Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1975, Vol. 43, No. 1, 40-47
Relationship of Sex Guilt and Moral Reasoning to Premarital Sex in College Women and in Couples Judith Frankel D'Augelli University of Connecticut
Herbert J. Cross Washington State University
Experiment 1 assessed 119 unmarried college women with regard to sex behavior, sex guilt, and moral reasoning. Categories of sexual expression were developed, which were useful in predicting behavior. Guilt was a better predictor of sex than morality. Maintaining virginity and losing it were multidetermined. Experiment 2 assessed 76 unmarried college couples on the same variables. Sex guilt and sex experience were associated with moral reasoning for men and for couples. The pattern of results suggests that the male partner is more influential than the female in setting standards for the couple.
Reiss (1967) observed that the sexual relationship involves a situation in which the individual is constantly making decisions. Given the open courtship system in American society, individuals have many opportunities to do what they please despite parents' wishes or society's norms. Two factors related to the decision-making process would seem to be sex guilt (Mosher, 1965) and moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1958, 1963). Sex guilt, denned as a generalized expectancy for self-mediated punishment resulting from violating or expecting to violate sexual standards (Mosher & Cross, 1971), is theoretically seen as an inhibitory mechanism. Mosher and Cross found that college students high on sex guilt were less sexually experienced than those not as guilty. When sexual activities are considered to be moral transgressions, those actions are likely to be inhibited by those predisposed to high guilt.
Moral reasoning, denned as a cognitive dispositional variable that is characterized by a consistency of logic and values in judging moral situations, can be either inhibitory or facilitory in relation to sexual behavior. There is little research relating moral reasoning to sexual behavior. In the past, sexual morality has been denned conventionally in terms of negative sanctions. The traditional moral code has emphasized what not to do; in particular, it has directed that intercourse before marriage is forbidden. Those who score high on sex guilt may define morality in this traditional way, perhaps making their behavioral decision on the basis of moral judgments. However, it is also likely that those who do engage in sexual intimacies prior to marriage make their decisions on the basis of moral judgments. Several researchers (Ehrmann, 1959; Kirkendall, 1961; Reiss, 1960, 1967) have found that codes of premarital sexual conduct are being redefined in terms of relationship-centered values rather than actcentered rules. Reiss (1960, 1967), for example, identified a transitional double standard that sanctions intercourse if a couple is engaged and a new affection-based standard that sanctions intercourse whenever love or affection is present. Thus, moral reasoning—the way an individual cognizes what is right or good in a moral dilemma—should relate to premarital sexual behavior. Until they have become sexually experienced, many young people in our society experience the prospects of intimacy, especially
Experiment 1 is based on data collected in 1969 for a master's thesis submitted by the first author to the Department of Psychology at the University of Connecticut. Research was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant GJ-9. Experiment 2 is based on data collected in 1971 for the first author's dissertation. Thanks are due to the University of Connecticut Computer Center, Pennsylvania State University Computer Center, and to the Pennsylvania State University grant for unfunded faculty research. Anthony D'Augelli, Karen Evans, Leonard Katz, Barbara Rosenthal, and Dell Scott aided greatly in data analysis. Requests for reprints should be sent to J. F. D'Augelli, Addiction Prevention Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, 1001 University Drive, State College, Pennsylvania 16801.
40
SEX GUILT AND MORAL REASONING intercourse, as a dilemma, a moral decision of some ambiguity. EXPERIMENT 1 Experiment 1 investigates this situation of "constant choice" (Reiss, 1967) in order to begin to understand the decision-making process regarding sexual conduct and relationships. It is further concerned with the development of the concept of sexual philosophy, operationalized by means of what is labeled "sexual expression categories." These are discussed in the Method section of Experiment 1. Method Subjects The subjects were 119 unmarried college women, who were volunteers from an introductory psychology course. Most were freshmen and sophomores who ranged in age from 17 to 22 years.
