Effects of Sex Communication with Friends and Sexual Double Standard on Contraceptive Self-efficacy among University Students

Junghyo Kim; Mikyung Park; Euna Cho

doi:10.4069/kjwhn.2018.24.1.14

Journal List > Korean J Women Health Nurs > v.24(1) > 1094761

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Park, and Cho: Effects of Sex Communication with Friends and Sexual Double Standard on Contraceptive Self-efficacy among University Students

Orginal Article

Korean J Women Health Nurs 2018;24(1):14-23.

Published online: 20 March 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2018.24.1.14

Effects of Sex Communication with Friends and Sexual Double Standard on Contraceptive Self-efficacy among University Students

Junghyo Kim¹, Mikyung Park², Euna Cho^3,

¹Chosun Nursing College, Gwangju, Korea

²Department of Nursing, Nambu University, Gwangju, Korea

³Department of Nursing, Honam University, Gwangju, Korea

Corresponding author: Cho, Euna Department of Nursing, Honam University, 417, Eodeung-daero, Gwangsan-gu, Gwangju 62399, Korea. Tel: +82-62-940-5549, Fax: +82-62-940-5196, E-mail: jouoa@honam.ac.kr

Received 10 October 201727 December 2017 Accepted 3 March 2017

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

To determine the effect of sex communication with friends and sexual double standard on contraceptive self-efficacy among university students.

Methods

With a survey design, data were collected from 251 university students from three universities in G city from September 2016 to October 2016. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and stepwise multiple regression.

Results

Sex communication with friends, sexual double standard, and contraceptive self-efficacy scores of participants were 58.82±8.78, 21.73±6.00, and 44.20±5.91, respectively. Sex communication with friends and sexual double standard were related to contraceptive self-efficacy. Sexual double standard, sex communication with friends, female, contraceptive education, and contraceptive experience explained 33% of contraceptive self-efficacy of participants.

Conclusion

Sexual double standard and sex communication with friends were influencing factors of contraceptive self-efficacy. To improve contraceptive self-efficacy of university students, a program is needed to eliminate sexual double standard and improve sex communication with friends among university students in Korea.

Keywords: Communication, Sex, Contraception, Self-efficacy, Students

References

1. 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. https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2013.19.3.166.

2. Choi MS, Ha NS. A study on knowledge, attitude, and experience in sex and sexual autonomy of college students. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2004; 10(4):318–330.

3. Hur MH, Ahn HY, Kwak EA, Kim KM, Park JY, Lee JR. A study on sexual behavior, and correlation between knowledge of contraception and attitude of contraception among university students. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2007; 37(3):267–275. https://doi.org/10.4040%2Fjkan.2007.37.3.267.

4. Shin KR, Park HJ, Bae KE, Cha C. Sexual behavior, health risk behaviors related to reproductive health, and sexual experiences among Korean college students. Journal of Korean Academy Adult Nursing. 2010; 22(6):624–633.

5. Kang HS. An explanatory model of condom use among Korean college students [dissertation]. Seoul: Yonsei University;2001. p. 130. p.

6. Kim YS. The importance of the communication of sex with friends: the communication, the knowledge and the attitude relationship [master's thesis]. Seoul: Korea University;2007. p. 51. p.

7. Reiss IL. The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York: Helt, Rinehart & Winston;1967. p. 256. p.

8. Kim YG. The effects of university students' sexual double standard, sexual subjectivity, sexual meaning on their sexual behaviors. Forum for Youth Culture. 2011; 27:8–37.

9. Min HY, Kim KH. Parent's supportive parenting and adolescent sexual values. Korean Journal of Child Studies. 2005; 26(6):59–71.

10. Kim KH, Cho EA. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the contraceptive self-efficacy scale: Focused on women university students. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2016; 22(3):151–161. https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2016.22.3.151.

11. Lee IS, Cho JY. Comparative study on the contraceptive knowledge, self-efficacy according to the career tract of high school female students. The Journal of the Korean Society of School.

12. Hwang SW, Chung CW. Structural equation modeling on contraception behavior of unmarried men and women in Korea: Gender difference. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2014; 44(2):159–169. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2014.44.2.159.

13. Levinson RA. Contraceptive self efficacy: A perspective on teenage girl's contraceptive behavior. The Journal of Sex Research. 1986; 22(3):347–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498609551314.

14. Alvarez C, Villarruel AM, Zhou Y, Gallegos E. Predictors of condom use among Mexican adolescents. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice. 2010; 24(3):187–196.

15. Jung HY. Contraceptive knowledge, contraception self-efficacy among university students. Journal of the Korean Society for Multicultural Health. 2016; 6(1):17–25.

16. Cho JY, Lee IS. Sexual behavior, knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived risk of contraception among male high school students. Journal of Korean Data Analysis Society. 2010; 12(6):3179–3192.

