Vol.7, No.3, 30 5-3 16, 200 1. :,, * ** *** ***. 1.,,, 5. (Green & Tones, 2000 ; Mack ey, 2000 ).. (, 1998 ),. 48.5-68.9 % (, 1992 ;, 2000 ), 7.5% (, 199 7)5.2% (, 1998). 15-19 1984 24.8 % 19964 8.5% (, 1996 ;, 1998). 0.7%(, 1998),,,,,,,,,,,,,, (, 1999 ; Mack ey, 2000). * 2000. **, *** - 30 5 -
20 0 1 9 1.4 %, 19.7%, 44.7% 26.8 %, 7.5% (, 1998 ). (1997)400 42.1%, 8.7%, (2000 ) 6,1307.5%.. 38.9% (232),, 46.9 %, 38.5%, 36.8% (, 1996 ;, 1998 ;, 2000).,,,,,..,,,,,,. (, 2000 ; WHO, 1995),. (1998), (1998), (199 7), (1999 ),,,, (2000 ), (2000),.,?,?,?.. 2.,.,.,. 3. 1) : 13-19 200010 3, 12. 2) : 13-19,,,,,,,,. 3) :,,, (F enst erh eim, 19 75) 37. - 30 6 -
73. 1. (, 1992 ). 50 15-19, (U. S. Department of Health an d Hum an services, 1993), 199 11,000116.5 199698.7, 1994 12,90 119989,48 12 7%, 15-19 197 1 1,00050198 327 (J acobson, Wilkin son, & Pill, 199 5), Ket ting Vissor (1994 ) 1,000197020, 198010, 19908. (1996 ) 1984 24.9%9 124.3%, 9 332.4 %, 96 4 2.5%, 9 74 7.9 %. 199 31996 1915-18 15%(Kat ase, 2000). 11,273 44.7% 86.3%, 4.5%(, 2000 ) 10. 1,34 3 44 %, 30% (, 199 7 ;, 1996 ;, 2000). 36.8%38.5% (, 1996 ;, 2000).,,,,,,,, 35%, 4 0% (, 1996 ;, 1999 ; Mack ey, 2000 ). (2000 ) (199 7). (2000), (1997). 2 ), (Galassi, 19 77). Albert i Emmon s (19 78 ) - 30 7 -
20 0 1 9. (, 1996), (, 2000), 198458.7% 199665.2%. (, 2000).,,,,,. (, 1999 ;, 2000 ). 67% 3,134 39 %,, (, 1998). (2000),,,. (1997),,. (, 1999). (1998 )NO... 70.2 %20.4 % 35.4 % 70%.,,,.. 1.. 2. 4,684 (13-19) 1,988,902. 3, 1,2 19,000. 1, 2. 19,000 13,100 12,733 (68.9%).,,, 3 2 54 1,988,90219,000. 2,74 1 6 3, 1,94 3 19 1 254. 3-30 8 -
73, 1, 2, (,,,,,, ) (,,,,,,,,,,, 100, 50., 7,. 3. 19 56, 4 5, 8, 7, 7, 60, 22, 8, 22 19 5. 1) : 7. 7-2 1 Cronbach ' s =. 603. 5. WINDOWSPSS 10.0 progr am.,,,,,,,, t -Test.. 1. 12,733 15.913-20, 3, 1, 2 32.0 %, 2 7.1%, 29.8%, 72.5%, 26.0 %, 4 2.5%, 56.4 %. 6 40.6%, 59.4 %, 94.3%, 5.7%, 13.3%. 62.0%, 29.7%, 0.4 %, 0.3%, 3.1%, 19.0%, 2.3%. 2. 4. 20001011115., 10-15. 12,650 48.5% (6,130), 7.4 % (828), 14.3% (1597), 7.2% (809), 16.3% (18 19), 3.6% (404), 0.7% (76), 4.8% (53 1), 67%. 5318.2%.. - 30 9 -
20 0 1 9 < 1> N = 12,6 5 0 (%) 6.130(48.5%) 828( 7.4%) 1597(14.3%) 809( 7.2%) 1819(16.3%) 404 ( 3.6%) 76( 0.7%) 531( 4.8%) (n = 531) 198(67.1%) (n = 531) 46( 8.2%) 3.,,,,,,,,,,,. 42.7%, 39.8%. 7-2 17 2 1, 17.992.53. <2>. (t = 6.20 1, P =.000 ), (t = 2.034, P =.04 2), (t = 3.70 1, P =.000), (t = 3.802, P =.000), (t = 3.338, P =.00 1), (t = 2.119, P =.00 1), (t = 8.372, P =.000), ( (t = 6.362, P =.000 ), (t = 2.3 18, P =.020 ), <2 > t. p.. 2,212 1,950 1,299 4,199 5,169 330 2.563 2.568 4.092 70 4.524 865 1.002 4.515 3623 1847 3045 24 19 5398 46 4611 847 5178 262 5214 218 18.232.48 17.742.59 17.982.52 17.992.53 18.022.53 17.722.62 18.172.49 17.912.55 18.022.54 16.862.56 18.052.52 17.732.61 18.152.54 17.962.53 18.192.47 17.602.62 18.192.51 17.752.55 18.002.53 17.133.18 18.052.52 17.692.61 18.0516.86 16.862.75 18.052.51 16.622.91 6.201.000 -.151.880 2.034.042 3.701.000 3.802.000 3.338.001 2.119.034 8.372.000 6.362.000 2.318.020 3.807.000 7.453.000 8.173.000-3 10 -
