This article was downloaded by: [Gazi University] On: 02 May 2015, At: 09:59 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of American College Health Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vach20
Assessing God Locus of Control as a Factor in College Students’ Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior Erin W. Moore PhD
a
a
Department of Psychology, Stetson University, DeLand, Florida Accepted author version posted online: 07 Aug 2014.Published online: 05 Nov 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Erin W. Moore PhD (2014) Assessing God Locus of Control as a Factor in College Students’ Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior, Journal of American College Health, 62:8, 578-587, DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2014.947994 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2014.947994
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 AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH, VOL. 62, NO. 8
Major Article
Assessing God Locus of Control as a Factor in College Students’ Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Erin W. Moore, PhD
Abstract. Objectives: This study explored God locus of control beliefs (ie, God’s control over behavior) regarding their influence on alcohol use and sexual behavior as an alternative religiosity measure to religious behaviors, which does not capture perceived influence of religiosity. Additionally, demographic differences in religious beliefs were explored. Methods: College students aged 18–24 (N D 324) completed a survey between April 2012 and March 2013. Principal components and multivariate analyses were conducted. Results: Findings suggest that measures provide reliable, valid data from college students. God locus of control is linked to not consuming alcohol or engaging in sex. There were differences regarding relationship status and religious denomination. Conclusions: God locus of control beliefs are an appropriate construct for collecting data about college students’ religiosity. Furthermore, health educators at faith-based institutions could incorporate this construct into their programming, encouraging abstinence but also behaving responsibly for those who do drink and are sexually experienced.
Inconsistent condom use increases college students’ risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs). National research also confirms that the majority of college students are sexually experienced, with the majority reporting 1 or 2 sex partners in the previous year.1 When used consistently and correctly, condoms significantly reduce the likelihood of contracting an STI if exposed. However, college students do not always use condoms during sexual intercourse; previous research found that over 70% of college students reported using condoms sometimes, but only about a third reported using condoms every time they have sex.1,8 Given the potential consequences of alcohol consumption and having sex, it is crucial to identify factors that can decrease risk among college students. Although young adults tend to be slightly less likely to be affiliated with a specific religious group and less involved in religious practices than older adults, a majority of college students report some religious affiliation,6,9 believe their religious beliefs influence their daily lives,10 and attend religious services at least monthly.11 Previous research found that college students with greater religiosity, particularly engagement in religious behaviors (eg, church attendance, frequency of prayer), are less likely to use alcohol.9,12,13 Additionally, college students who report increased religiosity have an older age of sexual debut than their less religious peers.14–16 More specifically, studies have found that young adults who attend religious services and participate in religious activities are more likely to delay sexual debut15,17 and have fewer sex partners when they did become sexually active.15,18,19 However, sexually active college students reporting greater religiosity have been found to be less likely to use condoms than less religious peers.20 As such, religiosity’s protective effects may be limited to restriction of sexual behavior (ie, delaying age of first intercourse, having fewer sex partners), rather than
Keywords: alcohol, locus of control, religiosity, sexual behavior
M
ost college students report consuming alcohol regularly.1–3 A national college study found that 81% of college students consumed alcohol within a 30-day period.2 College students’ alcohol use can lead to serious consequences. For instance, one study estimated that approximately 500,000 students aged 18–24 suffer alcohol-related injuries annually, and more than 1,000 students die annually from injuries related to alcohol use.4 Greater alcohol consumption is linked to poorer academic performance (ie, lower grade point average).5 Furthermore, alcohol use is also associated with engaging in risky sexual behaviors,6 particularly decreased condom use.7 Dr Moore is with the Department of Psychology at Stetson University in DeLand, Florida. Copyright Ó 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 578
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
God Locus of Control and Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior
promoting safer sex behavior such as consistent condom use. Because of the risks associated with alcohol use and sexual behavior, it is important to better understand constructs associated with decreased risk, such as religiosity. College students’ religiosity is frequently assessed in terms of whether religion is important and engagement in religious behaviors, such as church attendance and prayer.21 However, college students may engage in religious behaviors for a variety of reasons that may not be related to their personal expression of beliefs and faith (eg, attending church services or reading scripture as a means of socializing with peers or at the urging of parents). Because of this potential for other motivation than spiritual to engage in religious behaviors, behavioral assessments may not be the most appropriate way to conceptualize college students’ religiosity when determining whether it influences behavior. An alternative method for assessing students’ religiosity is exploring their God/higher power control beliefs, or beliefs that God directly controls one’s behavior. This provides an understanding of the influence of personal beliefs regarding one’s relationship with God and whether the decision to engage in risk behavior is being under one’s own power or God’s. God control beliefs are derived from the concept of locus of control (LOC), differentiating internal control over outcomes from external control. Previous research noted that college students with higher levels of internal control consumed more alcohol and engaged in more sexual risk behavior.22 However, individuals often do not solely exhibit internal or external LOC, but it is important to consider numerous sources of control, including God.23 God control was examined as an external source of LOC by Welton et al,24 and later further developed in relation to health with the God locus of health control. God control beliefs are primarily considered an external force, although there are believed to be different dimensions regarding active or passive spirituality.25 This suggests that internal LOC can play a role with active spirituality, exerting their own efforts along with good to stay healthy, whereas passive God-related LOC indicates that the person turns over their health to God and believes their own efforts do not matter. There is indication that LOC is most accurately assessed when measured in a specific behavioral context.26 As such, in understanding the role of God as a source of control over college students’ alcohol use and sexual behavior, utilized measures should be behavior specific. Measures have been developed to assess God control beliefs regarding alcohol use and sexual behavior.27,28 Goggin et al27 developed the Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents (AGLOC-A) to measure God control beliefs in religious individuals in order to explore this construct’s predictive qualities regarding alcohol risk behavior. The AGLOC-A was developed and evaluated with an exclusively African American sample (average age 14.7 years) and found to be a reliable and valid measure, and greater God control beliefs were associated with decreased alcohol use. Beyond the initial VOL 62, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014
development sample, God control beliefs and their relationship to alcohol use have been explored primarily with Caucasian adults.29 The Sexual Risk Behavior-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents (SexGLOC-A) has been found to be a reliable and valid measure of God control beliefs related to sexual risk behavior, with higher SexGLOC-A scores associated with increased intentions to abstain from sex and decreased engagement in sexual risk behaviors among adolescents.28 The SexGLOC-A was also developed with a primarily high-school–aged African American sample (87% African American, average age 14.7 years). No published research has explored God control beliefs related to alcohol consumption or sexual behavior among college students. As noted by Goggin et al,27,28 God control beliefs may be empowering or promote passivity in health behavior decision-making. College students may feel emboldened to make protective decisions if they believe God directly controls their behavior, leading them to feel connected to a greater force than themselves. Alternatively, they may engage in fewer protective behaviors if they leave all decision-making to God, assuming a passive role. Use of the AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A with college students may assist in understanding associations between religiosity and sexual and alcohol risk behaviors, which could fill a gap in the literature on protective factors and college student health. With the transition from high school to college, emerging adults have greater freedom and autonomy to engage in more risk behavior. This study sought to measure the validity and reliability of these scales in the college population. Furthermore, this study examined the scales for any demographic differences (eg, sex, race, relationship status, religious denomination). It is believed that, like with the original adolescent samples, higher AGLOC-A scores will be related to less alcohol consumption and higher SexGLOC-A scores will be related to higher likelihood of not engaging in oral, vaginal, and/or anal sex.
METHODS Participants College students aged 18–24 were invited to complete a survey through the Department of Psychology at a medium-sized midwestern university for course credit and/ or entry into a lottery for a $10 Amazon gift card (awarded to 10% of participants). Participants were primarily recruited through the participant pool via psychology courses, but they were also recruited via fliers posted around campus. A total of 406 students completed the paper-and-pencil survey individually in the researcher’s laboratory. Data were collected between April 2012 and March 2013. Verbal informed consent was obtained, and no identifiers were collected on the survey to ensure anonymity of responses. The university’s Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures. 579
Moore
Measures In accordance with the primary purpose of the study, participants completed the AGLOC-A, a 12-item measure assessing God’s perceived control over one’s alcohol use, and SexGLOC-A, a 12-item measure assessing God’s perceived control over one’s sexual behavior. On both scales, participants rated their responses on a 4-point scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). For each scale, the items are summed to produce a total score, with higher scores reflecting stronger beliefs in God-related control over behavior. Additionally, participants responded to demographic, religiosity, behavioral, and social desirability items.
Demographics Participants were asked their age, sex, race/ethnicity, and relationship status (response options reported in Table 1). A single item assessed sexual orientation on a continuum adapted from the Kinsey Scale of Sexual Orientation30: “Rate your sexual orientation on a scale of 0–10, where 0 is completely homosexual (gay) and 10 is completely heterosexual (straight). What is your sexual orientation number?” It was believed that the 0–10 continuum would allow participants greater flexibility in self-identifying rather than using discrete categories.
TABLE 1. Demographics of Participants (N D 324)
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
AGLOC-A Variable Sex Male Female Race/Ethnicity White/Caucasian Black/African American Latino/a/Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Other/Multiracial Relationship status Single Dating/Not in committed relationship In a committed relationship/Married Denomination Catholic Christian (nondenominational or nonspecified) Muslim Protestant (eg, Baptist, Presbyterian) Other (eg, Buddhist, Hindu, Judaism, Wiccan) None Consumed alcohol past 3 months Yes No No, never engaged in this activity Engaged in oral sex past 3 months Yes No No, never engaged in this activity Engaged in vaginal sex past 3 months Yes No No, never engaged in this activity Engaged in anal sex past 3 months Yes No No, never engaged in this activity
SexGLOC-A
%
n
M
SD
M
SD
26.9 73.1
87 237
11.7 12.1
11.1 10.3
9.9 9.7
9.4 8.8
52.2 22.5 7.1 10.8 7.1
169 73 23 35 23
10.5 13.8 13.3 14.1 13.4
10.0 9.4 10.8 12.7 12.6
8.6 12.0 10.0 10.3 9.4
8.5 8.6 8.5 11.0 9.5
48.1 13.3 38.3
156 43 124
12.7 9.2 12.2
10.8 9.4 10.4
11.1a 7.5 8.8
9.4 7.3 8.7
27.5 15.1 6.2 30.9 8.6 11.1
89 49 20 100 28 36
9.4b 15.1 22.2 14.0 9.0 5.4
9.3 9.0 11.2 10.5 10.2 8.4
8.1b 12.3 16.1 11.1 7.7 4.1
8.0 7.6 12.3 9.0 9.1 6.2
73.8 14.5 11.7
239 47 38
10.2b 13.6 21.7
9.5 10.4 11.1
8.7b 10.3 15.4
8.1 9.6 10.9
47.8 25.3 26.9
155 82 87
9.3b 12.3 16.6
9.5 9.8 11.3
7.4b 10.1 13.6
7.3 9.2 10.0
52.2 16.7 30.9
169 54 100
9.4b 11.4 16.7
9.7 9.9 10.7
7.6b 9.4 13.5
7.5 9.5 9.7
6.5 13.9 79.6
21 45 258
8.5 10.5 12.6
9.1 9.8 10.7
5.4a 8.6 10.3
5.9 7.7 9.2
Note. AGLOC-A D Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents; SexGLOC-A D Sexual Risk Behavior-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents. a Groups significantly different at p < .05. b Groups significantly different at p < .001.
