us. . q. .21. . .hufi. veto. 1:. .I c it IOv¢V»..-; 1-: .L \ \l («Wu-”mufvlfi cl..%~ . .-Frflxmb andShtfiecbdhiemdrnffenaxxeinskmmallkmavkn: GROUP 1: ‘Whole Sample (N:289) ‘Wmdabha E. bMfltuge R Closeness to Friends .17 (p=.005) .17 fiFaOZ) subjectrFriend Difference -.03 (p=.951, N.S.) GRIE’Z: IEpafi:sEmrfl.orl££s Shmmfl.Aijiq(tm31 Friends (N=188) ' ‘Wmfiabhe r MmUijeIl Closeness to Friends .16 (p=5015) .23 (p=.006) Subject-Friend Difference -.15 (p=.024) GRAD 3: quntSImmefikmnal Activity than Friends (N=156) ‘ijabhe E. NMltufle R Closeness to Friends .23 (p=.004) .23 (p=.004) Subject-Friend Difference .03 (p=.577, N.S.) friends, a different picture emerges (Table 14). For the group reporting less sexual activity than friends, self- esteem is related significantly both to having many close friends and to being similar to friends in sexual activity, whereas in the group which reports more sexual activity than friends, sexual similarity to friends appears to be unrelat- ed to self-esteem, while having many close friends remains important. 77 To clarify these results, subjects were divided by report of greater or less sexual activity than friends and by closeness to friends. The correlations between self- esteem and differences in sexual behavior in each of the six groups can be seen in Table 15. Degree of closeness to friends makes no difference to the relationship of degree of friend-subject difference in sexual behavior and self- esteem for those who are involved in less sexual activities than their friends. For this group, self-esteem tends to be higher the more similar sexual behavior is to that of friends regardless of the number of close friends. However, in the group which reports more sexual activity than friends, closeness to friends does seem to affect the relationship between self-esteem and friend- subject difference, although the differences are not statis- tically significant. There is a tendency for those with many close friends to feel better about themselves when their sexual behavior is similar to friends. However, those with few close friends tend to have a better self- concept when their sexual behavior is different from their friends. In Table 14, these reverse trends cancel each other so that it looks as if no relationship exists between the difference scores and self-esteem. Close friends are important to the self-esteem of both groups. However, it appears possible that for the group of women who are more sexually active than peers but have few close friends, self- 78 esteem is somewhat enhanced by feeling very much more sexu- ally active than friends. TRHUZIS Peanux:CoraflatflmlBeUmxxlSaUFEstmlamiSMbyair Frhaxinififinemaeinnaawallkfinvhm:by(Ekxenafisto Injemksamdtfirafljoncfi’DUienxme ClaaHEBS‘UJFrLamB Chxxe bhdimnCflose thCflrBe r=-.08 r=-.23 r=-.19 fhtfiecbfihfiemdlfiffian Zero or less* N=75 N=63 N= 4 6 p=.256 (N.S.) p=.0-34 p=.106 (N.S.) r=-.10 r=.02 r=.17 Sflfiectdhiemdrfiffimn mater than zero* N=55 N=63 N=38 p=.234 (N.S.) jp=.426 (N.S.) p=.l46 (n.S.) *SUmxkud.sxn£s ofipporuxifrnaxbfl:3aamllbfluwdor:mtfirachaifrom :fiandmxlsamxslofsmbjanfls:mxrmflaisemrfl.hflmwflma HYPOTHESIS 8: The effect on self-esteem of friend-subject differences in sexual behavior will increase as a function of external locus of control and decrease as a function of internal locus of control. This hypothesis is rejected. Although internal locus of control is significantly related to self-esteem, friend-subject differences do not add to this relationship (Table 16). Dividing the whole sample according to locus of control does not strengthen the relationship between subject-friend differences and self-esteem. (For those 79 TABLE 16 Relationship of Self-Esteem to Subject-Friend Differences in Sexual Behavior and Internal- External Locus of Control (N=289) Variable r Multiple R Subject-Friend Difference -.03 (p=.74, N.S.) .21 (p=.002) Locus of Control* -.21 (p=.002) *Locus of control is scored from Internal (low) to External (high). Negative correlation indicates that high self- esteem is more related to internal locus, low self-esteem to external locus. with internal locus, r=.02, for those with external locus, r=.03.) An additional prediction was made that when the sub- ject had less sexual experience than her friends, the higher external locus, the stronger the inverse relationship between difference and self-esteem. Table 17 shows the sample divided into those who report equal or less sexual activity than their friends and those who report more sexu- al activity than friends. The sample was then further sub- divided by locus of control scores. Correlations were then computed in each cell between self-esteem and friend-subject difference scores. Although the Pearson Correlation between difference score and self—esteem is significant in one case, the correlations do not change in the predicted direction; in fact, if anything, there is less relationship between friend-subject differences and self-esteem for those who have an external locus than for any other group. 80 EMHE117 IkwmsonFnkxfls (HosaESS'UDFrflamb Chxm: NOtCflosa like r=.07 r=.26 bkflOS bhfil Parent Nbdeling F302 p=-140 NOt.Ldke r=.23 r=.14 Ih98 rhflZ p=.075 p=.492 Subject-parent similarity also seems to be unrelated to self-esteem along the dimensions of parent modeling or closeness to friends (Table 19). Table 20 shows a relative difference between groups when the sample is again divided by amount of parent modeling and closeness to friends. In this case friend-subject similarity and self-esteem does differ in the four cells. However, feeling close to both 82 TABLE 19 Pearson Correlation Between Self-Esteem and Absolute Parent- Subject Similarity by Parent—Modeling and Closeness to Friends Closeness to Friends Close Not Close Like r=.00 r=-.01 N=105 N=6l Parent Modeling P=-94° P=-880 r=.04 r=.07 Not Like N=98 N=72 p=.983 p=.610 TABLE 20 Pearson Correlation Between Self-Esteem and Absolute Friend- Subject Similarity by Parent-Nbdeling and Closeness to Friends Closeness to Friends Close Not Close Like r=.06 r=.26 N=105 N=61 P t M i ling p=.507 p=.049 r=.23 r=.13 Not Like N=98 N=72 p=.205 p=.309 83 parents and friends does not increase the relationship. Instead, feeling close to one of the groups (parents or friends) does seem to significantly increase the probabil- ity that being similar to friends in sexual behavior raises self-esteem. When the subject is not close to either parents or friends, there is no significant relationship between self-esteem and friend-subject similarity. The meaning Of the finding that similarity between friends' and subject's sexual behavior is significantly related to self-esteem only when the subject feels close to parents and distant from friends or vice versa is not clear. HYPOTHESIS 10: The self-esteem of the subject is directly related to the similarity of her sexual atti— tudes to her reported sexual behavior. This hypothesis is not rejected. The Pearson Corre- lation between self-esteem and similarity Of sexual atti- tude to reported sexual behavior is significant at the .03 level and in the predicted direction. However, the rela- tionship is so low (r=-.10) as to be unimportant. A dif- ference between personal permissiveness and sexual behavior seems to have Very little relationship to self-esteem. On the assumption that those who were personally permissive but did not report much sexual activity might differ in self-esteem from those who violated personal standards by greater sexual activity than they thought 84 proper, a correlation was computed between directional difference and self-esteem. This was not significant (r=-.07, p=.096). But, permissiveness and sexual behavior correlate .39 (Table 3). The range Of difference scores is also very small, indicating that for this sample sexual behavior agrees with the person's values about it, and the small differences which appear are simply not important. HYPOTHESIS 11: The self-esteem of the subject is inversely related to the absolute difference between the subject's reported age at first intercourse and the median age Of reported first intercourse