73 (t = 3.80 7, P =.000), (t = 7.4 53, P =.000 ), (t = 8.173, P =.000).,,,,. 4..,,,,,,. (t = - 1.511, P =.131), (t = 1.24 9, P =.2 12), (t = 2.379, P =.0 17), (t = - 2.177, P =.0 30 ), (t = 5.42 5, P =.000), (t = 8.6 37, P =.000), (t = 6.0 57, P =.000), (t. = 11.517, P. =.000), (t = - 1.808, p =.0 17),., 1) 12.733,,,,,,,,,,. Abm a, Driscoll, & Moore (1998),, Seamark, & Gray (1997) 6 1%. <3 > t p. 6,280 18.182.60 4,800 18.522.49-2. 177 0.030 1,108 18.332.56 1,106 18.482.29-1.511 0.131 2,214 18.4 12.43 646 18.272.34 1.249 0.212 2,860 18.382.41 1,612 17.972.41 5.425.000 4,472 18.232.42 370 17.092.65 7.985.000 4,842 18.142.46 68 16.322.54 6.057.000 4,910 18.112.46 464 16.712.87 10. 162.000 295 16.492.92 198 16.967.0-1.808 0.017 957 18.182.48 4557 17.962.55 2.379 0.017-3 1 1 -
20 0 1 9..,,,,,.?.,,,,?,,,,,,..,,,,,,,. Abm a, Driscoll, & Moor e (1998 )10,84 7 13 24 %1910%.., 199 7 1998. 1999. (199 7) (1999 ). (199 7),,. 1940 2000,,,.,,,. (Nilsson & Sandstr on, 200 1). Alalama, Birmingh am My Individu al Respon sibility Redu ces Our Risk (MIRROR) (St ar devant, Koh ler, Williann, & J oh n son, 1998).,,,,. 17. (Pierre & Cox, 1997) Brin dis (1999 ) 50199 1 199 715-1916%,, - 3 12 -
73,,.,,,,,,. 26.0%, 4 2.5%, 56.4 %. 640.6%, 59.4 %, 94.3%, 5.7%, 13.3%. 62.0 %, 29.7%, 0.4 %, 0.3%, 3.1%, 19.0 %, 2.3%. 2.. 4,684 1,988,902,,, 3 2 5419,000 12,733195 6, 4 5, 8, 7, 7, 60, 22, 8, 22, Cronbach ' s =. 603 1.,,,,,.,,,. 20001011115,. WINDOWSPSS 10.0 progr am.,,,,,,, t-test. 1. 12,733-113- 20, 3, 1, 2 32.0 %, 27.1%, 29.8 %, 72.5%, 12,650 48.5% (6,130), 7.4 % (828), 14.3% (1597), 7.2% (809), 16.3% (18 19), 3.6% (404), 0.7% (76), 4.8% (53 1), 67%.. 56 3 8.2% (4 6). 3. 4 2.7%, 39.8 % 7-2 1 7-2 117.992.53. (t = 6.20 1, P =.000), (t = 2.034, P =.04 2), (t = 3.70 1, P =.000 ), (t = 3.802, P =.000 ), (t = 3.338, P =.00 1), (t = 2.119, P =.00 1), (t = 8.372, P =.000 ), ( (t = 6.362, P =.000 ), - 3 13 -
20 0 1 9 (t = 2.318, P =.020), (t = 3.80 7, P =.000), (t = 7.4 53, P =.000 ), (t = 8.173, P =.000). 4. (t = - 1.511, P =.131), (t = 1.249, P =.212), (t = 2.379, P =.0 17), (t = - 2.177, P =.0 30 ), (t = 5.425, P =.000), (t = 8.637, P =.000), (t =6.057, P =.000), (t = 11.517, P. =.000), (t = - 1.808, p =.07 1.),.,,. 1. 0.60 3. 2.. 1.. 2.,. (2000).., 4 3 (2) :119-127. (2000)... (199 7).., 36-4 5. (1998 )... 55-64. (2000 ).,., 4 0-53. (1992).,,.. (2000).., 30 (6) :1556-1567. (199 7)...., 33-4 6. (1997).,.,, 34-4 5. (1997)... (1998 ).,., 28 (3). 573-582. (1999 ).., 4 3-46. (199 7)..,, 2 3-40. (1998 ).. :. (2000). - 3 14 -