17. Choo BS. A qualitative research on college students' sexual double standard. Journal of Future Oriental Youth Society. 2014; 11(4):47–75.

18. Warren C. Parent, children and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (Parent-child communication about sex). Mahwah. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum associater;1995. p. 173–201.

19. Ha SH, Lee JY, Chung HJ. The effect of parenting processes on sexual attitude and sexual behaviors among college students. Journal of Korean Management Association. 2006; 24(1):271–286.

20. Caron SL, Davis CM, Halteman WA, Stickle M. Predictors of condom-related behaviors among first-year college students. Journal of Sex Research. 1993; 30(3):252–259.

21. Nam YJ. Sexual meaning types and marital satisfaction of the married in their 30s and 40s [dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University;2003. p. 136. p.

22. Kim MJ. A structural equation model explaining contraception behaviors of married Korean women. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2001; 7(2):141–156.

23. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G∗Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007; 39(2):175–191.

24. Ip WY, Sin LL, Chan DS. Contraceptive self-efficacy and contraceptive knowledge of Hong Kong Chinese women with unplanned pregnancy. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2009; 18(17):2416–2425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365–2702.2009.02829.

25. Jaung AH, Jung YJ, Kim MY. Affecting factors sexual experience among college students. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society. 2015; 16(1):555–563. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2015.16.1.555.

26. Cho GY, Kim YH. Factors affecting sexual autonomy among female university students. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society. 2014; 15(11):6710–6718. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2014.15.11.6710.

27. Impett EA, Peplau LA. Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research. 2002; 40(1):87–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552169.

Table 1.

General Characteristics (N=251)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M±SD
Gender	Male Female	117 (46.6) 134 (53.4)
Age (year)	18∼19 20∼21 ≥22	20.83±1.95 77 (30.7) 91 (36.2) 83 (33.1)
Department	Health & medical Science & technology Humanities & social studies Arts & physical education	75 (29.9) 48 (19.1) 63 (25.1) 65 (25.9)
Grade	Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior	60 (39.4) 96 (38.2) 56 (22.3) 39 (15.5)
Parents' opinion about dating	Conservative Moderate Open	39 (15.5) 149 (59.4) 63 (25.1)
Economic status	High Middle Low	15 (6.0) 211 (84.0) 25 (10.0)
Drinking within one year	Yes No	234 (93.2) 17 (6.8)
Experience of watching pornography	Yes No	181 (72.1) 70 (27.9)
Contraceptive education	Yes No	195 (77.7) 56 (22.3)
Information sources of contraceptive education (n=195)	School Friends Others	149 (76.4) 11 (5.6) 35 (17.9)
Friend of opposite sex	Yes No In the past, not present	96 (38.3) 111 (44.2) 44 (17.5)
Experience of sexual intercourse	Yes No	98 (39.0) 153 (61.0)
The first time of sexual intercourse (year) (n=81)	13∼17 18∼19 ≥20	18 (22.2) 34 (42.0) 29 (35.8)
Contraceptive experience	Yes No	90 (35.9) 161 (64.1)
Contraceptive intent	Yes No	243 (96.8) 8 (3.2)
Method of contraception	Condom Oral contraceptive pill Others ＞2	171 (68.1) 17 (6.8) 32 (12.7) 31 (12.4)
Character	Introvert	87 (34.7)
	Extrovert I do not know	88 (35.1) 76 (30.2)
Number of friends (n=238)	0 1∼2 3∼4 ≥5	6 (2.5) 49 (20.6) 80 (33.6) 103 (43.3)

Table 2.

Differences of Contraceptive Self efficacy to the General Characteristic (N=251)

