Content uploaded by Reb Xiberras
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Reb Xiberras on Jun 01, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY
The Perceptions of University Students towards Promiscuity
Have we become more open to casual sex?
Rebecca Xiberras
University of Malta
This dissertation is presented to the Faculty of Social Wellbeing
in part of the fulfilment of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Psychology (Hons)
May 2016
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY i
UNIVERSITY OF MALTA
FACULTY/INSTITUTE/CENTRE/SCHOOL Social Wellbeing
DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY FOR UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
Student’s I.D. /Code 16BPSY078
Student’s Name & Surname Rebeccca Xiberras
Course Bachelor of Psychology (Hons)________________
Title of Long Essay/Dissertation
The Perceptions of University Students towards Promiscuity
____________________ ___Have we become more open to casual sex? _________
I hereby declare that I am the legitimate author of this Long Essay/Dissertation and that it is my
original work.
No portion of this work has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or
qualification of this or any other university or institution of higher education.
I hold the University of Malta harmless against any third party claims with regard to copyright
violation, breach of confidentiality, defamation and any other third party right infringement.
______________________ May 2016
Signature of Student Date
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY ii
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge my tutor Dr. Nicholas Briffa for his help and Professor Liberato
Camilleri for his assistance in analysing statistical data.
I would also like to thank Nicola Falzon and Steve Borg amongst other friends for their
constant support. And last but not least I would like to thank my family; without you I would
not have passed secondary school!
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to Betapsi and LGBTI+ Gozo.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY iii
Abstract
This research aimed to study the perceptions of students at the University of Malta towards
promiscuity and casual sex. Since there are variations of willingness in engagement of
uncommitted sex, Casual sex was defined as ‘sociosexuality’ a term coined by Kinsey (1948).
On the same premise a quantitative approach has been adopted, using the Sociosexual
Orientation Inventory Test; invented by Simpson and Gangsted (1991) and revised by Penke
(2008). The questionnaire asked about past behaviour, particularly about number of partners
within the last 12 months, and obtained attitudes by rating whether sex without love is ok, and
finally gathered information about sexual desire by rating frequency of sexual fantasies.
Participants were assembled randomly through convenience sampling. A link to the online
questionnaire was sent through registrar; gathering a sample of 251 participants (182 females).
The results were analysed through SPSS. Through this research, insight about the attitudes
regarding uncommitted sex of University of Malta students have been obtained. Results show
that even if males have a higher sexual desire and more open attitude towards casual sex, there
is no difference with regards to behaviour. On the other hand, those aged 19 – 23 score higher
on attitude and behaviour than their older and/or younger counterparts. Finally, bisexuals and
pansexuals seem to have a higher sexual desire and permissive attitudes towards casual sex but
there is no significance in behaviour.
Key words: sex, promiscuity, sexual orientation, sexual desire, attitude, sexual
behaviour, casual sex, sociosexuality, age, gender, sexual orientation
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY iv
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................. iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................... iv
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
Sex .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Research Agenda .................................................................................................................. 2
Layout .................................................................................................................................... 3
Literature Review ............................................................................................... 4
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4
Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 4
Sex. ................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Casual sex. .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Meaningful Sex. ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Gender Differences ............................................................................................................... 6
Evolutionary Approach ....................................................................................................... 7
Casual sex. .................................................................................................................................................... 8
Have We Become More Open to Casual Sex? ................................................................. 10
No Strings Attached ........................................................................................................... 12
The college lifestyle and casual sex. .......................................................................................................... 13
Sexual Fluidity .................................................................................................................... 16
Social Influence and Malta ................................................................................................ 17
Religion. ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
Media. ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 19
Methodology ...................................................................................................... 20
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY v
Research Method ................................................................................................................ 20
Hypotheses. ................................................................................................................................................. 21
Method of Sampling ........................................................................................................... 21
Research Design.................................................................................................................. 22
Variables. .................................................................................................................................................... 23
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 24
Results ................................................................................................................ 25
Normality Distribution Tests............................................................................................. 25
Attitude, Behaviour and Desire ........................................................................................ 25
The Kruskal Wallis Test .................................................................................................... 26
Gender ................................................................................................................................. 27
Age ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Sexual Orientation.............................................................................................................. 28
Discussion ........................................................................................................... 28
Behaviour, Attitude and Desire ........................................................................................ 28
Gender ................................................................................................................................. 29
Age ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Sexual Orientation.............................................................................................................. 30
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 31
Main Findings ..................................................................................................................... 31
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 32
Usefulness of Data .............................................................................................................. 32
Suggestions for Future Research ...................................................................................... 33
Personal Recommendations .............................................................................................. 33
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................... 42
APPENDIX B .................................................................................................... 44
APPENDIX C .................................................................................................... 46
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 1
Introduction
Sex
“Sexuality is part of what makes us humans” (Psychology Today, 2014)
This quote captures perfectly the reason why this study was conducted. For a long
time I had a keen interest in sexuality; how some view sexuality solely for reproduction and
others view it as a means of physical gratification; how although we all possess a sexuality,
some of us are in touch with it, while others are not. Due to this, sexuality has gained interest
from various areas including psychology, psychiatry and medicine (Clark & Hatfield, 1989;
Kinsey, 1948; Owen, Rhodes, Stanley & Finchman, 2008). However, even if sexuality is an
important factor in our lives and there has been an ever growing research (Grello, Welsh &
Harper, 2010; Markey & Markey 2013; Diamond, 2008) sexuality is still a wide spectrum
that has various facets that have yet to be discovered. This has encouraged me to investigate
further and therefore choose the topic of sexuality for this research, more precisely that of
casual sex. The topic of casual sex was chosen since as cited by Moore and Rosenthal (1991)
in recent times young adults from Western countries have engaged more in pre-marital sex,
and are more likely to have multiple hook-ups. The above has led to the research question
“What are the university students’ perceptions towards promiscuity?” which aims to analyse
perspectives of students enrolled at the University of Malta on casual sex. There are
individual variations in participating in uncommitted sex. Kinsey coined the term sociosexual
orientation (1948) to define “individual differences in people’s willingness to engage in
uncommitted sexual relationships (as cited in Moreno & McKerral, 2015 p.1).
The research conducted delves into the concepts of whether men are as promiscuous
as they are portrayed in the media, and theories about casual sex. This research also examines
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 2
if we are becoming more open towards uncommitted sex and if women really need a reason
before engaging in casual sex.
Does previous experience of casual sex lead to more openness about the topic? Does
attitude towards sexuality affect the number of sexual experiences? Is it true that homosexual
men are more promiscuous then heterosexual men? Does being more sexually fluid lead to
promiscuity? Is there an evolution advantage for infidelity? Do men and women have the
same view towards committed relationships? These questions will be posed and answered in
the literature review and results.
Research Agenda
The research will tackle the possible different views of casual sex amongst young
males and females. The participants will be assembled through random sampling using a
convenience sampling technique from a university database; Registrar. An online
standardised questionnaire will be used to discover the attitude, behaviour and desire towards
sociosexuality and casual sex. The test used is the revised version of the Sociosexual
Orientation Inventory test. The test was created by Simpson and Gangestad (1991) and is
used as a type of short self-report to identify if there is a global difference in sociosexual
orientations. The concept of sociosexuality instigated various interest in numerous branches
of psychology after being introduced by Kinsey (1948).
I will be analysing the correlation between behaviour, attitude and desire and if there
is a significant relation between these facets. For the purpose of this study I will also be
comparing ‘gender’, ‘age’ and ‘sexual orientation’ and their relation to attitude, behaviour
and desire. The questionnaire is in the form of a Likert scale and the data collected will be
analysed through the statistical program SPSS.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 3
Layout
This research will be divided in various chapters. The second chapter will involve a
review of literature pertinent to the topics of casual and meaningful sex, perspectives on
promiscuity from an evolutionary approach, gender differences in casual sex both from an
evolutionary and social perspective, sexual fluidity with regards to sexual behaviour and
social influences on casual sex whilst taking into consideration the local context. This chapter
will also explore literature that indicates that different attitudes and desire lead to different
sexual behaviour.
The third chapter will be composed of the research methodology used for this study, it
will also report an analysis of data as well as the sampling method and research tools
involved. The fourth chapter will then include the results and a discussion of that data, it will
analyse the attitude, desire and behaviour facets and their relationship. This chapter will also
discuss the significant demographic variables that impacted the outcome of the results namely
gender, age, and sexual orientation.
The final chapter will involve a conclusion of the study, reviewing and recapitulating
whether promiscuous sexual behaviour is based on attitude and desire, contrasting and
comparing the variances between sexes and other key arguments that will arise from data
analysis. In conclusion the chapter will contain limitations and valuableness of this research
and any recommendations for future research in the same field. Finally there will also be
included some personal recommendations that will arise from the literature.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 4
Literature Review
Introduction
Sexuality is made up of different facets, although we are all aware that we possess a
sexuality, some of us are in touch with it while others are not; some of us view sexual
behaviour as an intimate act while others view it as a physical need.
