Аннотация: Статья на английском языке‚ опубликовнанная в Journal of Sex Research‚ посвящена анализу опросов в 24 странах‚ с целью выявить и сравнить отношение к добрачному‚ внебрачному и гомосексуальному сексу.
Database: Magazine &
Journal Articles
Personal Profile:
Off
List: List
One Saved: 0 items Saved in all lists:
0 items
Widmer, Eric D.; Treas, Judith; Newcomb,
Robert Attitudes Toward Nomarital Sex in 24
Countries. Journal of Sex Research v35, n4 (Nov, 1998):349
(1 pages). [Abstract][Long
Display]
COPYRIGHT 1998 Society for the Scientific Study of Sex Inc.
Comparing sexual attitudes and behaviors across cultures is a
concern of anthropological and sociological research. Scholars have
pointed out that many societies around the world share common
normative attitudes toward sex, including the incest taboo,
condemnation of adultery, and a general concern for regulating
sexuality, particularly outside wedlock (Levi-Strauss, 1969;
Murdock, 1960). At the same time, research has shown that attitudes
toward premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, petting, and
other sexual behavior are not constants, but present different
patterns from culture to culture (Ford & Beach, 1951). Even in
the Western world, countries differ in their emphasis on the value
of virginity before marriage, the acceptability of homosexuality,
and the appropriate age to become sexually active (Buss, 1989;
Christensen & Carpenter, 1962; Christensen & Gregg, 1970;
Jones et al., 1985; Jones et al., 1986; Ross, 1985).
Although scholars, policy makers, and the general public have a
genuine interest in cross-national variations in attitudes regarding
sexual morality, most research in the social and behavioral sciences
has been largely a local or national enterprise. Indeed, most
studies have been based on samples not representative of a national
population, and nationally representative studies have seldom been
designed with an eye to facilitating international comparisons.
Cross-national research on sexuality remains relatively
underdeveloped.
Considering nonmarital sex, attitudes toward premarital sex,
teenage sex, extramarital sex, and homosexual sex are sometimes
assumed to be indicators of a single underlying dimension measuring
the overall sexual permissiveness of individuals or nations. While
these four variables are correlated, it need not follow that
societies show consistently permissive or conservative attitudes on
all four variables, nor that a simple permissive-nonpermissive
dichotomy is enough to account for variation across countries. If
moral evaluations of different sorts of nonmarital sexual
relationships hang together in complex ways, this implies a more
pluralistic landscape of sexual values than a permissive
nonpermissive dichotomy would suggest. For example, nations which
are tolerant of sexual experimentation before marriage might be more
approving of both premarital sex and teen sex, but not necessarily
of extramarital sex. Nations where many people are critical of
marriage as a social institution might support the right of
premarital cohabitors and homosexuals to have sex, but not
necessarily young teens. We therefore hypothesize that these four
variables combine in different ways across countries, and that
countries form clusters distinguished by characteristic profiles of
attitudes toward nonmarital sex.
How many different sexual regimes exist and which countries
belong to what regime are empirical questions. These questions are
addressed using newly available national survey data from 24
countries on attitudes toward homosexual sex, extramarital sex,
premarital sex, and teenage sex. Moving beyond previous research, we
are interested in measuring how much of attitudes toward nonmarital
sex is shared by countries or regimes. Researchers, particularly
anthropologists, have been interested in the extent to which
cultures share sexual norms, values, and ethics, as part of a
broader interest in universal features of social life that transcend
particular cultures and idioms. Even though we are mostly concerned
with modern industrial societies, we also wish to address the issue
of universality versus specificity, and we introduce a
straightforward way of measuring the degree of sharing.
Research on Cross-National Differences
Research on sexual attitudes in industrialized nations points out
the fact that normative standards differ across countries. For
example, comparative research has repeatedly shown that Scandinavian
students are more tolerant of premarital sex than are their American
counterparts (Christensen & Gregg, 1970; Schwartz, 1993;
Weinberg, Lottes, & Shaner, 1995). A 37-country study reported
that non-Western societies (China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Taiwan,
and Palestinian Arabs) value chastity highly in a potential mate,
that Western European countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, the
Netherlands, West Germany, and France) attach little importance to
prior sexual experience, and that Ireland, Japan, and Poland fall
somewhere in between (Buss, 1989). Data on attitudes toward
homosexuality have been reported for 16 industrialized countries.
They suggest that tolerance for homosexuality is linked with
postmaterialist values (Inglehart, 1990). Tolerance for sexual
expression in the public sphere has also been shown to differ
markedly between Western, industrialized nations: Sweden and Ireland
anchor the extremes in terms of openness in the sale of sexually
explicit material, public nudity, and condom advertising (Jones et
al., 1985).
Despite the cumulation of comparative findings, cross-national
research has been limited in several ways. First, although
anthropologists have undertaken cross-cultural analyses of a broad
range of sexual attitudes and behaviors (Broude & Greene, 1976;
Ford & Beach, 1951; Minturn, Grosse, & Haider, 1969;
Murdock, 1960), cross-national research on complex, industrial
societies has focused on only a few aspects of sexuality. Premarital
sexuality, including teenage sex, has been emphasized, largely to
the exclusion of other kinds of nonmarital sexual relationships.
