.lx
:1..f..
. ...:.

:4.
L231;

1: 1. g
.l. 3:»; .
t
n

2 2.x.

‘

 

 

'13;
...A;...
I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBDARY
MiChli'-..p . State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

"If. ITILIFAL Sfjjillfil SJRILTW ".':;‘1.T-:-3
11L 30‘};ng CF TILLIJLJ CULT 33.1} L CCFLLU lCiiTICq

presented by

Jr- nnifc r I’arie file-isle 1*

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Lh.;. . Cormunication
degree in

 

 

WWW

a 101' professor

June 0 ?0”l
I)ate ' ’ “ '

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

 

—— v..--

-—v——‘— *-

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

6/0l C:/C|RC/DateDue 9654115

THE “TRADITIONAL SEXUAL SCRIPTz” EXAMINING THE CONTENT OF
PARENT «CHILD SEXUAL COMMUNICATION

By

Jennifer Marie Heisler

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

2001

ABSTRACT

THE “TRADITIONAL SEXUAL SCRIPT :” EXAMINING THE CONTENT OF
PARENT -CHILD SEXUAL COMMUNICATION

By

Jennifer Marie Heisler

With the growing rates of teenaged pregnancy, the debates about condoms in

schools, and recent attention given to sexual images in the media, researcher have taken a
renewed interested in the sexual education. However, there have been mixed results
regarding the role of parents in the sexual education of their children. Further, the content
of these parent-child talks has been largely ignored. The goals of this study included
identifying the topics parents and adolescents recall discussing regarding sexuality and
relationships and famial satisfaction with these discussions. Additionally, the content of
recalled conversations were examined as potential sources of gender role socialization as
identified in the Traditional Sexual Script (Byers, 1996). Two hundred and eight student-
mother-father triads completed self-report surveys requesting a description of an actual
conversation about sexuality between parent and child, their satisfaction, openness
regarding this topic, and regrets. Results indicated that most (77%) participants have
discussed sexuality with their parent/child. Most frequent topics included relationships,
morals, and pregnancy. Mothers reported being the most satisfied with and open about
sexuality conversations with children while students’ satisfaction reports were only
moderate. Content analysis of conversations revealed strong evidence for traditional

sexual socialization, particularly in messages directed towards daughters. However, the

majority of student-participants reported relying on friends as their main source of sexual

information, with mothers ranking fifth and fathers following at eighth. Theoretical and

practical implications are discussed with suggestions for future research.

(Copwnghtby
JENNIFER MARIE HEISLER

2001

To my family who gives me strength and especially Doug, my partner

in rewrites, laughs, parenting and love.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many individuals without whom this dissertation would not exist. My
advisor, Dr. Kelly Morrison, has been working with me on this project for four years. She
saw the first draft in her interpersonal course and encouraged me to pursue my interests.
Her enthusiasm was remarkable and she has poured herself into this work and into me.
She is the role model I will strive to follow as I enter the academic profession. My
committee, Dr. Charles Atkin, Dr. Marsha Carolan, Dr. Caryn Medved, and Dr. Steven
McCornack, was an indispensable resource of encouragement and knowledge. Their
ideas and insight made this a better research project. This was truly a group collaboration,

I would also like to acknowledge the many hours of work my family did on this
project: My grandmother Ruth, who sorted and numbered hundreds of surveys, my
mother Ann Marie, who found stamps, stuffed those envelopes and entered hours of data,

and Doug, who proofread for hours and reminded me that life can be a lot of fun (even

when writing a dissertation). Thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LISTOFTABLES
LISTOFFIGURES...................... .. .. .. .
nITRODUCTION....................
REVIEWOFLITERATUREW

Sexual Education and Sources ofInformation... ..
Socialization ofSexual GenderRoles...

Traditional Sexual Scripts.................. . . ..

SexDifferences in Parent-Child Dialogue... .

Variables................... .. .............32

...32

Participants.................

Instrument ..

Procedures............. ..

Analyses................. . .

TopicsRecalled............................... ..
ParentalSatisfaction..................... .......
AdolescentSatisfaction.......................
Traditional Scripts and Messages... ..

Mothersvs. Same-Sex Dyads............

.ix

10

15

.28

32

.....33
......37
.. ...38
.. . ...4l
...4l
....46
....48
.....50

.. ...58

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d.)

Post-HocAnalyses................... ....

ContentofParent-ChildDiscussions............... .
CommunicationandSatisfaction............................................
GenderandCommunicationaboutSexuality........................................
Mothersvs.Same-Senyads....
Post-HocAnalyses................. .. .

Limitations..............

FutureResearch................... ..

AppendixA

...59

...60

...60

.67

..71

77

82

.85

.86

......97

....97

.....104

...105

...107

LIST OF TABLES

Frequencyoftopicsdiscussedbyparticipant... .

Chi square analyses for participant sex

by parental topics.

“Onethinngishedwehaddiscussed”topics..... .

Parental-participant satisfaction with communication

bytoprc . . .. . .
Student-participant satisfaction with parental

communication by topic...

Frequency of student recalled messages by

Traditional Sexual Scriptcategory.................................... . ..

Frequency of parent recalled messages by

Traditional Sexual Scriptcategory.....

...88

..89

...90

...91

....92

....93

......95

LIST OF FIGURES

Frequencies for discussion t0pics recalled by participants... ...43
Conversation topics recalled by participants... ...52
Frequencies for TSS values within parent-student conversations .................... S7

The “traditional sexual script”: An examination of the content of
parent-child sexual communication
With the prevalence of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases “sexual

education” has become a primary concern in America. Eighty-six percent of males and

75% of females reported having initiated intercourse by high school graduation, and 16%
reported having four or more partners. However, less than one half of sexually active
teens acknowledge using condoms regularly (Center for Disease Control, 1998). As a
result, one in eight teenagers contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD) each year
(Wasserheit, 1994). Further, one million adolescents become pregnant each year, 74-85%
unintentionally, with 500,000 live births each year (Amba & Piccinino, 1994; Ventura,
Taffel, & Masher, 1988). These growing trends in adolescent sexual activity have led to
disagreement over the role of responsibility in the sexual education of children in
America.

Children are receiving input about sex from a variety of sources, including school
(Green & Sollie, 1989; Nelson, 1995), peers (Bennett & Dickinson, 1980; Dickinson,
1978; Jaccard & Dittus, 1993; Lock & Vincent, 1995; Rozema, 1986), and television
(Heights & Chapin, 2000; Kunkel, Cope, & Biely, 1999). Despite all this input, when
asked who they would like to receive information from, children have been shown to
desire their parents as their primary sexual educators (Davis & Harris, 1982; Fisher,

1986; Gilbert & Bailis, 1980; Inman, 1974; Neer & Warren, 1988). However,
participation in this education is not equal; biological sex determines both the amount of
participation by parents and the topics thought to be appropriate to discuss (Koblinsky &
Atkinson, 1982; Miller, Norton, Jensen, Lee, Christopherson, & King, 1993). Topics

1

such as masturbation and wet dreams are reserved for males while reproduction and
physiological sex differences are thought to be essential for females. While the specific
content of parent-child sexual communication has not been previously explored, the
different topics approved for male and female children suggests sexual communication
may be a source of gender role socialization.

Although some scholars have argued that traditional gender roles for males and
females currently are in a state of transition (Moen, 1992; Wood, 1999), individuals still
are socialized into gendered categories on the basis of biological sex. Women have
entered the workforce in overwhelming numbers yet remain the predominant caretakers
for home and family (Greenstein, 1996; Hochschild, 1987). Men are too often expected to
remain emotionless and stoic (Farrell, 1991; Reid & Fine, 1992). Similarly, appropriate
sexual behavior is assigned on the basis of biological sex. The Traditional Sexual Script
(TSS) is a pus-established cognitive script reserved for romantic, sexual relationships
(Byers, 1996). In general, these cognitive scripts provide individuals with socially
acceptable behaviors in unfamiliar or new situations. Often, these TSS scripts are utilized
in beginning romantic relationships. Linked to traditional gender roles, the T88 portrays
men as ardent sexual pursuers and women as gatekeepers to men’s advances.

Because parents have been identified as one of the primary agents in a child’s
socialization (Maccoby, 1992) and scripting is a product of socialization (Simon &
Gagnon, 1986; Byers, 1996), it may be possible that parents “teac ” cultural scripts, and
specifically the T88, to their children. Certainly, parents provide information about a
variety of interpersonal situations, such as romantic relationships. For example, between
30-60% of kids reported that they have had some form of sexual talk with at least one

2

parent (Jaccard & Dittus, 1993; Newcomer & Udry, 1985). Therefore, the goal of this
paper is to identify the content of sexual communication between parents and children
and to determine if the T88 is being passed down from parent to child. Specifically, the
talk parents and their children recall regarding sexual behaviors and morals will be
examined for TSS themes and sex differences. To begin, literature on sexual education
will be reviewed, followed by an explanation of social learning theory (Rotter, 1954) as a
guiding framework. Next, the research on the Traditional Sexual Script (TSS) (Byers,
1996) will be examined. Finally, a discussion of sex differences in parentochild
communication about sexual topics will be presented
Review of Literature

WWW

There are a variety of sources for information on sexual behavior and attitudes,
including media, family, and peers. Messages regarding sexual attitudes and behaviors
are particularly abundant in television media; children watch an average of 11 sexual
behaviors per hour during prime time (Lowry & Towles, 1989b), for a total of almost
2,000 hours of sexual references each year (Brown, Childers, & Waszak, 1990).
However, these shows often do not portray their characters in safe or responsible
behaviors. Lowry and Towles (1989a) found sexual partners shown in daytime dramas
are 24x more likely to be single than married. The authors argued that the ratio reinforced
the messages that sexual behavior is more likely (and more fun) outside of marriage.
References to the potential outcomes of sexual acts, such as pregnancy and sexually
transmitted diseases, are almost nonexistent (Brown, Childres, & Waszack, 1990; Perry,

Kelder, & Komro, 1993).

Yet, children do not rely solely upon media for information, several researchers
have noted the influence of peers on sexual development. For instance, adolescents with
sexually experienced friends are more likely to be sexually experienced themselves
(Billy, Rodgers, & Udry, 1984; Billy & Udry, 1985; Shah & Zelnik, 1981). Even
perceptions of peers’ sexual experience have been shown to influence sexual behavior
(DiClemente, 1991; Fisher, Misovich, & Fisher, 1992; Holtzrnan & Rubinson, 1995;
McKusich, Coates, & Morin, 1990; Miller, Kotchick, Dorsey, Forehand, & Ham, I999;
Romer, et al., 1994). For example, DiClemente (1991) found that incarcerated youths
were five times more likely to use a condom if they perceived their peers supported this
behavior. In addition, Fisher et al. (1992) reported that college students’ perceived peer
norms about condom usage predicted actual condom usage two months later. Friends are
not the only peer group with sexual influence; recent studies have suggested that older
siblings have an influence on the timing of younger siblings’ initial sexual experience
(Moore, Miller, Glei, & Morrison, 1995). Second-ham siblings have been shown to be
more sexually active than first-born children (Rodgers, Rowe, & Harris, 1992) and older
siblings’ ages for first sexual intercourse are positively correlated with younger siblings’
ages at initiation of sexual activity (I-Iaurin & Mott, 1990).

Several authors have suggested that family, particularly parents, played a greater
role in sexual socialization than peers or media influence. Zimbardo and Formica (1963)
have suggested that firstborns use their parents as references and that second borns use
both older siblings and parents. In his study of 183 sibling pairs, Widmer (1997)
discovered parental attitudes regarding sexual permissiveness had a greater influence on
adolescents’ timing of first intercourse than other potential role models. The author

4

concluded “parental influence has a stronger impact than sibling effects on the odds of a
younger sibling being a nonvirgin. When tested independently, the parental effects have a
chi-square of 34.4 (df== 4, p < .001), compared with 14.8 (df= 4, p < .01) for sibling
effects. [Thus], sibling influence is somewhat marginal, compared with parental
influence” (p. 932). Recent work examining the influence of parents and peer groups
indicated that both predicted sexual behavior (Jaccard & Dittus, 1993) yet in opposite
directions: Parental communication decreased the number of sexual partners while peer
communication increased the number of sexual Meta (Holtzrnan & Rubinson, 1995).
Jaccard, Dittus, and Gordon (2000) further suggested that parental communication
moderates peer group influence on sexual behavior such that in families with high
amounts of parental communication peer group influence decreases significantly.

In addition, children expressed a desire for pants to provide sexual education
(Davis & Harris, 1982; Fisher, 1986; Gilbert & Bailis, 1980; Neer & Warren, 1988).
When Mueller and Powers (1990) asked adolescents where they would like to receive
information, participants were most likely to list parents as their preferred source.
Furthermore, children agreed that parents should be responsible for sexual education:
Most students (50% of males and 64% of females) assigned parents the primary
responsibility for teaching young people about sexual matters. The majority (60% of
males and 51% of females) felt that both parents should take equal responsibility for the
sex education of all their children, whereas the remainder preferred that when parents
were involved in sex education each parent should take primary responsibility only for
the sex education of children of his or her own gender (Fisher, 1986, p. 267).

In summary, it appears that children receive sexual information from a variety of

5

sources including peers, siblings, and even school or religious organizations. Yet,
adolescents desire and were most influenced by the communication that occurs between
them and their parents. The next section reviews the current literature on parent-child
communication about sex. This review addresses parental attitudes toward their role as
sexual educators, the effects of parent-based education, and the characteristics of parent-
child communication about sexual activity.

Emtflhild Sexual Communication. Parents have expressed a desire to be active
in their role as socializing agents, particularly in the area of sexual information. Mueller
and Powers (1990) determined “[p]arents, especially fathers, seem to want to become
more involved as the primary source of sexual information” (p. 34). Other researchers
echo the sentiment that parents want to be the primary educators of their children
(Abramson, Mariachi, & Perry, 1983; Gordon & Dickman, 1977; Koblinsky & Atkinson,
1982) and parents’ attempts at sexual education appeared to be effective. Several scholars
have found parental communication decreased risky sexual behavior (Fisher, 1989;
Iaccard, Dittus, & Gordon, 1996; Kallen, Stephenson, & Doughtery, 1983; Miller, et al.,
1998) and had some influence on adolescents’ sexual decision-making (Dittus, Jaccard,

& Gordon, 1999; Schreck, 1999). In some studies, parent-teen communication about sex
increased the likelihood of teen-partner communication (Shoop & Davidson, 1994;
Whitaker, Miller, May, & Levin, 1999). Further, parental communication about
contraceptive choices was a deterrent to teenaged pregnancy (Adolph, Ramos, Linton, &
Grimes, 1995). Although some researchers found limited effects for parent-child sexual
education (Fox & Inazu, 1980; DiClemente, Lanier, Horan, Lodico, 1991), it is important
to consider the amount of parental communication when assessing influence. 111ch and

6

Dittus (1991) found that the extent to which mothers communicated with teens about sex
was important in predicting adolescent behavior such that the impact of maternal
disapproval of sexual activity on teen behavior was moderated by the extent of
communication about sex that had occurred: the more parents talked, the greater the
impact of parental disapproval.

In spite of the connection between parental communication and adolescent sexual
behavior, parents were often uncomfortable addressing sexual topics with their
adolescents (Aldous, 1993; Brooks-Gum & Ruble, 1982; Ram, 1975). Further, there
were mixed results regarding parents’ satisfaction with the type and amount of sexual
discussion with children. Roberts, Kline, and Gagnon (1978) found that fathers more
often than mothers were dissatisfied with their contribution to their child’s sexual
learning, yet were unwilling to acknowledge any need for help to increase their impact.
However, in their survey to determine parents’ topics and desires for discussion,
Koblinsky and Atkinson (1982) found that most of the parents would add relatively little
to their sexual communication with children. Several studies have found that parents’
reports of sexual communication did not match their adolescents’ reported amounts of
conversation with parents about sexual tapics (F urstenberg et al., 1984; J accard, Dittus, &
Gordon, 1998; Miller, Kotchick, Dorsey, Forehand, & Ham, 1998). Researchers reported
that parents, particularly mothers, indicated talking more fiequently over a greater variety
of topics than their adolescents. Whitaker, Miller, May, & Levin (1999) supplied parent-
adolescent dyads with checklists of potential conversation topics regarding sexual
behavior. Each subject indicated the degree to which they had discussed the topic(s) with
their parent/child. Researchers found only low agreement across each of the topics (sex

7

risk discussion F26). Thus, it is unclear whether parents were satisfied with their
participation in children’s sexual education. However, it is apparent that parents ’
perceptions of their participation differed substantially fiom their children’s perceptions.
When parents and adolescents did communicate about sex, discussions usually
began when the adolescent was between 10-13 years old (Fox & Inazu, 1980). Most
parent-child sex communication consisted of biology and physiology discussions, with
topics ranging from issues like menstruation and puberty, to contraception (Marsiglio &
Mott, 1988; Miller, Kotchick, Dorsey, Forehand, & Ham, 1998). In his study of amount
and sources of female adolescent sexual knowledge, Tucker (1989) found “72.8% [of
teens] had received medium to large amounts of information about the menstrual cycle;
76.8% had received medium to large amounts of information about sex; and 57.1% had
received medium to large amounts of information about contraception” (p. 272). When
asked what information they would like to add to their conversations with children, most
parents included “body differences, birth, and reproduction” followed by sexual morals
(Koblinsky & Atkinson, 1982, p. 31). Parents seemed most uncomfortable with
discussions about abortion, homosexuality, masturbation and wet dreams (Koblinsky &
Atkinson, 1982; Miller, Kotchick, Dorsey, Forehand, & Ham, 1998). So although
children and parents did appear to be talking about sex, these conversations appeared to
be general, and perhaps more flippant and noncommittal than serious (Aldous, 1993).
This general pattern paralleled the survey findings of Welch-Cline, Johnson, and
Freeman (1992) where only 21% of sexually active individuals acknowledged discussing
specific measures necessary to prevent STDs and AIDS, or communicated personal detail
about sexual risk. The remaining sexually active participants (43%) discussed sexual

activity generally, in vague and abstract contexts (e.g., “it would stink to have AIDS”)
while 14.8% did not report discussing AIDS or sexual activity at all.

