This article was downloaded by: [University of Waikato] On: 07 June 2014, At: 01:09 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Sex Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20
How Do Heterosexual Undergraduate Students Define Having Sex? A New Approach to an Old Question a
Kelsey K. Sewell & Donald S. Strassberg
a
a
Department of Psychology , University of Utah Published online: 17 Apr 2014.
To cite this article: Kelsey K. Sewell & Donald S. Strassberg (2014): How Do Heterosexual Undergraduate Students Define Having Sex? A New Approach to an Old Question, The Journal of Sex Research, DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2014.888389 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.888389
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 0(0), 1–10, 2014 Copyright # The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality ISSN: 0022-4499 print=1559-8519 online DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2014.888389
How Do Heterosexual Undergraduate Students Define Having Sex? A New Approach to an Old Question Kelsey K. Sewell and Donald S. Strassberg
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
Department of Psychology, University of Utah This study examined how people define having sex utilizing a new approach to this area of research. A total of 267 men and 327 women rated their degree of confidence that engaging in each of 21 physically intimate behaviors (e.g., penile-vaginal intercourse) counted as ‘‘having sex’’ and then qualitatively explained their reasoning. Separate ratings were made for each behavior when engaged in by the respondent and by his or her partner with someone else. Results showed that, as in previous studies, for both sexes, some behaviors (e.g., penile-vaginal intercourse) were far more confidently rated (i.e., ‘‘definitely sex’’) than were others (e.g., oral-genital stimulation). Further, both men and women were significantly more certain that a behavior counted as ‘‘having sex’’ when considering their partner’s behavior outside the relationship than when they considered their own behavior. Finally, the order in which the two scenarios (i.e., self versus partner) was presented significantly affected participants’ certainty. Qualitative results, paired with quantitative findings, suggest that individuals consider a variety of contextual factors when making these definitional decisions. The methodological and sexual health implications of these results are discussed.
Individuals’ definitions of sex, and the process by which they make these definitional decisions, likely influence, and are influenced by, their attitudes and choices when navigating their sexual encounters. Thus, there are a number of potentially important implications for research examining definitions of sex. For example, deciding whether engaging in a given behavior constitutes ‘‘having sex’’ could influence a decision regarding the use of condoms during the behavior, an obvious health implication. Further, previous research suggests definitions of sex are not rigid and consistent and might be situationally determined (e.g., Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007). Endorsements of Behaviors as Sex A number of studies have examined which physically intimate behaviors individuals consider to be ‘‘having sex’’ (e.g., Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). Almost all of these studies have used a dichotomous (i.e., Yes=No) answer choice and resulted in an ordered list of behaviors ranked We thank the undergraduate research assistants for their conscientious work on this study: Roxane Ghaffarian, Danielle Long, and Kristina Fario. We also thank Dr. Lisa Diamond for her constructive feedback during the preparation of the manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to Kelsey K. Sewell, Department of Psychology, 380 S. 1530 E., Room 502, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. E-mail: kelsey.sewell@psych. utah.edu
from most to least likely to be considered as ‘‘having sex.’’ Though there has been some disagreement among these studies regarding how often some behaviors were considered sex (e.g., for oral stimulation, 24% to 40% across studies), the list of behaviors from most to least likely to be considered sex has proven to be very consistent, being replicated both within (Gute, Eshbaugh, & Wiersma, 2008) and outside (e.g., Pitts & Rahman, 2001) the United States, as well as across time (Sanders & Reinisch, 1999; Horowitz & Spicer, 2013). Nearly all of these studies have been limited (or nearly so) to exclusively heterosexual participants, the sole exception being a study on gay men in the United States and United Kingdom (Hill, Rahman, Bright, & Sanders, 2010). Studies have reported mixed results in examining whether individual differences influence definitions of sex. One such individual difference is the extent of an individual’s sexual experience. For example, Sanders and Reinisch (1999) found that when someone had experienced oral-genital contact but not penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI), he or she was less likely to label oral-genital contact as sex. Other studies, however, have not found that sexual experience predicted whether a behavior was considered as ‘‘having sex’’ (Randall & Byers, 2003; Trotter & Alderson, 2007). Another variable, age, has only recently been examined. Sanders and colleagues (2010) found that among men ages 18 to 96, the oldest and youngest groups were less likely than others to label some behaviors as sex.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
SEWELL AND STRASSBERG
In examining prior work, some researchers have found that men and women order behaviors similarly (Randall & Byers, 2003). However, one pattern of gender differences has been identified: In two studies, men were more likely than women to label less physically intimate behaviors (e.g., breast stimulation) as sex, whereas women were more likely than men to label more intimate behaviors (e.g., oral-genital stimulation) as sex (Pitts & Rahman, 2001; Trotter & Alderson, 2007). Several recent studies have explored the idea that definitions of sex may be flexible or ambiguous. Peterson and Muehlenhard (2007) suggested that underlying many studies is the implicit assumption that individuals have clear definitions of what behaviors do and do not constitute having sex. In contrast to this assumption, however, they found that almost everyone they surveyed could describe previously experiencing an ambiguous sexual situation (e.g., ‘‘not quite sex’’ or ‘‘unsure’’). Further, they found that participants’ definitions of sex sometimes seemed to be motivated. That is, their decisions about whether to label an ambiguous sexual encounter as ‘‘having sex’’ seemed to be influenced by their perception of the consequences of labeling it as such (e.g., negative self-evaluation). These authors called those circumstances in which participants considered the possible consequences of the label when choosing their definition ‘‘motivated definitions’’ (Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007, p. 257). They suggested these motivated definitions may serve to protect an individual’s self-image but could also have the negative consequence of justifying sexually risky behaviors. Horowitz and Spicer (2013) suggested that examining definitions of sex would be better accomplished by offering participants a range of choices (e.g., from Definitely not sex to Definitely sex) rather than the previously used dichotomous choice. They found that more than 90% of their participants made use of intermediate answer choices, in support of the idea that individuals’ definitions of sex may not always be unambiguous. Related to the idea of flexibility in definitions of sex, researchers have compared different situations to determine when definitions of sex change or are inconsistent as a function of context. For example, Gute and colleagues (2008) examined the differences in participants’ decisions to label behaviors as sex when considering themselves engaging in the behavior versus their partner with someone else. They found that participants were more likely to rate a partner’s behavior as sex than their own behavior. Whether an orgasm occurs during a behavior has also been shown to influence individuals’ judgments of whether the behavior counts as sex. People are more likely to call a behavior sex if at least one person has an orgasm during the act, especially during oral-genital stimulation (Randall & Byers, 2003; Trotter & Alderson, 2007). 2
Methodological Concerns There are several important methodological considerations for studies examining individuals’ definitions of sex, and each will be considered in the context of previous research. In studies on the definition of sex in which the interest is in people’s response to two judgment contexts (e.g., judging if you versus someone else had engaged in some behaviors), a significant methodological decision must be made: to present both contexts to everyone (i.e., a within-subjects design) or to present only one context to each of two or more groups (i.e., a between-subjects design). Each approach, of course, has its limitations. In particular, a between-subjects design leaves uncertain whether differences found between groups is a function of the manipulation or the specific persons in each group. A within-subjects approach avoids this limitation but is open to the possibility that the first condition to which participants are exposed impacts their responses in any subsequent condition, in other words, carryover effects (Trotter & Alderson, 2007). To address the possibility of carryover effects, some researchers (e.g., Byers, Henderson, & Hobson, 2009; Randall & Byers, 2003) have counterbalanced the order in which the scenarios were presented. Still, this may not completely eliminate the problem: If each group’s scores are simply averaged across conditions (presumably balancing out any order differences), this can mask any potentially meaningful order effects that might exist (i.e., how order is affecting the second sets of ratings). Until recently, research on this topic has always utilized a dichotomous dependent measure (i.e., answering Yes or No to whether a behavior is sex; e.g., Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). This limited answer choice does not allow for the possibility of subtlety, ambiguity, or lack of certainty in participant judgments. For example, individuals may feel less certain regarding some behaviors (e.g., breast stimulation, oral-genital stimulation) than others (e.g., PVI) but have no way to express this uncertainty. As a consequence, participants’ responses in studies using only a dichotomous measure may not fully or most accurately represent their judgments. Previous studies have examined the effect of variables of interest (e.g., participant gender) on each intimate behavior individually, as if they were independent, generating a statistical concern (i.e., risks of type I error). Multivariate procedures (e.g., MANOVA), such as those utilized in the present study, control for the dependence among correlated multiple dependent measures by providing an omnibus test prior to examining the effects for individual behaviors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The failure of previous studies to use multivariate techniques may help explain inconsistent findings regarding the nature and strength of the effects of some individual difference variables (e.g., gender).