As an introduction to the topic definitions of sex, casual sex and meaningful sex will
be provided whilst also contrasting the differences between them. The research will look at
the literature and discuss the history of casual sex, the college experiences and lifestyle with
regards to sexuality, the social influence on sexuality and the evolution perspective on
promiscuity.
Subsequently other factors will be examined which influence both meaningful and
casual sex. Such factors include culture, gender, personality and sexual orientation. The
Maltese context will also be explored with regards to attitudes towards sex and casual sex and
discussing whether these attitudes support the statistical data; and therefore whether attitude
effects behaviour.
Definitions
Sex. Colman (2009), defines the term ‘sex’ as either being a biological category or a
short term for sexual intercourse “or any of the activities associated with it” (p. 692). The
second meaning is the one that this study will be exploring. Other terms used for sex include
‘making love’, ‘coitus’, and ‘fornicating’. There are also slang terms that one has to consider
and these include ‘humping’ or ‘getting laid’ (Reber & Reber, 2001, p. 673).
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 5
Casual sex. Grello, Welsh, & Harper (2006, p.255) made mention of the different
definitions of casual sex interactions; "chance encounters" (Fisher & Byrne,1978), "one-night
stands" (Cubbins & Tanfer, 2000; Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), "hookups" (Paul, McManus,
& Hayes, 2000), "sociosexuality" (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), "anonymous sex"
(McGuire, Shega, Nicholls, & Deese, 1992), and "casual sex" (Regan & Dreyer, 1999). In the
mainstream media, it has also been given different names such as "meaningless sex"
(Solomon & Taylor, 2000), "friends with benefits," and "booty call" (Marklein, 2002).
Irrespective of the use of the different terms above, all these expressions describe a sexual
relationship where two individuals are unromantically involved and do not view each other as
partners. This is how it will be defined in this study.
Meaningful Sex. Meaningful sex is the opposite of casual sex. In the Cambridge
dictionary of Psychology (2009) the word “meaningful” is defined as expressing something
important or serious. Taking this into consideration, meaningful sex is when affection and
care towards the other partner is present. Unlike casual sex, which was defined as
‘meaningless sex’ (Solomon & Taylor, 2000) meaningful sex is an action mostly engaged by
two partners who are in a romantic committed long term relationship. This is how it will be
defined in this study.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 6
Gender Differences
It has been long reported that more men than women engage in casual sex (Buss &
Barnes, 1986; Eysenck,1976; Griffit & Hatfield, 1985; Mc Cormick 1979; Slapion-Foote, &
Foote, 1985). College men tend to report more non judgmental attitudes towards casual sex
than women (Peterson & Hyde, 2011). It has also been reported that more men than women
participate in young adolescents studies of casual hookup sex (Grello et al., 2006). An
experiment conducted on a university campus by Clark and Hatfield (1989) studied sexual
permissiveness. This study concluded that while both men and women professed similar
willingness to go on a date, there was a significant difference in responses between genders
when asked to engage in a sexual act with a stranger. The findings suggested that women are
less likely to engage in uncommitted sex than men. However, Conley, Moors, Matsick,
Ziegler and Valentine (2011) suggest that what was analysed in this study was young
adoloscents’ risky behaviour rather than being involved in non romantic sexual intercourse.
Barawonski and Hecht (2015) argue that these women might have wanted to participate in
casual sex however when they assessed the situation they might have considered it too risky.
In fact Black.et al (2011) surveyed a sample of approximately 16,500 adults in the U.S with
45% of the women reporting being victims of some sort of sexual violence. Due to the fear
of being a victim, women might have a fear of being involved in casual sex. Moreover,
Lambert, Kahn and Apple (2003) report that men are more comfortable with their genitals
than women. Women report perceiving their genitals and their partners genitals more
negatively than men do (Reinholtz & Muehlenhard, 1995), which could make a woman less
comfortbale enjoying casual sex than a man.
Conley (2010), proposes that a person’s perceived sexual skills are a predictor of
consent from the recipient. Other studies (Gue´guen, 2011; Hald&Høgh-Olesen, 2010)
propose that it is attractiveness that is a predictor of consent. Barawonski and Hecht (2015)
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 7
argue that both sexual skills and attractiveness are intercorrelated predictors, making them a
part of a common higher- order construct.
Men when compared to women tend to have a superior self orientation as opposed to
other orientations towards sex (Patrick, Maggs & Abar, 2007). Men also tend to report having
more game – playing attitudes about romantic relationships. These significant differences are
in line with evolutionary theories’ (Reiber & Garcia, 2010) approach to sexuality.
Nevertheless, despite the differences between genders in attitudes and behaviours, cross –
sectional research shows that persons who engage in casual sex, being either men or women
are more open towards the idea and possess less judgmental attitudes about sexuality in
general than those who do not (Grello et al., 2006; Townsend & Wasserman, 2011)
Evolutionary Approach
When one researches literature about sexuality and more specifically casual sex, one
can’t help but notice the amount of importance given to the evolutionary perspective and its
theories. Several eras ago, a man named Charles Darwin became interested in how animals
formed characteristics that seemed to be a threat to their own survival. Darwin wondered how
even though these characterisitcs seemed to hinder their survival they became even more
common. Darwin finally came to the conclusion that these characteristics did not cater for
survival but rather for reproductive value (Buss, 2003 [1994]).
Darwin’s theory tries to describe mating behaviour by distinguishing two major
practices: mate inclination and competition for a mate. In the 1970’s and 1980’s Buss and
colleagues tried to link psychology and anthropology with evolutionary theories; it was
opposed by various traditional social scientists especially with regards to the theory of sexual
selection. They insisted that it reduced the human behaviour to animalistic instinct and
lessened the uniqueness of humans. However Buss and colleagues conducted an international
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 8
research to study human mating behaviour covering not only Europe but other countries and
continents; from Shangai in China to Tel Aviv in Isreal, to Australia. The survey included
10,047 participants and the results caused not only confusion but also a shift in thinking about
human sexual psychology (Buss 2003 [1994])
Casual sex. The encounter of casual sex entails the permission of two persons.
Evolutionary approaches argue that if casual sex had not been practiced before and women
had only mated with a single man for a lifetime then this practice would have vanished.
Evolutionary psychology argues that casual sex started in ancestoral environments as the man
failed to guard his woman leading to extramarital affairs. It is interesting to note that even
though this phenomenon has been present for a long time, most research still focuses on
marriage. Society tends to stigmatise those who are promiscous due to our own values. For
people who are in a committed relationship the presence of unfaithful people is a threat of
marital infidelity, while for those without a partner the presence of promiscous persons is a
threat to finding a partner due to lack of commitment (Buss, 2003).
This can in turn lead to mate poaching. Mate poaching is a tactic were
one lures a mate that is already in a committed relationship. The earliest written story about
mate poaching is the story of King David in the bible; making the practice of mate poaching
ancient. However, the term was first coined in 1994 and the first study of human mate
poaching was conducted by the Buss Lab and in 2001. Mate poachers are skilled most of the
time at identifying cracks in the relationship and are also commonly knows as faithful
acquintances to the couple. However when the opportunity is present they turn into poaching
mode (Metson & Buss, 2009).
Evolutionary theory argues that we have developed variations in our behaviour,
psychology, and physiology that reflect patterns practiced in ancient eras. Studies about
men’s testes and ejaculation volume (Smith, 1984; Short, 1979) produce a history of
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 9
evolutionary adaptations for short term sexual strategies. As cited in Buss (2003, [1994]) size
of testes in the gorillas account for 0.018% of the body weight, while for human males it is
0.079 % leading researchers to believe that there was an ancient adapatability for
uncommitted sex. Infact researchers believe that this is solid proof that in ancient history
woman used to engage in uncommitted sexual behaviours in a period of a few days. These
results, however prove that our ancestors were not as promiscous as the chimpanzees, whose
testes account for 0.269% of body weight, leading us to believe that a line was drawn (Buss,
2003 [1994]). Other studies examining sperm production of males, support the idea of an
evolutionary adaptation of casual sex. A study conducted by Baker and Bellis (in press a)
shows that a man seems to inseminate enough sperm in one act, to replace that of other men.
Findings indicated that when couples spent 100% of the time together the male produced 389
million sperm, while when the couples only spent 5% of the time together; and therefore have
more chances of extramarital encounters, the male produced 712 million sperm. Another
study coducted in Britian (Baker & Bellis, in press c) produced shocking findings, as
researchers recorded the menstrual cycle and the sexual encounters of women, both with their
husbands and with their lovers. The research demonstrated that most extramarital affairs
occurred mostly during ovulation. Evolutionary theory argues that this makes sense, as the
woman would be getting supreme genes from one mate while securing investment from
another (Buss, 2003 [1994])
In the introduction of this paper, it was stated that there are several motivations
behind the reason of why people have sex. Infidelity is an outcome that comes about due to
one of these motivations . Although infidelity causes a mixture of emotions, evolutionary
theorists postulate that there are two underlying benefits for it.The first one is that the person
gathers information about whether they are still desired, the second one is to test ones own
sexual skills. Despite these benefits one can still notice the significant difference in men and
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 10
women, with women’s crucial motivation for sex being emotion and that of men being desire.