Little is known about how attitudes toward extramarital sex and
homosexual sex vary across countries.
Second, comparative research on complex, industrial societies has
focused on relatively few countries. Most articles that we have
reviewed concern the United States and a Northern European country.
Sweden, for example, has been posed as a counterpoint to American
views of sexual morality. Relatively little comparative information
is available on other European countries and even less on
non-European countries. Comparing the same handful of countries
again and again dooms research to redundant findings. Even our
understanding of well-studied nations is advanced by contextualizing
them within a broader set of contemporary societies.
Third, most existing research dealing with international
comparisons rests on samples which are not nationally
representative. Comparative studies tend to make good use of small
convenience samples of college students or other groups
strategically chosen to elucidate a particular issue (Christensen
& Carpenter, 1962; Kyes & Tumbelaka, 1994; Lottes &
Weinherg, 1997; Ma, 1989; Perlman, Josephson, Hwang, Begum, &
Thomas, 1978; Ross, 1985; Schwartz, 1993; Sprecher & Hatfield,
1996; Sprecher, Hatfield, Cortese, Potapava & Levitskaya, 1994;
Weinherg et al., 1995). Buss's (1989) 37-country study, for example,
was not based on probability sampling but relied instead on various
sampling strategies, including systematic household sampling in
Venezuelan neighborhoods, mail responses to West German newspaper
advertisements, and Estonian couples applying for marriage licenses.
Fourth, even though the representativeness of data on sexuality
has been advanced by some excellent national surveys,including the
1992 National Health and Social Life Survey in the United States
(NHSLS) (Laumann, Gagnon, Michaels, & Michaels, 1994), the
1990-91 British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles
(Wellings, Field, Johnson, & Wadsworth, 1994), and the 1992
Analysis of Sexual Behavior in France Survey (ACSF) (Bozon &
Leridon, 1996), there is a dearth of genuinely comparable studies.
Differences in question wording, response categories, survey
context, and procedures undermine confidence in comparability. An
exemplar for the standardized collection of information relevant to
AIDS has been developed (Carballo, Cleland, Carael, & Albrecht,
1989), leading to a report of cross-national sexual attitudes and
behaviors in 16 mostly developing countries (Cleland & Ferry,
1995). Typically, researchers who wish to understand cultural
differences and similarities have had to overlook problems of strict
comparability. For example, to demonstrate that men report more
sexual partners than do women, Smith (1992a) relied on American,
Canadian, British, and Norwegian surveys which, while nationally
representative, differed in question wording, response categories,
and time referents. The cross-national World Values Surveys contain
comparable data on whether extramarital sex, homosexual sex, and sex
under the legal age of consent are ever justified, but these items
have not been exploited to examine regimes of attitudes toward
nonmarital sex (Inglehart, 1997).
DATA
In contrast to previous research, this study has the benefit of
data from a standardized questionnaire collected in 24 countries
from large and nationally representative samples. Analysis
capitalizes on data from the International Social Survey Program
(ISSP) made available by the Zentralarchiv Fuer Empirische
Sozialforschung, Koeln(1) The ISSP is an established program of
cross-national collaboration which, since 1985, has facilitated
annual social science surveys (Smith, 1992b). In 1994, independent
research institutions in individual countries replicated survey
questions on family, sexuality, and gender roles, typically as a
supplement to national surveys. Data are available for 24 countries,
including Australia, Germany (East and West reported separately),
Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the United States, Austria,
Hungary, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Spain, the
Czech Republic, Slovenia, Poland, Bulgaria, Russia, New Zealand,
Canada, the Philippines, Israel, and Japan. The total sample
includes 33,590 respondents. National samples range in size from 647
in Northern Ireland to 2,494 in Spain. Appendix A presents
characteristics of the samples and their design by country.
Survey informants were asked about four types of nonmarital sex.
The premarital sex item read "Do you think it is wrong or not wrong
for a man and woman to have sexual relations before marriage?" This
was followed by questions asking "What if they are in their early
teens, say under 16 years old?"; "What about a married person having
sexual relations with someone other than his or her husband or
wife?"; and "What about sexual relations between two adults of the
same sex?" The respondents were presented with four response
categories: always wrong, almost always wrong, wrong only sometimes,
or not wrong at all. Other responses (it depends, cannot choose,
don't know) were treated as missing values.
Wording of the questionnaire items was standardized by
translating from British English, hut comparability may still have
been affected by country differences in mode of data collection,
sample design and population coverage, country-specific content of
the various questionnaires to which these items were appended, and
other factors. Even allowing for possible measurement error and the
limited number of items asked about sexuality, the ISSP data offer a
considerable improvement over prior cross-national efforts because
they present nationally representative data on attitudes toward four
different types of nonmarital sex in 24 countries. The data are
superior to those previously available to scholars interested in
comparative analysis of sexual attitudes in contemporary
industrialized societies.
RESULTS
Attitude Profile by Country
We first aggregated the 33,590 responses using percentages into a
matrix of 24 rows (the countries) by 16 columns (the four response
categories for each of the four types of nonmarital sex). This
matrix appears in Table 1.
Table 1. Attitudes Towards Nonmarital Sex by Country (Percentages)
Sex before marriage wrong?