HETEROSEXUAL UNDERGRADUATES’ DEFINITIONS OF SEX
Finally, with one exception, no study in this area has asked participants for qualitative explanations for their decisions about whether intimate behaviors count as having sex. The exception was a small interview study (n ¼ 21) of young women (Mehta, Sunner, Head, Crosby, & Shrier, 2011). In that study, the strictly qualitative approach found evidence of a few themes involved in individuals’ definitions of sex (e.g., whether an orgasm occurred). Open-ended, follow-up questions would allow participants to explain their choices and would provide for an examination of the factors encompassing participants’ definitional decision making and the underlying processes involved.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
The Present Study The current study examined decisional processes involved in individuals’ definitions of sex utilizing procedures designed to address some of the methodological limitations of earlier research. It should be noted that our study was limited to people’s definitions of ‘‘having sex.’’ Previous research has found that people respond similarly, but not identically, to related constructs, such as abstinence, virginity, and status as a sexual partner (Byers et al., 2009; Carpenter, 2001; Randall & Byers, 2003; Trotter & Alderson, 2007). Utilizing a mixed-method design, participants rated their degree of confidence that each of a variety of behaviors constituted ‘‘having sex,’’ assuming (a) they and (b) their significant other (with someone else) were engaging in the behavior, with the order in which these judgments were made (i.e., for self or significant other first) systematically manipulated so that possible order effects could be evaluated. The following hypotheses were tested: H1: The ordering of the behaviors from least to most certain that the behavior counted as ‘‘having sex’’ will correlate significantly (positively) with the findings of previous research. H2: The order in which the two conditions (partner and self) are presented will affect the degree of certainty (on our 4-point scale) that the behaviors presented count as sex, as follows: (a) Participants will give a lower score (i.e., indicating less certainty that the behavior counted as sex or greater certainty that it did not count as sex) for ratings for self when these are made before, rather than after, ratings for the significant other. (b) Participants will give a higher score (i.e., indicating greater certainty that the behavior counted as sex) when ratings for significant other are made before, rather than after, ratings for self. H3: Participants will give a higher score (i.e., indicating greater certainty that the behavior counted as sex) when considering behaviors engaged in by their partner than when considering their own behavior.
H4: Participants will give higher ratings (i.e., indicating greater certainty that the behavior counted as sex) to behaviors involving genital stimulation if at least one of the two people involved in the encounter experienced an orgasm than if neither had done so during the act.
Qualitative Exploration Participants’ explanations for their scores for the intimate behaviors were examined. Utilizing Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method of thematic analysis, content analysis of the qualitative explanations was carried out. While no hypotheses were offered in this exploratory phase of this study, data were examined for possible participant gender differences in the distribution of theme content.
Method Participants The total initial sample consisted of 646 (300 male and 346 female) self-identified heterosexual undergraduate students from a psychology department subject pool. A total of 52 individuals who lacked sufficient data for at least one of the two conditions (removed if missing more than 50% of data in self or other conditions), or who lacked gender information, were excluded. Thus, the final sample consisted of 594 individuals, 267 men and 327 women. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 62 (M ¼ 23.3, SD ¼ 6.55). Data were analyzed with and without extreme values for age, and the exclusion of these older participants had no effect on the results. Most participants were Caucasian (80.6%), with no other ethnicity amounting to more than 7% of the sample. The sample was diverse with respect to the importance of religion, with all levels being well represented (Not at all important: 29%, Somewhat important: 20.4%, Moderately important: 15.8%, Very important: 16.8%, Extremely important: 18%). None of the demographic variables (e.g., age, race, religious importance) was significantly related to the variables of interest. Measures The measures used comprised three parts: a page of demographics and two sets of study questions. Demographics collected were gender, sexual orientation, race, age, and religiosity. The items included in the two sets of questions were nearly identical in that both asked about participants’ degree of certainty that each of 21 intimate behaviors counted as having sex and whether they had experienced each behavior. However, the context was manipulated such that one section inquired about 3
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
SEWELL AND STRASSBERG
participants’ own behavior and the other inquired about the behavior of a partner. The behaviors were identical to those used by Randall and Byers (2003), except for the addition of the ‘‘69’’ position (i.e., mutual oral-genital activity). For each of the 21 behaviors, participants were asked to indicate their judgment on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ Definitely not sex, 2 ¼ Probably not sex, 3 ¼ Probably sex, 4 ¼ Definitely sex). Before the first question for the self scenario, the following prompt was presented: ‘‘Would you say you ‘had sex’ with another person if the most intimate behavior you engaged in was . . . ?’’ The prompt for the partner scenario was worded this way: ‘‘Would you say your significant other ‘had sex’ with someone else if he=she engaged in the following behavior with that person while still romantically involved with you?’’ Participants not currently in a romantic relationship were instructed to answer the questions about a hypothetical partner. Participants were reminded that we were not asking if they thought a behavior constituted ‘‘cheating,’’ nor if they would be upset if their partner engaged in the behavior with someone else. Rather, they were instructed to only consider whether they would count each behavior as ‘‘having sex.’’ Participants were also asked to provide qualitative explanations for each of their answers which (via survey skip logic) met any of three criteria: (1) if they responded Definitely sex for behaviors which previous research had shown few people consider to be sex (e.g., deep kissing), (2) if they responded Definitely not sex for behaviors frequently considered in prior research to be sex (e.g., PVI), or (3) if they chose an intermediate answer choice (i.e., Probably sex or Probably not sex) for any behavior. To reduce the likelihood that participants would recognize the logic behind which answers they were asked to explain, they were also asked to explain their answers to an additional number of randomly chosen responses throughout the questionnaires. Approximately half of the participants received the self questions prior to the partner questions, and about half received the partner questions prior to the self questions; presentation order was randomly assigned. The demographic questions were always placed between these two sets of questions in order to separate them and reinforce for participants that the second set of questions was different. Procedure All elements of the study were presented online. The solicitation for the study was posted on a psychology department’s participant pool website, and was titled ‘‘Defining Sex.’’ Those interested in participating in this institutional review board–approved study were first presented with a consent form that briefly described the study (i.e., ‘‘exploring attitudes about, and experience with, some sexual behaviors’’) and informed the 4
participants of their rights if they chose to participate. Those choosing to continue were provided a link to the study questionnaire. Participants were not informed in advance that they would be rating behaviors for two scenarios (i.e., self and partner) so as to avoid influencing their ratings on the first scenario they received. After viewing a page containing the instructions with either the self scenario or partner scenario prompt, they were asked to rate each of the 21 behaviors and to indicate whether they had engaged in the behavior. One behavior was presented per survey web page. Once finishing a web page, they could not go back to view or change their previous answers. When finished, questionnaires were submitted electronically. To maintain participant anonymity, after providing all of their responses they were navigated to a separate questionnaire to supply the identifying information necessary to assign research credit. In the informed consent, participants were advised that their responses would be collected and stored anonymously.
