PrintResearchers have explored the sexual practices of young adults in various ways including onset of sexual activity, number of sexual partners, frequency of sex, participation in group sex, use of alcohol or other drugs preceding sexual activity, sex without contraception ora condom, sex with a prostitute, and consensual sex without knowing the disease status of one's partner (Beadnell et al., 2005; Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2006a; Elliot & Morse, 1989; Koyle, Jensen,Olsen, & Cundick, 1989; LaBrie & Earleywine, 2000; McEwan, McCallum,Bhopal, & Madhok, 1992;
So, Wong, & DeLeon, 2005). Beadnell et al. (2005) noted that, although each of these behaviors can be considered an aspect of what they described as "sexual risk taking," none by itself is necessarily valid as an operationalization of this construct. Therefore, when studying adolescent and young adult sexual practices,researchers need, at the least, to examine the interplay among threedomains of an individual's sexual practices including (a) frequency of sex, (b) number of partners, and (c) condom use (Beadnell et al., 2005). With this conceptual model, Beadnell et al. determined that those sexual practices characterized by having higher occasions of sex,with multiple sex partners, and inconsistently or failing to use condoms were associated with an increased probability for undesirable, negative consequences. National surveys show that in recent decades there has been a marked increase in the frequencies of sexual practices commonly identified with increased risk for negative consequences (e.g., disease acquisition, unintended pregnancies, emotional strain, and school dropout; CDC, 2006a; Cooper, 2002; Hajcak & Garwood, 1988; Langer, Warheit, & McDonald, 2001) among adolescent and young adult populations in the United States (CDC, 2006b). Although there is evidence that the frequencies of these sexual practices is currently on the decline (CDC, 2006b), the frequencies remains high compared to young adults in other countries (Durex[R], 2005). On college and university campuses in the United States, students report average rates as high as 80% ever having sexual intercourse, 25% having had six or more sexual partners, 70% ever having engaged in sex without a condom, and only a minority taking adequate precautions to prevent pregnancy or disease (Cooper, 2002; LaBrie & Earleywine, 2000). Due to the serious nature of the consequences associated with some sexual practices, researchers have sought to identify positive and negative correlates and predictors of young adult sexual practices. A robust correlate of young adult sexual practices is religiousness--an individual characteristic that is consistently found to act as a constraining force on sexual activity. Self-reported religiousness has been associated with fewer life partners (Mahoney, 1980; Murray-Swank, Pargament, & Mahoney, 2005) and lower rates of, and more negative attitudes toward, premarital and extramarital sex (Koenig, 2001; Thorton & Camburn, 1989). By providing standards to judge and guide behavior (Amoateng & Bahr, 1986), religiousness typically operates as amode of "social control," such that religious persons act in a manner that conforms to the social norms prescribed by the reference group(Koenig, 2001, p. 105). As most religious faiths either prohibit or discourage extramarital sex (Cochran & Beeghley, 1991), those who demonstrate the greatest consistency between their personal behaviors and religious beliefs (i.e., religious persons) tend to participate in extramarital sexual activity to a lesser extent than their non-religious counterparts (Peterman, Fitchett, Brady, Hernandez, & Cella, 2002). In this manner, greater religiousness is a protective factor against the undesirable personal and social consequences of unconstrained sexual activity. It may be inappropriate, however, to generalize the protective qualities of religiousness to the related, but distinct, construct of spirituality given there are findings that have demonstrated qualities unique to each construct (Murray-Swank et al., 2005; Saucier & Skrzypinska, 2006). Of particular importance, spirituality is guided by a more subjective measure of values, attitudes and behaviors than tradition-oriented religiousness (Saucier & Skrzypinska, 2006). This difference may be especially relevant in the area of sexuality because of the connectedness quality of spirituality. Spirituality, which involves viewing life from a transcendent perspective "in which a person sees a fundamental unity underlying the diverse strivings of nature and finds a bond with others that cannot be severed" charges one to adopta "more holistic and interconnected personality" (Piedmont, 1999, p.988). Believing one is intimately tied to other human beings and that interconnectedness and harmony are indispensable may lead one to believe sexual intimacy possesses a divine or transcendent quality in itself. In fact, ascribing sacred qualities to sex (e.g., holiness, blessed) has been positively associated with positive affective reactions to sex, frequency of sex, and number of