I'm in love with Doves right now. . .
Ever wonder what do all day? Ever sit there and think, "Gosh, Face For Radio talks about school all the time, and she often alludes to some seriously dorky shit; I wonder what she plans on doing for the rest of her life with all that brain mass and education. . . "
Well, my friends, you no longer need be curious, because I'm here to tell you all about what I've been doing this semester. I just finished writing a 25.3 page report about the sexual attitudes and behaviors of students at my school. You can read the verious preliminary reports that I compiled prior to this one if you want some more detail, but I did a pretty damn good job of summarizing as succinctly and painlessly as I could for this final report. You should have come to my presentation on Monday if you're really that damned concerned anyway.
Without further ado, my semester's work (some of the charts might be difficult to read due to formatting issues caused by copying over from my word processor):
Final Report
For the year 2004, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported an estimated 944,305 new cases of HIV/AIDS. Of these cases, 13,128 were contracted through heterosexual contact. Young adults, aged 20-24, comprised 1,788 of the new cases. By the close of that year, 529,113 Americans died of the infection or complications due to AIDS. Other, less deadly, diseases such as Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis continued to spread in 2004. The rate of Chlamydia infection increased by 5.9% from the previous year. High school and college students in the American West and Midwest were the most affected by the disease. People from this age group also experienced gonorrhea at the highest rates in the country. Women of the ages 20-24 were most affected by syphilis; the disease's infection rate had increased y 11.2% since 2003.
Pregnancy and child-bearing among teenaged women in the United States continues to be a problem. Though the rate of teen pregnancy is falling (200,000 fewer teen girls reported becoming pregnant in 2000 than in 1990), the United States has the highest rates of child-bearing among teenagers in the industrialized world. 56% of abortion services are performed for women in their early twenties.
How is this possible in a country where information is only micro-seconds away? The glut of information to which American young adults are exposed provides them with the opportunity to become masters on nearly any subject they wish to study. Condom ads and birth control pill promotions are as common as ads for face wash and junk food. Attempts by the religious right to impose abstinence-only education American school children aside, more information on reproductive health is available now than at any other time in U.S. cultural history. Why, then, do American high school and college students continue to engage in unsafe sexual behaviors?
In an attempt to explain this phenomenon, I formulated two hypotheses to be tested through a variety of methods (observation, intensive interviewing, and a questionnaire):
1. Female students with negative self images are more likely to engage in risk-taking sexual behavior, while males with positive self-image are more likely to engage in risk-taking sexual behavior.
2. Students, male and female, are strongly influenced by their social positions. Socially-secure students (more involved with campus activities and clubs/organizations, more friends, attend more parties, perceive themselves as more popular, more secure in social hierarchy) are less likely to engage in sexual activities that might endanger their social positions, whereas students who are less socially-secure (less involved on campus, fewer friends, lower party attendance, perceive themselves as less popular, lower on the social hierarchy, or unstable in current position in social group/s) attempt to gain social access through risk-taking sexual behaviors.
My sampling frame was students at a small, private, Catholic college in a Midwestern city. I hoped to be able to apply the results of this study to all college students in the Unites States.
To begin my study, I went to a local bar frequented by students from the school. At the bar, I noticed that students stayed in groups based on similarities in dress, appearance, and interests. As the night progressed, and more alcohol was consumed, the students began to break out of their groups a little, but not by much. Students were dressed with more attention to detail than observed in the classroom atmosphere. One's physical position in the bar seemed to be at least somewhat based on one's position in the social hierarchy. The center of the room was dominated by those who wore nicer, more fashionable clothing with the periphery positions in the bar filled by those of varying lower social status. Within the separate groups, most people seemed to know one another. Females, in particular, stayed in groups; though males were also in groups, individual males seemed much more comfortable leaving their position to talk to someone else in the room or go to the restroom or bar. Cross-group communications took place in groups as well, and usually involve small (2-3 people) groups of the opposite sex.
The group was the most prominent element seen in the observation: students arrived and left in groups, and stayed in the same or similar groups the entire time at the bar. This strengthened my hypothesis that the one's experience in the social atmosphere of the school is defined by the social group to which one belongs. After seeing this dynamic in person, I questioned the likelihood of students dating or engaging in sexual contact with members of a different group, particularly one that is of higher or lower social status than the one to which the individual belongs.
To further explore this, I interviewed a group of senior women who had been friends from their freshman year and are very close friends. Throughout the interview, the role of group identity was made very obvious. The respondents were able to finish one another's answers and volunteer information about the others that wasn't being discussed. When asked whether they believed that the school's social dynamic was influenced by group identity, I got even more support for my hypothesis: students from one group stay within that group for almost all social interaction including dating and casual sexual contact according to the women I interviewed.
One of the respondents explained that she prefers to go outside of her social circle for stimulation, though. She does this in order to avoid any awkward feelings that may come from seeing a person with whom she had previously had sexual contact at another event. Other responses led me to believe that she does this because she is not fully comfortable with other people outside her group, and fears some judgment by some members of her social circle. If this behavior is common among students, it supports my second hypothesis.
The final tool I used to test my hypotheses was a 45 question survey. I administered the questionnaire to 53 students at the school. I originally intended to use a stratified random sample based on housing. However, time and money constraints made this too difficult to execute. My final sample method was a convenience sample based on a quota, attempting to get responses from half male and half female students, with one quarter of responses being from each grade/year level.
Gender of respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 25 47.2 47.2 47.2
Female 28 52.8 52.8 100.0
Total 53 100.0 100.0
Respondents' year in school
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid freshman 15 28.3 28.3 28.3
sophomore 14 26.4 26.4 54.7
junior 10 18.9 18.9 73.6
senior 14 26.4 26.4 100.0
Total 53 100.0 100.0
Characteristics of Sample
Reported sexual activity was much lower than expected, with only 50% of single students describing themselves as sexually active and around two-thirds of those in exclusive relationships reporting sexual activity within the relationship.
Statistics
If single, sexually active? If in relationship, having sex?
N Valid 36 18
Missing 17 35
If single, sexually active?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid yes 18 34.0 50.0 50.0
no 18 34.0 50.0 100.0
Total 36 67.9 100.0
Missing System 17 32.1
Total 53 100.0
If in relationship, having sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid yes 12 22.6 66.7 66.7
no 6 11.3 33.3 100.0
Total 18 34.0 100.0
Missing System 35 66.0
Total 53 100.0
I suspect that the conservative attitude with which the Catholic Church views pre- or extra-marital sex had an effect on the low number of sexually active students, or students willing to report sexual activity. The discomfort expressed in the body language of respondents while filling out the questionnaire reflects this conservative attitude toward sex. Indeed, two-thirds of students report being religious, most of these listing Catholicism or other Christian religions (one Buddhist, one "spiritual" with Jewish and Catholic roots) as their personal faith or religion system.