Procedure The subjects attended testing sessions in groups of 20 or less. They were told that the study concerned personality and sexual behavior, and that they would be asked to complete several inventories and be individually interviewed by one of four undergraduate women research assistants, who were introduced. Confidentiality was assured, and if a subject so desired, she was allowed to withdraw. Two declined to participate. The subjects completed the following questionnaires in order as part of a larger battery: the Moral Dilemmas Questionnaire (Kohlberg, 1958), the Forced-Choice Guilt Inventory (Mosher, 1968), and the Sex Experience Inventory (Brady & Levitt, 1965). All subjects were interviewed within 1 week of their testing session. Areas covered by the interview included relationships with past and present partners, reasons for engaging in certain sexual behavior and not in others, personal attitudes toward premarital sex, and parents' attitudes and influence.
Measures Forced-Choice Guilt Inventory (Mosher, 1968). This inventory was designed to assess sex guilt, morality-conscience guilt, and hostility guilt. The three variables are measured by means of independent scales, although items are not separated within the inventory itself. The female form of the sex guilt scale has possible scores ranging from +64 (high guilt) to —61 (low guilt). The Moral Dilemmas Questionnaire (Kohlberg, 1958). Kohlberg has delineated six stages of moral reasoning in an epigenetic developmental schema. These stages are subsumed by three levels of development that are premoral, conventional, and prin-
41
cipled. Kohlberg's levels and stages can be described as follows: 1. Level 1—premoral reasoning—(a) Stage 1: Obedience and punishment orientation. Orientation is toward punishment and unquestioning deference to superior power. Goodness or badness of action is determined by the physical consequences of action regardless of their human meaning, (b) Stage 2 (instrumental relativist orientation): Right action consists of that which instrumentally satisfies one's own needs and occasionally the needs of others. Human relationships are viewed in terms of the marketplace. Elements of fairness, reciprocity, and sharing are present but are interpreted in a pragmatic way—"You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." 2. Level 2—conventional reasoning—(a) Stage 3 (personal concordance orientation): There is a good boy, good girl orientation. Good behavior pleases or helps others and is approved by others. There is much conformity to stereotypical images of "natural" behavior to majority behavior. Behavior is often judged by intention, (b) Stage 4 (law and order orientation): The orientation is toward authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. Right behavior consists of doing one's duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the status quo for its own sake. The individual earns respect by performing dutifully. 3. Level 3—principled reasoning—(a) Stage S (social contract orientation): This stage emphasizes mutual agreement between people as binding, whether implicit or explicit. Right action tends to be defined in terms of standards agreed upon by the society following critical examination. There is an awareness of the relativism of personal values; right or wrong is a matter of personal values and opinion aside from what is constitutionally agreed upon. It is possible to change the law; it is not fixed and rigid as in Stage 4. (b) Stage 6 (individual principles orientation): There is an orientation toward the decisions of conscience and self-chosen ethical principles based on logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. These principles are abstract and ethical rather than being concrete rules, and the 10 Commandments. They are universal principles of justice, reciprocity, and equality of human rights and dignity. For the purposes of this study, Kohlberg's Moral Dilemmas Questionnaire was adapted. Six moral dilemmas were administered. Three were of a general nature (e.g., the issue of stealing to save a life), and three were of a sexual nature (e.g., the issue of extramarital relationships). Scoring was done by three judges trained in Kohlberg's method. Each dilemma was given a major stage score and, if necessary, a minor stage score. The scores are weighted appropriately to arrive at the modal stage score—the stage most representative of the individual's moral reasoning. This was the score used in the analyses. Sex Experience Inventory (Brady &• Levitt, 1965). This questionnaire gathers information about the
42
JUDITH F. D'AuoEixi AND HERBERT J. CROSS
specific nature of the subject's sex experience with her partners, feeling about the experiences, and reasons for not participating in further experiences. The behaviors are arranged to conform to a Guttman-type scale, implying that if a subject states that she has engaged in a particular activity, there is a high probability that she has engaged in all of the behaviors lower on the scale.