sexual partners among university students (Murray-Swank et al., 2005). Due to a unique emphasison interconnectedness, spirituality may be expected to operate quitedifferently than religiousness for influencing young adult sexual practices. This Study This study had three aims: (a) to measure three aspects of participants' sexual practices including frequency of sex, number of sexual partners, and condom use; (b) to examine whether religiousness and spirituality demonstrate unique relations with the sexual practices of young adults; and (c) to examine whether spirituality has incrementalpredictive utility over well-established predictors of young adult sexual practices such as alcohol use (Cooper, 2002; LaBrie & Earleywine, 2000; McEwan et al., 1992; So et al., 2005; Stanton et al., 1999),impulsivity (Culbert & Klump, 2005; Donohew et al., 2000; McCoul & Haslam, 2001; Robbins & Bryan, 2004; Schafer, Blanchard, & Fals-Stewart, 1994), and religiousness (Koenig, 2001; Mahoney, 1980; Murray-Swank et al., 2005; Thorton & Camburn, 1989). It was hypothesized that alcohol use, impulsivity, and spirituality would all demonstrate positive associations with participants' reported number of sexual partners, frequency of sex, and frequency of sex without a condom, whereas religiousness would demonstrate a negative association. In addition, itwas hypothesized that spirituality would add an increment in prediction over all other predictors. Method Participants A sample (N = 353) of young adults attending a large public university participated in this study during the Fall of 2005 and the Spring of 2006. Sixty-one percent of participants were women (N = 215). Participants ranged in age from 17 to 29 years (M = 19.8, SD = 1.31). Of the total participants, 88.7% were Caucasian (N = 313), 7.1% were African American (N = 25), 1.4% were Asian American (N = 5), 0.6% wereHispanic (N = 2), 1.7% reported other racial backgrounds (N = 6), and 0.3% did not respond to this item (N = 1). Concerning religious affiliation, 50.7% were Protestant (N = 179); 32.3% were Catholic (N = 114); 7.0% reported other religious affiliations, such as Islam and Judaism (N = 25); 8.4% reported no religious affiliation (N = 30); and 1.4% did not respond to this item (N = 5). Concerning sexual orientation, all participants reported being heterosexual. Procedure Eligibility criteria for the study included college-aged young adults from varying ethnic and racial backgrounds. As such, participantsfor this self-report questionnaire study were recruited through undergraduate psychology courses at a large public university in the United States. Course instructors announced the study in class, and participants were given extra credit toward their coursework for completion of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire that required approximately 30 to 60 min for completion. To guard against coercion, students were provided an alternative extra-credit assignment if they declined study participation. Of those participants who indicated interest in participating, 100% completed at least a portion of the study materials. Noone formally withdrew from the study nor indicated any adverse affects from participation. All research procedures were approved by the University of Kentucky institutional review board. All participants signed informed consent forms, and questionnaires were kept anonymous by assigning a four-digit code to each study packet. Measures Demographic variables. All demographic variables were assessed using single items, which allowed participants to choose from a variety of response options. Variables assessed include age, racial background, religious affiliation, gender, and sexual orientation. Alcohol use. Participants' alcohol use was assessed using three questions. Frequency of alcohol use was assessed by the following question: "In the last year, how often did you drink alcohol on the average?" Response options range from 0 (I didn't drink any alcohol) to 17 (four or more times a day). Quantity of alcohol use was assessed using the following question: "In the last year, when you drank alcohol, how many drinks did you consume, on the average, on one occasion?" Response options range from 0 (I didn't drink any alcohol) to 17 (more than 25 drinks). Finally, frequency of intoxication was assessed using the following question: "In the last year, how many times have you gotten drunk or 'very high' on alcohol?" Response options range from 0 (I didn't drink any alcohol) to 17 (four or more times a day). Total scores for alcohol use were a sum of participants' scores for the three single items. Cronbach's alpha was .91. Impulsivity. Impulsivity was assessed using the Impulsive Decision-Making Scale (Donohew et al., 2000). On this scale, persons with impulsive decision-making styles fail to consider the long-term repercussions of their actions, primarily relying mainly on affective and physiological cues to guide decision making. Sample items include, "I think about all of my choices very carefully" (reverse scored), and "I go with whatever feels right to me." Responses were scored using a 5-point