580
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
God Locus of Control and Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior
Religious Affiliation and Involvement in Religious Activities
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Participants were asked their religious affiliation (Catholic, Judaism, Muslim, Protestant, none, or to specify some other denomination). Based on frequency counts, these categories were reorganized into Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, none, nondenominational or nonspecified Christian, and other (which included Judasim). Their involvement in religious activities was assessed with the Religious Background and Behavior Questionnaire (RBB).31 The RBB is a self-report measure that assesses the frequency of 2 domains of religious behavior: God Consciousness (eg, “thought about God,” “prayed”) and Formal Practices (eg, “attended worship service, read-studied scriptures, holy writings”) on an 8-point scale from 0 (never) to 7 (more than once a day). Higher scores indicated greater religiosity. This measure had strong reliability (Cronbach’s a D .81). Lifetime and Past 3 Months’ Sexual Behavior Items assessing sexual behavior were adapted from existing measures.1,32 Lifetime sexual behavior items included (1) “Have you ever had oral sex? Have you ever had vaginal sex? Have you ever had anal sex?” (2) “On average, what percentage of the time did you use a condom during oral/vaginal/anal sex?” (3) “How many sex partners have you had in your lifetime?” The same items were used for recent sexual behavior items, reframed for the past 3 months. Lifetime and Past 3 Months’ Alcohol Use Lifetime alcohol use was assessed dichotomously as ever having consumed alcohol. Recent alcohol use was assessed as ever having consumed alcohol in the past 3 months and asking on how many occasions in the past 3 months they had consumed alcohol. These 3 alcohol use items were developed for this study. Social Desirability Participants completed a 10-item version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC1).33 The MC1 is a true/false assessment that measures participants’ tendency to answer in a socially desirable manner (eg, “I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake”). The reliability (Cronbach’s a D .51) was moderate.
Data Analysis Two participants were excluded from analyses for not responding to the majority of GLOC items. A third participant did not respond to one item on the SexGLOC-A; the individual’s SexGLOC-A mean score for the other items replaced this missing value. Five participants did not respond to one item on the RBB; mean replacement was VOL 62, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014
used for these missing items. A total of 404 participants were included in preliminary analyses. Given that this was a measure developed for a religious sample, preliminary analyses of variance (ANOVAs) examined mean differences according to religious self-identification (atheist, agnostic, unsure, spiritual, religious); there were significant differences for RBB, F(4, 399) D 158.312, p < .001, AGLOC-A, F(4, 399) D 44.003, p < .001, and SexGLOC-A, F(4, 399) D 36.442, p < .001. Eighty participants identifying as atheist, agnostic, and unsure were removed given their substantially lower scores compared with spiritual and religious participants. This is further supported given the purpose of this measure is to identify the role of God/higher power in influencing decisions; this measure would be inappropriate for those who do not believe in or are unsure of if there is a higher power. Additionally, previous literature notes a potential concern with using traditional religious measures with those who identify as gay or lesbian.34 However, there were no significant differences on RBB, AGLOC-A, or SexGLOC-A scores between the 6 gay-identified (selected score of “0”) participants and those who identified as heterosexual. As such, they were retained for analyses. This resulted in a final sample of 324 participants. Principal component analyses (PCA) with oblique (oblimin) rotation were performed separately on AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A items. Oblique rotation was chosen, as it was expected that if more than 1 factor was produced within a scale, they would be correlated. The factor solution was determined by the number of factors generated with eigenvalues greater than 1. Frequency data indicated 1 outlier for occasions that alcohol was consumed where someone indicated drinking 213 occasions in 3 months (which is improbable, indicating drinking 2 or more times every day). The second highest reported score was 75 occasions; as such 213 was recoded as 90 for analyses. Further analyses were conducted to identify any demographic differences on the AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A using Pearson’s correlations, independent-sample t tests, and ANOVAs. RESULTS The mean sample age was 19.8 (SD D 1.6). The average sexual orientation rating was 9.5 (SD D 1.6), although the majority identified as completely heterosexual, rating themselves a 10 (83%, n D 269). Most had consumed alcohol ever and during the past 3 months; the average number of occasions in which alcohol was consumed in the past 3 months was 7.2 (SD D 11.9). See Table 1 for other sample characteristics.
AGLOC-A Reliability an Validity PCA was performed on the 12 AGLOC-A items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure verified the sampling adequacy, KMO D .93. A large primary factor was obtained (eigenvalue of 7.476) explaining 62.3% of the total 581
Moore
TABLE 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for AGLOC-A AGLOC-A item
M
SD
Factor loading
1. God participants in my decision to not drink 2. God plays a role in whether my alcohol use increases or not 3. God plays a role in whether I drink or not 4. If someone asked me to try alcohol, God would keep me from trying it 5. God helps me handle my problems so that I don’t need to drink 6. God helps me to keep from drinking when I have a lot of problems 7. When there are too many problems in my life, God keeps me from drinking 8. Most things that affect whether I drink or not happen because of God 9. God controls how much I drink 10. God helps me say no when others pressure me to try alcohol 11. God helps me resist pressure from others to try alcohol 12. If I start to drink, God plays a role in whether I slow down or quit
1.1 0.9 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.5 1.2 1.3 0.9
1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.1
.831 .790 .816 .718 .815 .820 .796 .720 .684 .856 .835 .772
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Note. AGLOC-A D Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents. Total AGLOC M D 12.0 (SD D 10.5; range D 0–36).
variance. Other eigenvalues were .946 or less and explained small amounts of additional variance. Examination of item loadings suggested retaining only a single factor. Factor loadings for all items are displayed in Table 2 and were well above the .30 minimum criterion indicated by Floyd and Widaman.35 The AGLOC-A had strong reliability (Cronbach’s a D .95). Convergent validity was established by examining the bivariate relationship between the AGLOC-A and religious behavior (RBB). There was a significant relationship between the AGLOC-A and RBB (r D .54, p < .001). The AGLOC-A was not significantly correlated with social desirability (r D .10, p D .86), suggesting that the AGLOCA scores were not a function of social desirability bias. Construct validity was supported, as participants who reported never consuming alcohol had significantly higher AGLOC-A scores than those who had (Table 1). Multivariate analyses further supported construct validity (Table 4). Logistic regression analysis of alcohol use ever showed that the AGLOC-A is a significant predictor, with higher scores associated with decreased odds of having consumed alcohol. Linear regression examining amount of alcohol consumption in the past 3 months noted that AGLOC-A score is significantly related to decreased alcohol use. SexGLOC-A Reliability and Validity PCA was performed on the 12 SexGLOC-A items (KMO D .92). A large primary factor was obtained (eigenvalue of 6.353) explaining 52.9% of the total variance, with the next factor having an eigenvalue of 1.252 and explaining 10.4% of the variance. All other eigenvalues were less than .891 and explained small amounts of additional variance. Examination of item loadings suggested retaining only 2 factors. Factor loadings for all items are displayed in Table 3 and were all above the suggested .30 minimum criterion.35 Based on these loadings, the items hold together as a total scale but can be separated into 2 subfactors: one containing 582
the Problems items and 3 Frequency items and the other comprising the Initiation items plus the remaining Frequency item.28 The SexGLOC-A had strong reliability (Cronbach’s a D .92). Convergent validity was established by examining the bivariate relationship between the SexGLOC-A and RBB. There was a significant correlation between the SexGLOCA and RBB (r D .53, p < .001). The SexGLOC-A was not significantly correlated with social desirability (r D ¡.04, p D .44), suggesting these scores were not a function of social desirability. Lastly, the AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A were significantly correlated with each other (r D .77, p < .001), supporting the idea that God control beliefs regarding alcohol use and sexual behavior are interrelated. Construct validity was supported, as participants who reported never having sex had significantly higher SexGLOC-A scores than those who had (Table 1). The SexGLOC-A was not correlated with lifetime or recent sex partners or condom use except for lifetime condom use during oral sex (r D .15, p < .05). Multivariate analyses found that higher SexGLOC-A scores were associated with decreased odds of having engaged in oral and vaginal sex, even after taking into account age, race, relationship status, and RBB (Table 5). The SexGLOC-A did not explain variance in likelihood of having engaged in anal sex beyond what was explained by age and relationship status. Demographic Differences in AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A As noted in Table 1, there were demographic differences regarding both scales. Relationship differences on the SexGLOC-A were found between currently single participants and those dating but not in a committed relationship, F(2, 320) D 3.90, p < .05; single participants reported higher scores than those who were dating. Additionally, denominational differences were found for both measures (AGLOC-A: F[5, 316] D 11.23, p < .001; SexGLOC-A: F[5, 316] D 7.78 p < .001). Muslims reported significantly JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
God Locus of Control and Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior
TABLE 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Factor loading SexGLOC-A itemy
M
SD
Component 1
Component 2
1. God helps me handle my problems so that I don’t need to have sex (P) 2. Without God’s help, I cannot control how much I have sex (F) 3. If I start having sex, whether I do it again or not is up to God (I) 4. God helps me to keep from having sex when I have a lot of problems (P) 5. God plays a role in how much sex I have (F) 6. God determines whether I want to have sex or not (I) 7. When there are too many problems in my life, God keeps me from having sex (P) 8. It is up to God whether my sexual behavior increases or not (F) 9. God determines whether or not I try sex (I) 10. If I try sex, God determines whether I become addicted or not (I) 11. God keeps me from having sex too much (F) 12. God helps me take my mind off my problems so I don’t need to have sex (P)
1.4 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.8 1.2
1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.2
.788 .725 .335 .867 .689 .594 .822 .497 .475 .395 .781 .857
.378 .334 .498 .561 .594 .789 .644 .876 .818 .813 .666 .519
Note. AGLOC-A D Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents; SexGLOC-A D Sexual Risk Behavior-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents. Total SexGLOC M D 9.7 (SD D 8.9; range D 0–36). Boldface indicates item loading on factors. y Goggin et al’s28 original 3 factors: P D Problems (ability to manage problems in ways other than engaging in sexual activity), F D Frequency (ability to control the frequency of sexual behavior), I D Initiation (capacity to resist initiating sexual behavior).