73,.. (1997).. :.,,,, (1998 ).. -, -. :. (2000).,.., 2000110. 10-16.,,, (2000 ).. :.,,,,,, (1998 )... (1999 ).... 11-4 3. (1996 )... 8(1999 )... :. (1992)... (1998 ).. 3. (1996).. 1. (1996)... 22-2 3. Abma, J., Driscoll A., Moor e K. (1998 ). You ng Wom en ' s Degree of Contr ol over First Int er cou rse : an Explorat ory An alysis. F amily Plannin g P erspective, 30 (1), 12-18. Alberti, R. E., & Emmon s, M. L. (1982 ). You r Perfect righ t (4t h ). San Lu is Obispo, CA : Impact. Brindis, C. (1999). Building for t h e Fut ur e : Adolescent Pregnan cy Prevention. J our nal of Am Med Womens Assoc, 54 (3), 129-132. F enst erh eim, H., & Baer, J. (1975). Don ' t say yes wh en you want t o say no. New York : Dell Publishing Co. Galassi, M. D., & Galassi, J. P. (19 77). Assert You rself! : How t o be your own per son, New York : Human Sciences Press. Green, J., & Tones, K (2000). Sex and th e World. Sexu al Healt h and F ou ndations for Practice, edited by Willson, H., & McAndrew, Baillier e Tin dall, P28-30. J acobson, L. D., Wilkinson C., Pill R. (1995). Teenage Pregnan cy in th e Unit ed Kin gdom in t h e 1990s : th e Implications for Prim ary Care. F amily Pr act ice, 12 (2 ), 232-2 36. Kat ase, K. (2000). Sexu al Att it u de and beh avior of cont emporary J apan ese yout h. J ou rn al of Asian Sexology. Asian F ederat ion for Sexology. 2 :119-120. Ketting & Vissor (1994 ). Contraception in th e Netherlands : the low abortion rat e explained. Patient Edu cat ion an d Cou nsellin g, 23, 16 1-171. Mackey, J. (2000). The Penguin Atlas of Human Sexu al Beh avior. P enguin Refer ences, 30-31. Nilsson, A., Sandstr on, B. & Sk olverk er (200 1). Th e Best Th ing is Gett in g t oo Konw Wh at oth ers Think... A summ ary of a qu alit y assessment of sex edu cation in 80 Swedish Sch ools. National Agen cy for Edu cat ion. Pierr e, N., Cox, J. (1997). Teen age pregn an cy pr event ion pr ograms. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 9 (4 ), 3 10-316. Seam ark, C. J., Gr ay D. J. (1998). Teen ager s an d Risk-t akin g : Pregnan cy and Smokin g. Brit ish J ou rn al of Gen eral Pract ice, 4 8 (42 7), 98 5-986. St ur devant, M. S., Koh ler, C. L., Willianm s, L. F., J oh nson, J. E. (1998). Th e Universit y of Albama Teen age Access Pr oj ect : A Model for Prevent ion, Referrals, an d Link ages t o Testing for High-Risk You ng Women. J ournal of Adolescent Healt h, 23 (2 ), 10 7-114. U. S Departm ent of Health an d Hu man Services (1993). Teen age pregnan cy an d birt h r at es - 3 15 -
20 0 1 9 Unit ed St at es, 1990. MMWR, 4 2 (38 ), 733-736. WHO (1995). Teach ing Modu les for Basic Edu cat ion in Hu man Sexu alit y. vol.7. 15-4 3. - Ab s t r a ct - Key co nce pt : Teen age girls, Sexu al experien ce, Self- assert iven ess S elf-as s er t iv en e s s a n d Sex u a l Ex p er ien c e s of Teen a ge Gir ls in Kor ea * Ch ang, S oon Bok ** Y oo, My u ng S ook *** L ee, Su n Ky u ng *** Th e pur pose of t his st u dy was t o ident ify ch ar act erist ics r elat ed t o self assertiveness in t een age girls, an d t o ident ify th e relationship between t h e self assert iven ess an d sexu al experien ces