Results Quantitative Findings Missing items amounted to 3.4% of the data, and list-wise deletion was used to address this. Table 1 lists the frequency with which each of the four scale items
Table 1. Descriptive Information for Intimate Behavior Rankings
Intimate Behaviors Deep kissing SO stimulates your nipples You stimulate SO’s nipples Self-stimulation on computer Self-stimulation on phone Mutual self-stimulation SO manually stimulates you You manually stimulate SO SO manually stimulates you, org You manually stimulate SO, org SO orally stimulates you You orally stimulate SO SO orally stimulates you, org You orally stimulate SO, org 69 position (mutual oral stimulation) Anal intercourse, NO Anal intercourse, org Penile-vaginal intercourse, NO Penile-vaginal intercourse, MO Penile-vaginal intercourse, FO Penile-vaginal intercourse, BO
Definitely Not Sex (%)
Probably Not Sex (%)
Probably Sex (%)
Definitely Sex (%)
92.3 73.2 69.7 64.6 63.1 59.3 49.3 47.6 41.2
4.7 16.8 19.9 21.5 22.6 23.4 26.1 28.3 25.9
1.9 6.1 7.1 9.8 10.1 10.8 15.0 15.2 18.5
0.8 3.5 3.4 3.9 3.7 6.2 9.4 8.9 14.1
40.7
26.8
18.2
14.0
28.8 27.4 23.1 21.7 20.0
23.1 25.1 23.6 24.2 20.7
23.4 22.9 22.2 22.9 25.6
24.6 24.6 31.0 31.0 33.2
3.5 3.7 2.0 0.8 0.7 0.7
4.5 3.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2
21.5 18.4 8.4 3.5 3.7 0.3
70.0 74.1 88.9 95.3 94.9 98.7
Note. SO ¼ significant other; org ¼ orgasm; NO ¼ nobody orgasms; MO ¼ male orgasms; FO ¼ female orgasms; BO ¼ both orgasm.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
HETEROSEXUAL UNDERGRADUATES’ DEFINITIONS OF SEX
before, rather than after, certainty ratings for significant other, F (21, 557) ¼ 2.54, p < .001. Consistent with hypothesis 2b, participants gave a higher score (greater certainty that the behavior counted as sex) when certainty ratings for significant other were made before, rather than after, certainty ratings for self, F (21, 560) ¼ 3.42, p < .001. Univariate analyses showed this order effect (i.e., of first certainty ratings on second certainty ratings) held true in both analyses for all behaviors except for PVI (with orgasm), anal sex with and without orgasm, and deep kissing. This is not surprising, since previous research has shown that almost everyone defines these specific behaviors as sex or not sex (e.g., Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). Univariate analyses and mean scores are presented in Table 2. Hypothesis 3, that participants would rate a partner’s behavior more confidently as sex than their own behavior, was tested via a 2 (participant gender) 2 (target, self versus partner) factorial MANOVA. The dependent variables were again the certainty ratings of the 21 intimate behaviors. The main effect of target was significant: F (21, 561) ¼ 4.85, p < .001. Examination of the univariate analyses indicated a consistently strong effect, with participants rating all behaviors (except PVI with both people experiencing orgasms) as more ‘‘like sex’’ when considering a partner engaging in the behavior than when considering their own behavior. The main effect for gender was also significant, F (21, 561) ¼ 2.07, p < .005. However, univariate analyses revealed
were used in ratings of the 21 intimate behaviors. To establish the overall comparability of our findings with that of previous research (hypothesis 1), certainty ratings of intimate behaviors, for our participants as a group, were rank ordered from least to greatest participant confidence that the behavior counted as sex. These ranks were then compared with the ranks of behaviors in Gute and colleagues’ (2008) study. This study was chosen for comparison because it was conducted recently, was methodologically similar to the current study, and had a large sample. Spearman’s rho revealed a very strong and statistically significant relationship between the rankings, r (7) ¼ .98, p < .001. Thus, overall, the current sample defined ‘‘having sex’’ virtually identically to at least one major previous study (Gute et al., 2008), which, in turn, reported rankings that were highly similar to prior studies (e.g., Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). Next, analyses were conducted to determine the importance of presentation order. These hypotheses were tested via two one-way multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA), where the between-subjects independent variable for each was order (MANOVA 1, hypothesis 2a, self scenario presented first versus second; MANOVA 2, hypothesis 2b, partner scenario presented first versus second). The dependent variables were the certainty ratings of the 21 intimate behaviors. Consistent with hypothesis 2a, participants gave a lower score (less certain that the behavior counted as sex) for ratings for self when the ratings were made Table 2.
The Effect of Scenario Presentation Order on Definitions of Sex Self (Hypothesis 1a)
Intimate Behaviors Deep kissing SO stimulates your=OP’s nipples You=OP stimulate SO’s nipples Self-stimulation on computer Self-stimulation on phone Mutual self-stimulation SO manually stimulates you=OP You=OP manually stimulate SO SO manually stimulates you=OP, org You=OP manually stimulate SO, org SO orally stimulates you=OP You=OP orally stimulate SO SO orally stimulates you=OP, org You=OP orally stimulate SO, org 69 position (mutual oral stimulation) Anal intercourse Anal intercourse, org Penile-vaginal intercourse, NO Penile-vaginal intercourse, MO Penile-vaginal intercourse, FO Penile-vaginal intercourse, BO
1st M (SE) 1.05 1.28 1.34 1.36 1.39 1.42 1.67 1.68 1.90 1.89 2.21 2.24 2.41 2.43 2.46 3.53 3.60 3.82 3.93 3.93 3.97
(.03) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.07) (.06) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.04) (.04) (.03) (.02) (.02) (.02)
2nd M (SE) 1.15 1.48 1.51 1.68 1.67 1.83 1.98 1.98 2.17 2.18 2.62 2.60 2.78 2.80 2.94 3.65 3.67 3.88 3.94 3.95 3.98
(.02) (.04) (.04) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.04) (.04) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.02)
Partner (Hypothesis 1b)
F 8.00 10.46 7.98 22.08 17.80 30.94 15.42 14.15 8.96 11.69 18.55 14.83 14.89 14.78 27.02 3.67 1.59 2.03 .33 .72 .24
1st M (SE) 1.11 1.45 1.45 1.50 1.53 1.61 1.87 1.85 1.99 2.04 2.34 2.40 2.47 2.56 2.65 3.59 3.64 3.87 3.94 3.95 3.97
(.03) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.04) (.04) (.03) (.02) (.02) (.01)
2nd M (SE) 1.18 1.86 1.85 1.84 1.90 2.00 2.22 2.20 2.48 2.48 2.85 2.88 3.00 3.00 3.08 3.73 3.74 3.92 3.98 3.98 4.00
(.03) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.04) (.04) (.03) (.02) (.02) (.01)
F 2.63 32.01 34.12 21.16 24.66 25.92 16.18 17.19 31.49 24.04 27.03 25.95 32.98 21.21 21.48 6.01 3.24 2.65 3.31 2.10 2.67
Note. SO ¼ significant other; OP ¼ other person (in partner scenario); org ¼ orgasm; NO ¼ nobody orgasms; MO ¼ male orgasms; FO ¼ female orgasms; BO ¼ both orgasm. All dfs are 1. p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
5
SEWELL AND STRASSBERG
Table 3.
