Gender Differences in How Parents, Peers, and Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials Influence the Intention to Engage in Casual Sex among Adolescents and Young Adults in Taiwan: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Casual Sex among Adolescents and Young Adults
1.2. Theory of Planned Behavior
1.3. Influences of Parents, Peers, and Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials on Intention to Engage in Casual Sex
1.4. Gender Differences
1.5. Study Aims
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Casual Sex and TPB Constructs Scale
2.2.2. Parent–Child Discussion on Sexual Issues Scale
2.2.3. Peer Interaction around Sexual Issues Scale
2.2.4. Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials Scale
2.2.5. Demographics
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Characteristics
3.2. Comparisons of the Variables between Men and Women and between Participants Aged 15–19 and 20–24
3.3. Correlation Matrix
3.4. Associations of Parent–Child Discussion, Peer Interaction, and Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials with Casual Sex Intention
3.5. Results of SEM
3.6. Gender Differences
4. Discussion
4.1. Gender Differences in the Intention to Engage in Casual Sex
4.2. Role of Peer Interaction on Sexual Issues in Intention to Engage in Casual Sex
4.3. Role of Parent–Child Discussion in Intention to Engage in Casual Sex
4.4. Role of Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials in Intention to Engage in Casual Sex
4.5. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Garcia, J.R.; Reiber, C.; Massey, S.G.; Merriwether, A.M. Sexual hookup culture: A review. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2012, 16, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lyons, H.; Manning, W.; Giordano, P.; Longmore, M. Predictors of heterosexual casual sex among young adults. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2013, 42, 585–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fong, W. A survey study of the sex knowledge, sex attitude, sex experience and deviant sex behaviour among undergraduate in Chaiyi area. Asian J. Domest. Violence Sex. Offense 2014, 10, 1–21. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Boislard, M.A.; van de Bongardt, D.; Blais, M. Sexuality (and Lack Thereof) in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: A Review of the Literature. Behav. Sci. 2016, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bachtel, M.K. Do hookups hurt? Exploring college students’ experiences and perceptions. J. Midwifery Women Health 2013, 58, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fielder, R.L.; Walsh, J.L.; Carey, K.B.; Carey, M.P. Sexual hookups and adverse health outcomes: A longitudinal study of first-year college women. J. Sex Res. 2014, 51, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klipfel, K.M.; Claxton, S.E.; van Dulmen, M.H. Interpersonal aggression victimization within casual sexual relationships and experiences. J. Interpers. Violence 2014, 29, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weaver, A.D.; MacKeigan, K.L.; MacDonald, H.A. Experiences and perceptions of young adults in friends with benefits relationships: A qualitative study. Can. J. Hum. Sex. 2011, 20, 41–53. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Y.Z. An Investigation on the Sexual Attitude and Sexual Behavior of College Students One-Night Stand and Hook up of New Media in Changhua Area. Master’s Thesis, Shu-Te University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albarracìn, D.; Johnson, B.T.; Fishbein, M.; Muellerleile, P.A. Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 127, 142–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Turchik, J.A.; Gidycz, C.A. Prediction of sexual risk behaviours in college students using the theory of planned behaviour: A prospective analysis. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2012, 31, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brofenbrenner, U. The Ecology of Human Development; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Ortega, J.; Huang, S.; Prado, G. Applying ecodevelopmental theory and the theory of reasoned action to understand HIV risk behaviors among Hispanic adolescents. Hisp. Health Care Int. 2012, 10, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manlove, J.; Wildsmith, E.; Ikramullah, E.; Terry-Humen, E.; Schelar, E. Family environments and the relationship context of first adolescent sex: Correlates of first sex in a casual versus steady relationship. Soc. Sci. Res. 2012, 41, 861–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trinh, S.L.; Ward, L.M.; Day, K.; Thomas, K.; Levin, D. Contributions of divergent peer and parent sexual messages to Asian American college students’ sexual behaviors. J. Sex Res. 2014, 51, 208–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, E.P.; Wong, J.Y.; Lo, H.H.; Wong, W.; Chio, J.H.; Fong, D.Y. The association between smartphone dating applications and college students’ casual sex encounters and condom use. Sex. Reprod. Healthc. 2016, 9, 38–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, L.W.; Guy, R.; Degenhardt, L.; Yeung, A.; Rissel, C.; Richters, J.; Liu, B. Meeting sexual partners through internet sites and smartphone apps in Australia: National representative study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e10683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Peter, J.; Valkenburg, P.M. Adolescents and pornography: A review of 20 years of research. J. Sex Res. 2016, 53, 509–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bersamin, M.M.; Zamboanga, B.L.; Schwartz, S.J.; Donnellan, M.B. Risky business: Is there an association between casual sex and mental health among emerging adults? J. Sex Res. 2014, 51, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero-Estudillo, E.; Gonzalez-Jimenez, E.; Mesa-Franco, M.; Garcia-Garcia, I. Gender-based differences in the high-risk sexual behaviours of young people aged 15–29 in Melilla (Spain): A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2014, 14, 745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Trinh, S.L.; Ward, L.M. The nature and impact of gendered patterns of peer sexual communications among heterosexual emerging adults. J. Sex Res. 2016, 53, 298–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tseng, Y.H.; Esposito, N.; Kuo, S.H.; Chou, F.H.; Cheng, M.L. Push and pull: Exposure of young Taiwanese women to sexually explicit materials. Women Health 2017, 57, 855–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ministry of Justice, Taiwan. Civil Code. Available online: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=B0000001 (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- Grulich, A.E.; de Visser, R.O.; Smith, A.; Rissel, C.; Richters, J. Sex in Australia: Injecting and sexual risk behaviour in a representative sample of adults. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2003, 27, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Choi, E.P.; Wong, J.Y.; Lo, H.H.; Wong, W.; Chio, J.H.; Fong, D.Y. Association between using smartphone dating applications and alcohol and recreational drug use in conjunction with sexual activities in college students. Subst. Use Misuse 2017, 52, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structure Equation Modelling, 3rd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 11–13. [Google Scholar]
- Tseng, Y.H.; Cheng, C.P.; Kuo, S.H.; Hou, W.L.; Chan, T.F.; Chou, F.H. Safe sexual behaviors intention among female youth: The construction on extended theory of planned behavior. J. Adv. Nurs. 2020, 76, 814–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wei, H.M. A Study on Presexual Behaviors and Attitudes about Family Parents Communication and Peer Relation of Senior High School Students. Master’s Thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, R.C. Peer interaction in relation to sexual issues and sexual attitudes among college students in the Tainan area. J. Health Sci. 2006, 8, 46–64. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Lo, V.H.; Wu, H.M.; Chiang, C.Y.; Liu, H.L. Impact of internet pornography on adolescents’ sexual attitudes and behaviour. Chin. J. Commun. Soc. 2008, 5, 35–69. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cangur, S.; Ercan, I. Comparison of Model Fit Indices Used in Structural Equation Modeling under Multivariate normality. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Meth 2015, 14, 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nevitt, J.; Hancock, G.R. Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modelling. Struct. Equ. Model. 2001, 8, 353–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun. Monogr. 2009, 76, 408–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarka, P. An overview of structural equation modeling: Its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Qual. Quant. 2018, 52, 313–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Petersen, J.L.; Hyde, J.S. A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychol. Bull. 2010, 136, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendrick, S.S.; Hendrick, C. Gender differences and similarities in sex and love. Pers. Relationsiph. 1995, 2, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehmiller, J.J.; VanderDrift, L.E.; Kelly, J.R. Sex differences in approaching friends with benefits relationships. J. Sex Res. 2011, 8, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baumeister, R.F.; Catanese, K.R.; Vohs, K.D. Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2001, 5, 242–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lefkowitz, E.S.; Boone, T.L.; Shearer, C.L. Communication with best friends about sex-related topics during emerging adulthood. J. Youth Adolesc. 2004, 33, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mastro, S.; Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J. Let’s talk openly about sex: Sexual communication, self-esteem and efficacy as correlates of sexual well-being. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2015, 12, 579–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Layzer, C.; Rosapep, L.; Barr, S. A peer education program: Delivering highly reliable sexual health promotion messages in schools. J. Adolesc. Health 2014, 54, S70–S77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, D.H. Education of Parenting; Weyfar: Teipei, Taiwan, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Kanuga, M.; Rosenfeld, W.D. Adolescent sexuality and the internet: The good, the bad, and the URL. J. Pediatr. Adol. Gynec. 2004, 17, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klaassen, M.J.E.; Peter, J. Gender (in) equality in internet pornography: A content analysis of popular pornographic internet videos. J. Sex Res. 2015, 52, 721–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nordin, E.; Hanson, U.; Tyden, T. Associations between pornography consumption and sexual practices among adolescents in Sweden. Int. J. STD AIDS 2005, 16, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rothman, E.F.; Daley, N.; Alder, J. A pornography literacy program for adolescents. Am. J. Public Health 2020, 110, 154–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variable | Range | Overall Mean (SD) | Men (n = 348) Mean (SD) | Women (n =419) Mean (SD) | Z | 15–19 years (n = 536) Mean (SD) | 20–24 years (n =231) Mean (SD) | Z |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intention to engage in casual sex | 3–21 | 6.56 (4.54) | 9.11 (4.79) | 4.44 (2.97) | −14.96 *** | 6.27 (4.25) | 7.23 (5.11) | −1.65 |
Favorable attitude | 5–35 | 15.23 (8.22) | 20.05 (7.31) | 11.22 (6.62) | −14.95 *** | 14.70 (7.56) | 16.45 (9.47) | −1.87 |
Subjective norm of acceptance | 3–21 | 7.36 (4.40) | 8.96 (4.19) | 6.02 (4.12) | −9.79 *** | 7.35 (4.36) | 7.38 (4.51) | −0.21 |
Self-control of noninvolvement | 3–21 | 16.62 (4.40) | 14.74 (4.50) | 18.19 (3.64) | −10.76 *** | 16.72 (4.15) | 16.40 (4.92) | −0.25 |
Parent–child discussion | 24–72 | 32.96 (8.20) | 31.96 (8.60) | 33.79 (7.78) | −4.83 ** | 32.91 (8.40) | 33.09 (7.75) | −0.80 |
Peer interaction | 15–75 | 40.27 (12.57) | 44.47 (11.94) | 36.78 (12.02) | −8.57 *** | 38.48 (12.39) | 44.42 (12.03) | −5.78 *** |
Exposure to sexual materials | 28–140 | 42.47 (18.65) | 52.24 (22.18) | 34.36 (9.15) | −14.10 *** | 40.85 (17.08) | 46.23 (21.45) | −3.57 *** |
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Intention to engage in casual sex | - | ||||||
2. Favorable attitude | 0.65 ** | - | |||||
3. Subjective norm of acceptance | 0.50 ** | 0.49 ** | - | ||||
4. Perceived self-control of non-involvement | −0.61 ** | −0.54 ** | −0.47 ** | - | |||
5. Parent–child discussion | −0.11 * | −0.07 | −0.09 † | 0.09 † | - | ||
