—_

MSU

LIBRARIES

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
PIace in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wiII
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beIow.

 

- “AI!

A . 'k

0 fi ‘1...

r: \ . .4
I. _r

. 5"7 ll,
‘ F v ‘ 1 \a
. ,,
. , ’ . , .
' - ' .' 4

N

r—

z

IAY‘VILO 'EUUB

hi; {:1 5.}; .

\n

! ~‘
3 u
. -

 

 

 

 

 

CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY AND PREMARITAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
AMONG HETEROSEXUAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

BY

Paul Andrew Eckert

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

I984

m </

a?

334‘

Copyright by
PAUL ANDREW ECKERT
1984

ABSTRACT

CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY AND PREMARITAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
AMONG HETEROSEXUAL COLLEGE STUDENTS

BY

Paul Andrew Eckert

Past research concerning the relationship between religiosity and
sexual behavior has suffered because important aspects of both religiosity
and sexual behavior have been overlooked. The present study alleviates this
problem by employing more comprehensive measures of each phenomenon.
Christian orthodoxy was assessed by means of a multidimensional scale
measuring religious belief, experience, and practice. Sexual behavior was
assessed using a multidimensional inventory measuring degree of physical
intimacy in sex, frequency of sexual activity, number of sexual partners, and
affection for sexual partners.

Data analysis revealed the following major findings. First, religiosity
is negatively related to degree of physical intimacy in sex, frequency of
sexual activity, and number of sexual partners. Second, religiosity is
positively related to affection for sexual partners. Third, a nonsignificant
trend suggests that, as religiosity increases, a positive relationship between

affection and degree of physical intimacy also increases.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank
Dr. Elaine Donelson for enthusiastically encouraging my creativity,
Dr. Terrence Allen for patiently guiding my statistical efforts, and
Dr. Norman Abeles for drawing my attention to important clinical concerns.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION

METHOD

Subjects
Instruments
Religiosity Scale
Sexual Behavior Inventory

Procedure

RESULTS
Religiosity Variables
Sexual Behavior Variables
Relationships Between Religiosity and Sexual Behavior
Hypothesis One
Hypothesis Two

Hypothesis Three
Hypothesis Four

ill

16

I8

I8

2I

25
25
30
34
3S

DISCUSSION
Instruments
Religious and Sexual Behavior Profile of Sample
Relationships Between Religiosity and Sexual Behavior

Conclusion

APPENDIX A: The DeJong, Faulkner, and Warland Religiosity Scale

APPENDIX B: Modifications of the Bentler Heterosexual Behavior
Inventory

APPENDIX C; The Eckert Heterosexual Behavior Inventory (ESBI)

APPENDIX D: Research Consent Agreement

LIST OF REFERENCES

36

36

37

38

43

44

53

S4

64

GS

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Correlation Matrix For the Six Religiosity Subscales

Table 2: Reliability of Each Religiosity Subscale and of Various Sums of
Subscales

Table 3: Raw Frequency and Percentage of Subjects Indicating a Given Degree
of Sexual Behavior as the Highest Experienced

Table 4; Raw Frequency and Percentage of Subjects Indicating a Given Number
of Sexual Partners

Table 5; Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency of Sexual Activity and
Affection for Sexual Partners, For Each Degree of Noncoital and
Coital Behavior

Table 6: Correlations of Religiosity Subscales With Degree of Noncoital and
Coital Behavior

Table 7: Correlation of Degree of Noncoital and Coital Behavior With Number
of Partners, Frequency of Activity, and Affection (For That Degree
Only)

Table 8: Correlation of Religiosity Subscales With Number of Sexual Part-
ners, For Each Degree of Noncoital and Coital Behavior

Table 9: Correlations of Religiosity Subscales With Frequency of Sexual Acti-
vity, For Each Degree of Noncoial and Coital Behavior

Table l0: Correlations of Religiosity Subscales With Affection for Sexual
Partners, For Each Degree of Noncoital and Coital Behavior

20

2O

22

24

26

27

29

3i

32

33

Table l 1: Correlation of Affection for Sexual Partners With Degree of Noncoi-
tal and Coital Behavior, At Three Levels of Religiosity 34

vi

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between religiosity and premarital sexual behavior
has been the subject of scientific study at least since Kinsey published his
groundbreaking work on male sexuality in 1948. Religiosity has generally
been considered to be the degree of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy (Clayton &
Gladden, 1974). Sexual behavior has for the most part been measured as
degree of permissiveness (Mahoney, 1980,- Reiss, 1967).

Because of the traditional Judeo-Christian tendency to restrict sexual
behavior outside marriage (Bullough, 1976), it seems that a negative
relationship would exist between religiosity and premarital sexual behavior,
i.e. that an individual's sexual permissiveness would decrease as religiosity
increased. Numerous correlational studies have sought to determine whether
or not such a negative relationship does in fact exist (King, Abernathy,
Robinson, & Balswick, 1976, Mahoney, 1980). Mahoney notes that the results
of such studies have been mixed, with some research revealing a negative
relationship and other research revealing no significant relationship at all.

It seems that at least part of this confusion has resulted from a failure
to define and measure religiosity and sexual behavior adequately. In exploring
this state of affairs, it will be useful to consider what aspects of religiosity
and sexual behavior should be subjects of scientific study and then to see
which of these factors have actually been dealt with effectively in the
research literature.

In the early 1960‘s, Block (1962, 1965) observed that it was simplistic

I

to conceptualize Christianity as unidimensional-—as consisting gm of belief,
or ritualistic behavior, or emotional experience. Instead he conceptualized it
as multidimensional. The five dimensions he identified were: experiential
(emotions), ritualistic (e.g., church attendance), ideological (beliefs),
intellectual (knowledge), and consequential (moral effects). Since that time,
some critics have rejected the multidimensional approach in favor of a
unidimensional concept (Clayton, 1971, Clayton & Gladden, 1974). However,
although different sets of dimensions have been suggested, research has been
strongly supportive of the multidimensional viewpoint (DeJong, Faulkner, 8.
Warland, 1976; Demerath & Letterman, 1969,- Faulkner & DeJong, 1966;
Fukuyama, 1961, Block & Stark, 1966; Goldsen, 1960,- Gorlow & Schroeder,
1968,- King & Hunt, 1972; Lehman & Shriver, 1968, Lenski, 1961,- Marx, 1967,-
Stark & Glock, 1968,- Yinger, 1969).

Surprisingly, relatively few studies of the relationship of religiosity
to premarital sexual behavior have employed the multidimensional approach
(e.g., Clayton, 1972,- Faulkner & DeJong, I968, Hornick, I978, Rohrbaugh &
Jessor, 1975; Young, 1981). It is perhaps understandable that studies
published prior to Glock's work would have used unidimensional scales, but
the continued use of such simplistic measures into the late 1960's and 1970's
seems difficult to justify. Regrettably, most of the published research has
conceptualized religiosity either in terms of church attendance alone (e.g.,
Bell & Chaskes, 1970,- Burgess & Wallin, 1953; Davidson & Leslie, 1977,-
Ehrman, 1959,- Jackson & Potkay, 1973; Kanin & Howard, 1958,- Kinsey, 1948,
1953, Spanier, 1976) or in terms of belief alone (e.g., Clayton, 1969,- Curran,
Neff, & Lippold, 1973,- King et al., 1976,- Lindenfeld, 1960).

Sexual behavior, like religiosity, is best conceptualized as a

multivariate, or multidimensional, phenomenon. The most obvious variable of

importance is the gegree of physical intimacy experienced. Sexual behavior
clearly involves much more than coitus, with non-coital behavior ranging
anywhere from kissing to the most intimate oral-genital contact. To use
experience of coitus as the only standard of measurement would be to
consider the differences between the broad range of non-coital behaviors to
be insignificant. To argue that there is no important difference, between a
woman kissing her boyfriend and performing felatio on him, is absurd.

Degree of physical intimacy is, however, not the only variable of
interest. One must also consider the frequency with which a given behavior is
performed. Given two men who have "experienced coitus", one man may have
done so only once, "in a moment of weakness," whereas the other may
deliberately seek and gain the experience every weekend.

The number 9f partners with whom a behavior is experienced is also

 

important. Without reference to this variable, the significance of degree and
frequency of behavior is hard to gauge. For example, of two women who have
experienced coitus four times in the last month, one woman may have done so
with her steady boyfriend, while the other may have done so with four
strangers she "picked up" at local bars.

The discussion of number of partners also raises the issue of the
relationship with those partners, the most salient variable being level of
affection. In our last example, what may stand out more clearly than the
difference in number of partners is the difference in level of affection felt
for them. The first woman had intercourse with her boyfriend, for whom she
had strong affection, whereas the second woman sought coitus with men for
whom she had no particular affection at all. To measure affection is not to
mix attitudes with behavior. Rather, it is to assess a vital non-motor

component of behavior--the emotional state of the organism when engaged in

a particular kind of motor activity. Affection is not measured as an adjunct
to behavior but as a part of behavior.

The foregoing discussion of multidimensional sexual behavior
measurement has identified four variables as particularly relevant: d_eggee of
physical intimacy, frequency of occurrence, number of partners, and level of
affection for them. Just as in the case of the religiosity variable, most
studies comparing religiosity and sexual behavior have been surprisingly
si mplistic in their assessment of sexual behavior. Most have ignored at
least one of the salient variables, and the measures of variables which were
included have been less than comprehensive. For example, regarding the
"degree of physical intimacy“ variable, the majority of researchers have
dealt only with coital experience (e.g., Clayton, 1969, 1972; Davidson &
Leslie, 1977; Faulkner & DeJong, 1968; Jackson & Potkay, 1973; Jessor &
Jessor, 1975; Rohrbaugh & Jessor, 1975). Spanier (1976) dealt with both
coital and noncoital behavior, but his measure of noncoital experience used
vague terms such as "light" and "heavy" petting. Such terms may mean a wide
variety of things to different subjects, and important distinctions are
obscured.

Mahoney's (1980) recent study represents perhaps the best attempt to
measure all four relevant sexual behavior variables. He employed the quite
specific and detailed Bentler Heterosexual Behavior Inventory (Bentler,
19683, 1968b), and thus was one of very few studies to use a satisfactory
measure of the "degree" variable. Mahoney also directed attention to the
frequency, number of partners, and affection variables.

However, his measurement of these variables fell far short of the kind
of comprehensiveness he employed with the degree variable. He explored the

number of coital partners but not the number of noncoital partners. He

examined the frequency of both noncoital and coital behavior but only dealt
with the broad categories of "coitus", "light petting (above waist)", and
"heavy petting (below waist)" (p. 102), rather than asking for the frequency of
egg of the specific behaviors in the Bentler inventory. Mahoney also
investigated affection for partners, but only for the first and most recent

coital partners.