The Effect of Gender and Target on Definitions of Sex Target
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
Intimate Behaviors Deep kissing SO stimulates your=OP’s nipples You=OP stimulate SO’s nipples Self-stimulation on computer Self-stimulation on phone Mutual self-stimulation SO manually stimulates you=OP You=OP manually stimulate SO SO manually stimulates you=OP, org You=OP manually stimulate SO, org SO orally stimulates you=OP You=OP orally stimulate SO SO orally stimulates you=OP, org You=OP orally stimulate SO, org 69 position (mutual oral stimulation) Anal intercourse, NO Anal intercourse, org Penile-vaginal intercourse, NO Penile-vaginal intercourse, MO Penile-vaginal intercourse, FO Penile-vaginal intercourse, BO
Self M (SE) 1.06 1.29 1.38 1.34 1.37 1.41 1.70 1.72 1.91 1.91 2.22 2.26 2.40 2.42 2.45 3.53 3.59 3.83 3.93 3.93 3.97
(.03) (.06) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.05) (.05) (.03) (.02) (.02) (.01)
Partner M (SE) 1.18 1.86 1.86 1.86 1.91 2.01 2.22 2.21 2.49 2.48 2.85 2.88 2.99 2.99 3.07 3.74 3.74 3.93 3.98 3.98 4.00
(.03) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.04) (.04) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.01)
Gender
F 9.23 62.07 44.17 49.94 52.41 58.90 37.59 32.20 39.14 38.18 45.85 43.20 39.20 36.11 43.56 12.38 7.26 6.72 4.27 5.86 3.04
Male M (SE) 1.13 1.55 1.68 1.51 1.57 1.68 1.98 1.99 2.20 2.25 2.55 2.59 2.70 2.71 2.76 3.62 3.64 3.88 3.96 3.95 3.98
(.03) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.05) (.05) (.03) (.02) (.02) (.01)
Female M (SE) 1.11 1.60 1.56 1.69 1.71 1.74 1.94 1.94 2.19 2.14 2.53 2.54 2.69 2.70 2.76 3.64 3.68 3.87 3.96 3.96 3.98
(.03) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.04) (.04) (.02) (.01) (.02) (.01)
F .42 .32 2.92 5.62 3.44 .54 .32 1.56 .03 1.56 .05 .28 .01 .01 .03 .06 .39 .17 .02 .01 .01
Note. SO ¼ significant other; OP ¼ other person (in partner scenario); org ¼ orgasm; NO ¼ nobody orgasms; MO ¼ male orgasms; FO ¼ female orgasms; BO ¼ both orgasm. All dfs are 1. p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
the effect was captured by only one dependent variable: self-stimulation while on the computer. Insofar as this effect is interpretable, women expressed greater certainty than did men that stimulation over the computer counted as sex. Univariate analyses and comparison of means are presented in Table 3. The multivariate test for the interaction was not statistically significant, F (21, 561) ¼ .85, p > .05. Hypothesis 4, that participants would be more certain a behavior counted as sex if an orgasm occurred during the act, was tested with a repeated-measures MANOVA, where the within-subjects independent variables were orgasm (present or absent) and type of behavior (the
four behaviors for which orgasm was manipulated), and the dependent variables were the certainty ratings of the behaviors. The multivariate test for both main effects of orgasm, F (1, 589) ¼ 140.5, p < .001, and behavior, F (3, 587) ¼ 730.28, p < .001, were significant; however, these were qualified by an orgasm behavior interaction: F (3, 587) ¼ 17.86, p < .001. Figure 1 illustrates these relationships by visually displaying the slope of each line, indicating the change in certainty that the behavior counts as sex from no orgasm to orgasm for each behavior. Thus, it appears the significant interaction was the result of the strong and significant orgasm effect being somewhat less strong for anal intercourse
Figure 1. The effect of the interaction of intimate behavior orgasm on definitions of sex. The figure represents participants’ certainty ratings, on a scale in which 1 ¼ Definitely not sex, 2 ¼ Probably not sex, 3 ¼ Probably sex, and 4 ¼ Definitely sex.
6
HETEROSEXUAL UNDERGRADUATES’ DEFINITIONS OF SEX
than for the other behaviors, as is indicated by the shallow slope. Follow-up paired-sample t tests were conducted to examine each behavior. For all six behaviors, participants were significantly more certain that a behavior counted as sex if an orgasm occurred: (1) manualgenital stimulation no orgasm (M ¼ 1.85, SD ¼ 0.98) versus orgasm (M ¼ 2.05, SD ¼ 1.07), t (591) ¼ 8.56, p < .001; (2) oral-genital stimulation no orgasm (M ¼ 2.44, SD ¼ 1.14) versus orgasm (M ¼ 2.63, SD ¼ 1.14), t (592) ¼ 8.94, p < .001; (3) anal intercourse no orgasm (M ¼ 3.59, SD ¼ 0.74) versus orgasm (M ¼ 3.63, SD ¼ 0.73), t (591) ¼ 3.09, p < .01; and (4) PVI no orgasm (M ¼ 3.84, SD ¼ 0.51) versus orgasm (M ¼ 3.97, SD ¼ 0.27), t (592) ¼ 6.98, p < .001.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
Qualitative Investigations Using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method of thematic analysis as a guide, participants’ qualitative explanations of their certainty ratings were independently coded by pairs of raters, with discrepancies resolved via group consensus. Given the very time-intensive nature of the qualitative analysis of participants’ explanations, we chose to rate and analyze the explanations of a randomly selected subset (109 men and 107 women) of the full data set (Hesse-Biber, 2010). This subset was found to be comparable to the full data set in gender (i.e., female to male ratio), X2(1, N ¼ 810) ¼ 1.94, p > .05, and age, t (808) ¼ 1.37, p > .05. Overall interrater reliability was 88%. When treating each code separately, the range of agreement was 78% to 100%, with a median of 90%. Kappa coefficients, a measure of interrater reliability (Cohen, 1960), were also computed for each code, with all values above .7, a range of .71 to 1.00, and a median of .93. The prevalence of the 24 themes, by gender, is listed in Table 4. The following examples illustrate how some of the themes were derived. Although many people were referring to penile-anal or penile-vaginal insertion when mentioning penetration, some used it more broadly to also include manual-genital and oral-genital stimulation (e.g., ‘‘Here the insertion is my sexual organ into someone’s hand, making a circle’’). Genital touching was mentioned frequently, but many participants distinguished between one person’s genitals being touched and both person’s genitals being touched simultaneously (e.g., ‘‘Well now that both of our genitals are being stimulated instead of just one person’s, it counts as sex’’). Several themes related to the words or phrase typically associated with the behavior, such as intercourse (e.g., PVI or penile-anal intercourse). Individuals also typically mentioned a behavior counting as sex if the word sex is usually attached to the behavior, such as cybersex, anal sex, and oral sex (e.g., ‘‘It is considered oral ‘sex’ for a reason’’). Three themes emerged relating to how participants explained behaviors that fell short in some way of their full definitions of sex: degree of sex, sexual
Table 4.
Use of Themes by Men and Women
Themes ‘‘Physical contact’’ with SO ‘‘Penetration’’ (any) Involves ‘‘genital touching’’ ‘‘Both genitals are touching’’ ‘‘Orgasm must occur’’ to be sex ‘‘Causes sexual arousal’’ ‘‘Risk of STD’’ ‘‘Orgasm could happen’’ ‘‘Pregnancy could happen’’ ‘‘No longer a virgin’’ It’s ‘‘intercourse’’ ‘‘Phrase includes ‘sex’’’ ‘‘Society teaches it’s sex’’ ‘‘Sexual situation’’ It’s a ‘‘degree of sex’’ It’s a ‘‘type of sex’’=related to sex ‘‘It’s sex’’ (no explanation) ‘‘Only penis in vagina is sex’’ Comparison to another behavior ‘‘It depends on the context’’ Unsure ‘‘Foreplay’’ Degree of ‘‘intimacy’’ ‘‘It’s sex for same-sex couples’’
Men (%)
Women (%)
46.8 43.1 28.4 20.2 31.2 15.6 4.6 2.8 2.8 0 33 6.4 1.8 14.7 32.1 14.7
53.3 49.5 29 14 27.1 21.5 6.5 5.6 5.6 4.7 29.9 9.3 2.8 34.6 30.8 11.2
48.6 13.8 10.1 3.7 0 25.7 15.6 1.8
41.1 27.1 1 7.4 5.6 39.3 22.4 11.2
v2
p
.463 .893 .007 1.758 .437 1.245 .393
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .03 n.s. n.s. n.s.