Statistics
Religiosity of respondent.
N Valid 53
Missing 0
Is Respondent Religious?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 19 35.8 35.8 35.8
yes 34 64.2 64.2 100.0
Total 53 100.0 100.0
Of those who report being sexually active, approximately 72% list an otherwise platonic friend among their sex partners while at school, 61% include a casual acquaintance, and just under 28% admit to having had sex with a stranger.
Crosstab
If single, sexually active? Total
yes no
Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? yes Count 13 4 17
% within If single, sexually active? 72.2% 22.2% 47.2%
no Count 5 14 19
% within If single, sexually active? 27.8% 77.8% 52.8%
Total Count 18 18 36
% within If single, sexually active? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .486 .159 2.723 .006
Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? Dependent .471 .182 1.986 .047
If single, sexually active? Dependent .500 .171 2.199 .028
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? Dependent .251 .144 .003(c)
If single, sexually active? Dependent .251 .144 .003(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
If single, sexually active? Total
yes no
Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? yes Count 11 2 13
% within If single, sexually active? 61.1% 11.1% 36.1%
no Count 7 16 23
% within If single, sexually active? 38.9% 88.9% 63.9%
Total Count 18 18 36
% within If single, sexually active? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .419 .200 1.833 .067
Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? Dependent .308 .272 .955 .340
If single, sexually active? Dependent .500 .188 1.976 .048
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? Dependent .271 .140 .002(c)
If single, sexually active? Dependent .271 .139 .002(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
If single, sexually active? Total
yes no
Had sex with a stranger while at UD? yes Count 5 1 6
% within If single, sexually active? 27.8% 5.6% 16.7%
no Count 13 17 30
% within If single, sexually active? 72.2% 94.4% 83.3%
Total Count 18 18 36
% within If single, sexually active? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .167 .209 .736 .462
Had sex with a stranger while at UD? Dependent .000 .000 .(c) .(c)
If single, sexually active? Dependent .222 .268 .736 .462
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with a stranger while at UD? Dependent .089 .083 .078(d)
If single, sexually active? Dependent .089 .079 .078(d)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
d Based on chi-square approximation
These percentages are about what I expected, though I suspect a lot of under-reporting took place regarding the more uncomfortable issue of sex with a stranger. When asked to define "sexual promiscuity", the most common answer given by respondents was something like having sex with multiple partners during the same time frame, or engaging in sexual activity with a person with whom one is not exclusively involved. Most people would not want to describe themselves as promiscuous, and therefore would under-report activity that might be interpreted as hypocritical or otherwise negative.
The definitions of "sexual promiscuity" are often vague and very relative or subjective. This ambiguity may have implications in the behavioral patterns and attitudes of some students.
Hypothesis 1: Self-Image and Sexual Activity
The questionnaire I administered included a matrix in which respondents rated themselves in a variety of characteristics including physical appearance and ability to attract others. Overall, students report fairly positive opinions of themselves, with fewer scores in the "low" range than in the "high" or "very high" range. In fact, none listed themselves as "very low".
Total of self-image scores.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 10-14 Low 5 9.4 9.4 9.4
15-19 Average 16 30.2 30.2 39.6
20-24 High 23 43.4 43.4 83.0
25-30 Very High 9 17.0 17.0 100.0
Total 53 100.0 100.0
A marked difference was revealed between males and females, with women ranking themselves lower on the whole. This is problematic and warrants further research, but it is not unexpected.
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Total of self-image scores. * Gender of respondent. 53 100.0% 0 .0% 53 100.0%
Total of self-image scores. * Gender of respondent. Crosstabulation
Gender of respondent. Total
Male Female
Total of self-image scores. 10-14 Low Count 2 3 5
% within Gender of respondent. 8.0% 10.7% 9.4%
15-19 Average Count 10 6 16
% within Gender of respondent. 40.0% 21.4% 30.2%
20-24 High Count 6 17 23
% within Gender of respondent. 24.0% 60.7% 43.4%
25-30 Very High Count 7 2 9
% within Gender of respondent. 28.0% 7.1% 17.0%
Total Count 25 28 53
% within Gender of respondent. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .236 .125 1.710 .087
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .133 .124 1.010 .313
Gender of respondent. Dependent .360 .160 1.858 .063
Goodman and Kruskal tau Total of self-image scores. Dependent .078 .049 .007(c)
Gender of respondent. Dependent .172 .100 .030(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Sexual activity, on the whole, was higher among students who ranked themselves as either "average" or "high", while those who listed themselves as "low" or "very high" described less sexual activity. This may be due to the number of freshman males who ranked themselves exceptionally high on the self-image matrix (indeed, two freshman male responses were completely rejected from the final data set due to unrealistic answers on their questionnaires).