Of the sample. This hypothesis is rejected. The absolute differ- ence between age at first intercourse and median age Of first intercourse of the sample is not significantly relat- ed tO self-esteem (Table 21). When virgins are included in the calculation as having had intercourse first at 24 years of age, the absolute difference between sample age and median age is not significant (Table 21). However, when the direction of the difference is taken into account, so that what is being measured is age of first intercourse, there is an inverse relationship between age of first inter— course and self-esteem. This relationship is even stronger when virgins are included in the sample as if they would first have intercourse at age 24 (Table 22). Therefore, while difference from peers in age Of first sexual inter- course does not affect self-esteem, higher self-esteem is 85 TABLE 21 Pearson Correlation Between Self-Esteem and Absolute Difference Between Age Of First Intercourse and Median Age of First Intercourse of the Sample Group r p N Non-Virgins Only .05 .207 (N.S.) 225 Virgins Included (Age 24) -.03 .241 (N.S.) 395 TABLE 2 2 Pearson Correlation Between Self-Esteem and Age of First Intercourse Group r P N Non-Virgins Only -.15 .015 225 Virgins Included (Age 24) -.19 .001 395 significantly related to earlier intercourse, and lower self-esteem to later first intercourse. Since, as will be seen in Table 23 in the next section, virgins as a group have lower self esteem than non-virgins, adding virgins to the group having first intercourse later in life increases the negative relationship. It is not, then, the compari- son Of sexual behavior with that Of peers which is relevant for self-esteem, but other factors involved in earlier sexual activity. These findings will be discussed further in the following section. 86 Post-Hoc Findings Contrary to prediction, reference group pressure as measured by parent-subject and friend—subject differences in sexual attitudes and behavior had little measurable influence on the subjects' self-esteem. On the other hand, most of the other measured variables which were expected to have an indirect effect on self-esteem through a modi- fication Of the effect of reference group pressure had a direct relationship to it (see correlations, Table 2). Some of these variables such as age, year in school, and locus of control are probably related to maturation and growing independence. Other psychosocial variables such as having a close group of friends, or wanting to be like one's parents, particularly the role model of the same sex, confirm the theory that the closer one feels to others, the better one feels about oneself (Sullivan, 1953; Erikson, 1968). Variables which have a more direct relationship to sexuality than those just cited also turned out to have a small but significant effect on self-esteem. Parental influence on the young woman is represented by the finding that perceived liberalism of parental attitudes towards sexuality is somewhat related to self-esteem (Table 2). If this perception represents an internalization of paren- tal sexual attitudes, then the more liberal the parental view, the less conflict the subject would feel with 87 prevailing peer group attitudes about sex. Lack of con- flicting pressure about sexual expression should make it easier for the young woman to feel good about herself. Another sex-related reference group variable with a small but statistically significant relationship to self— esteem is the subject's report of friends' sexual behavior (Table 2). The greater the prOportion of friends reported as being involved in intimate sexual activity, the more likely the subject is to have higher self-esteem. Having a relatively large proportion Of friends involved in intimate sexual activities may represent less conflict with prevail- ing norms of sexual behavior in the same way that more lib- eral parental attitudes towards sexuality would. However, there is also a great tendency for subjects to report that most of their friends are involved in similar sexual activi- ties to themselves (r=.48, Table 3). This indicates either that people choose friends who tend to be at the same stage Of sexual behavior as they themselves are, or that they at least believe their friends to be similar to themselves in sexual activity. This belief would also tend to reduce any internally felt peer pressure to change behavior. Sexual Behavior and Self-Esteem The subject's own sexual behavior is significantly related to self-esteem across the sample as a whole (Table 2). The more intimate the subject's sexual behavior, the higher her self-esteem tends to be. T-Test of the difference 88 between means of self—esteem for virgins vs. non-virgins is significant (Table 23). TABLE 23 T-Test Of Difference Between Means of Self-Esteem Virgins vs. Non-Virgins Group N Mean S.D. T-Value p Virgins 170 44.8 37.5 -.317 .002 Non—Virgins 225 57.2 39.4 As a group, non-virgins have greater self-esteem than virgins in this sample. Those women who first had intercourse in high school or before also have significantly higher self-esteem scores than the rest Of the sample, in- cluding those who first had intercourse in college (Table 24). TABLE 24 T-Test of Difference Between Means of Self-Esteem: First Intercourse Before College vs. Rest Of Sample Group N Mean S.D. T-Value p First Inter- course Before College 110 61.4 39.3 3.02 .006 Rest Of Sample 285 48.3 38.4 This self-esteem difference is open to several interpretations. The first is that girls who have inter— course first when they are high school age or younger (in this sample one subject reported having intercourse first 89 at eleven and another at twelve) may have done so out of neurotic needs for demonstrations Of affection. If this were true, it would be expected that high self-esteem scores from this group would most likely represent a defensive need to see oneself or at least to present one- self in a particularly good light, rather than being a true estimate of self-worth. Examination of the data shows that this explanation is possible for some of those who have had first intercourse early, but not for all. Scattergrams show that those subjects who have had inter- course at age seventeen or earlier do as a group tend to fall at the high end of the spectrum of self-esteem scores (as would be expected from the correlation). However, there is a wide scatter of self-esteem scores, including some negative ones, in the group. Other items which might be expected to be given a defensively high rating along with self-esteem if a person were consciously or uncon- sciously "faking good" might be the report Of the number of close friends, or the declaration Of a wish to be like each parent. Although there is a positive but low relation- ship between these items and self-esteem in the sample as a whole, the relationship is lower for non-virgins than virgins. These data tend to cast doubt on the defensive nature of reported high self-esteem among those who have had intercourse earlier. 