Countries Almost Only Not Wrong
Always always sometimes at all
Australia 13 8 19 59
Austria 4 8 19 69
Bulgaria 23 9 11 57
Canada 12 5 15 69
Czech Republic 5 6 20 68
Germany (East) 2 1 10 87
Germany (West) 12 3 14 79
Great Britain 19 5 14 70
Hungary 19 10 17 54
Ireland 35 8 15 42
Israel 19 7 9 65
Italy 19 7 15 59
Japan 19 21 44 15
Netherland 7 3 13 77
New Zealand 19 6 14 62
Northern Ireland 31 8 13 48
Norway 7 3 13 77
Philippines 60 16 13 11
Poland 18 9 13 60
Russia 13 12 18 57
Slovenia 3 3 12 82
Spain 20 8 9 63
Sweden 4 2 5 89
USA 29 12 18 41
Overall 17 7 15 61
Sex before 16 wrong?
Countries Always Almost Only Not wrong
Always sometimes at all
Australia 61 20 10 9
Austria 36 38 18 8
Bulgaria 71 14 7 8
Canada 55 20 16 9
Czech Republic 59 21 12 8
Germany (East) 27 22 34 16
Germany (West) 34 24 29 13
Great Britain 67 21 9 3
Hungary 50 26 17 7
Ireland 84 9 6 1
Israel 67 14 9 9
Italy 58 19 14 9
Japan 60 30 7 3
Netherland 45 24 25 5
New Zealand 71 18 8 4
Northern Ireland 81 12 5 2
Norway 55 24 15 6
Philippines 77 16 5 3
Poland 77 14 4 4
Russia 45 30 14 11
Slovenia 44 27 23 6
Sweden 32 28 22 17
USA 71 16 9 4
Overall 58 21 14 7
Extramarital sex wrong?
Countries Always Almost Only Not wrong
Always sometimes at all
Australia 59 24 10 7
Austria 67 28 3 2
Bulgaria 51 20 14 16
Canada 68 19 10 2
Czech Republic 43 26 21 9
Germany (East) 60 23 13 4
Germany (West) 55 27 13 4
Great Britain 67 23 8 2
Hungary 62 20 15 3
Ireland 80 13 5 2
Israel 73 17 6 4
Italy 67 13 15 5
Japan 58 33 7 2
Netherland 63 24 11 2
New Zealand 75 17 6 1
Northern Ireland 81 12 6 2
Norway 70 25 5 1
Philippines 88 10 1 1
Poland 74 14 7 5
Russia 36 26 21 17
Slovenia 57 27 13 3
Spain 76 13 7 5
Sweden 68 26 5 1
USA 80 14 4 2
Overall 66 21 9 4
Homosexual sex wrong?
Countries Always Almost Only Not wrong
Always sometimes at all
Australia 55 8 10 27
Austria 52 18 15 15
Bulgaria 81 5 4 10
Canada 39 5 10 46
Czech Republic 29 12 21 39
Germany (East) 51 9 10 30
Germany (West) 42 10 14 33
Great Britain 58 6 10 26
Hungary 83 8 5 4
Ireland 71 6 6 17
Israel 57 8 7 27
Italy 67 7 7 19
Japan 65 22 11 2
Netherland 19 4 12 65
New Zealand 56 5 8 31
Northern Ireland 80 4 6 10
Norway 47 6 11 37
Philippines 84 9 3 3
Poland 77 6 4 14
Russia 57 17 7 19
Slovenia 70 13 9 8
Spain 45 7 6 42
Sweden 56 6 6 32
USA 70 4 7 19
Overall 59 9 9 24
Before considering whether countries cluster into distinctive
sexual regimes, it is useful to examine the country-by-country
distribution of attitudes appearing in Table 1. In each country,
premarital sex is the most accepted of the four types of nonmarital
sex-a finding consistent with cross-cultural research on indigenous
societies (Brown, 1952). The mean percent agreeing that premarital
sex is not wrong at all is 61% across the 24 countries. A
substantial majority of respondents in most countries chose this
response, but the exceptions are worth pointing out. For example,
only 11% of Filipinos consider premarital sex to be not wrong at
all. Japan also presents a unique pattern of responses: 44% of
Japanese respondents indicate premarital sex is only sometimes
wrong, as compared with a mean of 15% across all countries. The
remaining countries reflect two general patterns: Either they
demonstrate a strong consensus on the acceptability of premarital
sex or, less commonly, they are polarized between strong approval
and strong disapproval, as in the cases of Ireland, Northern
Ireland, and the United States.
Approval of premarital sex is limited to adults, however.
Although a majority see nothing wrong with sex before marriage, only
7% of respondents across countries voice this opinion when teenagers
younger than 16 are concerned. In fact, 58% condemn young teenagers
having sex as always wrong. Germany (East and West), Austria, and
Sweden are exceptions which are much more tolerant than other
countries. At the other extreme, Bulgaria, New Zealand, Ireland,
Northern Ireland, the Philippines, Poland, and the United States
present very low acceptance for teenage sex. Extramarital sex
elicits, if anything, even stronger disapproval. Across 24 nations,
only 4% report that it is not wrong at all for married people to
have sex with someone besides their husband or wife. Despite a
general consensus across countries that extramarital sex should be
condemned, several nations, notably Russia, Bulgaria, and the Czech
Republic, show considerably more tolerance. For example, only 36% of
Russians are prepared to describe extramarital sex as always wrong,
as compared to an average of 66% for all 24 countries.
