sexuality as well as decreased odds of sexual debut, but only among female participants. Simons and colleagues (2009) revealed females were significantly more likely than males to state that religion played a very strong role in their daily lives. Moreover, substantial sex differences emerged regarding feelings about their first sexual intercourse, with males having significantly more positive feelings than females.
In accord with a number of these recent investigations (e.g. Penhollow et al., 2005; Simons et al., 2009; Stulhofer et al., 2011; Young et al., 1992), overall results of the present study indicated that selective measures of religiosity appear to have a greater predictive impact on sexual behaviors for females, as compared to males. Our findings indicate that females attempt to operate in a manner consistent with their sexual values and mores, whereas this appears to be less the case for males. It is a possibility that females have a greater susceptibility to sociocultural influences regarding their sexual attitudes and behaviors. Perhaps the double standard within our society relative to the sexual behaviors of males and females gives males the freedom to take advantage of sexual opportunities regardless of their religious beliefs. Overall results indicate that religiosity does not seem to substantially reduce STI related risk-taking behavior among the male participants.
Interpretation of these results should take the limitations of the study into account. Participants consisted of a convenience sample of undergraduate college students enrolled in health education classes at one university. The percentage of females in the sample is greater than the percentage of females in the university population; thus, the sample may not be representative of the university as a whole. Additionally, the study instrument consisted of a self-report questionnaire. There is a possibility of response bias due to false or socially desirable responses. A cross-sectional research design was employed, indicating that correlates of behavior were assessed rather than antecedents of behavior. Moreover, the constructs of religiosity (personal and organizational) may include dimensions of religiosity not addressed in the present investigation. Finally, the current study involved a college sample, comprised largely of Non-Hispanic Whites. Thus, these results might not apply to non-college populations, or other racial/ethnic groups.
Future researchers should consider addressing some of the limitations identified in the study. First, the construct of religiosity, or the individual factors which constitute both personal and organizational religiosity, requires further examination. In addition, researchers should consider including other racial/ ethnic groups, as well as participants with different sexual orientations (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgendered (GLBT) couples) in investigations involving religiosity and sexual behavior. Lastly, longitudinal investigations examining a multitude of religiosity factors and change in sexual behaviors over time may prove beneficial into further understanding the impact of religiosity on sexual behaviors.
Overall findings provide insight concerning dimensions of personal and organizational religiosity and their impact on selected sexual behaviors among college students. These results add to the growing body of literature on the role of religion and sexual decision-making in the lives of young adults. Examining both individual and organizational influence relative to religiosity does appear to have an impact on sexual activities of college students, particularly among females. Including multidimensional measures of religiosity are theoretically important to include in future scientific research concerning sexual health behaviors and sexual decision-making among young adults (Rowatt & Schmitt, 2003).
Engaging in sexual intercourse and/or other sexual behaviors is a normative developmental event among adolescents and young adults. There also exists a number of health risks associated with participating in sexual activities, particularly unprotected sex. Consequently, there is a need to further explore the complexities associated with religiosity and sexual behavior, because these activities place young adults at risk for STIs and unintended pregnancy. Comprehensive sexuality education is needed among youth to provide them with the tools to protect themselves and/or even postpone sexual activities, which provides greater protection from these potential negative consequences. Overall results of the present study should be considered by college level health and sexuality educators, campus ministries, student health centers, and other faculty who teach and implement programs to promote safer sex and reduce sexual health risk behaviors among young adults.
Agha, S., Hutchinson, P., & Kusanthan, T. (2006). The effects of religious affiliation on sexual initiation and condom use in Zambia. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 550-555.
Ahrold, T. K., & Meston, C. M. (2010). Ethnic differences in sexual attitudes of U.S. college students: gender, acculturation, and religiosity factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 190-202.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
Anastasi, A., & Urbana, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Preentice Hall.
Brewster, K., Cooksey, E., Guilkey, D., & Rindfuss, R. (1998). The changing impact of religion on the sexual and contraceptive behavior of adolescent women in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 493-504.
Burdette, A., Ellison, C., Hill, T., & Glenn, N. (2009). "Hooking up" at college: Does religion make a difference? Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 535-551.
Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention. (2010). Health: United States. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
Davidson, J., Moore, N., & Ullstrup, K. (2004). Religiosity and sexual responsibility: Relationships of choice. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28, 335-346.
Dollinger, S., & Malmquist, D. (2009). Reliability and validity of single-item self-reports: With special relavance to college students' alcohol use, religiosity, study, and social life. Journal of General Psychology, 136, 231-241.
Ellison, C., Burdette, A., & Glenn, N. (2010). Praying for Mr. Right? Religion family background, and marital expectations among college women. Journal of Family Issues, 1-26.
Faulkner, J. E., & DeJong, G. F. (1965). Religiosity in five dimensions: An empirical analysis. Social Forces, 45, 246-254.