90 A different explanation can be made in terms Of sample limitation. All Of the subjects, whether or not they have had sexual intercourse previously, have proceeded to college. None of them are married or have children, although a few have had abortions. It can be assumed, then, that sexual activity has not had enormously disruptive consequences in terms of life goals. This sample does not include any young women who did not go on to college either as a direct or indirect result of early sexual activity. SO, at least some of the young women whose self-esteem might be assumed to be lower as a result of early sexual intercourse are not studied here. A third interpretation seems the most feasible. In 1960, when Douvan did her first study of adolescent girls, she found that the most outgoing and popular, as well as the mOst physically mature, were likely to have better self- concepts (pp. 229-261). Douvan reported nothing about early sexual experience; however, even if she had, its meaning would have been very different at that time. Given current cultural norms, it is very likely that the same young women whom Douvan generally characterized as "feminine" girls would today have earlier sexual experiences than less popular, later developers. If, as appears to be true, sexual intercourse is no longer enveloped in the negative sanctions of previous years, then self-esteem should not be adversely affected by early intercourse. Instead, the 91 positive aspects of being involved in a loving, sexual relationship should add to the already higher self—esteem of outgoing, pOpular, physically mature young women. Factors Contributing to Self-Esteem: Virgins vs. Non-Virgins The correlation between self-esteem and sexual behavior is significant but not high (Table 2). Further examination of the data indicates that there are differ- ences between virgins and non-virgins in terms of the factors involved in high self-esteem. Tables 25, 26, and 27 begin to elucidate the nature of the distinctions. In general, social relationships contribute heavily to the self-esteem of virgins, much more than for non-virgins. Looking at the individual correlations with self-esteem, number of close friends is significantly related to self- esteem for virgins and for the sample as a whole, but not for non-virgins (Table 25). Amount Of parent contact, which has no relationship to self-esteem either in the whole sample or for non-virgins, is significantly related to self-esteem in virgins. Wanting to be like one's mother is important to the self-esteem Of both virgins and non- virgins. As a group, these three variables seem to repre- sent a need to maintain strong relationships and continuing contact with important reference group members in order for virgins to feel good about themselves. That this need is not as powerful in non-virgins can be seen in the multiple 92 . msOOH Hmcuobxwunmz “HgmufilOH Umuoom Honucoo mo moons? mHo. HH. Twas mmm. NH. A.m.zv vow. mo... Hogmnmm xmm .mpsmfifl Bowman on Hoo. SH. IIOHQMDOHOOICOZV A.m.zv 3mm. mo. Hoymsmm Hooxmm thommm woo. NH. mo. 5H. A.m.zo ooo. NH. mosuflu< ago OweHmDHmm Hoo. OH. woo. Hm. A.m.zv omm. mo. Hoonom 5 How» Hoo. OHF moo. «N... A.m.zv «mm. wo... «HOHEOO mo moOQH moo. 3. mo. nH. woo. 3. H89 Hmfig moo. nH. ngé mmm. NH. Hoo. pm. 855 On mmmnmmOHU A.m.zo moo. oH. A.m.zo mo. mo. mmo. mH. 903:8 uanmm m n m H m u 982 OHAMHHQV £95 £83 £83.82 ESE, 398m OHQE .mchuH>|82 .mfimng “ammummIMHmm 5H3 mSHUMHmHHOO gom mmmdmg 93 TABLEZ6 Ihlatimship of Self-Esteem to Closeness to Friends, Parent Contacts , and Mother Nbdeling, for Virgins and Non-Virgins GIDUP 1: Virgins (N=165) Variable g Multiple R Closeness to Friends .27 (p=.001) Parent Contact .15 (p=.020) Mather Nbdel .20 (p=.048) .37 (p=.001) GEDUP 2: Non-Virgins (N=223) Variable 5 Multiple R Closeness to Friends .12 (p=123, N.S.) Parent Contact .05 (p=643, N.S.) thher Nbdel .16 (p=.024) .20 (p=.054, N.S.) 94 'EBLE 27 Relationship of Self-Esteem to Parent Attituies 'Ibwards Sex, Year in School, and locus of Control in Virgins and Non-Virgins Viggins (N=165 Variable E Multiple R Parent Attitude to Sex .12 (p=.149, N.S.) Year in School .03 (p=.492, N.S.) locus of Control* -.04 (p=.688, N.S.) .14 (p=.44o, N.S.) Non-Virgins (N=223) Variable 5 Multiple R Parent Attitude to Sex .15 (p=.036 Year in School .19 (p=.029) locus of Control* -.24 (p=.001) .32 (p=.001) *Iocus of control runs frcm internal (10d score) to external (high score). Negative correlation means that internal locus relates to high self-esteem, external locus to low self-esteem. 95 correlations in Table 26. For virgins, the multiple corre- lation of self-esteem and closeness to friends, parent con— tacts, and mother modeling is .37, significant at the .001 level. For non-virgins, the correlation Of these "social" factors and self-esteem is .20, non-significant. Signifi- cance of the difference between the two multiple correla- tions is .006. A very different group of items contributes signifi- cantly to the self-esteem of non-virgins. Those variables which could be expected to relate to maturity and independ- ence (year in school and locus Of control) are significant- ly related to self-esteem in non-virgins, but not at all in virgins (Table 25). Liberalism of parents' views about sexuality is also more strongly related tO self-esteem in non-virgins than in virgins. Their own sex behavior is not related to self-esteem in virgins, nor is friends' sex behavior significantly related to self-esteem for either group (Table 25). Table 27 shows the relationship between self-esteem and year in school, locus Of control, and liberalism Of parents' attitudes towards sexuality for each group. (Friends' sexual behavior added nothing to either multiple regression, and non-Virgins' reported sexual behavior could not be correlated because there was no spread.) In this comparison, the multiple correlation of the three variables, year in school, locus, and parent attitude, with self-esteem 96 was .14 for virgins. None of the individual items related significantly to self-esteem either. For non-virgins, how- ever, the multiple correlation is .32, significant at .001. Each of the individual variables also related significantly to self-esteem. Difference between multiple correlations for the two groups was significant at the .004 level. In this sample, then, virgins differ from non- virgins in terms of the elements which contribute to a pos- itive self-evaluation. Social and parental contacts are important for virgins, but not non-virgins. Probably sexual partners become the most important reference group for non- virgins. Also, if sexual intercourse is part of a matura- tion process, giving up evaluating oneself in terms of numbers of friends or parental support may be additional evidence Of growing independence. The data do not make clear whether feeling good about being Older and more inde- pendent Of others' values is part of readiness for inter- course, or whether, after being involved in a sexual rela- tionship, the person judges herself more in terms Of her maturity and the importance of her own values than before. It seems reasonable to assume, however, that intercourse usually means the establishment Of a one-to-one exclusive relationship which lessens the importance Of all other ties. As a "rite of passage" involving a change of status, sexual intercourse may also lead to an increased emphasis on the importance Of maturity to the individual. 97 Self-Esteem and the Length of Time Since First Intercourse As a further investigation of the meaning of sexual intercourse to the maturation process, the data were exam- ined to see whether elapsed time since first intercourse affected self-esteem. The correlation between number of years since first intercourse and self-esteem is .26 (Table 2). This is the highest correlation of a single variable with self-esteem in the study. Non-virgin subjects' age and year in school are related less strongly to self-esteem (Table 27). It appears, then, that regardless of age, the longer the person has been having intercourse, the better she feels about herself. In terms of self-concept, the rewards of having a sexual relationship seem to outweigh any negative sanctions. These data differ from those collected during the same time period by William Simon, studying high school students. In his research, with the exception Of seniors, high school girls who had had intercourse had lower self- esteem than those who were virgins (Personal communication, August, 1981). There are Obvious differences between the two samples. First, it is likely that mores concerning intercourse are different among high school and college students. What seems not only acceptable but desirable from the vantage Of someone in college may be inacceptable to a high school girl. A second important difference between the samples has to do with the fact that this study 98 involves only those girls who have gone on to college, while the Simon study included those who did not. There are like- ly to be social class differences between the samples which may affect values about intercourse, sexual behavior itself, and self-esteem. It is also