 

The foregoing survey of the methods used to measure religiosity and
sexual behavior has revealed that they have for the most part been inadequate.
If religiosity and sexual behavior are in fact multidimensional. it is clearly
simplistic to search for a simie relationship, negative or otherwise, between
them. It is more appropriate to ask which specific dimensions of religiosity
relate to which specific dimensions of sexual behavior. Only then can this
important issue be explored in depth rather than superficially.

To satisfy the rigorous requirements outlined above, the present study
employs two quite effective measurement instruments. The DeJong et al.
(1976) Religiosity Scale is used as a measure of religiosity. Sexual behavior
is assessed by means of a new instrument, which is based in part on the
Bentler Heterosexual Behavior Inventory (Bentler 19683, I968b) and the work
of Mahoney (1980). The structure of these measures will be discussed in
detaillater.

Assuming that these multidimensional measures adequately assess
Christian religious orthodoxy and sexual behavior, what pattern of
relationships between them may we expect to find? Prior research is of
little help in forming specific hypotheses because the religiosity measure has
never been used in the context of a religiosity--sexuality study, and the
sexual behavior scale has never been used at all. Furthermore, the few other

multidimensional religiosity studies which have been done do not appear to

have directly examined the relationship of the separate dimensions of
religiosity to sexual behavior. They have instead for the most part used a
composite religiosity score which pools scores on measures of the individual
dimensions. Thus any hypotheses concerning the separate dimensions of
religiosity would be purely speculative. Since no pattern of relationships
seems intuitively obvious, no analysis will be attempted until data collection
is complete.

It is easier, however, to speculate concerning the relationship of
religiosity to the different dimensions of sexual behavior, without
distinguishing between the different dimensions of religiosity. Because of
the previously described sexual restrictiveness of the Judeo-Christian
religious tradition, it seems reasonable to expect that religiosity would
correlate negatively with the degree of physical intimacy in sex, the
frequency of sexual activity, and the number of sexual partners. Because of
the Judeo-Christian emphasis on the value of love (Beach & Niebuhr, 1973), it
also seems likely that religiosity would correlate positively with the degree
of affection felt for sexual partners.

Further, it seems to follow from the prominent Judeo—Christian idea of
sexual behavior as an expression of love, that greater emotional intimacy
would be associated with a higher degree of physical intimacy in sex and a
higher frequency of sexual activity. This speculation leads to two additional
expectations. As religiosity increases, the correlation between affection and
degree of physical intimacy will grow more positive. Also, as religiosity
increases, the correlation between affection and frequency of sexual activity
will grow more positive.

One final issue of importance has not yet been discussed. The

potential effect of gender on the relationship between religiosity and sexual

behavior must be considered. Mahoney (1980) notes that prior research has
yielded conflicting results concerning both the existence and nature of a
gender effect. Furthermore, as previously noted, because the measures
employed in the present study have not been used before in a
religiosity-sexuality context, the relevance of prior research would be
questionable in any case. Thus it seems unwise to offer a specific hypothesis
concerning the role of gender as an intervening variable between religiosity
and sexual behavior. Nevertheless, because gender may potentially prove an
important factor, it will be taken into account in data analysis.

In sum, four hypotheses are offered concerning relationships among
religiosity and sexual behavior: (1) Religiosity will correlate negatively
with the degree of physical intimacy in sex, the frequency of sexual activity,
and the number of sexual partners. (2) Religiosity will correlate positively
with the degree of affection felt for sexual partners. (3) As religiosity
increases, the correlation between affection and degree of physical intimacy
in sex will grow more positive. (4) As religiosity increases, the correlation

between affection and frequency of sexual activity will grow more positive.

METHOD

SUD jects

Questionnaires were completed by 266 undergraduate subjects at
Michigan State University during the Spring Term and Fall Term of 1983.
The subjects were unpaid volunteers enrolled in introductory psychology
courses. Their participation allowed them to gain extra credit toward their
course grades.

Because the present study was intended to deal specifically with the

pigmarital heterosexual behavior of college-age students, subjects' data

 

were included in the analysis only if they (I) had never been married, (2)
were exclusively heterosexual in orientation, and (3) were between the ages
of 18 and 22, inclusive. Prior to data analysis, questionnaire data were
excluded for subjects not satisfying all of these requirements.

Of the 266 initial participants, 72 (or 27% of the original total) were
excluded from data analysis for the following reasons: 25 (9%) either
specified a sexual orientation other than "exclusively heterosexual" or
failed to specify their orientation, 7 (3%) were over the upper age limit of
22,- 1 (0.4%) failed to specify gender; and 39 (15%) completed the
questionnaire incorrectly. After exclusion of the above subjects, 194
acceptable subjects remained. However, because one subject's
questionnaire was apparently lost during the process of computer data
entry, data for 193 subjects were actually available.

8

These 193 subjects had the following characteristics. There were 76
(39%) males and 117 (61%) females. Subjects' ages had a mode of 18 and a
mean of 19.1. Class standing ranged from Freshman through Senior, with the
largest percentages comprised of Freshman (54%) and Sophomores (23%).

The religious affiliations of subjects were as follows: Baptist (7%),
Methodist (7%), Presbyterian (7%), Lutheran (9%), Episcopal (4%), Other
Protestant (20%), Catholic (32%), Orthodox (1%), Jewish (5%), Hindu (1%),
Other Religions (2%), and No Religious Affiliation (7%).

Instruments

Religiosity scale. Because DeJong et al. (1976) seem to offer the
most carefully constructed multidimensional religiosity measure, it was
used in the present study. The scale's authors claim that it conceptualizes
religiosity as Judeo-Christian orthodoxy. While this is for the most part
true, a few items do employ explicitly Christian terminology or make
specific references to Jesus. As a result, the scale appears to be oriented
more toward Christians than toward Jews. For this reason, in the present
study the DeJong et al. Religiosity Scale will be considered a measure of
specifically Christian orthodoxy.

The scale contains six subscales, each of which measures one of six
different dimensions of religiosity: belief, knowledge, experience, practice,
individual moral consequences, and socio-moral consequences. If the two
consequential dimensions are considered as one, then the DeJong et al. Scale
measures the five dimensions of religiosity originally outlined by Glock
(1962, 1965).

Despite its strengths, the scale is not without problems. DeJong et

IO

al. refer to the argument that the consequential dimensions ought to be
excluded because they actually measure the eff_ept of religion on secular
life rather than measuring a component of religion itself. This argument
appears to have considerable merit. Nevertheless, DeJong et al. include
these dimensions in their scale. Furthermore, the content of some items is
sufficiently controversial that responses might not accurately reflect
subjets' degree of orthodoxy. Even within religious groups which would
generally be considered conservative, moral debates continue over such
issues as capital punishment and civil disobedience.

The foregoing arguments cast considerable doubt on the usefulness of
the consequential subscales. However, they were included in the
questionnaire used for data collection so that their psychometric properties
could be evaluated in detail.

The original format of the DeJong et al. Scale is available in their
1976 publication. This format has been altered slightly to suit the purposes
of the present study. The full text of the modified scale appears in

Appendix A.

Sexual behavior inventory. A new sexual behavior scale was
developed and employed for the first time in the present study. Although
based on the Bentler Heterosexual Behavior Inventory (Bentler 1968a,
1968b), the instrument represents an extensive modification and expansion
of the basic Bentler approach. Because of its novelty, the new inventory
will be referred to as the Eckert Heterosexual Behavior Inventory (EHBI).

In order to understand the structure of the EHBI, it is necessary to
have some familiarity with the original Bentler inventory and the problems

associated with it. The Bentler inventory is a Guttman scale which

II

specifies twenty-one different heterosexual behaviors. The behaviors form a
hierarchy reflecting the sequence in which they are usually experienced as
sexual development progresses. Indicating experience with a given behavior
also indicates that all the other behaviors below that one in the hierarchy
have most probably also been experienced. There are two twenty-one item
scales-~one for females and one for males-~and their sequence of behaviors
differs slightly. However, Bentler has also developed a ten-item short form
of the scales which is Identical for males and females.

This ten-item male-female sexual behavior scale may at first seem
quite adequate as a measure of the degree of physical intimacy in sexual
activity. Closer examination, however, reveals two important shortcomings.
First, the sequence of behaviors is such that oral-genital contact and
manipulation occur lLtep in the sequence than ventral-ventral sexual
intercourse. Mahoney (I980) found, however, that high religiosity males tend

to experience many or all of the inventory's oral-genital behaviors before

 

they experience intercourse. He suggests that this sequence reversal may
occur because highly religious males are pressured by religious values and
institutions to refrain from premarital coitus but are also pressured by
non-religious social forces to gain extensive sexual experience. In any case,
Mahoney's finding suggests that the sequence assumed in the Bentler scale
cannot be expected to occur for all subjects.

This difficulty can be overcome by separating noncoital behavior from
coital behavior. It is, after all, only the placement of coital behaviors
peleLixe tp noncoital behaviors in the hierarchy which renders the sequence
di fferent for high and low religiosity males. The sequence of noncoital
behaviors is essentially the same for both groups,- the sequence of coital

behaviors is also nearly identical.

12

There is a second major difficulty with the Bentler sequence of sexual
behaviors. Bentler admits that his scale is not a per_fe_c_t Guttman scale.
Behaviors immediately adjacent to one another may occur in reverse
sequence. One way to alleviate this problem is to eliminate some of the finer
distinctions between very silmilar adjacent items by consolidating them into
a single item. Following this strategy, it is possible to eliminate the
distinction between a given noncoital behavior performed by one partner on
the other, and mutual performance of that behavior on each other.

There must, however, be one exception to this consolidation. In the
original 21-point scale, ”mutual {mall manipulation of genitals to mutual
orgasm" occurs aft_er_‘ some peel-genital activities. To preserve the Guttman
character of the condensed scale, it is necessary to eliminate mutual manual
manipulation from consideration altogether.

By separating coital from noncoital behavior and consolidating similar
noncoital behaviors, the ten-item Bentler scale can be converted into two
subscales: a five-item noncoital behavior subscale and a two-item coital
behavior subscale. If a zero point is then added to both scales to allow for
subjects who have had no coital or noncoital experience during the period of
time assessed, the noncoital scale expands to six points and the coital scale
expends to three. These changes in the Bentler scale are summarized in
Appendix B.

The foregoing modifications of the Bentler inventory create an
effective measure of the degree of physical intimacy in sexual behavior.
However, a sexual behavior inventory in this form overlooks three other
important aspects of such behavior: the frequency of sexual activity, the
number of sexual partners, and the affection felt for sexual partners. The

ESBI takes a major step beyond Bentler by addressing these issues in detail.

I3

For each degree of physical intimacy experienced, the subject indicates
the number of partners with whom that activity has been experienced, the
number of times it has been done with each partner, and the level of affection
felt for each partner. When the questionnaire is scored, an overall frequency
value for that behavior is calculated by summing the number of times it has
been done with all partners in that behavior.