Fehring, R. J., Cheever, K. H., German, K., & Philpot, C. (1998). Religiosity and sexual activity among older adolescents. Journal of Religion and Health, 37, 229-247.
Flannery, D., Ellingson, L., Votaw, K. S., & Schaefer, E. A. (2003). Anal intercourse and sexual risk factors among college women, 1993-2000. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, 228-234.
Fox, E., & Young, M. (1989). Religiosity, sex guilt, and sexual behavior among college students. Health Values, 13, 32-37.
Glock, C. (1962). On the study of religious commitment. Religious Education, 57, S98-110.
Glock, C., & Stark, R. (1966). Christian beliefs and anti-Semitism. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Haglund, K., & Fehring, R. (2010). The association of religiosity, sexuality education, and parental factors with risky sexual behaviors among adolescents and young adults. Journal of Religion and Health, 49, 460-472.
Helm, H., McBride, D., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. (2009). The influence of a conservative religion on premarital sexual behavior of university students. North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 231-245.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Micheal, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Manlove, J., Logan, C., & Ikramullah, E. (2008). Pathways from family relgiosity to adolescent sexual activity and contraceptive use. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 40, 105-117.
Penhollow, T., Young, M., & Bailey, W. (2007). Relationship between religiosity and "hooking-up" behavior. American Journal of Health Education, 38, 338-345.
Penhollow, T., Young, M., & Denny, G. (2005). Impact of religiosity on the sexual behaviors of college students. American Journal of Health Education, 36, 75-83.
Pluhar, E., Frongillo, E., Stycos, J., & Dempster-McCain, D. (1998). Understanding the relationship between religion and the sexual attitudes and behaviors of college students. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 23, 288-296.
Ratliff-Crain, J., Kelli, D., & Dalton, J. (1999). Knowledge, beliefs, peer norms, and past behaviors as correlates of risky sexual behaviors among college students. Psychological Health, 14, 625-641.
Reinisch, J. M., Hill, C. A., Sanders, S. A., & Ziemba-Davis, M. (1995). High-risk sexual behavior at a midwestern university: A confirmatory survey. Family Planning Perspectives, 27, 79-82.
Rowatt, W., & Schmitt, D. (2003). Associations between religious orientation and varieties of sexual experience. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 43, 455-465.
Runkel, G. (1998). Sexual morality of Christianity. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 24, 103-122.
Simons, L., Burt, C., & Peterson, F. (2009). The effect of religion on risky sexual behavior among college students. Deviant Behavior, 30, 467-485.
Stulhofer, A., Damir, S., Nika, J., Valerio, B., & Ivan, L. (2011). Religiosity and sexual risk behavior among Croatian college students, 1998-2008. The Journal of Sex Research, 48, 360-371.
Vazsonyi, A. T., & Jenkins, D. (2010). Religiosity, self-control, and virginity status in college students from the "bible belt": A research note. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 49, 561-568.
Young, M. (2011). Religiosity and health behavior--what does the research tell us? The Research Consortium Scholar Lecture. American Journal of Health Education, 42, 4-11.
Young, M., Denny, G., Luquis, R., & Young, T. (1998). Correlation of sexual satisfaction in marriage. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 7, 115-127.
Young, M., Hubbard, B., & Fox, E. (1992). The relationship of religious literalism and other religiosity variables to sex guilt and sexual behavior. Wellness Perspectives, 8, 36-49.
Tina M. Penhollow, PhD, MCHES, Assistant Professor, Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, FH11-25B, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561.297.2643, Email: email@example.com. Michael Young, PhD, FAAHB, FSSSS, Professor, Interim Associate Dean for Research, College of Health and Social Services, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88011, Phone: 575.646.7475, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org. George Denny, PhD, Professor, Educational Statistics & Research Methods, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, Phone: 479.575.7320, Email: gdenny@ uark.edu