possible, however, that part of the dif- ference between the two samples had to do with length Of time since first intercourse. TO examine the year by year relationship between sexual intercourse and self-esteem, the non-virgin sample was divided according to number of years since first intercourse. Table 28 shows the year-by- year man self—esteem and compares it with man self-esteem Of the virgins in the sample. TNHI328 NbanskfljFEsuxmlof(Armps‘qudnglanime theifihsminneramnse Group Mean Self-Esteem S.D. N Virgins 44.9 37.7 170 lst Intercourse less than 1 Year Ago 38.3 28.0 7 lst Intercourse 1-2 Years Ago 50.4 37.8 61 lst Intercourse 2-3 Years Ago 52.2 43.2 61 Lst Intercourse 3-4 Years Ago 55.9 33.0 40 lst Intercourse 4 Years Ago or More 73.5 42.9 56 99 Of the total sample, nine subjects had had intercourse first since their last birthdays. Of those nine, self— esteem scores were only available for seven. Although this was too small a sample to yield more than suggestive results: the mean self-esteem score for this sample of seven appears lower than that of the sample of virgins (Table 28). These data, though non-significant, hint that in the first year following first intercourse there may be a drop in self- esteem, followed by a steady rise each year thereafter. By the second year following intercourse, self-esteem is higher than for virgins. These results, based on the extremely small sample of college women in this sample who had first intercourse within less than a year of the study, make for interesting theoretical speculation. They could provide one explana- tion for the difference between these data and the Simon study, since a much larger proportion Of his non-virgin sample would have had intercourse first within the year before his research was conducted. It would be interesting to compare his data on the basis of number of years since first intercourse. If this factor proves on further test- ing to represent a real difference in self-esteem, a likely explanation is that there are two opposing values which come into play when the young woman has intercourse for the first time. The first is a parental, societal prohibition against premarital intercourse which probably makes itself 100 felt as guilt, and results in an initial lowering of self- esteem. The second value is a positive one existing among the college peer culture (if not the high school one) which maintains that sexual intercourse before marriage is very desirable and indicates that the young woman is involv- ed in a caring relationship. The longer the young woman continues to have intercourse, the greater the likelihood that its rewards in terms of intimacy, approval of another person, as well as peer approval, overcome any negative feelings. Certainly within the college population there is little reinforcement of the societal sanctions against intercourse, so that any guilt feelings should tend to extinguish over time. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The hypotheses in this study were based mainly on reference group theory. It was assumed that the way people feel about themselves is based at least in part on their perception of the success with which they meet the expecta- tions of significant others in their environment in impor- tant areas Of behavior. Sexual behavior, and specifically sexual intercourse, was chosen, since it represents a sig- nificant maturational step which is regulated in some fashion in every society. The effect of rapidly changing cultural norms about intercourse for unmarried women in this country was assumed to create differences in behavior- al expectations between generations. It was expected that (1) parental pressure would be produced by a perceived difference between the subject's sexual behavior and paren- tal attitudes towards sex, (2) peer pressure would result from a perceived difference between the subject's sexual behavior and friends' sexual behavior, and, (3) greater reference group pressure, represented by greater differences, would lead to lower self-esteem in the individual. This relationship was expected to be qualified by the amount of influence exerted by the parent and friend reference groups. 101 102 The effect of each group on the self-esteem Of the individ- ual was assumed to be modified by such factors as locus of control, amount of contact, felt closeness, and year in school. Discrepancies between the subjects' reported sex- ual behavior, their own values, and modal sexual behavior Of peers was also predicted to relate to self-esteem. Most Of the hypotheses lacked support. It seems clear from the data that parental values about sexuality have very little current influence on the behavior or self- esteem of the subjects. It appears that, by the time they reach college, young women no longer judge themselves by comparing their behavior with parents' standards, at least in the area of sexuality. It seems likely that Douvan's work in 1960 and 1966, showing that girls are more influ- enced than boys by shame or fear of loss of love and there- fore tend to conform to parental standards, is outdated with reference to sexual behavior. In this study, the effect of parental influence with regard to sexual behavior is evinced only among those subjects who have engaged in more intimate sexual activity than they think their parents would approve, and then only among those who are highly oriented towards the values of others. As a whole, subjects who feel they have violated parental sexual standards do not have lower self-esteem. Difference between the subject's sexual behavior and perception Of friends' sexual behavior also had a 103 disappointingly low relationship to self-esteem. As expect- ed, if the subject was involved in more intimate sexual behaviors than her friends the amount of difference did not affect self-esteem. The only relationship between subject- friend difference and lowered self-esteem was found when the subject was engaged in less sexual activity than she thought her friends were. This finding does tend to con- firm the theory that current college peer group pressure is in the direction Of greater rather than less sexual activ- ity. However, the relationships, though in the expected direction, were low and significant mainly because of the large sample. Higher year in school, if anything, lessened the influence Of peers. External locus of control had no apparent effect on peer pressure. How close the subjects felt to friends appeared to make some difference to self- esteem when they were more sexually active than their friends. In that case, those with many close friends had higher self-esteem if they were more like their friends in sexual behavior, while those with few close friends felt better about themselves if they were a lot more sexually active than their peers. It is theoretically possible that neither friends nor parents provide the relevant reference group standards for sexual behavior for college females, but that broader expectations Of the peer culture or the media are involved. In that case it would not be what friends are doing sexually 104 which would be important to self-esteem, but whatever are thought to be current peer standards about sexual behavior. It is also likely, considering current relaxed sexual mores, that the most important significant other in terms of the meaning Of sexual intimacy for self-esteem is the sexual partner. If the young woman is satisfying her partner's expectations for a sexual relationship, the rewards in terms of personal satisfaction and good feelings about the self may be strong enough to overcome negative self-esteem effects of other reference group pressure. A partial explanation for the disappointing results may also be a problem with the difference scores themselves. The use of standard scores to compare data with different means and standard deviations is a statistical necessity. Unfortunately standards scores eliminate what, in the case of subjects' sexual behavior and their perceptions Of parental sexual attitudes, represent real differences. It is most likely that, on a