An overall affection score for each degree of behavior is determined as
follows. In a manner similar to that described by Mahoney (1980), the subject
assigns to each partner a value of l for "no particular affection," 2 for
"moderate affection," 3 for "strong af f ection,“ 4 for "in love,” or 5 for "in love
and engaged to be married.“ During questionnaire scoring, a weighted average
is calculated across all partners in that degree of behavior. Each partner's
affection score is weighted by the frequency with which the behavior was
carried out with that partner.

The foregoing discussion has outlined the process of determining the
frequency, number of partners, and affection values for em degree of
physical intimacy experienced. The next step in processing sexual behavior
data is to determine ppevalue for the “degree of physical intimacy" variable.
This is done by determining which of the behaviors experienced is the highest
in the hierarchy of physical intimacy. Then the numerical value associated
with this degree is designated as the value of the variable. This process is
carried out separately for noncoital and coital behavior. For example, if an
individual's highest noncoital degree is breast kissing and highest coital
degree is ventral-ventral coitus, that person will receive a noncoital degree
value of four and a coital degree value of two.

Although the method of determining the value of the degree variable is

relatively straightforward, assigning a single value to each of the other three

l4

sexual behavior variables is not so simple. Because most subjects will have
experienced more than one degree of sexual behavior, they will have a
different frequency, number of partners, and affection value for eac_h of those
behaviors. In some manner, each subject must be assigned a si_ngl_e_ frequency
value, a ei_ngl_e_ number of partners value, and a eipgle affection value.

Perhaps the most obvious solution is simply to compute a sum or
average of variable values for all degrees of behavior experienced by a given
subject. The problem with this approach is that the various degrees of
behavior are to some extent qualitatively different, and mixing them in a sum
or an average might seriously distort the measurement process.

An example may serve to elucidate this admittedly complex issue. The
significance of behavioral frequency is not necessarily the same for kissing
as it is for oral-genital manipulation. Because oral-genital behavior is much
more physically intimate than kissing, persons may tend to exercise more
care and consideration before engaging in oral-genital contact. Thus, the
significance of engaging in five separate oral-genital encounters may be
considerable greater than that of kissing someone on five separate occasions.
Clearly, the same numbers may mean quite different things.

A similar argument may be made concerning the number of sexual
partners and affection for those partners. The number of partners and
affection associated with kissing may have a different significance for
subjects than the number of partners and affection associated with
oral-genital contact.

Because of the serious problems associated with summing or averaging
across degrees of sexual behavior, the E581 employs a different method to
calculate scores for frequency, number of partners, and affection. For each

subject, the value for each variable is considered to be the value associated

IS

pply with the purest degree of behavior experienced. This is done separately
for noncoital and coital degree. For example, if breast petting is the most
physically intimate noncoital behavior experienced, then the values of
frequency, number of partners, and affection would be those associated only
with breast petting. If ventral-dorsal coitus is the highest degree of coital
behavior experienced, then the variable values would be only those associated
with that particular behavior.

Before proceeding further, one final issue of importance must be
addressed. This concerns the time period about which the subject is to
provide information concerning sexual behavior. Religiosity and sexual
behavior are not static elements, expecially during the college years, when
social and intellectual development are proceeding at a rapid pace. For
example, a year-long romance may end abruptly, thus radically reducing the
extent of an individual's sexual behavior. Or an individual with no previous
sexual experience may develop a physically intimate relationship for the first
time and rapidly engage in extensive sexual experimentation.

The challenge of measurement is to select a time period which is short
enough to capture only the individual's pump; behavior patterns but still long
enough to provide a meaningful sample of the activities of interest. Care
must also be taken not to overtax sub jects‘ memory capacities by asking them
to recall the exact number of instances of a particular behavior over an
extended period of time. Past research has varied widely in the handling of
this issue. Clayton (1972), for example, used a one-year period. Mahoney
(1980), on the other hand, examined a period as short as one month. For the
ESBI, a period of two months has been selected as a reasonable compromise
which fits the requirements discussed above.

The final segment of the ESBI consists of two items which are designed

I6

to help evaluate the instrument's validity. The first item asks subjects to
indicate the accuracy of the sexual behavior inventory in assessing their
sexual behavior, on a scale from 1 ("Not At All A Good Picture”) to 5 ("A Very
Good Picture“). The second item asks subjects to indicate the extent to which
the last two months are typical of their general sexual behavior, on a scale
from I ("Not At All Like Me") to 5 ("Very Much Like Me").

The full text of the ESBI is presented in Appendix C.

Procedure

Prior to recruitment of subjects, their participation was approved by
the Michigan State University Committee On Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS). Subjects were then recruited, during the Spring and Fall
terms of 1983, by means of posted sign-up sheets. The sign-up sheets did not
indicate that the study concerned religion and sexuality. In fact, the study
was described only with the words "Ouestionnaire--Interesting." This initial
lack of disclosure was intended to avoid bias in subject self-selection.

Upon arrival at the testing site--a large lecture haII--subjects
received both an oral and a written explanation of the nature of the measures.
The written explanation of the measures was contained in a consent
agreement, which constituted the first page of each questionnaire (see
Appendix 0). Subjects desiring to withdraw from the study were offered the
opportunity to do so, but none chose to exercise this option. All subjects
detached and retained the first page of the questionnaire as proof of their
informed consent to participate in the study. They then completed the
questionnaire anonymously. To insure privacy, subjects were required to sit

with at least one empty seat separating each person from the next.

17

During each testing session, the male experimenter was accompanied
by a female assistant. Consequently, any subject who became upset while
responding to sexual behavior items would have had immediate access to
supportive counseling by a member of the same sex. No subjects did in fact

become visibly upset or seek such counseling.

RESULTS

Religiosity Variables

 

As previously noted, the DeJong et al. Religiosity Scale consists of
six separate subscales. Each subscale is composed of several different
items. For each item, a subject must choose one response from among
several alternative responses. Each response alternative is associated with
a number indicating the degree of orthodoxy which that alternative
represents. The higher the number, the higher the degree of orthodoxy. (For
some items, DeJong et al. reversed this order to minimize the possible
effects of subject response set, but this reversal is routinely corrected
during data analyses.) The numerical value of the response chosen for a
particular item represents the raw score for that item.

In order to obtain a given subscale score, one might simply sum the
raw scores of all the items in that subscale. For the following reason, such
a summation of raw scores is not appropriate. In some subscales, different
items contain different numbers of responses. For example, in the Belief
subscale, some items contain only five alternatives and other items contain
seven. For an item with five alternatives, a raw score of five is associated
with the most orthodox response. For an item with seven alternatives, a
raw score of seven is associated with most orthodox response. If raw

scores are summed, items with seven responses will receive greater weight

I8

I9

than items with five responses.

In the present study, this problem was avoided by standardizing
scores for each item. When standard item scores for a given subscale were
summed to obtain a subscale score, each item score received equal weight.

After the six subscale scores had been calculated in the manner just
described, the correlation matrix of the subscales was created (see Table
1). Then reliability values were calculated for each subscale and for
various sums of subscales (see Table 2). These figures suggested that the
most reliable measures of religiosity were the Belief, Experience, and
Practice subscales and their sum. The Knowledge, Socio-Moral
Consequences, and Individual Moral Consequences subscales each had
reliabilities below acceptable psychometric limits and thus had to be
excluded from data analysis. It is interesting to note here that the poor
reliability of the consequential subscales serves to strengthen the
argument, stated earlier, that the content of these subscales renders them
unacceptable as measures of religious orthodoxy.

When one compares the correlation matrix (see Table 1) and the
reliability figures (see Table 2) for the three most reliable subscales and
their sum, it becomes evident that the intercorrelations are less than the
associated reliabilities. Thus it is justifiable to consider each subscale as
a conceptually distinct measure of religiosity.

On the basis or reliability and intercorrelations, the Belief,
Experience, and Practice subscales and their sum were selected as the only
measures of religiosity to be employed in data analysis.

Study of the range and standard deviation of each of these four
religiosity variables revealed considerable variation across subjects. Also,

a gender effect was suggested by the fact that males had lower means than

Table 1: Correlation Matrix for the Six Religiosity Subscales (N = 155 due to

missing data.)

BEL. EXP. PRAC. KNO. IND.* SOC.*
BEL. 1.000 .753 .559 .234 .453 -. I 93
EXP. .753 1.000 .621 .223 .490 -. l 79
PRA. .559 .621 1.000 .297 .460 -. 184
KNO. .234 .223 .297 1.000 .206 -.051
IND.* .453 .490 .460 .206 1.000 -.I I5
SOC.* -. I93 -. I 79 -. 184 -.051 -.I IS 1.000
*"IND." = "Individual Moral Consequences",- "SOC." = "Socio-Moral Consequences"

Table 2: Reliability of Each Religiosity Subscale and of Various Sums of
Subscales (N = 155, due to missing data.)

SUBSCALE OR SUBSCALE SUM

 

Belief

Experience

Practice

Knowledge

Individual Moral Consequences
Socio-Moral Consequences

Sum of All Subscales

Sum of Belief, Experience, Practice,
and Knowledge

Sum of Belief, Experience, and Practice

CRONBACH'S SUBSCALE SUM

ALPHA

 

.893
.838
.737
.542
.654
.642

.664
.733

.803

RELIABILITY

 

.886
.898

.930

21

females on all four religiosity measures. However, none of these

between-gender differences was statistically significant.

Sexual Behavior Variables

As previously noted, subjects were asked to indicate the accuracy of
the sexual behavior inventory in assessing their sexual behavior, on a scale
from 1 ("Not At All A Good Picture") to 5 (“A Very Good Picture"). The mean
response for all subjects was 3.11. This value corresponds most closely to
the point on the scale corresponding to “A Moderately Good Picture.” The mean
for males (2.97) was slightly lower than the mean for females (3.04), but this
difference was not statistically significant.

Subjects were also asked to indicate the extent to which the last two
months were typical of their general sexual behavior, on a scale from 1 ("Not
At All Like Me") to 5 (“Very Much Like Me). The mean response for all subjects
was 3.34. This value corresponds most closely to the point on the scale
corresponding to "Somewhat Like Me.“ Once again, males (3.30) were slightly
lower than females (3.37), but this difference was not significant.

Taken together, the above results indicate that subjects perceived the
inventory to be at least a moderately valid measure of their sexual behavior.