The Journal of Sex Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20
How Do Heterosexual Undergraduate Students Define Having Sex? A New Approach to an Old Question a
Kelsey K. Sewell & Donald S. Strassberg
a
a
Department of Psychology , University of Utah Published online: 17 Apr 2014.
To cite this article: Kelsey K. Sewell & Donald S. Strassberg (2014): How Do Heterosexual Undergraduate Students Define Having Sex? A New Approach to an Old Question, The Journal of Sex Research, DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2014.888389 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.888389
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 0(0), 1–10, 2014 Copyright # The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality ISSN: 0022-4499 print=1559-8519 online DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2014.888389
How Do Heterosexual Undergraduate Students Define Having Sex? A New Approach to an Old Question Kelsey K. Sewell and Donald S. Strassberg
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
Department of Psychology, University of Utah This study examined how people define having sex utilizing a new approach to this area of research. A total of 267 men and 327 women rated their degree of confidence that engaging in each of 21 physically intimate behaviors (e.g., penile-vaginal intercourse) counted as ‘‘having sex’’ and then qualitatively explained their reasoning. Separate ratings were made for each behavior when engaged in by the respondent and by his or her partner with someone else. Results showed that, as in previous studies, for both sexes, some behaviors (e.g., penile-vaginal intercourse) were far more confidently rated (i.e., ‘‘definitely sex’’) than were others (e.g., oral-genital stimulation). Further, both men and women were significantly more certain that a behavior counted as ‘‘having sex’’ when considering their partner’s behavior outside the relationship than when they considered their own behavior. Finally, the order in which the two scenarios (i.e., self versus partner) was presented significantly affected participants’ certainty. Qualitative results, paired with quantitative findings, suggest that individuals consider a variety of contextual factors when making these definitional decisions. The methodological and sexual health implications of these results are discussed.
Individuals’ definitions of sex, and the process by which they make these definitional decisions, likely influence, and are influenced by, their attitudes and choices when navigating their sexual encounters. Thus, there are a number of potentially important implications for research examining definitions of sex. For example, deciding whether engaging in a given behavior constitutes ‘‘having sex’’ could influence a decision regarding the use of condoms during the behavior, an obvious health implication. Further, previous research suggests definitions of sex are not rigid and consistent and might be situationally determined (e.g., Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007). Endorsements of Behaviors as Sex A number of studies have examined which physically intimate behaviors individuals consider to be ‘‘having sex’’ (e.g., Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). Almost all of these studies have used a dichotomous (i.e., Yes=No) answer choice and resulted in an ordered list of behaviors ranked We thank the undergraduate research assistants for their conscientious work on this study: Roxane Ghaffarian, Danielle Long, and Kristina Fario. We also thank Dr. Lisa Diamond for her constructive feedback during the preparation of the manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to Kelsey K. Sewell, Department of Psychology, 380 S. 1530 E., Room 502, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. E-mail: kelsey.sewell@psych. utah.edu
from most to least likely to be considered as ‘‘having sex.’’ Though there has been some disagreement among these studies regarding how often some behaviors were considered sex (e.g., for oral stimulation, 24% to 40% across studies), the list of behaviors from most to least likely to be considered sex has proven to be very consistent, being replicated both within (Gute, Eshbaugh, & Wiersma, 2008) and outside (e.g., Pitts & Rahman, 2001) the United States, as well as across time (Sanders & Reinisch, 1999; Horowitz & Spicer, 2013). Nearly all of these studies have been limited (or nearly so) to exclusively heterosexual participants, the sole exception being a study on gay men in the United States and United Kingdom (Hill, Rahman, Bright, & Sanders, 2010). Studies have reported mixed results in examining whether individual differences influence definitions of sex. One such individual difference is the extent of an individual’s sexual experience. For example, Sanders and Reinisch (1999) found that when someone had experienced oral-genital contact but not penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI), he or she was less likely to label oral-genital contact as sex. Other studies, however, have not found that sexual experience predicted whether a behavior was considered as ‘‘having sex’’ (Randall & Byers, 2003; Trotter & Alderson, 2007). Another variable, age, has only recently been examined. Sanders and colleagues (2010) found that among men ages 18 to 96, the oldest and youngest groups were less likely than others to label some behaviors as sex.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
SEWELL AND STRASSBERG
In examining prior work, some researchers have found that men and women order behaviors similarly (Randall & Byers, 2003). However, one pattern of gender differences has been identified: In two studies, men were more likely than women to label less physically intimate behaviors (e.g., breast stimulation) as sex, whereas women were more likely than men to label more intimate behaviors (e.g., oral-genital stimulation) as sex (Pitts & Rahman, 2001; Trotter & Alderson, 2007). Several recent studies have explored the idea that definitions of sex may be flexible or ambiguous. Peterson and Muehlenhard (2007) suggested that underlying many studies is the implicit assumption that individuals have clear definitions of what behaviors do and do not constitute having sex. In contrast to this assumption, however, they found that almost everyone they surveyed could describe previously experiencing an ambiguous sexual situation (e.g., ‘‘not quite sex’’ or ‘‘unsure’’). Further, they found that participants’ definitions of sex sometimes seemed to be motivated. That is, their decisions about whether to label an ambiguous sexual encounter as ‘‘having sex’’ seemed to be influenced by their perception of the consequences of labeling it as such (e.g., negative self-evaluation). These authors called those circumstances in which participants considered the possible consequences of the label when choosing their definition ‘‘motivated definitions’’ (Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007, p. 257). They suggested these motivated definitions may serve to protect an individual’s self-image but could also have the negative consequence of justifying sexually risky behaviors. Horowitz and Spicer (2013) suggested that examining definitions of sex would be better accomplished by offering participants a range of choices (e.g., from Definitely not sex to Definitely sex) rather than the previously used dichotomous choice. They found that more than 90% of their participants made use of intermediate answer choices, in support of the idea that individuals’ definitions of sex may not always be unambiguous. Related to the idea of flexibility in definitions of sex, researchers have compared different situations to determine when definitions of sex change or are inconsistent as a function of context. For example, Gute and colleagues (2008) examined the differences in participants’ decisions to label behaviors as sex when considering themselves engaging in the behavior versus their partner with someone else. They found that participants were more likely to rate a partner’s behavior as sex than their own behavior. Whether an orgasm occurs during a behavior has also been shown to influence individuals’ judgments of whether the behavior counts as sex. People are more likely to call a behavior sex if at least one person has an orgasm during the act, especially during oral-genital stimulation (Randall & Byers, 2003; Trotter & Alderson, 2007). 2
Methodological Concerns There are several important methodological considerations for studies examining individuals’ definitions of sex, and each will be considered in the context of previous research. In studies on the definition of sex in which the interest is in people’s response to two judgment contexts (e.g., judging if you versus someone else had engaged in some behaviors), a significant methodological decision must be made: to present both contexts to everyone (i.e., a within-subjects design) or to present only one context to each of two or more groups (i.e., a between-subjects design). Each approach, of course, has its limitations. In particular, a between-subjects design leaves uncertain whether differences found between groups is a function of the manipulation or the specific persons in each group. A within-subjects approach avoids this limitation but is open to the possibility that the first condition to which participants are exposed impacts their responses in any subsequent condition, in other words, carryover effects (Trotter & Alderson, 2007). To address the possibility of carryover effects, some researchers (e.g., Byers, Henderson, & Hobson, 2009; Randall & Byers, 2003) have counterbalanced the order in which the scenarios were presented. Still, this may not completely eliminate the problem: If each group’s scores are simply averaged across conditions (presumably balancing out any order differences), this can mask any potentially meaningful order effects that might exist (i.e., how order is affecting the second sets of ratings). Until recently, research on this topic has always utilized a dichotomous dependent measure (i.e., answering Yes or No to whether a behavior is sex; e.g., Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). This limited answer choice does not allow for the possibility of subtlety, ambiguity, or lack of certainty in participant judgments. For example, individuals may feel less certain regarding some behaviors (e.g., breast stimulation, oral-genital stimulation) than others (e.g., PVI) but have no way to express this uncertainty. As a consequence, participants’ responses in studies using only a dichotomous measure may not fully or most accurately represent their judgments. Previous studies have examined the effect of variables of interest (e.g., participant gender) on each intimate behavior individually, as if they were independent, generating a statistical concern (i.e., risks of type I error). Multivariate procedures (e.g., MANOVA), such as those utilized in the present study, control for the dependence among correlated multiple dependent measures by providing an omnibus test prior to examining the effects for individual behaviors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The failure of previous studies to use multivariate techniques may help explain inconsistent findings regarding the nature and strength of the effects of some individual difference variables (e.g., gender).