Characteristics	Categories		Contraceptive self-efficacy
Characteristics	Categories	M±SD	t or F	p	Scheffé
Gender	Male	3.54±0.45	–5.00	＜.001
	Female	3.84±0.48
Age (year)	18∼19	3.71±0.54	0.58	.560
	20∼21	3.70±0.48
	≥22	3.64±0.49
Department	Health & medical	3.76±0.50	2.17	.092
	Science & technology	3.54±0.43
	Humanities & social studies	3.73±0.52
	Arts & physical education	3.72±0.47
Grade	Freshman	3.70±0.51	0.29	.835
	Sophomore	3.71±0.53
	Junior	3.65±0.46
	Senior	3.74±0.38
Parents' opinion about dating	Conservative	3.77±0.54	0.74	.480
	Moderate	3.67±0.48
	Open	3.66±0.50
Economic status	High	3.73±0.59	1.51	.223
	Middle	3.70±0.49
	Low	3.52±0.43
Drinking with one year	Yes	3.69±0.50	1.30	.196
	No	3.53±0.40
Experience of watching	Yes	3.69±0.50	0.20	.845
pornography	No	3.67±0.46
Contraceptive education	Yes	3.76±0.49	4.68	＜.001
	No	3.42±0.42
Information sources of	School	3.75±0.48	0.31	.735
contraceptive education	Friends	3.87±0.46
	Others	3.75±0.52
Friend of opposite sex	Yes	3.74±0.51	2.94	.055
	No	3.60±0.47
	In the past, not present	3.76±0.49
Experience of sexual	Yes	3.76±0.46	1.85	.066
intercourse	No	3.64±0.51
The first time of sexual	13∼17	3.80±0.39	0.89	.417
intercourse (year)	18∼19	3.87±0.50
	≥20	3.71±0.48
Contraceptive experience	Yes	3.79±0.46	2.47	.014
	No	3.63±0.50
Contraceptive intent	Yes	3.70±0.49	2.75	.006
	No	3.22±0.37
Method of contraception	Condom	3.70±0.47	1.09	.353
	Oral contraceptive pill	3.64±0.50
	Other	3.55±0.56
	＞2	3.74±0.54
Character	Introvert^a	3.59±0.47	8.14	＜.001	a, c＜^b
	Extrovert^b	3.85±0.52
	I do not know^c	3.60±0.44
Number of friends	0^a	3.07±0.15	26.56	＜.001	a＜^{b, c, d}
	1∼2^b	3.67±0.47
	3∼4^c	3.71±0.54
	≥5^d	3.67±0.43

Table 3.

Relationships among Three Research Variables (N=251)

Variables	Sex communication with friends	Sexual double standard	Contraceptive self-efficacy
Variables	r (p)	r (p)	r (p)
Sex communication with friends	–
Sexual double standard	–.14 (.022)	–
Contraceptive self-efficacy	.39 (＜.001)	–.39 (＜.001)	–

Table 4.

The Influenced Factors on Contraceptive Self-efficacy (N=251)

Variables	B	SE	β	t	p
(Constant)	32.75	3.28		10.00	＜.001
Sexual double standard	–0.27	0.05	–.27	–4.98	＜.001
Sex communication with friends	0.17	0.04	.25	4.41	＜.001
Gender^† (female)	2.59	0.69	.22	3.73	＜.001
Contraceptive education^† (yes)	2.00	0.78	.14	2.58	.011
Contraceptive experience^† (yes)	1.55	0.71	.13	2.17	.031
Contraceptive intent^† (yes)	2.50	1.80	.07	1.39	.165
Character^† (introvert)	0.49	0.78	.04	0.63	.527
Character^† (extrovert)	0.87	0.80	.07	1.08	.283
Number of friends^† (1∼2)	0.91	1.35	.06	0.67	.502
Number of friends^† (3∼4)	0.86	1.27	.07	0.68	.497
Number of friends^† (≥5)	1.16	1.25	.10	0.93	.353
R²=.36, Adjusted R²=.33, F=12.12, p＜.001

^† Dummy variables; B=unstandardized coefficients; SE=standard error; β=standardized coefficients.

Table 5.

The Influenced Factors on Contraceptive Self-efficacy by Sex (N=251

Variables		Male (n=117)					Female (n=134)
Variables	B	SE	β	t	p	B	SE	β	t	p
(Constant)	38.89	4.29		9.06	＜.001	30.26	4.90		6.18	＜.001
Sexual double standard	–0.28	0.07	–.33	–4.10	＜.001	–0.21	0.08	–.21	–2.56	.012
Sex communication with friends	0.11	0.05	.18	2.14	.035	0.21	0.06	.32	3.66	＜.001
Contraceptive education^† (yes)	2.90	0.92	.25	3.15	.002	0.99	1.30	.06	0.76	.447
Contraceptive experience^† (yes)	2.97	0.88	.28	3.36	.001	0.21	1.16	.02	0.18	.858
Contraceptive intent^† (yes)	–1.36	2.33	–.05	–0.58	.561	5.66	2.78	.16	2.04	.044
Character^† (introvert)	1.18	1.01	.11	1.17	.244	–0.21	1.22	–.02	–0.17	.863
Character^† (extrovert)	0.54	1.16	.05	0.46	.644	1.23	1.13	.10	1.09	.279
Number of friends^† (1∼2)	0.39	1.82	.02	0.21	.831	0.74	2.21	.06	0.34	.738
Number of friends^† (3∼4)	0.20	1.57	.02	0.13	.899	1.01	2.17	.08	0.47	.643
Number of friends^† (≥5)	1.02	1.52	.10	0.67	.506	0.59	2.15	.05	0.27	.784
	R²=.39,	Adjusted	d R²=.33,	F=6.83, p	＜.001	R²=.29,	Adjusted	R²=.23,	F=4.96,	p＜.001

^† Dummy variables; B=unstandardized coefficients; SE=standard Error; β=standardized coefficients.

TOOLS

Similar articles