liberal-conservative dimension, mean subjects' sexual behavior is much more liberal than mean perception of parental sexual attitudes. However, this information is not directly available from the data, since the direct comparison was not made by the subjects. SO, the actual discrepancy between student behavior and parental attitude can only be inferred, although the correlation between difference scores and other variables is estimated correctly from the data. 105 To a lesser extent, this same problem exists in the comparison between subjects' reported sexual behavior and their assessment of their friends' sexual activities. Part of the comparison is based on the subjects' estimates of the proportion of friends engaged in a given behavior (Appendix F). This measure is not directly comparable tO the sub- jects' statements about their own sexual behavior either, although there is more theoretical justification for assum- ing that the means in each case would be closer on a liberal- conservative dimension than those of subject behavior and parental attitude. Results, then, which show differences in self-esteem when the subject is more sexually liberal or conservative than she thinks friends are, might be stronger if a more precise measure of difference were available. The subject's own sexual attitudes as related to her behavior has a significant, but very small, relationship to self-esteem. The relationship is probably so small because the correlation between behavior and attitude is high, and there was not much discrepancy. Absolute difference between the subject's age of first intercourse and median age Of first intercourse Of the sample is not related to self- esteem. However, there is a significant relationship between age Of first intercourse and self-esteem. The earlier first intercourse takes place, the higher self— esteem tends to be. 106 A further examination Of this result indicated that it was less the age at first intercourse which was important to self-esteem, but more the number of years over which intercourse had been taking place. In the first months following first intercourse, there are indications that self-esteem may be lower, followed by year-by-year increases in mean self-esteem scores. Initial guilt feelings, repre— senting a reaction to parental and societal sanctions against premarital intercourse, could explain an immediate drOp in self—esteem. Positive self-feelings, engendered by involve- ment in intimate relationships and social encouragement from peers, are stronger and more important than guilt feel- ings the Older the person and the longer she has been having intercourse. This is shown by the steady rise in self- esteem over time, significantly above that of virgins. The characteristics which are important to self- esteem in virgins and non-virgins were found to be different. For virgins, social variables were more important to a good self-concept. Their self-esteem was positively related to more parent contacts, having many close friends and wishing to be like the same-sexed parent. This cluster of variables made no significant difference to the self-esteem of non— virgins. Characteristics important to their self-esteem were year in school and internal locus Of control, repre- senting maturation and independence. 107 These data are important because they help to clar- ify the role of premarital sexual intercourse in some seg- ments of current society. They confirm that intercourse does involve role change and maturation. For those who had not yet had intercourse, closeness to parents and peers is important to good self-feelings. Once they have had intercourse, young women who are still tied to the values Of others (represented by external locus of control) tend to feel worse about themselves, while those who are Older and depend more on their own values (internal locus) feel better about themselves. The implication is that an important aspect Of the meaning of sexual intercourse for these college women is as a milestone related to growing away from the need for involvement with parents and friends to feel good, and an increased value on independence. Another implication of the findings is that parents' and friends' standards concerning desirable sexual behavior do appear to be entirely different. Parental values still seem to favor premarital abstinence, so that greater and earlier sexual activity results in a violation of parental Astandards, while less intimate sexual behavior does not. Peer standards about sexuality, in contrast, seem to demand earlier, more intimate sexual activity. The subject who is more sexually active than her friends seems to experience no discernable pressure to reduce her sexual activities. Only the subject who believes that she is 108 less sexually active than her friends tends to feel less good about herself, the greater the perceived discrepancy. Pressure towards greater sexual activity among college peers can also be inferred from the finding that it is not the difference in age of first intercourse between subject and peers which lowers self-esteem. Reduced self-esteem tends to occur only when first intercourse has taken place at a later age or not at all. Implications for Future Research It would be interesting to investigate further the implication from the data that there is a relationship between the act of sexual intercourse and emotional matura- tion. This relationship could be explored by investigating whether characteristics making a difference to self-esteem for virgins and non-virgins would show the same distinc- tions for high school students that they did for the college women in this study. Other related issues are whether the same maturation-intercourse relationship would exist for men, and whether the same variables would be important for the women in the sample several years later. Another area for further investigation concerns the suggestive but not statistically significant finding that the subjects who had had first intercourse very recently tended to experience a loss of self-esteem. To determine whether there is a significant self-esteem drop immediately following intercourse, or whether it was an artifact of a 109 small sample, it would be necessary to study this phenom- enon in a larger group. It should not be difficult to find a high school and college sample who had had inter- course first within a few months preceding the study and compare them to others for whom the time period had been longer, or who were still virgins. It would be helpful to administer a sex guilt questionnaire to see whether any lower self-esteem following first intercourse was related to guilt feelings. If the high school sample turned out to be different from the college sample in this regard, there would be broader implications for the current sanc- tions and standards about premarital intercourse as related to various age groups. A third area of investigation is the meaning Of higher self-esteem scores among those young women who had had first intercourse very early, prior to the age of fif- teen. It would be helpful both for the understanding of the cultural meaning of early intercourse and for compre- hension of the intricacies Of self-esteem to discover whether high self-esteem scores among that group are a true reflection of good self-concept or represent a defensive attempt to look good both to themselves and to the investi- gators. The answer could be determined through the use Of tests designed to show a need to answer positively to "socially desirable" items. If it does not appear that the increased self-esteem of these subjects is due to 110 defensiveness, many of the assumptions about psychological harm to the female resulting from very early first inter- course would have to be reexamined. A follow-up to the present study investigating the same questions several years later would give insight into the meaning of later loss Of virginity among those who were still virgins at the time Of the study. Knowledge of the future Of these women should help to reveal the mean- ing for self-esteem of choosing to remain a virgin. There have been a multitude of studies which list percentages of people having intercourse at various ages, discussing types of relationships, numbers of partners, etc., but very few which investigate the implications Of sexual decisions in terms Of the emotional effects on the individual. APPENDIX A Kallen Self-Esteem Scale 111 N n .3335 ram? 8 H u .Lcmfioofi How an no:.. AN 8 NH 983899 m+ u ..H.8o hm? a n .3382. 