Table 1 Frequency Counts of Sexual Behavior Variables Females Males n % n % Sexual Intercourse (Ever) Yes 196 67% 117 78% No 96 33% 34 22% Sexual Intercourse (Last Month) Yes 140 48% 68 45% No 152 52% 82 55% Giving Oral Sex (Ever) Yes 195 67% 110 73% No 95 33% 41 27% Giving Oral Sex (Last Month) Yes 103 35% 42 28% No 187 65% 108 72% Receiving Oral Sex (Ever) Yes 209 72% 128 84% No 81 28% 24 16% Receiving Oral Sex (Last Month) Yes 104 36% 66 44% No 186 64% 85 56% Anal Sexual Intercourse (Ever) Yes 41 14% 27 18% No 250 86% 124 82% Anal Sexual Intercourse (Last Month) Yes 14 5% 3 2% No 276 95% 147 98% Table 2 Frequency Counts of Religiosity Variables Females Males n % n % Member of a Church or Religious Organization Yes 241 83% 109 73% No 47 17% 40 27% Organization Influences Values & Behavior Strongly Agree 113 39% 49 33% Agree 119 40% 53 35% Disagree 11 3% 12 8% Strongly Disagree 2 1% 2 1% Not a Member 47 17% 34 23% Message Organization Gives about Sexual Behavior No sex outside of marriage 252 88% 116 78% No sex outside of a committed 16 5% 12 8% relationship May engage in sex outside of 2 1% 4 3% a relationship Sex outside of a relationship 1 1% 1 1% is the norm Organization gives no message 16 5% 15 10% Religious Feelings Not at all religious 3 1% 7 5% Not very religious 8 3% 14 9% Neither religious nor 8 3% 3 2% non-religious Somewhat religious 89 30% 57 38% Religious 137 47% 59 39% Deeply religious 47 16% 12 7% Religious Attendance Never 10 3% 11 7% One or two times per year 45 15% 32 21% Once per month 87 30% 52 34% Two or three times per month 57 20% 16 11% Once per week 57 20% 28 18% More than once per week 35 12% 13 9% Have a Close/Personal Relationship with God Almost all of the time 92 32% 45 31% Good part of the time 119 41% 44 30% Some of the time 62 21% 32 22% Rarely 13 5% 16 11% Never 3 1% 9 6% I Know When I Die I Will Have Eternal Life in Heaven Almost all of the time 175 62% 81 57% Good part of the time 70 25% 25 17% Some of the time 26 9% 22 15% Rarely 9 3% 9 6% Never 4 1% 7 5% Table 3 Logistic Regression Analyses for Sexual Behaviors Odds Ratios [95% Confidence interval] Sexual Behavior Sex Personal Organization Religiosity Influence Sexual intercourse F 2.06 ** 1.10 --ever [1.43, 2.96] [0.78, 1.56] M 1.34 1.18 [0.82, 2.18] [0.73, 1.89] Sexual intercourse F 1.72 ** 1.18 --last month [1.25, 2.36] [0.88, 1.57] M 1.47 0.78 [0.96, 2.25] [0.53, 1.13] Giving oral sex-- F 1.67 ** 1.09 ever [1.19, 2.35] [0.79, 1.52] M 1.62 * 0.89 [1.01, 2.62] [0.59, 1.35] Giving oral sex-- F 1.38 * 1.13 last month [1.01, 1.87] [0.86, 1.49] M 1.01 1.28 [0.63, 1.62] [0.87, 1.88] Receiving oral sex F 2.13 ** 1.08 --ever [1.44, 3.17] [0.77, 1.52] M 1.65 0.85 [0.92, 2.96] [0.50, 1.43] Receiving oral sex F 1.41 * 1.12 --last month [1.03, 1.91] [0.85, 1.47] M 1.12 0.83 [0.74, 1.70] [0.58, 1.20] Anal sex-ever F 1.74 * 1.22 [1.13, 2.67] [0.87, 1.71] M 1.37 0.90 [0.80, 2.33] [0.55, 1.48] Anal sex-last F 1.02 0.99 month [0.50, 2.10] [0.56, 1.76] M 1.52 0.54 [0.39, 5.93] [0.08, 3.63] Odds Ratios Full Model [95% Confidence interval] Sexual Behavior Sex Interaction [chi square] Sig. PR x OI Sexual intercourse F 1.76 ** 31.41 ** .000 --ever [1.17, 2.67] M 1.22 3.24 .357 [0.74, 2.01] Sexual intercourse F 1.65 ** 24.82 ** .000 --last month [1.17, 2.33] M 1.35 3.92 .270 [0.89, 2.06] Giving oral sex-- F 1.39 16.09 ** .001 ever [0.95, 2.02] M 1.36 4.32 .229 [0.85, 2.19] Giving oral sex-- F 1.05 7.94 * .047 last month [0.76, 1.44] M 1.14 2.11 .550 [0.72, 1.79] Receiving oral sex F 0.99 21.82 ** .000 --ever [0.65, 1.51] M 1.56 3.22 .360 [0.82, 2.80] Receiving oral sex F 1.18 8.43 * .038 --last month [0.85, 1.52] M 1.27 2.66 .447 [0.84, 1.93] Anal sex-ever F 1.30 11.50 ** .009 [0.86, 1.97] M 1.03 2.56 .465 [0.60, 1.75] Anal sex-last F 1.68 2.48 .478 month [0.87, 3.25] M 1.03 0.68 .877 [0.24, 4.32] Full Model Sexual Behavior Sex [R.sup.2] Sexual intercourse F .143 --ever M .033 Sexual intercourse F .109 --last month M .035 Giving oral sex-- F .076 ever M .042 Giving oral sex-- F .037 last month M .020 Receiving oral sex F .106 --ever M .037 Receiving oral sex F .040 --last month M .024 Anal sex-ever F .070 M .028 Anal sex-last F .027 month M .026
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|