Treatment Groups There are two sets of treatment groups: the sex experience categories and the sexual expression categories. On the basis of their responses to the Sex Experience Inventory, subjects were classified into five sex experience categories: (a) neckers—those who have engaged in kissing and/or tongue kissing; (b) light petters—those who have engaged in any of the above plus manual manipulation of and/or oral contact with clad or unclad breasts; (c) heavy petters—those who have engaged in any of the above plus manual manipulation of the genitalia of or by the partner; (d) technical virgins—those who have engaged in any of the above plus oral-genital contact of or by the partner; and (e) nonvirgins—those who have engaged in any of the above plus intercourse, front-front or front-back. These classifications were made purely on the basis of amount of experience. In contrast to this, the subjects were also classified by four judges into one of the six following sexual expression categories on the basis of their sexual philosophies as expressed in the interview: 1. Inexperienced virgins. These individuals usually have little dating experience until college. Their relationships have not been serious or involved. They have not thought much about sex, the relationship they desire, or about themselves. They may be moralistic about sex, although not necessarily. They have a close relationship with their parents and do not want to hurt them. Their sexual experience has usually been kissing, necking, or light petting. 2. Adamant virgins. These individuals are set in their idea that intercourse should be saved for marriage: "Virginity is a gift for the husband" is a predominant theme. However, they may say that premarital intercourse is permissible for others—it is up to the individual. They say that they do not feel guilty about light or heavy petting but say they would feel guilty about going further. They often project control to the partner and presently pet with someone special, They do not usually confine themselves to one partner. There is a sense that the marriage license is important in assuring that the partner is the "right" one. Their family or religion is often mentioned as influencing their sexual views in direct ways. 3. Potential nonvirgins. These individuals often say that given the right situation, they would have intercourse. They say that they have not yet been in the right situation and/or have not yet met the right person. They feel that premarital intercourse is morally alright, but they have a high fear of pregnancy. They seem to want more security than they have in their present relationships, at least at the
point of development in the relationship, and the idea of commitment of some sort and love are important to them. They seem frustrated by their cautiousness or inconsistency; sometimes they just seem to be honest about their potential for different behavior. 4. Engaged nonvirgins. These individuals have had intercourse usually with one person only, although not necessarily. This person is usually considered someone very much loved and may be the fiancd: Often, marriage or some future commitment is mentioned, but the important thing in justifying the sexual behavior is the love between the partners. The relationship is described as very close and very important, and the development of that relationship is of high value to them. They usually have discussed sex with their partner, if not before having intercourse, then after. Morality is considered up to the individual. 5. Liberated nonvirgins. These individuals engage in sex in a freer way than others; their behavior springs from their philosophy of life: They have a freer, looser life style and are not interested in the security of the relationship as much as in the relationship itself. Sex within the context of the meaning of the relationship is important, and what is stressed is the agreed-upon meaning of the two partners. The physical act itself is valued for its pleasure. Reciprocal pleasure giving as well as other reciprocities are important. 6. Confused nonvirgins. These individuals engage in sex without real understanding of their motivation, the'place of sex in their lives, or its effects on them. There is usually some ambivalence about having had intercourse under these circumstances, especially if there have been many partners. The relationships between them and their partners usually fizzle out. They seem generally confused about themselves and may be characterized as having a diffuse identity. Sex is seen as a pleasure and a need; it also seems to be the means to an end, an attempt to establish relationships.
RESULTS Reliability Interjudge reliability was estimated for both the Kohlberg Moral Dilemmas Questionnaire and for the classification of subjects into sexual expression categories. For the former, reliability was computed on the basis of percentage of agreement, following Kohlberg's method, for the three judges' scores for 20 protocols (120 dilemmas). Interjudge reliability averaged 80%. For the sexual expression categories, interjudge reliability was also based on percentage of agreement in 20 interviews across the four judges. Agreement averaged &5%.
SEX GUILT AND MORAL .REASONING
43
TABLE 1 SEX GUILT AS A FUNCTION or SEX EXPERIENCE CATEGORIES AND SEXUAL EXPRESSION CATEGORIES Sex experience category"
n
2
Sexual expression category11
n
X
Neckers Light petters Heavy petters Technical virgins Non virgins
11 20 30 12 46
-19.4 -21.9 -30.5 -39.7 -43.0
Inexperienced virgins Adamant virgins Potential nonvirgins Engaged nonvirgins Liberated nonvirgins Confused nonvirgins
19 26 31 28 9 6
-16.4 -21.4 -39.5 -41.6 -53.5 -57.4
« P(l, 114) = S.S4, t < .001. >>F(5, 113) = 9.01, t
Relationship of Sex Guilt and Moral Reasoning to Premarital Sex in College Women and in Couples Judith Frankel D'Augelli University of Connecticut
Herbert J. Cross Washington State University
Experiment 1 assessed 119 unmarried college women with regard to sex behavior, sex guilt, and moral reasoning. Categories of sexual expression were developed, which were useful in predicting behavior. Guilt was a better predictor of sex than morality. Maintaining virginity and losing it were multidetermined. Experiment 2 assessed 76 unmarried college couples on the same variables. Sex guilt and sex experience were associated with moral reasoning for men and for couples. The pattern of results suggests that the male partner is more influential than the female in setting standards for the couple.
