Vol.9, No.2, 113-127, 2003. :,, 1 ). 1..,,. (At wat er, 1992).. (, 1999). 48.1%, 4.5%, 0.5%, 0.4 %, 0.8%, 3.4% (,,,, 200 1). 1995 4 3 15 19 1,000 56.3-117.1 (CDC, 1998a ), 2000 1000 23.4 72 (Ventura, Math ews, Hamilt on, 2002), 18 60%. (J oh nson, 1987) (J akobsen, Rise, Aas & Anderssen, 1997). 5. (Gr een & Tones, 2000). 1) 03. 4. 10 03. 4. 19 03. 5. 20-113 -
2003 6.,, (, 1998)., (,,,,, 1998, Markey, 2000), (, 1985). Elliot & Morse (, 1998 ),,.,, YMCA,,, (,,,,,,, 1996 ;, 1998 ;,,, 1999 ;,,,, 2000),, (,, 1999 ;,,,,, 1999),.,. 1996, 1997 (, 1998),...,. 2.. 1),,. 2). 3). 4). 3. 1), (, 1999),,,,,. 2) (Akers, 1998),,,. Q,,, (1998) (2000). - 114 -
9 2 3) (, 1998),,,,,,,, 13.. 1., (, 1999),,,. (,,, 1986). (2002) 7.5%, 14.7%, 25.2%, 44.3%. 2000 36,283.,. (2000) 13, 6, 35. 90%..,,,,, (2000),,. (1998). (1998),,,,.. 2. (, 1997 ;, 1999) (, 1995). (1997) 88.1%, (1999) 60.1%.,,, (, 2000).,, (, 1993). (, 1995). (, 1998). (1998),,. (2000),,,, - 115 -
2003 6,. (1999), (2000). (Mckelvey, Webb, Baldassar, Robinson & Riley, 1999 ; Dilorio, 1999). 3...,,,,. (, 1999).,.,, (, 1999).,,,,, (, 1999). 26.7%, (, 1997)., (Smith & Udry, 1985). 1991 1997 11% (CDC, 1998b), 14.8 (Brindis, Tarbuck - Morales, Wolfe, McCart er, 1994), 20% 13, 50% 15 (Sout h Carolina Departm ent of Health and Environment al Cont rol, 1997). 1998 WHO HBSC,,,,, (WHO, 1998). (CDC) 10 1,203 480 20 (Spit z, 1993).,,.,., (, 2000)... 1.. 2.,. 2. - 116 -
9 2 200 70 2 63,375 633. 11,,, 4 4 3 : 1 3 1 48,20 1 482, 15,174 151. 2. 3. 1),,,,,. 2) Q (1998) (2000). 27 9, 10, 8. 5 1, 5,,,. Cronbach.67, Cronbach.76, Cr onbac h.68, Cr onbach.77, Cr onbach.81, Cr onbach.63, Cr onbach.8 1, Cr onbach.80, Cr onbach.54. 3),,,,,, 13. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,., 13. 13, 5 1 5.. Cr onbach.82, Cr onbach.85. 4. 2. 5 24 5 31 1, 120. 120 19 10 1.,,. 2002 6 22 7 18 3, 1.. 633-117 -
2003 6 111, 522. 5. SAS. 1),,,,,. 2) t -t est ANOVA. 3) (Pearson s correlation coefficient ). 1.. < 1>. 16.82. 74.86%, 25.14%. 3 :1. 4 1.57%, 33.72%, 12.26%, 11.49%. 51.15%, 31.23%, 13.03%, 3.07%, 1.53%. 46.83%, 26.30%. 59.04 %, 18.46%. < 1> N (%) 390(74.86) 131(25.14). 217(41.57) 64(12.26) 176(33.72) 60(11.49) 5( 0.96) 16.82 < 1> ( ) N (%) 16( 3.07) 163(31.23) 267(51.15) 68(13.03) 8( 1.53) 18( 3.45) 35( 6.72) 244(46.83) 137(26.30) 87(16.70) 20( 3.85) 59(11.35) 307(59.04) 96(18.46) 38( 7.31) 109(20.92) 13( 2.50) 109(20.92) / 89(17.08) 69(13.24), 50( 9.60) 82(15.74) 82(15.71) 240(45.98) 200(38.31) 2.,, 1) 62.19%. CD 58.57%. 4 7.59%, 37.69%. 86.97%, 13.03%. 99.8 1%. 8.8 1%. - 118 -