Buss (2003) argues that apart from physiological and behavioural adaptations, we have also
developed psychological cues for casual sex; lust. Lust is a psychological adaptive technique
towards a direct multiplication of offsprings. Symons (1979) stated that “Even if only one
impulse is consummated, the function of lust nonetheless is to motivate sexual intercourse”
(as cited in Buss, 2003 [1994]).
Buller (2005) criticised the evolutionary approach claiming that even though there is
no single flaw within the field there are underlying shortcomings in specific theses. Buller
argued that we could never have enough knowledge about problems from the past, that there
was no one specific problem that was ever stable over evolutionary time and that even if it
was stable it does not necessarily lead to a problem-solving mechanism. As critics respond
back to Buller, they argue that although his criticism is admirable it is also filled with flaws;
he makes the logical mistake of not understanding that all other things are equal (Delton,
Robertson & Kenrick, 2006).
Have We Become More Open to Casual Sex?
Although evolutionary approaches seem to view casual sex as adaptable, evidence
suggests that humans no longer takes these advantages into consideration due to other
concerns and needs. Different studies support this as they research different perceptions,
attitudes and general behaviours towards sex (Darmanin, 2011).
Maticka, Herold, & Mewhinney (1998) conducted a study during spring break in
Canada, a week long break were students are known to change city and to experiment with
different substances and engage in different activities including casaul sex. The results
showed that 31% of females and 80% of males intended to have casaul sex during this
period. Although gender attitudes differ, the result still is at sharp odds with the finding of ten
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 11
years earlier of Clark and Hatfield (1989). This goes to show the different mentalities
thatdifferent generations have towards casual sex. According to Ruse (1987) due to the
development of contraceptions women have the liberty to behave like men, with less fear of
many consequences faced by previous generations such as pregnancy and diseases. Maticka.
et al (1998) notes that asking certain questions in a certain setting will affect the answer
given. This influences the sexual freedom of a person; meaning that if a person feels free to
sexually act as they please it will result into a behvaiour that is totally different from how one
would behave in another setting. Nevertheless, as Sherif (1936) states, sometimes people’s
behaviour is based on other people’s attitude and behaviour meaning that social influence is
an important factor when it comes to behaving in a certain way which in return could limit
people from acting how they please.
Hill (2008) however argues that people do not tend to plan any sexual encounters with
someone, this normally happens spontaneously. What leads to this happening, Hill argues is
the desire to “hook up”.
Both men and women seem to be engaging more in casaul sex however a recent study
shows that only 54% of females felt positive about their casual sex encounter, this contrasts
with the 80% of males (Pease & Pease, 2009). The result of guilt was most evident in women
of over forty years of age, mostly due to the fact that they were brought up with “post-
Victorian values or by religion” (as cited in Darmanin, 2011). In fact in the findings
published it was clear that younger women felt less guilt after a casaul sex encounter than
their older counterparts. Yet, on the whole women still feel less emotionally satisfied than
men.
The younger generations seem to view casual sex, and sex in general differently than
the older generations. While the older generations believe that sexuality is not a topic to be
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 12
discussed, the younger generations seem to have more permissive attitudes towards the topic
(LoPiccolo, as cited in Wagner, 1974). Evidence of this include the studies of Bell &
Buerkle (1961) and Reiss (1967) that discuss the considerable differences in the attitudes
portrayed by the mothers and the daughters towards premarital sex. While 83% of the
mothers still condemned the act even during an engagement, only 35% of the daughters had
the same perspective. This significant difference is evidence in the change of beliefs of just
one generation.
Studies like these indicate that beliefs, attitudes and behaviours will continue to
change in the future. However, one must take into consideration, that the upbringing leaves
a substantial impact on the person. In 2000, Abela argued that there is a rise in the belief that
new ideas are better than old ones among the younger generation (Abela, 2000). Maltese
values seem to be shifting to become more idiosyncratic (Abela,1994).
No Strings Attached
Late adolescence and early adulthood is a period of experementation, probing and
development as young persons enhance their emotional intelligence, attachment styles and
behaviour patterns that will influence their emotional functioning later on in life (di Mauro,
1995). The experimentation mentioned during the transition to adulthood includes sexual
behaviour, with more than half of adolescents engaging in sexual intercourse before
graduating from high school (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003). Manning, Longmore, and
Giordano (2000) used a national sample including a number of female adolescents and found
that the majority of first intercourse occurs with a romantic partner. However, a substantial
number of people engaged in sexual intercourse with either a friend or someone they had just
met. Studies reveal that 70% of college students engaged in casual sex (Feldman, Turner, &
Araujo, 1999) while others show that 70% to 80% of adolescents ranging between the ages of
twelve and twenty one engaged in casual sex at least once in the preceding year (Grello,
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 13
Welsh, Harper, & Dickson, 2003). Traeen and Lewin (1992) argue that those who engage in
sexual intercourse at a young age are more prone to engage in casual sex later on.
The college lifestyle and casual sex. Among the general population, college students
are said to have the highest sexual permissiveness, which then leads to more casual sex
encounters (Townsend&Wasserman, 2011). Maternal acceptance, especially among girls,
was correlated with higher sexual activity which could possibly lead to casual hookup sex
(Manning et al., 2005). Regardless of any variables like sex, ethnic minorities, lifestlye,
substance abuse or parent livelihood; if college students agreed to statements similar to ‘‘I
would have sex with someone who I had no plans to ever talk to again’’ they were
significantly more inclined to participate in casual hookups, although not necessarily coitus
(Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Fincham, 2010). This research is evidence that oppeness
towards casual sex predicts a higher casual sex activity.
As mentioned before, women due to lessened comfort with their and their partners
genitals could lead to less casual sex activities (Reinholtz & Muehlenhard, 1995).Likewise
instrumentality and personal comfort with one’s own genitals may predict future involvement
in casual sex. This means that attitudes foretell future behaviour. On the other hand
experiences in casual sex might lead to a shift in attitude. One could conclude that there is a
possibility of a bidirectional relationshipbetween these two variables. (Katz & Schneider,
2013)
Although Buss (1989) proposed that vulnerability and low self esteem may increase
the chances of females engaging in casual sex, startingly there has not been many studies
researching the correlation between the function of mental state and casual sex. Although
there are a few studies on sexual behaviour in adolescent romantic relationship (Abma &
Sonestein, 2001; Furman & Shaffer, 2003) there is almost no research with regards to
adolescent sexual behaviour in casual relationships. It is also interesting to note that most
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 14
research concerning sexuality has solely focused on the act of penetration, even though
adolescents may perform other sexual activities; ranging from noncoital practices like kissing
and mutual musturbation, to other various sexual acts like oral sex and anal sex, and do not
report them as sexual activities as they do not consider them as such (Paul et al., 2000).
Research suggests that broadening our definition and researching other sexual activities will
help in advancing our education programs and make them more effective, as well as improve
help provided by clinicians and professionals (Whitaker, Miller, & Clark, 2000).
Intriguingly some studies have explored the psychological functioning differences and
similarities between virgins and non-virgins (Grello et al., 2003; Paul et al., 2000). These
investigations show proof that there is a difference not only between virgins and non-virgins
but also in those who have an active sex life. Grello and colleagues (2003) used longitudinal
studies and found that virgins who engaged in casual sex a year later after being interviewed
showed more depressive symptoms and delinquent behaviours than those who engaged in
romatic sex or those who did not engage in any sexual intercourse. It was interesting to note
however, that although these behaviours were prominent after involvement in casual sex, they
were present prior to the sexual act; that is when they were still virgins (Grello, 2003).
A similar study was carried out by Mc Manus and Hayes in 2000, as they explored the
association between psychological functioning and sexual behaviours. This study supports
the same idea as Grello et al’s (2003) findings that college students who tended to participate
in romantic sex or had no sex at all, had a higher self esteem then those who participated in
uncommitted sex. McManus et al (2000) suggest that romantic sexual experiences might
facilitate improvement of appropriate attitudes towards sex and relational behaviours. These
studies are criticised (Whitaker et al., 2000) to have a dichotomous perception of sexual
intercourse and relationships, as they fail to consider the context of the couple. Couples are
composed of different members with different sexual histories and different expectations.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 15
Therefore studies need to direct their attention to social and psychological background of sex
not only the act of it (Whitaker et al., 2000).
It seems that not all sexual hookups are the same, and even if we have discovered that
there is a variance between casual sex and romantic sex we need to delve deeper into the field
and explore different areas to further understand the subject matter. For instance a study
shows that the attachment characteristics portrayed in the family will impact the college
student’s sexual affiliations behaviour (Glenn & Marquardt, 2001). The study reported that
female college students with divorced parents were more likely to participate in hook ups.
Futhermore, Manning et al (2005) reported that adolescents with divorced parents tend to
refrain from entering into committed relationships and instead turn to performing sexual
behaviours with non romantic partners. Research also suggests that adolescents with divorced
parents go through sexual encounters at an younger stage (Amato &DeBoer, 2001; D’Onofrio
et al., 2006; Weigel, Bennett & Ballard-Reisch, 2003). This may be a result of little effort
needed for a hookup encounter making it more appealing for them. Even if there is research
showing a link between parents’ marital conflict and the adolescents relationship patterns
(Amato & Booth, 2001), there is no research exploring the link between the family
environment and hooking up experiences.