HETEROSEXUAL UNDERGRADUATES’ DEFINITIONS OF SEX
Finally, with one exception, no study in this area has asked participants for qualitative explanations for their decisions about whether intimate behaviors count as having sex. The exception was a small interview study (n ¼ 21) of young women (Mehta, Sunner, Head, Crosby, & Shrier, 2011). In that study, the strictly qualitative approach found evidence of a few themes involved in individuals’ definitions of sex (e.g., whether an orgasm occurred). Open-ended, follow-up questions would allow participants to explain their choices and would provide for an examination of the factors encompassing participants’ definitional decision making and the underlying processes involved.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
The Present Study The current study examined decisional processes involved in individuals’ definitions of sex utilizing procedures designed to address some of the methodological limitations of earlier research. It should be noted that our study was limited to people’s definitions of ‘‘having sex.’’ Previous research has found that people respond similarly, but not identically, to related constructs, such as abstinence, virginity, and status as a sexual partner (Byers et al., 2009; Carpenter, 2001; Randall & Byers, 2003; Trotter & Alderson, 2007). Utilizing a mixed-method design, participants rated their degree of confidence that each of a variety of behaviors constituted ‘‘having sex,’’ assuming (a) they and (b) their significant other (with someone else) were engaging in the behavior, with the order in which these judgments were made (i.e., for self or significant other first) systematically manipulated so that possible order effects could be evaluated. The following hypotheses were tested: H1: The ordering of the behaviors from least to most certain that the behavior counted as ‘‘having sex’’ will correlate significantly (positively) with the findings of previous research. H2: The order in which the two conditions (partner and self) are presented will affect the degree of certainty (on our 4-point scale) that the behaviors presented count as sex, as follows: (a) Participants will give a lower score (i.e., indicating less certainty that the behavior counted as sex or greater certainty that it did not count as sex) for ratings for self when these are made before, rather than after, ratings for the significant other. (b) Participants will give a higher score (i.e., indicating greater certainty that the behavior counted as sex) when ratings for significant other are made before, rather than after, ratings for self. H3: Participants will give a higher score (i.e., indicating greater certainty that the behavior counted as sex) when considering behaviors engaged in by their partner than when considering their own behavior.
H4: Participants will give higher ratings (i.e., indicating greater certainty that the behavior counted as sex) to behaviors involving genital stimulation if at least one of the two people involved in the encounter experienced an orgasm than if neither had done so during the act.
Qualitative Exploration Participants’ explanations for their scores for the intimate behaviors were examined. Utilizing Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method of thematic analysis, content analysis of the qualitative explanations was carried out. While no hypotheses were offered in this exploratory phase of this study, data were examined for possible participant gender differences in the distribution of theme content.
Method Participants The total initial sample consisted of 646 (300 male and 346 female) self-identified heterosexual undergraduate students from a psychology department subject pool. A total of 52 individuals who lacked sufficient data for at least one of the two conditions (removed if missing more than 50% of data in self or other conditions), or who lacked gender information, were excluded. Thus, the final sample consisted of 594 individuals, 267 men and 327 women. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 62 (M ¼ 23.3, SD ¼ 6.55). Data were analyzed with and without extreme values for age, and the exclusion of these older participants had no effect on the results. Most participants were Caucasian (80.6%), with no other ethnicity amounting to more than 7% of the sample. The sample was diverse with respect to the importance of religion, with all levels being well represented (Not at all important: 29%, Somewhat important: 20.4%, Moderately important: 15.8%, Very important: 16.8%, Extremely important: 18%). None of the demographic variables (e.g., age, race, religious importance) was significantly related to the variables of interest. Measures The measures used comprised three parts: a page of demographics and two sets of study questions. Demographics collected were gender, sexual orientation, race, age, and religiosity. The items included in the two sets of questions were nearly identical in that both asked about participants’ degree of certainty that each of 21 intimate behaviors counted as having sex and whether they had experienced each behavior. However, the context was manipulated such that one section inquired about 3
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
SEWELL AND STRASSBERG
participants’ own behavior and the other inquired about the behavior of a partner. The behaviors were identical to those used by Randall and Byers (2003), except for the addition of the ‘‘69’’ position (i.e., mutual oral-genital activity). For each of the 21 behaviors, participants were asked to indicate their judgment on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ Definitely not sex, 2 ¼ Probably not sex, 3 ¼ Probably sex, 4 ¼ Definitely sex). Before the first question for the self scenario, the following prompt was presented: ‘‘Would you say you ‘had sex’ with another person if the most intimate behavior you engaged in was . . . ?’’ The prompt for the partner scenario was worded this way: ‘‘Would you say your significant other ‘had sex’ with someone else if he=she engaged in the following behavior with that person while still romantically involved with you?’’ Participants not currently in a romantic relationship were instructed to answer the questions about a hypothetical partner. Participants were reminded that we were not asking if they thought a behavior constituted ‘‘cheating,’’ nor if they would be upset if their partner engaged in the behavior with someone else. Rather, they were instructed to only consider whether they would count each behavior as ‘‘having sex.’’ Participants were also asked to provide qualitative explanations for each of their answers which (via survey skip logic) met any of three criteria: (1) if they responded Definitely sex for behaviors which previous research had shown few people consider to be sex (e.g., deep kissing), (2) if they responded Definitely not sex for behaviors frequently considered in prior research to be sex (e.g., PVI), or (3) if they chose an intermediate answer choice (i.e., Probably sex or Probably not sex) for any behavior. To reduce the likelihood that participants would recognize the logic behind which answers they were asked to explain, they were also asked to explain their answers to an additional number of randomly chosen responses throughout the questionnaires. Approximately half of the participants received the self questions prior to the partner questions, and about half received the partner questions prior to the self questions; presentation order was randomly assigned. The demographic questions were always placed between these two sets of questions in order to separate them and reinforce for participants that the second set of questions was different. Procedure All elements of the study were presented online. The solicitation for the study was posted on a psychology department’s participant pool website, and was titled ‘‘Defining Sex.’’ Those interested in participating in this institutional review board–approved study were first presented with a consent form that briefly described the study (i.e., ‘‘exploring attitudes about, and experience with, some sexual behaviors’’) and informed the 4
participants of their rights if they chose to participate. Those choosing to continue were provided a link to the study questionnaire. Participants were not informed in advance that they would be rating behaviors for two scenarios (i.e., self and partner) so as to avoid influencing their ratings on the first scenario they received. After viewing a page containing the instructions with either the self scenario or partner scenario prompt, they were asked to rate each of the 21 behaviors and to indicate whether they had engaged in the behavior. One behavior was presented per survey web page. Once finishing a web page, they could not go back to view or change their previous answers. When finished, questionnaires were submitted electronically. To maintain participant anonymity, after providing all of their responses they were navigated to a separate questionnaire to supply the identifying information necessary to assign research credit. In the informed consent, participants were advised that their responses would be collected and stored anonymously.