6. Peer interaction | 0.29 ** | 0.33 ** | 0.22 ** | −0.22 ** | 0.19 ** | - | |
7. Exposure to sexually explicit materials | 0.37 ** | 0.38 ** | 0.24 ** | −0.32 ** | 0.12 ‡ | 0.48 ** | - |
Variables | β | 95% CI |
---|---|---|
Parent–child discussion | −0.105 ** | −0.093, −0.024 |
Peer interaction | 0.115 ** | 0.016, 0.067 |
Exposure to sexually explicit materials | 0.132 ** | 0.014, 0.050 |
Gender (men = 0; women = 1) | −0.401 *** | −4.290, −3.020 |
Age | 0.032 | −0.058, 0.188 |
F= 65.917 *** | ||
R2= 30.2% |
Paths | Estimate | SE | Bias-Corrected Bootstrapping 5000 Times 95% Confidence Interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||
Direct effectss | ||||
PCC→ Intention | −0.032 | 0.022 | −0.074 | 0.013 |
Peer→ Intention | 0.018 | 0.013 | −0.008 | 0.044 |
Exposure→Intention | 0.022 | 0.011 | 0.001 | 0.043 |
Indirect effect | ||||
PCC→Attitude→Intention | −0.032 | 0.013 | −0.062 | −0.008 |
PCC→SN→Intention | −0.005 | 0.003 | −0.016 | −0.001 |
PCC→PBC→Intention | −0.037 | 0.012 | −0.065 | −0.016 |
Peer→Attitude→Intention | 0.041 | 0.010 | 0.023 | 0.063 |
Peer →SN→Intention | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
Peer →PBC→Intention | 0.023 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
Exposure→Attitude→Intention | 0.024 | 0.007 | 0.012 | 0.038 |
Exposure→ SN→Intention | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.0001 | 0.007 |
Exposure→PBC→Intention | 0.029 | 0.006 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
Total effects | ||||
PCC→Intention | −0.106 | 0.032 | −0.171 | −0.048 |
Peer→Intention | 0.086 | 0.020 | 0.045 | 0.127 |
Exposure→Intention | 0.077 | 0.016 | 0.047 | 0.109 |
Dependent Variables | Independent Variables | Men | Women | Significance Test of Comparison | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | ΔDF | Δχ2 | p | ||
Attitude | Parent–child discussion | −0.053 | 0.025 | −0.005 | 0.031 | 1 | 1.367 | 0.242 |
Peer interaction | 0.090 | 0.021 | 0.036 | 0.021 | 1 | 3.370 | 0.066 | |
Exposure | 0.008 | 0.011 | 0.005 | 0.023 | 1 | 0.014 | 0.906 | |
Subjective norm | Parent–child discussion | −0.057 | 0.031 | −0.017 | 0.030 | 1 | 0.761 | 0.383 |
Peer interaction | 0.069 | 0.026 | −0.002 | 0.019 | 1 | 4.474 | 0.034 | |
Exposure | 0.001 | 0.013 | 0.034 | 0.025 | 1 | 1.258 | 0.262 | |
Self-control | Parent–child discussion | 0.053 | 0.028 | 0.029 | 0.024 | 1 | 0.419 | 0.517 |
Peer interaction | −0.059 | 0.022 | 0.005 | 0.015 | 1 | 5.448 | 0.020 | |
Exposure | −0.022 | 0.012 | −0.047 | 0.018 | 1 | 1.262 | 0.261 | |
Intention | Attitude | 0.482 | 0.078 | 0.262 | 0.041 | 1 | 6.280 | 0.012 |
Subjective norm | 0.109 | 0.060 | 0.076 | 0.032 | 1 | 0.215 | 0.643 | |
Self-control | −0.467 | 0.071 | −0.484 | 0.074 | 1 | 0.026 | 0.872 | |
Parent–child discussion | −0.032 | 0.026 | −0.011 | 0.019 | 1 | 0.435 | 0.510 | |
Peer interaction | 0.043 | 0.022 | −0.015 | 0.013 | 1 | 5.209 | 0.022 | |
Exposure | −0.002 | 0.011 | 0.006 | 0.014 | 1 | 0.202 | 0.653 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tseng, Y.-H.; Hou, W.-L.; Kuo, S.-H.; Liu, Y.-H.; Wang, H.-L.; Hsiao, R.C.; Chou, F.-H.; Yen, C.-F. Gender Differences in How Parents, Peers, and Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials Influence the Intention to Engage in Casual Sex among Adolescents and Young Adults in Taiwan: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13089. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413089
Tseng Y-H, Hou W-L, Kuo S-H, Liu Y-H, Wang H-L, Hsiao RC, Chou F-H, Yen C-F. Gender Differences in How Parents, Peers, and Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials Influence the Intention to Engage in Casual Sex among Adolescents and Young Adults in Taiwan: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(24):13089. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413089
Chicago/Turabian StyleTseng, Ying-Hua, Wen-Li Hou, Shih-Hsien Kuo, Yu-Hsiang Liu, Hui-Ling Wang, Ray C. Hsiao, Fan-Hao Chou, and Cheng-Fang Yen. 2021. "Gender Differences in How Parents, Peers, and Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials Influence the Intention to Engage in Casual Sex among Adolescents and Young Adults in Taiwan: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 24: 13089. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413089