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
If single, sexually active? yes Count 1 4 10 3 18
% within Total of self-image scores. 25.0% 57.1% 58.8% 37.5% 50.0%
no Count 3 3 7 5 18
% within Total of self-image scores. 75.0% 42.9% 41.2% 62.5% 50.0%
Total Count 4 7 17 8 36
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .108 .086 1.177 .239
If single, sexually active? Dependent .222 .170 1.177 .239
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(c) .(c)
Goodman and Kruskal tau If single, sexually active? Dependent .060 .076 .550(d)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .021 .029 .541(d)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
d Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
If in relationship, having sex? yes Count 1 6 4 1 12
% within Total of self-image scores. 50.0% 66.7% 66.7% 100.0% 66.7%
no Count 1 3 2 0 6
% within Total of self-image scores. 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% .0% 33.3%
Total Count 2 9 6 1 18
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
If in relationship, having sex? Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Goodman and Kruskal tau If in relationship, having sex? Dependent .042 .057 .871(c)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .005 .011 .969(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Had sex with boy/girlfriend while at UD? yes Count 1 9 12 5 27
% within Total of self-image scores. 20.0% 56.3% 52.2% 55.6% 50.9%
no Count 4 7 11 4 26
% within Total of self-image scores. 80.0% 43.8% 47.8% 44.4% 49.1%
Total Count 5 16 23 9 53
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .054 .038 1.365 .172
Had sex with boy/girlfriend while at UD? Dependent .115 .081 1.365 .172
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(c) .(c)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with boy/girlfriend while at UD? Dependent .041 .046 .543(d)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .007 .010 .778(d)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
d Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? yes Count 0 5 11 4 20
% within Total of self-image scores. .0% 31.3% 47.8% 44.4% 37.7%
no Count 5 11 12 5 33
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 68.8% 52.2% 55.6% 62.3%
Total Count 5 16 23 9 53
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? Dependent .085 .044 .221(c)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .023 .024 .309(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? yes Count 1 4 7 3 15
% within Total of self-image scores. 20.0% 25.0% 31.8% 33.3% 28.8%
no Count 4 12 15 6 37
% within Total of self-image scores. 80.0% 75.0% 68.2% 66.7% 71.2%
Total Count 5 16 22 9 52
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? Dependent .009 .026 .923(c)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .003 .010 .926(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Had sex with a stranger while at UD? yes Count 0 3 4 1 8
% within Total of self-image scores. .0% 18.8% 17.4% 11.1% 15.1%
no Count 5 13 19 8 45
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 81.3% 82.6% 88.9% 84.9%
Total Count 5 16 23 9 53
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Had sex with a stranger while at UD? Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with a stranger while at UD? Dependent .024 .020 .744(c)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .005 .007 .841(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
c Based on chi-square approximation
I expected to see a higher number of those who ranked themselves lower on the self-image matrix to admit to having had sex with a stranger. In fact, none of the "low" scoring respondents have had sex with a stranger according to this data. A higher percentage of "average" scores than the others list a stranger among their sexual partners. However, this difference is so low as to be insignificant. The only two respondents who ranked as "low" on the matrix, and are sexually active, list exclusive boyfriends or girlfriends as their only sex partners.
This data seems to contradict my hypothesis that students with lower self-image are more likely to engage in unsafe sexual activity, as the lower one ranked him/herself, the less likely one is to engage in sexual intercourse with a partner of any relation to the respondent.
Two other activities I wanted to look at as unsafe or risk-taking sexual behaviors in my research are sex without disease protection or contraception and sex while intoxicated.
Again, students who ranked themselves as "low" on the self-image matrix were less likely to engage in any sexual activity, including sex while intoxicated. In fact, analysis shows a moderate relationship in the other direction, with respondents who rank themselves higher on the matrix engaging more often in sex while intoxicated.
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Had sex while intoxicated while at UD? yes Count 1 8 13 6 28
% within Total of self-image scores. 20.0% 50.0% 56.5% 66.7% 52.8%
no Count 4 8 10 3 25
% within Total of self-image scores. 80.0% 50.0% 43.5% 33.3% 47.2%
Total Count 5 16 23 9 53
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .055 .039 1.365 .172
Had sex while intoxicated while at UD? Dependent .120 .084 1.365 .172
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(c) .(c)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex while intoxicated while at UD? Dependent .057 .056 .396(d)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .011 .013 .640(d)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
d Based on chi-square approximation
However, I found a startlingly strong relationship between self-image and regular use of birth control/disease protection measures. As a student's self-image score increases, s/he becomes more likely to regularly use contraception or disease protection measure. These results may not be accurate, however, considering the high number of responses to a question that may have been worded in a confusing manner. However, if this information is an accurate reflection of the behavior of respondents, my hypothesis is, in part, supported.
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Regular use of contraception? yes Count 1 9 17 7 34
% within Total of self-image scores. 33.3% 69.2% 89.5% 100.0% 81.0%
no Count 2 4 2 0 8
% within Total of self-image scores. 66.7% 30.8% 10.5% .0% 19.0%
Total Count 3 13 19 7 42
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .097 .089 1.012 .311
Regular use of contraception? Dependent .125 .203 .580 .562
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .087 .102 .823 .410
Goodman and Kruskal tau Regular use of contraception? Dependent .193 .124 .048(c)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .048 .038 .114(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
While a person may use protection regularly, there are instances in which the person may forget to use protection, or engage in sexual activity without protection for other reasons. I also asked respondents if they had, to their knowledge, engaged in sexual activity without protection.
Crosstab
Has respondent had sex without contraception? Total
yes no not sure
Total of self-image scores. 10-14 Low Count 1 4 0 5
% within Has respondent had sex without contraception? 6.7% 11.1% .0% 9.6%
15-19 Average Count 4 11 0 15
% within Has respondent had sex without contraception? 26.7% 30.6% .0% 28.8%
20-24 High Count 8 14 1 23
% within Has respondent had sex without contraception? 53.3% 38.9% 100.0% 44.2%
25-30 Very High Count 2 7 0 9
% within Has respondent had sex without contraception? 13.3% 19.4% .0% 17.3%
Total Count 15 36 1 52
% within Has respondent had sex without contraception? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Has respondent had sex without contraception? Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Total of self-image scores. Dependent .021 .017 .785(c)
Has respondent had sex without contraception? Dependent .022 .038 .896(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
c Based on chi-square approximation
No strong correlation is revealed, though those who ranked as "high" on the scale were most likely to have engaged in said activity. This is contrary to what I expected to find in my research, but the majority of those who responded "yes" or "not sure" to the question were drunk at the time of engaging in this sexual activity. Considering the number of students who describe having had sex while intoxicated, I suspect that in real practice, far more students have failed to use protection during sexual activity at some point. As 58% of students list birth control pills or other hormonal treatments as their main form of protection, the number of students who have failed to use disease protection during casual intercourse, is expected to be much higher than here reported.
Hypothesis 2: Group Identity and Sexual Behavior
To test my hypothesis that social activity, including sexual activity, is done within specific strata on a social hierarchy and that activity outside of these set groups is in some way deviant and involves an exchange of power, I proposed a series of couples to questionnaire respondents asking them the likelihood of the two people listed engaging in casual sex or dating.