Table 3 presents frequency data for the highest degree of noncoital and
coital behavior experienced by suspects during the two-month period
preceding their participation in the study. Considering noncoital behavior
only, and pooling across genders, one can observe that almost half (47%) of
the subjects had engaged in oral-genital activity-~the highest level on the
noncoital behavior scale. When the gender distinction is made, two

differences become evident. First, whereas over one—fourth (26%) of males

22

Table 3: Raw Frequency and Percentage of Subjects Indicating a Given Degree
of Sexual Behavior as the Highest Experienced

RAW FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
TYPE OF DEGREE OF ------------------------------------------
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES

 

 

1 = Nothing 3O 20 10 16 26 9
2 = Kissing 15 6 9 8 8 8
N 3 = Breast l3 4 9 7 5 8
O Petting
N 4 = Breast 1 I 4 7 6 5 6
C Kissing
0 5 = Manual- 4 8 26 18 1 1 22
l Genital
T Contact
A 6 = Oral- 9O 34 56 47 45 48
L Genital
Contact
Total* 193 76 i 17 100 100 100
l = Nothing 1 l I 46 65 58 61 56
C 2 = Ventral- 4O 19 21 21 25 18
O Ventral
l Coitus
T 3 = Dorsal- 42 I 1 31 22 14 26
A Ventral
L Coitus
Total* 193 76 1 17 100 100 100

 

*Due to rounding, figures sometimes do not add exactly to totals.

23

had not experienced any of the noncoital behaviors, less than one-tenth (9%)
of the females fell into this category. Second, whereas only 1 1% of males had
engaged in manual genital manipulation, fully 22% of females had done so.
Overall, males in this sample appear to have experienced somewhat less
physical intimacy than females.

Turning to coital behaviors, one can make the following observations.
When the sample is considered as a whole, it is clear that over half of the
subjects (58%) had not experienced coitus at all during the two-month period
measured. When gender differences are taken into account, it becomes
evident that a higher percentage of females (26%) than males (14%) had
experienced dorsal-ventral coitus. Thus, just as with noncoital behavior,
males appear to have been somewhat less physically intimate than females.

Turning to examine the second sexual behavior variable--number of
sexual partners-~one must remember that this variable was considered pp_ly
for each subject‘s mm degree of noncoital and coital behavior.
Consequently, raw frequencies and percentages had to be calculated
separately for each degree, showing these figures only for subjects who
listed that degree as their highest. The result of this process was the
subdivision of the sample into a large number of categories, most of which
contained a small number of subjects.

Perusal of Table 4 reveals that, during the two-month period measured,
the great majority of subjects had only one partner, regardless of the degree
of sexual behavior involved. For only one degree--kissing--does the
percentage of two-partner subjects (40%) even approach the percentage of
one-partner subjects (60%). Only a very small percentage of subjects at any
degree had more than two partners. Subjects are not categorized by gender in

Table 4 because this further subdivision does not alter the generalizations

24

Table 4: Raw Frequency and Percentage of Subjects Indicating a Given Number
of Sexual Partners

NUMBER OF PARTNERS

TYPE OF DEGREE OF (RAW FREQUENCY) (PERCENTAGE)*
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR 1 2 3 >3 1 2 3 >3

 

l = Nothing - - - - - - - -

2 = Kissing 60 40

3 = Breast 10 77 23
Petting

4 = Breast 10 I 0 O 91 9 0 0
Kissing

5 = Manual- 30 3 1 0 88 9 3 O
Genital
Contact

6=Oral- 72 11 3 0 80 I2 3 0
Genital
Contact

l = Nothing - - - - - - - -
C 2 = Ventral
O Ventral
I Coitus
T 3 = Dorsal- 36 I I 0 86 2 2 0
A
L

O
0

LA
00
O
O
O

r)—i—ODZOZ

I
LA
0
I\)

X

X
\I
\l
U1
UT
'0

Ventral
Coitus

 

*Due to missing data, percentages do not add to 100 per cent for some
degrees of behavior.
**The number of partners here was 7.

25

made above.

Considering frequency of sexual activity, one encounter the same need
for subdivision of subjects into highest-degree categories that was
encountered earlier with the number of partners variable (see Table 5). With
or without categorization by gender, the most salient feature of the
frequency variable is its high variability, both within and across different
degrees of sexual behavior.

As for the affection variable, the problem of subdivision of subjects
into small categories is again present (see Table 5). However, a general
pattern seems clear. As the degree of physical intimacy increases, the level
of affection also tends to increase. The pattern is clearest when subjects are
not categorized by gender. For noncoital behavior, the level Of affection
increases from 2.44 for kissing to 3.40 for oral-genital manipulation. For
coital behavior, affection increases from 2.93 for ventral—ventral intercourse
to 3.76 for dorsal-ventral intercourse. This pattern suggests a significant
correlation between degree and affection, an issue which will be discussed

later.

Relationships Between Religiosity and Sexual Behavior

Hypothesis ere. Hypothesis One stated that religiosity would be
negatively correlated with degree of physical intimacy, number Of sexual
partners, and frequency of sexual activity.

Table 6 presents correlations between religiosity measures and the
degree Of physical intimacy variable. All statistically significant
correlations are negative. However, these correlations are quite low,

accounting for only a very small proportion of the total variance.

26

Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency of Sexual Activity and
Affection for Sexual Partners, For Each Degree of Noncoital and
Coital Behavior

 

TYPE DEGREE MEAN, F REOUENCY AFFECTION
OF 0F 50, -----------------------------------------
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR N TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES
1 = Nothing - — - — — - —

2 = Kissing Mean 5.13 6.33 4.33 2.44 2.35 2.50

SD. 7.23 9.31 5.96 .75 .76 .79

N N 15 6 9 15 6 9
O 3 = Breast Mean 2.85 2.50 3.00 2.54 2.75 2.44
N Petting SD. 2.04 3.00 1.66 .75 1.26 .47
C N 13 4 9 l3 4 9
O 4 = Breast Mean 1.64 2.00 1.43 2.97 2.75 3.10
I Kissing SD. .92 1.16 .79 .94 .96 .98

T N I 1 4 7 1 1 4 7
A 5 = Manual- Mean 4.24 3.75 4.39 2.96 2.38 3.14
L Genital SD. 4.31 4.80 4.24 1.04 1.06 .99
Contact N 34 8 26 34 8 26

6 = Oral- Mean 9.99 1 1.27 9.21 3.39 3.23 3.49
Genital 5.0. 14.83 17.50 13.05 .92 1.02 .84

Contact N 90 34 56 90 34 56

1 = Nothing - - - - - - -

C 2 = Ventral- Mean 8.88 7.21 10.38 2.93 2.92 2.94

O Ventral 5.0. 12.89 12.28 13.54 1.16 1.06 1.27

I Coitus N 40 I9 21 40 19 21
T 3 = Dorsal- Mean 6.29 4.73 6.84 3.76 3.82 3.74

A Ventral SD. 6.56 8.45 5.84 .88 .60 .97

L Coitus N 42 11 31 42 11 31

 

27

Considering the entire sample, the following observations may be made.
There is a significant correlation between religiosity subscale sum and both
noncoital (-.15, p < .05) and coital (-.13, p < .05) degree. Examination of the
individual religiosity subscale correlations reveals that noncoital degree is
significantly related to Belief (-.16, p < .05) and Experience (-.13, p < .05) but
not to Practice (-.I2). However, one should not hastily conclude from this that
the correlations of noncoital degree with Belief and Experience are
significantly stronger than the correlation of noncoital degree with Practice.
In face, there is no significant difference between these correlations.

Coital degree is significantly related to Practice (-.l3, p < .05) but not to
Belief (-.12) or Experience (-.06). Just as with noncoital degree, there is no

significant difference between the three subscale correlations.

Table 6: Correlations of Religiosity Subscales With Degree of Noncoital and
Coital Behavior

BELIEF EXPERIENCE PRACTICE SUM

DEGLNIDIALMALESEEMAIQIALMALESEEMAIQIALMALESEEMAIQIALMALESEEMA.

NC" 1‘ -.16* -.IS -.18* -.13* -.10 -.21* -.12 —.03 -.20* -.15* -.10 -.23**
N 187 74 113 193 76 117 192 75 117 186 73 113

C“ r -.12 -.17 -.08 -.06 -.04 -.10 -.13* -.O3 -.20* -.13* -.12 -.15*
N 187 74 113 193 76 117 192 75 117 186 73 113

 

illSymbol Key: NC = Noncoital Behavior; C = Coital Behavior
*Significant, p < .05
”Significant, p < .01

When gender differences are taken into account, it is immediately clear

that only correlations involving females were significant. Although all

28

correlations involving males were negative, none reached the level of
significance. Whenever a correlation was significant for sexes pooled, this
appears to have been due to the significance of the correlation for females
alone. In one case--involving the correlation Of noncoital degree with
Practice-~the correlation for males (—.03) was so low as to counterbalance the
significant correlation for females (~20, p < .05), so that the correlation for
sexes pooled (-.12) is not significant. However, just as with the religiosity
subscales considered above, correlations involving males and correlations
involving females were not in any case significantly different.

Turning to number Of partners and frequency, one must first remember
that these variables are considered pmy within the sub ject's mpg degree of
noncoital and coital behavior. As noted earlier, in the discussion of descriptive
statistics for these variables, this organizational schema results in
subdividing the sample into a large number of categories, most of which
contain very few subjects. Unfortunately, the small number of subjects per
category tends to make sampling error a major problem which may seriously
distort the nature of relationships which could exist in the populations
sampled.

It might appear that the following method would provide a solution to
the problem of subdivision. First, one would (as usual) assign each subject the
values for number of partners and frequency of activity associated with the
subject's highest degree of physical intimacy. Then, one could simply pool all
subjects, regardless of which degree Of physical intimacy was the highest for
any given subject, and correlate religiosity with number of partners and
frequency. The problem of small sample size would thus be eliminated.

There are two major difficulties with this approach. First, as noted

earlier, because of the qualitative differences in the various degrees of

29

physical intimacy, it may be unwise to pool data involving different degrees.

A second difficulty, related to the first, is as follows. When subjects
having different highest degrees of intimacy are pooled, it is possible to
correlate the degree of intimacy variable with the number of partners and
frequency variables. In other words, correlations can measure the changes
which occur in the number of partners variable and the frequency variable as
the highest degree of physical intimacy varies across subjects. When these
correlations are calculated, they are for the most part statistically significant
(see Table 7). Thus, when one calculates the correlations of number of partners
and frequency with the religiosity variables, degree of physical intimacy may
act as a moderator variable, confounding the relationship between religiosity

and the other two sexual behavior variables.

Table 7: Correlation of Degree of Noncoital and Coital Behavior With Number
of Partners, Frequency of Activity, and Affection (For That Degree)

NUMBER OF PARTNERS FREQUENCY AFFECTION

QEGiLflIDIALMALESEEMALESIQIALMALEfiEEMALES IQIALMALESEEMALES

NC I" -.13 -.10 -.14 .20** .19 .22* .37*** 28* .44***
N 163 S6 107 163 S6 107 162 S6 106

C r -.26** -.31* -.2O -.13 -.11 -. 18 .42*** .45** .38**
N 82 30 52 82 30 S2 78 29 49

 

*"DEO" = "Degree"; ”NC" = "Noncoital"; "C“ = "Coital"
*Significant, p < .05
”Significant, p < .01
***Significant, p < .001

In order to remove the potentially confounding effects of variation in the

degree variable, that variable must be held constant. Holding degree constant

30

requires considering as a separate category all subjects for whom a particular
degree is the highest.