9 2 2), 5 3.066. 3.334., 1.954. 2.30%, 0.77%, 0.19%, 0.19%, 0.19%,. 15.57, 15.88, 16.07, 16.26, 16.45, 16.63, 16.56, 16.5, 16.5, 16, 17, 17. 3. 3) 13 < 2>. 57.47%. 50.19%, 44.06%, 37.74%, 30.84 %, 8.62%, 3.26%, < 3>.. (t = - 3.38, p =.0008). (t = -4.50, p<.0001). < 2 > N (% ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 222 (42.53) 260 (49.81) 292 (55.94) 325 (62.26) 361 (69.16) 477 (91.38) 505 (96.74) 510 (97.70) 518 (99.23) 521 (99.81) 521 (99.81) 521 (99.81) 522 (100.0) 55 (10.54) 65 (12.45) 58 (11.11) 64 (12.26) 44 (8.43) 17 (3.26) 6 (1.15) 5 (0.96) 1 (0.19) 1 (0.19) 36 (6.90) 35 (6.70) 36 (6.90) 39 (7.47) 31 (5.94) 6 (1.15) 2 (0.38) 1 (0.19) 1 (0.19) 44 (8.43) 53 (10.15) 54 (10.34) 35 (6.70) 32 (6.13) 8 (1.53) 4 (0.77) 3 (0.57) 1 (0.19) 165 (31.61) 109 (20.88) 82 (15.71) 59 (11.30) 54 (10.34) 14 (2.68) 5 (0.96) 3 (0.57) 2 (0.38) 15.57 15.88 16.07 16.26 16.45 16.63 16.56 16.5 16.5 16 17 1 (0.19). 17-119 -
2003 6 < 3 > t (p) t (p) ( ) ( ) ( ) t (p) 2.99(0.64) -3.38 3.43(0.50) 5.99 1.94(0.43) -0.82 3.19(0.67) (.0008)*** 3.15(0.53) (<.0001)*** 1.97(0.45) (.4109) 2.94(0.66) -4.50 3.39(0.51) 2.89 1.96(0.45) 0.30 3.02(0.64) (<.0001)*** 3.26(0.55) (.0041)*** 1.94(0.41) (.7676) 2.92(0.65) - 1.93 3.41(0.56) 1.30 1.97(0.44) 0.39 3.08(0.66) (.0545) 3.32(0.52) (.1940) 1.95(0.43) (.6986) 2.92(0.56) 1.48 3.54(0.49) -2.88 2.04(0.54) - 1.16 3.08(0.67) (.1389) 3.31(0.53) (.0042)** 1.94(0.42) (.2499),,. (t = 5.99, p = <.0001). (t = 2.89, p =.004 1), (t = - 2.88, p =.0042).. (F = 5.64, p =.0179). 3-4 (F = 24.71, p<.0001). (F = 16.73, p<.000 1). (F = 71.20, p<.000 1). 4. 5. < 4 >.,,,. < 5>.,,,,,,,.,,,, < 4 > ( ) F (p) Duncan (A) 10.170(13.939) 5.64(0.0179)** A>B (B) 7.250(13.029) (A) 3.998( 7.954) 24.71(<.0001)*** E>A (B) 11.448(13.484) 3-4 (C) 16.884(19.119) 1-2 (D) 28.419(21.853) 3-4 (E) 33.698(15.975) (F) 24.664(.) (/ ) (A) 7.383(12.127) 16.73(<.0001)*** D>A 1 (B) 16.279(14.984) 2-4 (C) 22.594(16.011) (D) 23.257(21.366) (E) 7.840(.) 9.127(0) 0.44(0.5058) 13.692(.) (A) 24.371(22.322) A>B (B) 7.634(11.553) 71.20(<.0001)*** - 120 -
9 2,,,.,,,,,. < 5 > 1. -0.181 0.238-0.002 <.0001*** <.0001*** 0.9539 2. -0.194 0.232-0.059 <.0001*** <.0001*** 0.1721 3. -0.185 0.246-0.012 <.0001*** <.0001*** 0.7682 4. -0.210 0.240 0.014 <.0001*** <.0001*** 0.7407 5. -0.174 0.226 0.057 <.0001*** <.0001*** 0.1869 6. -0.209 0.252 0.122 <.0001*** <.0001*** 0.0052 7. -0.134 0.166 0.116 0.0021** 0.0001*** 0.0079** 8. -0.126 0.119 0.119 0.0037** 0.0063** 0.0064** 9. -0.059 0.085 0.094 0.1723 0.0501 0.0313* 10. 0.017 0.013 0.153 0.6892 0.7550 0.0004*** 11. 0.017 0.013 0.153 0.6892 0.7550 0.0004*** 12. -0.048 0.079 0.116 0.2715 0.0688 0.0077** 13.... *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. (2000) 2 63.1%, 54.1%, 40.2%, 33.7%, 12%, 6%, 6%, 4.3%, 0.5%, 0.4 %. 2 25.14 % (2000) 39%. 30%, 48.0%, 24 %, 4 1.5%, 3.6%, 9.2% (, 2000)..,.. 62.19%.,,,, (1997) 6 1.1% / 1 (1999) 20% 10. 4 7.59%, 37.69%, 3-4 10.96%, 1-2 2.69%, 3-4 0.77%, 0.19%. 52.4 1%. (1997) 29%. 86.97%, 13.03% (1997) 18.8% (2000) 17.1%. 8.81% (2000) 2 9.1%, (1997) 5.3%.. - 12 1 -