One can conclude that the family environment plays an important role in forming
relational styles and attitudes of students. Adult attachment theory describes how people have
internal models that control their reactions of intimacy with others depending on early
experiences during childhood (Collins & Read, 1990; Hazen & Shaver, 1987). It is known
that secure attachments lead to easiness in a close relationship whereas insecure attachments
is thought to cause anxiety of intimate relationships. These individuals are reported to be
more inclined to engage in casual hookups and have less faithfulness towards the institution
of marriage (Amato & DeBoer, 2001; Gentzler & Kerns, 2004). Seeing how these
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 16
sociosexual behaviours and attitudes vary in correlation, studies suggested that there may be
common “individual differences in people’s willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual
relationships; sociosexuality” (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990; Snyder et al.,1986). Those who
are at the restricted end of the spectrum believe in intimacy and commitment preceding
sexual activities with their partners – having a restricted sociosexual orientation; while those
who are on the unrestricted side of the spectrum have more permissive attitudes towards
casual sex, enjoy sex without commitment and embark on various sexual adventures leading
them to have numerous sexual partners that they are pleased to encounter on one and only
one occasion (Gangestad & Simpson, 1990).
Sexual Fluidity
Research shows that men’s sexual orientation tends to be bimodal i.e mostly
identifying as either heterosexual or homosexual, with a few bisexuals. Women’s sexual
identity ,on the other hand, is more felixble throughout lifespan. It is said to be a smooth
continuum (Buss, 2003 [1994]). Research is showing that this generation is the most tolerant
yet, being accepting of sexual identities such as pansexuality, demisexuality and
heteroflexibility. A study conducted by YouGov U.K. discovered that “half of British
millennials describe themselves as sexually fluid" (Dahlgreen & Shakespeare, 2015, p.0) with
49% not identifying with a heterosexual orientation (Dahlgreen & Shakespeare, 2015). Most
research produces more behavioural data rather than a psychological one with regards to
sexual fluidity and therefore there is less to interpret. However, a study found that
homosexual men have more casual sex encounters than heterosexual men. Symons (1979)
argues that this is due to the fact that homosexuals do not need to compromise but rather opt
to engage in less committed hookups. In fact according to Diamond (2008) lesbians reported
that it is difficult to find women who like to engage in casual sex. Studies report that lesbians
still place more value on emotional attachment for sex than gay men do. Therefore they argue
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 17
that gender has a greater impact on predicting casual sex rather than sexual orientation
(Peplau 1981; Peplau & Gordon 1983).
Social Influence and Malta
One cannot discuss the topic of sexuality without acknowledging the importance of
social influence on the individual. It is expected to take in consideration how society will be
judging you if you decide to to sleep with a stranger for only one night without the intention
of developing anything further after the encounter. This part of the chapter will be dedicated
to research and attitudes within the local context. Below two social cues that might
influence the presence of or lack of engagement, in casual sex have been outlined. These
include religion and media.
Religion. With 98% of the Maltese population declaring it is Christian (CIA world
factbook, 2005) it makes religion an important aspect in Maltese society . Abela (2000),
argues that the importance given to religion varies across ages, with the elderly giving it more
importance than the younger generation. In her finding Abela said, that it was those who are
65 and over that take into consideration religion when making any major decisions;
especially those which have a moral implication (Abela, 2000). Even if the church is known
to condemn any uncommitted, pre marital sex (Cassar, 2004), the power once granted to the
church is now shifting towards secular authorities. This can in turn lead to people having less
faith in the church, steering a culture that is more free to engage in casual sex. In her findings
Abela (2000) also indicated that 62% of the Maltese are content with the church’s answers
towards moral decisions. However, due to new scientific findings and recent church scandals,
such as child abuse, it would be interesting to compare if the mentality is still the same and
whether the upcoming generations take the church’s opinion in consideration when making a
moral decision.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 18
Media. Among the power shift mentioned earlier, there was the advancement of
technology. With the introduction of the internet and the concept of globalisation becoming
more and more real each day one cannot not mention media and its impact on sexual
behaviours. Collins et al. (2004), conducted a study with adolescents aged between 12 and
17 years old as they showed them sexual content for a whole year and found that they were
more likely to engage in sexual behaviour in the same year it was shown. A similar study
conducted later on (Brown et al., 2006), confirmed that white young adolescents (12-14
years) were more likely to engage in sexual behaviour after being exposed to sexual content
for two years. In fact when discussing media among a focus group in a local research,
participants seemed to agree with Brown’s et al findings (Pace, 2012). One could argue that
this content does not only facilitate the engagement in sex at a young age but could also
develop certain ideas and illusion about sex (Pornography statistics, 2015). In fact during the
same focus group mentioned before, participants outlined that adolescents nowadays have
more privacy at home, giving them space and time to not only view whatever they like but
also research any information they want. In fact the Kaiser Family Foundation (2005)
published a report were it said that 77% of shows that adolescents are exposed to during
primetime include sexual content leading to an average of 5 – 9 sex scenes per hour. With
these levels of exposure it is almost inevitable not to create such hype about sex. Pace (2012)
also argues that this shows our permissive attitudes and how they changed over time, from
not viewing kisses during movies to having almost naked women in music videos.
Some researchers (Collins, Alagiri & Summers, 2002) argue that due to this exposure
we need to implement different sex education programs in our schools. Behaviour research
evaluates the success rates of young students not encountering any risks of HIV, STIs or
unexpected pregnancies. This research finds that comprehensive programs have a high
success rate of sex education while abstinence only programs tend to fail (Collins et. al, 2002;
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 19
Carter, 2012) The Genitourinary (GU) Clinic in Malta reported that 70% of the patients
admitted never used a condom, while Savona- Ventura (2003) mentions that the rates of
promiscuity in Malta are reflected by sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies.
This continues to prove right the claims that we need to shift towards comprehensive sex
education curricula.
Conclusion
From the literature gathered one can conclude that gender has a bigger impact on the
individual’s perception of casual sex; that as time passes by, the younger generations are
forming a more permissive attitude towards uncommitted sex and that there is a bidirectional
relationship between attitude and behaviour. One should take note of the importance social
influence has with regards to behaviour and attitudes of individuals. It is important to note as
well that most research focuses on committed relationships and marriage and that there hav
ebeen studies correlating psychological functioning with relationships but nothing comparing
it to casual hookups.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 20
Methodology
In order to investigate the research question posed, a study had to be conducted. This
chapter will outline the resarch method used, the hypotheses , the sampling method, the
research design and the variables to collect the data.
Research Method
To understand the reasoning behind the method used, one has to outline the
differences between quantitative and qualitative research.
Quantitative research is a procedure that tests theories composed by variables,
measured with numbers and analysed through statistical practices. Quantitative research is
based on looking at the cause and effect, outlining a statistical relationship while making
predictions. Quantitative research is chosen to gather a larger amount of data that is randomly
chosen. Through quantitative research one can generalise findings. (Abawi, 2008)
On the other hand Qualitative research is all about an in- depth technique and findings
are more specialised rather than generalisable. Its aim is to understand and interpret social
interactions rather than numbers and variables. It is based on open ended questions,
interviews and observations rather than structured measurements. (Johnson & Christensen,
2008)
Although the study was about perceptions and attitudes which is normally associated
with a qualitative research, the aim was to gather a large amount of data that is generalizable
on campus. The aim of the study was to study the perception of the majority of the students
and hypothesise whether there is a statistical relationship between the desire, attitude and
behaviour facets; and whether these have a correlation with sexual orientation, age and sex.
Therefore a quantitative research deemed to be most fit for the study and a qualitative
approach was discarded.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 21
Hypotheses. For this research question three main hypotheses were identified. The
first hypothesis (H1) is that there is a correlation between ‘attitude’ and ‘behaviour’.I
therefore expected a statistical significance between openness towards casual sex and
engagement in casual sex in the last twelve months. The second hypothesis (H2) is that there
is a statistical relationship between the ‘behaviour’ facet and the ‘desire’facet, therefore I
expected a statistical significance between engagement in casual sex and the desire towards
having casual sex. The third hypothesis (H3) is that there is a correlation between ‘attitude’
and ‘desire’. I therefore expected a statistical relation between openness towards casual sex
and desire towards engagement.
This study also tested three secondary hypotheses. The first one (H4) is that
there is a correlation between ‘sex’ and two facets. Thus a significant correlation between
males being more open to the idea of casual sex and having a higher sexual desire towards it
was expected . The second hypothesis (H5) is that there is a statistical relationship between
‘age’and the three facets. Therefore, it was expected that there will be a statistical
significance between age and the idea and engagement of casual sex. The third and final
hypothesis (H6) is that there is a correlation between ‘sexual orientation’ and the three facets
i.e attitude, behaviour and desire. Therefore a statistical relation between sexual orientation
and the idea and engagement of casual sex was expected.
