Journal List > Korean J Women Health Nurs > v.16(3) > 1037240

TOOLS
Lee and Kang: Factors Influencing the Experiences of Sexual Violence Victims while Dating as College Students
Original Article

Korean J Women Health Nurs 2010;16(3):266-275.

Published online: 30 September 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2010.16.3.266

Factors Influencing the Experiences of Sexual Violence Victims while Dating as College Students

Eun Sook Lee1, Hee Sun Kang2

1Associate Professor, Department of Nursing, Chunnam Techno College

2Leader, Sexual Harassment-Violence Counseling Center, Sunchon National University

Address reprint requests to : Kang, Hee Sun, Sexual Harassment-Violence Counseling Center, Sunchon National University, 413 Jungang-no Suncheon 540-742, Korea. Tel: 82-17-606-5226, Fax: 82-61-750-3169, E-mail: ganghs7205@hanmail.net

Received 20 July 2010       Revised 2 September 2020       Accepted 2 September 2010

Copyright © 2010 Korean Academy of Women's Health Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study was conducted to identify the factors influencing the experience of sexual violence victims while dating as College Students.

Methods

With a correlational survey design, data was collected by self-report questionnaires from 560 college students who had reported sexual violence during a date. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficients, and stepwise multiple regression.

Results

College students while on date who reported sexual violence showed a significantly negative correlation with self-esteem, dating sexual assault recognition, sexual assertiveness, and significantly positive correlations with the gender role stereotypes, sexual violence permissiveness, date sexual violence inflictions, and family violence. A combination of date sexual violence inflictions, self-esteem, sexual violence permissiveness, sexual assertiveness all accounted for 41% of the variance in date sexual violence among college students.

Conclusion

Self-esteem and sexual assertiveness must be progressively uplifted in order to prevent date sexual violence. A specific program established to reduce sexual violence permissiveness would be useful in order to reduce the number of sexual violence victims for college students who are dating.

Keywords: Student, Sex, Violence, Assertiveness, Permissiveness

REFERENCES

1. Ahn G.Y.R. Personal risk factors related to dating violence. Korean Journal of Family Social Work. 2002; 9:55–75.
2. Choi M.H. In: Factors influencing sexual assertiveness among women college students. Seoul: Yonsei University; 2005. Unpublished master's thesis.
3. Diann M.A, Dianne N. Date violence and date rape among adolescents: Association with disordered eating behaviors and psychological health. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2002; 26:455–473.
4. Emilio C.U, Monica D.U. Sexual relationship power as a mediator between dating violence and sexually transmitted infections among college. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2008; 27(9):539–565.
5. Jang H.S, Cho H.G. The prevalence and risk factors of dating violence among university students. Korean Journal of Family Social Work. 2001; 8:197–204.
6. Jang M.S. In: (The) Relationship between experiences of sexual violence at school and mental health, sexual attitudes among male & female adolescents. Seoul: Hoseo University; 2003. Unpublished master's thesis.
7. Jang Y.K. In: A study on date sexual violence victims experience. Seoul: Ewha Womans University; 2002. Unpublished master's thesis.
8. Kim D.I. In: Sociology of gender. Seoul: Muneumsa; 1999.
9. Kim H.S. In: The sexual behavior by the attachment and love style in university students. Seoul: Dongguk University; 2001. Unpublished doctor/s thesis.
10. Kim J.R. In: College students/ dating violence and coping behavior. Gwangju: Chonnam National University; 1999. Unpublished master's thesis.
11. Kim N.Y. In: A study on the influence of sexual violence severity and negative life attitude on the mental health. Seoul: Yonsei University; 2002. Unpublished master's thesis.
12. Kim O.S. In: The effects of family violence & tolerance towards violence on dating violence among college students victims. Cheongju: Chungbuk National University; 2005. Unpublished master's thesis.
13. Kim Y.J. In: The effect of sexual decision-making ability and sexual attitude of high school girls. Changwon: Changwon University; 2006. Unpublished master's thesis.
14. Koh H.R. In: (An) Analysis of rape case perception difference: With special to sex-role stereotype, rape myths effects. Seoul: Chung-Ang University; 2006. Unpublished master's thesis.
15. Korean Institute of Criminology. A study on the Korean sexuality and sexual violence. Seoul: Korean Institude of Criminology; 2000.
16. Lee J.H. In: Psychological symptoms of date violence. Seoul: Sungshin Women/s University; 2007. Unpublished master's thesis.
17. Lee J.Y, Lee E.S. The explanatory models of dating violence and victimization with dating partners among college students. Korean Journal of Health Psychology. 2005; 17(2):419–436.
18. Luthra R, Gidycz C.A. Dating violence among college men and women: Evaluation of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2006; 21(6):717–731.
19. Nam H.M. In: A study on predicting date rape among university students. Seoul: Ewha Womans University; 2003. Unpublished master's thesis.
20. Nam W.K. In: A study on experiences and factors of sexual violence while dating among unmarried men in Busan. Busan: Silla University; 2008. Unpublished master's thesis.
21. O'Keefe M. Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1997; 12(4):546–568.
22. Park M.R. In: Relationships among gender role attitudes, sexual attitudes, impulsivity, internet pornography addiction and sexual violence permissiveness. Masan: Kyungnam University; 2007. Unpublished master's thesis.
23. Patricia J.M, Kathryn Q, Lisa L.H, Laura W, Diane M.G, Pamela R.G, et al. Sexual assertiveness scale for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997; 73(4):790–804.
24. Rohini L, Christine A.G. Dating violence among college men and women: Evaluation of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2006; 21(6):717–731.
25. Rosenberg M. In: Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1965.
26. Seo K.H, Lee K.S. Anger, psychoticism, and addiction in dating violence inflictors and recipients. Korean Journal of Health Psychology. 2002; 7(3):353–368.
27. Song H.S. In: A study of college students in the relationship among sexuality, self-assertiveness and self-esteem. Jinju: Gyeongsang University; 2006. Unpublished master's thesis.
28. Straus M.A. Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence against Women. 1979; 10(7):790–811.
crossref
29. Sugarman D.B. Risk marker analysis of husband-to-wife violence: A continuum of aggression. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1996; 26(4):313–328.
30. Yu S.H. In: (A) Study on the factor mediating the link between family violence victimization and dating violence victimization of college women: Focusing on the acceptability of dating violence. Seoul: Yonsei University; 2000. Unpublished master's thesis.

