sexual behavior among college students
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
This study focuses on exploring the theoretical relationships among individualism, collectivism, exposure to Internet pornography, attitudes toward premarital and extramarital sex, and sexually permissive behavior, an area that has not been addressed in the growing cross-cultural research.
The results of the study indicate that although respondents from the three Chinese societies were more collectivism-oriented, they exhibited both individualistic and collectivist tendencies. More importantly, they differed significantly with respect to
horizontal individualism and horizontal collectivism. Taipei respondents were the least horizontal individualism-oriented, while Shanghai respondents were less horizontal collectivism-oriented. On the other hand, Hong Kong respondents had highest score in horizontal collectivism. Consistent with previous studies (Alavi & McCormick, 2004;
Hofstede, 2001; Kim et al., 1994; Triandis, 1995), these findings
suggest that individualism and collectivism may coexist at the individual level because individual attitudes and behavior may vary in different contexts. These findings
also suggest that college students in the three Chinese cities seem to carry all four of the horizontal individualism, vertical individualism, horizontal collectivism, and vertical collectivism cognitions in different combinations.
Another aim of this study was to examine Internet pornography exposure, attitudes toward premarital sexual permissiveness and extramarital sex, and sexually permissive behavior among college students in the three Chinese societies. The results of the study found that Hong Kong respondents appear to have the lowest exposure to Internet pornography and are the least likely to accept premarital sexual
permissiveness and extramarital sex, whereas Shanghai respondents are most accepting extramarital sex and tend to exhibit highest sexually permissive behavior. These findings indicate that the acceptance of premarital sex and extramarital sex is greater among young people in Shanghai than in Hong Kong and Taipei. The results also suggest
pornography, attitudes toward premarital and extramarital sex, and sexual permissive behavior than was individualism. More specifically, this study found that horizontal collectivism correlated more strongly with exposure to Internet pornography and attitudes toward extramarital sex than horizontal individualism, while vertical collectivism
correlated more strongly with exposure to Internet pornography, attitudes toward premarital and extramarital sex, and sexually permissive behavior. More horizontal collectivism-oriented respondents tended to have a lower level of Internet pornography exposure and were less likely to accept premarital sex than less horizontal collectivism oriented respondents. In addition, more vertical collectivism oriented respondents were less likely to accept premarital and extramarital sex than less vertical collectivism oriented respondents. Taken together, these findings suggest that individualism and collectivism can help explain Internet pornography exposure, attitudes toward
premarital sexual permissiveness and extramarital sex, and sexually permissive behavior.
Research in individualism and collectivism has indicated that individuals who are high on individualism are more concerned with individual rights and personal needs.
They are primarily motivated by their own preferences, needs, and desires and give priority to their personal goals over the goals of others. By contrast, individuals who are high on collectivism are more concerned with group rights and group goals. They are primarily motivated by the norms and duties imposed by society and are willing to self-sacrifice for group interests. Thus, more collectivistic individuals are more likely to behave according to prevailing social norms and are less likely to accept socially disapproved behavior than more individualistic individuals. It might seem logical to conclude that people with high collectivism, especially high vertical collectivism, have
more conservative sexual attitudes and are less likely to accept premarital sexual permissiveness and extramarital sex and to engage in sexually permissive behavior.
The regression results also indicate that the predictive power of individualism and collectivism on sexual attitudes and behavior differs in the three Chinese
societies. Although vertical individualism and vertical collectivism were significant predictors of Internet pornography exposure, sexually permissive behavior,
attitudes toward extramarital sex, and premarital sexual permissiveness, they
were not significantly correlated with the four dependent variables in the Taipei sample, except for a weak correlation between vertical collectivism and attitudes toward
premarital sexual permissiveness. One possible explanation is that the Taiwanese
respondents were less vertically individualistic than were their Hong Kong and Shanghai counterparts. It may also be the case that college students in Taipei were more
interdependent (Yeh & Chen, 2003) and less competitive than were their counterparts in Hong Kong and Shanghai. These findings raise fundamental questions both for theory and research and suggest that researchers need to be more careful when examining the effects of individualism and collectivism on individual attitudes and behavior in cross-cultural research.
Although the results of this study indicate that there were significant relationships between individualism/collectivism and sexual attitudes and behavior, this study is
using the Internet and surfing pornographic web sites. Thus, it remains to be seen whether the results of the study can readily be generalized to general public and other cultures.
References
Alavi, S. B., &McCormick, J. (2004). Theoretical and measurement isues for studies of collective orientation in team contexts. Small Group Research, 35,2, 111-127.