Frat brother and sorority sister have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 2.0
maybe 8 15.1 15.7 17.6
likely 11 20.8 21.6 39.2
highly likely 31 58.5 60.8 100.0
Total 51 96.2 100.0
Missing System 2 3.8
Total 53 100.0
Sorority sister and male athlete have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 2.0
unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 3.9
maybe 8 15.1 15.7 19.6
likely 18 34.0 35.3 54.9
very likely 23 43.4 45.1 100.0
Total 51 96.2 100.0
Missing System 2 3.8
Total 53 100.0
Frat brother and female athlete have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 2.0
unlikely 4 7.5 7.8 9.8
maybe 14 26.4 27.5 37.3
likely 13 24.5 25.5 62.7
very likely 19 35.8 37.3 100.0
Total 51 96.2 100.0
Missing System 2 3.8
Total 53 100.0
Male athlete and theater student have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 2 3.8 4.0 4.0
unlikely 24 45.3 48.0 52.0
maybe 14 26.4 28.0 80.0
likely 5 9.4 10.0 90.0
very likely 5 9.4 10.0 100.0
Total 50 94.3 100.0
Missing System 3 5.7
Total 53 100.0
Female athlete and theater student have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 4 7.5 8.0 8.0
unlikely 19 35.8 38.0 46.0
maybe 17 32.1 34.0 80.0
likely 5 9.4 10.0 90.0
very likely 5 9.4 10.0 100.0
Total 50 94.3 100.0
Missing System 3 5.7
Total 53 100.0
Male and female athlete have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 2.0
unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 4.0
maybe 10 18.9 20.0 24.0
likely 19 35.8 38.0 62.0
very likely 19 35.8 38.0 100.0
Total 50 94.3 100.0
Missing System 3 5.7
Total 53 100.0
Uninvolved freshman and involved upper have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 14 26.4 27.5 27.5
unlikely 16 30.2 31.4 58.8
maybe 9 17.0 17.6 76.5
likely 7 13.2 13.7 90.2
very unlikely 5 9.4 9.8 100.0
Total 51 96.2 100.0
Missing System 2 3.8
Total 53 100.0
Uninvolved freshman and upperclassman have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 8 15.1 16.3 16.3
unlikely 8 15.1 16.3 32.7
maybe 10 18.9 20.4 53.1
likely 13 24.5 26.5 79.6
very likely 10 18.9 20.4 100.0
Total 49 92.5 100.0
Missing System 4 7.5
Total 53 100.0
Most of the responses to this matrix confirmed my hypothesis, but what I found most interesting is that very few people found it "very unlikely" for even the seemingly most unlikely pairings to engage in casual sex. This is particularly interesting in light of the few people who report themselves as sexually active with casual acquaintances or strangers.
I looked at the two dependent variables (self-image and group identity) together and found some interesting correlations. One is more likely to have a higher self-image score if one attends more parties. The strength of this relationship surprised me. However, how active one sees oneself in campus social life in comparison to fellow students only has a moderate relationship to self-image.
Total of self-image scores. * Party attendance. Crosstabulation
Party attendance. Total
Seldom, Never 1-5 a Semester 2-3 a Month 1 a week 2 or more a week
Total of self-image scores. 10-14 Low Count 1 0 2 1 1 5
% within Party attendance. 25.0% .0% 18.2% 6.7% 4.8% 9.4%
15-19 Average Count 1 1 2 6 6 16
% within Party attendance. 25.0% 50.0% 18.2% 40.0% 28.6% 30.2%
20-24 High Count 1 1 5 7 9 23
% within Party attendance. 25.0% 50.0% 45.5% 46.7% 42.9% 43.4%
25-30 Very High Count 1 0 2 1 5 9
% within Party attendance. 25.0% .0% 18.2% 6.7% 23.8% 17.0%
Total Count 4 2 11 15 21 53
% within Party attendance. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .016 .070 .230 .818
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .067 .000 1.000
Party attendance. Dependent .031 .119 .258 .796
Goodman and Kruskal tau Total of self-image scores. Dependent .032 .024 .958(c)
Party attendance. Dependent .035 .029 .840(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Respondents' involvement in social life on campus Total
uninvolved lower than average average higher than average very involved
Total of self-image scores. 10-14 Low Count 1 1 1 0 2 5
% within Respondents' involvement in social life on campus 25.0% 20.0% 6.7% .0% 13.3% 9.4%
15-19 Average Count 1 2 3 6 4 16
% within Respondents' involvement in social life on campus 25.0% 40.0% 20.0% 42.9% 26.7% 30.2%
20-24 High Count 0 2 7 7 7 23
% within Respondents' involvement in social life on campus .0% 40.0% 46.7% 50.0% 46.7% 43.4%
25-30 Very High Count 2 0 4 1 2 9
% within Respondents' involvement in social life on campus 50.0% .0% 26.7% 7.1% 13.3% 17.0%
Total Count 4 5 15 14 15 53
% within Respondents' involvement in social life on campus 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .088 .058 1.442 .149
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .067 .079 .822 .411
Respondents' involvement in social life on campus Dependent .105 .086 1.170 .242
Goodman and Kruskal tau Total of self-image scores. Dependent .069 .028 .549(c)
Respondents' involvement in social life on campus Dependent .048 .026 .625(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Conclusion
Overall, I am not fully satisfied with the results of my research thus far. I believe the social homogeneity of my sample affected results, and that the religious affiliations of the school resulted in under-reporting of certain activities and over-reporting of others. This is a difficult topic to research, particularly among young, socially-conservative Catholics in the Midwest. I would like to try to rewrite my questionnaire and administer it with a different sampling method to a much larger sample size to see if this affects the kind of data I'm able to gather. I was honestly surprised at how prudish some students seemed while responding. This attitude is not at all conducive to social research.
Certain aspects of my second hypothesis were too difficult to test. People are not always aware of how or why they engage in certain activities with particular people. Therefore, I was unable to find a way to ethically test the existence of any power exchange involved in cross-group sexual activity. Enough evidence was presented to confirm my belief that students prefer to move within closed social groups. I was intrigued by the opinion expressed by many that it is at least somewhat possible for any two students to engage in sexual activity. This leaves some hope for the possibility of later testing the power-play of cross-group sexual dynamics.
I admit to not being very involved in social life on this campus. It is hard to do so while working late nights at two different off-campus jobs. Assuming an "attitude of strangeness" was quite easy, then, but formulating hypotheses was somewhat difficult. I did not want to assume any stereotypes of student sexual activity were accurate, however the literature review seemed to indicate that these behavioral patterns are common among students at many universities and that other researches have tested them and even confirmed some.
As I worked through the research process, I continued to develop stronger hypotheses. The observation proved the most interesting and informative of the research methods before writing the questionnaire. Prior to then, I had not thought about the sexual power dynamic across groups. I am still very interested in testing this hypothesis, but am at a loss as to how to do this without crossing ethical lines or enticing people with money or other compensation to spill their sexual secrets.
Didja read it all?
Ever wonder what do all day? Ever sit there and think, "Gosh, Face For Radio talks about school all the time, and she often alludes to some seriously dorky shit; I wonder what she plans on doing for the rest of her life with all that brain mass and education. . . "
Well, my friends, you no longer need be curious, because I'm here to tell you all about what I've been doing this semester. I just finished writing a 25.3 page report about the sexual attitudes and behaviors of students at my school. You can read the verious preliminary reports that I compiled prior to this one if you want some more detail, but I did a pretty damn good job of summarizing as succinctly and painlessly as I could for this final report. You should have come to my presentation on Monday if you're really that damned concerned anyway.