While not as widely accepted as premarital sex, sexual relations
between adults of the same sex do not prompt the strong disapproval
that extramarital sex or teen sex does. On average, 24% of national
populations regard homosexual behavior as not wrong at all as
compared to 59% who view it as always wrong. Attitudes towards
homosexual sex, however, show considerable variation from country to
country. In most countries (18 of 24), a majority of people report
homosexual sex as being always wrong. In the Netherlands, however,
about two thirds of the population sees nothing wrong with sexual
relations between two adults of the same sex. In Spain, the Czech
Republic, Canada, and Norway substantial percentages voice similarly
tolerant attitudes, although public opinion is polarized on the
issue in those countries. Also accepting of homosexuality, albeit to
a lesser extent, are Germany (East and West) and Sweden.
To sum up, with a few notable exceptions there is widespread
acceptance of premarital sex across abroad sample of developed
nations. This acceptance, however, does not extend to premarital sex
between young teenagers, nor to extramarital sex. While more
accepted than either extramarital sex or teen sex, homosexuality
generates more varied opinions across countries and more polarized
responses within nations.
Clusters of Countries
On a variable-try-variable basis, we were able to identify
countries which are more or less alike in attitude towards a
particular type of nonmarital sex. It remains to be seen whether
countries can be typified according to distinctive sexual regimes;
that is, characteristic attitude profiles with respect to all four
nonmarital behaviors.
Given 24 countries, there could conceivably be anywhere from one
to 24 regimes. We hypothesized, however, that a two-group solution,
consistent with a simple permissive-nonpermissive dichotomy, would
be insufficient to explain differences between countries. To find
out whether countries can be gathered in significant clusters with
specific profiles, we applied cluster analysis to the matrix in
Table 1. Cluster analysis has been employed previously to elucidate
differences between individuals in sexual attitudes (Laumann et al.,
1994; Lottes, 1985). Although clustering methodology is often used
in cross-national research, this paper is, so far as we can
determine, the first to apply cluster analysis to sexual attitudes
when contemporary industrial societies are the units of analysis.
To determine the number of regimes, we examined a sequence of
hierarchical cluster analyses based upon Ward's method of clustering
applied to the nation profiles reported in Table 1. Instead of
partitioning the countries into some predetermined number of
clusters in a single step, this hierarchical procedure produces
step-by-step splits (Everitt, 1993). Ward's method minimizes
within-cluster variance and thus produces good estimates of cluster
groupings. Most of the distance reduction occurred at or before the
fifth splitting, and additional splitting resulted in only
insignificant changes in variance reduction. Thus, the 24 countries
can be adequately described as belonging to only six clusters.
Consistent with our rejection of a permissive-nonpermissive
dichotomy, we conclude that ISSP countries can be described by six
distinctive sexual regimes.
Finally, to determine which counties belong to which of the six
clusters, we turned to k-mean algorithms to ascertain the optimal
clustering solution for the data (Everitt, 1993). K refers to the
number of groups, which we specified to be six (k = 6) on the basis
of our hierarchical cluster analysis. We employed PAM, a specialized
k-mean program which, unlike other k-mean algorithms, is not
sensitive to the ordering of cases in the data set. This program
finds the most representative country scores and uses them as
starting values or seeds to form the six clusters (Kaufman &
Roussecuw, 1990).
Final groupings are presented in Table 2 with information about
within- and between-cluster sum of squares. Within-cluster sum of
squares indicates the distance between countries in each cluster.
The lower the within-cluster sum of squares, the better or more
homogeneous is the cluster. Between-cluster sum of squares measures
the distance between the cluster profile and the average profile
model. A larger between-cluster sum of squares indicates a more
distinct cluster, and the higher the sum of the between-cluster sum
of squares the more differentiated are the clusters.
Table 2. Clusters, Cluster Country Members, and Between- and
Within-Cluster Sum of Squares (SS)
Clusters Number of Between-Cluster SS
Countries
Teen Permissives 5 .72
East Germany, West (.14)
Germany, Austria,
Sweden, Slovenia
Sexual Conservatives 4 .58
USA, Ireland, (.15)
Northern Ireland,
Poland
Homosexual Permissives 5 .59
Netherlands, Norway, (.12)
Czech Republic,
Canada, Spain
Moderate Residuals 8 .08
Australia, Great Britain, (.00)
Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria,
Russia, New Zealand,
Israel
Japan .43
(.43)
Philippines .67
(.67)
Total 24 3.07
Clusters Within-Cluster SS Ratio
(Between S/
Within SS)
Teen Permissives .23 3.09
East Germany, West (.05)
Germany, Austria,
Sweden, Slovenia
Sexual Conservatives .07 8.07
USA, Ireland, (.02)
Northern Ireland,
Poland
Homosexual Permissives .29 2.02
Netherlands, Norway, (.06)
Czech Republic,
Canada, Spain
Moderate Residuals .48 0.17
Australia, Great Britain, (.06)
Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria,
Russia, New Zealand,
Israel
Japan -- --
Philippines -- --
Total 1.07 2.87
Note. Numbers in parentheses are sums of squares divided by
number of countries in each cluster.