2.... u gone be? :H 8 HH 983351 688$. m. 0 m V m N H oooooooooooooo bflflgflmm oMN H. m m H. m N H . . 98ng penance: were 8 RHHHSH .NN H. e m 1. m N H. . . .mSHeQmmumodeéBoBfiHHHfi .HN N e m H. m N H .......... mHHHHn 83658 .ON N e m H. m N H ......... mgflomflum Hasxwm .NH N. W m V m N H oooooooo mggnomgm HMO-wmgm omH ecfiuflm nfififlm penning HHm em 82.. 33mm? be? .comem HBO» o no MHmmHsQH usonm Hmom so» so: MOM .3 pH pawn—HOE: .5: woman .5398 93 co 30365 mmMOHnH $.ng mo 300%.... mums.» mo :08 How .comnmm H38 6 mm MHmmHsQH ”Boom Hwom so» 30: B “EH09: 3 pH ”35 Hwom OS... mmgflombum HMOH ing moo» ubonm own Homm hm: so» .comumm H30» o no MHmmHsoeH ”Boom Hoom no» son on unBHOQHH no: 98 moon Hmmm poo mHHUHm 83mmuw>soo “52H usonm coco Hmom mm: 50» .OHQHGNO .Hom .somumm HBO» m mm MHmmHsO» “Bonn. HmOm so» so» no 953 CH 3 .uHHmmBHoeH mo magnum. memos... mo sumo “Eugene: so: 392 8 H33 m3 52 H ........ eomume H38 m we Heme: .NH N e m H. m N N. w m V M N H oooooooooooooo bHHSomHg oWH N e m e m N H . . 80388 e309: meme 8. fiHHHsN .H N e m e m N H . . . . 8038.... 885:8 B EHHHQN .3 N e m e m N H .......... mHHUHm Sflmflméoo .NH N e m e m N H ......... mmwéflomfium Haimm . NH 5 m m v m m H ........ mmmfigflomnuum HMOHEEAH . HH own Hmflsmz. H88 ovum? hum?» .uommmm sumo How 8305 N no: mHmom mg umfi 8.30: OmmmHm .uwonm Hmamqm use» so .895: mun-Hagan m5 3 .30: ”Emu .uHwaHHHQH mo ”Omaha umfi “Boom Hmom 90> can so: no @000 so: 3885 $83 .MHmm m5 m0 muommmm 93.35 OBmHH who onmm .muommmm H050 ”Boom poom Om uoc Him 83098:» HO 300mg 9.0m “Boom poem Hmwm coumo oHnHoonH 0.80m EmmIMHmm COHHMVH "4 xHQmemfl APPENDIX B Parental Attitudes Towards Sexuality Scale APPENDIX B Parental Attitudes Towards Sexuality Scale The first four items are indices Of attitudes parents may have ccmmm- icated to their children about sex. As part of the persmal interview, subjects were asked whether these items were (1) Sanething Major, (2) Sarething Minor, or (3) Not Carmunicated to them by their parents. Score: 3 = Major; 2 = Minor; 1 = Not Ccmmnicated 1. Sexis fun. 2. Sex is a good way of expressing your love for sateone. 3. 'Ihere is nothing wrong with sex before marriage if two people love each other. 4. Sex is like any other activity that is enjoyable. 'Ihe follming 3 items, also asked as part of the personal interview are reooded so that 5=l, 4=2, 3=3, 2=4, 1=5, so that scoring is l= conservative, 5=liberal. 5. In your opinim, how would you characterize your mother's view- point on sex? Would you say she was . . . l . Very Liberal 2 . Fairly Liberal 3 . In the Middle 4 . Fairly Conservative 5 . Very Conservative 6. And hon would you characterize your father's viavpoint on sex? Wouldyousayhewas . . . . Very Liberal . Fairly Liberal . In the Middle . Fairly Conservative . Very Conservative UlohWNl-J 7. When you were growing up, about how Often would you say that sex was the subject of general family conversation? Would you say . . . 1. Very Often 2 . Fairly Often 3 . Saretines 4 . Seldom 5 . Never 1 12 APPENDIX C Closeness to Parents Scale APPENDIX C Closeness to Parents Scale Parent Modeling (Questions 1 and 2) *Items 1 and 2 are scaled frrm close to distant, on a scale of 1 to 5. 1. Thinking of now, hownnxzhdoyouwant tobecare thekind Of person your mother is? . Very ITIlCh like her . Sarewhat like her Neither like nor unlike her . Sarewhat unlike her . Very unlike her . Does not apply (no nether) 2. And how much do you want to becare the kind of person your father is? 1. Very much like him . Sarewhat like him . Neither like nor unlike him . Sarewhat unlike him . Very unlike him . Does not apply (no father) mwoth—I O OlU'lanN Parent Contact (Questions 3 and 4) 3. About how many tines do you tsually go home in a quarter? 1. Never 5. Four times 2. Once 6. Five tines 3. Nice 7. Six or more times 4. 'Ihreetimes 4. About how many tines in the past nonth have you called hare? 1. Never 5. Four times 2. (hoe 6. Five tines 3. mice 7. Six to ten times 4. Three tines 8. More than 10 titres **5. About how many tines in the past month have you written hate? 1. Never 5. Four times 2. (hoe 6. Five tines 3. mice 7. Six to ten tines 4. Three tines 8. More than ten tines *In final analysis, reverse scored, so that low score = little modeling. "This question was drOpped from the contact scale, because it had no relationship to other closeness items. 113 APPENDIX D Internal—External Locus of Control Scale APPENDIX D Internal-External locus of Control Scale ‘Ihese questions were answered by written questionnaire. Internal answers are given a score of 1, external answers, 2. Ch questions 1, 4, and 7, 1=2, 2=l. Low score for the scale indicates internal locus of control, high score indicates external locus. Below are a series of paired statements. For each pair, please circle the number of the statement that comes closest to your position. Choose one statement from each pair. 1. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due 1. to bad luck. 2. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. 1. The average citizen can have an influence in goverm‘ent 2 decisions. ' 2. Msmrldisrlmbytl'efewpecpleinpmer,andthereis not much the little guy can do about it. 1. WhenImake plans, I amalmostcertain thatIcanmake them work. 2. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. l. Asfarasmrldaffairsareconoerned,mostofusarethe 4. victims of forces we can neither understand, nor control. 2. By taking an active part in political and social affairs, the peeple can control world events. 5 l. 'Jhere is really no such thing as "luck." ' 2. Must peeple do not realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings . 6 1. With enough effort we can wipe out political corrupticn. ' 2. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office. 1. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things 7 that happen to me. ° 2. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. 8 l. mathappenstomeismyowndoing. ' 2. Saretimes I feel that I do not have enough control over the direction my life is taking. 114 APPENDIX E Perception of Friends' Sexual Behavior APPENDIX E Perception of Friaids ' Sexual Behavior 'Ihe following three questions were part of the personal interview. Answers were reverse scored, with 5:1, 4=2, 3=3, 2=4, and l=5. Answers to question 1 were weighted 1, answers to question 2 weighted 2, and answers to question 3 weighted 3. Highest score represents largest proportion of sexually experienced fria'xds. 1. About what proportim of your friends date? Would you say . U'IbWNl-J 0 All of than Nbre than half of them About half of than less than half of than None of than 2 . About what proportion of your friends engage in petting? Would you say . . . GUI-huh)!“ All of them Nbre than half of than About half of than less than half of than None of than (Don't know) 3. About what proportion of your friends have intercourse? Would you say . . . mU'lbUJNi-J All of them More than half of than About half of than less than half of than None of than (Don't know) 115 APPENDIX F Closeness to Friends Scale APPENDIX F Closeness to Friends Scale These questions were asked on the personal interview. Answers were scored from close to not close, with lower scores representing close contacts with friends.* Questims 2 and 5 were reooded so that l=7, 2:6, 3:5, 4:4, 5:3, 6:2, 7:1, 8:8. 1. Hm many close friends would you say you have? . A great many . Many . An average number . Several . A few UlnwaH 2. Hm many of than do you think of as close fria1d3 with whom you can discuss a personal problem? 1. One 5. Five 2. 'IWo 6. Six 3. 'Jhree 7. Seven or more 4. Four 8. None of than 3 . About what proportion of your friends are friends with each other? 