Without further ado, my semester's work (some of the charts might be difficult to read due to formatting issues caused by copying over from my word processor):
Final Report
For the year 2004, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported an estimated 944,305 new cases of HIV/AIDS. Of these cases, 13,128 were contracted through heterosexual contact. Young adults, aged 20-24, comprised 1,788 of the new cases. By the close of that year, 529,113 Americans died of the infection or complications due to AIDS. Other, less deadly, diseases such as Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis continued to spread in 2004. The rate of Chlamydia infection increased by 5.9% from the previous year. High school and college students in the American West and Midwest were the most affected by the disease. People from this age group also experienced gonorrhea at the highest rates in the country. Women of the ages 20-24 were most affected by syphilis; the disease's infection rate had increased y 11.2% since 2003.
Pregnancy and child-bearing among teenaged women in the United States continues to be a problem. Though the rate of teen pregnancy is falling (200,000 fewer teen girls reported becoming pregnant in 2000 than in 1990), the United States has the highest rates of child-bearing among teenagers in the industrialized world. 56% of abortion services are performed for women in their early twenties.
How is this possible in a country where information is only micro-seconds away? The glut of information to which American young adults are exposed provides them with the opportunity to become masters on nearly any subject they wish to study. Condom ads and birth control pill promotions are as common as ads for face wash and junk food. Attempts by the religious right to impose abstinence-only education American school children aside, more information on reproductive health is available now than at any other time in U.S. cultural history. Why, then, do American high school and college students continue to engage in unsafe sexual behaviors?
In an attempt to explain this phenomenon, I formulated two hypotheses to be tested through a variety of methods (observation, intensive interviewing, and a questionnaire):
1. Female students with negative self images are more likely to engage in risk-taking sexual behavior, while males with positive self-image are more likely to engage in risk-taking sexual behavior.
2. Students, male and female, are strongly influenced by their social positions. Socially-secure students (more involved with campus activities and clubs/organizations, more friends, attend more parties, perceive themselves as more popular, more secure in social hierarchy) are less likely to engage in sexual activities that might endanger their social positions, whereas students who are less socially-secure (less involved on campus, fewer friends, lower party attendance, perceive themselves as less popular, lower on the social hierarchy, or unstable in current position in social group/s) attempt to gain social access through risk-taking sexual behaviors.
My sampling frame was students at a small, private, Catholic college in a Midwestern city. I hoped to be able to apply the results of this study to all college students in the Unites States.
To begin my study, I went to a local bar frequented by students from the school. At the bar, I noticed that students stayed in groups based on similarities in dress, appearance, and interests. As the night progressed, and more alcohol was consumed, the students began to break out of their groups a little, but not by much. Students were dressed with more attention to detail than observed in the classroom atmosphere. One's physical position in the bar seemed to be at least somewhat based on one's position in the social hierarchy. The center of the room was dominated by those who wore nicer, more fashionable clothing with the periphery positions in the bar filled by those of varying lower social status. Within the separate groups, most people seemed to know one another. Females, in particular, stayed in groups; though males were also in groups, individual males seemed much more comfortable leaving their position to talk to someone else in the room or go to the restroom or bar. Cross-group communications took place in groups as well, and usually involve small (2-3 people) groups of the opposite sex.
The group was the most prominent element seen in the observation: students arrived and left in groups, and stayed in the same or similar groups the entire time at the bar. This strengthened my hypothesis that the one's experience in the social atmosphere of the school is defined by the social group to which one belongs. After seeing this dynamic in person, I questioned the likelihood of students dating or engaging in sexual contact with members of a different group, particularly one that is of higher or lower social status than the one to which the individual belongs.
To further explore this, I interviewed a group of senior women who had been friends from their freshman year and are very close friends. Throughout the interview, the role of group identity was made very obvious. The respondents were able to finish one another's answers and volunteer information about the others that wasn't being discussed. When asked whether they believed that the school's social dynamic was influenced by group identity, I got even more support for my hypothesis: students from one group stay within that group for almost all social interaction including dating and casual sexual contact according to the women I interviewed.
One of the respondents explained that she prefers to go outside of her social circle for stimulation, though. She does this in order to avoid any awkward feelings that may come from seeing a person with whom she had previously had sexual contact at another event. Other responses led me to believe that she does this because she is not fully comfortable with other people outside her group, and fears some judgment by some members of her social circle. If this behavior is common among students, it supports my second hypothesis.
The final tool I used to test my hypotheses was a 45 question survey. I administered the questionnaire to 53 students at the school. I originally intended to use a stratified random sample based on housing. However, time and money constraints made this too difficult to execute. My final sample method was a convenience sample based on a quota, attempting to get responses from half male and half female students, with one quarter of responses being from each grade/year level.
Gender of respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 25 47.2 47.2 47.2
Female 28 52.8 52.8 100.0
Total 53 100.0 100.0
Respondents' year in school
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid freshman 15 28.3 28.3 28.3
sophomore 14 26.4 26.4 54.7
junior 10 18.9 18.9 73.6
senior 14 26.4 26.4 100.0
Total 53 100.0 100.0
Characteristics of Sample
Reported sexual activity was much lower than expected, with only 50% of single students describing themselves as sexually active and around two-thirds of those in exclusive relationships reporting sexual activity within the relationship.
Statistics
If single, sexually active? If in relationship, having sex?
N Valid 36 18
Missing 17 35
If single, sexually active?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid yes 18 34.0 50.0 50.0
no 18 34.0 50.0 100.0
Total 36 67.9 100.0
Missing System 17 32.1
Total 53 100.0
If in relationship, having sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid yes 12 22.6 66.7 66.7
no 6 11.3 33.3 100.0
Total 18 34.0 100.0
Missing System 35 66.0
Total 53 100.0
I suspect that the conservative attitude with which the Catholic Church views pre- or extra-marital sex had an effect on the low number of sexually active students, or students willing to report sexual activity. The discomfort expressed in the body language of respondents while filling out the questionnaire reflects this conservative attitude toward sex. Indeed, two-thirds of students report being religious, most of these listing Catholicism or other Christian religions (one Buddhist, one "spiritual" with Jewish and Catholic roots) as their personal faith or religion system.
Statistics
Religiosity of respondent.