continuum from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Cronbach's alpha for this sample was .89. Religiousness. Religiousness was assessed using the Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (RCI-10), which measures "the degree to which a person adheres to his or her religious values, beliefs, and practices,and uses them in daily living" (Worthington et al., 2003, p. 85). Validation testing gives strong support for the construct, convergent, and discriminant validity of the RCI-10 (Worthington et al., 2003). Asample item includes, "My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life." Response options range from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (totally true). Cronbach's alpha for this sample was .96. Spirituality. Spiritual transcendence emphasizes a "personal search for connection with a larger sacredness" or transcendent entity (Piedmont, 1999, p. 988). Reflecting this idea, the short form of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS) "provides an overall index of an individual's level of commitment to intangible realities and the degreeof emotional support experienced in return" (p. 989). The STS provides scores for the total scale and three subscales: connectedness, universality, and prayer fulfillment. Strong support for the construct and convergent and discriminant validity of the STS has been reported (French & Piedmont, 2004). A sample item includes, "In the quiet of my prayers and/or meditations, I find a sense of wholeness." Response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). In this sample, Cronbach's alpha for the total scale was .79. Cronbach's alpha for the subscales were .61, .76, and .93 for the connectedness, universality, and prayer fulfillment subscales, respectively. These values are fairly consistent with research on the longer parent scale,which has found Cronbach's alphas of .80 for the total scale and .65, .85, and .85 for the connectedness, universality, and prayer fulfillment subscales, respectively (Piedmont, 1999). Sexual practices. The sexual practices of participants were assessed using single-item questions. To measure the number of sexual partners, participants were asked, "During your lifetime, with how many partners have you had vaginal and/or oral sex?" To measure the frequency of sex with and without a condom, participants were asked, "In the past month, how many times have you done each of the following? (a) Had vaginal sex with a condom, (b) Had vaginal sex without a condom?" Response options ranged from 0 (none) to 6 (13 or more times). Analyses Power analysis. A post hoc power analysis was done for a multiple correlation regression F test based on the following statistical variables: four predictors, alpha level of .05, estimated effect size of [F.sup.2] = 0.15 (medium), and sample size of 353. Results of an automated statistical program (G*Power) indicated this study had sufficient power (Power = .99) to find an effect, if one was indeed present (Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996). Preliminary analyses. Due to expected mean differences between menand women, independent-samples t tests were conducted to assess whether any differences reached statistical significance (p < .05). Groupdifferences were examined on the following variables: impulsivity, alcohol use, religiousness, spirituality, number of sexual partners, frequency of sex, and frequency of sex without a condom. Regression analyses. In predicting participants' sexual practices,hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to correct for overlap among all predictors in the model, which is imperative in determining whether the unique components of spirituality have differential predictive utility as compared to religiousness. A series of three hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, one for each indicator of participants' sexual practices: (a) lifetime number of sexual partners, (b) frequency of sex, and (c) frequency of condom use. Alcohol use, impulsivity, and religiousness were entered in Step 1 of the model to control for the variance accounted for by these well-established predictors. In Step 2, spirituality was entered to determine whether this variable significantly contributed to the prediction of participants' sexual practices above and beyond the variance accounted for by the variables entered in Step 1. Attention was given to the [R.sup.2][DELTA] and standardized beta ([beta]) at each step, as well as the overall amount of variance ([R.sup.2]) accounted for when all variables were entered in the model. Hierarchical regression analyses were also conducted to ascertain whether the relation between spirituality and participants' sexual practices was moderated by gender. Thus, for each dependent variable, ahierarchical regression was conducted. To explore the possible interactive effects, all continuous predictor variables were centered before entry into the model (Aiken & West, 1991). At Step 1, the main effects of religiousness, spirituality, and gender were entered. In Step2, a Spirituality x Gender interaction term was entered. If