Apparently, parents and children are interested in sexual education and
communication about sexual behaviors. Although it is unclear whether parents were
satisfied with their participation in this education, children were receiving information
about the biological aspects of sexual behaviors. These analyses of parent-child
communication topics can be misleading, however. While several studies have reported
the topics most frequently discussed, researchers have yet to address the particular
content of parent—child sexual communication (Miller, Kotchick, Dorsey, Forehand, &
Ham, 1998). Traditionally, researchers have relied on self-report lists of topics. With
these lists in hand, researchers ask parents to identify the topics they discuss most
frequently with their children. These studies “ignore the content of communications or
the kind of information a parent conveys to a teenager” (J accard & Dittus, 1993, p. 336).
No one has examined how these sexual messages were conveyed to adolescents.
Koblinsky and Atkinson (1982) have also identified this lack of attention on specific
parental strategies: “The seeming discrepancy between parental wishes to provide sex
education and their actual teaching practices suggests a need to examine the specific
ways in which parents plan to participate in children’s sexual socialization” (p. 30). One
way to examine the specific ways parents participate in children’s sexual socialization is
to focus on the content of parent sexual education messages. Therefore:

RQl: What is the content of messages communicated by parents concerning sex

to their sons and daughters?

 

Hi

R02: How satisfied are parents with the amount and type of sexual

communication they have with their sons and daughters?

RQ3: How satisfied are sons and daughters with the amount and type of sexual

communication they have with their parents?

In summary, adolescents receive information about sexual activity fi‘orn a variety
of sources, such as peers, siblings, media, and even school or religious organizations.
Research has indicated that parents, above other potential role models, affect adolescents’
sexual activity. This sexual influence mirrored parents’ and their children’s desires for
parental participation, in spite of parents’ discomfort with sexual topics. Research
suggested that parental communication about sex benefits children in a variety of ways.
However, this communication also may be instructing children in appropriate gendered
behaviors. Specifically, parental messages may socialize children into traditional
relationships following stereotypical gender roles. The following section will highlight
Rotter’s (1954) social learning theory as a potential theoretical explanation for the
process of parental communication about sexual activity. First, Social Learning Theory
(Rotter, 1982) will be explained and offered as a theoretical framework for the current
study. Second, the literature on parental socialization of gender roles and, more
specifically, sexual attitudes will be discussed. Finally, research supporting the presence
of Traditional Sexual Scripts (TSS) in American romantic relationships will be reviewed.
592%. ' tion of Sam Gender Roles

Smial' Learning Than. According to social learning theory, individuals develop
Personality, attitudes toward others, and even gender identities, through observation and
imitation of others. Children especially mimic and imitate those around them, particularly

10

peers, parents, and even mass media role models. However, only some of the copied
behaviors will be met with praise and approval. Social learning theorists have argued that
children were most likely to repeat those behaviors that were rewarded. As a result, the
rewarded behaviors became reinforced and shaped the child’s worldview. The current
study sought to examine the communicative processes that occur during reinforcement of
these behaviors. Specifically, this study focused on the talk between parents and their
children regarding sexuality and relationships. This communication was thought to be

one potential method of reinforcement of gender. Thus, the following paragraphs detail
the history, process, and recent research in the area of learning theories highlighting

Social Learning Theory.

From the standpoint of the amount of research produced, the social learning
paradigm was noteworthy. Taken from earlier works in Behaviorism (e. g., operant
conditioning, classical conditioning), the modern version of social learning theory
originated in the work of Rotter (1954). While several scholars in the late twentieth
century have expanded on Rotter’s original ideas (see Bandura, 1969 or Mischel, 1973 as
examples), current works share many of the original assumptions and variables, including
rewards, punishment, and reinforcement.

However, there are several significant differences between traditional
behaviorism and modern social learning theories. Most notably, social learning theory
extended beyond classic behaviorism’s “stimulus-conditioned response” model to include
the potential for individual variance, or cognition. Traditional learning theories typically
(e.g., Skinner) focused on behavior modification. For example, a son may be taught to
clean his room if his mother immediately bakes cookies whenever the son straightens his

11

toys and folds his laundry. Likewise, the cookie “rew ” could be replaced by
punishment (the mother refuses to take her son to McDonalds for lunch) to reinforce her
displeasure with the dirty room. This punishment could then be lifted when the son
accomplished his task. If the rewards and punishments occurred over a period of time,
learning theorists would argue the son’s messy habits would change. However, Rotter
(1954, 1982) assumed that behavior was goal directed, and thus emphasized the role of
anticipated rewards and perceived value of those rewards as the basis for modeling one’s
behavior on that of others. For example, the son could witness his brother cleaning his
room, hearing his mother offer praise and encouragement. Since the perceived value of
his mother’s affection is high, the younger son may model his brother’s behaviors in
anticipation of receiving his mother’s praise. If the younger son did, in fact, receive this
praise, the behavior will be more strongly reinforced. In this case, the anticipation of
rewards could substitute for the direct reinforcement (e.g., baking cookies). Further,
Rotter’s inclusion of reward expectancies allowed that individuals could chose between a
variety of possible behaviors based upon their anticipated reward (cleaning his room vs.
leaving his dirty clothes on the floor).

In addition to sharing much of the same terminology, traditional learning theories
and social learning theory shared two assumptions about human behavior. First, learning
theories have assumed that people are social beings. Pe0ple do not walk through their
lives unaffected. Rather, individuals have a need for interaction with other individuals.
Second, learning theories have assumed that people are aware of their environment(s).
Interactions do not occur in a social vacuum. Learning theories acknowledged the
influence of environment and context on behavior. For example, behavior modification

12

 

nil:

may not work in particular environments. In the clean room example mentioned
previously, the cookie reward may not work to change behavior if the mother’s baking is
poor, or if the son hates sweets.

These two assumptions served as the basis for examining the communicative
elements within the learning process. Rather than attend to the outcomes (e.g., does the
son actually clean his room?), the current study focused upon how communication occurs
during reinforcement (what does his mother say about the room?) Individuals’ need for
connection with others often manifests in communication. In fact, the success of this
connection may be determined by the quality and quantity of the communication. Fmther,
communication itself requires social interaction. Finally, social learning theory takes
context into account. Given previous research, parent-child interactions are a rich source
of information about learning and role-modeling. Thus, examining parental
communication that occurs during reinforcement is a natural first step in understanding
the learning process in regards to sexuality.

A substantial proportion of research on teenaged sexual behavior and birth
control has utilized the social learning paradigm. Although teenage pregnancy rates have
slowed (Guyer, Strobino, Ventura, & Singh, 1995), approximately one million
pregnancies per year are still reported (Forrest & Singh, 1990). Barth, Fetro, Leland, and
Volkan ( l 992) reported the results of a social learning-based sexual education program
presented to high school students in California. Over the course of 15 50-minute sessions,
participants received information about birth control (including abstinence), observation
of role models, and participated in role-plays. Results indicated that students
demonstrated increased knowledge, increased intention to use contraceptives, and

13

 

m".

 

We

is:

increased use of contraception, but no statistically significant decrease in pregnancy rates.

Social learning theory also has been applied to socialization of sexual behaviors
within the family. Researchers have suggested that adolescents witnessing parents in
violent relationships (role modeling) is predictive of coercive sexual behavior in the
adolescents’ future romantic relationships. Tontodonato and Crew (1992) examined a
sample of male and female offenders and found that social learning variables, specifically
knowledge of dating violence by others and experience with parent-child violence (both
modeling related), predicted courtship violence among female adolescents.

Social learning theories can also be applied to the development of gender roles
within the family. Oliver and Hyde (1993), in the course of an extensive meta-analysis of
gender differences in sexual behavior, presented a social learning view of sexuality
development. Since parents are thought to be the primary role models for their children
(Smith, 1983; Smith & Self, 1980; Starrels, 1992; Lauer, Lauer, & Kerr 1990; Maccoby,
1992), children may learn about sexual behaviors and gender roles in their home. A great
deal of this gender learning may occur during parent-child sex education. Although
parents have difficulties communicating with children about sexual topics, the content of
these talks may provide reinforcement for sexually traditional gender roles. For example,
it appears that the type and amount of information received from parents may be
mediated by the child’s sex (Newcomer & Udry, 1985). Parents seemed to make
distinctions between topics that are appropriate for boys and topics that are appropriate
for girls. Gagnon (1985) found that almost half of the parents want their boys to have a
positive attitude about masturbation while only about a third want their daughters to have
such an attitude: twenty-five percent of mothers felt that masturbation is harmful for their

14

 

1'11:

“it

EU];

mu:

daughters, compared to only 9% of mothers feeling the same way about their sons. This
research suggested that parents have a sexual “double standard” regarding their children
and appropriate behaviors. One way parents might be communicating their different
expectations is through traditional sexual scripts.

WM

We encounter new people, places, and ideas daily. Each situation requires us to
interact with remarkable adaptation. However, it would be impossible to respond
uniquely to every situation. Therefore, when we enter new situations we rely on past
behaviors that have proven successful. These behaviors are ofien combined with other
learned actions and stored as cognitive scripts. Thus, cognitive scripts provide individuals
with a preexisting set of behaviors that, when followed, will often guarantee uneventful
interactions with other individuals. According to Byers (1996), scripts served as
“cognitive frameworks for how people are expected to behave in social situations” (p. 8).
The Traditional Sexual Script (TSS) is one example of a cultural script that acts as a
guide for individuals’ behaviors when initiating romantic, sexual relationships.

Because the very nature of scripting is to provide individuals with ‘safe’ behavior
in unfamiliar or new situations (e.g., a first date), it follows that scripting would occur
frequently in new romantic relationships (e.g., the first few dates/interactions). This
pattern of scripting behavior follows Miller and Steinberg’s (1975) conceptualization of
interpersonal communication. According to Miller and Steinberg, as a relationship
progresses it moves from scripted communication to more idiosyncratic communication.
At the beginning of a relationship communication occurs at more abstract levels. As an
individual enters a new situation, he/she pulled from a list of cognitive scripts already

15

developed in his/her mind. These scripts provide the individual with appmpriate
behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, for this unfamiliar interaction. As the individual
gains more knowledge about his/her once unfamiliar situation, the use of the
preprogrammed script discontinues, replaced by Miller and Steinberg’s interpersonal
(i.e., more idiosyncratic) communication.

Several researchers have examined TSS use in steady dating relationships (Byers,
1996; O’Sullivan & Byers, 1992). Byers (1996) outlined six major assumptions of the
Traditional Sexual Script. These six assumptions have been condensed into three major
beliefs that guide the T88. Each of these will be discussed in turn, along with research
regarding each assumption.

Men g initiators/W omen as gatekeepers. According to the TSS, men are sexually
permissive, avidly pursuing the next available opportunity for sexual interaction. Women,
on the other hand, are the sexual ‘gatekeepers,’ refusing men’s initiations and offers. It is
important to note that these T SS stereotypes appear most noticeably in new relationships.
As relationships develop unique cognitive scripts of their own, the T88 was discarded in
favor of more personal, idiosyncratic communication. In new or unique romantic
relationships, however, the T88 exists as a guideline for sexual attitudes and behaviors.
Men continue to be the sexual initiators while women refuse sexual advance (Gager &
Schurr, 1976; LaPlante, McCormick, & Brannigan, 1980; McCorminck, 1979; Peplau,
Rubin, & Hill, 1977).

Several studies have found men to be the sexual initiators in relationships (Byers
& Lewis, 1988; Fischer, 1996; Korman & Leslie, 1982). O’Sullivan and Byers (1992)
used a modified diary method (consisting of a series of take-home questionnaires and

16

“(it
lit
512;;

 

Ms

journals) to examine if and how sexual initiations were being made. The researchers
found that men were much more likely than women to initiate sexual behaviors. The
authors concluded, “that men and women still appear to be guided by the traditional
sexual script with respect to initiations, but women may no longer serve as the restrictors
of sexual activity as women respond positively to initiations as frequently as men do” (p.
444). Because research has shown that women are more likely to condone sexual activity
in committed (rather than casual or uncommitted) relationships (Sprecher & Hatfield,
1996), O’Sullivan and Byers’ (1992) claims about women as restrictors must be
interpreted according to their sample: steadily dating couples. The role of initiation,
however, seemed to be uneontestedly male. Additionally, these ‘initiation attitudes’ did
not only apply to traditional and male populations. McCormick (1979) found that pro-
feminist college students were just as likely as students with traditional sex role attitudes
to categorize initiating coitus as masculine and avoiding coitus as feminine. Jessner’s
(1978) study found females are more likely than males (35% vs. 16%) to believe that men
are turned off by assertive women. This dislike for assertive women translated into a
‘receiver—only’ role for women. If assertive women are evaluated negatively by other
women, it is unlikely women in new relationships will challenge this sexual script. Thus,
it appears that men may remain responsible for initiation of sexual activity.

If men are the initiators and women are the gatekeepers, it follows that
disagreements would exist between men and women about the level of sexual activity in
a relationship. In fact, several studies have reported men desire more sexual involvement
than women (Byers, 1980; Koss & Oros, 1982; McCabe & Collins, 1984; Mynatt &
Allgeier, 1985). Byers and Lewis’ (1988) study of disagreements over level of sexual

l7

involvement found that men do most of the initiating, even in steady relationships. When
disagreements about the level of sexual activity exist (e.g., moving from kissing to
touching genitals, or from petting to intercourse) between couples, the male partner
desires a greater level of sexual activity significantly more often than the female partner.
Byers and Lewis (1988) admitted that these sexual disagreements were not as common as
predicted, however, lack of disagreements could be a function of studying steadily dating
couples. Disagreements did not disappear in steadily dating relationships, but in fact, men
sometimes viewed a more involved relationship as an excuse for pressuring their panners
into higher levels of sexual activity (Christopher, 1988; Zellman, Johnson, Giarruso, &
Goodchilds, 1979). In a sample of 262 collep-aged females, Christopher (1988) found
that 95.3% of women had been pressured into at least one sexual behavior. F ifty-eight
percent of the women admitted to being pressured to touch a man’s genitals. " '
Furthermore, a variety of coercive strategies were revealed. One out of four college men
reported lying to receive sexual intercourse (Fischer, 1996). The most common lies
included ‘caring and commitment’ (e.g., I love you, marriage, etc.) and ‘not a one-night
stand’ (e.g., promises to call, go out again).

Consistent with TSS claims of men as sexual initiators and women as defenders,
several studies examining strategy use have found women used more strategies to avoid
sexual activity while men were more likely to use strategic communication to initiate sex
(LaPlante, McCormick, & Brannigan, 1980; McCormick, Brannigan, & LaPlante, 1984).
Although thoughts do not necessarily match actions, perceptions of ‘male’ and ‘female’
strategy use seemed to mirror actual use. Testing the persistence of the sexual script,
McCormick (1979) asked college men and women to indicate which gender would be

18

most likely to use various strategies for having and avoiding sexual intercourse. She
found that when given a list of strategies including sexual initiation and decline, both
men and women were significantly more likely to view all the strategies for sexual
initiation as masculine and strategies for avoiding sex as feminine. In their study on
strategy use, LaPlante, McCormick, and Brannigan (1980) used 38 descriptions of ten
strategies for having sexual intercourse and 9 strategies for avoiding sexual intercourse.
As expected, surveyed students stereotyped all strategies for having sex as being used
predominately by men and all strategies for avoiding sex as being used predominantly by
women. When asked what strategies they used in sexual relationships, “[m]en reported
that they personally used both direct and indirect strategies significantly more than
women to influence dates to have coitus. . . [while] in contrast, women indicated that they
personally used both direct and indirect strategies significantly more than men when the
goal was to avoid sexual intercourse with a date” (p. 347). Thus, it appears that when
sexual activity was suggested in a relationship, men were more likely than women to
initiate this activity utilizing a variety of strategies. At the same time, women continued
to play the ‘gatekeeper’ role, refusing men’s advances with a combination of direct and
indirect strategies.