Reiss (1967) observed that the sexual relationship involves a situation in which the individual is constantly making decisions. Given the open courtship system in American society, individuals have many opportunities to do what they please despite parents' wishes or society's norms. Two factors related to the decision-making process would seem to be sex guilt (Mosher, 1965) and moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1958, 1963). Sex guilt, denned as a generalized expectancy for self-mediated punishment resulting from violating or expecting to violate sexual standards (Mosher & Cross, 1971), is theoretically seen as an inhibitory mechanism. Mosher and Cross found that college students high on sex guilt were less sexually experienced than those not as guilty. When sexual activities are considered to be moral transgressions, those actions are likely to be inhibited by those predisposed to high guilt.
Moral reasoning, denned as a cognitive dispositional variable that is characterized by a consistency of logic and values in judging moral situations, can be either inhibitory or facilitory in relation to sexual behavior. There is little research relating moral reasoning to sexual behavior. In the past, sexual morality has been denned conventionally in terms of negative sanctions. The traditional moral code has emphasized what not to do; in particular, it has directed that intercourse before marriage is forbidden. Those who score high on sex guilt may define morality in this traditional way, perhaps making their behavioral decision on the basis of moral judgments. However, it is also likely that those who do engage in sexual intimacies prior to marriage make their decisions on the basis of moral judgments. Several researchers (Ehrmann, 1959; Kirkendall, 1961; Reiss, 1960, 1967) have found that codes of premarital sexual conduct are being redefined in terms of relationship-centered values rather than actcentered rules. Reiss (1960, 1967), for example, identified a transitional double standard that sanctions intercourse if a couple is engaged and a new affection-based standard that sanctions intercourse whenever love or affection is present. Thus, moral reasoning—the way an individual cognizes what is right or good in a moral dilemma—should relate to premarital sexual behavior. Until they have become sexually experienced, many young people in our society experience the prospects of intimacy, especially
Experiment 1 is based on data collected in 1969 for a master's thesis submitted by the first author to the Department of Psychology at the University of Connecticut. Research was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant GJ-9. Experiment 2 is based on data collected in 1971 for the first author's dissertation. Thanks are due to the University of Connecticut Computer Center, Pennsylvania State University Computer Center, and to the Pennsylvania State University grant for unfunded faculty research. Anthony D'Augelli, Karen Evans, Leonard Katz, Barbara Rosenthal, and Dell Scott aided greatly in data analysis. Requests for reprints should be sent to J. F. D'Augelli, Addiction Prevention Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, 1001 University Drive, State College, Pennsylvania 16801.
40
SEX GUILT AND MORAL REASONING intercourse, as a dilemma, a moral decision of some ambiguity. EXPERIMENT 1 Experiment 1 investigates this situation of "constant choice" (Reiss, 1967) in order to begin to understand the decision-making process regarding sexual conduct and relationships. It is further concerned with the development of the concept of sexual philosophy, operationalized by means of what is labeled "sexual expression categories." These are discussed in the Method section of Experiment 1. Method Subjects The subjects were 119 unmarried college women, who were volunteers from an introductory psychology course. Most were freshmen and sophomores who ranged in age from 17 to 22 years.