Since subdivision of subjects by highest degree of sexual behavior cannot
be avoided, the problem of small sample size is also unavoidable. Given the
major risk of sampling error, the precise pattern of relationships across
different categories may be due in large part to chance and may thus have
questionable generalizability. Therefore, use of these results to draw
conclusions concerning the nature of relationships among particular religiosity
scales, particular aspects Of sexual behavior, and gender would not be
justified.

In light of these serious methodological problems, the most which can
justifiably be said is the following (see Tables 8 and 9). First, few
correlations between religiosity and number of sexual partners are significant.
Second, as predicted, all significant correlations are negative. The same two
observations can be made regarding the correlation of religiosity with

frequency of sexual behavior.

Hypothesis two. Hypothesis Two stated that religiosity would be
positively correlated with affection for sexual partners. Unfortunately, one
encounters here the same problem previously facled with regard to number of
partners and frequency. The significant correlation of affection with the
degree variable (see Table 7) requires subdivision of subjects according to the
highest degree of noncoital and coital behavior experienced. As a result, the
same limitations of meaningful analysis apply to affection as applied to the
other two sexual behavior variables.

With this caveat stated the following general patterns are evident (see

Table 10). First, only a very small number of correlations were significant.

31

Table 8: Correlations of Religiosity Subscales With Number Of Sexual Partners,
For Each Degree of Noncoital and Coital Behavior

BELIEF EXPERIENCE PRACTICE SUM

N1-- --- -- --- ---

N2 r .14 -.34 .22 -.02 -.35 .27 -.24 -.S9 -.05 -.00 -.45 .22
N 15 6 9 15 6 9 I4 5 9 14 5 9

N3 1‘ .02 @ .18 -.08 @ -.17 -.22 @ -.26 -.00 @ .06
3

N 11 3 8 13 4 9 13 4 9 11 8
N4 1‘ -.32 @ -.76* -.39 @ -.61 -.46 @ -.82* -.41 @ -.86**
N 11 4 7 11 4 7 11 4 7 11 4 7

N5 r -.32* -.90***.O3 -.19 -.69* -.01 -.O7 -.72* .17 -.25 -.86** .09
N 34 8 26 34 8 26 34 8 26 34 8 26

N6 r .12 .32* .03 .16 .23 .13 -.01 .17 -.10 .10 .29" .01
N 86 33 S3 90 34 56 9O 34 S6 86 33 S3

 

c1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
02 r .03 .11 -.14 —.17 -.2o -.12 .05 .19 -.2s -.01 .07 -.21

N 39 19 20 4O 19 21 4o 19 21 39 19 20
03 r .13 .oo .16 .12 -.1s .18 .04 -.06 .11 .10 -.06 .15

N 41 11 30 42 11 31 42 11 31 41 11 30

 

@Correlation Coefficient Not Computable

#Symbol Key: D = Degree of Physical Intimacy, N1 = No Noncoital Behavior, N2 = Kissing,
N3 = Breast Petting, N4 = Breast Kissing, N5 = Manual-Genital Contact, N6 = Oral-Genital Contact;
C1 = No Coital Behavior, 02 = Ventral-Ventral Coitus, C3 = Dorsal-Ventral Coitus

*Significant, p < .05
MSignificant, p < .01
***Significant,p (.001

32

Table 9: Correlations of Religiosity Subscales With Frequency Of Sexual Acti—
vity, For Each Degree of Noncoital and Coital Behavior

BELIEF EXPERIENCE PRACTICE SUM

N1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N2 r -.09 -.76* .09 -.29 -.07 -.50 -.63**-.4S -.83** -.44 -.43 -.53
N 15 6 9 15 6 9 14 5 9 14 s 9
N3 r .19 .35 -.01 -.14 .62 -.SB* .00 .35 -.18 .19 .45 -.12
N 11 3 a 13 4 9 13 4 9 11 3 a
N4 r -.51 -.06 -.91** -.39 -.12 -.63 -.41 -.36 -.55 —.50 -.17 -.89**
N 11 4 7 11 4 7 11 4 7 11 4 7
N5 r .16 -.04 .27 —.06 -.21 -.02 .18 -.02 .22 .14 -.07 .23
N 34 a 26 34 a 26 34 a 26 34 8 26
N6 r —.11 —.3a* .13 -.03 -.27 .18 -.07 -17 01 -.09 -.33* .13

N 86 33 53 9o 34 56 90 '34 '56 86 33 53

 

01 r - - - - - - - - - - - -
02 r .13 .14 .09 -.04 -.11 —.01 -.07 .14 -.23 .05 .10 -.04
N 39 19 2o 40 19 21 4o 19 21 39 19 20
03 r .27 .31 .23 .19 .22 .15 .06 .19 .01 .22 .28 .17
N 41 11 3o 42 11 31 42 11 31 41 11 30

 

all'Symbol Key: D = Degree of Physical Intimacy, N1 = NO Noncoital Behavior, N2 = Kissing,
N3 = Breast Petting, N4 = Breast Kissing, N5 = Manual-Genital Contact, N6 = Oral-Genital Contact;
C1 = N0 Coital Behavior, CZ = Ventral-Ventral Coitus, C3 = Dorsal-Ventral Coitus

*Significant, p < .05
“Significant, p < .01

1':
00

Table 10: Correlations of Religiosity Subscales With Affection for Sexual
Partners, For Each Degree of Noncoital and Coital Behavior

BELIEF EXPERIENCE PRACTICE SUM

Nl--------—----

 

N2 r -.06 .17 -.1o -.01 .46 -.35 .04 .21 -.06 -.06 .30 -.23
N 15 6 9 15 6 9 14 5 9 14 5 9
N3 r .07 -.35 .36 .06 .25 .01 -.35 -.47 -.39 -.06 -.24 .04
N 11 3 8 13 4 9 13 4 9 11 3 6
N4 r .46 .65 .26 .11 .39 -.13 .35 .29 .47 .36 .50 .24
N 11 4 7 11 4 7 11 4 7 11 4 7
N5 r .03 .26 .04 .09 .36 .06 .22 .38 .22 .13 .33 .14
N 34 8 26 34 8 26 34 a 26 34 6 26
N6 r .19* .17 .19 .12 .21 .04 .01 .17 -.12 .15 .20 .10
N 66 33 53 90 34 56 90 34 56 66 33 53
c1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
02 r -.02 .03 -.09 -.07 -.02 -.1o -.13 -.06 -.16 -.07 -.oo -.15
N 39 19 20 40 19 21 40 19 21 39 19 20
03 r .06 .48 -.01 .06 .66* -.O9 .12 .73**-.04 .10 64* -.04
N 41 11 30 42 11 31 42 11 31 41 11 30

 

”Symbol Key: D = Degree of Physical Intimacy, N1 = No Noncoital Behavior, N2 = Kissing,
N3 = Breast Petting, N4 = Breast Kissing, NS = Manual-Genital Contact, N6 = Oral-Genital Contact;
01 - No Coital Behavior, 02 =- Ventral-Ventral Coitus, C3 . Dorsal-Ventral Coitus

*Significant, p < .05
MSignificant, p < .01

34

Second, as predicted, all significant correlations were positive.

Hypothesis three. Hypothesis Three stated that, as religiosity increased,
the correlation between affection and degree of noncoital and coital behavior
would become more positive. In order to test this hypothesis, subjects were
divided into Low, Medium, and High Religiosity groups. The groups were formed
on the basis of scores on the religiosity subscale sum, each group containing an
equal number of subjects.

Visual inspection Of the data reveals a clear pattern in the expected
direction (see Table l 1). For sexes pooled, there is a clear increase both in
size of correlation and in level of statistical significance, as the level of

religiosity increases.

Table 1 1: Correlation of Affection for Sexual Partners With Degree of Noncoital
and Coital Behavior, At Three Levels Of Religiosity

LOW RELIGIOSITY MEDIUM RELIGIOSITY HIGH RELIGIOSITY CHI-SQUARE

NC” r 28* .21 .31* .33** .22 .40** .58***.SS* .64*** 4.29 1.40 2.86
N 50 18 32 52 15 37 47 16 31 - - -

C” r .28 .13 .27 .45** .60 .40* .70*** .87** .40 3.32 4.33 .19
N 27 11 16 29 7 22 17 8 9 - - -

 

1"Symbol Key: NC = Noncoital Behavior; C = Coital Behavior
*Significant, p < .05
HSignificant, p < .01
***Significant, p < .001

For example, the correlation of noncoital degree with affection increases

from .25 (p < .05) for low religiosity subjects to .33 (p < .01) for medium

3S

religiosity subjects and finally to .58 (p < .001) for high religiosity subjects.
When females are considered separately, the same pattern is evident. The
pattern is not as evident for males, but the smaller number of male subjects
may have been in part responsible for this.

Although Hypothesis Three appears to be supported by visual inspection,
Chi-Square tests revealed no statistically significant differences among
correlations at different religiosity levels. The levels were compared for
correlations with sexes pooled, for correlations involving females only, and for
correlations involving males only. It may be that the relatively small number
of subjects in each religiosity category rendered an adequate test of the

hypothesis impossible.

Hypothesis _f_p__u__r_. Hypothesis Four predicted that, as religiosity
increased, the correlation between affection and frequency of sexual activity
would grow more positive. Here the problem of subdivision into categories
containing few individuals was more severe than in any of the other analyses.
It was necessary to subdivide subjects by gender, by their highest degree Of
sexual behavior, and by their level of religiosity. Some categories contained no
subjects at all, and others contained so few subjects that correlations were

meaningless. AS a result, Hypothesis Four could not be effectively evaluated.

DISCUSSION

tri . nt

The DeJong et al. Religiosity Scale was not found to be useful as a
complete unit. Because of problems with face validity and reliability, the
two moral consequences subscales and the knowledge subscale had to be
discarded. After this modification had been made, the instrument consisted
of belief, experience, and practice subscales. As such, the DeJong
instrument appears to be a reasonably effective measure Of religiosity.

The Eckert Sexual Behavior Inventory--which was used for the first
time in this study--was also found to be an effective instrument. Subjects
perceived it as at least moderately valid. The behavioral schema and the
time frame of two months made possible, in their judgment, a moderately
adequate assessment of their sexual behavior.