N Valid 53
Missing 0
Is Respondent Religious?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 19 35.8 35.8 35.8
yes 34 64.2 64.2 100.0
Total 53 100.0 100.0
Of those who report being sexually active, approximately 72% list an otherwise platonic friend among their sex partners while at school, 61% include a casual acquaintance, and just under 28% admit to having had sex with a stranger.
Crosstab
If single, sexually active? Total
yes no
Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? yes Count 13 4 17
% within If single, sexually active? 72.2% 22.2% 47.2%
no Count 5 14 19
% within If single, sexually active? 27.8% 77.8% 52.8%
Total Count 18 18 36
% within If single, sexually active? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .486 .159 2.723 .006
Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? Dependent .471 .182 1.986 .047
If single, sexually active? Dependent .500 .171 2.199 .028
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? Dependent .251 .144 .003(c)
If single, sexually active? Dependent .251 .144 .003(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
If single, sexually active? Total
yes no
Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? yes Count 11 2 13
% within If single, sexually active? 61.1% 11.1% 36.1%
no Count 7 16 23
% within If single, sexually active? 38.9% 88.9% 63.9%
Total Count 18 18 36
% within If single, sexually active? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .419 .200 1.833 .067
Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? Dependent .308 .272 .955 .340
If single, sexually active? Dependent .500 .188 1.976 .048
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? Dependent .271 .140 .002(c)
If single, sexually active? Dependent .271 .139 .002(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
If single, sexually active? Total
yes no
Had sex with a stranger while at UD? yes Count 5 1 6
% within If single, sexually active? 27.8% 5.6% 16.7%
no Count 13 17 30
% within If single, sexually active? 72.2% 94.4% 83.3%
Total Count 18 18 36
% within If single, sexually active? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .167 .209 .736 .462
Had sex with a stranger while at UD? Dependent .000 .000 .(c) .(c)
If single, sexually active? Dependent .222 .268 .736 .462
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with a stranger while at UD? Dependent .089 .083 .078(d)
If single, sexually active? Dependent .089 .079 .078(d)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
d Based on chi-square approximation
These percentages are about what I expected, though I suspect a lot of under-reporting took place regarding the more uncomfortable issue of sex with a stranger. When asked to define "sexual promiscuity", the most common answer given by respondents was something like having sex with multiple partners during the same time frame, or engaging in sexual activity with a person with whom one is not exclusively involved. Most people would not want to describe themselves as promiscuous, and therefore would under-report activity that might be interpreted as hypocritical or otherwise negative.
The definitions of "sexual promiscuity" are often vague and very relative or subjective. This ambiguity may have implications in the behavioral patterns and attitudes of some students.
Hypothesis 1: Self-Image and Sexual Activity
The questionnaire I administered included a matrix in which respondents rated themselves in a variety of characteristics including physical appearance and ability to attract others. Overall, students report fairly positive opinions of themselves, with fewer scores in the "low" range than in the "high" or "very high" range. In fact, none listed themselves as "very low".
Total of self-image scores.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 10-14 Low 5 9.4 9.4 9.4
15-19 Average 16 30.2 30.2 39.6
20-24 High 23 43.4 43.4 83.0
25-30 Very High 9 17.0 17.0 100.0
Total 53 100.0 100.0
A marked difference was revealed between males and females, with women ranking themselves lower on the whole. This is problematic and warrants further research, but it is not unexpected.
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Total of self-image scores. * Gender of respondent. 53 100.0% 0 .0% 53 100.0%
Total of self-image scores. * Gender of respondent. Crosstabulation
Gender of respondent. Total
Male Female
Total of self-image scores. 10-14 Low Count 2 3 5
% within Gender of respondent. 8.0% 10.7% 9.4%
15-19 Average Count 10 6 16
% within Gender of respondent. 40.0% 21.4% 30.2%
20-24 High Count 6 17 23
% within Gender of respondent. 24.0% 60.7% 43.4%
25-30 Very High Count 7 2 9
% within Gender of respondent. 28.0% 7.1% 17.0%
Total Count 25 28 53
% within Gender of respondent. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .236 .125 1.710 .087
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .133 .124 1.010 .313
Gender of respondent. Dependent .360 .160 1.858 .063
Goodman and Kruskal tau Total of self-image scores. Dependent .078 .049 .007(c)
Gender of respondent. Dependent .172 .100 .030(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Sexual activity, on the whole, was higher among students who ranked themselves as either "average" or "high", while those who listed themselves as "low" or "very high" described less sexual activity. This may be due to the number of freshman males who ranked themselves exceptionally high on the self-image matrix (indeed, two freshman male responses were completely rejected from the final data set due to unrealistic answers on their questionnaires).
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
If single, sexually active? yes Count 1 4 10 3 18
% within Total of self-image scores. 25.0% 57.1% 58.8% 37.5% 50.0%
no Count 3 3 7 5 18
% within Total of self-image scores. 75.0% 42.9% 41.2% 62.5% 50.0%
Total Count 4 7 17 8 36
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .108 .086 1.177 .239
If single, sexually active? Dependent .222 .170 1.177 .239
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(c) .(c)
Goodman and Kruskal tau If single, sexually active? Dependent .060 .076 .550(d)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .021 .029 .541(d)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
d Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
If in relationship, having sex? yes Count 1 6 4 1 12
% within Total of self-image scores. 50.0% 66.7% 66.7% 100.0% 66.7%
no Count 1 3 2 0 6
% within Total of self-image scores. 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% .0% 33.3%
Total Count 2 9 6 1 18
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
If in relationship, having sex? Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Goodman and Kruskal tau If in relationship, having sex? Dependent .042 .057 .871(c)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .005 .011 .969(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Had sex with boy/girlfriend while at UD? yes Count 1 9 12 5 27
% within Total of self-image scores. 20.0% 56.3% 52.2% 55.6% 50.9%
no Count 4 7 11 4 26
% within Total of self-image scores. 80.0% 43.8% 47.8% 44.4% 49.1%
Total Count 5 16 23 9 53
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .054 .038 1.365 .172
Had sex with boy/girlfriend while at UD? Dependent .115 .081 1.365 .172
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(c) .(c)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with boy/girlfriend while at UD? Dependent .041 .046 .543(d)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .007 .010 .778(d)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
d Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? yes Count 0 5 11 4 20
% within Total of self-image scores. .0% 31.3% 47.8% 44.4% 37.7%
no Count 5 11 12 5 33
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 68.8% 52.2% 55.6% 62.3%
Total Count 5 16 23 9 53
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with a platonic friend while at UD? Dependent .085 .044 .221(c)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .023 .024 .309(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? yes Count 1 4 7 3 15
% within Total of self-image scores. 20.0% 25.0% 31.8% 33.3% 28.8%
no Count 4 12 15 6 37
% within Total of self-image scores. 80.0% 75.0% 68.2% 66.7% 71.2%
Total Count 5 16 22 9 52
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with casual acquaintance while at UD? Dependent .009 .026 .923(c)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .003 .010 .926(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Had sex with a stranger while at UD? yes Count 0 3 4 1 8
% within Total of self-image scores. .0% 18.8% 17.4% 11.1% 15.1%
no Count 5 13 19 8 45
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 81.3% 82.6% 88.9% 84.9%
Total Count 5 16 23 9 53
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Had sex with a stranger while at UD? Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex with a stranger while at UD? Dependent .024 .020 .744(c)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .005 .007 .841(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
c Based on chi-square approximation
I expected to see a higher number of those who ranked themselves lower on the self-image matrix to admit to having had sex with a stranger. In fact, none of the "low" scoring respondents have had sex with a stranger according to this data. A higher percentage of "average" scores than the others list a stranger among their sexual partners. However, this difference is so low as to be insignificant. The only two respondents who ranked as "low" on the matrix, and are sexually active, list exclusive boyfriends or girlfriends as their only sex partners.