Table 1.
Date Sexual Violence Victims according to General Characteristics (N=560)
Characteristics Categories n (%) M±SD t or F p
Sex Male 144 (25.7) 1.74±0.81 5.09 <.001
Female 416 (74.3) 1.45±0.49
Marriage state Married 15 (2.7) 1.49±0.53 -0.24 .816
Unmarried 545 (97.1) 1.52±0.60
Religion Yes 255 (45.5) 1.52±0.63 -0.20 .845
No 305 (54.5) 1.53±0.58
Parental types Both-parents 503 (89.8) 1.52±0.59 0.46 .713
Step-parents 16 (2.9) 1.47±0.49
Single-parent 38 (6.8) 1.58±0.79
Orphan 3 (0.5) 1.85±1.08
Grade Freshman 133 (23.8) 1.42±0.50 2.06 .105
Sophomore 120 (21.4) 1.52±0.68
Junior 137 (24.5) 1.55±0.59
Senior 170 (30.4) 1.58±0.62
Residence Metropolis 185 (33.0) 1.51±0.59 0.37 .689
Small and medium-sized cities 299 (53.4) 1.51±0.59
Rural area 76 (13.6) 1.58±0.67
Level of subjective sexual knowledge Uncertain 58 (10.4) 1.50±0.59a 4.51 .004
Ordinary 262 (46.8) 1.45±0.54a
Informed 191 (34.1) 1.57±0.57a
Well informed 49 (8.8) 1.77±0.89b

p＜.01 by Duncan's test.

Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics of Measured Variables (N = 559: Listwise Deletion)
Variables M±SD Range
Self-esteem 3.34±0.49 1~5
Gender role stereotypes 2.40±0.64 1~5
Sexual violence permissiveness 1.46±0.51 1~5
Dating sexual assault recognition 3.67±0.71 1~5
Sexual assertiveness 3.92±0.55 1~5
Father's violence 1.78±0.88 1~5
Mother's violence 1.69±0.76 1~5
Date sexual violence infliction 1.25±0.52 1~5
Date sexual violence victims 1.52±0.60 1~5
Table 3.
Correlation Matrix of Major Variables (N = 559: Listwise Deletion)
Variables X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8
X1 1
X2 -.10 (.021) 1
X3 -.12 (.004) .39 (<.001) 1
X4 .07 (.109) -.25 (<.001) -.25 (<.001) 1
X5 .177 (<.001) -.43 (<.001) -.37 (<.001) .46 (<.001) 1
X6 -.05 (.282) .03 (.487) .06 (.191) .03 (.551) .03 (.430) 1
X7 -.11 (.009) -.01 (.915) -.02 (.648) .08 (.062) .10 (.020) .41 (<.001) 1
X8 -.06 (.169) .26 (<.001) .40 (<.001) -.14 (.001) -.26 (<.001) .13 (.002) .09 (.044) 1
X9 -.08 (.070) .16 (<.001) .35 (<.001) -.11 (.008) -.13 (.001) .14 (.001) .11 (.008) .62 (<.001)

X1=self-esteem; X2=gender role stereotypes; X3=sexual violence permissiveness; X4=dating sexual assault recognition; X5=sexual assertiveness; X6=father's violence; X7=mother's violence; X8=date sexual violence infliction; X9=date sexual violence victims.

Table 4.
Predictive Variables on Date sexual Violence Victims in University Students (N = 559: Listwise Deletion)
Variables B β t p
Constant 0.54 0.22 2.48 .013
Date sexual violence infliction 0.70 0.60 16.57 ＜.001
Self-esteem -0.14 -0.11 -3.31 .001
Sexual violence permissiveness 0.14 0.12 3.30 .001
Sexual assertiveness -0.09 -0.08 -2.33 .020
Adj. R2=.41; F=97.09; p＜.001
TOOLS
Similar articles