the interaction significantly (p<.05) predicted variance in the dependent variable at the second step, the interaction was probed to determine thenature (i.e., direction and magnitude) of the gender differences. Results Descriptives See Table 1 for the means and standard deviations for the entire sample, as well as a breakdown for men and women. On average, men reported greater alcohol use, impulsivity, and condom use; whereas women reported greater religiousness, spirituality, and to a lesser extent,frequency of vaginal sex. Regression Analyses With two exceptions, alcohol use, impulsivity, and religiousness all demonstrated significant associations with participants' self-reported sexual practices (see Table 2). Of these predictors, alcohol use(median [beta] = .19, p = .00) had the greatest predictive utility, followed by religiousness (median [beta] = -.12, p = .01) and impulsivity (median [beta] = .10, p = .04). Consistent with a priori hypotheses, the direction of the association between spirituality (once corrected for its overlap with religiousness) and participants' number of sexual partners, frequency of vaginal sex, and frequency of sex without a condom was positive (median [beta] =.10, p = .03). In addition, spirituality provided a significant increment in prediction over well-established predictors for both number of sexual partners (p = .03) and frequency of vaginal sex without a condom (p = .00). The second set of hierarchical regressions demonstrated that the relation between spirituality and participants' frequency of vaginal sex and condom use significantly differs for men and women (see Table 3). Although a moderating effect was not found for lifetime number ofsexual partners (B =.06, p = .25), gender clearly moderates the direction of the association between spirituality and participants' frequency of vaginal sex (see Figure 1). Gender also moderates both the strength and direction of the relation between spirituality and participants' frequency of vaginal sex without a condom (see Figure 2). Results indicate that, for women, greater spirituality is associated withincreased numbers of sexual partners (p = .05; marginal), frequency of sex (p = .04), and not using a condom (p = .00). For men, however,spirituality does not appear to be a predictor of lifetime numbers of sexual partners (p = .08) or condom use (p = .08), despite a significant association with decreased frequency of sex (p = .04). Thus, itappears that spirituality plays a significant role in predicting females' sexual practices, whereas the same cannot be said for men. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Post hoc analyses. Bivariate correlational analyses were conductedto identify the component of spirituality that was relatively independent of religiousness but significantly and positively related to male and female participants' number of sexual partners, frequency of vaginal sex, and frequency of sex without condom. Bivariate correlations among study variables and the STS subscales can be seen in Table 4. Results suggest that the connectedness subscale is unassociated with religiousness, yet positively associated with frequency of vaginal sex and frequency of vaginal sex without a condom. The inverse was true of the prayer fulfillment and universality subscales, which, like religiousness, demonstrated negative associations with participants' number of sexual partners and frequency of vaginal sex. This pattern of results suggests that the connectedness component of spirituality is the "driving force" behind the positive relation between spirituality and young adults' number of sexual partners, frequency of sex, and frequency of sex without a condom. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Discussion Religiousness and spirituality are theorized to overlap in meaningful ways (Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999), and research has generally found these constructs to share some of the same variance (Zinnbauer & Pargament, 2005). Results of this study, however, support thetheoretical supposition that religiousness and spirituality have unique influences on the sexual practices of young adults. Consistent with previous literature (Koenig, 2001; Mahoney, 1980; Paul, Fitzjohn, Eberhart-Phillips, Herbison, & Dickson, 2000; Poulson, Eppler, Satterwhite, Wuensch, & Bass, 1998; Thorton & Camburn, 1989), religiousnesswas negatively associated with participants' lifetime number of sexual partners and frequency of vaginal sex. Although a significant association was not found between religiousness and participants' condom use, this may be due to denominational variability in the judgment ofcondom use in extramarital relationships. Spirituality, on the otherhand, demonstrated consistent and positive associations with female participants' number of sexual partners, frequency of vaginal sex, and frequency of sex without a condom--a relation that was largely due to spirituality's connectedness quality. The strength of the association between spirituality and participants' number of sexual partners and condom use was substantial, with