2003 6 (Hor owit z & Bor dens, 1995). Eisenman (1993).,.,. (Dilorio, 1999) (, 2000), (, 1995)... (2000),.. (, 2000). (2000)...,,,,, (,,, 1998).,,,., (, 2000) (, 1994). 1997.... (1998) (, 1999 ;,,, 2000). (F er gu sson & Lynskey, 1996).. (, 1998) 2 (, 1999), (2000) 6.,,... (, 1998).. - 122 -
9 2 (1998).,,.,.3. (Brube, Morgan, 1990)..,,,,,,,. (2000) (, 1998).,,,,,,,. (2000),,,.,,,,. (2000),.,.,..,.,... 200 70 2 63,375 633 2002 6 22 7 18 3, 1. 633 111, 522. 9, 27 (, 2000), 5, 13 54. SAS,,,,,, t -t est, ANOVA, (Pear son' s Corr elat ion Coefficient ).. 1. 3.066, 3.334, 1.954. 2. 62.19%, 52.4 1%, 13.03%, 8.8 1%. 3. 57.4 7%. 50.19%, 44.06%, 37.74 %, 30.84 %, 8.62%, 3.26%, 2.30%, 0.77%, - 12 3 -
2003 6 0.19%, 0.19%, 0.19%,. 4..,,.. 5.,,,. (F = 5.64, p =.0 179). 3-4 (F = 24.71, p<.0001). (F = 16.73, p<.000 1). (F = 71.20, p<.000 1). 6.,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,... 1.,,...,. 2... 3... Re f e re n c e s, (1999).,., 16(2), 137-155.,,,,,, (1996). 10., 39 (6), 1007-10 16.,,, (1998).., 11(2), 229-24 1. (1999).., 8, 193-196. (2000)...,,,, (1997)... 9-39. (1999).... - 124 -
9 2 (1993).,.,. (1997)., - -.,. (1999).., 12 (2), 339-356.,,,, (1999).,., 16 (1), 167-185. (1998. 3 18 ). -.. (1998).,.. 28 (3), 573-582. (1999).. 5.. (2000)..,. (2000).., 6 (2), 316-329. (1998).. :. (1995).... (2000).., 17 (2), 1-14.,,,, (1998). -, -. :. (1998).,, :...,, (1999).., 42 (2), 307-320.,,, (2000). 10. :.,,,,, (200 1).., 31 (5), 921-931. (2000)...,, (1986).., 25 (3), 4 18-4 30. (1999).,,., 12 (2), 357-375. (2002). 2002..,,,.,,,, (1999).,. :. (1994 ).. 133-16 1.,, (2000).., 17 (1), 19-39.,, (1998)... (1985).... Aker s, R. L. (1998). Social Learning and Social Structure : A general th eory of crim e and deviance. Bost on : North east ern Univer sity Pr ess. At wat er, E. (1992). A dolescence. Englewood Cliff, New J ersey : Prentice Hall. Brindis, C. S., Tarbuck - Mor ales, S., Wolfe, A. L. & McCart er, V. (1994 ). Ch ar act erist ics associat ed wit h cont racept ive u se among adolescent fem ales in school - based family planning progr ams, Fam ily Planning Perspect ives, 26 (4 ), 160-164. CDC (1998a ). Unint ended pr egnancy. MMW R, 47 (24 ), 497-503. CDC (1998b). Tr ends in sexu al risk beh avior s among high school st udent s- Unit ed St at es, 1991-1997. MMW R, 47 (36), 749-752. Dilorio, C., & Kelley, M., Hockenberry, E. M. (1999). Commu nication about sexu al issues : - 12 5 -
