Relationships among Parent-child Communication, Self-esteem and Sexual Assertiveness for Male and Female University Students: Gender Difference

Bo-Mi Kim; Jung Suk Park

doi:10.4069/kjwhn.2015.21.1.11

Journal List > Korean J Women Health Nurs > v.21(1) > 1089500

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim and Park: Relationships among Parent-child Communication, Self-esteem and Sexual Assertiveness for Male and Female University Students: Gender Difference

Original Article

Korean J Women Health Nurs 2015;21(1):11-22.

Published online: 17 March 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2015.21.1.11

Relationships among Parent-child Communication, Self-esteem and Sexual Assertiveness for Male and Female University Students: Gender Difference

Bo-Mi Kim¹, Jung Suk Park^2,

¹Andong Sungso Hospital, Andong, Korea

²College of Nursing, Kosin University, Busan, Korea

Corresponding author: Park, Jung Suk College of Nursing, Kosin University, 34 Amnam-dong, Seo-gu, Busan 602-703, Korea. Tel: +82-51-990-3978, Fax: +82-51-990- 3031, E-mail: cooler1978@kosin.ac.kr

Received 3 December 201415 December 2014 Accepted 21 January 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the relationships among parent-child communication, self-esteem and sexual assertiveness for male and female university students.

Methods

This descriptive study used a comparative survey design that utilized self-report questionnaires. A total of 470 participants were male and female university students in B metropolitan city.

Results

The degree of open communication use was higher for female students in comparison to male students, There were no differences in dysfunctional communication for both the father-child communication. There were no differences between males and females for the mother-child communication either. The degree of self-esteem was higher for male students in comparison to the female students. The degree of sexual assertiveness was higher for female students in comparison to the male students. The grade, religion, major, allowance source, marital status of parents, and relationship experience with opposite sex were influencing factors for the male students’ sexual assertiveness whereas the individual's major and physical contact were influencing factors for the female students.

Conclusion

Self-esteem and mother-child open communication were influencing factors of sexual assertiveness. Thus, the nursing intervention based on the influencing factors is needed in order for male and female students to express sexual assertiveness.

Keywords: Parent-child communication, Self-esteem, Sexual assertiveness, University students

REFERENCES

1. Chang SB. Development of sexual autonomy measurement for college students. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2002; 8(1):106–115.

2. Sohn AR, Chun SS. Comparing sexual attitude, sexual initiation and sexual behavior by gender in Korean college students. Korean Association of Health and Medical Sociology. 2005; 18:73–100.

3. Muehlenhard CL, Linton MA. Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations; Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1987; 34(2):186–196.

4. Choi MH. Factors influencing sexual assertiveness among women college students [master's thesis]. Seoul: Yonsei University;2005.

5. Park SM, Song WY. The effects of rape myth and tolerance towards violence on dating to the sexual assertiveness in college women. Korean Journal of Woman Psychology. 2012; 17(2):265–280.

6. Kim YH, Moon ST, Kang HS. Factors influencing on sexual assertiveness of college students. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2013; 19(3):166–175.

7. Kim JY. The analysis of sexual attitude and behavior of the university students by communication style [master's thesis]. Seoul: Sookmyung Women's University;2005.

8. Kim HS. New education psychology. Seoul: Hanol;2003.

9. Fisher TD. Characteristic of mothers and fathers who talk to their adolescent children about sexuality. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality. 1991; 3(2):53–70.

10. Song HS. A study of college students in the relationship among sexuality, self-assertiveness and self-esteem [master's thesis]. Jinju: Gyeongsang National University;2006.

11. Lee SK. Relationship between the level of sexual contacts and self-esteem, self-assertiveness of teenage girls who have or had boyfriends. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2001; 7(2):212–228.

12. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G∗Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149–1160.

13. Barnes HL, Olson DH. Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development. 1985; 56(2):438–447.

14. Min HY. Circumplex model and parent-child communication: Focusing on the adolescents [master's thesis]. Seoul: Yonsei University;1990.

15. Rosenberg M. Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books;1979.

16. Morokoff PJ, Quina K, Harlow LL, Whitmire L, Grimley DM, Gibson PR, et al. Sexual assertiveness scale for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997; 73(4):790–804.

17. Chu AR. Sexual assertiveness and codependency: Students from various educational levels [master's thesis]. Jeonju: Jeonju University;2013.