Two clusters are singletons, that is, a group which contains only
one country. The Philippines constitutes its own cluster because of
its extremely conservative attitudes toward all kinds of nonmarital
sex. In the Philippines there is a consensus that all forms of
nonmarital sex are always wrong. The contrast with other counties is
especially striking for premarital sex. Japan is also its own
cluster, mostly because of its unusual pattern of wrong only
sometimes responses concerning premarital sex. On teenage sex and
extramarital sex Japan is much like other nations, although the
Japanese are more likely than others to report that homosexual sex
is always or almost always wrong (87% compared with 68%, on average,
across the 24 countries).
The 22 Western countries cluster in four multi-country groups,
which we term the Teen Permissives, Sexual Conservatives, Homosexual
Permissives, and Moderate Residuals. Average profiles of the first
three clusters are presented in Figure 1.
[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
The Teen Permissives' cluster, which encompasses Germany (East
and West), Austria, Sweden, and Slovenia, is distinguished by
relatively high levels of acceptance of teenage sex and premarital
sex. As evidenced by the [between-cluster to within-cluster sum of
squares ratio of three, this is a fairly strong cluster. Countries
of this cluster are more permissive on teenage sex than others (only
35% of respondents chose always wrong as compared to 58%, on
average, across the 24 countries). Those countries are also more
accepting of premarital sex. Their scores for extramarital sex and
homosexual sex, however, closely match the average profile.
The Sexual Conservatives' cluster, which includes Ireland,
Northern Ireland, Poland, and the United States, shows relatively
strong disapproval for all types of nonmarital sex. It stands in
sharp contrast to the Teen Permissives' regime, which gathered
together countries with liberal attitudes toward premarital and
teenage sex. For instance, premarital sex is considered always wrong
in 28% of the cluster's cases as compared to 17%, on average, for
the 24 countries. In fact, the Sexual Conservatives present a
U-shaped curve for premarital sex, indicating a polarization of
opinion on premarital sex not seen in any other cluster. As for
other types of nonmarital sex, Sexual Conservatives chose always
wrong at a higher rate than average for all questions: teen sex, 78%
versus 58%; extramarital sex, 79% versus 66%; and homosexual sex,
74% versus 59%. That the between-cluster sum of squares is eight
times larger than the within-cluster sum of squares demonstrates
that this cluster is both homogeneous in its views and quite
distinct from the average.
The Homosexual Permissives' cluster consists of the Netherlands,
Norway, the Czech Republic, Canada, and Spain. With a sum of squares
ratio of two, what distinguishes the countries in this cluster is
high levels of acceptance of homosexuality. Countries gathered in
this cluster have a profile very similar to the average except for
homosexual sex. They accept premarital sex, but reject teen sex and
particularly extramarital sex. To a large extent, they present a
polarized pattern of response for homosexual sex, which is not to be
found in other clusters. This cluster shows the same extent of
polarization on homosexuality that the Sexual Conservatives' cluster
does on premarital sex.
The Moderate Residuals' cluster contains the remaining eight
countries. The low sum of squares ratio for the Moderate Residuals
(.017) confirms that they are quite heterogeneous and not very
distinguishable from the average profile. In fact, the earlier
hierarchical clustering analysis scattered these countries across
other clusters, thereby increasing the sum of squares within each of
those other three clusters. While this category has no real
substantive meaning, it serves to increase the coherence of the
other groups, maximizing the between-cluster sum of squares and
minimizing the within-cluster sum of squares for the Sexual
Conservatives, Teen Permissives, and Homosexual Permissives.
That the Sexual Conservatives, Teen Permissives, and Homosexual
Permissives have distinctive regimes of sexual attitudes is apparent
in Figure 1. The Teen Permissives are visibly more likely than the
other two clusters to see nothing wrong with premarital sex and
notably less likely to judge teen sex as always wrong. Sexual
Conservatives are more likely to view each type of nonmarital sex as
always wrong, while Homosexual Permissives are less likely to
condemn homosexual sex.(2)
How Much Sharing?
In addition to knowing the number of regimes for the countries,
we have a good picture of the features of those regimes, but we
still do not know how different or how similar countries are in
terms of their profiles. To find out the degree to which sexual
attitudes are shared across countries, we computed the sum of
squares across the 24 rows of Table 1, using the "average"
response--25%, the result of dividing the 100% total for each
variable by four, its number of response categories--as the
reference model. We used the deviation of each cell's observed
proportion from .25 to compute the total sum of squares for the
overall data set. To determine how much is shared by countries
(shared sum of squares), we computed the sum of squares between the
mean proportion for each response category across the 24 countries
and the .25 proportion. Then, we compared the within- and
between-clusters sum of squares (Table 2) with those numbers. The
within-clusters sum of squares, the between-clusters sum of squares,
and the shared sum of squares add up to the total sum of squares.
For the 24 countries, the total sum of squares is 21.7, and the
shared sum of squares is 17.56. From Table 2, we know that the
between sum of squares and the within sum of squares are 3.07 and
1.07 respectively. Percentages for the different sum of squares are
presented in Figure 2.