Results Quantitative Findings Missing items amounted to 3.4% of the data, and list-wise deletion was used to address this. Table 1 lists the frequency with which each of the four scale items
Table 1. Descriptive Information for Intimate Behavior Rankings
Intimate Behaviors Deep kissing SO stimulates your nipples You stimulate SO’s nipples Self-stimulation on computer Self-stimulation on phone Mutual self-stimulation SO manually stimulates you You manually stimulate SO SO manually stimulates you, org You manually stimulate SO, org SO orally stimulates you You orally stimulate SO SO orally stimulates you, org You orally stimulate SO, org 69 position (mutual oral stimulation) Anal intercourse, NO Anal intercourse, org Penile-vaginal intercourse, NO Penile-vaginal intercourse, MO Penile-vaginal intercourse, FO Penile-vaginal intercourse, BO
Definitely Not Sex (%)
Probably Not Sex (%)
Probably Sex (%)
Definitely Sex (%)
92.3 73.2 69.7 64.6 63.1 59.3 49.3 47.6 41.2
4.7 16.8 19.9 21.5 22.6 23.4 26.1 28.3 25.9
1.9 6.1 7.1 9.8 10.1 10.8 15.0 15.2 18.5
0.8 3.5 3.4 3.9 3.7 6.2 9.4 8.9 14.1
40.7
26.8
18.2
14.0
28.8 27.4 23.1 21.7 20.0
23.1 25.1 23.6 24.2 20.7
23.4 22.9 22.2 22.9 25.6
24.6 24.6 31.0 31.0 33.2
3.5 3.7 2.0 0.8 0.7 0.7
4.5 3.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2
21.5 18.4 8.4 3.5 3.7 0.3
70.0 74.1 88.9 95.3 94.9 98.7
Note. SO ¼ significant other; org ¼ orgasm; NO ¼ nobody orgasms; MO ¼ male orgasms; FO ¼ female orgasms; BO ¼ both orgasm.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
HETEROSEXUAL UNDERGRADUATES’ DEFINITIONS OF SEX
before, rather than after, certainty ratings for significant other, F (21, 557) ¼ 2.54, p < .001. Consistent with hypothesis 2b, participants gave a higher score (greater certainty that the behavior counted as sex) when certainty ratings for significant other were made before, rather than after, certainty ratings for self, F (21, 560) ¼ 3.42, p < .001. Univariate analyses showed this order effect (i.e., of first certainty ratings on second certainty ratings) held true in both analyses for all behaviors except for PVI (with orgasm), anal sex with and without orgasm, and deep kissing. This is not surprising, since previous research has shown that almost everyone defines these specific behaviors as sex or not sex (e.g., Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). Univariate analyses and mean scores are presented in Table 2. Hypothesis 3, that participants would rate a partner’s behavior more confidently as sex than their own behavior, was tested via a 2 (participant gender) 2 (target, self versus partner) factorial MANOVA. The dependent variables were again the certainty ratings of the 21 intimate behaviors. The main effect of target was significant: F (21, 561) ¼ 4.85, p < .001. Examination of the univariate analyses indicated a consistently strong effect, with participants rating all behaviors (except PVI with both people experiencing orgasms) as more ‘‘like sex’’ when considering a partner engaging in the behavior than when considering their own behavior. The main effect for gender was also significant, F (21, 561) ¼ 2.07, p < .005. However, univariate analyses revealed
were used in ratings of the 21 intimate behaviors. To establish the overall comparability of our findings with that of previous research (hypothesis 1), certainty ratings of intimate behaviors, for our participants as a group, were rank ordered from least to greatest participant confidence that the behavior counted as sex. These ranks were then compared with the ranks of behaviors in Gute and colleagues’ (2008) study. This study was chosen for comparison because it was conducted recently, was methodologically similar to the current study, and had a large sample. Spearman’s rho revealed a very strong and statistically significant relationship between the rankings, r (7) ¼ .98, p < .001. Thus, overall, the current sample defined ‘‘having sex’’ virtually identically to at least one major previous study (Gute et al., 2008), which, in turn, reported rankings that were highly similar to prior studies (e.g., Sanders & Reinisch, 1999). Next, analyses were conducted to determine the importance of presentation order. These hypotheses were tested via two one-way multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA), where the between-subjects independent variable for each was order (MANOVA 1, hypothesis 2a, self scenario presented first versus second; MANOVA 2, hypothesis 2b, partner scenario presented first versus second). The dependent variables were the certainty ratings of the 21 intimate behaviors. Consistent with hypothesis 2a, participants gave a lower score (less certain that the behavior counted as sex) for ratings for self when the ratings were made Table 2.
The Effect of Scenario Presentation Order on Definitions of Sex Self (Hypothesis 1a)
Intimate Behaviors Deep kissing SO stimulates your=OP’s nipples You=OP stimulate SO’s nipples Self-stimulation on computer Self-stimulation on phone Mutual self-stimulation SO manually stimulates you=OP You=OP manually stimulate SO SO manually stimulates you=OP, org You=OP manually stimulate SO, org SO orally stimulates you=OP You=OP orally stimulate SO SO orally stimulates you=OP, org You=OP orally stimulate SO, org 69 position (mutual oral stimulation) Anal intercourse Anal intercourse, org Penile-vaginal intercourse, NO Penile-vaginal intercourse, MO Penile-vaginal intercourse, FO Penile-vaginal intercourse, BO
1st M (SE) 1.05 1.28 1.34 1.36 1.39 1.42 1.67 1.68 1.90 1.89 2.21 2.24 2.41 2.43 2.46 3.53 3.60 3.82 3.93 3.93 3.97
(.03) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.07) (.06) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.04) (.04) (.03) (.02) (.02) (.02)
2nd M (SE) 1.15 1.48 1.51 1.68 1.67 1.83 1.98 1.98 2.17 2.18 2.62 2.60 2.78 2.80 2.94 3.65 3.67 3.88 3.94 3.95 3.98
(.02) (.04) (.04) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.04) (.04) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.02)
Partner (Hypothesis 1b)
F 8.00 10.46 7.98 22.08 17.80 30.94 15.42 14.15 8.96 11.69 18.55 14.83 14.89 14.78 27.02 3.67 1.59 2.03 .33 .72 .24
1st M (SE) 1.11 1.45 1.45 1.50 1.53 1.61 1.87 1.85 1.99 2.04 2.34 2.40 2.47 2.56 2.65 3.59 3.64 3.87 3.94 3.95 3.97
(.03) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.04) (.04) (.03) (.02) (.02) (.01)
2nd M (SE) 1.18 1.86 1.85 1.84 1.90 2.00 2.22 2.20 2.48 2.48 2.85 2.88 3.00 3.00 3.08 3.73 3.74 3.92 3.98 3.98 4.00
(.03) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.04) (.04) (.03) (.02) (.02) (.01)
F 2.63 32.01 34.12 21.16 24.66 25.92 16.18 17.19 31.49 24.04 27.03 25.95 32.98 21.21 21.48 6.01 3.24 2.65 3.31 2.10 2.67
Note. SO ¼ significant other; OP ¼ other person (in partner scenario); org ¼ orgasm; NO ¼ nobody orgasms; MO ¼ male orgasms; FO ¼ female orgasms; BO ¼ both orgasm. All dfs are 1. p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
5
SEWELL AND STRASSBERG
Table 3.