However, the possible effects of a "social desirability" response set
cannot be overlooked. It may be that many subjects did not respond
accurately but instead responded in ways they considered socially desirable.
Because no attempt was made to measure subjects' tendency to answer in
socially approved ways, it is not possible to assess with any accuracy the
role this factor may have played.

It is, however, possible to Offer the following observations.

Different subjects may very well see different modes Of sexual behavior as

36

37

socially laudable. If a subject perceives sexual restraint as socially
desirable, then the subject may tend to under-report the extent Of actual
sexual behavior. On the other hand, if the subject believes that sexual
self-indulgence is socially admired, then the subject may tend to
exaggerate the actual degree of sexual experience. It is possible that the
opposite effects of under-reporting and exaggeration would cancel each
other out. Nevertheless, in future research, social desirability effects
should be carefully measured so as to assess their impact on self -report of

sexual behavior.

Religious and Sexual Behavior Profile p1: Sample

There is marked diversity in subjects' religiosity. This state of
affairs is not surprising, since one might expect that a large Midwestern
state university would tend to attract a religiously heterogeneous student
population.

Sub jects' reported sexual behavior during the two-month period prior
to participation in the study indicates the following. Subjects appeared to
be somewhat more active noncoitally than coitally, with almost half
experiencing even the most intimate oral-genital behaviors. Contrary to the
stereotype, females experienced somewhat more physical intimacy than
males.

Subjects were for the most part not promiscuous. Almost all
subjects had only one partner, regardless of the degree of noncoital or
coital behavior. The one exception to this general pattern involved kissing,

for which nearly half of the subjects had two partners. It seems likely that

38

subjects made this exception because kissing was the least physically
intimate of the behaviors measured.

The more physically intimate students were with their partners, the
more affection they felt toward these partners. Of course, the correlational
nature of the data precludes definitive statements regarding cause and
effect, but it is tempting to speculate as to causal relationships which might
be operating. It may be that increasing affection gives rise to a desire for
greater physical intimacy. On the other hand, it may be that increasing
physical intimacy encourages greater affection (or at least the tendency to

attribute greater affection to the relationship).

Relationships Between Religiosity and Sexual Behavior

The present study made an important advance beyond most prior
religiosity-sexuality research by employing considerably more sophisticated
measures of both religiosity and sexual behavior. The DeJong et al.
Religiosity Scale had not been used before in the context of
religiosity-sexuality research. The Eckert Sexual Behavior Inventory was
developed specifically for this study and thus had not been used in previous
research of any kind.

Although such methodological advances were certainly desirable, they
did create some difficulty in comparing the results of the present study to
those of past research in this field. The following situation was encountered
when reviewing past literature. Studies whose religiosity measures were
most similar to the DeJong et al. measure did not employ comparable sexual
behavior measures (e.g., Faulkner & DeJong, 1968,- Rohrbaugh & Jessor, 1975;

Young, 1981). On the other hand, studies whose sexual behavior measures

39

were most similar to that used in the present study did not use comparable
religiosity measures (e.g., King et al., 1976; Mahoney, 1980; Spanier, 1976).

Because of these difficulties, detailed comparison of the present
study's results with those of prior research is not possible. It is, however,
possible to offer broad comparisons concerning three major issues addressed
by earlier studies. First, the present study found a negative relationship
between religiosity and degree of physical intimacy, frequency of activity,
and number of partners. This finding is in agreement with the majority of
earlier studies, dating from Kinsey's (1948, 1953) groundbreaking efforts up
to the present day (e.g., Faulkner & DeJong, 1968; Kannin & Howard, 1958;
Lindenfeld, 1960; Rohrbaugh & Jessor, 1975; Young, 1981). The present
study's results are in contrast to those of a small minority of earlier studies
which have not detected any relationship--either negative or
positive-~between religiosity and sexual behavior (e.g., Hornick, 1978; King,
1976). Clearly, the weight of the evidence indicates that a negative
relationship between religiosity and sexual behavior does in fact exist.

The second major finding relating to prior research is the suggestion of
a gender effect in the relationship between religiosity and degree of physical
intimacy. In the present study, the relationship was significant only for
females. However, the difference between correlations involving females and
correlations involving males did pot reach the level of statistical
significance. Thus, the data can only be said to contain a non-significant
temp suggesting that females relate religiosity and degree of physical
intimacy more closely than do males.

A few earlier studies have suggested such an effect (e.g., Reiss, 1967;
Bell, 1966). Many other studies, however, have indicated either that the

relationship between religiosity and sexual behavior is the same regardless

40

Of gender (e.g., Curran et al., 1973; King et al., 1976) or that the relationship
is stronger for males (e.g., Clayton, 1972). Mahoney noted in 1980 that the
role of gender in the religiosity-sexuality relationship was unclear, and the
present study's results fail to clarify the situation.

The third finding relating to prior research concerns the relationship
between religiosity and affection for sexual partners. The present study
found the _di_re_c_trelationship to be positive. Further analysis also raised the

possibility of a positive indirect relationship between religiosity and

 

affection. A non-significant trend in the data suggested that, as religiosity
increased, subjects tended to associate physical intimacy more closely with
affection. As noted earlier, the strong Judeo-Christian emphasis on love as
the basis of relationships seems a likely explanation for such a trend.

Affection has not often been the focus of religiosity-sexuality
research, but Mahoney (1980) did address it to a limited extent. Contrary to
the present study's results, he failed to find a statistically significant
relationship of any kind. The importance of his finding is, however,
diminished by the fact that he measured affection only with regard to coital
partners and did not explore its role in noncoital activity.

On balance, it seems reasonable to conclude that neither Mahoney's
research nor the present study constitutes an optimal test of the relationship
of religiosity to affection for sexual partners. Mahoney failed to address
noncoital behavior, and the present study was plagued by methodological
difficulties associated with small sample size. In any case, the phenomenon
seems sufficiently important to merit the attention of further, more
carefully designed research.

Having compared the findings of the present study to those of prior

research, it is now appropriate to turn to an issue which prior research has

41

apparently not addressed. As previously noted, because of the limitations of
earlier studies' religiosity measures, they have not analyzed relationships
between sexual behavior and specific dimensions of religiosity. The present
study's more detailed approach generated an intriguing result. When subjects
are not separated according to gender, degree of noncoital intimacy is
significantly related both to Belief and Experience . The degree Of coital
intimacy, however, is significantly related only to Practice.

Although these differences among religiosity subscales are not
statistically significant, they do represent an interesting non-significant

trend in the data. The trend suggests that noncoital behavior relates more

 

strongly to certain internal aspects of religious life (1.6, belief and
experience). Coital behavior, on the other hand, may relate more to external
facets Of religiosity (i.e., practice, including church attendance and
participation in church-related activities). Before proceding , it should be
noted that the terms "internal" and "external" are used here in a purely
descriptive sense and are not meant to convey any positive or negative
connotations.

In exploring the possible causes of such a pattern of relationships
among aspects of religiosity and sexual behavior, two important questions
must be addressed. First, what is it that sets internal and external
religiosity apart? One distinguishing feature is that belief and experience
are primarily individual phe nomena, whereas practice involves a strong
social component. With social interaction generally comes an element of
pressure from co-participants to conform to the behavioral strictures of the
religious group.

A second question of import is as follows. What is it, in orthodox

Christian morality, which sets noncoital and coital behavior apart? Generally

42

speaking, prohibitions of premarital sexuality tend to focus on coital rather
than noncoital behavior (Mahoney, 1980). Whereas coitus is explicitly
forbidden, noncoital activity is for the most part tolerated.

Based on the foregoing discussion, it is possible to explain why
religious practice might be related more strongly to coital than to noncoital
behavior. To the extent that an individual is involved in religious practice,
that individual will be subject to social pressure for conformity to orthodox
Christian sexual morality. As noted, this morality tends to prohibit coital
more than noncoital behavior. Thus, it stands to reason that persons active in
religious practice would respond to social pressure by limiting their coital
more than their noncoital behavior.

It is more difficult to explain why religious belief and experience
would be related more strongly to noncoital than to coital behavior. Here
social pressure toward conformity to Christian sexual morality would not
necessarily be a salient factor. As a result, coitus might not be seen as
specially prohibited. Following this line of reasoning, one might expect that
belief and experience would relate with roughly equal strength to both
noncoital and coital behavior. Certainly, there is no obvious reason to predict
that noncoital behavior would relate more Strongly than coital behavior to
belief and experience. However, this counterintuitive result is exactly what
the present study found. Apparently, questions have been raised which cannot
be satisfactorily resolved at present. Perhaps further research and
theoretical speculation will shed more light on this issue.

In closing, a brief comment is appropriate concerning the
generalizability of the present study's findings. The study dealt specifically
with the premarital heterosexual behavior of college—age individuals. Also,

the only form of religiosity measured was Christian orthodoxy. Given these

43

limitations, it would certainly be unwise to generalize the present study's
findings to individuals having characteristics different from those of the
subject sample. For example, one should not make generalizations concerning
the relationship of Christian orthodoxy to homosexual behavior. Likewise, it
would not be legitimate to generalize concerning the relationship of
non-Christian forms Of religiosity to heterosexual behavior. However, this is
not to say that such relationships are unimportant. The effects of variation
in age, marital status, sexual orientation, and religious tradition are clearly
significant issues which have been, and should be, addressed by scientific

FGSBBI‘CD.

Conclusion

Despite the methodological limitations of the present study, it
represents a major attempt to investigate religiosity and sexual behavior
more systematically and comprehensively than has been the rule in past
research. The major difficulties stemmed not from the measurement
instruments or procedures but rather from sample size. Future research can
certainly overcome this problem. As inquiry continues, the present study's
religiosity and sexual behavior measures can serve as powerful tools for

exploring vital dimensions of human experience.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE DEJONG, FAULKNER, AND WARLAND RELIGIOSITY SCALE

INSTRUCTIONS Please circle only 9_1_l_e_ response number for each question.

PART I

I. What do you believe about immortality?

1.
2.
3.
4.

S.

P‘SJ‘AF’IN.‘

I do not believe in immortality in any sense.

I believe in reincarnation.

I believe immortality is the continued influence of a person's life on
family or society.

While its meaning is somewhat imprecise, I believe in the continued
existence of the personality as a part of a universal spiritual principle.
I believe in the resurrection of ones being and life after death.

What do you feel will probably happen to you after death?

Simply stop existing.

Reincarnation.

I have no idea.

Uncertain.

My "spirit" will have some continuation in the universe.
Depending on the will of God, I will go to heaven or hell.

44

45

3. What do you believe about God?

1.
2.

.04

6.

I don't believe in God.

I don't know whether there is a God and there probably is not a way to
find out.

"God" is a ”spirit" within us.

I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a higher power of
some kind.

I feel that I do believe in God even though I am not able to explain fully
who or what God is.

1 know God really exists and I have no doubts about it.

4. What do you believe about Jesus?

1 .

S.

6.

7.