[Figure 2 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
ISSP countries have a good deal in common in terms of their views
on nonmarital sex. By our calculations, 81% of the variance in
attitudes toward nonmarital sex is shared by the 24 countries while
14% is attributable to the six clusters and 5% to country-specific
error. Note that when only 22 countries are considered (excluding
Japan and the Philippines), 84% is shared, 10% is regime specific,
and 6% is country specific.
DISCUSSION
Drawing on survey data from 24 countries, this paper identifies
six distinctive regimes of public opinion regarding the propriety of
nonmarital sex. The analysis confirms that sexual attitudes are
considerably more complex than a simplistic permissive-nonpermissive
typology of countries might suggest: While attitudes toward
premarital sex, teen sex, extramarital sex, and homosexual sex are
correlated, they relate to one another in complex ways across
countries. While this finding is not likely to surprise researchers
on sexuality, this paper offers rigorous confirmation for a large
set of countries.
Of course, these countries do not constitute a representative
sample of countries or cultures, being limited to 24 largely Western
and industrialized nations which chose to participate in the 1994
International Social Survey Program. The only two Asian nations,
Japan and the Philippines, each form a unique, single-country
cluster. This demonstrates that they differ not only from Western
countries, but also from one another. The Philippines is set apart
by particularly conservative attitudes toward all forms of
nonmarital sex. For Japan, it is the respondents' propensity to
label premarital sex as only sometimes wrong rather than expressing
strong approval or disapproval that makes it a singleton. We are
hard put to interpret this unique pattern, but it is consistent with
one scholar's observation that the Japanese view premarital sex with
concern only when it is indiscreet or conflicts with social
responsibilities (White, 1993). It might also reflect the fact that
the Japanese avoid extreme response categories (Hui & Triandis,
1989), although the other three types of nonmarital sex do not
elicit such ambivalent responses.
As for the Western countries, cluster analysis identifies four
sexual regimes: Sexual Conservatives, Teen Permissives, Homosexual
Permissives, and Moderate Residuals. Since the cluster analysis
shows the United States to belong to the Sexual Conservatives, this
study confirms that American sexual values are strikingly
nonpermissive. The conservative nature of American moral views about
sexuality has long been recognized. Pointing to the Europeans'
tolerance of premarital relations and to high rates of extramarital
sex reported by European-born informants in the United States,
Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948) cautioned against pooling
cross-national data for the United States and Continental Europe. A
half century later, ISSP survey evidence shows Kinsey was correct.
The United States is distinctive--markedly more conservative than
most European nations in its sexual attitudes. In fact, American
attitudes toward nonmarital sex class it with Ireland, Northern
Ireland, and Poland--three nations associated with conservative
Catholic populations. Other nominally Catholic countries (e.g.,
Italy) do not fall into this cluster, so the common denominator of
the Sexual Conservatives is not religion per se. An analysis of ISSP
data on church attendance, however, does show that the countries
grouped as Sexual Conservatives are those where people report
attending church frequently.
The cluster analysis also shows that there is no monolithic
Continental attitude toward sexuality in Europe, but rather
diversity and nuances in European moral beliefs about premarital
sex, teen sex, extramarital sex, and homosexual sex. Besides the
Sexual Conservatives, there are two other strong clusters of Western
countries: the Teen Permissives and the Homosexual Permissives, in
addition to the Moderate Residuals, who fall somewhere in between
other clusters. One cluster of countries is relatively tolerant of
premarital sex and even teen sex. Another cluster is distinguished
by comparatively high acceptance of homosexuality.
As for the Teen Permissives' cluster, researchers have viewed
Sweden as unusually accepting of sex before marriage (Linner, 1967)
for decades. Even acceptance of teenage sexuality is regarded as
"unremarkable in a country like Sweden, with its long history of
support for sexual freedom, and the absence there of taboos against
premarital sex" (Jones et al., 1985, p. 59). The cluster analysis
shows that Sweden is not uniquely permissive in terms of approval of
premarital sex. As indicated by their membership in the Teen
Permissives' cluster, Germany (East and West), Austria, and Slovenia
hold views about premarital sex and teenage sex which are very
similar to those of Sweden. If illegitimate fertility--high by
European standards--may be taken as an indication of tolerance of
sex before marriage, then Sweden, Germany, and Austria were all
relatively permissive regarding premarital sex even at the end of
the nineteenth century (Knodel, 1974).
The Netherlands, Norway, the Czech Republic, Canada, and Spain
are distinguished by their tolerance for homosexual sex, but there
are differences within the Homosexual Permissives' cluster as well.
Most countries which register high levels of tolerance toward
homosexuality are also deeply divided. While big shares of the
population see nothing wrong with same-sex relations, significant
segments consider homosexuality to be always wrong. The exception is
the Netherlands, where the majority of residents have come to accept
the more tolerant views. A number of factors have been cited to
account for Dutch open-mindedness on sexual matters. Although
opposition of conservative religious elements deters broad
acceptance of homosexuality in many countries, Oosterhuis (1996)
notes that Dutch Christian communities have been a progressive force
in redefining homosexuality from a sin to a personal issue
warranting Christian compassion. To explain permissive Dutch
attitudes, others have commented on the unusually long history of
the Dutch homosexual movement (Tielman, 1987), the self-conscious
pluralism of the Netherlands, the secularism of its population, and
the candor and coverage of sexual topics in the mass media (Jones et
al., 1986).