TABLE 4. Regression Analyses With Alcohol Use Linear regression Ever consumed alcohol Block 1a Block 2b
Block 3c
Alcohol use consumed past 3 months Block 1d Block 2e
Block 3f
Predictor
B
Age Non-Caucasian Constant Age Non-Caucasian RBB Constant Age Non-Caucasian RBB AGLOC-A Constant
0.21 ¡0.98 ¡1.58 0.22 ¡0.79 ¡0.07 ¡0.08 0.23 ¡0.77 ¡0.02 ¡0.09 0.004
Predictor
B
Age Non-Caucasian Constant Age Non-Caucasian RBB Constant Age Non-Caucasian RBB AGLOC-A Constant
1.10 ¡6.04 ¡11.85 1.14 ¡5.47 ¡0.19 ¡8.44 1.12 ¡5.22 ¡0.06 ¡0.20 ¡8.70
SE B
Wald
Exp(B)
0.13 2.83 1.24 0.37 6.97 0.38 2.46 0.41 0.21 0.13 3.11 1.25 0.38 4.30 0.46 0.02 10.14 0.93 2.50 0.001 0.93 0.13 3.19 1.26 0.40 3.81 0.46 0.03 0.68 0.98 0.02 19.25 0.91 2.55 0.001 1.00 Linear regression SE B b p 0.36 1.16 7.23 0.36 1.16 0.07 7.25 0.36 1.15 0.08 0.06 7.16
0.16 ¡0.28 0.17 ¡0.25 ¡0.15 0.16 ¡0.24 ¡0.05 ¡0.19
0.01 0.001 0.10 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.001 0.43 0.01 .23
p
95% CI Exp(B)
0.09 0.01 0.52 0.08 0.04 0.001 0.98 0.08 0.05 0.41 0.001 1.00
0.967, 1.58 0.18, 0.78 0.98, 1.60 0.22, 0.96 0.89, 0.97 0.98, 1.62 0.21, 1.00 0.93, 1.03 0.88, 0.95
95% CI B 0.38, 1.81 ¡.8.32, ¡3.76 ¡26.07, 2.39 0.43, 1.84 ¡7.75, ¡3.18 ¡0.31, ¡0.06 ¡22.71, 5.84 0.42, 1.81 ¡7.48, ¡2.95 ¡0.21, 0.09 ¡0.33, ¡0.08 ¡22.78, 5.37
Note. CI D confidence interval; RBB D Religious Background and Behavior Questionnaire; AGLOC-A D Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents. a 2 x (2) D 10.68, p < .01; Cox & Snell D .03; Nagelkerke D .06. b 2 x (3) D 21.78, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .07; Nagelkerke D .13. c 2 x (4) D 43.40, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .13; Nagelkerke D .24. d F(2, 319) D 18.35, p < .001; R2 D 10, adjusted R2 D .10. e F(3, 318) D 15.20, p < .001; R2 D .13, adjusted R2 D .12. f F(4, 317) D 14.19, p < .001; R2 D .15, adjusted R2 D .14.
VOL 62, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014
583
Moore
TABLE 5. Logistic Regression Analyses for Sexual Behavior Sexual behavior Ever had oral sex Block 1a
Block 2b
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Block 3c
Ever had vaginal sex Block 1d
Block 2e
Block 3f
Ever had anal sex Block 1g
Block 2h
Block 3i
Predictor
B
SE B
Wald
Exp(B)
p
95% CI Exp(B)
Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB SexGLOC-A Constant
0.22 ¡0.12 ¡1.43 ¡2.20 0.24 0.15 ¡1.54 ¡0.08 ¡0.85 0.22 0.17 ¡1.53 ¡0.06 ¡0.04 ¡0.54
0.09 0.26 0.32 1.76 0.09 0.28 0.33 0.02 1.82 0.09 0.28 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.84
5.82 0.20 20.47 1.56 6.92 0.27 21.72 20.33 0.22 5.79 0.35 21.01 9.52 4.56 0.09
1.24 0.89 0.24 0.11 1.27 1.16 0.22 0.93 0.43 1.25 1.18 0.22 0.94 0.96 0.58
0.02 0.66 0.001 0.21 0.01 0.60 0.001 0.001 0.64 0.02 0.56 0.001 0.01 0.03 0.77
1.04, 1.48 0.53, 1.49 0.13, 0.45
Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB SexGLOC-A Constant
0.28 ¡0.34 ¡1.70 ¡3.37 0.30 ¡0.15 ¡1.79 ¡0.06 ¡2.34 0.28 ¡0.12 ¡1.79 ¡0.04 ¡0.05 ¡2.00
0.09 0.26 0.32 1.75 0.09 0.27 0.33 0.02 1.79 0.09 0.28 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.82
9.88 1.77 28.93 3.71 10.97 0.29 29.96 14.00 1.71 9.17 0.17 28.74 3.67 8.44 1.21
1.33 0.71 0.18 0.03 1.35 0.86 0.17 0.94 0.10 1.32 0.89 0.17 0.97 0.95 0.14
0.01 0.18 0.001 0.05 0.001 0.59 0.001 0.001 0.19 0.01 0.68 0.001 0.06 0.01 0.27
Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB SexGLOC-A Constant
0.30 ¡0.07 ¡0.88 ¡6.88 0.32 0.04 ¡0.88 ¡0.04 ¡6.41 0.31 0.05 ¡0.87 ¡0.03 ¡0.01 ¡6.32
0.09 0.29 0.29 1.71 0.09 0.30 0.29 0.02 1.74 0.09 0.30 0.29 0.02 0.02 1.75
12.81 0.05 9.15 16.18 13.69 0.02 9.14 5.12 13.54 12.90 0.03 8.75 2.37 0.41 13.11
1.35 0.94 0.42 0.001 1.38 1.04 0.41 0.96 0.002 1.37 1.05 0.42 0.97 0.99 0.002
0.001 0.82 0.01 0.001 0.001 0.90 0.01 0.02 0.001 0.001 0.86 0.01 0.12 0.52 0.001
1.06, 1.53 0.67, 2.01 0.11, 0.41 0.90, 0.96 1.04, 1.50 0.68, 2.06 0.11, 0.42 0.91, 0.98 0.93, 1.00 1.11, 1.58 0.43, 1.18 0.10, 0.34 1.13, 1.62 0.51, 1.47 0.09, 0.32 0.91, 0.97 1.10, 1.59 0.52, 1.53 0.09, 0.32 0.93, 1.00 0.92, 0.98 1.15, 1.60 0.53, 1.65 0.24, 0.73 1.16, 1.63 0.58, 1.86 0.23, 0.73 0.93, 1.00 1.15, 1.62 0.59, 1.89 0.24, 0.75 0.93, 1.01 0.95, 1.03
Note. CI D confidence interval; RBB D Religious Background and Behavior Questionnaire; SexGLOC-A D Sexual Risk Behavior-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents. a 2 x (3) D 30.88, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .09; Nagelkerke D .13. b 2 x (4) D 53.73, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .15; Nagelkerke D .22. c 2 x (5) D 58.31, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .17; Nagelkerke D .24. d 2 x (3) D 48.64, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .14; Nagelkerke D .20. e 2 x (4) D 63.73, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .18; Nagelkerke D .25. f 2 x (5) D 72.42, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .20; Nagelkerke D .28. g 2 x (3) D 21.93, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .07; Nagelkerke D .10. h 2 x (4) D 27.16, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .08; Nagelkerke D .13. i 2 x (5) D 27.58, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .08; Nagelkerke D .13.