But, what happens when the strategies men used didn’t work? When declined by
their female partner, men were more likely to pout (Jessner, 1978) or simply go without
sex despite their urge (Mercer & Kohn, 1979). In some cases, however, coercion was
used to gain sexual compliance. As stated previously, the number of women who
GCorted being pressured into sexual activity is alarmingly high (Christopher, 1988;
Zellman. Johnson, Giarruso, & Goodchilds, 1979). Byers (1988) used role-plays to assess

l9

the impact of arousal level, sexual intimacy, and rape supportive beliefs on men’s
responses to their date’s first and second refusal of their sexual advances. Byers criticized
past research which portrayed men as ‘using any and all strategies to ‘persuade’ women
to engage in more intimate sexual activities” (p. 250). However, Byers reported only 4
men (8.7%) continued sexual coercion after the women’s second refusal. This definition
of ‘coercion’ hid more troublesome findings. Byers’ data indicated that, after the second
refusal, 30.8% of men would try the same ‘refused’ behavior again later that evening,
14.1% would try again on the next date, and 14.1% would try again on a future date. By
Byers’ account, these men were non-coercive. However, 59% (n=78) of men would try to
repeat the same behavior the women refused. While Byers may not have identified
delayed requests as sexual coercion, these findings showed support for TSS in dating
interactions. Men, consistent with TSS predictions, continued to initiate sexual advances
after women have fulfilled their ‘gatekeeper’ duties.

The TSS also portrayed men as sexually experienced and women as sexually
naive. Men reported more sexual partners (Townsend, 1995) and men reportedly think
about sex almost three times as often as women in the course of a day (Laumann,
Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). Numerous studies indicated that males tended to
be more interested in physical sexuality than females (Greer & Buss, 1994; Laumann,
Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Sprecher, 1989; Sprecher & McKinney, 1993). In a
study of why college men and women remain virgins, men were significantly more guilty
and embarrassed about their virginity while women reported significantly more positive
affect (such as pride and happiness) about their virginity (Sprecher & Regan, 1996).
Furthennore, the same study reported that significantly more men than women expected

20

to become a non-virgin in the near future (Sprecher & Regan, 1996). Thus, men not only
consider virginity a negative state, but also seek to rid themselves of this state as quickly
as possible.

With this in mind, it follows that men would be more permissive of sexual
activity than women. Several studies have shown that women were less permissive of
‘casual’ sex in non-committed (or low commitment) relationships (Sprecher & Hatfield,
1996; Sprecher & McKinney, 1993; Wilson & Medora, 1990). When first-year college
students were asked if it is acceptable for two people to engage in sex if they liked each
other, even if they had only recently met, 66% of men but only 38% of women answered
‘yes’ (Dey, Astin, & Korn, 1991). In their study of sexual permissiveness and the ‘double
standard’ of sexual activity, Sprecher and Hatfield (1996) found that in initial dating
relationships, women were significantly less likely to approve of sexual activity. Men
also held to the double standard for women, reporting that it was more acceptable for a
hypothetical male than a hypothetical female to engage in sexual intercourse on the first
date. Overall, men believed much more strongly that it was okay to engage in casual sex
than women. However, female permissiveness increased as relational commitment
increased (e.g., from ‘first date’ to ‘steady date’ to ‘engaged,’ etc.). At high levels of
commitment, gender differences disappeared. Thus it appears that the TSS served as a
guideline for appropriate sexual behavior in new or unique relationships. At high levels
of commitment (and intimacy), new scripts were written where people engaged in
idiosyncratic verbal (and nonverbal) behaviors.

To summarize, the TSS suggests that men avidly pursue sexual relations while
women refuse these advances. Men not only initiated sex more often than women, but

21

also have more sexual partners. In keeping with this stereotype, men were more
permissive about casual sex than women. This difference disappeared, however, when the
intensity of the relationship increased. But what happens to women who did not decline
or refused to ‘gatekeep’?

Women’s sexual expgg'ence as demgd worth. As a woman’s sexual experience

increases her value in society decreases. According to the TSS, women with sexual
experience are evaluated negatively. With sexual experience a woman’s worth, unlike a
man’s worth, will decrease. While a man with sexual experience is hailed as a ‘playboy’
or ‘stud,’ a woman with the same experience is a ‘slut’ or ‘whore.’ Research supports the
TSS’s negative depiction of sexually knowledgeable women, but perhaps the most
powerful statement about women’s worth is seen (or heard) in descriptive language.

In her book, Spender (1981) declared that sexism is inherent in American English.
For example, research by Stanley (1977) indicated that while approximately 220 words
exist to describe sexually experienced women, only 20 words exist in the English
language to describe a sexually experienced male. When the content of the two lists was
examined, a striking difference in connotation emerged. Specifically, the male terms had
both negative and positive connotations, but the female terms were decidedly negative in
their connotation. A ‘playboy’ was sexually experienced and often ‘uses’ women.
However, he is just as commonly portrayed as wealthy, debonair, charming, and
handsome. The term slut, on the other hand, is synonymous with dirty, sleazy, cheap, and
uneducated women.

At the same time, women are at a disadvantage in biological sexual language.
Because female sexuality is considered a dirty or negative occurrence, references to

22

female sexual functioning and biology often are ignored. Mosbacher (1984) asked college
students, physicians, and mental health professionals what their parents had told them
about their genitals during childhood. They found that in childhood,
Forty percent of males and 29% of females learned accurate names for males’
genitals, but only 18% of males and 6% of females learned correct names for
female genitals. Those who did not learn the correct names learned either no

names or euphemisms for genitals. . .Furthermore, males, on the average, had a

complete vocabulary for their genitals by age 11.5, but females did not learn a

complete vocabulary for theirs until 4 years later (p. 112).

Similarly, in Gartrell and Mosbacher’s (1984) study, only 1 of 115 females reported
learning the word ‘clitoris’ in childhood.

Words are important components of human thought and understanding. Having a
name for penis helps boys think, talk, ask, and learn about their sexuality at a much
earlier age compared to girls. Women, on the other hand, learn quickly that female sexual
activity is ‘bad’ and should not be discussed, let alone participated in. Girls also learn that
any woman who is knowledgeable about sexual firnctioning, conversant in the
terminology, or sexually experienced is doomed to negative evaluation. According to the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Sapir, 1964), our perception of reality is determined by our
thoughts, and our thoughts are influenced by our language. Hence, if words have the
power to shape our reality, then the TSS may be founded in our language.

These negative evaluations extend from language into perceptions of males and
females such that women who engage in sexual activity are consistently evaluated
negatively by peers. Sprecher, McKinney, and Orbach (1987) asked college students to

23

evaluate a fictitious person, who could be either male or female, who had first intercourse
at either 16 or 21, being on a casual date, or in a steady relationship. Female characters
were evaluated more negatively than males for having sex at 16 or in a casual
relationship. Thus, the double standard encouraged casual sex for adolescent males but
made same-age females feel more inhibited about sex without love. A similar study of
college students found that both men and women were more likely to evaluate a woman
who has had sex with ‘a great many men’ as immoral or sinful than men who had
intercourse with ‘a great many women’ (Robinson, Ziss, Ganza, Katz, & Robinson,
1991). Although it is argued that the sexual double standard has declined in recent years
(Bolton, Morris, & MacEachron, 1989; Sonenstein, 1986), others report that separate
expectations and evaluations for men and women exist (Kalof, 1995; MacCorquodale,
1989; Walsh, 1989). F romme and Emihovich (1998) asked 17 college-aged men of
various ethnicities how they would feel about a woman who willingly participated in
sexual activity with them on the first date. The resulting comments “presented a
contradiction in which women were divided into two categories: good ones who are
chaste, marriageable, and socially acceptable partners and bad ones who are sexual and
unacceptable for marriage” (p. 179). Drew, an African American student, commented
Honestly, I would give more respect to a girl for telling me no than I do for saying
yeah. Especially if they really are turned on and everything like that and they
want to but they're still like, "No, no . . ." then that means that they got a good
head on their shoulders and they're strong minded and they're not going to fall for
the peer pressure. They have an agenda, they have something on their mind that
they want to accomplish before. I like that quality.

24

 

uni

W1

It."
1

Fromme and Emihovich argued that the comments from participants illustrates how
males divide females into two distinct groups: those who say no are to be admired and
respected, whereas those who say yes are not viewed as acceptable candidates for an
ongoing relationship. In conclusion, the researchers noted, “There appears to be no
recognition among these young men that they are engaging in the exact same behavior
that they are denouncing in the women” (p. 180). Consequences of the double standard
did not affect women only. It was found that more men than women had engaged in
unwanted sexual intercourse, with the double standard dictating “real men never say no“
being cited as an important reason (Muehlenhard, 1988). In addition, adolescent males
perceived their ability to say no to unwanted sex as lower than that of their female
counterparts (DeGaston et al., 1996; Zimmerman, Sprecher, Langer, & Holloway, 1995),
again illustrating the initiator role.

In summary, the language we have in America for sexually active men and
women paints a very different reality for each sex. For men, sexual experience has
positive connotations. For women, however, admitting sexual eXperience only leads to
negative evaluation. These judgments extend beyond words into evaluations of behavior.
When women and men participate in similar sexual behaviors, women consistently are
evaluated more negatively. Thus, two assumptions to the TSS have been reviewed and
supported. Next, the third assumption, that women are more emotional and men are more
instrumental, will be presented and relevant research will be reviewed.

WW Relationship “self-help” books, such
as John Gray’s “Men are fi’om Mars and Women are from Venus” (1998), have numerous
readers discussing male ‘caves’ and hiding places. Perhaps Gray’s advice struck a chord

25

33.31

'T
1101

with readers because it resonated with the scripts the American people already were
following. Like Gray, the TSS characterized women as nurturing and men as
instrumental. Women, inherently attuned to emotional needs, were relationship oriented.
Men, on the other hand, bonded through activities. These preferences for relationship
involvement extend to sexual interactions. Men are much more accepting than women of
‘casual’ sexual interaction (DeGaston et al., 1996; MacCorquodale, 1989; Marsiglio,
1988; Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993). Women, however, require emotional attachment
to precede sexual contact.

“Emotional attachment” is a combination of empathy for one’s partner and
reciprocal self-disclosure/listening (Fox, Gibbs, & Auerbach, 1985; Sherrod, 1989).
Women need this emotional attachment to precede sex with their partner (Baldwin &
Baldwin 1997; Carroll, Volk, & Hyde, 1985; Jessner, 1978). When this emotional
attachment is absent, women have difficulty maintaining the sexual relationship
(Townsend, 1995, 1987). Even when the emotional attachment is gone temporarily (e.g.,
during anger or a fight) women found it difficult to engage in sexual relations
(Townsend, 1995). Women are so serious about the emotional component that studies
show that women end relationships that do not meet their emotional needs (regardless of
the quality of the sexual relationship). When partners do not meet women’s standards for
investments of time, resources, and nurturance, feelings of love decreased and sexual
relations became less desirable and satisfactory (Roche, 1986; Townsend, 1987).
Moreover, Whitley (1988) found that women were more likely to see “expression of
love” as a motivation to engage in sexual activity while men listed “pleasure” more
frequently. Furthermore, in a population of college students, Feigenbaum, Weinstein, and

26

Rosen (1995) found that males were five times more likely than females to cite physical
attractiveness as a sufficient reason to have sexual intercourse. In the same study, twice

as many females (65.7%) as males (31.1 %) believed that sexual intercourse should be
reserved for love involvements only. Thus, it appears women avoid ‘pleasure-only sex’ in
favor of ‘relationship sex.’

If women do continue these emotionally deplete sexual relationships, they report
experiencing anxiety and/or depression. According to Townsend (1987), female medical
students experienced intensely negative emotional reactions when they tried to maintain
sexual relationships that involved insufficient emotional commitment. At the same time,
men were more likely to condone sexual involvement “with no particular affection”
(Roche, 1986, p. 82; Townsend, 1995). In the rare circumstance when women initiated
sexual interactions without plans for emotional involvement, they found it difficult to
avoid feeling emotional attachment to their (casual) partner (Townsend, 1995).

Overall, it appears that women are more likely than men to require emotional
attachment as a prerequisite to sexual interaction. Without this attachment, women avoid
sexual interactions, end their relationships, or continue their relationships with feelings of
anxiety. With such extreme requirements for sexual interaction, it appears that the TSS is
accurate in characterizing women as having need for emotional connections. Typically
more sexually permissive than women, men do not require this emotional attachment.
This fits with the traditional conceptualization of instrumental masculinity, where
competitiveness, winning, stoicism, and breadwinner status is embraced (for examples
see Barth & Kinder, 1988; Marks, 1994; Wellrnan, 1992; Wood, 1999). Researchers
suggest that this gendered behavior may originate within the family. As children mature,

27

 

iti

parents provide information, both verbally and nonverbally, which is incorporated into
the child’s selficoncept and worldview. This influence extends to the child’s sexual
socialization. Because the TSS is a socialized script, perhaps parents are one of the prime
sources responsible for TSS socialization. Therefore:

RQ4: How does the content of parents’ talk about sex reflect the TSS
assumptions?

ex D' s in Pare t-Child Dialo

The gendered stereotypes evident within parents’ language may also be reflected
in parental behaviors. Children witness their parents engaged in activities on the basis of
sex; mothers as caretakers and fathers as playmates (Nugent, 1991; Russell & Russell,
1987). Although parents want to be the primary sexual educators of their children
(Abramson & Moriuchi, & Perry, 1983; Alter, Baxter, Cook, Kirby, & Wilson, 1982;
Koblinsky & Atkinson, 1982; Mueller & Powers, 1990), parents’ desires do not appear to
reflect their actions. Fathers typically are not involved in the sexual education of children
(Bennett, 1984; Dickinson, 1978). Roberts, Kline, and Gagnon (1978) found that fathers
more often than mothers were dissatisfied with their contribution to their child’s sexual
learning, yet were unwilling to acknowledge any need for help to increase their impact.
Interestingly, the strongest predictor of a father’s involvement in his child’s sexual
education was household chores. Baldwin and Baranoski (1990) found that as the
proportion of housework a father completed increased, his likelihood to take an active
role in parent-child sexual communication also increased. Since fathers appear to be
squeamish about discussing sexual education with children, the task often falls to mothers
(Fisher, 1986; Koblinsky & Atkinson, 1982; Nolin & Peterson, 1992). Thus, mothers

28

report geater amounts of sexual communication with children (Fox & Inazu, 1980;
Jaccard & Dittus, 1991; Miller, Norton, Jenson, Lee, Christopherson, & King, 1993).

This inequity in parent-child communication about sexual activity mirrors
previous research on women and relationship maintenance issues. Cultural stereotypes
have assigned women to the role of “relationship expert” in most romantic relationships
(Cancian, 1987; Wood, 1993). As experts, women are socialized to attend to relationship
issues, including being more attuned to the health and status of the relationship than their
male partners (Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Wood, 1993; Wood & Lenze, 1991). As a
result, women have been shown to monitor their relationships more closely than men, he
more likely to confront disageeable issues and approach conflict resolution than their
male partners (Thompson & Walker, 1989). Although the majority of the relationship
maintenance literature has been conducted on romantic attachments, it is likely that
women assume many of the same responsibilities once a romantic relationship has gown
into a family. Just as single women are more attuned to issues within romantic
relationships, mothers may take on the role of negotiating relational health within the
family. This expanded role as family relationship expert may offer explanation for
mothers’ increased participation in sexual communication with children. As children
grew older and enter romantic relationships, mothers (the relationship experts) are
cognizant of growing interest in sexual activity. Thus, because mothers shoulder the
burden for family relationship health, mothers may take on the responsibility of talking
about sexual activity with both sons and daughters.

In contrast, several researchers have argued that parents take primary
responsibility for the same-sex child, including the sexual education of that child.

29

Females are more likely to seek out their mother for sex education (Hepburn, 1981;
Tucker, 1989) while males receive the benefit of both mother and father’s knowledge
(Bennett, 1984; Koblinsky & Atkinson, 1982; Miller et al., 1993; Mueller & Powers,
1990). Bennett and Dickinson (1980) found that high levels of parent-child rapport
affected sons and daughters differently. As father-son rapport increased, mothers were
less likely to participate in general sex education. As levels of daughter-father rapport
increased, however, the geater the involvement of both parents in sex education.