spirituality contributing significant variance above and beyond that accounted for by alcohol use, impulsivity, and religiousness. The implication of these findings is that religiousness is a protective factor against some young adult sexual practices that have been associated with increased risk for untoward negative consequences, whereas spirituality, at least for women, could be considered a risk factor. This study is not the first in the area of sex research to document significant and conceptually meaningful differences between religiousness and spirituality. Although religiousness is understood to effect behavior via adherence to the proscriptions provided by a reference group, as illustrated by members of highly proscriptive faiths participating in sexual activity to a lesser extent than members of less proscriptive faiths (Cochran & Beeghley, 1991), spirituality is relatively independent of such a constraining mechanism (Peterman et al., 2002). MacKnee (1997) conceptualized spirituality as an individual's pursuit to discover meaning, purpose, and connectedness with self, others, and the transcendent. Accordingly, some young adult persons of Christian affiliation appear "open to a more holistic orientation toward integrating all dimensions of human experience," including sexualand spiritual pursuits (MacKnee, 2002, p. 234). Motivated by an urgeto feel connected, these persons may ascribe sacred qualities to and, subsequently, participate in sex--a decision most religious traditions would judge unfavorably (Cochran & Beeghley, 1991; MacKnee, 2002;Murray-Swank et al., 2005). Given these study results, it is possible female young adults yearn for greater connectedness with other humans, and this desire manifests in greater occasions of sex, with more sexual partners, and inconsistently or failing to use condoms. Phenomenological analyses suggest during moments of perceived sexual and spiritual connection, practicing Christians experience intense union, physical arousal, amazement, euphoria, and transcendence (MacKnee, 2002). It may be the case, therefore, that increased sexual activity is reinforced precisely because the pursuit of connectedness is essentially--although perhaps momentarily--achieved. Although one can only speculate why male participants did not also report increased sexual activity in conjunction withincreased spirituality, one explanation can be drawn from broader research examining male and female motivations for sexual activity. Most research in this area has found that, although both men and women have sex to satisfy physical arousal, having sex to achieve emotional intimacy and union is relatively unique to women (Hatfield, Sprecher,Pillemer, & Greenberger, 1988; Ozer, Dolcini, & Harper, 2003). If this is in fact the case, then the gender differences found in this sample are consistent with differences commonly found among the larger population of adolescents and young adults. It is important to appreciate, however, that these study results do not suggest religiousness and spirituality are completely independent constructs. In fact, the RCI-10 (Worthington et al., 2003) and theSTS (French & Piedmont, 2004) do, to some extent, measure overlapping constructs. This was apparent by the strong correlation between participants' total scores on these scales, as well as the strong correlation between scores on the RCI-10 and the prayer fulfillment and universality subscales of the STS. Therefore, although some aspects are shared between religiousness and spirituality, the unique aspects of spirituality are important, especially in the study of female young adults' sexual practices. Considering, in turn, the three subscales of the STS, it appears that the connectedness subscale is most important in understanding young adults' sexual practices. The connectedness subscale, which measures commitments to and feelings of harmony with others, is less akin to religiousness than the universality or prayer fulfillment subscales. Piedmont (1999) explained that universality is "a belief in the unity and purpose of [all] life" and prayer fulfillment refers to the amount of joy and support one experiences when encountering the transcendent or divine (p. 994). Thus, the significant relation between religiousness and the subscales of universality and prayer fulfillment are understandable. What is most intriguing, however, is that the association between religiousness and connectedness did not approach the threshold for statistical significance. Our opinion is that this does not pose a serious problem for researchers in this area, especially because other researchers have found religiousness and spirituality tohave variance unique to each construct (Murray-Swank et al., 2005; Saucier & Skrypinska, 2006). As very few researchers have examined thedifferential prediction of religiousness and spirituality in relation to young adults' sexual practices, we are, in fact, encouraged by the findings of this study, and recommend that others continue work inthis important area. Study Limitations and Future Research Some limitations of this study deserve comment. Of