This data seems to contradict my hypothesis that students with lower self-image are more likely to engage in unsafe sexual activity, as the lower one ranked him/herself, the less likely one is to engage in sexual intercourse with a partner of any relation to the respondent.
Two other activities I wanted to look at as unsafe or risk-taking sexual behaviors in my research are sex without disease protection or contraception and sex while intoxicated.
Again, students who ranked themselves as "low" on the self-image matrix were less likely to engage in any sexual activity, including sex while intoxicated. In fact, analysis shows a moderate relationship in the other direction, with respondents who rank themselves higher on the matrix engaging more often in sex while intoxicated.
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Had sex while intoxicated while at UD? yes Count 1 8 13 6 28
% within Total of self-image scores. 20.0% 50.0% 56.5% 66.7% 52.8%
no Count 4 8 10 3 25
% within Total of self-image scores. 80.0% 50.0% 43.5% 33.3% 47.2%
Total Count 5 16 23 9 53
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .055 .039 1.365 .172
Had sex while intoxicated while at UD? Dependent .120 .084 1.365 .172
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(c) .(c)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Had sex while intoxicated while at UD? Dependent .057 .056 .396(d)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .011 .013 .640(d)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
d Based on chi-square approximation
However, I found a startlingly strong relationship between self-image and regular use of birth control/disease protection measures. As a student's self-image score increases, s/he becomes more likely to regularly use contraception or disease protection measure. These results may not be accurate, however, considering the high number of responses to a question that may have been worded in a confusing manner. However, if this information is an accurate reflection of the behavior of respondents, my hypothesis is, in part, supported.
Crosstab
Total of self-image scores. Total
10-14 Low 15-19 Average 20-24 High 25-30 Very High
Regular use of contraception? yes Count 1 9 17 7 34
% within Total of self-image scores. 33.3% 69.2% 89.5% 100.0% 81.0%
no Count 2 4 2 0 8
% within Total of self-image scores. 66.7% 30.8% 10.5% .0% 19.0%
Total Count 3 13 19 7 42
% within Total of self-image scores. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .097 .089 1.012 .311
Regular use of contraception? Dependent .125 .203 .580 .562
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .087 .102 .823 .410
Goodman and Kruskal tau Regular use of contraception? Dependent .193 .124 .048(c)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .048 .038 .114(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
While a person may use protection regularly, there are instances in which the person may forget to use protection, or engage in sexual activity without protection for other reasons. I also asked respondents if they had, to their knowledge, engaged in sexual activity without protection.
Crosstab
Has respondent had sex without contraception? Total
yes no not sure
Total of self-image scores. 10-14 Low Count 1 4 0 5
% within Has respondent had sex without contraception? 6.7% 11.1% .0% 9.6%
15-19 Average Count 4 11 0 15
% within Has respondent had sex without contraception? 26.7% 30.6% .0% 28.8%
20-24 High Count 8 14 1 23
% within Has respondent had sex without contraception? 53.3% 38.9% 100.0% 44.2%
25-30 Very High Count 2 7 0 9
% within Has respondent had sex without contraception? 13.3% 19.4% .0% 17.3%
Total Count 15 36 1 52
% within Has respondent had sex without contraception? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Has respondent had sex without contraception? Dependent .000 .000 .(b) .(b)
Goodman and Kruskal tau Total of self-image scores. Dependent .021 .017 .785(c)
Has respondent had sex without contraception? Dependent .022 .038 .896(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
c Based on chi-square approximation
No strong correlation is revealed, though those who ranked as "high" on the scale were most likely to have engaged in said activity. This is contrary to what I expected to find in my research, but the majority of those who responded "yes" or "not sure" to the question were drunk at the time of engaging in this sexual activity. Considering the number of students who describe having had sex while intoxicated, I suspect that in real practice, far more students have failed to use protection during sexual activity at some point. As 58% of students list birth control pills or other hormonal treatments as their main form of protection, the number of students who have failed to use disease protection during casual intercourse, is expected to be much higher than here reported.
Hypothesis 2: Group Identity and Sexual Behavior
To test my hypothesis that social activity, including sexual activity, is done within specific strata on a social hierarchy and that activity outside of these set groups is in some way deviant and involves an exchange of power, I proposed a series of couples to questionnaire respondents asking them the likelihood of the two people listed engaging in casual sex or dating.