in t een age girls in Kor ea. Th e subj ect s for this stu dy were 12,733 girls from an accessible popu lation of 19,000 girls wh o were a multi- st age clu st er sample from a population of 1,988,902 girls at t en ding t o 4,684 sch ools in th e seven lar ge cities an d nine provinces of Korea. Th e response rate was 68.9%. Data were collected by mail from Oct ober 2 to Oct ober 28, 2000. A stru ctured qu estionn aire of 12 5 it em s which inclu ded measur ement of gen eral ch ar act erist ics, sexu al experien ces, an d self- assertiveness was u sed. Th e sexu al experien ces were defined as datin g, h olding h ands, put ting arms on th e sh ou lders, ligh t kissin g, Fren ch kissin g, t ou ch in g breast s, t ou ch in g genit alia, an d coitu s. Th e self assertiveness measu rement was developed by S. B. Ch an g et al.(2000) and h as a Cronbach ' s al.603 1. Dat a was an alyzed with SP SS 10.0 Program u sing descriptive st atistics, reliability, an d t -t est. Th e r esu lt s of th is stu dy are as follows ; 1. Th e subj ect s were from 9th t o 11th graders an d 4 2.7% an swer ed th at t h ey followed th eir part ner ' s requ est. Th e ran ge for t h e self assert iven ess scor e was 7-2 1 ou t of a possible r ange of 7-2 1. Th e gr ou p of girls wh o wer e in vocational sch ools, lived away from family or in rur al areas, at t en ded night sch ool, t ook part in drinkin g, smoking, and glu e inh alat ion, wh o h ad cyber sex or ph on e sex or were exposed t o porn ography, an d wh o h ad ru n away fr om h ome sh owed significant ly lower self assertiven ess scores th an t h ose wit h out th ese ch ar act eristics (P <.05). 2. Th e grou p which h ad experience in dating(t =2.379, P =.017), French kissing (t =5.425, P =.000), t ou ching br east s (t = 8.6 37, P =.000 ), t ou ching genit alia (t = 6.057, P =.000), an d coit u s (t = 6.0 57, P =.000) sh owed significant ly lower self assertiven ess scores t h an th e grou p wh ich h ad n ot h ad th ese sexu al experiences. Bu t th ere was n o differ ence in th e self assert iven ess scor es bet ween t h e grou p which h ad experience of h olding h an ds, ligh t kissing, an d u sin g contr aceptives compar ed t o th e gr ou p wh ich did n ot. It can be conclu ded th at th e grou p wh ich h ad delin qu ent beh avior sh owed lower self assertiveness, an d th e lower self assertiveness led t o unwant ed sexual experiences. It is su ggest ed t h at self assert iven ess t rainin g be provided for th e gr ou p wit h delin qu ent beh avior as a fir st priorit y, and t h en analyze of t h e pr ocess of self assertiveness in r elation t o sexu al experiences. * This paper was support ed by t h e Commission of Yout h Prot ect ion. ** College of Nur sing, Yon sei Univer sit y ; Research In st it ut e for Home Healt h Car e (csbok @yumc.yon sei.ac.kr ) *** College of Nur sing, Yon sei Univer sit y, Doct oral Can didat e - 3 16 -