primary importance, the study sample included 353 heterosexual, college-aged young adults, who were limited to one university located in the southeasternregion of the United States and whose religious background was primarily Christian. Due to restrictions in age, racial background, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and geographic location, there are likely to be limitations when generalizing to young adults at large. Also, the spirituality-gender interaction effect found in this study should be qualified by a statement concerning the unequal ratio ofmen to women (61% were women). In addition, the results of this study are based on a cross-sectional correlational design. Although the observed relations among the variables were congruent with a priori hypotheses, longitudinal research designs are certainly needed to determine causal links among the variables. Given these study findings, several avenues of research should be considered in the future. Of particular importance, attempts should be made to address the limitations of this study. To determine whetherresults generalize to the larger population of young adults, future research should include a broader sample of male and female participants who are assessed at various time points. Consistent with Beadnelland colleagues' (2005) suggestion, future work should continue to assess three aspects of an individual's sexual practices including number of sexual partners, frequency of sex, and condom use. This method of assessment allows the greatest specificity when interpreting findings, as well as statements concerning the constellation of sexual practices judged by Beadnell and colleagues to be "risk taking." In a similar fashion, researchers are encouraged to consider assessing religiousness and spirituality in other research programs examining young adults' sexual practices. It is our opinion that inconsistencies in the literature regarding the direction and magnitude of associations among religiousness, spirituality, and young adults' sexual practices are likely accounted for in measurement error. Failing to measure spirituality apart from religiousness or reliance on single-item measures likely contributes to inappropriately generalizing about the constraining influence of religiousness to the related, but unique, construct of spirituality. As both religiousness and spirituality appear to have substantial and unique implications on young adults' sexual practices, careful assessment will further scientific progress. Conclusion Several conclusions should be highlighted. First, spirituality contributed significant variance, above and beyond participants' alcoholuse, impulsivity, and religiousness, in predicting two of the three sexual practices measured in this study. This implies spirituality captures an aspect of young adults' sexual behavior that is untapped byother, well-established predictors. Second, religiousness and spirituality demonstrated different relations with the sexual practices of a sample of predominately Christian university students. Although religiousness was negatively associated with participants' lifetime number of sexual partners and frequency of vaginal sex, spirituality was positively associated with females participants' number of sexual partners, frequency of vaginal sex, and frequency of sex without a condom, and negatively associated with males' frequency of vaginal sex. This difference, previously unreported, is significant and worthy of further study. In conclusion, spirituality may place female young adults at risk for potentially harmful sexual practices and future research, prevention, and intervention programs should therefore consider the role of spirituality in understanding the sexual practices of female young adults. References Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amoateng, A. & Bahr, S. (1986). Religion, family, and adolescent drug use. Sociological Perspectives, 29, 53-76. Beadnell, B., Morrison, D. M., Wilsdon, A., Wells, E. A., Murowchick, E., Hoppe, M., et al. (2005). Condom use, frequency of sex and number of partners: Multidimensional characterization of adolescent sexual risk-taking. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 192-202. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006a). Sexual risk behaviors (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion). Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://www.cdc.gov / HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/index.htm Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006b). Trends in theprevalence of sexual behaviors (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion). Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://www.cdc.gov/yrbss Cochran, J. K. & Beeghley, L. (1991). The influence of religion onattitudes toward nonmarital sexuality: A preliminary assessment of reference group theory. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 45-62. Cooper, M. L. (2002). Alcohol use and risky sexual behavior among college students and youth: Evaluating the evidence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 101-117. Culbert, K. M. & Klump, K. L. (2005). Impulsivity as an underlyingfactor in the relationship between disordered eating and sexual behavior. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 38, 361-366. Donohew, L., Zimmerman, R., Cupp, P. S., Novak, S., Colon, S., & Abell, R. (2000). Sensation seeking, impulsive decision-making, and risky sex: Implications for risk-taking and design of interventions. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 1079-1091. Durex[R]. (2005). Global sex survey results: Give and receive. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from www.durex.com/gss . Elliot, D. S. & Morse, B. J. (1989). Delinquency and drug use as risk factors in teenage sexual activity. Youth and Society, 21, 32-57. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 1-11. French, A. C. & Piedmont, R. L. (2004, February). An evaluation ofthe reliability and validity of the revised Spiritual Transcendence ScaleShort Form. Poster session presented at the annual mid-Winter conference on Religiousness and Spirituality, Columbia, MD. Hajcak, F. & Garwood, P. (1988). What parents can do to prevent pseudo-hypersexuality in adolescents. Family Therapy, 15, 99-105. Hatfield, E., Sprecher, S., Pillemer, J. T., & Greenberger, D. (1988). Gender differences in what is desired in the sexual relationship. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 1(2), 39-52. Koenig, H. G. (2001). Religion and medicine II: Religion, mental health, and related behaviors. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 31, 97-109. Koyle, P., Jensen, L., Olsen, J., & Cundick, B. (1989). Comparisonof sexual behaviors among adolescents having an early, middle, and late first intercourse experience. Youth and Society, 20, 461-475. LaBrie, J. W. & Earleywine, M. (2000). Sexual risk behaviors and alcohol: Higher base rates revealed using the unmatched-count technique. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 321-326. Langer, L. M., Warheit, G. J., & McDonald, L. P. (2001). Correlates and predictors of risky sexual practices among a multi-racial/ ethnic sample of university students. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 133-144. MacKnee, C. M. (1997). Sexuality and spirituality: In search of common ground. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 16, 210-221. MacKnee, C. M. (2002). Profound sexual and spirituality encountersamong practicing Christians: A phenomenological analysis. Journal ofPsychology and Theology, 30, 234-244. Mahoney, E. R. (1980). Religiosity and sexual behavior among heterosexual college students. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 97-113. McCoul, M. D. & Haslam, N. (2001). Predicting high risk sexual behavior in heterosexual and homosexual men: The roles of impulsivity and sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1303-1310. McEwan, R. T., McCallum, A., Bhopal, R. S., & Madhok, R. (1992). Sex and the risk of HIV infection: The role of alcohol. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 577-584. Murray-Swank, N. A., Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2005). At the crossroads of sexuality and spirituality: The sanctification of sexby college students. The International Journal for the Psychology ofReligion, 15, 199-219. Ozer, E. J., Dolcini, M. M., & Harper, G. W. (2003). Adolescents' reasons for having sex: Gender differences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 317-319. Paul, C., Fitzjohn, J., Eberhart-Phillips, J., Herbison, P., & Dickson, N. (2000). Sexual abstinence at age 21 in New Zealand: The importance of religion. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 1-10. Peterman, A. H., Fitchett, G., Brady, M. J., Hernandez, L., & Cella, D. (2002). Measuring spiritual well being in people with cancer: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy, Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT Sp). Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 49-58. Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality: Spiritual transcendence and the five-factor model.Journal of Personality, 67, 985-1013. Poulson, R. L., Eppler, M. A., Satterwhite, T. N., Wuensch, K. L.,& Bass, L. A. (1998). Alcohol consumption, strength of religious beliefs and risky sexual behavior in college students. Journal of American College Health, 46, 227-232. Robbins, R. N. & Bryan, A. (2004). Relationships between future orientation, impulsive sensation seeking, and risk behavior among adjudicated adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 428-445. Saucier, G. & Skrzypinska, K. (2006). Spiritual but not religious?Evidence for two independent dispositions. Journal of Personality, 14, 1257-1292. Schafer, J., Blanchard, L., & Fals-Stewart, W. (1994). Drug use and risky sexual behavior. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 8, 3-7. So, D. W., Wong, F. Y., & DeLeon, J. M. (2005). Sex, HIV risks, and substance use among Asian American college students. AIDS Educationand Prevention, 17, 457-468. Stanton, M., Leukefeld, C., Logan, T. K., Zimmerman, R., Lynam, D., Milich, R., et al. (1999). Risky sex behavior and substance use among young adults. Health and Social Work, 24, 147-154. Thorton, A. & Camburn, D. (1989). Religious participation and adolescent sexual behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 641-652. Worthington, E. L., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCollough, M. E., Berry, J. W., et al. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory-10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 84-96. Zinnbauer, B. J. & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness and spirituality. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 21-42). New York: Guilford. Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B. (1999). The emerging meanings of religiousness and spirituality: Problems and prospects. Journal of Personality, 67, 889-919. Jessica L. Burris, Gregory T. Smith, and Charles R. Carlson Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky This article was submitted for publication under the Editorship ofJohn DeLamater. Correspondence should be addressed to Charles R. Carlson, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, 106 Kastle Hall, Lexington,KY 40506. E-mail: ccarl@uky.edu Table 1. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for the Total Sample, Men and Women Total Sample Men (N = 363) (N = 148) Variable M SD M SD Independent variables Alcohol use 15.9 9.2 18.3 9.2 Impulsivity 21.8 7.3 23.9 7.4 Religiousness 25.7 11.0 23.0 10.7 Spirituality 32.5 5.8 30.4 5.5 Dependent variables Lifetime number of partners 3.9 3.0 4.2 3.1 Frequency of vaginal sex 2.7 3.2 2.4 3.2 Vaginal sex without a condom 1.3 2.1 1.0 1.8 Women p (Two-Tailed) (N = 215) Variable M SD Independent variables Alcohol use 14.3 8.9 .00 Impulsivity 20.5 6.9 .00 Religiousness 27.5 10.9 .00 Spirituality 33.9 5.6 .00 Dependent variables Lifetime number of partners 3.7 2.9 .08 Frequency of vaginal sex 2.9 3.1 .05 Vaginal sex without a condom 1.6 2.2 .01 Note. For the entire sample, participants' total score for alcohol use corresponds to drinking two to three times a month, having six alcoholic beverages per occasion, and being intoxicated an average of once a month. For the entire sample, scores on the dependent measures correspond to having two to three sexual partners in one's lifetime, having sex four to six times a month, and having sex without a condom two to three times a month. Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Participants' Sexual Practices Variable [beta] p [R.sup.2] Lifetime Number of Sexual Partners (a) Step 1: Alcohol use .314 .00 -- Impulsivity .236 .00 -- Religiousness -.121 .01 .299 Step 2: Spirituality .102 .03 .306 Frequency of vaginal sex (b) Step 1: Alcohol use .186 .00 -- Impulsivity .066 .15 -- Religiousness -.173 .00 .121 Step 2: Spirituality .049 .22 .123 Frequency of sex without a condom (c) Step 1: Alcohol use .189 .00 -- Impulsivity .104 .04 -- Religiousness -.037 .28 .076 Step 2: Spirituality .177 .00 .098 (a) F(4, 308) = 33.56, p = .00. (b) F(4, 307) =10.63, p = .00. (c) F(4, 308) = 8.28, p=.00. Table 3. Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Spirituality and Gender Interactions Men Women Variable B p B p Number of sexual partners Constant 3.70 .00 3.77 .00 Religiousness -.12 .00 -.12 .00 Spirituality .01 .08 .06 .05 Gender .07 .41 -.07 .41 Spirituality x Gender .06 .25 -.06 .25 Frequency of vaginal sex Constant 1.98 .00 3.12 .00 Religiousness -.94 .04 -.94 .00 Spirituality -.09 .04 .07 .04 Gender 1.14 .00 -1.41 .00 Spirituality x Gender .16 .01 -.16 .01 Frequency of vaginal sex without a condom Constant .80 .00 1.55 .00 Religiousness -.05 .00 -.05 .00 Spirituality -.03 .08 .08 .00 Gender .75 .00 -.75 .00 Spirituality x Gender .11 .00 -.11 .00 Note. The unstandardized betas and p values (two-tailed) presented are those from the second step of hierarchical regression analyses with all variables entered in the model. Table 4. Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables and Spiritual Transcendence Subscales Variable 1 2 3 4 1. Alcohol use -- 2. Impulsivity .47 ** -- 3. Religiousness -.50 ** -.40 ** -- 4. Spirituality (a) -.19 ** -.30 ** .54 ** -- 5. Connectedness .02 -.08 .04 .66 ** 6. Prayer fulfillment -.27 ** -.31 ** .64 ** .80 ** 7. Universality -.18 ** -.27 ** .45 ** .79 ** 8. No. of sexual partners .48 ** .44 ** -.38 ** -.13 * 9. Frequency of vaginal sex .30 ** .22 ** -.30 ** -.10 10. Frequency of vaginal .26 ** .20 ** -.18 ** .03 sex without a condom Variable 5 6 7 8 1. Alcohol use 2. Impulsivity 3. Religiousness 4. Spirituality (a) 5. Connectedness -- 6. Prayer fulfillment .19 ** -- 7. Universality .30 ** .56 ** -- 8. No. of sexual partners .08 -.19 ** -.16 ** -- 9. Frequency of vaginal sex .12 * -.19 ** -.11 ** .43 ** 10. Frequency of vaginal .14 ** -.06 .00 .37 ** sex without a condom Variable 9 10 1. Alcohol use 2. Impulsivity 3. Religiousness 4. Spirituality (a) 5. Connectedness 6. Prayer fulfillment 7. Universality 8. No. of sexual partners 9. Frequency of vaginal sex -- 10. Frequency of vaginal .76 ** -- sex without a condom * p=.05. ** p=.01. (a) Total score for the Spiritual Transcendence Scale-Short Form.