584
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
God Locus of Control and Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
higher scores than Catholics, Other denominations, and those with no identified religious group. Those who reported no identification scored significantly lower than Protestants and nonspecified Christians. Neither scale was correlated with age. COMMENT This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A, cognitive measures of God control beliefs regarding risk behavior that were originally developed with an adolescent sample. This study responded to the need to replicate the original studies’ findings regarding these measures and also provides support for using these measures with college students. College students have greater freedom than adolescents to make their own decisions, including engagement in risk behavior. As in the original studies describing the development of these measures,27,28 both measures in this study demonstrated high reliability. Additionally, construct validity was supported, as higher scores on each measure were related to not consuming alcohol use or engaging in oral and vaginal sex, respectively. Both measures were also significantly positively correlated with the RBB, suggesting that college students who believe in God and participate more in religious behaviors are more likely to believe that God is a source of support and an influence on their behavior. Furthermore, as neither measure was significantly correlated with social desirability, it is believed that the participants were not just responding in a socially desirable manner. Given that AGLOC-A scores tended to be higher than SexGLOC-A scores, God control beliefs may be more influential regarding substance use than sexual decisionmaking. This may be due to different social pressures regarding these behaviors. SexGLOC-A scores significantly differed by relationship status; individuals in committed relationships tended to have lower scores than those who were single or casually dating. As such, a serious romantic partner may be a stronger influence regarding sex, regardless of religious beliefs. God may be a primary influence for alcohol consumption because it is an activity that can be done alone as well as socially. Romantic and sexual relationship dynamics and their influence on God control beliefs should be studied further. However, although this study supported the original findings regarding the AGLOC-A being a single factor, the original findings regarding the SexGLOC-A were not fully supported. Goggin et al28 originally found 3 subfactors in the SexGLOC-A regarding God’s control over: Initiation (initial onset of sexual behavior), Frequency (frequency of sexual behavior), and Problems (coping in ways other than sex). In this study, only 2 subfactors were identified. The first contained 3 Frequency items and all Problems items, with the fourth Frequency item and all Initiation items being part of the second subfactor. This may be due to the fact that greater percentages of participants in this study had engaged in sex both in their lifetime and recently compared with the original study’s sample, making questions VOL 62, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014
regarding the initial onset of sexual behavior less relevant to this sample. These items had mean responses that were lower than most items, although factor loadings were acceptable, with only 1 Initiation item having a notably lower factor loading (“If I start having sex, whether I do it again or not is up to God.”). Based on a single study, it is not recommended that any SexGLOC-A items be removed, but further research should continue to explore God locus of control as a construct among college students regarding its influence on their sexual and substance use behaviors and evaluate the appropriateness of maintaining the sexual initiation–related items. Given the relationship between God control beliefs and likelihood of having sex or consuming alcohol, health educators at faith-based institutions could incorporate this construct into their programming. Many major religions promote abstinence until marriage; given the relationship of SexGLOC-A scores to likelihood of having had oral or vaginal sex, developing programs that encourage students to consider their relationship with God as support against pressure to have sex could be influential. Many denominations are integrating sexual health into their ministries and requiring clergy to have competency in sex education.36 Providing elements of SexGLOC-A could provide religious college students who wish to abstain from sex another avenue of support in considering God control beliefs. Given the higher mean scores for items related to coping with problems, programming could encourage them to pray to God when they are overwhelmed with problems, rather than cope with stress through having sex. AGLOC-A scores were related not only to abstaining from alcohol consumption but also decreased alcohol use over the past 3 months. As such, God control beliefs could be a powerful tool in encouraging students not to drink but to also drink in greater moderation. Health educators could utilize God control beliefs related to resisting pressure to drink if they are comfortable discussing faith with their religious students. Other research has found a link between spiritual well-being and health among college students and encouraged consideration of religiosity by college health program planners.37 Health educators could seek out training for how to incorporate discussions about God into health education programs for their spiritual and religious students. Limitations There are limitations in this study. Test–retest reliability could not be determined, as the measures were only administered once. The original studies found adequate test–retest reliability for both measures, but future research should be longitudinal to evaluate all forms of reliability as well as to assess changes in God control beliefs over time. This would also overcome the weakness that, because this study was cross-sectional, it is impossible to determine directionality of effects. It is notable that, on average, those with higher GLOC scores had not yet engaged in sexual behavior or alcohol use. 585
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Moore
Regarding the sample, a limitation is that the sample was just drawn from 1 institution; future research should obtain data from multiple universities for comparisons, particularly in comparing secular and faith-based institutions. There were also a disproportionate number of female participants. However, this sample has the advantage of being more racially diverse than the original samples, which were exclusively African American with the AGLOC-A and largely African American for the SexGLOC-A, and greater diversity in reported religious denominations. This suggests that these findings have greater generalizability than the original studies. However, there were very few participants who identified as Jewish or Muslim. Recruiting larger numbers of non-Christian religiously affiliated individuals would provide greater understanding of the appropriateness of using this measure with other monotheistic denominations, especially given that Muslim students had the highest mean scores. Based on highest scores, Muslim, Protestant, and nondenominational Christian students may be the most appropriate denominations to utilize these measures with. However, replication of these findings with more balanced denominational groups could confirm this. A further limitation is the sexual orientation measure, which was limited to a single item. Sexual orientation is more complex and in the future should be assessed multidimensionally.38 Conclusions God locus of control beliefs are an appropriate construct for collecting data about college students’ religiosity and the AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A are reliable, valid assessments of this construct. Students who believe God has more of an influence over their behavior are less likely to consume alcohol or have sex. If they have consumed alcohol or engaged in sex, they do so at lower rates. God control beliefs are an important aspect to consider when understanding students’ engagement in sexual behavior and consumption of alcohol. FUNDING No funding was used to support this research and/or the preparation of the manuscript. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the United States and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Missouri–Kansas City. NOTE For comments and further information, address correspondence to Erin W. Moore, Department of Psychology, 586
Stetson University, 421 N. Woodland Boulevard, Unit 8281, Deland, FL 32723, USA (e-mail: ewmoore@stetson. edu). REFERENCES 1. American College Health Association. American College Health Association–National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Data Report Spring 2013. Linthicum, MD: American College Health Association; 2013. Available at: www.achancha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_Data Report_ Spring2013.pdf">http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHAII_ReferenceGroup_Data Report_Spring2013.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2014. 2. Turrisi R, Mallett KA, Mastroleo NR, Larimer ME. Heavy drinking in college students: who is at risk and what is being done about it? J Gen Psychol. 2006;133:401–420. 3. Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2010: Volume II, College Students and Adults Ages 19–50. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan; 2011. Available at: www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/ monographs/mtf-vol2_2010.pdf. Accessed July 30, 2013. 4. Hingson RW, Heeren T, Zakocs RC, Kopstein A, Wechsler H. Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24. J Stud Alcohol. 2002;63:136–144. 5. Singleton RA. Collegiate alcohol consumption and academic performance. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2007;68:548–555. 6. Poulson RL, Bradshaw SD, Huff JM, Peebles LL, Hilton DB. Risky sex behaviors among African American college students: the influence of alcohol, marijuana, and religiosity. N Am J Psychol. 2008;10:529–542. 7. Cooper M. Alcohol use and risky sexual behavior among college students and youth: evaluating the evidence. J Stud Alcohol. 2002;(suppl 14):101–117. 8. Scott-Sheldon L, Carey K, Carey M. Health behavior and college students: does Greek affiliation matter? J Behav Med. 2008;31:61–70. 9. Wells GM. The effect of religiosity and campus alcohol culture on collegiate alcohol consumption. J Am Coll Health. 2010;58:295–304. 10. Simons LG, Burt CH, Peterson FR. The effect of religion on risky sexual behavior among college students. Deviant Behav. 2009;30:467–485. 11. Smith C, Denton ML, Faris R, Regnerus M. Mapping American adolescent religious participation. J Sci Stud Relig. 2002;41:597–612. 12. Brechting EH, Brown T, Salsman JM, Sauer SE, Holeman VT, Carlson CR. The role of religious beliefs and behaviors in predicting underage alcohol use. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 2010;19:324–334. 13. Galen L, Rogers W. Religiosity, alcohol expectancies, drinking motives and their interaction in the prediction of drinking among college students. J Stud Alcohol. 2004;65:469–476. 14. Davidson JK, Moore NB, Earler JR, Davis R. Sexual attitudes and behavior at four universities: do region, race, and/or religion matter? Adolescence. 2008;43:189–220. 15. Lefkowitz ES, Gillen MM, Shearer CL. Religiosity, sexual behaviors and sexual attitudes during emerging adulthood. J Sex Res. 2004;41:150–159. 16. Rostosky S, Wilcox B, Wright M, Randall B. The impact of religiosity on adolescent sexual behavior: a review of the evidence. J Adolesc Res. 2004;19:677–697. 17. Davidson JK, Moore NB, Ullstrup KM. Religiosity and sexual responsibility: relationships of choice. Am J Health Behav. 2004;28:335–346. 18. Haglund KA, Fehring RJ. The association of religiosity, sexual education, and parental factors with risky sexual behaviors JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
God Locus of Control and Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior among adolescents and young adults. J Relig Health. 2010: 49:460–472. 19. Murray KM, Ciarrocchi JW, Murray-Swank NA. Spirituality, religiosity, shame and guilt as predictors of sexual attitudes and experiences. J Psychol Theol. 2007;35:222–234. 20. Zaleski EH, Schiaffino KM. Religiosity and sexual risktaking behavior during the transition to college. J Adolesc. 2000;23:223–227. 21. MacDonald D. Spirituality: measurement and relation to five factor model of personality. J Pers. 2000;68:153–197. 22. Burnett AJ, Sabato TM, Walter KO, Kerr DL, Wagner L, Smith A. The influence of attributional style on substance use and risky sexual behavior among college students. Coll Stud J. 2013;47:122–136. 23. Wallston KA, Malcarne VL, Flores L, et al. Does God determine your health? The God health locus of control scale. Cogn Ther Res. 1999;23:131–142. 24. Welton GL, Adkins AG, Ingle SL, Dixon WA. God control: the fourth dimension. J Psychol Theol. 1996;24:13–25. 25. Holt CL, Clark EM, Klem PR. Expansion and validation of the spiritual health locus of control scale. Factor analysis and predictive validity. J Health Psychol. 2007;12:597–612. 26. Wallston KA. Conceptualization and operationalization of perceived control. In: Baum A, Revenson TA, Singer JE, eds. Handbook of Health Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001; 49–58. 27. Goggin K, Murray TS, Malcarne VL, Brown SA, Wallston KA. Do religious and control cognitions predict risky behaviors? I. Development and validation of the Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents (AGLOC-A). Cogn Ther Res. 2007;31:111–122. 28. Goggin K, Malcarne VL, Murray TS, Metcalf KA, Wallston KA. Do religious and control cognitions predict risky behavior? II. Development and validation of the Sexual Risk Behavior-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents (SexGLOC-A). Cogn Ther Res. 2007;31:123–139.
VOL 62, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014
29. Murray TS, Malcarne VL, Goggin K. Alcohol-related God/ higher power control beliefs, locus of control, and recovery within the Alcoholics Anonymous paradigm. Alcohol Treat Q. 2003; 21:23–41. 30. Kinsey AC, Pomeroy WB, Martin CE. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1948. 31. Connors GJ, Tonigan JS, Miller WR. A measure of religious background and behavior for use in behavior change research. Psychol Addict Behav. 1996;10:90–96. 32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Available at: www.cdc.gov/yrbs. Accessed February 2, 2014. 33. Strahan R, Gerbasi KC. Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. J Clin Psychol. 1972;28:191–193. 34. Wilkerson MJ, Smolensk DJ, Brady SS, Rosser BRS. Performance of the Duke religion index and the spiritual well-being scale in online samples of men who have sex with men. J Relig Health. 2013;52:610–621. 35. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:286–299. 36. Haffner DW. Dearly beloved: sexuality education in faith communities. Am J Sex Educ. 2011;6:1–6. 37. Anye ET, Gallien TL, Bian H, Moulton M. The relationship between spiritual well-being and health-related quality of life in college students. J Am Coll Health. 2013;61:414–421. 38. Saewyc EM, Bauer GR, Skay CL, et al. Measuring sexual orientation in adolescent health surveys: evaluation of eight school-based surveys. J Adolesc Health. 2004;35:e1–e15.