Frat brother and sorority sister have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 2.0
maybe 8 15.1 15.7 17.6
likely 11 20.8 21.6 39.2
highly likely 31 58.5 60.8 100.0
Total 51 96.2 100.0
Missing System 2 3.8
Total 53 100.0
Sorority sister and male athlete have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 2.0
unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 3.9
maybe 8 15.1 15.7 19.6
likely 18 34.0 35.3 54.9
very likely 23 43.4 45.1 100.0
Total 51 96.2 100.0
Missing System 2 3.8
Total 53 100.0
Frat brother and female athlete have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 2.0
unlikely 4 7.5 7.8 9.8
maybe 14 26.4 27.5 37.3
likely 13 24.5 25.5 62.7
very likely 19 35.8 37.3 100.0
Total 51 96.2 100.0
Missing System 2 3.8
Total 53 100.0
Male athlete and theater student have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 2 3.8 4.0 4.0
unlikely 24 45.3 48.0 52.0
maybe 14 26.4 28.0 80.0
likely 5 9.4 10.0 90.0
very likely 5 9.4 10.0 100.0
Total 50 94.3 100.0
Missing System 3 5.7
Total 53 100.0
Female athlete and theater student have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 4 7.5 8.0 8.0
unlikely 19 35.8 38.0 46.0
maybe 17 32.1 34.0 80.0
likely 5 9.4 10.0 90.0
very likely 5 9.4 10.0 100.0
Total 50 94.3 100.0
Missing System 3 5.7
Total 53 100.0
Male and female athlete have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 2.0
unlikely 1 1.9 2.0 4.0
maybe 10 18.9 20.0 24.0
likely 19 35.8 38.0 62.0
very likely 19 35.8 38.0 100.0
Total 50 94.3 100.0
Missing System 3 5.7
Total 53 100.0
Uninvolved freshman and involved upper have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 14 26.4 27.5 27.5
unlikely 16 30.2 31.4 58.8
maybe 9 17.0 17.6 76.5
likely 7 13.2 13.7 90.2
very unlikely 5 9.4 9.8 100.0
Total 51 96.2 100.0
Missing System 2 3.8
Total 53 100.0
Uninvolved freshman and upperclassman have sex?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid very unlikely 8 15.1 16.3 16.3
unlikely 8 15.1 16.3 32.7
maybe 10 18.9 20.4 53.1
likely 13 24.5 26.5 79.6
very likely 10 18.9 20.4 100.0
Total 49 92.5 100.0
Missing System 4 7.5
Total 53 100.0
Most of the responses to this matrix confirmed my hypothesis, but what I found most interesting is that very few people found it "very unlikely" for even the seemingly most unlikely pairings to engage in casual sex. This is particularly interesting in light of the few people who report themselves as sexually active with casual acquaintances or strangers.
I looked at the two dependent variables (self-image and group identity) together and found some interesting correlations. One is more likely to have a higher self-image score if one attends more parties. The strength of this relationship surprised me. However, how active one sees oneself in campus social life in comparison to fellow students only has a moderate relationship to self-image.
Total of self-image scores. * Party attendance. Crosstabulation
Party attendance. Total
Seldom, Never 1-5 a Semester 2-3 a Month 1 a week 2 or more a week
Total of self-image scores. 10-14 Low Count 1 0 2 1 1 5
% within Party attendance. 25.0% .0% 18.2% 6.7% 4.8% 9.4%
15-19 Average Count 1 1 2 6 6 16
% within Party attendance. 25.0% 50.0% 18.2% 40.0% 28.6% 30.2%
20-24 High Count 1 1 5 7 9 23
% within Party attendance. 25.0% 50.0% 45.5% 46.7% 42.9% 43.4%
25-30 Very High Count 1 0 2 1 5 9
% within Party attendance. 25.0% .0% 18.2% 6.7% 23.8% 17.0%
Total Count 4 2 11 15 21 53
% within Party attendance. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .016 .070 .230 .818
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .000 .067 .000 1.000
Party attendance. Dependent .031 .119 .258 .796
Goodman and Kruskal tau Total of self-image scores. Dependent .032 .024 .958(c)
Party attendance. Dependent .035 .029 .840(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Crosstab
Respondents' involvement in social life on campus Total
uninvolved lower than average average higher than average very involved
Total of self-image scores. 10-14 Low Count 1 1 1 0 2 5
% within Respondents' involvement in social life on campus 25.0% 20.0% 6.7% .0% 13.3% 9.4%
15-19 Average Count 1 2 3 6 4 16
% within Respondents' involvement in social life on campus 25.0% 40.0% 20.0% 42.9% 26.7% 30.2%
20-24 High Count 0 2 7 7 7 23
% within Respondents' involvement in social life on campus .0% 40.0% 46.7% 50.0% 46.7% 43.4%
25-30 Very High Count 2 0 4 1 2 9
% within Respondents' involvement in social life on campus 50.0% .0% 26.7% 7.1% 13.3% 17.0%
Total Count 4 5 15 14 15 53
% within Respondents' involvement in social life on campus 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Directional Measures
Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .088 .058 1.442 .149
Total of self-image scores. Dependent .067 .079 .822 .411
Respondents' involvement in social life on campus Dependent .105 .086 1.170 .242
Goodman and Kruskal tau Total of self-image scores. Dependent .069 .028 .549(c)
Respondents' involvement in social life on campus Dependent .048 .026 .625(c)
a Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c Based on chi-square approximation
Conclusion
Overall, I am not fully satisfied with the results of my research thus far. I believe the social homogeneity of my sample affected results, and that the religious affiliations of the school resulted in under-reporting of certain activities and over-reporting of others. This is a difficult topic to research, particularly among young, socially-conservative Catholics in the Midwest. I would like to try to rewrite my questionnaire and administer it with a different sampling method to a much larger sample size to see if this affects the kind of data I'm able to gather. I was honestly surprised at how prudish some students seemed while responding. This attitude is not at all conducive to social research.
Certain aspects of my second hypothesis were too difficult to test. People are not always aware of how or why they engage in certain activities with particular people. Therefore, I was unable to find a way to ethically test the existence of any power exchange involved in cross-group sexual activity. Enough evidence was presented to confirm my belief that students prefer to move within closed social groups. I was intrigued by the opinion expressed by many that it is at least somewhat possible for any two students to engage in sexual activity. This leaves some hope for the possibility of later testing the power-play of cross-group sexual dynamics.
I admit to not being very involved in social life on this campus. It is hard to do so while working late nights at two different off-campus jobs. Assuming an "attitude of strangeness" was quite easy, then, but formulating hypotheses was somewhat difficult. I did not want to assume any stereotypes of student sexual activity were accurate, however the literature review seemed to indicate that these behavioral patterns are common among students at many universities and that other researches have tested them and even confirmed some.
As I worked through the research process, I continued to develop stronger hypotheses. The observation proved the most interesting and informative of the research methods before writing the questionnaire. Prior to then, I had not thought about the sexual power dynamic across groups. I am still very interested in testing this hypothesis, but am at a loss as to how to do this without crossing ethical lines or enticing people with money or other compensation to spill their sexual secrets.
Didja read it all?
VIEW 5 of 5 COMMENTS
bugbue:
Now that sounds like a fun topic to study. Chillin' at bars observing people, that can't be for school? The part about guys rating themselves higher than women on a whole is interesting. To me it reflects the focus on beauty when related to women and what women feel they have to compete with. For example, beauty magazines, boob jobs and how men lean heavily towards looks when liking a girl. Dudes always think their don juan rico suave anyway.
afterbirth:
You have to CHOOSE one (or more) before I send it to you!