Method of Sampling
Participants were chosen at random through a university database trough convenience
sampling. An email was sent to Registrar to send the link of the online survey at random to
all university students regardless of sex, age, course or level of study. Participants were
informed about the subject of the study and were notified that there participation is voluntary.
Participants were also told that at any point they can withdraw their participation. Only
requirement needed from participants was to be enrolled at the University of Malta.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 22
Sample size was that of 251, composed of 182 females. Ages ranged from 17 to 55,
with the majority being between 19 and 22. There were 208 that stated that they identified as
heterosexual, 20 as bisexual, 16 as homosexual and 7 as pansexual. One respondent identified
as asexual and due to the nature of the study being on sexuality, more specifically on casual
sex this participant’s data was omitted.
Research Design
A questionnaire was sent to the students via email. Section one of the questionnaire
included data of the participants’ characteristics (sex, age, sexual orientation) for section two
– the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory- Revised standardised test was used. The construct
of sociosexuality defines the interindividual differences in the inclination of engaging in a
sexual relationship without having any emotional attachment. In personality and social
psychology, sexuality research and evolutionary psychology the construct of Sociosexual
Orientation Inventory (SOI) introduced by Simpson and Gangsted (1991) as an economic
measurement is quite popular. Penke & Asendorpf (2008) introduced the revised version of
the test that corrected several psychometric problems and allowed for separate assessment of
the three facets. They later on developed a 5 point scale questionnaire; the one used for this
research.
The SOI –R test is made up of Likert – scale questions. In the 5 point version, the
scale alternatives are “0”, “1”, “2-3”, “4-7”, and “8 or more” (coded as 1 to 5) for the
‘behavior’ facet, 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for the ‘attitude’ facet, and
“never”, “very seldom”, “about once a month”, “about once a week”, and “nearly every day”
(coded as 1 to 5) for the ‘desire’ facet (Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. , 2008).
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 23
Variables. The three demographical variables were ‘sex’, ‘age’ and ‘sexual
‘orientation.’The first variable (sex) gave the option to choose between “male” and “female”
or write another option. The second variable (age) allowed the respondents to write their age
in the text box. The third variable (sexual orientation) focused on the sexual orientation of the
individual giving options to choose between ‘heterosexual’, ‘homosexual’, ‘bisexual’,
‘pansexual’, ‘asexual’ or an open text box to define towards whom they feel sexually and
emotionally attracted.
Questions 4 to 6, which tested the ‘behaviour facet’ of the individual, asked the
following questions: “With how many different partners have you had sex within the past 12
months?”, “With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse on one and
only one occasion?” and “With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse
without having an interest in a long-term committed relationship with this person?” These
questions were rated on a 5 point scale with the possible answers being “0”, “1”, “2-3”, “4-7”
or “8+”.
Question 7 had three sub - statements testing the ‘attitude facet.’ Question 7 asked the
participants to choose whether they agree or not; with 1 being ‘totally disagree’and 5 being
‘totally agree’, to statements such as : “Sex without love is ok”, “I can imagine myself being
comfortable and enjoying casual sex with different partners” and “I do not want to have sex
with a person until I am sure that we will have a long-term, serious relationship”.
Questions 8 to 10 tested the ‘desire facet’ asking the following questions: ‘How often
do you have fantasies about having sex with someone you are not in a committed romantic
relationship with?’, ‘How often do you experience sexual arousal when you are in contact
with someone you are not in a committed romantic relationship with?’ and ‘In everyday life,
how often do you have spontaneous fantasies about having sex with someone you have just
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 24
met?’. The respondents had the opportunity to choose the following options: ‘never’,
‘seldom’, ‘about once a month’, ‘about once a week’, ‘nearly every day’.
Question 7c “I do not want to have sex with a person until I am sure that we will have
a long-term, serious relationship” was reverse coded to test the ‘attitude facet’ as the other
two statements were positive statements towards casual sex. This allowed me to analyse any
statistical relationship between the three facets and the three demographical variables, testing
the hypothesis stated above.
Data Analysis
The data was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
The Kolmogorov and Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk non-parametric tests were used to assess the
normality assumption of the facet distribution. Both of these tests were used to serve as a
goodness of fit of the model questions and to observe the discrepancies between the values.
The Spearman correlation coefficient test was used as an alternative to the
Pearson correlation test to assess the relationship between two continuous variable. The
Spearman correlation test assessed the coefficients relating behaviour with attitude, behaviour
with desire and desire with attitude. This tested my three main hypothesis (H1, H2, H3) that
there is a statistical relationship between the three facets.
The Kruskal Wallis Test which is a non - parametric alternative to the One-Way
ANOVA test, was used to compare mean facet scores between several independent groups
clustered either by Sex (H4), Age (H5) or Sexual orientation (H6). The Kruskal Wallis test
helped me test my hypothesis of whether males will score higher than females in all 3 facets
(H4), whether a group of certain age will score higher in all 3 facets (H5) and whether a
group of a certain sexual orientation will score higher on all 3 facets (H6).
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 25
For all the statistical tests, a 0.05 level of significance was used to reject the null
hypothesis.
In this chapter I have outlined the methodology used to research the question “what
are the university students’ perceptions towards Promiscuity”. In the following chapter I will
be presenting and discussing the results and findings of the research conducted.
Results
Normality Distribution Tests
The Kolmogorov Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk test are used to assess normality
assumption of a facet score distribution. The null hypothesis specifies that the facet score
distribution is normal and is accepted if the p value exceeds the 0.05 level of significance (p >
0.05). The alternative hypothesis specifies that the facet score distribution is not normal is
accepted if the p value is less than the 0.05 p value criterion (p < 0.05).
All score distributions are not normal since both the Kolmogorov Smirnov and
Shapiro Wilk p values are less than the 0.05 level of significance ( p < 0.05) . In fact
graphical presentations show that the ‘behaviour facet’ score distribution is rightly skewed
(M= 1.84, SD= 0.905, N = 251) while the ‘attitude facet’ (M= 2.84, SD= 1.228, N= 251) and
the ‘desire facet’ (M= 2.56, SD= 1.21, N= 251) distributions are flatter than the normal curve.
For this reason we will employ non parametric tests to relate the behaviour, attitude and
desire scores and compare them between different gender, age and sexual orientation groups.
Attitude, Behaviour and Desire
The Spearman correlation coefficient measures the strengths of the relationship
between 2 variables having a metric scale and it ranges from -1 to 1. A negative correlation
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 26
coefficient indicates a negative relationship while a positive correlation coefficient indicates a
positive relationship. The spearman correlation test, which is a non-parametric alternative to
the Pearson correlation test assess the significance of the relationship between 2 continuous
variables. The null hypothesis specifies that there is no relationship between the 2 variables
and is accepted if the p value (p>0.05) exceeds the level of significance the alternative
hypotheses specifies that there is a significant relationship between the 2 variables and is
accepted if the p value (p<0.05) is less than the criterion.
The Spearman correlation coefficients relating behaviour with attitude ( ,=0.565)
(H1), behaviour with desire ( ,=0.271) (H2)and attitude with desire ( ,=0.472) (H3) are all
positive indicating positive relationships between the 3 facets. This implies that respondents
who are scoring high on the behaviour facet tend to score high on the attitude and desire
facets and vice versa. Moreover, these positive relationships are all significant because their p
values (p= 0) are less than the level of significance (p<0.05). Hence these relationships can be
generalised. One can therefore safely say that the alternative hypotheses for H1, H2 and H3
are accepted while the null hypotheses are rejected.
The Kruskal Wallis Test
The Kruskal Wallis Test which is a non - parametric alternative to the One-Way
ANOVA test, is used to compare mean facet scores between several independent groups
clustered either by gender, age or sexual orientation. The null hypothesis specifies that the
mean facet scores vary marginally between the groups and are accepted if the p value
exceeds the 0.05 level of significance. The alternative hypothesis specifies that the mean
facet scores vary significantly between the groups is accepted if the p value is less than 0.05
criterion.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 27
Gender
The total number of participants was 251, of which 72% were female (f = 182) and
27% were male (m = 69). My fourth hypothesis (H4) was that gender will have a significant
relationship with attitude, desire, and behaviour, I therefore expected males to score higher
than females on all 3 facets. Males scored higher than females in all 3 facets, however
differences were found to be significant in the attitude and desire facets. This means that
there was no significant relationship between gender and behaviour (M= 1.81 SD=0.829, p=
0.863) (M=1.94, SD=1.083, p= 0.863) and therefore the null hypothesis was accepted.
However, there was a significant relationship between gender and attitude (M = 2.73, SD =
1.195, p = 0.024) ( M =3.13, SD =1.28, p = 0.024) and gender and desire (M=2.45, SD=1.093
p=0.010) ( M=2.86 SD=1.148, p=0.010). Therefore the alternative hypothesis was partly
rejected and implies that even though male’s behaviour scores were not significant their
attitudes and desire were more permissive towards casual sex.