Received: 6 September 2013 Revised: 7 May 2014 Accepted: 10 July 2014
587
Journal of American College Health Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vach20
Assessing God Locus of Control as a Factor in College Students’ Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior Erin W. Moore PhD
a
a
Department of Psychology, Stetson University, DeLand, Florida Accepted author version posted online: 07 Aug 2014.Published online: 05 Nov 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Erin W. Moore PhD (2014) Assessing God Locus of Control as a Factor in College Students’ Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior, Journal of American College Health, 62:8, 578-587, DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2014.947994 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2014.947994
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 AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH, VOL. 62, NO. 8
Major Article
Assessing God Locus of Control as a Factor in College Students’ Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Erin W. Moore, PhD
Abstract. Objectives: This study explored God locus of control beliefs (ie, God’s control over behavior) regarding their influence on alcohol use and sexual behavior as an alternative religiosity measure to religious behaviors, which does not capture perceived influence of religiosity. Additionally, demographic differences in religious beliefs were explored. Methods: College students aged 18–24 (N D 324) completed a survey between April 2012 and March 2013. Principal components and multivariate analyses were conducted. Results: Findings suggest that measures provide reliable, valid data from college students. God locus of control is linked to not consuming alcohol or engaging in sex. There were differences regarding relationship status and religious denomination. Conclusions: God locus of control beliefs are an appropriate construct for collecting data about college students’ religiosity. Furthermore, health educators at faith-based institutions could incorporate this construct into their programming, encouraging abstinence but also behaving responsibly for those who do drink and are sexually experienced.
Inconsistent condom use increases college students’ risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs). National research also confirms that the majority of college students are sexually experienced, with the majority reporting 1 or 2 sex partners in the previous year.1 When used consistently and correctly, condoms significantly reduce the likelihood of contracting an STI if exposed. However, college students do not always use condoms during sexual intercourse; previous research found that over 70% of college students reported using condoms sometimes, but only about a third reported using condoms every time they have sex.1,8 Given the potential consequences of alcohol consumption and having sex, it is crucial to identify factors that can decrease risk among college students. Although young adults tend to be slightly less likely to be affiliated with a specific religious group and less involved in religious practices than older adults, a majority of college students report some religious affiliation,6,9 believe their religious beliefs influence their daily lives,10 and attend religious services at least monthly.11 Previous research found that college students with greater religiosity, particularly engagement in religious behaviors (eg, church attendance, frequency of prayer), are less likely to use alcohol.9,12,13 Additionally, college students who report increased religiosity have an older age of sexual debut than their less religious peers.14–16 More specifically, studies have found that young adults who attend religious services and participate in religious activities are more likely to delay sexual debut15,17 and have fewer sex partners when they did become sexually active.15,18,19 However, sexually active college students reporting greater religiosity have been found to be less likely to use condoms than less religious peers.20 As such, religiosity’s protective effects may be limited to restriction of sexual behavior (ie, delaying age of first intercourse, having fewer sex partners), rather than
Keywords: alcohol, locus of control, religiosity, sexual behavior
M
ost college students report consuming alcohol regularly.1–3 A national college study found that 81% of college students consumed alcohol within a 30-day period.2 College students’ alcohol use can lead to serious consequences. For instance, one study estimated that approximately 500,000 students aged 18–24 suffer alcohol-related injuries annually, and more than 1,000 students die annually from injuries related to alcohol use.4 Greater alcohol consumption is linked to poorer academic performance (ie, lower grade point average).5 Furthermore, alcohol use is also associated with engaging in risky sexual behaviors,6 particularly decreased condom use.7 Dr Moore is with the Department of Psychology at Stetson University in DeLand, Florida. Copyright Ó 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 578
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
God Locus of Control and Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior
promoting safer sex behavior such as consistent condom use. Because of the risks associated with alcohol use and sexual behavior, it is important to better understand constructs associated with decreased risk, such as religiosity. College students’ religiosity is frequently assessed in terms of whether religion is important and engagement in religious behaviors, such as church attendance and prayer.21 However, college students may engage in religious behaviors for a variety of reasons that may not be related to their personal expression of beliefs and faith (eg, attending church services or reading scripture as a means of socializing with peers or at the urging of parents). Because of this potential for other motivation than spiritual to engage in religious behaviors, behavioral assessments may not be the most appropriate way to conceptualize college students’ religiosity when determining whether it influences behavior. An alternative method for assessing students’ religiosity is exploring their God/higher power control beliefs, or beliefs that God directly controls one’s behavior. This provides an understanding of the influence of personal beliefs regarding one’s relationship with God and whether the decision to engage in risk behavior is being under one’s own power or God’s. God control beliefs are derived from the concept of locus of control (LOC), differentiating internal control over outcomes from external control. Previous research noted that college students with higher levels of internal control consumed more alcohol and engaged in more sexual risk behavior.22 However, individuals often do not solely exhibit internal or external LOC, but it is important to consider numerous sources of control, including God.23 God control was examined as an external source of LOC by Welton et al,24 and later further developed in relation to health with the God locus of health control. God control beliefs are primarily considered an external force, although there are believed to be different dimensions regarding active or passive spirituality.25 This suggests that internal LOC can play a role with active spirituality, exerting their own efforts along with good to stay healthy, whereas passive God-related LOC indicates that the person turns over their health to God and believes their own efforts do not matter. There is indication that LOC is most accurately assessed when measured in a specific behavioral context.26 As such, in understanding the role of God as a source of control over college students’ alcohol use and sexual behavior, utilized measures should be behavior specific. Measures have been developed to assess God control beliefs regarding alcohol use and sexual behavior.27,28 Goggin et al27 developed the Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents (AGLOC-A) to measure God control beliefs in religious individuals in order to explore this construct’s predictive qualities regarding alcohol risk behavior. The AGLOC-A was developed and evaluated with an exclusively African American sample (average age 14.7 years) and found to be a reliable and valid measure, and greater God control beliefs were associated with decreased alcohol use. Beyond the initial VOL 62, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014
development sample, God control beliefs and their relationship to alcohol use have been explored primarily with Caucasian adults.29 The Sexual Risk Behavior-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents (SexGLOC-A) has been found to be a reliable and valid measure of God control beliefs related to sexual risk behavior, with higher SexGLOC-A scores associated with increased intentions to abstain from sex and decreased engagement in sexual risk behaviors among adolescents.28 The SexGLOC-A was also developed with a primarily high-school–aged African American sample (87% African American, average age 14.7 years). No published research has explored God control beliefs related to alcohol consumption or sexual behavior among college students. As noted by Goggin et al,27,28 God control beliefs may be empowering or promote passivity in health behavior decision-making. College students may feel emboldened to make protective decisions if they believe God directly controls their behavior, leading them to feel connected to a greater force than themselves. Alternatively, they may engage in fewer protective behaviors if they leave all decision-making to God, assuming a passive role. Use of the AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A with college students may assist in understanding associations between religiosity and sexual and alcohol risk behaviors, which could fill a gap in the literature on protective factors and college student health. With the transition from high school to college, emerging adults have greater freedom and autonomy to engage in more risk behavior. This study sought to measure the validity and reliability of these scales in the college population. Furthermore, this study examined the scales for any demographic differences (eg, sex, race, relationship status, religious denomination). It is believed that, like with the original adolescent samples, higher AGLOC-A scores will be related to less alcohol consumption and higher SexGLOC-A scores will be related to higher likelihood of not engaging in oral, vaginal, and/or anal sex.
METHODS Participants College students aged 18–24 were invited to complete a survey through the Department of Psychology at a medium-sized midwestern university for course credit and/ or entry into a lottery for a $10 Amazon gift card (awarded to 10% of participants). Participants were primarily recruited through the participant pool via psychology courses, but they were also recruited via fliers posted around campus. A total of 406 students completed the paper-and-pencil survey individually in the researcher’s laboratory. Data were collected between April 2012 and March 2013. Verbal informed consent was obtained, and no identifiers were collected on the survey to ensure anonymity of responses. The university’s Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures. 579
Moore
Measures In accordance with the primary purpose of the study, participants completed the AGLOC-A, a 12-item measure assessing God’s perceived control over one’s alcohol use, and SexGLOC-A, a 12-item measure assessing God’s perceived control over one’s sexual behavior. On both scales, participants rated their responses on a 4-point scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). For each scale, the items are summed to produce a total score, with higher scores reflecting stronger beliefs in God-related control over behavior. Additionally, participants responded to demographic, religiosity, behavioral, and social desirability items.
Demographics Participants were asked their age, sex, race/ethnicity, and relationship status (response options reported in Table 1). A single item assessed sexual orientation on a continuum adapted from the Kinsey Scale of Sexual Orientation30: “Rate your sexual orientation on a scale of 0–10, where 0 is completely homosexual (gay) and 10 is completely heterosexual (straight). What is your sexual orientation number?” It was believed that the 0–10 continuum would allow participants greater flexibility in self-identifying rather than using discrete categories.
TABLE 1. Demographics of Participants (N D 324)
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
AGLOC-A Variable Sex Male Female Race/Ethnicity White/Caucasian Black/African American Latino/a/Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Other/Multiracial Relationship status Single Dating/Not in committed relationship In a committed relationship/Married Denomination Catholic Christian (nondenominational or nonspecified) Muslim Protestant (eg, Baptist, Presbyterian) Other (eg, Buddhist, Hindu, Judaism, Wiccan) None Consumed alcohol past 3 months Yes No No, never engaged in this activity Engaged in oral sex past 3 months Yes No No, never engaged in this activity Engaged in vaginal sex past 3 months Yes No No, never engaged in this activity Engaged in anal sex past 3 months Yes No No, never engaged in this activity
SexGLOC-A
%
n
M
SD
M
SD
26.9 73.1
87 237
11.7 12.1
11.1 10.3
9.9 9.7
9.4 8.8
52.2 22.5 7.1 10.8 7.1
169 73 23 35 23
10.5 13.8 13.3 14.1 13.4
10.0 9.4 10.8 12.7 12.6
8.6 12.0 10.0 10.3 9.4
8.5 8.6 8.5 11.0 9.5
48.1 13.3 38.3
156 43 124
12.7 9.2 12.2
10.8 9.4 10.4
11.1a 7.5 8.8
9.4 7.3 8.7
27.5 15.1 6.2 30.9 8.6 11.1
89 49 20 100 28 36
9.4b 15.1 22.2 14.0 9.0 5.4
9.3 9.0 11.2 10.5 10.2 8.4
8.1b 12.3 16.1 11.1 7.7 4.1
8.0 7.6 12.3 9.0 9.1 6.2
73.8 14.5 11.7
239 47 38
10.2b 13.6 21.7
9.5 10.4 11.1
8.7b 10.3 15.4
8.1 9.6 10.9
47.8 25.3 26.9
155 82 87
9.3b 12.3 16.6
9.5 9.8 11.3
7.4b 10.1 13.6
7.3 9.2 10.0
52.2 16.7 30.9
169 54 100
9.4b 11.4 16.7
9.7 9.9 10.7
7.6b 9.4 13.5
7.5 9.5 9.7
6.5 13.9 79.6
21 45 258
8.5 10.5 12.6
9.1 9.8 10.7
5.4a 8.6 10.3
5.9 7.7 9.2
Note. AGLOC-A D Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents; SexGLOC-A D Sexual Risk Behavior-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents. a Groups significantly different at p < .05. b Groups significantly different at p < .001.