Frankly, I am not sure the historical Jesus existed.

2. I think Jesus was only a man.
3.
4. I feel that Jesus was a great religious prophet, but I don't feel He was

I think Jesus was only a man, although an extraordinary one.

the Son of God any more than all of us are the Children of God.

Jesus is best understood as a symbol of goodness; whether he existed
or not is unimportant.

I feel basically that Jesus is Divine, but I have some problems under-
standing the concept Of His Divinity.

Jesus is the Divine Son of God and I have no doubts about it.

5. What do you believe about the idea that God has and continues to act in the
history of man?

1.
2.
3.

4.

There is no evidence of any intervention of "God" in human history.
People who have believed in God have influenced history.

I believe the unfolding history of man has been within a natural order
established by a higher power.

While I am unable to explain fully who or what God is, I believe He has
an influence in the history of man.

I believe God has and continues to intervene directly and indirectly in
the history of man.

46

6. Which of the following comes closest to expressing your conception of
prayer?

1.
2.
3.

4.
5. Prayer is speaking to God.

"Prayer" 15 not a meaningful term to me.

Prayer is self-evaluation and working out one's problems.

Prayer is meditation in which thought is directed toward beauty, good—
ness, comfort, etc.

Prayer 15 directing one's thoughts toward a higher power.

7. Which of the following statements comes closest to expressing your con-
ception of sin?

1.

.C"

I do not believe in "sin."

2. I believe peole err but do not ”sin."
3. Sin is behavior which goes against my own personal principles.
4.
5. Sin is behavior which goes against accepted social and ethical prin-

Sin is behavior which harms others.

ciples.
Sin is failure to live up to the highest spiritual ideals I know.
Sin is the individual's rejection of God's will for his life.

8. What is your view of the Bible?

1.
2.
3.

4.

The Bible is a collection of myths and fantasies.

The Bible is a collection of literary and historical writings.

The Bible contains some of man's significant moral and ethical
thinking.

The Bible was written by inspired men and contains valuable spiritual
teachings.

The Bible is God's Word.

47

PART II

1.

Have you ever had an experience which, at the time, you thought of as a

religious experience? If so, which of the following comes closest to

expressing the dominant character of your experience?

1. I have never had what I would call a religious experience.

2. I can't recall that I have had what I would call a religious experience.

3. I have had moments of unusual appreciation of truth, beauty, good—
ness,etc.

4. At some time I have had an awareness Of the divine.

5. I have had an experience (or experiences) when I felt a mutual encoun-
ter between myself and God.

There are particular moments in my life when I feel "close" to the Divine.
1. Strongly agree.

2. Agree.

3. Uncertain.

4. Disagree.

5. Strongly disagree.

I know what it feels like to repent and experience forgiveness Of sin.
I. Strongly agree.

2. Agree.

3. Uncertain.

4. Disagree.

5. Strongly disagree.

I have experienced the joy and peace which comes from recognizing that
one is a forgiven sinner.

1. Strongly agree.

2. Agree

3. Uncertain.

4. Disagree

5. Strongly disagree.

48

PART III

1. How often do you attend Sabbath worship services?
1. Every week.
2. About twice a month.
3. About once a month.
4. A few times a year.
5. Never.

2. Do you presently belong to a church?
1. Yes
2. No

3. Do you contribute funds to the church?
1. Never.
2. Sometimes.
3. Regularly.

4. How would you describe your use of the Bible?
1. I read the Bible regularly for devotional purposes.
2. I read the Bible, somewhat irregularly, primarily for devotional pur-
poses.
I read the Bible occasionally for its ethical and moral teachings.
I read the Bible occasionally for literary or historical purposes.
I read the Bible for diverse purposes.
I seldom, if ever, read the Bible.
I never read the Bible.

819‘wa

5. In how many religious affiliated organizations, groups, or activities (such
as choir, youth groups, committees, and boards, etc.) do you paticipate?

None

One

Two

Three

Four

Five or more

WAHNr‘Q

49

PART IV

1. Misrepresenting your age to be served alcoholic beverages is acceptable
behavior.
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Uncertain
4. Disagree
5. Strongly disagree
2. It would not bother my conscience to use marijuana.
Strongly agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly disagree

.Ulb-PJNT‘

3. Premarital sexual relations between a boy and a girl who are "in love"
is not immoral.
l. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Uncertain
4. Disagree
5. Strongly disagree

4. Stealing hubcaps or shoplifting minor items is not immoral.
Strongly agree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly disagree

WAS/4N?

SO

5. Violence can be a justifiable form of civic protest.
Strongly agree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly disagree

$11,594.63?"

6. A woman should be able to obtain an abortion for any reason.
Strongly agree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly disagree

9114394102“

51

PART V
Are the following persons mentioned in the (1) Old Testament, (2) New
Testament, or not mentioned in the Bible? Check appropriate column
(we column only).

Old Testament New Testament Not in Bible
Aquinas __ __ __
Moses __ __ __
Joshua __ __ __
Wesley __ __ __
David __ __ __
Paul __ __ _
Isaiah __ __ _
Luther _ __ __

Timothy __ __ __

Augustine __ __ _

52

PART VI

1 .

I am for better housing for disadvantaged groups in society.
Strongly agree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly disagree

WAS/4N?

I stand for the eradication of poverty among all groups of this society.
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree

3. Uncertain
4. Disagree

5. Strongly disagree

I support full employment opportunities for all.
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree

3. Uncertain
4. Disagree

5. Strongly disagree

I support programs which guarantee economic security for old age.
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree

3. Uncertain
4. Disagree

5. Strongly disagree

I think capital punishment should be abolished.
Strongly agree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly disagree

VIP-FAN.“

APPENDIX B

MODIFICATIONS OF THE BENTLER HETEROSEXUAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY

ORIGINAL IO-POINT SCALE

 

Np. BEHAVIOR

1 One-Minute Continuous Lip
Kissing

2 Manual Manipulation of
Female Breasts. Under
Clothes

3 Kissing Nipples of Female
Breasts

4 Mutual Manual Manipulation
of Genitals

5 Manual Manipulation of Male
Genitals. Under Clothes. By
Female

6 Sexual Intercourse.
Ventral-Ventral

7 Oral Manipulation of Male
Genitals, By Female

8 Mutual Oral-Genital
Manipulation

9 Sexual Intercourse.
Ventral -DorsaI

10 Mutual Oral Manipulation
of Genitals To Mutual
Orgasm

SEPARATION INTO COITAL
AND NON-COITAL SCALES

CONSOLIDATION OF SIMILAR
ADJACENT ITEMS

 

 

pp. BEHAVIOR

1 One-Minute Continuous Lip
Kissing

2 Manual Manipulation of
Female Breasts. Under
Clothes

3 Kissing Nipples of Female
Breasts

4 Mutual Manual Manipulation
of Genitals

5 Manual Manipulation of Male
Genitals. Under Clothes. By
Female

6 Oral Manipulation of Male
Genitals. By Female

7 Mutual Oral-GenitaI
Manipulation

8 Mutual Oral Manipulation of
Genitals To Mutual Orgasm

 

1 Sexual Intercourse,
Ventral-Ventral

2 Sexual Intercourse.
Ventral-Dorsal

53

Ne. BEHAVIOR

One-Minute Continuous Lip
Kissing

Manual Manipulation of
Female Breasts. Under
Clothes

Kissing Nipples of Female
Breasts

Manual Manipulation of
Genitals

Oral Manipulation 01'
Genitals

 

Sexual Intercourse.
Ventral-Ventral

Sexual Intercourse,
Ventral-Dorsal

APPENDIX C

THE ECKERT HETEROSEXUAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (EH81)

PART I
1. Have you ever been married? (circle) YES NO

2. Please circle the number below which best describes your sexual orientation (circle 913 only).

1 2 3 4 S
Exclusively Primarily Both Primarily Exclusively
Heterosexual Heterosexual Heterosexual Homosexual Homosexual
Behavior Behavior Behavior And Behavior Behavior
Homosexual
Behavior

PART 11

INSTRUCTIONS: On each of the following pages. a different sexual activity is described, and questions are
asked regarding that activity. Please answer 111 questions for each behavior.

54

SS
1. mt Male and female making continuous contact with each other's lips for one minute or longer.

a. Have you ever experienced this behavior in your lifetime? (circle correct answer) YES NO
b. If so. with how many different people have you experienced this behavior :1qu me last me
111901.115? (circle number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

More Than 8 If more than 8. how many? __

 

c. If you have experienced this behavior with one or more persons duping the last twp mentns.
please indicate the number of times that you experienced it min each pepsen during this period.
Then circle the pne phrase which best describes the degree of affection you felt for each person
when the behavior occurred.
NUMBER OF DEGREE OF AFFECTION
PERSON TIMES WITH
PERSON (For each person, circle only me phrase.)
no engaged
Person 1 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 2 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 3 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 4 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person '5 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 6 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 7 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 8 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
All Others particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married

56
'2. enmity: Male us1ng his hands to make contact with female breasts (direct contact with skin)
a. Have you ever experienced this behavior in your lifetime? (circle correct answer) YES NO

b. If so, with how many dlflecent people have you experienced this behavior duping the teat tug
menthe? (circle number)
More Than 8

1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 Ifmorethan8.howmany?_

 

 

c. If you have experienced this behavior with one or more persons duping the Last tun months.
please indicate the number of times that you experienced it with each penspn during this period.
Then circle the m phrase which best describes the degree of affection you felt for each person
when the behavior occurred.
NUMBER OF DEGREE OF AFFECTION
PERSON TIMES WITH
PERSON (For each person, circle only dne phrase.)
no engaged
Person 1 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 2 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 3 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 4 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 5 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 6 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 7 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 8 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
All Others particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married

57

3. Aptiyity: Male kissing nipples of female breasts (direct contact with skin)

a. Have you ever experienced this behavior in your lifetime? (circle correct answer) YES NO
b. If so, with how many diffepent people have you experienced this behavior duping the last tyyp
menths’? (circle number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

More Than 8 If more than 8. how many? _

c. If you have experienced this behavior with one or more persons duping the test tiye menths.
please indicate the number of times that you experienced it mm eeph pepsen during this period.
Then circle the one phrase which best describes the degree of affection you felt for each person
when the behavior occurred.