2003 6 m oth ers, fath ers, and friends. Journal of A dolescence Healt h, 24 (3), 18 1-189. Eisenman, R. (1993). Charact eristics of adolescent felons in a prison tr eatment progr am, A dolescence, 28, 695-699. F ergusson, D. M., & Lynskey, M. T. (1996). Alcoh ol misuse and adolescent sexual beh avior s and risk t aking. Pediat rics, 98 (1), 9 1-96. Green, J., & Tones, K. (2000). S ex and th e w orld. Sexu al Health and Foundat ion for Pract ice. ed by Willson, H. and Mcandr ew Bailliere Tindall, 28-30. Grube, J. W. & Morgan, M. (1990). Att itu de - social su pport int er act ions : contingent consist ency effect s in t he predict ion of adolescent smoking, drinking and drug use. Social psy ch ology Quart erly, 53 (4 ), 329-339. Horowit z, I. A., & Bor dens, K. S. (1995). Social Psy chology, California : Mafield Publishing Company. J akobsen, R., Rise, J., Aas, H., & Anderssen, N. (1997). Noncoit al sexu al int eract ions and problem behavior among you ng adolescent s : Th e Norwegian longit udinal healt h behavior st udy. Journal of A dolescence, 20, 71-83. J ohnson, J. (1987). Sexually transmitt ed diseases in adolescent s. A dolescent Medicine, 14 (1), 101-120. Markey, J. (2000). The P enguin At las of Human Sexual intimacy in dat ing relationships. Penguin Reference, 93-103. Mckelvey, R. S., Webb, J. A., Baldassar, L. V., Robinson, S. M., & Riley, G. (1999). Sex knowledge and sexual at titu des among m edical and nursing stu dent s. J ournal of Psy chiatry, 33 (2), 260-266. Miller, B. C., & Nort on, M. C. (1998). Pubert al developm ent, parent al commu nication and sexu al valu es in r elat ion t o adolescent sexual behaviors. Th e Journal of Early A dolescence, 18 (1), 27-52. Smit h, E. A., & Udry, J. R. (1985). Coit al and non- coit al sexu al beh aviors of whit e and black adolescent s. J ournal of A m erican Public Health, 75, 1200-1203. Sout h Carolina Depart ment of Health and Envir onm ent al Cont rol. (1997). A dolescent risk beh aviors : Sout h Carolina Kids cou nt proj ect. Columbia, SC. Spit z, A. M., Ventura S. J, Koonin, L. M., Str auss, L. T., Frye, A., Heu ser, R. I, Smith J. C, Morris, L, Smit h, S, Wingo, P., & Marks, J. S. (1993). Surveillance for pr egnancy and birth rat es, among t eenager, by Unit ed St at e, 1980-1990, MMW R, 42 (56), 1-27. Ventura S. J. Mat hews, M. S. Hamilt on B. E. (2002). Teenage birt hs in th e unit ed st at es : st at e tr ends, 199 1-2000, an u pdat e. N ational vit al st at istics report s, 50 (9). World Health Organization Regional Office for th e West er n Pacific (1998). W ork shop on adolescent Health. - Ab s t ra ct - St u d y on t h e Sexu a l At t it u d e s Ty p e a n d Sexu a l Ex p e r ien c e s a s Rega r d s Ris k Beh a vior s in Gir ls High Sch ool St u d en t s Th e purpose of this Soh n, Ju ng N am 1 ) stu dy is t o identify th e r elat ionship between sexu al at tit ude and risk beh avior s, between risk behavior and sexu al experiences in Korean girls high sch ool stu dent s. Th e subj ect s for this stu dy wer e 522 girls, wh o wer e sam ples fr om a t ar get population of 1) Department of Nursing, Hanseo University - 126 -