580
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
God Locus of Control and Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior
Religious Affiliation and Involvement in Religious Activities
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Participants were asked their religious affiliation (Catholic, Judaism, Muslim, Protestant, none, or to specify some other denomination). Based on frequency counts, these categories were reorganized into Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, none, nondenominational or nonspecified Christian, and other (which included Judasim). Their involvement in religious activities was assessed with the Religious Background and Behavior Questionnaire (RBB).31 The RBB is a self-report measure that assesses the frequency of 2 domains of religious behavior: God Consciousness (eg, “thought about God,” “prayed”) and Formal Practices (eg, “attended worship service, read-studied scriptures, holy writings”) on an 8-point scale from 0 (never) to 7 (more than once a day). Higher scores indicated greater religiosity. This measure had strong reliability (Cronbach’s a D .81). Lifetime and Past 3 Months’ Sexual Behavior Items assessing sexual behavior were adapted from existing measures.1,32 Lifetime sexual behavior items included (1) “Have you ever had oral sex? Have you ever had vaginal sex? Have you ever had anal sex?” (2) “On average, what percentage of the time did you use a condom during oral/vaginal/anal sex?” (3) “How many sex partners have you had in your lifetime?” The same items were used for recent sexual behavior items, reframed for the past 3 months. Lifetime and Past 3 Months’ Alcohol Use Lifetime alcohol use was assessed dichotomously as ever having consumed alcohol. Recent alcohol use was assessed as ever having consumed alcohol in the past 3 months and asking on how many occasions in the past 3 months they had consumed alcohol. These 3 alcohol use items were developed for this study. Social Desirability Participants completed a 10-item version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC1).33 The MC1 is a true/false assessment that measures participants’ tendency to answer in a socially desirable manner (eg, “I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake”). The reliability (Cronbach’s a D .51) was moderate.
Data Analysis Two participants were excluded from analyses for not responding to the majority of GLOC items. A third participant did not respond to one item on the SexGLOC-A; the individual’s SexGLOC-A mean score for the other items replaced this missing value. Five participants did not respond to one item on the RBB; mean replacement was VOL 62, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014
used for these missing items. A total of 404 participants were included in preliminary analyses. Given that this was a measure developed for a religious sample, preliminary analyses of variance (ANOVAs) examined mean differences according to religious self-identification (atheist, agnostic, unsure, spiritual, religious); there were significant differences for RBB, F(4, 399) D 158.312, p < .001, AGLOC-A, F(4, 399) D 44.003, p < .001, and SexGLOC-A, F(4, 399) D 36.442, p < .001. Eighty participants identifying as atheist, agnostic, and unsure were removed given their substantially lower scores compared with spiritual and religious participants. This is further supported given the purpose of this measure is to identify the role of God/higher power in influencing decisions; this measure would be inappropriate for those who do not believe in or are unsure of if there is a higher power. Additionally, previous literature notes a potential concern with using traditional religious measures with those who identify as gay or lesbian.34 However, there were no significant differences on RBB, AGLOC-A, or SexGLOC-A scores between the 6 gay-identified (selected score of “0”) participants and those who identified as heterosexual. As such, they were retained for analyses. This resulted in a final sample of 324 participants. Principal component analyses (PCA) with oblique (oblimin) rotation were performed separately on AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A items. Oblique rotation was chosen, as it was expected that if more than 1 factor was produced within a scale, they would be correlated. The factor solution was determined by the number of factors generated with eigenvalues greater than 1. Frequency data indicated 1 outlier for occasions that alcohol was consumed where someone indicated drinking 213 occasions in 3 months (which is improbable, indicating drinking 2 or more times every day). The second highest reported score was 75 occasions; as such 213 was recoded as 90 for analyses. Further analyses were conducted to identify any demographic differences on the AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A using Pearson’s correlations, independent-sample t tests, and ANOVAs. RESULTS The mean sample age was 19.8 (SD D 1.6). The average sexual orientation rating was 9.5 (SD D 1.6), although the majority identified as completely heterosexual, rating themselves a 10 (83%, n D 269). Most had consumed alcohol ever and during the past 3 months; the average number of occasions in which alcohol was consumed in the past 3 months was 7.2 (SD D 11.9). See Table 1 for other sample characteristics.
AGLOC-A Reliability an Validity PCA was performed on the 12 AGLOC-A items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure verified the sampling adequacy, KMO D .93. A large primary factor was obtained (eigenvalue of 7.476) explaining 62.3% of the total 581
Moore
TABLE 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for AGLOC-A AGLOC-A item
M
SD
Factor loading
1. God participants in my decision to not drink 2. God plays a role in whether my alcohol use increases or not 3. God plays a role in whether I drink or not 4. If someone asked me to try alcohol, God would keep me from trying it 5. God helps me handle my problems so that I don’t need to drink 6. God helps me to keep from drinking when I have a lot of problems 7. When there are too many problems in my life, God keeps me from drinking 8. Most things that affect whether I drink or not happen because of God 9. God controls how much I drink 10. God helps me say no when others pressure me to try alcohol 11. God helps me resist pressure from others to try alcohol 12. If I start to drink, God plays a role in whether I slow down or quit
1.1 0.9 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.5 1.2 1.3 0.9
1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.1
.831 .790 .816 .718 .815 .820 .796 .720 .684 .856 .835 .772
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Note. AGLOC-A D Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents. Total AGLOC M D 12.0 (SD D 10.5; range D 0–36).
variance. Other eigenvalues were .946 or less and explained small amounts of additional variance. Examination of item loadings suggested retaining only a single factor. Factor loadings for all items are displayed in Table 2 and were well above the .30 minimum criterion indicated by Floyd and Widaman.35 The AGLOC-A had strong reliability (Cronbach’s a D .95). Convergent validity was established by examining the bivariate relationship between the AGLOC-A and religious behavior (RBB). There was a significant relationship between the AGLOC-A and RBB (r D .54, p < .001). The AGLOC-A was not significantly correlated with social desirability (r D .10, p D .86), suggesting that the AGLOCA scores were not a function of social desirability bias. Construct validity was supported, as participants who reported never consuming alcohol had significantly higher AGLOC-A scores than those who had (Table 1). Multivariate analyses further supported construct validity (Table 4). Logistic regression analysis of alcohol use ever showed that the AGLOC-A is a significant predictor, with higher scores associated with decreased odds of having consumed alcohol. Linear regression examining amount of alcohol consumption in the past 3 months noted that AGLOC-A score is significantly related to decreased alcohol use. SexGLOC-A Reliability and Validity PCA was performed on the 12 SexGLOC-A items (KMO D .92). A large primary factor was obtained (eigenvalue of 6.353) explaining 52.9% of the total variance, with the next factor having an eigenvalue of 1.252 and explaining 10.4% of the variance. All other eigenvalues were less than .891 and explained small amounts of additional variance. Examination of item loadings suggested retaining only 2 factors. Factor loadings for all items are displayed in Table 3 and were all above the suggested .30 minimum criterion.35 Based on these loadings, the items hold together as a total scale but can be separated into 2 subfactors: one containing 582
the Problems items and 3 Frequency items and the other comprising the Initiation items plus the remaining Frequency item.28 The SexGLOC-A had strong reliability (Cronbach’s a D .92). Convergent validity was established by examining the bivariate relationship between the SexGLOC-A and RBB. There was a significant correlation between the SexGLOCA and RBB (r D .53, p < .001). The SexGLOC-A was not significantly correlated with social desirability (r D ¡.04, p D .44), suggesting these scores were not a function of social desirability. Lastly, the AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A were significantly correlated with each other (r D .77, p < .001), supporting the idea that God control beliefs regarding alcohol use and sexual behavior are interrelated. Construct validity was supported, as participants who reported never having sex had significantly higher SexGLOC-A scores than those who had (Table 1). The SexGLOC-A was not correlated with lifetime or recent sex partners or condom use except for lifetime condom use during oral sex (r D .15, p < .05). Multivariate analyses found that higher SexGLOC-A scores were associated with decreased odds of having engaged in oral and vaginal sex, even after taking into account age, race, relationship status, and RBB (Table 5). The SexGLOC-A did not explain variance in likelihood of having engaged in anal sex beyond what was explained by age and relationship status. Demographic Differences in AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A As noted in Table 1, there were demographic differences regarding both scales. Relationship differences on the SexGLOC-A were found between currently single participants and those dating but not in a committed relationship, F(2, 320) D 3.90, p < .05; single participants reported higher scores than those who were dating. Additionally, denominational differences were found for both measures (AGLOC-A: F[5, 316] D 11.23, p < .001; SexGLOC-A: F[5, 316] D 7.78 p < .001). Muslims reported significantly JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
God Locus of Control and Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior
TABLE 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Factor loading SexGLOC-A itemy
M
SD
Component 1
Component 2
1. God helps me handle my problems so that I don’t need to have sex (P) 2. Without God’s help, I cannot control how much I have sex (F) 3. If I start having sex, whether I do it again or not is up to God (I) 4. God helps me to keep from having sex when I have a lot of problems (P) 5. God plays a role in how much sex I have (F) 6. God determines whether I want to have sex or not (I) 7. When there are too many problems in my life, God keeps me from having sex (P) 8. It is up to God whether my sexual behavior increases or not (F) 9. God determines whether or not I try sex (I) 10. If I try sex, God determines whether I become addicted or not (I) 11. God keeps me from having sex too much (F) 12. God helps me take my mind off my problems so I don’t need to have sex (P)
1.4 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.8 1.2
1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.2
.788 .725 .335 .867 .689 .594 .822 .497 .475 .395 .781 .857
.378 .334 .498 .561 .594 .789 .644 .876 .818 .813 .666 .519
Note. AGLOC-A D Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents; SexGLOC-A D Sexual Risk Behavior-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents. Total SexGLOC M D 9.7 (SD D 8.9; range D 0–36). Boldface indicates item loading on factors. y Goggin et al’s28 original 3 factors: P D Problems (ability to manage problems in ways other than engaging in sexual activity), F D Frequency (ability to control the frequency of sexual behavior), I D Initiation (capacity to resist initiating sexual behavior).