18. Bae JY. The study on mental health of Korean adolescents. Journal of Korean Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2006; 15(3):);. 308–317.

19. Lee YJ. An effects of college students' stress, coping strategies and self-esteem on suicidal ideation. [master's thesis]. Busan: Dong-A University;2010.

20. Jung MY. A study of relationships among self-esteem, spiritual well-being and mental health to establish spirituality courses for nursing students. Korean Journal of General Education. 2012; 6(3):);. 721–741.

21. Han NC. Relationship between religion and sexual attitudes. Korean Journal of Sociology. 2010; 44(5):114–138.

22. Kim KM. Marital conflict, parent-adolescent communication and friendship quality of adolescents [master's thesis]. Seoul: Ewha Womans University;2010.

Table 1.

Comparison of General Characteristics by Gender (N=470)

Characteristics	Categories	Male (n=252)	Female (n=218)	x²	p
Characteristics	Categories	n (%)	n (%)	x²	p
Age (year)	18~19	40 (15.9)	47 (21.6)	52.90	< .001
	20~21	66 (26.1)	74 (33.9)
	22~23	70 (27.8)	78 (35.8)
	>24	76 (30.2)	19 (8.7)
Grade	1	53 (21.0)	50 (22.9)	2.47	.481
	2	79(31.3)	58 (26.6)
	3	75 (29.8)	61 (28.0)
	4	45 (17.9)	49 (22.5)
Religion	Yes	117 (46.4)	100 (45.9)	0.15	.904
	No	135 (53.6)	118 (54.1)
Major	Humanities/social science	132 (52.4)	67 (30.7)	62.49	< .001
	Natural science/engineering	80(31.7)	144 (66.1)
	Arts/physical education	27 (10.7)	2 (0.1)
	Theology	13 (5.2)	5 (2.3)
Residence	With family	110 (43.6)	115 (52.8)	27.86	< .001
	Live alone	105 (41.7)	44 (20 2)
	Dormitory/live with others	37 (14.7)	59 (27.0)
Monthly allowance (10,000 won)	30~50	164 (65.1)	122 (56.0)	9.89	.007
	<30	60 (23.8)	80 (36.7)
	>50	28(11.1)	16 (7.3)
Financial sources	Parents	132 (52.4)	148 (67.9)	11.69	.003
	Part-time work+parents	92 (36.5)	53 (24.3)
	Part-time work	28 (11.1)	17 (7.8)
Perceived sexual attitude of parents	Average	153 (60.7)	126 (57.8)	25.84	< .001
	Open	64 (25.4)	26 (11.9)
	Closed	35 (13.9)	66 (30.3)
Birth order	Youngest	96 (38.1)	68 (31.2)	2.69	.442
	Eldest	87 (34.5)	85 (39.0)
	Middle	43 (17.1)	43 (19.7)
	Only child	26 (10.3)	22 (10.1)
Sibling	No	26 (10.3)	28 (12.8)	2.75	.431
	Yes	226 (89.7)	190 (87.2)
Father's age (year) (n=462)	<50	33 (13.1)	30 (13.8)	0.77	.962
	50~60	205 (81.2)	173 (79.5)
	> 60	12 (4.8)	10 (4.7)
Mother's age (year) (n=464)	< 50	98 (39.3)	99 (45.8)	2.64	.267
	50~60	146 (58.6)	115 (53.2)
	> 60	5 (2.1)	2 (9.0)
Father's occupation (n=462)	No	6 (2.4)	3 (1.4)	27.25	.951
	Yes	244 (97.6)	210 (98.6)
Job category (n=244)	Professionals	33 (13.1)	29 (13.8)	5.53	1.37
	Office workers	97 (38.5)	84 (40.0)
	Production, sales workers	69 (27.5)	43 (20.4)
	Business owners	45 (17.9)	54 (25.8)
Mother's occupation (n=464)	No	85 (34.1)	81 (37.5)	60.73	.024
	Yes	164 (65.9)	135 (62.5)
Job category (n=164)	Professionals	21 (8.3)	24 (11.0)	11.47	.009
	Office workers	43 (17.0)	45 (20.6)
	Production, Sales workers	76 (30.2)	37 (17.0)
	Business owners	24 (9.5)	29 (13.4)
Marital status of parents	Married	235 (93.2)	200 (91.7)	3.30	.508
	Divorced/separated	12 (4.8)	10 (4.6)
	Widowed	5 (2.0)	8 (3.7)
Dating experience	No	15 (6.0)	23 (10.6)	7.22	.125
	1	77 (30.6)	52 (23.9)
	2~3	90 (35.7)	92 (42 1)
	>4	70 (27.7)	51 (23.4)
Physical contact during dating	No	2 (0.8)	4(2.1)	1.13	.286
	Yes	235 (99.2)	191 (97.9)
Type of physical contact (n235)	Light physical contact	14 (6.0)	18 (9.4)	57.05	< .001
	Hug, kiss, caress	52 (22.1)	112 (58.7)
	Sexual intercourse	169 (71.9)	61 (31.9)
Military status	Fulfilled	149 (59.1)	-
	Unfilled, exempted	103 (40.9)		-