 

 

NUMBER OF DEGREE OF AFFECTION
PERSON TIMES WITH
PERSON (For each person. circle only dne phrase.)
no engaged
Person 1 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 2 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 3 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 4 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 5 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 6 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 7 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 8 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
All Others particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married

58

4. Aptiyity: Male using hands to make contact with female genitals (direct contact with skin) pp female
using hands to make contact with male genitals (direct contact with skin) BUT NQI BOTH male and
female simultaneously using hands to make contact with each other's genitals (direct contact with skin)

a. Have you ever experienced this behavior in your lifetime? (circle correct answer) YES NO
b. If so, with how many diffepent people have you experienced this behavior duping the teat tee
menthe’? (circle number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B More Than 8 If more than 8, how many? _
c. If you have experienced this behavior with one or more persons duping the last tee mnnths,
please indicate the number of times that you experienced it 111th eeph pepsen during this period.
Then circle the ene phrase which pest describes the degree of affection you felt for each person
when the behavior occurred.
NUMBER OF DEGREE OF AFFECTION
PERSON TIMES WITH
PERSON (For each person. circle only ene phrase.)
no engaged
Person 1 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 2 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 3 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 4 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection Iove married
no engaged
Person 5 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 6 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 7 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 8 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
All Others particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married

 

 

S9

5. Aptnn'ty: Male using his mouth to make contact with female genitals (direct contact with skin) pp
female using her mouth to make contact with male genitals (direct contact with skin) up both male and
female simultaneously using their mouths to make contact with each other's genitals

a. Have you ever experienced this behavior in your lifetime? (circle correct answer) YES N0

0. If so, with how many diffepent people have you experienced this behavior duping the last me
menths? (circle number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B More Than 8 If more than 8, how many? _
c. If you have experienced this behavior with one or more persons duping the test me menths.
please indicate the number of times that you experienced it yyith eeph QQLEQD during this period.
Then circle the dne phrase which best describes the degree of affection you felt for each person
when the behavior occurred.

 

NUMBER OF DEGREE OF AFFECTION
PERSON TIMES WITH
PERSON (For each person. circle only dne phrase.)
no engaged
Person 1 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 2 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 3 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 4 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 5 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 6 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 7 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 8 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
All Others particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married

60

6. Aptiyity: Sexual intercourse (male penis inserted into female vagina) with male and female facing
each other

a. Have you ever experienced this behavior in your lifetime? (circle correct answer) YES NO

b. If so, with how many diffepent people have you experienced this behavior duping the test tun
menths? (circle number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

More Than 8 If more than 8, how many? __

 

c. If you have experienced this behavior with one or more persons duping the last me menths.
please indicate the number of times that you experienced it with eeph pepsen during this period.
Then circle the due phrase which pest describes the degree of affection you felt for each person
when the behavior occurred.
NUMBER OF DEGREE 0F AFFECTION
PERSON TIMES WITH
PERSON (For each person. circle only ene phrase.)
no engaged
Person 1 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 2 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 3 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 4 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 5 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 6 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 7 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 8 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
All Others particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married

61

7. Aptiyity: Sexual intercourse (male penis inserted into female vagina) with male facing female's back
and entering her from behind
a. Have you ever experienced this behavior in your lifetime? (circle correct answer) YES NO
b. If so, with how many diffepent people have you experienced this behavior duping the test tug
menths? (circle number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B More Than 8 If more than 8. how many? __
c. If you have experienced this behavior with one or more persons duping the test twp menthe.
please indicate the number of times that you experienced it mm eeph pepsdn during this period.
Then circle the one phrase which nest describes the degree of affection you felt for each person
when the behavior occurred.

 

NUMBER OF DEGREE OF AFFECTION
PERSON TIMES WITH
PERSON (For each person, circle only dne phrase.)
no engaged
Person 1 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 2 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 3 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 4 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 5 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 6 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 7 particular moderate strong In to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
Person 8 particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married
no engaged
All Others particular moderate strong in to be
affection affection affection love married

62

FEEDBACK QUESTIONS

1. To what extent do you feel that the questions asked here give us what ypu consider a good picture of
what you think are the important features of your sexuality? (circle best number)

1 2 3 4 5
Not At All A A
A Good Moderately Very Good
Picture Good Picture Picture

Blesseexalainxouccespcusez

63

2. To what extent do you feel that the past two months are representative of your typipei sexual

behavior? (circle best number)

1 2 3
Not At All Somewhat
Like Like
Me Me

5

Very Much
Like
Me

APPENDIX D

RESEARCH CONSENT AGREEMENT

I understand that Paul Eckert is conducting this scientific study, under the supervision of Dr. Elaine
Donelson, Professor of Psychology.

I understand that this study involves the investigation of religious beliefs and sexual behavior and
that my participation will involve answering detailed questions in the attached questionnaire
concerning my own religious beliefs and sexual behavior. My participation will require one hour or
less of my time. I understand that Dr. Donelson will be available to counsel me if I become upset as a
result of completing the questionnaire.

I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at anytime without penalty.

I understand that the results Of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain
anonymous. Within these restrictions, results of the study will be made available to me at my
request.

I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me.

I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my
participation is completed.

In light of the above information, and because my participation in this study only involves return of
a questionnaire, I AGREE THAT RETURN OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE CONSTITUTES MY INFORMED
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE. I AGREE TO DETACH AND KEEP THIS PAGE AS A RECORD OF MY CONSENT.

**********¥*********m: WNW [HIS m1*****************i**

64

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Beach, W, & Niebuhr, H. R. (Eds).
dttlon (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973.

 

Bell, R. R. W Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1966.

Bell, R. R, & Chaskes, J B Premarital sexual experience among coeds JOLL-

WV 1970, 32. 81-84

Bentler, P. M. Heterosexual behavior assessment-1. Males. i e-

seaccbandlbecapy. 19688. 6. 21 -25.

Bentler, P. M. Heterosexual behavior assessment-II. Females. Be h...ay1'pp

Reseaccbaadibecapy, 1968b, 6. 27-30.

Bullough, V. L. WOW. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1976.

Burgess, E. W., & Wallin, P. W. New York: J. B. Lip-
pencott Company, 1953.

CBFCWOII, J. The relationship DOIWBGD FOIIQIOUS commitment and premarital
SGXUBI DOFmISSIVBDE’SSI A five-dimensional analysis. SOFIQIOCICBI
ADBLVSIS, 1969, IQ, 72-80.

Clayton, R. R. Religious orthodoxy and premarital sex. W. 1969,
42, 469-474.

Clayton, R. R. 5-0 or 1? WW, 1971,
32, 81-96.

Clayton, R R Premarital sexual intercourse: A substantive test of the

contingent consistency model. MW.
1972,34, 273- 281.

65

66

Clayton, R R, & Gladden, J W. The five dimensions of religiosity: Toward

demythologizing a sacred artifact. MW
Religien. 1974, 11, 135- 143.

Curran, J. P., Neff. S., & Lippold, S. Correlates Of sexual experience among
university students. WNWl 9, 124-131.

Davidson, J K, &Leslie, 6 R Premarital sexual intercourse: An application

of axiomatic theory construction dpupnaLeLMappiegeandtheEamiiy,
1977, 39, 15- 25.

DeJong, G. F., Faulkner, J. E., & Warland, R. H. Dimensions of religiosity
reconsidered: Evidence from a cross-cultural study. SecfaLEoppes,
1976, 54, 866-889.

Demerath, N J., 111, &Letterman, K. J. The student parishioner: Radical
rhetoric and traditional reality. In K. Underwood (Ed.,) IDBCDLILCILILDQ

uniyepSIty, and somal policyWol 2). Middletown: Wesleyan University
Press, 1969.

Ehrman, W. W. Enemat‘itaLdatingbehaiLIQE. New York: Henry Holt, 1959

Faulkner, J. E., & DeJong, G. F. Religiosity in 5-0: An empirical analysis.
SociaLEocces. 1966.45. 246-254.

Faulkner, J. E., & DeJong, G. F. A note on religiosity and moral behavior of
a sample of college students. Sepiatfipmpase, 1968,15, 37-44.

Fukuyama, Y. The major dimensions of church membership ReyiehpeLBeli;
gimReseaccb 1961, 2, 154-161.

Glock, C. On the study of religious commitment. W
W, 1962, 98-110.

GIOCK. CY» &Stark, R. Winn Chicago: Rand
McNally and Company, 1965.

Block. C. & Stark. R. Chmshanheliefsandantifiemitism New York:
Harper and Row, 1966.

67

Goldsen, R. K. et at W. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
I960.

Gorlow, L., & Schroeder, H Motives for participating in the religious

experience Joupnal top the Scientific Study of Beligion,l968,1,
241 —.251

Hornick, J. P. Premarital sexual attitudes and behavior. fhejocioiogicai
Quaptepiy, 1978,19, 534-544.

Jackson, E. D., & Potkay, C. R. Precollege influences on sexual experiences of
coeds. MW. 1973.9. 143-149.

Jessor, S. L., & Jessor, R. Transition from virginity to nonvirginity among
youth: A social psychological study over time. Deyeioomentai

Esycbology, 1975, _1_1_, 473-484.

Kanin, E. A., & Howard, D. H. Postmarital consequences of premarital sex

adjustments. WW 1958. 23. 556-562.

King, K., Abernathy, T. J., Jr., Robinson, 1. E. & Balswick, J. O. Religiosity and
sexual attitudes and behavior among college students. Adolescence,
1976, 44, 535-539.

King, M., &Hunt, R Measuring the religious variable: Replication Joumal
tectbe’icientiticjtudyoLRelioion. 1972. LI. 240- 251

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., 8. Martin, C. E. W
male. Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders Company, 1948.

Kinsey, A. C. ,Pomeroy, W B., Martin, C. E, &Gebhard, P H. Sexuatpehayiop
W Philadelphia: W B. Sanders Company, 1953.

Lehman, E., & Shriver, D. Academic discipline as predictive of faculty
religiosity. W, 1968,41, 171-182.

Lenski, G. Winn. New York: Doubleday, 1961.

68

Lindenfeld, F Anote on social mobility, religiosity, and students' atti-

tudes toward premarital sexual relations. Amepican Sociological
Roulette 196025.81 8-4

Mahoney, E. R. Religiosity and sexual behavior among heterosexual college
students. JoumaLoLSexReseaccb, 1980,15, 97-1 13.

Marx, 6. Religion: Opiate or inspiration of civil rights militancy among

Negroes? AW, 1967, 32, 64- 72.

ReiSS,I.L. I‘ o ' u -. o ' 'n. ' . a . " u "r . New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967.

Rohrbaugh, J., & Jessor, R. Religiosity in youth: A personal and social con-

trol against deviant behavior. Joupnal of Pepsonality, 1975, 43, 136-155.

Spanier, G. B. Perceived parental conservatism, religiosity, and premarital

sexual behavior. SocioiogicaLEocus, 1976, 9, 285-298.
Stark, R, & Glock, C. Amepican piety; lhe natupe of peligious commitment.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.

Yinger, J. M. A structural examination of religion. MW
StudyoLReflgloD, 1969, 8, 88-99.

Young, M. Religiosity and the sexual behavior Of college females. JoumaLQt
CoJlegeStudentRecsoonel. 1981.22. 242-246.

MICHIG N STATE UNIVER TV

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

31293108081187