The Effect of Gender and Target on Definitions of Sex Target
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
Intimate Behaviors Deep kissing SO stimulates your=OP’s nipples You=OP stimulate SO’s nipples Self-stimulation on computer Self-stimulation on phone Mutual self-stimulation SO manually stimulates you=OP You=OP manually stimulate SO SO manually stimulates you=OP, org You=OP manually stimulate SO, org SO orally stimulates you=OP You=OP orally stimulate SO SO orally stimulates you=OP, org You=OP orally stimulate SO, org 69 position (mutual oral stimulation) Anal intercourse, NO Anal intercourse, org Penile-vaginal intercourse, NO Penile-vaginal intercourse, MO Penile-vaginal intercourse, FO Penile-vaginal intercourse, BO
Self M (SE) 1.06 1.29 1.38 1.34 1.37 1.41 1.70 1.72 1.91 1.91 2.22 2.26 2.40 2.42 2.45 3.53 3.59 3.83 3.93 3.93 3.97
(.03) (.06) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.05) (.05) (.03) (.02) (.02) (.01)
Partner M (SE) 1.18 1.86 1.86 1.86 1.91 2.01 2.22 2.21 2.49 2.48 2.85 2.88 2.99 2.99 3.07 3.74 3.74 3.93 3.98 3.98 4.00
(.03) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.04) (.04) (.02) (.02) (.02) (.01)
Gender
F 9.23 62.07 44.17 49.94 52.41 58.90 37.59 32.20 39.14 38.18 45.85 43.20 39.20 36.11 43.56 12.38 7.26 6.72 4.27 5.86 3.04
Male M (SE) 1.13 1.55 1.68 1.51 1.57 1.68 1.98 1.99 2.20 2.25 2.55 2.59 2.70 2.71 2.76 3.62 3.64 3.88 3.96 3.95 3.98
(.03) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.07) (.05) (.05) (.03) (.02) (.02) (.01)
Female M (SE) 1.11 1.60 1.56 1.69 1.71 1.74 1.94 1.94 2.19 2.14 2.53 2.54 2.69 2.70 2.76 3.64 3.68 3.87 3.96 3.96 3.98
(.03) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.05) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.06) (.04) (.04) (.02) (.01) (.02) (.01)
F .42 .32 2.92 5.62 3.44 .54 .32 1.56 .03 1.56 .05 .28 .01 .01 .03 .06 .39 .17 .02 .01 .01
Note. SO ¼ significant other; OP ¼ other person (in partner scenario); org ¼ orgasm; NO ¼ nobody orgasms; MO ¼ male orgasms; FO ¼ female orgasms; BO ¼ both orgasm. All dfs are 1. p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
the effect was captured by only one dependent variable: self-stimulation while on the computer. Insofar as this effect is interpretable, women expressed greater certainty than did men that stimulation over the computer counted as sex. Univariate analyses and comparison of means are presented in Table 3. The multivariate test for the interaction was not statistically significant, F (21, 561) ¼ .85, p > .05. Hypothesis 4, that participants would be more certain a behavior counted as sex if an orgasm occurred during the act, was tested with a repeated-measures MANOVA, where the within-subjects independent variables were orgasm (present or absent) and type of behavior (the
four behaviors for which orgasm was manipulated), and the dependent variables were the certainty ratings of the behaviors. The multivariate test for both main effects of orgasm, F (1, 589) ¼ 140.5, p < .001, and behavior, F (3, 587) ¼ 730.28, p < .001, were significant; however, these were qualified by an orgasm behavior interaction: F (3, 587) ¼ 17.86, p < .001. Figure 1 illustrates these relationships by visually displaying the slope of each line, indicating the change in certainty that the behavior counts as sex from no orgasm to orgasm for each behavior. Thus, it appears the significant interaction was the result of the strong and significant orgasm effect being somewhat less strong for anal intercourse
Figure 1. The effect of the interaction of intimate behavior orgasm on definitions of sex. The figure represents participants’ certainty ratings, on a scale in which 1 ¼ Definitely not sex, 2 ¼ Probably not sex, 3 ¼ Probably sex, and 4 ¼ Definitely sex.
6
HETEROSEXUAL UNDERGRADUATES’ DEFINITIONS OF SEX
than for the other behaviors, as is indicated by the shallow slope. Follow-up paired-sample t tests were conducted to examine each behavior. For all six behaviors, participants were significantly more certain that a behavior counted as sex if an orgasm occurred: (1) manualgenital stimulation no orgasm (M ¼ 1.85, SD ¼ 0.98) versus orgasm (M ¼ 2.05, SD ¼ 1.07), t (591) ¼ 8.56, p < .001; (2) oral-genital stimulation no orgasm (M ¼ 2.44, SD ¼ 1.14) versus orgasm (M ¼ 2.63, SD ¼ 1.14), t (592) ¼ 8.94, p < .001; (3) anal intercourse no orgasm (M ¼ 3.59, SD ¼ 0.74) versus orgasm (M ¼ 3.63, SD ¼ 0.73), t (591) ¼ 3.09, p < .01; and (4) PVI no orgasm (M ¼ 3.84, SD ¼ 0.51) versus orgasm (M ¼ 3.97, SD ¼ 0.27), t (592) ¼ 6.98, p < .001.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 01:09 07 June 2014
Qualitative Investigations Using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method of thematic analysis as a guide, participants’ qualitative explanations of their certainty ratings were independently coded by pairs of raters, with discrepancies resolved via group consensus. Given the very time-intensive nature of the qualitative analysis of participants’ explanations, we chose to rate and analyze the explanations of a randomly selected subset (109 men and 107 women) of the full data set (Hesse-Biber, 2010). This subset was found to be comparable to the full data set in gender (i.e., female to male ratio), X2(1, N ¼ 810) ¼ 1.94, p > .05, and age, t (808) ¼ 1.37, p > .05. Overall interrater reliability was 88%. When treating each code separately, the range of agreement was 78% to 100%, with a median of 90%. Kappa coefficients, a measure of interrater reliability (Cohen, 1960), were also computed for each code, with all values above .7, a range of .71 to 1.00, and a median of .93. The prevalence of the 24 themes, by gender, is listed in Table 4. The following examples illustrate how some of the themes were derived. Although many people were referring to penile-anal or penile-vaginal insertion when mentioning penetration, some used it more broadly to also include manual-genital and oral-genital stimulation (e.g., ‘‘Here the insertion is my sexual organ into someone’s hand, making a circle’’). Genital touching was mentioned frequently, but many participants distinguished between one person’s genitals being touched and both person’s genitals being touched simultaneously (e.g., ‘‘Well now that both of our genitals are being stimulated instead of just one person’s, it counts as sex’’). Several themes related to the words or phrase typically associated with the behavior, such as intercourse (e.g., PVI or penile-anal intercourse). Individuals also typically mentioned a behavior counting as sex if the word sex is usually attached to the behavior, such as cybersex, anal sex, and oral sex (e.g., ‘‘It is considered oral ‘sex’ for a reason’’). Three themes emerged relating to how participants explained behaviors that fell short in some way of their full definitions of sex: degree of sex, sexual
Table 4.
Use of Themes by Men and Women
Themes ‘‘Physical contact’’ with SO ‘‘Penetration’’ (any) Involves ‘‘genital touching’’ ‘‘Both genitals are touching’’ ‘‘Orgasm must occur’’ to be sex ‘‘Causes sexual arousal’’ ‘‘Risk of STD’’ ‘‘Orgasm could happen’’ ‘‘Pregnancy could happen’’ ‘‘No longer a virgin’’ It’s ‘‘intercourse’’ ‘‘Phrase includes ‘sex’’’ ‘‘Society teaches it’s sex’’ ‘‘Sexual situation’’ It’s a ‘‘degree of sex’’ It’s a ‘‘type of sex’’=related to sex ‘‘It’s sex’’ (no explanation) ‘‘Only penis in vagina is sex’’ Comparison to another behavior ‘‘It depends on the context’’ Unsure ‘‘Foreplay’’ Degree of ‘‘intimacy’’ ‘‘It’s sex for same-sex couples’’
Men (%)
Women (%)
46.8 43.1 28.4 20.2 31.2 15.6 4.6 2.8 2.8 0 33 6.4 1.8 14.7 32.1 14.7
53.3 49.5 29 14 27.1 21.5 6.5 5.6 5.6 4.7 29.9 9.3 2.8 34.6 30.8 11.2
48.6 13.8 10.1 3.7 0 25.7 15.6 1.8
41.1 27.1 1 7.4 5.6 39.3 22.4 11.2
v2
p
.463 .893 .007 1.758 .437 1.245 .393
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .03 n.s. n.s. n.s.