Table 2.

Comparison of Sexual Assertiveness by Gender(N=470)

Characteristics	Categories	Male (n=252)	t or F (p)Scheffé	Female (n=218)	t or F (p)Scheffé
Characteristics	Categories	M±SD	t or F (p)Scheffé	M±SD	t or F (p)Scheffé
Age (year)	18~19	38.95±11.84	2.64	53.65±6.69	2.45
	20~21	43.75±9.80	(.050)	52.52±5.31	(.064)
	22~23	41.60±9.42		51.01±4.84
	≥24	39.94±9.42		51.31±6.53
Grade	1^a	38.64±11.08	3.57	53.92±6.48	2.70
	2^b	43.73±9.86	(.015)	51.68±6.00	(.060)
	3^c	41.61±8.54	a＜b	50.96±4.10
	4^d	39.33±9.85		52.24±5.73
Religion	Yes	38.37±9.04	4.43	52.64±5.50	-1.24
	No	43.73±9.99	(＜.001)	51.68±5.71	(.745)
Major	Humanities/social science^a	39.78±10.73	4.28	50.13±4.11	5.19
	Natural science/engineering^b	42.11±8.30	(.006)	53.12±6.05	(.002)
	Arts/physical education^c	41.92±8.71	a＜d	52.20±5.54	a＜b
	Theology^d	49.38±8.86		46.50±2.12
Residence	With family	40.37±9.51	0.79	52.40±5.94	0.46
	Live alone	42.05±9.98	(.454)	51.45±5.38	(.636)
	Dormitory/live with others	41.54±10.93		52.06±5.34
Monthly allowance	30~50	40.85±9.19	1.73	52.09±5.28	0.02
(10,000 won)	＜30	43.16±10.97	(.179)	52.20±6.09	(.983)
	＞50	39.42±11.29		51.93±6.54
Financial sources	Parents^a	42.95±9.63	5.60	51.93±5.53	1.28
	Part-time work+parents^b	38.56±9.38	(.004)	53.07±5.45	(.279)
	Part-time work+parentsPart-time work^c	38.56±9.3842.00±11.31	(.004)b＜a	53.07±5.4550.82±7.20	(.279)
Perceived sexual	Average	41.08±9.78	2.72	52.26±5.54	0.09
attitude of parents	Open	43.10±9.69	(.670)	52.03±5.02	(.910)
attitude of parents	OpenClosed	43.10±9.6938.40±10.39	(.670)	52.03±5.0251.89±6.17	(.910)
Birth order	Youngest	40.36±9.64	1.66	53.22±5.81	2.20
	Eldest	40.04±11.7	(.175)	50.74±5.76	(.089)
	Middle	43.00±9.41		51.94±5.62
	Only child	39.69±8.96		51.13±4.35
Sibling	No	39.34±8.84	1.03	51.35±5.41	0.76
	Yes	41.46±10.02	(.311)	52.23±5.70	(.483)
Father's age (year)	＜50	40.57±10.25	0.11	55.30±4.58	0.11
(n=462)	50~60	41.26±9.72	(.898)	51.54±5.60	(.898)
	≥60	42.00±12.73		52.90±6.47
Mother's age (year)	＜50	41.52±10.60	0.03	52.83±5.74	0.02
(n=464)	50~60	41.23±9.35	(.972)	51.60±5.57	(.972)
	≥60	41.80±11.90		4.70±4.24
Father's occupation	No	44.00±9.73	0.69	54.66±4.04	0.78
(n=462)	Yes	41.13±9.92	(.530)	52.10±5.66	(.403)
Job category	Professionals	41.69±10.26		52.58±7.21
(n=244)	Office workers	41.90±9.14		52.61±4.91
	Production, sales workers	40.81±10.45		50.51±5.53
	Business owners	39.57±10.58		52.31±5.84
Mother's occupation	No	41.47±8.96	0.12	51.77±5.28	-0.69
(n=464)	Yes	41.30±10.35	(.060)	52.33±5.91	(.261)
Job category	Professionals	44.28±10.48		55.00±6.40
(n=164)	Office workers	40.58±10.52		51.31±6.10
	Production, sales workers	41.27±10.42		50.37±5.48
	Business owners	40.08±9.85		54.20±4.25
Marital status of	Married^a^b	41.71±9.70	4.25	52.10±5.70	0.55
parents	Divorced/separated^b	33.66±10.62	(.015)	52.70±5.07	(.947)
	Widowed^c	37.40±11.97	b＜a	52.00±5.97
Dating experience	No^a	46.4±12.04	5.41	54.50±5.98	1.11
Dating experience	No1^b	46.4±12.0443.83±9.46	5.41(.001)	54.50±5.9852.25±4.87	1.11(.344)
	2~3^c	38.73±9.69	c＜a, b	52.44±5.31
	≥4^d	40.52±9.28		50.94±6.75
Physical contact	No	40.00±2.82	-0.13	54.50±7.18	0.90
during dating	Yes	40.92±9.74	(.893)	51.94±5.60	(.642)
Type of physical	Light physical contact^a	40.00±2.82	9.69	55.05±6.87	10.28
contact (n=235)	Hug, kiss, caress^b^c	46.50±8.93	(＜.001)	52.74±5.08	(＜.001)
	Sexual intercourse^c	39.25±9.65	c＜a, b	49.57±5.32	c＜a
Military status	Fulfilled	40.55±9.23	-1.36	-
	Unfilled, exempted	42.29±10.83	(0.06)	-