Psychoanalytic theories (e.g., Chodorow, 1989) identify the family’s role in the
creation of an individual’s gender attitudes. As children, individuals either recognize their
similarity or difference to their primary caregiver. This identification occurs as the
caregiver, typically a mother, interacts differently with male and female children.
“Mothers tend to be more nurturing and to talk more about personal and relationship
topics with daughters than sons. This intense closeness allows an infant girl to import her
mother into herself in so basic a way that her mother becomes quite literally a part of her
own self” (Wood, 1999, p. 53). Mother and their male children, on the other hand, are not
capable of the same identification and closeness. According to Psychoanalytic theory,
boys recogrize this difference and develop their gender identities by separating from
mothers. Perhaps more importantly, mothers also recognize the difference. Thus, it is
possible that mothers would continue this differential treatment throughout their
children’s adolescence. In this case, it seems that mothers would talk with daughters
more than sons about intimate topics, such as sexual behaviors.

Thus, a difference exists within the literature. Mothers, as the primary caretakers
of family relational health, may be more likely to discuss sexual activity with both male

30

and female children. Yet, Psychoanalytic theory (Chodrow, 1989) would argue that
identification and internalization issues leads parents to discuss sexual education
primarily within same-sex parent-child dyads. Given these two opposing viewpoints, two
competing hypotheses were developed:

Hl: Mothers will participate in more sex communication with children than

fathers, regardless of the child’s biological sex.

H2: Same-sex parent-child dyads will discuss sexual behavior more often than

opposite-sex parent-child dyads.

 

 

I":

C15

1'1;
C01
sex
SEX

tip

50m

in

R"

22‘
N1

 

Methods
Eatiablsa

For both the participant and the parent(s), “sex” was conceptualized as two
mutually exclusive, biological categories: male or female. Furthermore, these biological
sex categories were used to categorize student-participants as “son” or “daughter” and
classify female parents as “mothers” and male parents as “fathers.” The messages
received from all participants consisted of verbal communication originating from the
student-participant’s parents. These messages were then examined for content containing
traditional sexual scripts. A message was categorized as “traditional scripting” when the
content reflected references to behaviors, emotions, or attitudes consistent with traditional
sexual stereotypes. These stereotypes included but were not limited to men initiating
sexual activity, women declining sexual advances, condoning male sexual
experience/criticizing female sexual experience, separating sex and love for men,
combining sex and love for women.

In addition to messages and sex, participants’ feelings regarding the
communication episode, such as Openness and satisfaction, were assessed.
“Communication openness” was conceptualized as breadth and depth coverage of topics
related to sexual activity and attitudes. “Satisfaction” reflected participants’ gestalt
appraisal of previous communicative events in two areas: overall positive/negative affect
and amount of communication.

Bantam

Because this research sought to examine the content of messages communicated

by parents to their children, and the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among college

32

 

1
l

m"

alt

<r=

fill

students is escalating, the focus of this study was university students and their parents.
Eight hundred and ten questionnaires were distributed to potential parent/adolescent
participants via communication students at a large Midwestern university. Six hundred
and twenty-four completed surveys were returned (response rate = 77%). The returned
surveys yielded 176 completed mother-father-student triads. One hundred and seventeen
female and 59 male student-participants averaged 20.1 years in age (SD=1.75). The
majority of student-participants lived with their biological parents (n=148, 85.5%) or
with a divorced biological parent (n=1 9, 11%). The remaining student-participants
described their family as “other” (n=6, 3.5%), such as “living with sibling,” “living
alone,” or “foster care.” Student-participants represented predominantly Caucasian
(n=144, 83.7%), African American (n=10, 5.8%), Asian (n=7, 4.1%), Latino/Latina (n=3,
1.7%) and “other” (n=8, 4.7%) ethnicities. Approximately two-thirds of the students
sampled indicated they were currently sexually active (n=120, 70.6%) beginning their
sexual activity at an average age of 17.19 years (SD=1.73, range=l 1-21years).

Among those parent-participants, the average age was 48.62 years for mothers
(SD=4.58, range=37-7l) and 51.23 years for fathers (SD=5.16, range=26-73). Parent-
participants were well-educated with the majority of mothers (50.4%) and fathers
(61.4%) having college degees or advanced education. Similar to student-participants,
parent-participants represented mostly Caucasian (n=285; 81%), African American
(n=20; 5.7%), Asian (n=13; 3.7%), Latino/Latina (n=7; 1.7%), or other (n=9; 2.6%)
ethnicities. During their student’s childhood, 32.7% (n=55) of mothers reported they did
not work outside the home. However, this number decreased during the child’s
adolescent and teen years (14.9%, n=25). Fifty-eight percent of mothers (n=98) reported

33

 

r}-
it

working full-time outside the home during their child’s adolescent years while only
36.9% (n=62) worked outside during their child’s early years. Fathers, for the most part,
worked outside the home throughout their child’s lifetime; 98.2% (n=163) and 96.4%

(n=160) of fathers worked outside the home during their child’s early and adolescent

years, respectively.
meat

In order to assess the extent to which parents’ communication reflects traditional
sexual attitudes, participants were asked to describe their communication about sexual
behavior with their child/parent(s) (see Appendix A). First, participmts were asked to list
any topic related to sexual activity and attitudes that they have discussed with their
child/parent. This thought-listing task was followed by participant recall of any
communicative incident(s) where sexual behavior was the topic. Participants were
instructed to focus on the communication that occurred during this interaction, including
what was said by each individual. Instructions were as follows:

Now, please think of a memorable time when you and your father discussed
sexuality and relationships. This may have been informal, such as a car ride home
from school, or a more formal “talk,” perhaps prompted by a health class during
your early school years. We are interested in WHAT YOUR FATHER SAID TO
YOU about sexuality and relationships. This may have been instructive (what
should or shouldn’t be done) or may have been informative (information and
facts). We realize that you may or may not be able to recall one conversation, but
only pieces of several conversations you had over the years. Any information you
can recall would be useful. In the space provided below, please recall the m

34

conversations, dialogue or words, you had with your father about sexuality and

relationships.

Next, participants identified the morals and values. Parent-participants were asked
to list the “the values or ideals that you wanted to instill in your son/daughter about
sexual relationships and men/women.” while student-participants reported their
perceptions of the values their mothers/fathers were communicating. In a final open-
ended question, participants were asked to reflect on information they felt was missing
from their communication about sexuality. Participants were instructed “Looking back
on it now, what is the ONE THING you wish [your mother/father/you] had told
[you/your son or daughter] about sexuality and relationships? To facilitate understanding
and completeness in the open-ended items, student-participants were asked to respond to
separately for mothers and fathers. In addition, student-participants questionnaires
contained an additional item seeking sources of information about sexuality and
relationships. Student-participants were provided with a list of twelve possible sources of
sexual education including “mother,” “father,” “brothers,” “sisters,” “school,” “doctor,”
“religious organization,” “movies,” “television,” “books,” “friends, or “other.” Student-
participants were asked indicate their “main source of information about sexuality and
relationships.” A follow-up questionnaire addressed the influence of parents specifically:
“Looking back at the list above, IF MOTHER/FATHER WERE NOT YOUR PRIMARY
SOURCE OF INFORMATION about sexuality and relationships, where would you rank
them on a scale ham 1 to 12?”

In the second section of the questionnaire participants completed a measure of
communication openness (Miller, Kotchick, Dorsey, F orchand, & Ham, 1998) containing

35

tori
hot
it
til

and

Lie:

it;

10 Likert-type items utilizing a 7-pt. response scale ( l =strongly agree; 7=strongly
disagee). Items reflected the participant’s general willingness and comfort discussing
sexual topics with his/her child or parent (“There are topics I avoid discussing with my
child,” “My son/daughter can ask me the questions he/she really wants to know about
tepics like this,” “I avoid discussing these issues with my father,” “I try to understand
how my mother feels about topics like these”). In the case of student-participants, items
were listed separately and rewarded to reflect the participant’s openness communicating
with his/her mother and father. Parent-participants responded while thinking of the
student-participants.

Following the communication openness scale, participants completed a measure
of their satisfaction with communication about sexuality and relationships. All
participants were asked to indicate the degee to which each item reflected their feelings
about their conversations with their parent/adolescent. The lO-item scale consisted of two
satisfaction dimensions: amount of communication and valance. Each dimension
included a directional prompt to participants and five items arranged in a semantic
differential format. The prompts included: “Taken as a whole, the information [I/your
mother/your father] gave [you/my son/daughter] about sexuality 311d relationships
was...” (amount dimension) and “How do you feel about the information[you/your
mother/father] gave about sexuality and relationships?” (valence dimension). Participants
were instructed to “circle the number that best represents your response” along a 7-point
Likert scale for each item. Sample items included “complete/incomplete,” “enough/not
eno ” “comprehensive/not comprehensive,” “good/b ” and “happy/unhappy.”

The third section of the questionnaire consisted of various demogaphic items,

36

2rd

511‘. i
at

tn

tilt

in;

such as parental employment, education, age, and family status. Parent-participants were
asked to report on their employment status during both their child’s elementary and high
school years, as well as their education level. Both student- and parent-participants were
asked to describe their family status and relationship (adaptive, biological, step-parent)
and education. Student-participants were asked whether they were sexually active and, if
so, their age at first intercourse.
bottom

Data were collected during the fall semester of the academic year. Potential
student subjects were recruited during a typical class period, in an academic building on
campus. Interested individuals were instructed to report to a separate location, outside of
the class period, to receive instructions and study materials. All student-participants were
given three separate research packets. Each research packet was a standard manila
envelope containing an introductory letter describing informed consent, a survey with an
identifying code number (such as “100A,” “100B,” and “100C”), and stamped return
envelope for the completed questionnaire. One research packet was for the student-
participant recruited during the class period. The student-participant was instructed to
complete his/her consent form and survey on his/her own time (outside of the class
period). The student-participant then returned his/her completed questionnaire and
consent form in a sealed envelope to a predetermined location in an academic building on
campus. The remaining two research packets were addressed to the student-participants’
parents. Potential student-participants were instructed to address one parental research
packet to “the person you feel fills the role of mother in your life” and the other to “the
person you feel fills the role of father in your life.” In the case of single-parent families,

37

student-participants were instructed to address a single research packet to the “parent they
live with the majority of the time.” Once addressed, the parental research packets were
collected by the researcher and mailed. Once the completed questionnaires were returned,
student and parent-participant questionnaires were matched using the identifying code
number. Then, consent forms were verified and separated from the completed
questionnaires for further analyses.

Armies;

Prior to statistical testing of the research objectives, confirmatory factor analyses
were run for the communication openness and the communication satisfaction scales. For
the communication openness scale, tests of internal consistency yielded a unidimensional
solution after two items were eliminated (“I wished [my father/mother/son/daughter] and
I talked about these issues more often” and “I am satisfied with how often [my
father/mother/son/daughter] and I discuss these topics and issues”). Coefficient alpha

reliabilities for parent and student versions were as follows: student a=.822, mothers

o=.862, fathers a==.882. All items were receded such that higher scores indicated geater
openness and comfort when discuss sexuality and relationships. Confirmatory factor
analyses of the communication satisfaction scale were consistent with a two-dimensional
solution (amount of communication and valence). Reliability coefficients were .96 and
.975 respectively.

Ming, Prior to statistical testing of the hypotheses and research questions, a
coding scheme was developed for open-ended questionnaire items. Four open-ended
questions were utilized in this project. These four questions included two though-listing

items (e.g., “what topics did you discuss with your [parent/child]?” and “what topics do

38

you wish you had talked about?”). The remaining two items asked participants to recall
parental conversations and values. Thus, the Open-ended items are described in two
distinct sections: conversation/values and discussion topics.

QM ion topic items. The two discussion topic open-ended items requested
participants recall any topics previously discussed or desired in families. For these
thought-listing, open-ended questions, approximately 10% of the questionnaires (n=20
student-mother-father triads) were utilized as representative responses to create coding
categories. The result was a single coding scheme with fourteen representative categories.
(See Appendix B for a list of all categories). Each category reflected the topics parents
and adolescents had discussed previously (or wished they had discussed) regarding
sexuality and relationships. Sample categories included: “talked about sex in general,”
“pregnancy,” which included pregrancy prevention or discussion of child-birth,
“emotions” addressed the emotions that accompany sex and relationships, such as love,
fear, or trust, “self esteem” included body image, respecting oneself, being independent,
and “physical differences” which addressed biological differences between males and
female including menstruation, puberty, or hormones.

anversation/Valges items. The remaining two open-ended items were concerned
with the actual communication that occurred between parents and adolescents. Once
again, a single coding scheme was utilized for both items. However, unlike the grounded
appromh used for discussion topic categories, the conversation/value coding scheme was
based on Byers’ (1996) conceptualization of the Traditional Sexual Script. Byers’
original conceptualization included three major categories: “ male as initiator of sexual
CXperience/female as gatekeeper/declining sexual activity,” “male sexual experience

39

$1101
In.
it:
tier
0th

hm

hm
Wit
533:1;

its.

positive/female sexual experience negative,” “females as emotional/males as
instrumental.” Using Byers’ original themes as guides, a coding scheme of fifteen
categories was developed based upon current literature on interpersonal relationships and
sex differences (for a complete list see Appendix C). Sample categories included
“Women are emotional” (emotional/instrumental), “Men are playboys or should ‘sow
wild oats” (male experience positive), “Men are dangerous and will use sexual force”
(male initiators), “Women avoid and don’t like sex” (female gatekeepers), “Women
should be sexually nah/e” (female experience negative), and “Men fear commitment”
(emotional/instrumental). For instance, one father suggested “I told my son that he should
be sure he was ‘compatible’ with any girl he wanted to marry. Its no good to find out

after [being married] that the sex isn’t good.” This father’s statement reflected Byers’
original “male sexual experience positive” theme and would be coded under the category
“men are playboys and should ‘sow wild oats.”

The coding scheme developed from the Traditional Sexual Scripts (Byers, 1996)
focuses on gender-stereotypical behavior. However, in the case a message conveyed
nontraditional gender attitudes it was placed into the appropriate category based on
content. Then the message was assigned a negative value. For example, one male
participant recalled his mother stating, “It’s important to save yourself for marriage. Sex
outside of maniage is a sin.” Based on content (remaining abstinent) this message was
categorized as “women should be virgins/remain abstinent” However, when the student-
participant’s sex was considered, the message from his mother becomes nontraditional.
Therefore, the message remained in the TSS category but was assigned a negative value
(representing its nontraditional content). All categories were designed to be absolute (see

40

t:

W

0

“ti:

Appendix C for a list of each category).

In addition, for the conversation/values open-ended questions, the unit of
measurement for each participant response was identified at the level of “thought
groupings.” Thus, a single participant-recalled message could contain several
categorizable units of analysis. For example, one mother wrote: “I remember saying that
she shouldn’t give herself away [sexually] to just anyone. She needs to look out for
herself and stand up for what she wanted.” In this example, two units of analysis were
present in the single recalled message: (1) disapproval of casual sexual relationship, and
(2) independence/relationship equality. Therefore, this message’s two thoughts were
treated as distinct units of analysis and thus categorized separately.

Coding religbilitjes. With the coding categories established, all questionnaires
were submitted to evaluation by two trained coders. Cohen’s kappa for all thought-listing
open-ended items was .80 (SE=.031, p<.01). Coding reliability for the
conversation/values open-ended items reached significant agreement (Cohen’s Kappa
=.663, SE=.039, p<.01). All coding disputes were resolved through discussion resulting

in universal went across all categories.

41

351

Ellis

COM

Results
W

The first research question addressed the content of messages communicated by
parents concerning sexuality and relationships to adolescents. Participants were asked to
list any topics they recall discussing with their parent/adolescent in the past (See Table
1). On average, mothers recalled 5.89 topics (range 0-13, SD=2.83) and father recalled
3.04 topics (range 0-12, SD=2.29). The average number of topics student-participants
recalled discussing with parents were as follows: mothers M=3.78 (range 0-12, SD=2.33)
and fathers M=2.07 (range 0-9, SD=2.19). Pearson correlations were run to assess the
agreement between messages recalled by student-participants and those recalled by
parents. While the number of messages recalled by mothers and student-participants was
not significant (r=.142, us), the number of topics remembered by student-participants and
fathers was positively correlated (r=.258, p<.001).