Age
My fifth hypothesis (H5) was that there will be correlation between age and the 3
facets; behaviour, attitude and desire. The sample size was around 41 % of 19 years or less
(x= 102), 42% of 20 to 22 years (y= 107) and around 10 % of 23 years and older (z= 42).
This hypothesis was also assessed through spearman correlation ( ). Participants aged 23
years and over scored higher than their younger counterparts in the behaviour facet (M= 2.43
SD = 1.148) and the attitude facet (M= 3.35, SD =1.427) making them significant (p=0) and
(p= 0.006) respectively. However, even if differences were found to be significant in these 2
facets it was not significant in the desire facet (M= 2.85, SD=1.139) with the p value
exceeding the level criterion (p= 0.058). Therefore the alternative hypothesis was rejected.
However, this means that this group has had more experience with regards to casual sex and
have more open attitudes towards it, but do not fantasise about casual sex as much.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 28
Sexual Orientation
My final hypothesis (H6) was that there is a correlation between sexual orientation all
of the three facets. Sample size included 82% of heterosexuals (t= 208), 8% of bisexuals (b=
20), 6.4% homosexuals (h= 16) and 2.8% pansexuals (P=7). bisexual and pansexual
participants scored higher than heterosexual and homosexual participants in all the 3 facets.
However differences were significant in the attitude and desire facets but not significant in
the behaviour facets (p= 0.204). This means that the alternative hypothesis was rejected. This
implies that although bisexuals and pansexuals do not differ with regards to behaviour
towards casual sex they have a higher desire and more permissive attitude towards it.
Discussion
In Malta women, more than men, are enrolled in tertiary education. In 2012 there
were around 6,224 females enrolled while only 4,450 males were enrolled in the same year
(NSO, 2014); with 1,320 being males and 1,917 being females at the University of Malta
This significant difference could also be seen in this research as only 69 respondents were
male in contrast with the 182 females. This in fact led to a skew in distribution.
Behaviour, Attitude and Desire
The sociosexual orientation inventory test assesses three facets of sociosexuality: Past
behaviour with regards to a number of casual sex partners, the uninhibited Attitude towards
non-romantic sex, and sexual desire to engage in sexual behaviour with people they have no
romantic ties with. The results found a positive relationship between behaviour, attitude and
desire. This means that those who scored high on behaviour, also scored high on attitude and
desire and vice versa. Literature supports this as there have been claims that there is a
relationship between engagement in casual hookup sex and attitudes about sex and love (Katz
& Schneider, 2013). As stated before persons who engage in casual sex, regardless whether
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 29
they are men or women are more open towards the idea of uncommitted sex and have a less
judgmental attitudes about sexuality in general than those who do not (Townsend &
Wasserman, 2011; Grello et al., 2006).
Gender
Results found that even though males scored higher on the behaviour facet it was the
attitude and desire facets that were significant. This tends to be a global sociosexual
orientation; as is cited in Penke (in press) most SOI-R scores tend to show sex differences,
except behaviour. This implies that even if males have a higher desire to engage in casual
sex, have sexual fantasies more often than females and have a more permissive attitude
towards it, they still do not engage in such behaviour as much as they would want to. This
could also be limited due to the restrictive behaviour and attitude from females. In fact in an
unpublished dissertation Darmanin (2011) found that women think deeply about sex and the
reasons behind it. She also found that woman would want to get to know the person first
before engaging in any act, whilst men were quite open to the idea. This was also evident in
the Clark and Hatfield (1989) experiment. The findings about sexual desire were also
conforming with the evolutionary perspective that men want a greater number of partners
then they in reality have (Buss & Schmitt, 1993)
Age
In these findings those aged 23 years and older scored significantly higher than their
younger counterparts in the behaviour and attitude facet, implying that they have had more
experience with engagement in casual sex thereby leading to a more permissive attitude
towards the behaviour. The mean age for marriage in Malta in 2013 was of 31.6 for males
and 29.5 for females (NSO, 2014) , much later than it was in previous eras. This could lead to
the possibility of engaging into more adventurous sexual activities, including sexual
behaviour out of romantic relationships.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 30
Sexual Orientation
Although my last hypothesis was that I expected sexual orientation to have a
correlation with attitude, behaviour, and desire and therefore expecting a significance
between homosexual men and behaviour, the results found no significance with regards to
behaviour. Literature shows that homosexual men tend to engage more in casual sex not
because they have a higher desire towards it than heterosexual men but because they have no
restrictive behaviour from women; meaning that homosexual men engage in uncommitted
sex not because of their sexual orientation but because of their gender (Peplau 1981; Peplau
& Gordon 1983). However, one has to keep in mind that living in a country where 98% of
the population is Christian it might be argued that homosexuals end up ‘coming out of the
closet’ at a later stage due to conservative beliefs at home and religious guilt one might feel.
This could lead to experiencing certain sexual behaviours at a later stage in life. One has to
also keep in mind that due to Malta being a small country, where everyone knows each other
and with the gay community being small in itself there might be a fear of stigma.
It is interesting to note that the results found that there was a higher number of
bisexuals than homosexuals, this could be correlated with the significant higher number of
females than males. In the literaure chapter it was outlined that females tend to be more
sexually fluid, having a sexuality that is more flexible throughout the life span; while men
tend to be more bimodal.
Bisexuals and pansexuals scored higher than heterosexuals and homosexuals on the
attitude and desire facets. This implies that bisexuals and pansexuals have more permissive
attitudes and a higher sexual desire towards casual sex. Even if in this research there was a
significant relationship between these 2 facets and sexual orientation, there is no known
literature about bisexuals or pansexuals and their attitudes or desire towards uncommitted
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 31
sex. Since no literautre or data was found to support these results it could be deemed a
limitation.
Conclusion
Main Findings
The main aim of this research was to compare attitudes of University students of both
men and women, of different ages, with various sexual inclinations and orientations. It started
off by defining sex and contrasting the differences between casual and meaningful sex. It
later on examined gender differences, the evolutionary perspective towards uncommitted sex,
how attitudes changed over time, sexual fluidity and sexual orientations in males and females
and finally discussed social influence in Malta.
The data was collected through an online questionnaire using the revised version of
the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory test published by Lars Penke (2010). This test analysed
past behaviours with regards to non-romantic sex, the attitudes and perceptions towards it,
and the sexual desire experienced in everyday lives. Through this test one could determine
the sociosexual orientation university students hold.
The outcome of the data analysis displayed both expected and unexpected results. To
start off it was noted that there is a positive and significant relationship between the three
facets; implying that those who have a high sociosexuality score high on behaviour, attitude
and desire. Later it was also noted that although males have more liberal attitudes towards
casual sex and experience more sexual desire, they engage in the same amount of sexual
behaviour as females. An unexpected result showed no significant difference between any
different sexual orientations with regards to sexual behaviour, however permissive attitudes
and high sexual desire were significantly linked with bisexuals and pansexuals. This might
imply that sexual fluidity has a correlation with sociosexuality.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 32
Limitations
Precautions to ensure validity, accuracy and reliability for this research were taken.
However this study has certain limitations.
When looking for different studies about mating preferences one would notice that the
majority of research is quantitative, yet this might lead to certain specific problems as
participants may find themselves torn between the issue of privacy and conformity.
Participants might want to give honest answers however they are more likely to give
inaccurate replies due to the lack of correct anticipation of actions in a varied emotional state.
Research studying sexuality has centred on sexual intercourse, even if sexuality concerning
adolescents includes various non coital sexual behaviours.
When looking at the results one can notice that the majority of the participants were
women, leading to a skew of distribution which could have impacted other demographic
variables such as sexual orientation and affected the 3 facets.
An important limitation is the definition of ‘sex’. One might not have the same
definition as another and therefore while some may have considered sexual intercourse only
as their definition of ‘sex’ others might have considered other sexual activities leading to
genital stimulation.
Finally, the last limitation is about the literature, even though when looking for
research, studies and journals recent data were given a priority some studies like that of Mc
Cormick (1979), Buss & Barnes (1986), Eysenck (1976) and Griffit & Hatfield (1985) is
outdated.
Usefulness of Data
This research gave a better understanding of gender differences when it comes to
attitudes of students at the University, including an insight of the college mind-set and
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 33
lifestyle and keeping in mind the different age groups. It also gave a better understanding of
the attitudes and desire of various sexual orientations in the same populations. The research
also supported previous claims that a relationship between sociosexual attitude and
sociosexual desire might influence sociosexual behaviour.
If studied more in depth there could be new discoveries with regards to sociosexual
orientations and to sexuality in general.
Suggestions for Future Research
Firstly, it would have been interesting getting an equal amount of males and females
and also an equal distribution among ages as this could have led to different findings.
It would have also been interesting taking a different approach and looking at
different attitudes from a qualitative perspective and delving deep into the reasons for certain
attitudes and behaviours.
An important recommendation would be to compare how many females and males
were of a certain sexual orientation as this could hint to a certain theory or discovery
especially with regards to recent research about sexual fluidity in women and the attitudes
when compared to men (Diamond, 2008).
One last suggestion would be to conduct research also amongst various ethnic
minorities, especially in the local context and examine whether any significant differences
could be found. These could then be compared to research abroad; for instance research in the
U.S where Asian Americans are said to engage less in casual sex behaviour then the rest of
groups.