Table 3.

Comparison of Parent-child Communication, Self-esteem and Sexual Assertiveness by Gender (N=470)

Variables	Male (n=252)	Female (n=218)	t	p
Variables	M±SD	M±SD	t	p
Father-child communication
Open communication	33.12±8.34	35.65±7.32	-3.43	.001
Dysfunction communication	24.53±6.06	23.72±5.34	1.51	.131
Mother-child communication
Open communication	37.96±8.38	38.52±6.84	-0.78	.435
Dysfunction communication	23.99±6.24	23.43±5.45	1.01	.313
Self-esteem	32.53±4.05	31.75±3.33	2.65	.008
Sexual assertiveness	41.24±9.91	52.12±5.66	-14.30	＜.001

Table 4.

Relationships among Parent-child Communication, Self-esteem and Sexual Assertiveness according to Gender (N=470

Variables	Self-esteem				Sexual assertiveness
	Male (n=252)		Female (n=218)		Male (n=252)		Female (n=218)
	r	p	r	p	r	p	r	p
Father-child communication
Open communication	.46	＜.001	.29	＜.001	.42	＜.001	.21	＜.001
Dysfunction communication	-.43	＜.001	-26	＜.001	-.31	＜.001	-.26	＜.001
Mother-child communication
Open communication	.40	＜.001	.29	＜.001	.50	＜.001	.25	＜.001
Dysfunction communication	-.42	＜.001	-.19	＜.001	-.41	＜.001	-.19	＜.001
Self-esteem	1		1		.43	＜.001	.37	＜.001

Table 5.

Factors predicting Sexual Assertiveness according to Gender (N=470)

Gender	Variables	_β	t	p	Adjusted R²
Male (n=252)	Mother-child open communication	.54	4.83	＜.001	.25
	Self-esteem	.26	4.66	＜.001	.29
	Father-child dysfunction communication	-.53	-4.84	＜.001	.34
	Religion (1=no)	-.16	-3.12	.002	.36
	Mother-child dysfunction communication	-.30	-2.60	.010	.38
Female (n=218)	Self-esteem	.31	4.91	＜.001	.13
	Mother-child open communication	.18	2.86	.005	.16

TOOLS

Similar articles