One hundred and sixty—eight mothers listed a total of 802 discussion topics. The
most commonly listed maternal topics included sexually transmitted diseases, such as
condom usage for safety, ‘safe sex,’ or AIDS (n=81), morals, such as religious beliefs or
codes of conduct (n=1 l7), and relationships, including dating advice, marriage and
divorce (n=126), and pregnancy, such as avoiding pregnancy, birth control or child-birth
(n=112). Mothers were less likely to recall discussing infidelity (n=9), peer pressure
(n=11), or homosexuality (n=1 3) with their adolescent. Student-participants were also
asked to recall conversation topics they had discussed with their parents. Similar to

mothers’ topics, 165 student-participants recalled discussing pregnancy (n=111), morals

42

.83“ 8355383 new»: 5955 new flamenco“. .3 833 coma—8% 3:38 bacon—99¢ 302 gm

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

833 .853me
gm as Ease ace: assesses can...
11 11111 11 cm
manoefln—I Hume-M Ti 3 rd
- m y . 11 8 W
see .. .. . W.
:38 Leo—=5. ., . . 111-11- . - x ., .. ; . w 1T cm .
11.1.1 1,1.1-1 1 1.. . . - -- q - 1+ 2: w
9502. 1-.- 111111, 1 111 11- . - - , : - : cm—
111111-11 .11 11.11.1111 -1 11-. - 111-1-111111111tr OV—
Aseoav
:32 833m 0 3:36an .3 3:38 833 5630va Sm mo_o:o=_oo._m

 

 

 

43

11F.

111:-

1111

is"

(n=80), and relationships (n=110) most frequently with mothers. In addition, student-
participants had few memories of discussing abuse, such as violence or date rape (n=9),
homosexuality (n=9), peer pressure (n=2), infidelity (n=7), or self esteem (n=2) with
mothers.

One hundred and forty-six fathers recalled 428 sexuality and relationships topics.
Fathers most frequently discussed relationships (n=81), morals (n=70), and pregnancy
(n=62). Fathers recalled discussing homosexuality (n=3), peer pressure (n=4), infidelity
(n=5), and timing of sexuality, such as the conditions necessary for a ‘good’ relationship
or being sure you have commitment (n=5) least with adolescents. Student-participants
recalled slightly different paternal topics (N=290). Student-participants recalled
discussing relationships (n=7 7), general ‘sex’ talk (n=36), pregnancy (n=34), and morals
(n=32) most frequently with fathers while discussing peer pressure (n=0), self esteem
(n=2), timing of sexuality (n=3), abuse (n=3), and homosexuality (n=3) least often.

Chi square analyses were run for student-participant sex by parental recalled
topics to determine whether parents discussed different topics with their adolescent on the
basis on biological sex (Table 2). Three sigrificant differences were observed in parental
t0pics: Mothers’ were less likely to discuss “self esteem” issues with their male offspring
(X’=7.93, p=.005) than with daughters while fathers were less likely to have “general sex
talk” (X’==6.65, p=.01), or discuss “physical differences” (X’=5.63, p=.02) with daughters
than have these talks with their sons.

Student and parent-participants were also asked to recall one topic they wished
they had discussed with parents/adolescents (Table 3). Sample “desired” topics included
“more openness” reflecting a desire by participants to communicate more about these

44

topics in general. This category was evidenced in one female respondent’s comments: “I
wished my mother and I had talked more about anything! I’d like that kind of [open]
relationship.” Additional topics included “consequences of sexual activity” which
included a desire to talk about sexually transmitted diseases or pregrancy more often,
“seriousness of sexual activity” referenced a desire to talk about the emotional aspects of
engaging in sexual activity. For example, one male participant requested his mother
explain “what having sex does to a relationship. . .how [sex] complicates things, like
jealousy and stuff.” Other participants desired more communication about “biological
differences” and “gender differences” such as “what women really want,” “why women
get so crazy and emotional about everything,” and “how all men think about is sex.” For
student-participants, the “one thing” question was answered separately for mothers and
fathers. However, most students (approximately one-third of those responding) indicated
they had “nothing” more to discuss with parents (n=53; 39%). Aside fi-om wishing for
nothing, student-participants wanted mothers to have “more openness” (n=16; 12%),
discuss relationships issues (n=13; 10%), the “seriousness of sexuality” (n=12; 10%),
gender issues (n=11; 9%), and received more “approval of sexual activity” (n=13; 10%).
Student-participants’ desires for conversation with fathers were similar to their requests
from mothers. In addition to wanting “nothing” from fathers (n=26; 20.2%), student-
participants desired more communication about “gender issues” (n=21; 16%), more
“openness” (n=16; 13%), “approval of sexual activity” (n=9; 9%), “relationship issues”
(n=10; 9%), and “seriousness of sexuality” (nfl; 6%). Additionally, student-participants
would have liked fathers to provide more information on “biological difl'erences” (n=11;
10%). Parent-participants were also asked to provide lists of desired communication

45

011"

I.
'0

I

con-

‘\

."f
..x'

topics. Like their adolescents, many mothers and fathers believed they had covered all the
necessary topics with their children (n=66). Fathers, slightly more than mothers, felt the
need for “more openness” with children (n fathers=l 7; n mothers-=14) and more emphasis
on “abstinence” (n fathers=9; n mothers=5). Both parents, however, ageed for the need
to include more discussion of “relationship issues” (11 fathers=9; n mothers=15). Several
topics that appeared as “wished for” by student-participants failed to appear on parental
lists. In spite of student-participant desires, mothers did not wish to discuss birth control
more often. Fathers did not include increased discussions of “masturbation,” “approval of
sexual activity” or “biological differences.” No participant expressed a desire to discuss
“homosexuality” more often.
Paren ' factio

The second research question assessed the level of parental satisfaction with
communication about sexuality and relationships. To accomplish this goal, parent-
participants completed the 10-item measure of satisfaction assessing their satisfaction
with amount communication and valance of feelings about their communication with
their adolescents/parents. Each factor was receded such that higher scores indicated
greater satisfaction. For mothers, the average satisfaction score included 5.11
(satisfaction with amount, SD=1.47) and 5.42 (valance, SD=1.40). Mean scores for
fathers’ satisfaction were as follows: amount M=4.23 (SD=1.52) and valance M=4.72
(SD=1.44).

T-test analyses were conducted between parental satisfaction and student-
participant sex to determine whether parent-participants’ satisfaction was sigrificantly
influenced by adolescent sex. No sigrificant differences were observed for mothers’

46

(amount F.151, df=l, ns; valance F.501, df=l, ns) or fathers’ (amount F.312, df=1, ns;
valance F.245, df=l, ns) level of satisfaction based upon adolescent biological sex.

T—tests were also run for parental satisfaction by parental-recalled topics (See
Table 4). For mothers, those who discussed general “sex” talk (amount F265, dF154,
p<.01; valance F2.92, df=154, p<.01) and pregnancy (amount F3 .63, df=154, p<.000;
valance F254, dF154, p<.01) were significantly more satisfied with the amount of
communication and had more positive feelings about their communication than mothers
who did not discuss these topics with their children. In addition, mothers who discussed
physical sex differences (valance Fl .96, df=154, p<.05) with their children had
significantly more positive feelings about their communication with their children.
Among fathers, those who discussed general “sex” talk (F3.3 8, dF140, p<.001.), morals
(t==2.12, df=140, p<.05), physical differences (F195, df=140, p<.05) and pregnancy
(t=2.52, df=140, p<.01) were more satisfaction with the amount of communication about
sexuality and relationships shared with adolescents than noncommunicative fathers.
Additionally, fathers who reported discussing general “sex” talk (F2.16, df=136, p<.05),
pregnancy (F274, dF136, p<.01), and emotions (F2.12, df=136, p<.05) had more
positive feelings about their conversations with adolescents than fathers who did not
discuss these t0pics.

To assess the relationship between breadth of communication and parental
satisfaction, Pearson correlations were run for the number of topics listed by parents and
parental satisfaction (amount and valance). For fathers, satisfaction and topic recall were
positively correlated such that the more topics fathers recalled discussing, the greater
their satisfaction with the amount of communication with children (F.406, p<.01) and

47

the

$3111

the more positive their feelings about their communication (r=.397, p<.01). Mothers’
satisfaction levels were also positively correlated with the number of topics they recalled
discussing with children (amount F202, p<.05; valance F249, p<.01).
d t ' acti n

The third research question asked “how satisfied are sons and daughters with the
amount and type of sexual communication they have with their parents?” Average
satisfaction scores from student-participants reflecting upon communication with mothers
were near the midpoint (amount M=3.22, SD=1.84; valance M#.06, SD=1.66).
Similarly, satisfaction scores for student-participants who recalled paternal messages
regarding sexuality and relationships were mid-range (amount M=2.45, SD=1.91;
valance M=3 .40, SD=1.89). T-test were performed to assess the influence of participant
(student and parents) biological sex on satisfaction. Results indicated that male student-
participants were significantly more satisfied with the amount of communication by their
fathers (F-2.601, dF166, p<.01) and had more positive feelings about that
communication (t=~2.154, df=168, p<.05) than female student-participants. No
significant differences in satisfaction (amount F.148, df=165, ns; valance F-1.25,
df=l 70, ns) were noted between male/female student-participants concerning mothers’
messages. However, Pearson product correlations were run for the number of topics
recalled by student-participants and satisfaction levels. With mothers, student-
participants’ satisfaction with the amount of communication (F.47 5, p<.01) and positive
feelings about their communication (r=.3 l6,p<.01) was significantly related to the

number of topics student-participants recalled discussing. The number of topics student-

48

1111

11:1

33111

participants talked about with fathers was also positively correlated with satisfaction
(amount F.604, p<.01; valance F.438, p<.01).

In each case, student-participants who recalled discussing sexuality and
relationships were more satisfied than those student-participants who did not recall a
discussion (see Table 5). Specifically, student-participants recalling general “sex” talks
(amount F727, df=159, p<.01; valance F526, df=161, p<.01), HIV or sexually
transmitted diseases (amount F445, df=159, p<.01; valance F3.95, df=161, p<.01), or
information about dating and relationships (amount F3.15, dF159, p<.01; valance
F312, df=159, p<.01) with mothers were more satisfied overall than those student-
participants who did not discuss these topics. In addition, student-participants talking
about physical and biological differences (F3.14, df=159, p<.01), emotions (F2.13,
df=159, p<.05), and morals (F292, df=159, p<.01) were more satisfied with the
frequency and amount of maternal communication about sexuality than those who did not
recall such discussions. For fathers, student-participants who discussed physical
differences (amount F295, dF121, p<.01; valance F203, df=120, p<.05), pregnancy
(amount F6.54, df=121, p<.01; valance F426, df=120, p<.01), morals (amount F3.93,
dFlZl, p<.01; valance F288, df=120, p<.01), and general “sex” talk (amount F431,
df=121, p<.01; valance F3.47, df=120, p<.01) were significantly more satisfied with the
amount of communication and had more positive feelings about the communication than
participants who did not discuss these topics. Student-participants’ satisfaction with the
amount of paternal communication was greater for those who talked about sexually
transmitted diseases (F266, dF121, p<.01), and other miscellaneous topics (F278,
dFlZl, p<.05) than student-participants not recalling these topics The two exceptions to

49

they:

m

dfl.

Wilifi

these

these findings were student-participants who recalling talking to mothers about

abstinence(t=-2.l6, df=159, p<.05) and fathers about homosexuality (amount F-2.30,
df=121, p<.05; valance F-2.33, df=120, p<.05) expressed less satisfaction with the
content and frequency of parental communication than those families who did not discuss
these topics.

Tradi 'o ' and Me

The fourth research question examined whether the content of parental messages
recalled by student and parent-participants reflected the traditional attitudes seen in
Traditional Sexual Scripts (T SS) (Byers, 1996). To determine this, participants were
asked to recall both a specific conversation about sexuality and relationships and,
separately, any values that were communicated by parents.
gonveisatiog topics. One hundred and thirty student-participants (70%) were able

to recall the dialogue of one conversation with a parent regarding sexuality and
relationships. These participant responses yielded a total of 374 units of analysis, or
“messages.” Student-participants were slightly more likely to recall messages from
mothers (N=215) than fathers (N=159). These recalled conversations were then
categorized using a coding scheme deve10ped from the TSS literature (see Table 6).
Although approximately 30% of all student-participants (n=5 3) had no response when
asked to recall a conversation (e.g., left the questionnaire blank), some participants
responded by writing about their lack of communication with parents. Eighty-two (22%)
messages included student-participants indicating they had not discussed this topic with a

parent (i.e., “We never talk about this!” or “Nothing”). However, these non-discussed

messages were often paired with descriptions of dialogue within the same student-

50

participant-response. Once the “non-discussed” messages were discarded, a total 187
maternal and 109 paternal messages were recalled by student-participants. Within these
dialogues, discussions of abstinence (n=67, 22%) and sexuality responsibility (n=68,
22%) were most fiequent, followed by conversations about biology or “parts” (n=24,
8%). Students recalled discussing sex as an expression of love (n=2, .7%), homosexuality
(n=2, .7%), self-esteem (n=1, .5%), equality in relationships (n=2, .7%), and being proud
of one’s sexual choices (n=l , .5%) least often. Twelve recalled messages (4%) were
unable to be categorized due to miscellaneous or irrelevant content.

In addition to examining the overall content of each message, the biological sex of
the participant was taken into account to establish the presence of traditional messages in
parental communications about sexuality. Chi square analyses were run for each type of
recalled message (student recalled for mother and student recalled for father) by student-
participants’ biological sex. First, those messages consistent with the gender stereotypes
present in Byers’ (1996) TSS was considered. One hundred and twelve (60%) of the 187
catagorizable maternal messages recalled by student-participants were traditional. When
the content of these messages recalled by student-participants were considered, female
student-participants were significantly more likely to recall messages about remaining
abstinent before marriage (n=27), protecting their reputation (n=7), taking responsibility
for sexual behavior and outcomes (n=29), men’s greater desire for sexual activity (n=6),
and sexual gate keeping/being reSponsible for saying ‘no’ (n=1 1) than male student-
participants (XF48.48, dFl 1, p=.000). For fathers, student-participants recalled

élmessages (56%) reflecting traditional sexual stereotypes.

51

4:350 Etom .msxom Enough 5.. @030 203 98 $595355 5.5 meow—“€268 338

8:38 b.3333.“— Eec 39080 motomfieo 32F .$=a_o¢an .3 3:32 838 5.53.658 new momoeosvohm g

8&3 setup—26°C

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Seam a

 

 

O
M
Kauanbai :1

 

 

,i as“: :32 eggs I
nose: I a.
$.88 :82 2833 on

 

 

 

 

 

35303.23 3 3:32 3&9 :owamcoéou

52

SEX

HOV

an

beh.

at
$811
ff '1}

5r;
' 1\

En“
11“
'i

Chi square analyses of recalled paternal message category by student-participant
sex revealed no significant differences for paternal messages (Xi-=1 5.3 1, df=13, ns).
However, a trend similar to those messages recalled for mothers emerged: female
participants were more likely to recall messages about taking responsibility for sexual
behavior and outcomes (n=11), sexual gatekeeping/being responsible for saying ‘no’
(n=6), and remaining abstinent before marriage (n=15) than male participants. For those
messages that were nontraditional according to Byers’ TSS assumptions, student-
participants recalled 53 (38%) maternal messages and 25 (23%) paternal messages. Male-
student participants were more likely to hear messages about love being a prerequisite to
sexual activity (n=6), taking responsibility for sexual behavior and outcomes (n=12) than
female student-participants (X2=l 8.60, df=9, p=.02). However, once again no significant
differences emerged for student-participants’ recall of nontraditional messages from
fathers (XF3.11, df=7, ns).

Next, mothers’ and fathers’ messages were examined for content and TSS
emphasis (see Table 7). Mothers and fathers recalled a total of 407 categorizable units of
analysis. Once again, several parents (n47; 11%) indicated in their surveys that they had
not discussed or could not recall a specific conversation with their son/daughter. Of the
remaining 360 messages, mothers recalled 215 and fathers recalled 145 messages given
to their children. Overall, parent-participants remembered discussing taking responsibility
for sexual activity and outcomes (n=70, 20%), love as a prerequisite to sexual activity
(n=41, 12%), abstinence (n=3 8, 11%), and deceit/honesty during sexual encounters
(n=36, 10%) most frequently. There were some topics, however, that parents did not

53

RC3

aqua

r213:

a»:

that

recall discussing with student-participants. No parent recalled a discussion of relationship
equality (n=0) or pride regarding sexual decisions (n=0) and very few discussed sexual
techniques (n=2, .6%), homosexuality (n=3, .6%), emotional openness during
relationships (n=4, .7%).

When the conversations recalled by parents were examined for evidence of
traditional sexual scripting, traditional messages from mothers accounted for 59%
(n=126) of the total 215 maternal messages while traditional messages from fathers
numbered 83 (57%). However, mothers’ messages were not significantly influenced by
adolescent biological sex (XF19.34, df=12, ns). Trends within these results suggested
that mothers sent daughters messages about remaining abstinent (n=16), making love a
prerequisite to sexual activity (n=15), acting as the sexual gatekeeper or saying ‘no’
(n=15), and taking responsibility for sexual activity and outcomes (n=25) more often than
they reinforced the complimentary traditional message for sons. Female adolescents also
receive more traditional messages from fathers: fathers recalled discussing sexual
gatekeeping or saying ‘no’ to sexual advances, taking responsibility for sexual activity
and outcomes, being careful and alert for sexual assault, remaining abstinent, and love as
a prerequisite to sexual activity with daughters more often than sons (X’=23.33, df=10,
p=.01).