Barak, A. & Fisher, W.A. (1997). Effects of interactive computer erotica on men’s attitudes and behavior toward women: An experimental study. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 353-369.
Barak, A., Fisher, W.A., Belfry, S. & Lashambe, D. (1999). Sex, guys, and cyberspace:
Effects of Internet pornography and individual differences on man’s attitude toward women. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, Vol. 11(1), 63-91.
Cai, D. A., Wilson, S. R., & Drake, L. E. (2000). Culture in the context of intercultural negotiation individualism-collectivism and paths to integrative agreements. Human Communication Research, 26(4), 591-617.
Chan, J. & Lee, C. C. (1991). Mass media and political transition: the Hong Kong press in China’s orbit. N.Y.: Guilford Press.
Chen, G. H. (2007). Evaluating the individualism and collectivism scale for use in mainland China. Psychological Reports, 101(1), 93-99.
Chiou, J. S. (2001). Horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism among college students in the United States, Taiwan, and Argentina. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 141(5), 667-678.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1979). The development of coping style. Human Development, 22, 320-331.
Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. New York: Oxford University Press.
Greenberg, B.S., Brown, J.D. & Buerkel-Rothfuss, N.L. (1993). Media, sex and the adolescent. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
Guzley, R. M., Araki, F., & Chalmers, L. E. (1998). Cross-cultural perspectives of commitment: Individualism and collectivism as a framework for conceptualization.
The Southern Communication Journal, 64(1), 1-19.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in
Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S. C., &Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lalonde, R. N., & Cameron, J. E. (1993). An intergroup perspective on immigrant acculturation with a focus on collective strategies. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 57-74.
Lee, B., & Tamborini, R. (2005). Third-person effect and Internet pornograph: The influence of collectivism and Internet self-efficacy. Journal of Communication, 55:292-310.
Lo, V.H., Neilan, E., Sun, M.P. & Chiang, S.I. (1999). Exposure of Taiwan adolescents to pornographic media and impact on sexual attitudes and behavior. Asian Journal of Communication, 9(1), 50-71.
Lo, V. H., & Wei, R. (2005). Exposure to Internet pornography and Taiwanese adolescents’ sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(2):221-237..
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-245.
Pan, S. M. (1995). The contemporary situation of sexuality in China. Beijing: Guangming Daily Publishing House.
Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157.
Shah, D. V., Faber, R. J., & Youn, S. (1999). Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research, 26, 240-267.
Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. f., & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 27-nation study. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157.
So, C. (1996). "Pre-1997 Hong Kong Press: Cut-throat Competition and the Changing Journalistic Paradigm." In Nyaw Mee Kau and Li Si Ming (eds.) The Other Hong Kong Report 1996, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, pp. 485-505.
So, C., Chan, J., & Lee C. C. (2000). Hong Kong SAR (China). In S.A. Guarantee (Eds.), Handbook of the media in Asia (pp.527-551). New Delhi: Sage.
Soh, S., & Leong, F. T. L. (2002). Validity of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism in Singapore: Relationship with values and interests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(1): 3-15.
Takata, T. (1992, June). Self-deprecative social comparison in Japan. Paper presented at the International Conference on Emotion and culture, Eugene, Oregon.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guildford Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., & Chan, D. (1998). Scenarios for the measurement of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(2):
275-289.
Triandis, H. C. , & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(1): 118-128.
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59,1006-1020.
Wang, Y., Shi, K., & Huang, X. (2003). A confirmatory study on the structure of individualism and collectivism in china. Psychological Science, 26, 996-999.
Waterman, A. S. (1984). Individualism and interdependence. American Psychologist, 36, 762-773.
Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Empirical evidence on collectivism among the Japanese. In U.
kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G.Yoon (1994). Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 175-188). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Y e h , J . B . , & C h e n , L . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . C u l t u r a l v a l u e s a n d
a r g u m e n t a t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n s f o r C h i n e s e p e o p l e i n T a i w a n , H o n g K o n g , a n d M a i n l a n d C h i n a . I n F . E . J a n d t ( E d . ) , I n t e r c u l t u r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n : A g l o b a l r e a d e r ( p p . 5 1 - 6 9 ) . T h o u s a n d O a k s : C A : S a g e .
Zhang, K., Li, D., Li, H., & Beck, E. J. (1999). Changing sexual attitudes and behavior in China: Implications for the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. AIDS Care, 11 (3), 581-589.