Personal Recommendations
First personal recommendation is to introduce better sex education programmes in our
schools and move away from abstinence only programmes as research shows it tends to fail
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 34
(Collins et. al, 2002; Carter, 2012).
In these programs one has to also address the issue of sexual fluidity and various
sexual orientations and move away from heterosexism and gender binary standards and
towards a more liberal view of sexuality, sexual and gender identity, and sexual orientations.
With regards to sexual fluidity, more research needs to be conducted as this is a new
phenomenon being discovered and little research is present, especially in the local context.
One last recommendation would be to conduct studies from an evolutionary
perspective that examine adaptations on a psychological level rather than on a behavioural
one; as behaviour is made up of psychological adaptations, and opportunities and situations
that the individual encounters.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 35
Reference List
Abela, A. M. (2000) Values of women and men in the Maltese Islands. Malta:
Ministry for Social policy
Abela, A.M, (1994). Shifting Family values in Malta: a western European perspective.
Malta. Blata L-Bajda Publications.
Abma JC, Sonenstein FL (2001). Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Practices Among
Teenagers in the United States, 1988 and 1995. National Center for Health Statistics.
Vital Health Stat 23(21).
Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_021.pdf
Amato, P. R., & DeBoer, D. D. (2001). The transmission of marital instability across
generations: Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage and
Family, 63(4), 1038-1051.
Baranowski, A., & Hecht, H. (2015). Gender Differences and Similarities in Receptivity to
Sexual Invitations: Effects of Location and Risk Perception. Arch Sex Behav,
44(8) , 2257-2265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0520-6
Bell, R. R. & Buerkle, J. V. Mother and daughter attitudes to premarital sexual behavior.
Marriage & Family living, 1961, 23: 390-392 (as cited in Wagner, 1974)
Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T.,
Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual
Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Booth, A., & Amato, P. R. (2001). Parental Predivorce Relations and Offspring
Postdivorce Well‐Being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 197-212.
Buller, D. J. (2005). Adapting minds: Evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for
human nature. MIT press.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 50(3), 559.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective
on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 36
Cassar, J. (2004). Religion. In Cassar, G. & Cutajar, J (Eds.), Sociological Aspects of the
Maltese Islands (pp. 77-97). Msida: Indigobooks
Catherine M. Grello , Deborah P. Welsh & Melinda S. Harper (2006) No strings attached:
The nature of casual sex in college students, The Journal of Sex Research, 43:3,
Doi: 10.1080/00224490609552324
Clark, R. D, & Hatfield, E. (1989).Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers.
Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality,. The Haworth Press, Inc.
Retrieved from http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers.
Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39-55.
Collins, C., Alagiri, P., Summers, T., & Morin, S. F. (2002). Abstinence only vs.
comprehensive sex education: What are the arguments. What is the evidence (1-16)
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship
quality in dating couples. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(4), 644.
Collins, R. L (2004) et al. Watching Sex on Television Predicts Adolescent Initiation of
Sexual Behavior. Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatric.
doi: 10.1542/peds.2003-1065-L). Retrieved
Colman, A. M. (2015). A dictionary of psychology. Oxford University Press, USA.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Valentine, B. A. (2011).
Women, men, and the bedroom methodological and conceptual insights that narrow,
reframe, and eliminate gender differences in sexuality. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20(5), 296-300.
Doi: 10.1177/0963721411418467
Dahlgreen, W., & Shakespeare, A. (2015). YouGov | 1 in 2 young people say they are not
100% heterosexual. YouGov: What the world thinks. Retrieved 7 April 2016,
from https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual/
Darmanin, P. (2011) Unpublished Dissertation. Gender Differences Regarding Young
People’s Views of Casual and Meaningful Sex
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 37
Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). The mating game isn't over:
A reply to Buller's critique of the evolutionary psychology of mating.
Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 147470490600400122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400122
Di Mauro D. (1995) Sexuality Research in the United States: An Assessment of the
Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A bio behavioral model
distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173–192.
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
D'Onofrio, C., Fobair, P., Stewart, S. L., Chang, S., Banks, P. J., & Bloom, J. R. (2006).
Body image and sexual problems in young women with breast cancer.
Psycho‐Oncology, 15(7), 579-594.
Eysenck, H. J. (1976). Sex and personality.
Feldman, S. S., Turner, R. A., & Araujo, K. (1999). Interpersonal context as an influence on
sexual timetables of youths: Gender and ethnic effects. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 9(1), 25-52.
Doi: 10.1207/s15327795jra0901_2
Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2003). The role of romantic relationships in adolescent
development. Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behaviour: Theory, research,
and practical implications, 3-22.
Retrieved from:
http://www.du.edu/psychology/relationshipcenter/publications/furman_shaffer_2003
Gentzler, A., & Kerns, K. (2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual
experiences. Personal Relationships, 11(2), 249-265.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00081.x
Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right. An
Institute for American Values Report to the Independent Women's Forum.
Griffit, W, & Hatfield, E. (1985). Human sexual behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott &
Foresman.(As cited in Simpson & Gangestad, 1991)
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 38
Guéguen, N. (2011). Effects of Solicitor Sex and Attractiveness on Receptivity to Sexual
Offers: A Field Study. Arch Sex Behav, 40(5), 915-919.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9750-4
Hald, G., & Høgh-Olesen, H. (2010). Receptivity to sexual invitations from strangers of the
opposite gender. Evolution And Human Behavior, 31(6), 453-458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.004
Hazen. C, Shaver. P (1987) Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 pp. 511–524.
Hill, C. A. (2008). Human Sexuality Personality and social psychological perspectives. USA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Hoff, T., Greene, L., & Davis, J. (2003). National Survey of Adolescents and Young Adults:
Sexual Health Knowledge Attitudes and Experiences.
Kaiser Family Foundation (2005). Number of Sexual Scenes on TV Nearly Double Since
1998.
Katz, J., & Schneider, M. (2013). Casual Hook up Sex During the First Year of College:
Prospective Associations with Attitudes about Sex and Love Relationships. Arch Sex
Behav, 42(8), 1451-1462.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0078-0
Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested
in 37 cultures. Behavioral And Brain Sciences, 12(01), 1.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00023992
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behaviour in the human male.
Philadelphia: Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in
the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Lambert, T., Kahn, A., & Apple, K. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and Hooking up.
Journal Of Sex Research, 40(2), 129-133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552174
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 39
LaPlante, M. N., McCormick, N., & Brannigan, G. G. (1980). Living the sexual script:
College students' views of influence in sexual encounters. Journal of Sex Research,
16(4), 338-355.
LoPiccolo, J. (1974). Mothers and Daughters: Perceived and Real Differences in Sexual
Values. In Wagner, N. N., Perspectives on Human Sexuality: Psychological, Scoial
and Cultural Research Findings. New York: Behavioral Publications Inc.
Mahoney, E. R. (1983). Human Sexuality. McGraw Hill: USA
Manning, W., Longmore, M., & Giordano, P. (2000). The Relationship Context of
Contraceptive Use at First Intercourse. Family Planning Perspectives, 32(3), 104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2648158
Matsumoto, D. (2009). The Cambridge dictionary of psychology. Cambridge University
Press.
Moore, S. & Rosenthal, D. (1991). Adolescent perceptions of Friends’ and Parents’ attitudes
to sex and sexual- risk taking. Journal of Community & Applied Psychology Vol 1,
189 - 200
Moreno, J. & McKerral, M. (2015). Differences according to Sex in Sociosexuality and
Infidelity after Traumatic Brain Injury. Behavioural Neurology, 2015, 1-12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/914134
Owen, J., Rhoades, G., Stanley, S., & Fincham, F. (2008). “Hooking Up” Among College
Students: Demographic and Psychosocial Correlates. Arch Sex Behav, 39(3),
653-663.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9414-1
Pace, J. (2012) Unpublished dissertation. Beliefs about Casual Sex among Different
Generations in Malta
Patrick, M., Maggs, J., & Abar, C. (2007). Reasons to Have Sex, Personal Goals, and
Sexual Behavior During the Transition to College. Journal Of Sex Research, 44(3),
240-249.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490701443759
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 40
Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hook-ups”: Characteristics and correlates
of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of
Sex Research, 37, 76 – 88. doi:10.1080/ 00224490009552023
Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates
of college students' spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex
Research, 37(1), 76-88.
Pease, A., & Pease, B. (2009). Why Men Want Sex & Women Need Love. UK: Orion
Books
Peplau, L. A. (1981). What homosexuals want in relationships. Psychology Today, 15(3), 28-
37.
Peplau, L. A., & Gordon, S. L. (1983). The intimate relationships of lesbians and gay
men. In E. R. Allgeir & N. B. McCormick (Eds.), Changing boundaries: Gender roles
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2011). Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors:
A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. Journal of sex research, 48(2-3),
149-165.