9 2 63,375 11t h gr ade stu dent s fr om 200 r egular high schools and 70 vocat ional high schools in Seoul. The dat a were collect ed from J u ne 22 t o J uly 18, 2002. A st ru ct ur ed qu est ionnaire was u sed th at inclu ded measur ement of gener al ch ar act erist ics, sexu al at tit udes, risk beh aviors and sexual experiences. The dat a were processed with th e SAS pr ogram, which uses descriptive st at istics, t-t est, and ANOVA in it s analyses. The r esult s of this stu dy ar e as follows : 1. Th e fr equency of sexual experience is as follows ; holding hands had th e highest per cent age, 57.4 7%, followed in order by arms arou nd 50.19%, act of embr acing 50.19%, kiss 37.74%, french kiss 30.84 %, t ou ch br east s 8.62%, t ouch sexual organs 3.26%, coit us 2.30%, cont raception 0.77%, pregnancy 0.19%, abortion 0.19%, and pr ostitution 0.19%. 2. Th e scor e of conservatives t ypes was significantly different depending u pon exposur e t o pornogr aphic mat erial and drinking. In comparison, t he scor e of permissiveness types was significantly different depending upon exposur e t o pornogr aphic m at erial, drinking, and ru nning away fr om hom e. But th e scor e of pleasur e seeking types was not significantly differ ent t han t hat of t he risk behaviors t ypes. 3. Ther e was st at istically significant differ ence in th e sexual experience depending upon exposure t o pornogr aphic m at erial, drinking, smoking, and ru nning away fr om h ome. 4. In t he r elat ionship bet ween sexu al att itu de t ypes and sexu al experience, th ere was a negat ive correlation between t he conservatives types and sexual experiences such as holding hands, arms arou nd, act of embr acing, kiss, french kiss, t ouch breast s, t ouch sexu al or gans, and coit us. Th ere was a positive corr elat ion between t he permissiveness types and sexual experiences such as h olding h ands, arms around, act of embr acing, kiss, french kiss, t ouch breast s, t ou ch sexu al organs, and coitu s. Th ere was also a positive corr elation between th e pleasur e- seeking t ypes and sexu al experiences su ch as t ou ch sexu al or gan, cont racept ions, pregnancy, and pr ostitution. Based on t he finding of this stu dy, t his society sh ould develop a int egr at ed program t o prevent risk beh aviors and sexu al experiences in girls high sch ool st udent s. Key w o rds : Risk beh avior s, Sexual at titu de, Sexu al experience - 12 7 -