Table 1: Principal Component Analysis of Individualism and Collectivism Items with Varimax Rotation
Items Factor Loadings
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Horizontal Individualism
2. I rely on myself most of time; I rarely rely on others.
.81 -.02 .05 .07
1. I’d rather depend on myself than others.
.80 .01 .02 .09
3. I often do “my own things.” .77 .04 .05 .17
4. My personal identity, independentofothers, is very important to me.
.68 .10 -.02 .27
Horizontal Collectivism
11. To me, pleasure is spending timewith others.
-.03 .75 .23 .09
10. The well-being of my coworkersisimportant to me.
.08 .75 .18 .00
9. If a coworker gets a prize, I would feel proud.
.07 .74 .09 .01
12．I feel good when I cooperate withothers.
-.01 .71 .30 .03
Vertical Collectivism
15．Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required.
.06 .13 .83 .06
14．It ismy duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want.
.05 .11 .81 .04
13．Parents and children must stay together as much as possible.
.04 .28 .68 .03
16．It is important to me that I respectthe decisions made by my groups.
.04 .30 .58 .08
Vertical Individualism
6．Winning is everything. -.04 -.17 .01 .75
7．Competition is the law of nature. .08 .05 .09 .74
8．When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused.
.12 .21 .08 .69
5．It is important that I do my job better than others.
.40 .06 .04 .64
Eigenvalue 3.98 2.92 1.40 1.22
Variance Explained 24.85％ 18.26％ 8.78％ 7.63％
Cronbach’s alpha .71 .72 .77 .76
Table 2: Correlations between Horizontal Individualism, Vertical Individualism, Horizontal Collectivism, Vertical Collectivism, Exposure to Internet Pornography, Attitudes toward Extramarital Sex, Premarital Permissive Attitudes and Sexually Permissive Behavior Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Horizontal individualism
2 Vertical individualism .42***
3 Horizontal collectivism .09*** .11***
4 Vertical collectivism .09*** .15*** .50***
5 Exposure to Internet porn -.01 .08*** -.11*** -.05**
6 Attitudes toward
extramarital sex .00 .04* -.11*** -.13*** .31***
7 Sexually
permissive attitudes .06** .03 -.03 -.09*** .2*** .49***
8 Sexually permissive
behavior .03 .08*** -.03 -.05** .26*** .34*** .46***
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Table 3: Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Attitudes toward Extramarital Sex, Premarital Permissive Attitudes and Sexually Permissive Behavior
Independent variables
Notes: Beta weights are from final regression equation with all blocks of variables in the model. N=3,274. Variables recoded as follows: gender (0=female, 1=male);
GPA (1=under 59, 2= 60 to 69, 3= 70 to 79, 4= 80 to 89, 5=90 to 100).
*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05.
Table 4: One-way Analysis of Variance for Horizontal Individualism, Vertical Individualism,
Horizontal Collectivism, Vertical Collectivism, Exposure to Internet Pornography, Attitudes toward Extramarital Sex, Premarital Permissive Attitudes and Sexually Permissive Behavior in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taipei
Area All Sample Shanghai
Sample
Hong Kong
Sample Taipei Sample F value
Variables mean mean mean mean
N=3570 N=863 N=1560 N=1147 Vertical
individualism
3.38 3.41 3.38 3.35
2.37 N=3558 N=859 N=1555 N=1144
Horizontal collectivism
3.72 3.66 3.76 3.72
7.49***
N=3570 N=861 N=1563 N=1146 Vertical
collectivism
3.86 3.85 3.87 3.86
.35 N=3564 N=857 N=1561 N=1146
Exposure to Internet pornography
2.04 1.90 1.54 1.94
71.95***
N=3565 N=862 N=1561 N=1142 Attitudes toward
extramarital sex
1.79 1.97 1.64 1.85
37.26***
N=3565 N=867 N=1553 N=1145 Sexually permissive
attitudes
2.48 2.57 2.39 2.57
13.20***
N=3570 N=865 N=1560 N=1145 Sexually permissive
behavior
1.32 1.40 1.30 1.30
9.26***
N=3557 N=862 N=1553 N=1142
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Table 5: Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Attitudes toward Extramarital Sex, Attitudes toward Premarital Sexual Permissiveness and Sexually Permissive Behavior in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taipei
Notes: Beta weights are from final regression equation with all blocks of variables in the model after controlling for the influence of gender, age, GPA, newspaper use, television viewing, and Internet use. Sample size: Shanghai = 828, Hong Kong = 1,340, Taipei = 1.054. Variables recoded as follows: gender (0=female, 1=male); GPA (1=under 59, 2= 60 to 69, 3= 70 to 79, 4= 80 to 89, 5=90 to 100).
*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05.