Pornography Statistics: Annual Report 2015. (2015). Covenanteyes.com. Retrieved 23 March
2016, from http://www.covenanteyes.com/pornstats/
Reber, A. S., & Reber, E. (2001). Dictionary of Psychology. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Reiber, C., & Garcia, J. (2010). Hooking up: Gender Differences, Evolution, and Pluralistic
Ignorance. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/147470491000800307
Reinholtz, R., & Muehlenhard, C. (1995). Genital perceptions and sexual activity in a
college population. Journal Of Sex Research, 32(2), 155-165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499509551785
Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York L
Holt, Rinehart & Winston (as cited in Wagner, 1974)
Ruse, M. (1987). Sociobiology and knowledge: Is evolutionary epistemology a viable
option? In C. Crawford, M. Smith and D. Krebs (eds.). Sociobiology and Psychology:
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 41
Ideas, Issues and Applications (61-79). London: Lawrence Erlbaum. (as cited in
Workman & Reader, 2008)
Savona-Ventura, C. (2003). DEVOTEES OF VENUS - A HISTORY OF SEXUALITY.
Malta: Dormax Press.
Sherif, M. (1936). The Psychology of Social Norms. New York: Harper
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality:
Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 870–883.
Doi: http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870
Slapion-Foote, and Franklin H. Foote, Hendrick, Susan, Clyde Hendrick, Michelle J. 6 (1985)
"Gender differences in sexual attitudes." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 48, no. 1630.
Smith, R. L. (1984). Human sperm competition, In R. L. Smith (ed.). Sperm competition and
the Evolution of Mating Systems (601-59). New York: Academic Press (as cited in
Workman & Reader, 2008)
Solomon, D., & Taylor, B. (2000). The opposite sex: Playing fast and loose. Nashville Scene.
Retrieved from httpy/nashvillescene.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?story=Back_I (As cited
in Grello et. al 2006)
Townsend, J., & Wasserman, T. (2011). Sexual Hookups Among College Students: Sex
Differences in Emotional Reactions. Arch Sex Behav, 40(6), 1173-1181.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9841-2
Traeen, B., Lewin, B., & Sundet, J. (1992). Use of birth control pills and condoms among
17–19-year-old adolescents in Norway: Contraceptive versus protective behaviour?
AIDS Care, 4(4), 371-380.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540129208253108
Tyndale-Maticka, E., Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D. (1998). Casual sex on spring break:
Intentions and behaviours of Canadian Students. The Journal of Sex Research,
Vol.35. Retrieved from
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001369612
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 42
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., Seibring, M., Nelson, T. F., & Lee, H. (2002). Trends in
college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts. Journal of
American College Health, 5, 203-217
Whitaker, D. J., Miller, K. S., & Clark, L. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing adolescent sexual
behavior: beyond did they or didn't they?. Family planning perspectives, 111-117.
Doi: 10.2307/2648159
Workman, L. & Reader, W. (2008). Evolutionary psychology: An introduction (2nd ed.).
UK: University Press, Cambridge
APPENDIX A
Email Sent to Students
Dear Student,
I am a third year student reading for a bachelor’s degree in Psychology. I am currently
working on my dissertation entitled ‘University Students perceptions towards Promiscuity.
Have we become more open to Casual Sex?' which is aimed at investigating the behaviour,
attitudes and desire of University students towards casual sex.
As part of my study, I am conducting a survey and for this reason I am inviting you to
complete this short questionnaire which should take no more than 5 minutes of your time. In
this regard, I would be extremely grateful if you could take part in this online survey by
accessing the following link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/sociosexualinventory
By proceeding with this survey you are giving the consent to use the data filled out in this
survey. Your data will not be identifiable in any way, and all data collected will be kept
confidential and anonymous, and viewed only by myself and my tutors. Having said that you
are no way obliged to respond to this survey and are free to close the survey at any time
should you wish to do so.
Please do not hesitate to contact me on rebecca.xiberras.13@um.edu.mt, should you have any
queries or if would like to know the results of this study. I would like to thank you in advance
for dedicating some time to assist me in my research.
Regards,
Rebecca Xiberras
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 43
APPENDIX B
Confirmation of ethical clearance.
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 44
APPENDIX C
Survey
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 45
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 46
APPENDIX D
Results
Figure 1
Graph Displaying Results for Behaviour Facet
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 47
Figure 2
Graph Displaying Results for Attitude Facet
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 48
Figure 3
Graph Displaying Results for Desire Facet
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 49
Table 1 – Displaying Results of Distribution
Table 2 – Displaying Results of Spearman Correlation between the 3 facets
Behaviour Facet
Attitude Facet
Desire Facet
Spearman
Correlation
Behaviour Facet
Correlation
1.000
0.565
0.271
P-value
.
0.000
0.000
Attitude Facet
Correlation
0.565
1.000
0.472
P-value
0.000
.
0.000
Desire Facet
Correlation
0.271
0.472
1.000
P-value
0.000
0.000
.
Table 3 – Displaying Gender results
Table 4 – Displaying Age results
Age
Sample Size
Mean
Std. Dev.
P-value
Behaviour Facet
19 years or less
102
1.60
0.804
0.000
20-22 years
107
1.84
0.786
23 years or more
42
2.43
1.148
Attitude Facet
19 years or less
102
2.61
1.202
0.006
20-22 years
107
2.85
1.113
23 years or more
42
3.35
1.427
Desire Facet
19 years or less
102
2.39
1.098
0.058
20-22 years
107
2.60
1.118
23 years or more
42
2.85
1.139
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
df
P-value
Statistic
df
P-value
Behaviour Facet
0.183
251
0.000
0.850
251
0.000
Attitude Facet
0.106
251
0.000
0.946
251
0.000
Desire Facet
0.141
251
0.000
0.938
251
0.000
Gender
Sample Size
Mean
Std. Dev.
P-value
Behaviour Facet
Female
182
1.81
0.829
0.863
Male
69
1.94
1.083
Attitude Facet
Female
182
2.73
1.195
0.024
Male
69
3.13
1.276
Desire Facet
Female
182
2.45
1.093
0.010
Male
69
2.86
1.148
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 50
Table 5 – Displaying Sexual Orientation results
Table 6 – Displaying results for question 4
Table 7 – Displaying results for question 5
Table 8 – Displaying results for question 6
Frequency
Percentage
With how many different partners have you had sexual
intercourse without having an interest in a long-term committed
relationship with this person?
None
145
57.8
1
44
17.5
2-3
31
12.4
4-7
24
9.6
8 or more
7
2.8
Sexual Orientation
N
Mean
Std. Dev.
P-value
Behaviour Facet
Heterosexual
208
1.79
0.861
0.204
Bisexual
20
2.23
1.155
Homosexual
16
1.94
1.041
Pansexual
7
2.24
.917
Attitude Facet
Heterosexual
208
2.71
1.196
0.000
Bisexual
20
3.82
1.068
Homosexual
16
3.02
1.262
Pansexual
7
3.62
1.129
Desire Facet
Heterosexual
208
2.43
1.092
0.000
Bisexual
20
3.40
0.995
Homosexual
16
2.79
0.995
Pansexual
7
3.33
1.347
Frequency
Percentage
With how many different partners have you had sex with in the
past 12 months?
None
84
33.5
1
107
42.6
2-3
47
18.7
4-7
7
2.8
8 or more
6
2.4
Frequency
Percentage
With how many different partners have you had sexual intercourse
on one and only one occasion?
None
136
54.2
1
70
27.9
2-3
26
10.4
4-7
15
6.0
8 or more
4
1.6
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 51
Table 9 – Displaying results for question 7a
Frequency
Percentage
Sex without love is OK.
Strongly disagree
47
18.7
Disagree
55
21.9
Neutral
58
23.1
Agree
46
18.3
Strongly agree
45
17.9
Table 10 – Displaying results for question 7b
Frequency
Percentage
I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying
"casual" sex with different partners.
Strongly disagree
90
35.9
Disagree
54
21.5
Neutral
40
15.9
Agree
36
14.3
Strongly agree
31
12.4
Table 11 – Displaying results for question 7c
Frequency
Percentage
I do not want to have sex with a person until I am sure
that we will have a long-term, serious relationship.
Strongly disagree
56
22.3
Disagree
58
23.1
Neutral
45
17.9
Agree
42
16.7
Strongly agree
50
19.9
Table 12 – Displaying results for question 8
Frequency
Percentage
How often do you have fantasies about having sex with
someone you are not in a committed romantic
relationship with?
Never
41
16.3
Seldom
84
33.5
About once a month
38
15.1
About once a week
53
21.1
Nearly every day
35
13.9
Table 13 - Displaying results for question 9
Frequency
Percentage
How often do you experience sexual arousal when you
are in contact with someone you are not in a committed
romantic relationship with?
Never
62
24.7
Seldom
95
37.8
About once a month
36
14.3
About once a week
37
14.7
Nearly every day
21
8.4
PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS PROMISCUITY 52
Table 14- Displaying results for question 10
Frequency
Percentage
In everyday life, how often do you have spontaneous
fantasies about having sex with someone you have just
met?
Never
68
27.1
Seldom
87
34.7
About once a month
39
15.5
About once a week
41
16.3
Nearly every day
16
6.4