Mother and fathers also recalled discussing nontraditional topics with children.
Mothers and fathers remembered 54 (25%) and 32 (22%) nontraditional messages
Mpectively. Mothers were significantly more likely to tell male adolescents love is a
prerequisite to sexual activity and talk about taking responsibility for sexual activity and
outcomes (X’=26.74, df=10, p=.003) than to send daughters nontraditional messages

54

bio

about these topics. Fathers’ messages were not significantly influenced by adolescent
biological sex (X"=10.48, df=7, ns). Yet, fathers did appear to send more nontraditional
messages to sons about taking responsibility for sexual activity and outcomes (n=13).

Some additional categories stemming from participant responses were used in
addition to the TSS. These response categories included general health or cleanliness
issues, homosexuality, self-esteem messages, strictly biological discussions (“parts”), and
technical or descriptive talk of sexually transmitted diseases. Student-participants recalled
22 (11%) messages from mothers and 23 (21%) messages from fathers. However, there
were no significant differences in the content of these messages recalled by male and
female student-participants (mother XF3.92, df=4, ns; father X2=4.63, df=4, ns). Thirty-
three of the messages units recalled by mothers (15%) and 30 of those messages recalled
by fathers (21%) fit into the additional coding categories developed fi'om participant
responses. Once again adolescent sex did not influence maternal OFF-6.71, (if-=5, ns) or
paternal (X"=9.12, df=5, ns) messages about miscellaneous issues.

Values topics. One-hundred and twenty seven student-participants were able to
recall the values communicated by at least one parent (72% of total student subjects)
resulting in 360 total categorizable parental values. Forty-four times (12%) a student-
participant indicated he/she was not able to recall the values parents had communicated
yielding a remaining 194 maternal values and 122 paternal values remembered. Overall,
student-participants were instructed most frequently on abstinence (n=90; 25%), sexual
responsibility and outcomes (n=46; 13%), love as a prerequisite for sexual activity (n=39;
10%), sexual morals (n=31; 8.5%), and honesty in sexual relationships (n=29; 8%).
Although each TSS category was represented at least once in recalled student-

55

at

me.

L1

participant’s values, several categories were minimally represented: pride about sexual
activity (n=2; .4%), sexual techniques (n=3; .5%), sexual knowledge (regarding
masturbation) (n=3; .5%), and emotional openness in sexual activity (n=4; 1%).

Next, the content of each recalled parental value was examined for evidence of
traditional sexual scripting. Student-participants were able to recall 120 traditional values
from mothers (62%) and 78 traditional values from fathers (64%). Among those student-
participants recalling values, females were more likely to recall fathers communicating
traditional values about abstinence, sexuality and morals, and love as a prerequisite to
sexual activity than males (XF25.39, df=9, p=.003). No significant differences emerged
for recall of maternal traditional values by student-participant biological sex (X2=15.48,
df=12, ns). Yet, daughters remembered being instructed to take responsibility (n=l9),
remain abstinent (n=34), and have love as a prerequisite for sexual activity (n=l9).

Some commrmicated values evoked by student-participants contradicted the
stereotypical messages in TSS by communicating nontraditional themes. Student-
participants were able to recall 63 nontraditional values from mothers (32%) and 31
nontraditional values from fathers (17%). Student-participants were more likely to recall
nontraditional values from mothers with sons receiving more nontraditional messages
about love as a prerequisite for sex, remaining abstinent, taking responsibility for sexual
activity and outcomes, and honesty in sexual relationships than daughters did about these
subjects (XF16.91, df=8, p=.03). No significant differences were evident in student-
participant’s memories of paternal nontraditional values (Wee—12.08, dF12, ns).

Finally, student-participants recalled 10 (5%) maternal and 13 (10%) paternal
miscellaneous values that were not directly reflective of traditional sexual scripts. Rather,

56

threat-CE \

:anth mCC.qu¢hnu>—unvnv uCuu-V-anmlun-UECQ Car—um)? amend—aux! «Wynn- hawk fiUmUCU-uvnvhfih
dings-Jar. J. .

momma“ 033/

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avflbdcfioa Agenda
88.5 380850 ....a 33 9.8.3 £202 cone—:3“? 38.5 oo=e£~mn< T o
. ..w: _lll
1% m
it 3
L- 2
11. ca
1...- mu
E053 I
it; llill it on
695$ :88
835% I
slii I 2
E0452 I ow
C0525
«aw—N33“ D 30320250 Engage—K 55m? woe—g mmh no.“ memes—0:60am

 

 

 

sarouanberd
57

these miscellaneous values included references to homosexuality, healthcare, or self
esteem values for example. However, no significant differences emerged in student-
participants’ lists of values for mothers (XF3.65, df=3, ns) or fathers (XF2.04, df==3,
ns).

mm

For the current study, two competing hypotheses were established assessing the
moderating influence of parental and adolescent biological sex on the discussion of
sexuality and relationships. Specifically, the goal was to determine whether mothers-child
dyads or same-sex parent-child dyads were discussing these topics more frequently. To
answer this question, student-participants were asked to choose their main source of
sexuality information from a list including mother, father, sister/brother, friends, school,
religious organization, doctor, books, television, movies, and other. Although participants
were instructed to choose their main source of information, a large portion selected
multiple “main sources” of information. Therefore, rather than eliminate those
participants, all participant responses were included in the following analyses.

When asked to list their main source of information, 273 responses were given by
student-participants. Of these responses, the single response grouping indicated that
“friends” (n=103, 38%) were their main source of sexual information. Next, participants
listed “mothers” (n=3 8, 14%), “school” (n=3 6, 12%), “television” (n=27, 10%), and
“brother/sister” (n=26, 10%). Those sources listed least included “doctors” (n=15, 5%),
“fathers” (n=7, 3%), “religious organizations” (n=7, 3%), “movies” (n=4, 1%), and
“books” (n=4, 1%). The remaining 6% indicated they had “other” main sources of
information about sexuality. In addition to the list of potential main sources of

58

information, student~participants were specifically asked to rank their mothers and fathers
as sources of information (l=main source of info; 12=last possible source). On average,
student-participants ranked mothers frfih (M=5.38, SD=3.68) and fathers eighth (M=8.26,
SD=3.50). T-tests between male and female student-participants yielded a significant
difference in the ranks of both mothers and fathers as sources of sexuality and
relationships information. Female student-participants ranked mothers significantly
higher than males did (female M=4.72, male M=6.75, F338, df=l60, p<.001). Male
student-participants, however, ranked fathers as a higher source of information than
female-participants (female M=8.66, male M=7.49. F-1.95, df=l48, p<.05).

In addition to gauging student-participants’ rankings, the degree of Openness
about sexuality and relationship communication was assessed for all participants.
Average openness scores for mothers and fathers were 5.59 (SD=.96) and 4.83
(SD=1 .19), respectively. Student-participants were also asked to indicate their comfort
levels discussing these topics with both mothers (M=4.37, SD=1.22) and fathers
(M=3.68, SD=1.29). Male student-participants were significantly more comfortable
discussing sexuality and relationships with fathers than female student-participants
(female M=3.53, male M=3.95, F207, df=l69, p<.05). However, female student-
participmts indicated a significantly greater amount of Openness with mothers than did
male student-participants (female M=4.58, male M=3.95, F3 .29, df=l69, p<.001).
Baaimnnahses

Although not previously hypothesized, it was determined that assessing the
impact of parental communication on adolescent sexual behavior was necessary. To
accomplish this goal, several t-test analyses were conducted using smdent-participants’

59

self-reported sexual activity as the grouping variable. No significant differences were
observed between student-participants who reported being sexually active and those
students who remained abstinent across number of topics recalled (mother Fl .3 8,
df=168, ns; father Fl.14, df=l65, ns), overall satisfaction(father F-.445, df=l66, ns;
mother F.032, df=l 65, us), or satisfaction with the amount of communication (father F-
.192, dF165, ns; mother F.681, dFl63, ns), mother/father rankings as sources of
information (mother F.412, df=158, ns; father F-1.120, dF146, ns), maternal (F-.277,
dF158, ns), paternal (F-.495, df=154, ns), or student-participant openness (father F.203,

df=l66, ns; mother F-.684, dFl66, ns).

[g

SM
0h

Gi1

iii

Discussion
Content of Parentflhfl d Diggssions

The first research question raised in the current study sought to identify the
sexuality and relationship topics addressed by parents and their adolescents. Consistent
with previous research on parent-child sexuality research, parents and adolescents did
appear to be having some discussion about sexuality and relationships (Fox & Inazu,
1980; Marsiglio & Mott, 1988; Tucker, 1989). A great majority of parents (168 mothers;
146 fathers; total N=177) were able to recall some discussion with adolescents. Further,
student-participants confirmed parents’ recollections; 165 students remembered at least

one discussion with mothers and 125 students recalled at least one talk with fathers.
Given the previous research suggesting the positive impact parental communication about
sexuality on sexual initiation and condom usage (Fisher, 1989; Whitaker, Miller, May, &
Levin, 1998) the large number of parent-child discussions found in the current study was
encouraging. Almost two-thirds of the students surveyed were sexually active. However,
the average beginning age for sexual activity for this sample was (M=17.12yrs) above the
national average. Although the outcomes of parent-adolescent discussions were not
examined in this study, this sample’s delay in the onset sexual activity could be related to
the large number of parents willing to discuss sexual behavior and consequences.

In fact, when the number of topics listed by parents was considered, parents
appeared to be very active discussing sexual activity and relationships. Mothers recalled
covering an average of 6 topics with children while fathers listed an average of 3 topics.
Yet, the number of topics recalled by parents was not unusually large, particularly given
the potential positive impact parental communications may have on adolescent sexual

61

NS

it‘ll

in}

rec;

pill

501!

mi-

Sill

lift

tr

32?;

behavior. Further, these numbers reflected parents’ perceptions of parent-child
conversations over approximately two decades. These topics, however, were not
insignificant. In the current sample, there were both mothers and fathers who did not
recall a single discussion regarding sexuality and relationships with their adolescent. The
fact exists that some participants received no information regarding sexuality from
parents. Yet, the average student in this sample received information across several topics
from both mothers and fathers. Thus, while the overall breadth of tapics may disappoint
some family scholars, the existence of any communication within families should be
encouraging.

Student-participants were also asked to recall the breadth of communication about
sexuality and relationships within their families. Similar to parents, most student -
participants had some discussion with mothers and fathers. Yet, not surprisingly, student-
perceptions on the breadth of this communication differed from parents. When compared
to parents’ memories, students reported discussing fewer topics with both mothers and
fathers. In the case of student-mother dyads, students recalled one-half the number of
topics that mothers reported (M mothers topics==6; M student topics for mothers=3).
Student-participants and father-participants were significantly more similar with fathers
reporting an average of 3 topics to students’ memories of 2 topics. Although some
discrepancies in students’ and parents’ perceptions of topics might be expected, the large
discrepancy between mothers and students was notable and directed attention to
participant expectations and perceptions. It was impossible to determine whether

mothers’ or students’ perceptions of the breadth of conversations was more accurate to
actual conversations. In fact, some researchers suggest that both students’ and mothers’

62

perceptions may not reflect actual conversation at all. For instance, a family may be
prompted into a “discussion” by a shared experience, such as viewing a public service
announcement on safe sex practices. The parent, inspired to open communication by the
advertisement, may comment on the actor starring in the commercial. The student may
ignore the comment, respond superficially, or engage in conversation. The outcome (or
even the beginning) of this conversation on sexuality may depend on that student’s
perception of the parent’s intentions. Certainly it is easy to conceive of the student
dismissing the parent’s comment. Later, the same student (as a participant) cannot recall
any parental conversation while his/her parent recalls at least one! There were multiple
explanations for the parent-adolescent perception discrepancies including the above
example, not accounting for topical depth, or even faulty memory. Considering the
similarity between students’ and fathers’ topical recall, one might argue that the large
difference between students and mothers was the product of intense social desirability for
mothers. Both fathers and students agreed that fathers and adolescents don’t talk a great
deal about sexuality and relationships. The same students reported that mothers and
adolescents don’t cover a great many topics either. However, mother-participants
indicated discussing two-times as many topics as students’ recalled. This difference (in
comparison to the considerable similarity of students and fathers) could indicate that
mothers felt pressure to show they had talked with children. As family care-takers,
mothers might feel a greater responsibility to protect other family members. This
protection could include showing others (e.g., within the survey) they had managed and

cared for their offspring through discussions about sexuality and relationships.

63

5hr

Stat

3113

iii-:1.

In spite of discrepancies in the number of topics discussed, parents and students
showed significant agreement across the types of topics recalled. Overall, there seem to
be several “hot topics” in families. All participants reported discussing morals, such as
religious beliefs or codes of conduct, relationships, including dating advice, marriage and
divorce, and pregnancy, such as avoiding pregnancy, birth control or child-birth most
fiequently. The overwhelming agreement among mothers’, fathers’, and students’
memories suggested these topics were particularly salient among American families. The
importance of these topics in families could reflect recent media attention and public
service announcements addressing the consequences of sexual activity. Current public
service announcements have capitalized on “star power” by featuring prominent media
personalities in “safe sex” campaigns. Popular teen sitcoms have addressed pregnancy
scares, sexually transmitted diseases, and romantic heartbreaks. Yet, parents and
adolescents reported discussing pregnancy and relationships most while safe sex issues,
such as sexually transmitted diseases, fell in the midpoint of topical discussions. This
lack of “safe sex” discussion in families mimicked the findings of sexuality research on
dating couples’ (Metts & Fitzpatrick, 1992; Welch-Cline, Johnson, & Freeman, 1992).
Welch-Cline, Johnson, and Freeman (1992) have argued that most individuals discuss
sexually transmitted diseases in general, non-specific manner (e.g., “Having AIDS would
really suck”). Mets and Fitzpatrick (1992) suggested that these general talks are further
complicated by the fact that individuals rely upon their intuition to pick “ e” partner-s,
These “safe sex” myths may create a false sense of security among parents and
adolescents alike leading to limited (or general) talk about sexually transmitted diseases
in families. Rather, families concentrated on more “important” topics, such as pregnancy,

64

It may be that parents, in particular, focused on those topics thought to be the biggest
threat. For example, one mother recalled telling her son that “a pregnancy will ruin your
life - not just the girl’s.” The other most frequently discussed topic was “morals.” Similar
to pregnancy, the “biggest threat,” parents discussing morals and religion may have
focused on the topic they thought to be the biggest prevention. If the most frequently
discussed topics reflect parents’ views of the biggest threats (or preventions) to sexual
behavior, the least discussed topics may have indicated the “taboo” or unimportant topics.

In addition to similar reports of frequently discussed topics, parents and
adolescents agreed on those topics not discussed within their families. Students, fathers,
and mothers all agreed that homosexuality, infidelity, and peer pressure were rarely
discussed. It was difficult to determine the reasons for the lack of discussion, although
these topics mirror previous research on those t0pics avoided by parents (Koblinsky &
Atkinson, 1982; Miller, Kotchick, Dorsey, Forehand, & Ham, 1998). One might
speculate that these represent the most difficult discussion topics. Parents may remain
uncomfortable with the prospect of their teenage son or daughter declaring attraction to a
same-sex partner. Perhaps issues such as infidelity and peer pressure were dismissed or
not fully understood by parents. Or, adolescents may not felt comfortable addressing the
pressures they were facing from boy/girlfriends, infidelity, or their sexuality identity with
parents (Aldous, 1993; Jaccard & Dittus, 1991).

Regardless of parental comfort, there appeared to be few sex differences in the
topics parents recalled discussing with children. Mothers, in particular, didn’t seem to
discriminate in the types of topics they discussed with their male and female children.
Although the exact content of these discussions was not assessed, it appeared that certain

65

3r:

let

topics were viewed as essential for all adolescents, regardless of biological sex. One
significant difference in the topics discussed by parents was the lack of “general sex talk”
by fathers with daughters. Like mothers, fathers discussed most other topics with male
and female children, such as biological differences, pregnancy, sexually transmitted
disease, and relationships. This topical difference by fathers might have indicated
paternal discomfort with sexuality and relationships talk. In other words, fathers may
avoid casual conversation (or “general sex talk”) with daughters because of discomfort
(Aldous, 1993; Jaccard & Dittus, 1991). Rather, fathers preferred to remain silent until a
specific need or issue was raised, such as pregnancy or sexual violence.
However, it appeared that fathers may not be comfortable with their ‘silent’ role.