While it is valuable to know which countries cluster together, it
is also revealing to note which countries adopt different sexual
regimes. As we indicated, there is no distinctive regime that
characterizes Catholic countries. Nor does a history of socialism
lead to a singular view of nonmarital sexuality: In fact, formerly
communist countries are to be found in each of the four clusters of
Western nations. If there is an Anglo-Saxon tradition of sexual
attitudes, it extends to Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand,
but not to the United States, Canada, or Ireland. Although
Scandinavian countries are generally assumed to share a similarly
tolerant attitude toward sexuality (Jones et al., 1986), Norway is
seen to be less tolerant of premarital sex, especially young teen
sex, and more approving of homosexuality than is Sweden. Indeed, the
results of our study serve to place findings for individual
countries in a broader comparative context, which helps to evaluate
popular beliefs about particular countries and to point out new
research issues. For example, on the basis of a careful analysis of
the best data available to him, the distinguished Russian sex
researcher Igor Kon (1995) concluded that Russian sexual values were
"very similar to those of the Western world" (p. 177). While our
analysis generally confirms this for attitudes toward premarital
sex, teen sex, and homosexual sex, Russians' greater tolerance of
extramarital sex warrants further consideration.
Although this study reveals different normative regimes, it also
points out that there is much sharing going on between countries.
Compared to cognitive maps of emotions and kinship terms (Romney,
Boyd, Moore, Batchelder, & Brazill, 1996; Romney, Moore, &
Rusch, 1997), the 81% of variance in sexual attitudes which is
shared can be regarded as high. This degree of sharing reflects the
fact that cultures around the globe have been shown to make use of
only a small proportion of the logically possible combination of
sexual norms (Heise, 1967). Because our analysis focuses on a
relatively homogeneous subset of largely industrialized and Western
nations in an increasingly globalized world, the potential for
overlap in moral judgments about sex is undoubtedly high. In
general, these 24 nations take a cautious stance toward all types of
nonmarital sex except premarital relations among adults.
Despite considerable agreement across cultures on the rightness
and wrongness of nonmarital sex, the cluster analysis finds six
distinct moral regimes typifying the 24 countries examined. Leaving
aside the distinctive profiles of Japan and the Philippines, Western
nations can he grouped with other countries that share their general
conservatism, their acceptance of premarital sex, or their tolerance
toward homosexuality. These sexual regimes exist even though
pluralistic and contradictory values about sex may flourish within
national populations, as seen most clearly in the polarized
attitudes toward homosexual sex and premarital sex in several
nations. Across nations, extramarital sex (which is generally
disapproved) generates the most agreement, while attitudes toward
homosexual sex and teen sex differentiate countries and clusters.
(1) The data utilized in this paper were documented and made
available by the Zentralarchiv Fuer Empirische Sozialforschung,
Koeln. The data were collected for the ISSP by independent
institutions in each country. Neither the original collectors nor
the Zentralarchiv bear any responsibility for the analyses or
interpretations presented here.
(2) Let us underline that the clusters do not correlate with
questionnaire types. Comparing results of Table 2 with Appendix A,
one can see that modes of data collection are evenly distributed
across clusters.
REFERENCES
Bozon, M., & Leridon, H. (1996). Sexuality and the social
sciences: A French survey on sexual behavior. Aldershot, UK:
Dartmouth.
Broude, G., & Greene, S. J. (1976). Cross-cultural codes on
twenty sexual attitudes and practices. Ethnology, 15, 409-429.
Brown, J. S. (1952). A comparative study of deviations from
sexual mores. American Sociological Review, 17, 135-146.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences:
Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 12, 1-14.
Carballo, M., Cleland, J., Carael, M., & Albrecht, G. (1989).
A cross national study of patterns of sexual behavior. The Journal
of Sex Research, 26, 287-299.
Christensen, H. T., & Carpenter, G. R. (1962). Timing
patterns in the development of sexual intimacy: An attitudinal
report on three modern Western societies. Marriage and Family
Living, 24, 30-35.
Christensen, H. T., & Gregg, C. F. (1970). Changing sex norms
in America and Scandinavia. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27,
616-627.
Cleland, J., & Ferry, B. (1995). Sexual behaviour and AIDS in
the developing world. London: Taylor & Francis.
Everitt, B. S. (1993). Cluster analysis. New York: Edward Arnold.
Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior.
New York: Harper and Row.
Heise, D. R. (1967). Cultural patterning of sexual socialization.
American Sociological Review, 32, 726-739.
Hui, C., & Triandis, H. (1989). Effects of culture and
response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 20, 296-309.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial
society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jones, E. F., Forrest, J. D., Goldman, N., Henshaw, S. K.,
Lincoln, R., Rosoff, J. I., Westoff, C. F., & Wulf, D. (1985).
Teenage pregnancy in developed countries: Determinants and policy
implications. Family Planning Perspectives, 17, 53-63.
Jones, E. F., Forrest, J. D., Goldman, N., Henshaw, S., Lincoln,
R., Rosoff, J. I., Westoff, C. F., & Wulf, D. (1986). Teenage
pregnancy in industrialized countries. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990). Finding groups in
data: An introduction to cluster analysis. New York:
Wiley-Interscience Publications.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual
behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.