Procedure The subjects attended testing sessions in groups of 20 or less. They were told that the study concerned personality and sexual behavior, and that they would be asked to complete several inventories and be individually interviewed by one of four undergraduate women research assistants, who were introduced. Confidentiality was assured, and if a subject so desired, she was allowed to withdraw. Two declined to participate. The subjects completed the following questionnaires in order as part of a larger battery: the Moral Dilemmas Questionnaire (Kohlberg, 1958), the Forced-Choice Guilt Inventory (Mosher, 1968), and the Sex Experience Inventory (Brady & Levitt, 1965). All subjects were interviewed within 1 week of their testing session. Areas covered by the interview included relationships with past and present partners, reasons for engaging in certain sexual behavior and not in others, personal attitudes toward premarital sex, and parents' attitudes and influence.
Measures Forced-Choice Guilt Inventory (Mosher, 1968). This inventory was designed to assess sex guilt, morality-conscience guilt, and hostility guilt. The three variables are measured by means of independent scales, although items are not separated within the inventory itself. The female form of the sex guilt scale has possible scores ranging from +64 (high guilt) to —61 (low guilt). The Moral Dilemmas Questionnaire (Kohlberg, 1958). Kohlberg has delineated six stages of moral reasoning in an epigenetic developmental schema. These stages are subsumed by three levels of development that are premoral, conventional, and prin-
41
cipled. Kohlberg's levels and stages can be described as follows: 1. Level 1—premoral reasoning—(a) Stage 1: Obedience and punishment orientation. Orientation is toward punishment and unquestioning deference to superior power. Goodness or badness of action is determined by the physical consequences of action regardless of their human meaning, (b) Stage 2 (instrumental relativist orientation): Right action consists of that which instrumentally satisfies one's own needs and occasionally the needs of others. Human relationships are viewed in terms of the marketplace. Elements of fairness, reciprocity, and sharing are present but are interpreted in a pragmatic way—"You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." 2. Level 2—conventional reasoning—(a) Stage 3 (personal concordance orientation): There is a good boy, good girl orientation. Good behavior pleases or helps others and is approved by others. There is much conformity to stereotypical images of "natural" behavior to majority behavior. Behavior is often judged by intention, (b) Stage 4 (law and order orientation): The orientation is toward authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. Right behavior consists of doing one's duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the status quo for its own sake. The individual earns respect by performing dutifully. 3. Level 3—principled reasoning—(a) Stage S (social contract orientation): This stage emphasizes mutual agreement between people as binding, whether implicit or explicit. Right action tends to be defined in terms of standards agreed upon by the society following critical examination. There is an awareness of the relativism of personal values; right or wrong is a matter of personal values and opinion aside from what is constitutionally agreed upon. It is possible to change the law; it is not fixed and rigid as in Stage 4. (b) Stage 6 (individual principles orientation): There is an orientation toward the decisions of conscience and self-chosen ethical principles based on logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. These principles are abstract and ethical rather than being concrete rules, and the 10 Commandments. They are universal principles of justice, reciprocity, and equality of human rights and dignity. For the purposes of this study, Kohlberg's Moral Dilemmas Questionnaire was adapted. Six moral dilemmas were administered. Three were of a general nature (e.g., the issue of stealing to save a life), and three were of a sexual nature (e.g., the issue of extramarital relationships). Scoring was done by three judges trained in Kohlberg's method. Each dilemma was given a major stage score and, if necessary, a minor stage score. The scores are weighted appropriately to arrive at the modal stage score—the stage most representative of the individual's moral reasoning. This was the score used in the analyses. Sex Experience Inventory (Brady &• Levitt, 1965). This questionnaire gathers information about the
42
JUDITH F. D'AuoEixi AND HERBERT J. CROSS
specific nature of the subject's sex experience with her partners, feeling about the experiences, and reasons for not participating in further experiences. The behaviors are arranged to conform to a Guttman-type scale, implying that if a subject states that she has engaged in a particular activity, there is a high probability that she has engaged in all of the behaviors lower on the scale.