Both mothers and fathers expressed a need for “more openness” about sexuality with
their adolescent. Student-participants concurred; In addition to desiring more talk about
relationships and gender issues, adolescents wanted “more openness” in general with
parents. In fact, there were several topics that student-participants indicated they would
have liked to discuss with parents that parents did not include in lists, such as “approval
of sexual activity,” “birth control,” and “masturbation.” Parents, on the other hand, had
an interest in discussing “relationship issues” and “abstinence” more. The contrast
between parents’ prevention attitudes (e.g., more talk about abstinence) and adolescents’
requests for information exhibited a fundamental difference in how parents and
adolescents perceive sexuality. Student-participants felt as though they could benefit
from parental experiences. In general, student-participants expressed a desire to be more
Open with parents, hearing about parents’ difficulties and sharing their own. One female
student responded by saying “I wish my mom and I talked about her more. I want to

66

He“

Still

331’?!

'2'“
f ‘ bll

#3::
-g

Ere

{Um

rah!

R:-
”“21":
i‘k.

know when she had sex [first], and what her relationships were like.” Student seemed to
understand their parents as sexual beings -— student-participants acknowledged that
parents carried multiple roles including mom, dad, lover, fi'iend, etc. Thus, student-
participants seemed to view sexuality as a natural part of relationships with others. This
attitude was evidenced in the topics students wanted to discuss: birth control or emotions.
However, student-participants were also aware that parents did not share this view of
sexuality. Several student-participants expressed a desire to talk about the positive
aspects of sexuality, indicating a lack of this type of family discussion. In fact, student-
participants may have been correct in their assessments of parents’ difficulties. Most
parents expressed no desire to add additional topics and those who did wanted additional
emphasis on relationships and abstinence. Thus, parents may have had difficulty viewing
their adolescent outside the role of “daughter,” “son,” or “child.” Discussing sexuality in
a positive manner, or accepting sexual activity by discussing birth control would force
parents to acknowledge the multiple roles their children play, such as “lover,” “friend,”
and possibly “partner.” Parents’ difficulty in or unwillingness to acknowledging these
same roles for their adolescents may further explain the dearth of parent-child
communication about sexuality.
Communigation and Satisfaction

The second and third research questions addressed the satisfaction levels of
parents and adolescents with their communication regarding sexuality and relationships.
Previous research on satisfaction levels was unclear as to whether or not parents and
adolescents were satisfied with their communication. The results of the current study may
offer an explanation for previous ambiguity. Overall, it appeared that all participants,

67

students, mothers, and fathers, were moderately satisfied with their communication about
sexuality and relationships. When asked about their overall positive feelings about their
communication, participants’ scores ranged between 3-5 on the 7-point scale (recoded so
higher scores corresponded with greater satisfaction). However, when participant scores
focused on the amount of communication, the satisfaction variance increased to 2.5-5.5
on the 7-point scale. Thus, participants appeared to distinguish between overall
satisfaction feelings and their feelings regarding the amount of communication shared
with parents/adolescents. These conceptual distinctions between amount of
communication and overall feelings about communication could be key to understanding
satisfaction within parent-adolescent sexual education: Parents, in particular, may feel as
if they “did their best” educating their children about sexuality and relationships. Yet,
these same parents may worry they “lefi something out.” These competing tensions were
summed up by one mother-participant who expressed her sentiments in the margin of her
survey: “Is there ever enough talk about this?”

Student-participants may have experienced similar feelings. As with the parents,
student-participants were mostly neutral about talks with parents. However, student-
participants were more satisfied when reflecting on their overall feelings about
interactions than they were about the amount of communication with mothers and fathers.
Students may view parents as doing an adequate job providing overall information,
especially if this information was evaluated in terms of accuracy or factual content. Yet,
the lower amount of communication satisfaction scores suggested that students want
more communication with parents. Correlations between communication breadth and
satisfaction scores were strongly related for parents and student-participants. Thus,

68

student-participants, in particular, want more communication with parents, but feel
mostly neutral about their overall communication interactions.

An examination of participants’ expectations for communication about sexuality
and relationship may offer one explanation for these seemingly contradictory satisfaction
results. Expectancy Violation Theory (see Burgoon, 1978; Burgoon & Hale, 1988) posits
that an individual’s expectations for what should happen during interactions will greatly
effect that individual’s satisfaction with that interaction. For instance, a daughter has
minimal expectations that her mother will discuss sexuality and relationships. The mother
meets her daughters’ expectations by never approaching the subject of sexuality. Thus,
this daughter may desire more talk with her mother, but is relatively satisfied because her
expectations for parent-child interactions were confirmed. The student-participants in this
sample may have had few expectations for parents regarding sexuality and relationships.
Previous research (Brown, Childers, & Waszak, 1990; DiClemente, 1991; Moore, Miller,
Glei, & Morrison, 1995) and the current study suggested that adolescents receive the
majority of their sexual information for non-parent sources, such as friends or school.
Thus, student-participants may be moderately satisfied with their (lack of) discussion
with parents because the students don’t expect to receive (or need) this information from
parents. The expectancy violation explanation for satisfaction scores was further
strengthened by the sex differences between fathers and adolescents. All student-
participants wanted more interactions with fathers. Yet, the lowest satisfaction scores
(both overall and with amount) were reported by daughters. Female students, more than
anyone else, were unhappy with fathers’ participation. Given the amount (or lack thereof)
of commmtication fathers and students reported for this topic, it appeared as though

69

W

Hill

W01

bel

[Oil

4??

m

013;

I?”
(E!

9- .
as,

students were not happy with fathers’ silence. Yet, overall satisfaction scores were more
neutral and a good number of student-participants couldn’t think of any other topic they
would have liked to discuss with their fathers. Since previous research has indicated a
father may have more difficulty discussing these topics with children, the children (and
the fathers) may not expect fathers to participate in sexuality education. In fact, parents’
satisfaction may also be influenced by expectations for communication about sexuality
and relationships. Unlike student-participants’ satisfaction that was influenced by
parental biological sex, adolescent biological sex had no influence on parental
satisfaction. Mothers and fathers’ feelings about sexual communication didn’t appear to
be linked to whom they talked to. Rather, mothers’ and fathers’ satisfaction with sexual
communication may be tied to parental expectations about what topics parents “should”
be talking about with children. For instance, a mother may feel that “parents should talk
about pregnancy and AIDS, but not masturbation” with her children. If this mother
covers these topics (meeting her expectations) she will report higher satisfaction scores,
regardless of whether she talked to her son or daughter. This conclusion is corroborated
by the large number of parents who didn’t believe there was any additional information to
discuss with their children. Thus, parental satisfaction may be a function of meeting
internal expectations rather than external context, such as adolescent sex or age.
Overall, scores indicated that parents and adolescents wanted to talk more about
sexuality and relationships. However, mothers seemed particularly satisfied with the
amount of communication they described within their families. Given the strong positive
relationship between amount of communication and satisfaction, mothers’ feelings were
most likely related to the large number of topics mother-participants recalled discussing.

70

L‘Ull

[{le

m}.

I
I‘m

Yet, this number contrasted sharply with the number of topics recalled by student-
participants. These findings mirrored Sillars, Pike, Jones, and Murphy’s (1984)
examination of satisfaction and conflict topics in marital couples. Husbands and wives
were asked to self-report measures of satisfaction and conflict topics as well as provide
their perceptions their spouses’ responses. Results indicated that perceived similarity (the
similarity of one’s own score and the perception of spouse’s response) was positively
correlated to satisfaction for both husband and wives. However, understanding (similarity
between your perception of spouse and your spouse’s actual answer) in couples was
negatively related to satisfaction. Sillars et al. concluded that couples’ perceptions of
similarity, regardless of their actual agreement on conflict issues, were better contributors
to overall marital success. Sillars et al.’s findings related to parents’ satisfaction scores as
well. Mothers’ satisfaction scores were greater than fathers’ scores. According to Sillars
et al., this difference could be attributed to the discrepancy between mothers’
understanding scores and perceived similarity. Mothers were happier because they
overestimated the number of topics they had discussed with adolescents. Fathers, on the
other hand, had greater understanding of the topics they had actually discussed with their
children. As a result, fathers were less satisfied than mothers. Like Sillars et al.’s married
couples, parental perceptions were a stronger indicator of communication satisfaction
than actual agreement between adolescent and parent memories.

d an o un'cation ut Se li

The fourth research question sought to determine whether or not parental

messages and values about sexuality and relationships served as an origin of sexual

7l

Oil

dic

9‘31

C033

xiii

stereotypes (TSS). To reach an answer, participants were asked to recall the dialogue of
one particular conversation and any parental values communicated.

Regarding actual conversations, a large number of participants (students 70%;
parents 62%) were able to remember the details of a specific dialogue regarding sexuality
and relationships. The large number of recalled messages suggested parents and children
did speak about these topics. And, consistent with topical findings above, participants
agreed that mothers conversed more often than fathers. Overall, it was particularly
interesting that most recalled messages contained multiple units of analysis. Both parent
and student-participants recalled specific conversations, but those conversations
frequently included multiple pm" For example, one participant remembered his mother
saying “She told me that if I wasn’t mature enough to go into a store and buy condoms
than I shouldn’t be having sex. She talked about taking care of my girlfriend and
respect.” Research on cognitive processing has suggested that these memories probably
represent multiple conversations cognitively combined into a single dialogue. This
confusion was best represented in the number of times student-participants who wrote
multiple messages such as “we never discussed this at all!” and then included “my father
told me that I should wait to have sex.” Thus, it was difficult to determine whether the
combined messages within a single conversation were characteristic of actual
conversations between parents and children or were a fimction of participants’ memories.

Participants also had multiple reSponses to items requesting values about sexuality
and relationships. These multiple responses were even more numerous than the multiple
conversation units described upon. However, the frequency of lengthy “value” lists
across all participants may have reflected the survey format: The previous item requested

72

a single conversation while the value item elicited “any of the values.” Yet the plethora of
values recalled was theoretically meaningful when the wording of the value item was
more closely examined. The questionnaire item specifically requested “any of the values
that you [your mother/father] wanted to instill in your son/daughter [you].” This item
requested that participants reflect upon the teaching or instruction of parents: a summary
of the “educator role” parents may have filled. Some participants could not identify with
this role and indicated so by leaving the item blank or writing “nothing,” “didn’t do this,”
“or “I cannot recall a single value my father tried to teach me.” Yet, a large number of
participants could respond, suggesting that parents (and adolescents) accepted, and
perhaps expected, parents to teach, instill, and educate their children. These responses
would have predicted by advocates of learning theories. According to Social Leaning
Theory (see Rotter, 1954), individuals develop personality, attitudes toward others, and
even gender identities, through observation and imitation of others. Children especially
mimic and imitate those around them, particularly peers, parents, and even mass media
role models. Social Learning Theory would suggest that the multiple responses from
parents and adolescents simply reflected this learning process. Parents were acting as
instructors and their children acknowledged this role by recognizing (and repeating) the
values parents tried to instill.

Social Learning theorists would argue this transmission of values from parent to
child should manifest in the child’s behavior. Yet, the goals of the current study did not
include assessing outcome variables directly, such as whether or not student-participants
adhered to the same parental values. Rather, the current study examined the
communicative process within Social Learning theory and, it was believed, also offered

73

511}

[101

Wit

g2:

h ,
.633]

support for the utility of learning theories in the context of family relationships. This
support was seen as particularly convincing when the similarity between values and
actual conversation topics was considered. Although multiple values were listed, most
conversations mirrored these same values. For example, parents and student-participants
acknowledged parents believed in abstinence and talked about abstinence. Indeed, parents
appeared to be taking action in their role as “life instructors” of their adolescents
demonstrating in the verbal transmission of values.

Overall, the presence of traditional sexual scripting was very evident within the
values and conversations recalled by parents and children. Given that participants were
unaware and not prompted to recall a specific type of message (other than the topic
“sexuality and relationships”), the emergence of these gendered themes was even more
noteworthy. It suggests that everyday conversations about sexuality and relationships
within families were framed around gender stereotypes. Further, the values being taught
by parents were founded on a sexual double standard for “what boys should/can do” and
“what girls should/can do.” Over 50% of all parental messages reflected traditional
assumptions about sex roles. And, male and female children receiving traditional
messages were hearing very different content. Traditional messages to females involved
gate keeping and resisting sexual advances in order to remain abstinent while traditional
messages to males centered on condoning sexual activity. Certainly the frequency and
content of the traditional messages in families was evidence of society’s sexual double
standard: “Women should say ‘no’ and men should be careful.”

Some parents, however, did reject TSS stereotypes by discussing and promoting
nontraditional sexual attitudes. Nontraditional messages included those advocating

74

abstinence or gatekeeping duties for men and encouraging sexual activity and exploration
for women. However, when examined by participant sex, results revealed sons received
the majority of nontraditional messages. Female participants, on the other hand, could not
recall many messages reinforcing nontraditional sexual attitudes. Instead, female
participants received messages encouraging TSS themes of abstinence and sexual

naivety. At first glance, the “traditional” and “nontraditional” division between
male/female messages from parents appeared to be reinforcing gender inequity: Men
were free to break with prescribed roles while women were subject to constraints.
However, the content of these messages and values revealed that both male and female
student-participants were being given identical messages. Both male and female students
were being instructed to take responsibility for sexual activity/outcomes and make sure
they were in love before sexual activity. The similarity in topics could have reflected
parents’ greater comfort with their sons’ sexuality. Parents may have assumed that their
sons would be sexually active. Therefore, the nontraditional messages to sons focused on
protection. The traditional messages to daughters, however, may have reinforced
prohibition as sending daughters nontraditional messages about sexuality would have
acknowledged and offered approval of women’s sexual activity. The similarity of topical
messages to sons and daughters could have also represented verbal declarations of
parental higher order goals: keep the kids safe, teach responsibility. Parents viewed
certain topics as important regardless of adolescent sex. Thus, some beliefs about

romantic relationships transcended the specific relationship context (e.g., adolescent sex

or age).

75

Bil

6dr

In spite of these overarching values, the fact remained that parents did socialize
daughters differently than sons. For the most part, mothers of daughters discussed
abstinence and sexual gatekeeping more frequently than mothers of sons. Fathers talked
to their daughters about the chance of sexual violence. In fact, only 2 mothers and 5
fathers discussed saying “no” to sexual advances with their sons. Although it may be an
exaggeration to say these sexual stereotypes originated within the family, particularly
when most adolescents receive the majority of their information from source outside the
family, it was safe to conclude that families may be reinforcing these traditional sexual
beliefs. And, student-participants recollections of discussions matched their parents’:
female students were aware parents want them to remain abstinent while male students
were being told to take responsibility for their actions (e.g., use a condom, since we know
you’ll have sex).

The practical implications of these double standards point toward sexual
education practices in general. All adolescents were being told to avoid casual sexual
relations and, for the most part, to remain abstinent. However, women were given the
responsibility to say “no” to the sexual advances. In addition, only women were being
told to “be careful” and stay informed about sexual assault. The myth of the male sex
drive, on the other hand, presupposed it would be difficult or impossible for men to avoid
sexual interactions. If abstinence, or safer sex practices, are the goals of current sexual
education programs than these programs need to examine their underlying assumptions.
Programs (or families!) which endorsed abstinence by instructing women to “just say no”
and to “be careful” of the uncontrollable male animal are unfair to both sexes (Burt,
1980). Men are demeaned by viewing them as irrational and dangerous while women’s

76

sexuality is ignored completely. The underlying TSS in American society’s
communication about sexuality may be causing more harm than the lack of discussion. In
other words, how we talk about sexual activity is more dangerous than how little we talk.
Reinforcing sexual stereotypes cannot possibly make sexual education programs more
successful in preventing disease or unwanted pregnancy. Rather, equal and normalized
attention needs to be given to male and female sexual activity. Instruction should address
female sexuality (not simply reproduction) and men’s responsibility as sexual
gatekeepers. Perhaps American society has assumed too long that “real men don’t say
‘no” when, in fact, they aren’t sure how to say “no.” Further, women were left struggling
with their own sexual feelings and the responsibility of the gatekeeper role. Facilitators of
sexual education, whether parents or professional, need to provide both male and female
students with the tools to discuss their own sexuality and develop problem-solving skills.
Mothers vs. Same-Sex Mada

Previous literature has been ambiguous as to which parent took primary
responsibility for communication about sexuality and relationships in families.
Psychodynamic theorists (see Chodorow, 1989) suggested that same-sex dyads would
most often be the context in which parents discussed these topics. Other literature
(Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Miller, Norton, Jensen, Lee, Christopherson, & Lee, 1993;
Wood, 1993), however, predicted that mothers, as females and family care-takers, would
feel the need to educate their children, regardless of the child’s biological sex. In terms of
amount of communication, it appeared that students and parents agreed that mothers do
more talking than fathers. For example, 165 student participants recalled messages from
mothers while only 125 students recalled messages from fathers. Yet, these messages

77

represented topical breadth, not depth. One assessment of topical depth could be
communication openness and comfort. Although these two concepts were not
synonymous, communication openness about sexuality was most likely present among
individuals who discuss sexuality in great depth. Once again, all participants indicated
that conversations with mothers were characterized by more comfort and openness than
those with fathers. Student-participants indicated that they were more comfortable
discussing sexuality and relationship with mothers. Correspondingly, mothers indicated
greater comfort with these topics than did fathers. Participants’ comfort scores, on the
surface, appeared to support the “mother as family manager” model: Students were more
comfortable talking with mothers, mothers were more comfortable talking than fathers.
Thus, mothers must do the majority of the educating.