Knodel, J. E. (1974). The decline of fertility in Germany,
1871-1939. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kon, I. (1995). The sexual revolution in Russia. New York: The
Free Press.
Kyes, K. B., & Tumbelaka, L. (1994). Comparison of Indonesian
and American college students' attitudes toward homosexuality.
Psychological Reports, 74, 227-237.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michaels, R. T., & Michaels,
S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in
the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1969). Les regles elementaires de la parente
[The elementary structures of kinship]. Boston, Beacon Press.
Linner, B. (1967). Sex and society in Sweden. New York: Pantheon
House.
Lottes, I. L. (1985). The use of cluster analysis to determine
belief patterns of sexual attitudes. The Journal of Sex Research,
21, 405 421.
Lottes, I. L., & Weinberg, M. S. (1997). Sexual coercion
among university students: A comparison of United States and Sweden.
The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 67-96.
Ma, L. (1989). Premarital sexual permissiveness of American and
Chinese college students. Sociological Spectrum, 9, 285-299.
Minturn, L., Grosse, M., & Haider, S. (1969). Cultural
patterning of sexual beliefs and behavior. The Journal of Sex
Research, 8, 310-318.
Murdock, G. P. (1960). Social Structure. New York: Macmillan and
Co.
Oosterhuis, H. (1996). Christian social policy and homosexuality
in The Netherlands, 1900-1970.Journal of Homosexuality, 32, 95-111.
Perlman, D., Josephson, W., Hwang, W. T., Begum, H., &
Thomas, T. L. (1978). Cross-cultural analysis of student's sexual
standards. Archives of Sexual Behavior; 7, 545-558.
Romney, A. K., Boyd, J., Moore, C., Batchelder, W., &
Brazill, T. (1996). Culture as shared cognitive representation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93, 4699-4705.
Romney, A. K., Moore, C., & Rusch, C. (1997). Cultural
universals: Measuring the semantic structure of emotion terms in
English and Japanese. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 94, 5489-5494.
Ross, M. W. (1985). Actual and anticipated societal reaction to
homosexuality and adjustment in two societies. The Journal of Sex
Research, 21, 40-55.
Schwartz, I. M. (1993). Affective reactions of American and
Swedish women to their first premarital coitus: A cross-cultural
comparison. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 18-26.
Smith, T. W. (1992a). Discrepancies between men and women in
reporting number of sexual partners: A summary from four countries.
Social Biology, 39, 205-211.
Smith, T. W. (1992b). The International Social Survey Program.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4, 275-278.
Sprecher, S., & Hatfield, E. (1996). Premarital sexual
standards among U.S. college students: Comparison with Russian and
Japanese college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 261-288.
Sprecher, S., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapava, E., &
Levistskaya, A. (1994). Token resistance to sexual intercourse and
consent to unwanted sexual intercourse--College students' dating
experiences in 3 countries. The Journal of Sex Research, 31,
125-132.
Tielman, R. (1987). Dutch gay emancipation history (1911-1986).
In: A. X. Van Naerssen (Ed.), Gay life in Dutch society (pp. 9-17).
New York: Hurrington Park Press.
Weinberg, M. S., Lottes, I. L., & Shaner, F. M. (1995).
Swedish or American heterosexual youth: Who is more permissive?
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 409-438.
Wellings, K., Field, J., Johnson, A. M., & Wadsworth, J.
(1994). Sexual behavior in Britain: The national survey of sexual
attitudes and lifestyles. London: Penguin Books.
White, M. I. (1993). The material child: Coming of age in Japan
and America. New York: Free Press.
Manuscript accepted March 18, 1998
Appendix A. Description of the national samples
Countries Sample Size % Female Mean Age
Australia 1779 49 49.5
Austria 977 56 46.3
Bulgaria 1126 60 48.3
Canada 1440 63 38.1
Czech Republic 1024 55 41.5
Germany (East) 1097 52 47.0
Germany (West) 2324 49 45.2
Great-Britain 993 55 46.8
Hungary 1500 58 48.7
Ireland 938 52 45.7
Israel 1287 55 41.1
Italy 1021 51 42.7
Japan 1306 55 41.3
Netherlands 1968 55 43.5
New Zealand 1047 59 45.8
Northern Ireland 647 53 46.6
Norway 2087 55 40.4
Philippines 1200 50 38.3
Poland 1597 55 45.6
Russia 1998 64 40.8
Slovenia 1032 54 42.8
Spain 2494 52 44.4
Sweden 1272 53 44.8
USA 1447 59 45.9
Countries Questionnaire Mode
Australia Mail
Austria Face to face
Bulgaria Face to face
Canada Self-completion
Czech Republic Face to face
Germany (East) Self-completion
Germany (West) Self-completion
Great-Britain Self-completion
Hungary Face to face
Ireland Face to face
Israel Face to face
Italy Face to face
Japan Face to lace
Netherlands Face to face
New Zealand Mail
Northern Ireland Self-completion
Norway Mail
Philippines Face to face
Poland Mail
Russia Self-completion
Slovenia Face to face
Spain Face to face
Sweden Mail
USA Self-completion
Eric D. Widmer, Judith Treas, and Robert Newcomb
University of California-Irvine
Address correspondence to Eric D. Widmer, Department of
Anthropology, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, CA
92697-5100; e-mail: Widmere@orion.oac.uci.edu