Treatment Groups There are two sets of treatment groups: the sex experience categories and the sexual expression categories. On the basis of their responses to the Sex Experience Inventory, subjects were classified into five sex experience categories: (a) neckers—those who have engaged in kissing and/or tongue kissing; (b) light petters—those who have engaged in any of the above plus manual manipulation of and/or oral contact with clad or unclad breasts; (c) heavy petters—those who have engaged in any of the above plus manual manipulation of the genitalia of or by the partner; (d) technical virgins—those who have engaged in any of the above plus oral-genital contact of or by the partner; and (e) nonvirgins—those who have engaged in any of the above plus intercourse, front-front or front-back. These classifications were made purely on the basis of amount of experience. In contrast to this, the subjects were also classified by four judges into one of the six following sexual expression categories on the basis of their sexual philosophies as expressed in the interview: 1. Inexperienced virgins. These individuals usually have little dating experience until college. Their relationships have not been serious or involved. They have not thought much about sex, the relationship they desire, or about themselves. They may be moralistic about sex, although not necessarily. They have a close relationship with their parents and do not want to hurt them. Their sexual experience has usually been kissing, necking, or light petting. 2. Adamant virgins. These individuals are set in their idea that intercourse should be saved for marriage: "Virginity is a gift for the husband" is a predominant theme. However, they may say that premarital intercourse is permissible for others—it is up to the individual. They say that they do not feel guilty about light or heavy petting but say they would feel guilty about going further. They often project control to the partner and presently pet with someone special, They do not usually confine themselves to one partner. There is a sense that the marriage license is important in assuring that the partner is the "right" one. Their family or religion is often mentioned as influencing their sexual views in direct ways. 3. Potential nonvirgins. These individuals often say that given the right situation, they would have intercourse. They say that they have not yet been in the right situation and/or have not yet met the right person. They feel that premarital intercourse is morally alright, but they have a high fear of pregnancy. They seem to want more security than they have in their present relationships, at least at the
point of development in the relationship, and the idea of commitment of some sort and love are important to them. They seem frustrated by their cautiousness or inconsistency; sometimes they just seem to be honest about their potential for different behavior. 4. Engaged nonvirgins. These individuals have had intercourse usually with one person only, although not necessarily. This person is usually considered someone very much loved and may be the fiancd: Often, marriage or some future commitment is mentioned, but the important thing in justifying the sexual behavior is the love between the partners. The relationship is described as very close and very important, and the development of that relationship is of high value to them. They usually have discussed sex with their partner, if not before having intercourse, then after. Morality is considered up to the individual. 5. Liberated nonvirgins. These individuals engage in sex in a freer way than others; their behavior springs from their philosophy of life: They have a freer, looser life style and are not interested in the security of the relationship as much as in the relationship itself. Sex within the context of the meaning of the relationship is important, and what is stressed is the agreed-upon meaning of the two partners. The physical act itself is valued for its pleasure. Reciprocal pleasure giving as well as other reciprocities are important. 6. Confused nonvirgins. These individuals engage in sex without real understanding of their motivation, the'place of sex in their lives, or its effects on them. There is usually some ambivalence about having had intercourse under these circumstances, especially if there have been many partners. The relationships between them and their partners usually fizzle out. They seem generally confused about themselves and may be characterized as having a diffuse identity. Sex is seen as a pleasure and a need; it also seems to be the means to an end, an attempt to establish relationships.
RESULTS Reliability Interjudge reliability was estimated for both the Kohlberg Moral Dilemmas Questionnaire and for the classification of subjects into sexual expression categories. For the former, reliability was computed on the basis of percentage of agreement, following Kohlberg's method, for the three judges' scores for 20 protocols (120 dilemmas). Interjudge reliability averaged 80%. For the sexual expression categories, interjudge reliability was also based on percentage of agreement in 20 interviews across the four judges. Agreement averaged &5%.
SEX GUILT AND MORAL .REASONING
43
TABLE 1 SEX GUILT AS A FUNCTION or SEX EXPERIENCE CATEGORIES AND SEXUAL EXPRESSION CATEGORIES Sex experience category"
n
2
Sexual expression category11
n
X
Neckers Light petters Heavy petters Technical virgins Non virgins
11 20 30 12 46
-19.4 -21.9 -30.5 -39.7 -43.0
Inexperienced virgins Adamant virgins Potential nonvirgins Engaged nonvirgins Liberated nonvirgins Confused nonvirgins
19 26 31 28 9 6
-16.4 -21.4 -39.5 -41.6 -53.5 -57.4
« P(l, 114) = S.S4, t < .001. >>F(5, 113) = 9.01, t