1. All of than 2. More than half of than 3. About half of than 4. less than half of than 5. None of than 4 . Since the beginning of fall term, please indicate the amount of time spent in activity. . . . Talking or doing things with friaids 1. Alotoftime . Quiteabitcftime Averageamountcftime Nottocmmchtime Notmuchtimeatall . (Doesnotapply) mmnww O *In the final analysis scores were reversed so that 1m scores = not close, high scores = close. 116 117 Closeness to Friends Scale (cont'd.) 5. Hm many of your friends knm what you are doing sexually? DWNH (he 5. 'IWo 6. Three 7. Four 8. Five Six Seven or more Ncne of than 6. Hm often do you talk with your friaids about what you are doing sexually? Would you say . . . U'lwaI-d 0 Very often Fairly often Sometimes Seldom Never APPENDIX G Subject's Sexual Attitude Scale APPENDIX G Subject's Sexual Attitude Scale 'Ihese questions were part of the written questionnaire. Cutoff points for the Guttman Scale are indicated by the line under the answer. 'Ibtal scale runs from 1 to 5, not permissive to permissive. l. “hat is the most intimate behavior you feel it is acceptable for a farale to engage in with a male she has just met or Ems only casually? . No physical relationship . Kissing . Light petting (above waist) . Heavy petting (belm waist) . Intercourse I—‘O book) 2. What is the most intimate behavior you feel it is acceptable for a fanale to engage in with a friend of the opposite sex? 0 . No physical relationship . Kissing Light petting (above waist) Heavy petting (belm waist) . Intercourse H hWN O 3. What is the most intimate behavior you feel it is acceptable for a female to engage in with sateone she has affection for but does not love? . No physical relationship Kissing Light petting (above waist) Heavy petting (belm waist) . Intercourse Nl—‘O O O kw o 4. What is the most intimate behavior you feel is acceptable for a fatale to engage in with saneone she loves? . No physical relationship . Kissing . Light petting (above waist) . Heavy petting (belm waist) Intercourse WNl-‘O .5 o 118 APPENDIX H Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale PLEASE NOTE: Capyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation, however, in the author's university library. These consist of pages: 119-122 University Micro Ilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD. ANN ARBOR, MI 48106 (313) 761-4700 APPENDIX H Rosenberg Self-Estean Scale Please decide if you Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree with the follming self-statatents, and mark the appropriate number on your answer sheet: Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 1. 01 the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 1 2 3 4 2. At times I think I am nogoodatall. l 2 3 4 3. Ifeelthatlhavea number of good qualities . l 2 3 4 4. I feel that I amable to do things as well as most people. 1 2 3 4 5. Ifeelthatldonot have much to be proud of. l 2 3 4 6. I certainly feel useless at times. 1 2 3 4 7. IfeelthatIamaper- son of worth, at least on a plane with other people. 1 2 3 4 8. I wish that I could have more respect for myself. 1 2 3 4 9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 1 2 3 4 lo. I take a positive atti— tude toward myself. 1 2 3 4 119 APPENDIX I Rotter I-E Scale 120 .8339... 30 $3500 8333.330 8 933 03 883080 c @2308: no m: 30.3 3383 no 390 38933 .388: no: 8383 03 9.3.3939! common 333 common 03 93303.0 m3 3833 3833 950.3 83.30 883 3 IN 3 .833 3 8:0 383 855838 £0.23 8333 3 80833898 m. moo m3 33 In .3338qu m .88 095583830 :3 8303 30.8.8 833 83m 3338' 3 .m N 3 N 3 8.8.30 5333 9838 3mm 03 30: 08338308.. 3 .830 8333 9333 03 mumfio 3mm 3. S8 033 838mm! 52393339830393 3§§E§§§333gozll .8333533950 3.833 30 83.83838 8383 30c 88: 383083 96083 03 33mm 033 83ng 83898“ .8683 9308338 cm on 30:80 moo 9383 3303.3 833 3903333 .mmcdcdmmmnll 38338303008 3 38083.33 8.8 moo—mum H.833 30333 03 3.888 833 833.83 3. Goo 38353m 333 IIIN .388: m3 flame—33m 03 3.8335 0.8 8883 3% 88303 85. 3 .m m H .8333 on who: 30: 38332 on 3033500855 mommmm .8330 £3303 n 3330333333 8 .h383m383303351ll 63303 m3£3 :3 9.8830 8333 3089.83 8:3 380 83330833 can 9.53 8:3 3 3833 33888» 03 F 838d 30.8: 30: 38333: on 583 83 96338 3333 8.85.! N .m03333om ll. 3 3.8.833 30:08 983 3.80 839833 838083 m3 883 9m: 83 3333 ”38.883 3093: 8:3 30 8:0 3 .m .839: 8:3 833mm: 833 833 335.83 885.8me m ..I.Io3mowm Ilm .3033 one 03 830 333.833 8.8 833 m 83ng G3 «5:353 Eng 8:3 “30 acmzll. 3 .m IIIN .833 £333 ammo 003 8.8 3:8qu H.833 393 m3 mamoEGc 338303320 38: 3333 8339033 wall .302: 003 :85 838E 38833 33933 898083 833533 033 380 3336 3 .3 .3833 zoom 5033 3838388 woo 8005 .83338m 3:93 03 3.8830 @860 3933 36835....“ 833 30 895: 8:3 388 383mg .350.» so 323 098333 .3833 3038 39m .m38s83m3m 3833.33 30 83.33 m 8.8 303mm 038m "NIH 383393 "H XHDszmfl 121 23053.. no 93333 £05m CC 3883 m3 8.85.l 805885 N 3386308 an 383303350 88 8533 38:3 30333 03 38338 833 on33oo3 3. Coo 8300033 3893 83858 @3303 303380 coo 83330833 033 3.838 3o300n 98 383333033 C3 338 m>330o Co 93.35 mml .3033C00 30C 30.883805 3 N 83338: Coo 83 80303 30 93330333 9.33 .38 mo 30 38: 68:88.00 38 m33ommo 33303 no .83 mm .33 C333 0o 03 0:358 30 83333 no: 3093 .3338 Con: 3083830 933333 3833 8333 no 03 83330833 mC33300l .8333 83m 333.033 833 C3 on 03 85038 .9053 no.3 033 Go mocommo C8330 moon 833 on 03 33 onzl .300 o 93335333 mo 0o 03 3on3 8300p 3383 no 3mo.n 3835 83 8533 El .3053 £333 on 03 933330: 30 833333 moo £83 H 393 93385 omoo be :Hl .moonbgofiooomgmggofiflll .ooom0C3mono3oowEo3moomq3o338o3om3gl £0838 95330.3 ooo 30 H O HHN HHN HHN 30003030 3o33o=om303 3903353 83333335858833 ooono 83003833303833 m>o33o 30Cm333 33038238328033588338383o83 .m83moxoeHCQEl .33 3:08 0o 80 E 833333 833 :02: 30: m3 88:3 308 .3030m :3 83330833 83 8333 3 C53 m3 303303 m3.5.l 8330830830 385338.33 C3 803853.333 Co 9o: Coo 8N3330 omo30>o 05. .8333 3:033 85 3o ooo3d 33833 8333 C3 9383 CO M338: mocomoo ooh ooom o 93338.0l .33 3333 on 03 933230: 30 033333 won 303 .3303 338: 30 38333: o m3 mmooocm o one—coal .8838: 333383 m3 933.3358 3on3 330383500 03 3833835 on on 03 3883 20338930 8833 wcgl 3.83 3.83:: Co no 9333 o £05m 388 “33 3383 m3 03.333 33833.8 38388333 3303 8:3 30 omoo 8:3 CHl lN 3 lN 3 lN 3 IN 3 .m3 .3 .m3 .303 .M3 .N3 .33 .03 3.30.3362 838m mTH 383393 122 .30303 38003 8 08 3303 08 388338C 8 Co 353330500 083 303 0330380003 038 030000 35.3 9.303 033 C3 .8 .305 .30.. 0.3.. 0.6303 0:03.038 .33 0500300.... 3.50 3 0.3.3 0.33 .06 382 .030...» m3 0333 3... 8330033. 0.0 30.6 39.380 3980 0.6.. 3.80 3 0.05 3003 3 00.33080 63008533030303 0309833833 303083830 03353 03 .383 8 038 0330330 .803. 03003300 C3 003303338 Co 03083930 303:. 003 03 0305. 50.3 0333 .3033 3.0.3 0333 .3033 33 0300033 008030 03 0383 003 9333 C3 00: 3033: 30C 0.0305. (330C033 03 03 .333 3.000 >033 00.8003 330.303 038 030000 .0333 .3... :3 038 3200300.: ...... 0.3030 303.3 30 0030.30 30.0 0.03303 B 0.. 303 033300005. 03 33H .0... 8. c0000.. 30.3... 09.3.0 033 30.6 0000:3333 033033 0.6.. 3 005 3003 3 00.3.3 3.0.. .038 0303 33033 3833 3030 03 38030 33 0038:. 300803 0000 d .00 030030 .3033 3833 0033005033 303 003000 03 030000 0300930 300803 000m 4 .300 3 000830 033 038 3333330 3 0383 303 C003303 C033003300 000330 8 03 0.305. .030 >033 000833. 033 38 053338 03030803 303 0C830300CC 3.80 3 09333960 003.030 C3 00 0830333300 09333 033 .3030 30.33.80 305.: 0383 03 030000 303 33503330 03 33 .8393300 380333300 390 0033 80 03 330.330 303.930 3333 .00333 338 30 .000C3383 00830.53 .....333338 30 3083 .030 0335003 033 038 008530.303... 3093 .00880005308330893C000833833 00350303353083 033C3 .038 3.0.3 80300 8 003C 3033 C0 00C0000 0383 so» 00C0333 .3388 303M .00» 003.33 333803 80300 8 30C 30 3033033 3053 03 0.383 03 33 00383038 0.08 0: 30.60 03 3003 33850: 03 33 003303.... 03.00 B 9.33333 0.. 0.30330 83830 08 N Nv—l NI-I NI-I NH Nv-l H N Nv-l N I-IN HN r-l .mN .mN .hN .oN .mN .a3 3.0.328. 03000 3.3 30338 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Acock, A.C., & Bengstrom, V.L. On the Relative Influence of Mothers and Fathers: A Covariance Analysis of Political and Religious Socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1978, 39, 519-580. Acock, A.C., & Bengstrom, V.L. Socialization and Attribu- tion Processes: Actual versus Perceived Similarity among Parents and Youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1980, fig, 501-515. Allport, G.W. Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963. Antonovsky, H.F., Shoham, I., Kavenocki, S., Modan, B., & Lancet, M. Sexual Attitude-Behavior Discrepancy among Israeli Adolescent Girls. The Journal of Sex Research, 1978, 15, 260-272. Bell, R.R. Parent-Child Conflict in Sexual Values. Journal of Social Issues, 1966, 22, 33-44. Bell, R.R., & Buerkle, J.V. Mother and Daughter Attitudes to Premarital Sexual Behavior. Marriage and Family Living, 1961, 23, 390-392. Bell, R.R., & Coughey, K. Premarital Sexual Experience among College Females, 1958, 1968, and 1978. Family Relations, 1980, 22, 333-357. Chilman, C.S. Adolescent Sexuality_in a Changing American Society: Social and Psychological Perspectives. Washington, D.C. Dept HEW/0.5. Gov't Printing Office, 1979. Christensen, H.T. Normative Theory Derived from Cross- Cultural Family Research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1969, 81, 209-229. Clayton, R.R. Premarital Sexual Intercourse: A Substan- tive Test of the Contingent Consistency Model. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1972, 33, 273-381. 123 124 Clayton, R.R., & Bokemeier, J.L. Premarital Sex in the Seventies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1980, 33, 759-775. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. Applied Multiple Regression/Corre- lation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1975. Collins, J.K. Adolescent Dating Intimacy: Norms and Peer Expectations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1974, 8, 317-327. Constanzo, P.R., & Shaw, M.E. Conformity as a Function of Age Level. Child Development, 1966, 21, 967-975. Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freedman and Co., 1967. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Struc- ture of Tests. Psychometrika, 1951, l6, 297-334. Cronbach, L.J., & Furby, L. How We Measure 'Change'-Or Should We? Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 11' 68-80. Curtis, R.L., Jr. Adolescent Orientation Towards Parents and Peers: Variations by Sex, Age and Socio- economic Status. Adolescence, 1975, l0(40), 483-494. Darlington, R.B. Multiple Regression in Psychological Research and Practice. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 62, 161-182. Davis, P. Contextual Sex-Saliency and Sexual Activity: The Relative Effects of Family and Peer Group in the Sexual Socialization Process. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1974, 39' 196-202. Delamater, J., & MacCorquodale, P. Premarital Sexuality: Attitudes, Relationships, Behaviors. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979. Douvan, E. Sex Differences in Adolescent Processes. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1960, 6, 203-211. Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. The Adolescent Experience. New York: Wiley, 1966. Ehrmann, W.H. Premarital Dating Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1959. Erikson, E.H. Childhood and Society. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1950. 125 Erikson, E.H. Identity, Youth, and Crisis. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1968. Fenichel, O. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1945. Ford, C.S., & Beach, F.A. Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper & Row, 1951. Hall, C.S. A Primer of Freudian Psychology. New York: Mentor Books, 1954. Hopkins, J.R. Sexual Behavior in Adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 1977, ll, 67-85. Jessor, S.L., & Jessor, R. Transition from Virginity to Nonvirginity Among Youth: Social Psychological Study over Time. Developmental Psychology, 1975, ll, 473-484. Kallen, D.J. Unpublished data on sexual and contraceptive decision-making by 823 undergraduates. Michigan State University, 1976. Kelley, J. Sexual Permissiveness: Evidence for a Theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1978, 50, 455-468. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., Martin, C., & Gebhard, P. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1953. Libby, R.W., Gray, L., & White, M. A Test and Reformulation of Reference Group and Role Correlates of Premarital Sexual Permissiveness Theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1978, 50, 79-92. Lynd, H.M. On Shame and the Search for Identity. New York: Science Editions, 1961. Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. The Psychology of Sex Differences. California: Stanford University Press, I975. Mahler, M.S. The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1975. McDonald, G.W. Parental Power and Adolescents' Parental Identification: A Reexamination. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1980, ll, 289-296. 126 Merton, R.K., & Kitt, A.S. Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior. In R.K. Merton & P.F. Lazarsfeld (Eds.), Studies in the Scope and Method of "The American Soldier.“fi_Illinois: The Free Press, 1950. Mirande, A.M. Reference Group Theory and Adolescent Sexual Behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1968, 30, 572-577. O'Donnell, W.J. Adolescent Self-Esteem Related to Feelings Towards Parents and Friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1976, 5, 179-185. Reiss, I.L. The Social Context of Premarital Sexual Per- missiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967. Reiss, I.L., & Miller, B.C. Heterosexual Permissiveness: A Theoretical Analysis. In W.R. Burr, R. Hill, F.I. Nye, & I.L. Weiss (Eds.), Contemporary Theories About the Family (Vol. 1). New York: The Free Press, 1979. Riesman, D., & Jencks, C. The Academic Revolution. New York: Doubleday, 1964. Rosenberg, M. Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1979. Rosenberg, M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1965. Rosenberg, M., & Simmons, R.G. Blgck and White Self- Esteem: The Urban School Child. Arnold M., & Caroline Rose Monograph Service, American Socio- logical Association, 1971. Rotter, J.B. Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 89, 1-28. Schultz, B., Bohrnstedt, G.W., Borgatta, E.F., & Evans, R.R. Explaining Premarital Sexual Intercourse among College Students: A Causal Model. Social Forces, 1977, §§, 148-165. Schwartz, M., & Baden, M.A. Female Adolescent Self-Concept: An Examination of the Relative Influence of Peers and Adults. Youth and Society, 1973, 5, 115-128. 127 Sebald, H., & White, B. Teenagers' Divided Reference Groups: Uneven Alignment with Parents and Peers. Adolescence, 1980, l5, 979-984. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. Reference Groups: Exploration into Conformity and Deviation of Adolescents. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Shibutani, T. Reference Groups as Perspectives. American Journal of Sociology: 1955, g9, 562-569. Silber, E., & Tippett, J.S. Self-Esteem: Clinical Assessment and Measurement Validation. Psythologi- cal Reports, 1965, 16, 1017-1071. Sorenson, R. Adolescent Sexuality in Contemporaty America. New York: World Publishing Company, 1972. South, D.R., & Floyd, H.H., Jr. Parental or Peer Orienta- tion? Options and Implications for Youth and Parents. The Southern Quarterly, 1971, l0, 49-62. Strickland, B.R., & Haley, W.B. Sex Differences on the Rotter I-E Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 32, 930-939. Sullivan, H.S. Conceptions of Modern Psychiatty. New York: Norton & Co., 1953. Teevan, J., Jr. Reference Groups and Premarital Sexual Behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1972, ll, 283-291. Walsh, R.H. The Generation Gap in Sexual Beliefs. Sexual Behavior, 1972, 3, 4-10. Wells, L.E., & Marwell, G. Self-Esteem: Its Conceptual- ization and Measurement. California: Sage Publications, 1976. Young, J.W., & Ferguson, L.R. Developmental Changes Through Adolescence in the Spontaneous Nomination of Reference Groups as a Function of Decision Content. Develop- mental Psychology, 1979, lg, 239-252.