TABLE 4. Regression Analyses With Alcohol Use Linear regression Ever consumed alcohol Block 1a Block 2b
Block 3c
Alcohol use consumed past 3 months Block 1d Block 2e
Block 3f
Predictor
B
Age Non-Caucasian Constant Age Non-Caucasian RBB Constant Age Non-Caucasian RBB AGLOC-A Constant
0.21 ¡0.98 ¡1.58 0.22 ¡0.79 ¡0.07 ¡0.08 0.23 ¡0.77 ¡0.02 ¡0.09 0.004
Predictor
B
Age Non-Caucasian Constant Age Non-Caucasian RBB Constant Age Non-Caucasian RBB AGLOC-A Constant
1.10 ¡6.04 ¡11.85 1.14 ¡5.47 ¡0.19 ¡8.44 1.12 ¡5.22 ¡0.06 ¡0.20 ¡8.70
SE B
Wald
Exp(B)
0.13 2.83 1.24 0.37 6.97 0.38 2.46 0.41 0.21 0.13 3.11 1.25 0.38 4.30 0.46 0.02 10.14 0.93 2.50 0.001 0.93 0.13 3.19 1.26 0.40 3.81 0.46 0.03 0.68 0.98 0.02 19.25 0.91 2.55 0.001 1.00 Linear regression SE B b p 0.36 1.16 7.23 0.36 1.16 0.07 7.25 0.36 1.15 0.08 0.06 7.16
0.16 ¡0.28 0.17 ¡0.25 ¡0.15 0.16 ¡0.24 ¡0.05 ¡0.19
0.01 0.001 0.10 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.001 0.43 0.01 .23
p
95% CI Exp(B)
0.09 0.01 0.52 0.08 0.04 0.001 0.98 0.08 0.05 0.41 0.001 1.00
0.967, 1.58 0.18, 0.78 0.98, 1.60 0.22, 0.96 0.89, 0.97 0.98, 1.62 0.21, 1.00 0.93, 1.03 0.88, 0.95
95% CI B 0.38, 1.81 ¡.8.32, ¡3.76 ¡26.07, 2.39 0.43, 1.84 ¡7.75, ¡3.18 ¡0.31, ¡0.06 ¡22.71, 5.84 0.42, 1.81 ¡7.48, ¡2.95 ¡0.21, 0.09 ¡0.33, ¡0.08 ¡22.78, 5.37
Note. CI D confidence interval; RBB D Religious Background and Behavior Questionnaire; AGLOC-A D Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents. a 2 x (2) D 10.68, p < .01; Cox & Snell D .03; Nagelkerke D .06. b 2 x (3) D 21.78, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .07; Nagelkerke D .13. c 2 x (4) D 43.40, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .13; Nagelkerke D .24. d F(2, 319) D 18.35, p < .001; R2 D 10, adjusted R2 D .10. e F(3, 318) D 15.20, p < .001; R2 D .13, adjusted R2 D .12. f F(4, 317) D 14.19, p < .001; R2 D .15, adjusted R2 D .14.
VOL 62, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014
583
Moore
TABLE 5. Logistic Regression Analyses for Sexual Behavior Sexual behavior Ever had oral sex Block 1a
Block 2b
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Block 3c
Ever had vaginal sex Block 1d
Block 2e
Block 3f
Ever had anal sex Block 1g
Block 2h
Block 3i
Predictor
B
SE B
Wald
Exp(B)
p
95% CI Exp(B)
Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB SexGLOC-A Constant
0.22 ¡0.12 ¡1.43 ¡2.20 0.24 0.15 ¡1.54 ¡0.08 ¡0.85 0.22 0.17 ¡1.53 ¡0.06 ¡0.04 ¡0.54
0.09 0.26 0.32 1.76 0.09 0.28 0.33 0.02 1.82 0.09 0.28 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.84
5.82 0.20 20.47 1.56 6.92 0.27 21.72 20.33 0.22 5.79 0.35 21.01 9.52 4.56 0.09
1.24 0.89 0.24 0.11 1.27 1.16 0.22 0.93 0.43 1.25 1.18 0.22 0.94 0.96 0.58
0.02 0.66 0.001 0.21 0.01 0.60 0.001 0.001 0.64 0.02 0.56 0.001 0.01 0.03 0.77
1.04, 1.48 0.53, 1.49 0.13, 0.45
Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB SexGLOC-A Constant
0.28 ¡0.34 ¡1.70 ¡3.37 0.30 ¡0.15 ¡1.79 ¡0.06 ¡2.34 0.28 ¡0.12 ¡1.79 ¡0.04 ¡0.05 ¡2.00
0.09 0.26 0.32 1.75 0.09 0.27 0.33 0.02 1.79 0.09 0.28 0.33 0.02 0.02 1.82
9.88 1.77 28.93 3.71 10.97 0.29 29.96 14.00 1.71 9.17 0.17 28.74 3.67 8.44 1.21
1.33 0.71 0.18 0.03 1.35 0.86 0.17 0.94 0.10 1.32 0.89 0.17 0.97 0.95 0.14
0.01 0.18 0.001 0.05 0.001 0.59 0.001 0.001 0.19 0.01 0.68 0.001 0.06 0.01 0.27
Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB Constant Age Non-Caucasian Not in a committed relationship RBB SexGLOC-A Constant
0.30 ¡0.07 ¡0.88 ¡6.88 0.32 0.04 ¡0.88 ¡0.04 ¡6.41 0.31 0.05 ¡0.87 ¡0.03 ¡0.01 ¡6.32
0.09 0.29 0.29 1.71 0.09 0.30 0.29 0.02 1.74 0.09 0.30 0.29 0.02 0.02 1.75
12.81 0.05 9.15 16.18 13.69 0.02 9.14 5.12 13.54 12.90 0.03 8.75 2.37 0.41 13.11
1.35 0.94 0.42 0.001 1.38 1.04 0.41 0.96 0.002 1.37 1.05 0.42 0.97 0.99 0.002
0.001 0.82 0.01 0.001 0.001 0.90 0.01 0.02 0.001 0.001 0.86 0.01 0.12 0.52 0.001
1.06, 1.53 0.67, 2.01 0.11, 0.41 0.90, 0.96 1.04, 1.50 0.68, 2.06 0.11, 0.42 0.91, 0.98 0.93, 1.00 1.11, 1.58 0.43, 1.18 0.10, 0.34 1.13, 1.62 0.51, 1.47 0.09, 0.32 0.91, 0.97 1.10, 1.59 0.52, 1.53 0.09, 0.32 0.93, 1.00 0.92, 0.98 1.15, 1.60 0.53, 1.65 0.24, 0.73 1.16, 1.63 0.58, 1.86 0.23, 0.73 0.93, 1.00 1.15, 1.62 0.59, 1.89 0.24, 0.75 0.93, 1.01 0.95, 1.03
Note. CI D confidence interval; RBB D Religious Background and Behavior Questionnaire; SexGLOC-A D Sexual Risk Behavior-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents. a 2 x (3) D 30.88, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .09; Nagelkerke D .13. b 2 x (4) D 53.73, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .15; Nagelkerke D .22. c 2 x (5) D 58.31, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .17; Nagelkerke D .24. d 2 x (3) D 48.64, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .14; Nagelkerke D .20. e 2 x (4) D 63.73, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .18; Nagelkerke D .25. f 2 x (5) D 72.42, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .20; Nagelkerke D .28. g 2 x (3) D 21.93, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .07; Nagelkerke D .10. h 2 x (4) D 27.16, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .08; Nagelkerke D .13. i 2 x (5) D 27.58, p < .001; Cox & Snell D .08; Nagelkerke D .13.
584
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
God Locus of Control and Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
higher scores than Catholics, Other denominations, and those with no identified religious group. Those who reported no identification scored significantly lower than Protestants and nonspecified Christians. Neither scale was correlated with age. COMMENT This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A, cognitive measures of God control beliefs regarding risk behavior that were originally developed with an adolescent sample. This study responded to the need to replicate the original studies’ findings regarding these measures and also provides support for using these measures with college students. College students have greater freedom than adolescents to make their own decisions, including engagement in risk behavior. As in the original studies describing the development of these measures,27,28 both measures in this study demonstrated high reliability. Additionally, construct validity was supported, as higher scores on each measure were related to not consuming alcohol use or engaging in oral and vaginal sex, respectively. Both measures were also significantly positively correlated with the RBB, suggesting that college students who believe in God and participate more in religious behaviors are more likely to believe that God is a source of support and an influence on their behavior. Furthermore, as neither measure was significantly correlated with social desirability, it is believed that the participants were not just responding in a socially desirable manner. Given that AGLOC-A scores tended to be higher than SexGLOC-A scores, God control beliefs may be more influential regarding substance use than sexual decisionmaking. This may be due to different social pressures regarding these behaviors. SexGLOC-A scores significantly differed by relationship status; individuals in committed relationships tended to have lower scores than those who were single or casually dating. As such, a serious romantic partner may be a stronger influence regarding sex, regardless of religious beliefs. God may be a primary influence for alcohol consumption because it is an activity that can be done alone as well as socially. Romantic and sexual relationship dynamics and their influence on God control beliefs should be studied further. However, although this study supported the original findings regarding the AGLOC-A being a single factor, the original findings regarding the SexGLOC-A were not fully supported. Goggin et al28 originally found 3 subfactors in the SexGLOC-A regarding God’s control over: Initiation (initial onset of sexual behavior), Frequency (frequency of sexual behavior), and Problems (coping in ways other than sex). In this study, only 2 subfactors were identified. The first contained 3 Frequency items and all Problems items, with the fourth Frequency item and all Initiation items being part of the second subfactor. This may be due to the fact that greater percentages of participants in this study had engaged in sex both in their lifetime and recently compared with the original study’s sample, making questions VOL 62, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014
regarding the initial onset of sexual behavior less relevant to this sample. These items had mean responses that were lower than most items, although factor loadings were acceptable, with only 1 Initiation item having a notably lower factor loading (“If I start having sex, whether I do it again or not is up to God.”). Based on a single study, it is not recommended that any SexGLOC-A items be removed, but further research should continue to explore God locus of control as a construct among college students regarding its influence on their sexual and substance use behaviors and evaluate the appropriateness of maintaining the sexual initiation–related items. Given the relationship between God control beliefs and likelihood of having sex or consuming alcohol, health educators at faith-based institutions could incorporate this construct into their programming. Many major religions promote abstinence until marriage; given the relationship of SexGLOC-A scores to likelihood of having had oral or vaginal sex, developing programs that encourage students to consider their relationship with God as support against pressure to have sex could be influential. Many denominations are integrating sexual health into their ministries and requiring clergy to have competency in sex education.36 Providing elements of SexGLOC-A could provide religious college students who wish to abstain from sex another avenue of support in considering God control beliefs. Given the higher mean scores for items related to coping with problems, programming could encourage them to pray to God when they are overwhelmed with problems, rather than cope with stress through having sex. AGLOC-A scores were related not only to abstaining from alcohol consumption but also decreased alcohol use over the past 3 months. As such, God control beliefs could be a powerful tool in encouraging students not to drink but to also drink in greater moderation. Health educators could utilize God control beliefs related to resisting pressure to drink if they are comfortable discussing faith with their religious students. Other research has found a link between spiritual well-being and health among college students and encouraged consideration of religiosity by college health program planners.37 Health educators could seek out training for how to incorporate discussions about God into health education programs for their spiritual and religious students. Limitations There are limitations in this study. Test–retest reliability could not be determined, as the measures were only administered once. The original studies found adequate test–retest reliability for both measures, but future research should be longitudinal to evaluate all forms of reliability as well as to assess changes in God control beliefs over time. This would also overcome the weakness that, because this study was cross-sectional, it is impossible to determine directionality of effects. It is notable that, on average, those with higher GLOC scores had not yet engaged in sexual behavior or alcohol use. 585
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
Moore
Regarding the sample, a limitation is that the sample was just drawn from 1 institution; future research should obtain data from multiple universities for comparisons, particularly in comparing secular and faith-based institutions. There were also a disproportionate number of female participants. However, this sample has the advantage of being more racially diverse than the original samples, which were exclusively African American with the AGLOC-A and largely African American for the SexGLOC-A, and greater diversity in reported religious denominations. This suggests that these findings have greater generalizability than the original studies. However, there were very few participants who identified as Jewish or Muslim. Recruiting larger numbers of non-Christian religiously affiliated individuals would provide greater understanding of the appropriateness of using this measure with other monotheistic denominations, especially given that Muslim students had the highest mean scores. Based on highest scores, Muslim, Protestant, and nondenominational Christian students may be the most appropriate denominations to utilize these measures with. However, replication of these findings with more balanced denominational groups could confirm this. A further limitation is the sexual orientation measure, which was limited to a single item. Sexual orientation is more complex and in the future should be assessed multidimensionally.38 Conclusions God locus of control beliefs are an appropriate construct for collecting data about college students’ religiosity and the AGLOC-A and SexGLOC-A are reliable, valid assessments of this construct. Students who believe God has more of an influence over their behavior are less likely to consume alcohol or have sex. If they have consumed alcohol or engaged in sex, they do so at lower rates. God control beliefs are an important aspect to consider when understanding students’ engagement in sexual behavior and consumption of alcohol. FUNDING No funding was used to support this research and/or the preparation of the manuscript. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of the United States and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Missouri–Kansas City. NOTE For comments and further information, address correspondence to Erin W. Moore, Department of Psychology, 586
Stetson University, 421 N. Woodland Boulevard, Unit 8281, Deland, FL 32723, USA (e-mail: ewmoore@stetson. edu). REFERENCES 1. American College Health Association. American College Health Association–National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Data Report Spring 2013. Linthicum, MD: American College Health Association; 2013. Available at: www.achancha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_Data Report_ Spring2013.pdf">http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHAII_ReferenceGroup_Data Report_Spring2013.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2014. 2. Turrisi R, Mallett KA, Mastroleo NR, Larimer ME. Heavy drinking in college students: who is at risk and what is being done about it? J Gen Psychol. 2006;133:401–420. 3. Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2010: Volume II, College Students and Adults Ages 19–50. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan; 2011. Available at: www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/ monographs/mtf-vol2_2010.pdf. Accessed July 30, 2013. 4. Hingson RW, Heeren T, Zakocs RC, Kopstein A, Wechsler H. Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24. J Stud Alcohol. 2002;63:136–144. 5. Singleton RA. Collegiate alcohol consumption and academic performance. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2007;68:548–555. 6. Poulson RL, Bradshaw SD, Huff JM, Peebles LL, Hilton DB. Risky sex behaviors among African American college students: the influence of alcohol, marijuana, and religiosity. N Am J Psychol. 2008;10:529–542. 7. Cooper M. Alcohol use and risky sexual behavior among college students and youth: evaluating the evidence. J Stud Alcohol. 2002;(suppl 14):101–117. 8. Scott-Sheldon L, Carey K, Carey M. Health behavior and college students: does Greek affiliation matter? J Behav Med. 2008;31:61–70. 9. Wells GM. The effect of religiosity and campus alcohol culture on collegiate alcohol consumption. J Am Coll Health. 2010;58:295–304. 10. Simons LG, Burt CH, Peterson FR. The effect of religion on risky sexual behavior among college students. Deviant Behav. 2009;30:467–485. 11. Smith C, Denton ML, Faris R, Regnerus M. Mapping American adolescent religious participation. J Sci Stud Relig. 2002;41:597–612. 12. Brechting EH, Brown T, Salsman JM, Sauer SE, Holeman VT, Carlson CR. The role of religious beliefs and behaviors in predicting underage alcohol use. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 2010;19:324–334. 13. Galen L, Rogers W. Religiosity, alcohol expectancies, drinking motives and their interaction in the prediction of drinking among college students. J Stud Alcohol. 2004;65:469–476. 14. Davidson JK, Moore NB, Earler JR, Davis R. Sexual attitudes and behavior at four universities: do region, race, and/or religion matter? Adolescence. 2008;43:189–220. 15. Lefkowitz ES, Gillen MM, Shearer CL. Religiosity, sexual behaviors and sexual attitudes during emerging adulthood. J Sex Res. 2004;41:150–159. 16. Rostosky S, Wilcox B, Wright M, Randall B. The impact of religiosity on adolescent sexual behavior: a review of the evidence. J Adolesc Res. 2004;19:677–697. 17. Davidson JK, Moore NB, Ullstrup KM. Religiosity and sexual responsibility: relationships of choice. Am J Health Behav. 2004;28:335–346. 18. Haglund KA, Fehring RJ. The association of religiosity, sexual education, and parental factors with risky sexual behaviors JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 09:59 02 May 2015
God Locus of Control and Alcohol Use and Sexual Behavior among adolescents and young adults. J Relig Health. 2010: 49:460–472. 19. Murray KM, Ciarrocchi JW, Murray-Swank NA. Spirituality, religiosity, shame and guilt as predictors of sexual attitudes and experiences. J Psychol Theol. 2007;35:222–234. 20. Zaleski EH, Schiaffino KM. Religiosity and sexual risktaking behavior during the transition to college. J Adolesc. 2000;23:223–227. 21. MacDonald D. Spirituality: measurement and relation to five factor model of personality. J Pers. 2000;68:153–197. 22. Burnett AJ, Sabato TM, Walter KO, Kerr DL, Wagner L, Smith A. The influence of attributional style on substance use and risky sexual behavior among college students. Coll Stud J. 2013;47:122–136. 23. Wallston KA, Malcarne VL, Flores L, et al. Does God determine your health? The God health locus of control scale. Cogn Ther Res. 1999;23:131–142. 24. Welton GL, Adkins AG, Ingle SL, Dixon WA. God control: the fourth dimension. J Psychol Theol. 1996;24:13–25. 25. Holt CL, Clark EM, Klem PR. Expansion and validation of the spiritual health locus of control scale. Factor analysis and predictive validity. J Health Psychol. 2007;12:597–612. 26. Wallston KA. Conceptualization and operationalization of perceived control. In: Baum A, Revenson TA, Singer JE, eds. Handbook of Health Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001; 49–58. 27. Goggin K, Murray TS, Malcarne VL, Brown SA, Wallston KA. Do religious and control cognitions predict risky behaviors? I. Development and validation of the Alcohol-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents (AGLOC-A). Cogn Ther Res. 2007;31:111–122. 28. Goggin K, Malcarne VL, Murray TS, Metcalf KA, Wallston KA. Do religious and control cognitions predict risky behavior? II. Development and validation of the Sexual Risk Behavior-related God Locus of Control Scale for Adolescents (SexGLOC-A). Cogn Ther Res. 2007;31:123–139.
VOL 62, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014
29. Murray TS, Malcarne VL, Goggin K. Alcohol-related God/ higher power control beliefs, locus of control, and recovery within the Alcoholics Anonymous paradigm. Alcohol Treat Q. 2003; 21:23–41. 30. Kinsey AC, Pomeroy WB, Martin CE. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1948. 31. Connors GJ, Tonigan JS, Miller WR. A measure of religious background and behavior for use in behavior change research. Psychol Addict Behav. 1996;10:90–96. 32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Available at: www.cdc.gov/yrbs. Accessed February 2, 2014. 33. Strahan R, Gerbasi KC. Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. J Clin Psychol. 1972;28:191–193. 34. Wilkerson MJ, Smolensk DJ, Brady SS, Rosser BRS. Performance of the Duke religion index and the spiritual well-being scale in online samples of men who have sex with men. J Relig Health. 2013;52:610–621. 35. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:286–299. 36. Haffner DW. Dearly beloved: sexuality education in faith communities. Am J Sex Educ. 2011;6:1–6. 37. Anye ET, Gallien TL, Bian H, Moulton M. The relationship between spiritual well-being and health-related quality of life in college students. J Am Coll Health. 2013;61:414–421. 38. Saewyc EM, Bauer GR, Skay CL, et al. Measuring sexual orientation in adolescent health surveys: evaluation of eight school-based surveys. J Adolesc Health. 2004;35:e1–e15.
Received: 6 September 2013 Revised: 7 May 2014 Accepted: 10 July 2014
587