However, these openness scores contained an interesting sex difference. Parental
openness scores did not differ by adolescent biological sex. Mothers were comfortable
talking to male and female children while fathers were uncomfortable talking to male and
female children. However, male and female student-participants did differ in their
comfort levels. Male students appeared to prefer talking to fathers while female student-
participants preferred mothers. This sex difference was interesting, yet deceiving unless
average comfort scores were examined. In other words, both male and female student-
participants were uncomfortable talking with fathers about sexuality, male participants
were simmy less uncomfortable than their female peers. In contrast, both male and
female student-participants were at or above the midpoint of the comfort/Openness scale.
It is important to note, however, that parents expressed greater comfort with these topics
than student-participants. While students were more Open with mothers, overall student-

78

participants were not particularly enthusiastic about sharing information about sexuality
with parents.

One could suggest multiple reasons that an adolescent would not feel comfortable
discussing sexuality with his/her parents. First, parent-participants reports of feeling
above average comfort with these tapics could have been influenced by social
desirability. Parents may feel intense pressure (or hold expectations) to be Open with their
children when, in fact, they were embarrassed and uncomfortable. Some parent-
participants openly admitted their fear or discomfort with this topic by writing
explanations within the survey margins. For instance, one father indicated “I believe it is
the school system’s responsibility to educate my children. I do not talk to them about
sex.” “My husband [wife] took care of this. . .” was not an uncommon response from
parents. One might picture a parent who proclaims his/her openness and boasts of high
comfort only to judge, criticize, or nonverbally disapprove when approached. This parent
later exclaims “I’m open to talking. . .my student doesn’t want to talk to me!” A second
reason might center on the adolescent’s embarrassment. Student-participants may fear
judgment or condemnation from parents, even if parents are open to discussion. These
adoleth fears were reflected in student-participants’ responses to “what do you wish
you had talked about” with parents. A large number of student-participants wanmd to
hear “approval of sexuality” from parents. In several cases, student-participants indicated
they did not want parents to condone reckless or frequent sexual activity but, rather,
inform them of the positive aspects of sexuality. One female participant wrote: “I wish
my mother told me how beautiful sex can be, when you are with the ‘right’ person.
Instead she just tried to scare me off [having sex]. I think hearing how special [sex] is

79

would make me want to wait for the right guy.” These sentiments may be particularly
salient for sexually active adolescents who have moved beyond simple abstinent
messages but still would like parents’ advice in negotiating the difficult emotional aspects
of sexuality.

Participant comfort levels gave some indication that mothers may be taking on the
responsibility for family sexual education. Examining student-participants’ ranking of
their sources of information regarding sexuality and relationships may confirm this
conclusion. Student-participants were first asked to indicate their primary source of
information about sexuality and relationships. Participants chose between a variety of
possible information sources, such as school, mother, father, siblings, friends, etc.
According to student-participants, adolescents rely predominantly on friends to provide
information about sexuality and relationships. Mothers were ranked second (although a
full 60 people behind first place “friends”). Fathers, however, ranked significantly lower,
equal in information to “religious organizations” and not too far ahead of “movies” and
“books.” In this sample, student-participants were more likely to turn to television for
information about sexuality than their own fathers. Further conformation of fathers’
silence is the individual parental rankings. Student-participants were also asked to rank
their parents (mother and father separately) on a l-lZ scale where “l=main source of
information” and “12=last source.” Results once again indicated that mothers supplied
more information than fathers, with mothers averaging fifth and fathers eighth. And,
although sons ranked fathers significantly higher source of information than daughters,
sons still paced fathers seventh while they ranked mothers sixth. Further examination of
the standard deviation scores suggested that mother could fall into the “second/third”

80

mori

lithe
infer
sexua
regard

lube

o
c,-

making position for a significant number of people. Fathers, however, had little chance of
moving beyond a ranking of fourth.

These findings offered support for maternal model of parental socialization.
Although student-participants were more comfortable and more likely to seek
information from sources outside the family, mothers were the “in family” expert on
sexuality and relationships. This perspective offers interesting practical application in
regards to sexual assault and violence. Currently, the focus of sexual assault prevention
has been on education. Women are being instructed to “be careful” and men are being
instructed that “no means no.” Unfortunately, this education falls short as women are
more likely to be attacked, raped, injured, or killed by current or former male partners
then by any other type of assailant (Browne & Williams, 1993; Langan & Innes, 1986).
The introduction of “date rape drugs” suggests that sexual violence is on the increase,
rather than decline. Perhaps one way to affect these statistics is the modification of
current educational messages targeted solely at late adolescence to include parents.
Mothers appeared to be providing the majority of the information about sexuality and
relationships in families. Therefore, encouraging mothers to include discussions of sexual
consent presents an opportunity to shape adolescents’ attitudes about sexual violence.
Although mothers and student-participants recalled some talks about sexual violence (see
Table 1), these conversations were salient for less than 20% of the sample. Targeting
maternal education on sexual assault and violence could offer another avenue of sexual

assault prevention.

8]

relax

fen

prim

issue

Baa-W

Although the current study sought to examine the communication processes
surrounding sexuahty education in families, the outcomes of these processes cannot be
ignored. Therefore, the relationship between communication variables such as Openness
with sexuality t0pics, satisfaction, breadth of topic discussion, and primary course of
information was assessed in regard to student-participants’ sexual activity. Previous
studies have indicated that variable specificity was crucial when examining causal
relationships, such as the factors leading to adolescent condom usage and abstinence.
Certainly, the post-hoe analyses conducted in the current study failed to meet the
specificity requirements. One may not expect a student’s ranking of his/her parent as a
primary source of information, or a student’s openness in discussing general sexuality
issues to predict actual sexual behavior. However, with the obvious limitations raised, the
lack of significant findings in this area were interesting. Previous studies have indicated
that increased parental communication about sexual behavior led to postponement of
sexual activity in adolescents (Whitaker & Miller, 2000). However, very little research
has examined the predictors of adolescent abstinence, a variable slightly different than
timing of sexual activity onset. Approximately one-third of the student-participants
sampled were self-identified as abstinent, or “virgins.” However, these student-
participants did not differ from their sexually active peers in terms of openness,
satisfaction, source of information, or breadth of communication. Thus, the current study
suggested that adolescent sexual activity was not affected by external predictors. Instead,
an adolescent’s decision to remain abstinent may be internally motivated. Thus,
remaining abstinent, or choosing to delay sexual activity may lie in the same belief

82

as
0l

ml

stur‘
ll:
issr

pre‘

systems that motivate some students to attend graduate school, some to train for the
Olympics, and others to work 60+hours per week. While some external factors were
influential, the crux of these decisions may lay in personal motivation. If this was the
case, these findings suggested the need to alter the focus of current sexual education
programs. Generic “be safe” public service announcements that did not target specific
personal motives would be expected to fail. Further, school curriculurns designed to
educate adolescents about the dangers of sex and need for protection may not reach those
students whose decisions about sexual activity rest in personal beliefs about sexuality.
These students would ignore generic messages about condoms and sexually transmitted
issues. While the current study should not be used to discount the role of external
preventive programs, it may provide a new framework for future program structure

incorporating motive and possible peer education.

83

die

on

lllC}

Ind

dis

chd

edu

Pill

Valu

add

Wr

Conclusion

The goals of the current study included identifying the content of parent-student
dialogue about sexuality and relationships. Overall, it appeared that parents and their
children were talking somewhat about these issues. Findings mirrored previous research
on topics talked about and avoided (pregnancy and relationships vs. homosexuality and
infidelity). Further, both male and female adolescents were discussing the same types of
topics: Parents did not seem to discriminate by biological sex. Although previous studies
have expressed mixed satisfaction results, participants in the current study revealed low
to moderate satisfaction with their communication. Overall, participants agreed that
increased communication about sexuality and relationships was necessary and desirable.
Indeed, results indicated that satisfaction was positively related to the number of topics
discussed by parents and adolescents. This relationships was especially strong for
mothers, who appeared to take on the role of family “sex educator” regardless of her
child’s biological sex. In general, fathers appeared to be less involved in the sexual
education of their female and male offspring. In terms of social learning theory, the
current study offered evidence of parents as instructors of children. Most student-
participants were cogniscent of the parental values and the explicit manner in which these
values were shared. In many instances, these conversations had the potential to teach
adolescents about gender roles. However, traditional sexual scripts served as predominant
theme for messages and values. Thus, familial interactions may offer another potential

source of sexual inequity.

the

pli

I . . .
On the whole this research demonstrated the content, satisfaction, and gendered

beliefs evident in parent-adolescent discussions of sexuality and relationships. However,
there were several results and difficulties that were not predicted at the onset of this
project. First, although the goals of the current study did not include assessing the direct
influence of parental messages upon adolescents’ own behaviors, the lack of outcome
measures could be considered a limitation. Social Learning Theory centers upon the
prediction of modeled behaviors by those experiencing the reinforcements of role models.
In this study, parental messages were evident, yet the impact of these messages was not
assessed through any meaningful measures. Understanding this connection between
communication and practice could have offered valuable theoretical and practical
implications to others.

Second, the generalizability of the current study was potentially limited by the
sample’s demographic make-up. The current sample was predominantly Caucasian,
living in intact families with two biological parents. Previous research has found ethnicity
to be a moderating factor in the frequency of parent-adolescent communication about
sexual activity (Furstenberg, et al., 1984; Inazu & Fox, 1980; Jaccard, Dittus, & Gordon,
1998; Leland & Barth, 1993). Further, research has shown that one-parent fanrilies have
more fluid gender roles than traditional two-parent families (Amato, 1991; Leve & F agot,
1997; Leaper, Leve, Strasser, & Schwartz, 1995). Thus, the findings particularly related
to Traditional Sexual Script themes must take family status into account

Third, and finally, a methodological issue may have created a bias in participants’
answers. Participants were asked to recall a specific conversation about sexuality

85

followed by a measure of openness. These measures were not counterbalanced during
data collection. Thus, participants’ openness scores could be a direct firnction of the
single, recalled conversation. For example, a daughter could recall a single, salient
conversation when her mother was particularly busy, unresponsive, or uncomfortable.
Despite this mother’s overall openness with her daughter regarding sexuality, the
daughter’s memory of this singular incident might cloud her responses the openness and
comfort items immediately following. For this reason, results concerning satisfaction and
openness, in particular, should be considered tentative.

Fugrr_e_ Research

The objectives of the current study focused on understanding the role of
communication in parent-adolescent interactions. Primarily, parent-adolescent
communication about sexuality and relationship was examined. While the results
addressed several issues surrounding parental satisfaction and communication, additional
questions were raised by this research. First, the current study did not overtly distinguish
between the parental messages received by abstinent and sexually active student-
participants. Thus, future research should examine the influence of these parental
messages upon adolescents’ sexual decision-making. In addition, the content of parental
messages and values might vary among those adolescents choosing to avoid sexual
activity.

Expectancy Violation Theory offers a second area for future research. The current
study determined that adolescents and parents were moderately satisfied with their
conversations, yet the majority didn’t express a desire to change current interactions. On
cxPlanation could involve participants’ expectancies. Participants who don’t believe

86

parents have much to offer regarding sexuality may be happy with little input.

Conversely, individuals who feel parents are primary educators could be hurt by limited
discussion. This was most evident in the satisfaction and discussion differences between
mothers and fathers. Therefore, firture research should consider the role of expectations in

parent-adolescent communication about sexuality and relationships.

87

Table 1

Frgggency of Tgpics Discussed by Participant

 

 

Student Student

Topic for mother Mother for father Father
Abstinence 28 (4.8%) 27 (3.4%) 11 (3.8%) 16 (3.7%)
Abuse 9 (1.5%) 28 (3.5%) 3 (1%) 16 (3.7%)
Emotional differences 13 (2.2%) 23 (2.9%) 8 (2.8%) 16 (3.7%)
Emotions 20 (3.4%) 54 (6.7%) 11 (3.8%) 21 (4.9%)
General ‘sex’ talk 65 (11.1%) 73 (9.1%) 36 (12.4%) 40 (9.3%)
HIV, STDs 46 (7.8%) 81 (10.1%) 29 (10%) 43 (10%)
Homosexuality 9 (1.5%) 13 (1.6%) 3 (1%) 3 (7%)
Infidelity 7 (1.2%) 9 (1.1%) 4 (1.4%) 5 (1.2%)
Morals 80 (13.6%) 117 (14.6%) 32 (11%) 70 (16.4%)
Miscellaneous 18 (3%) 28 (3.5%) 10 (3.4%) 15 (3.5%)
Peer pressure 2 (3%) 11 (1.4%) - 4 (9%)
Physical differences 56 (9.5%) 58 (7.2%) 27 (9.3%) 20 (4.7%)
Pregnancy 111 (18.9%) 112 (14%) 34 (11.7%) 62 (14.5%)
Relationships 110 (18.7%) 126 (15.7%) 77 (26.5%) 81 (18.9%)
Self esteem 2 (1.9%) 20 (2.5%) 2 (7%) 11 (2.6%)
Timing ofsex 11 (1.9%) 22 (2.7%) 3 (1%) 5 (1.2%)
TOTAL 587 802 290 428

 

Note. Dashes indicate no participant response matched the category. Parentheses contain

the percentage of the total number of messages for each group.

88

Table 2

 

 

 

hi- Anal 5 f r Parti i t Sex b Parental T ics
Fathers Mothers
Topics X2 Signjicance X2 Significance
Abstinence .198 .65 1.61 .204
Abuse 2.39 .122 1.95 .162
Emotional differences 2.39 .122 2.76 .097
Emotions .634 .426 .057 .81 1
General ‘sex’ talk 6.65 .010” .089 .766
HIV, STDs .276 .60 .238 .626
Homosexuality 1.74 .186 .597 .44
Infidelity .031 .861 2.25 .134
Morals .796 .372 .93 .335
Miscellaneous .064 .801 1.18 .278
Peer pressure 2.34 .126 2.99 .084
Physical differences 5 .63 .018‘ 1.90 .168
Pregnancy .66 .415 1.88 .171
Relationships .693 .405 2.03 . 154
Self esteem 1.69 .194 7.93 .005"
Timing of sex .031 .861 1.15 .283

 

Note. For all cases, df = 1.

'p < .05. “p < .01.

89

Table 3

“One Thing I Wished We m Discusgd” Topics

 

Students Students

 

Topics for mothers for fathers Mothers Fathers
“Nothing” 27 26 35 31
Seriousness of sexual activity 12 6 7 2
More openness 16 16 14 17
Rape/violence 2 1 3 1
Consequences 10 8 3 3
Relationship issues 13 10 15 9
Abstinence 2 1 5 9
Gender issues 11 21 5 1
Values -- 1 2 2
Approval of sexual activity 13 9 1 -
Biological differences 6 11 4 -
Homosexuality - - -- -
Birth control 7 5 - 2
Masturbation -- 1 - --
Miscellaneous .- 1 l 3
Total 119 117 95 80

 

No_te_. Dashes indicate no participant response matched the category.

ITS?

Table 4

Parental-Particimt Satisfaction with Communication by Topic

 

 

 

Mothers Fathers T
Topics Amount‘ Valance“ Amountb Valance°
t valueQL tvaluelgL 1 value (p) 3 value

Abstinence -.204 (.84) .151 (.88) 1.43 (.16) 1.03 (.30)
Abuse .393 (.70) .818 (.42) .487 (.63) .546 (.59)
Emotional differences -.837 (.40) .05 (.96) .157 (.88) -.27 (.79)
Emotions .10 (.92) .778 (.44) .578 (.56) 2.12 (.04)‘
General ‘sex’ talk 2.65 (.01) 2.92 (.00) 3.38 (001)" 2.16 (.03)’
HIV, STDs .774 (.44) .706 (.24) 1.89 (.06) .95 (.34)
Homosexuality 1.16 (.25) 1.45 (.15) 1.59 (.12) .779 (.44)
Infidelity -.954 (.34) -.386 (.70) -.405 (.69) .282 (.78)
Morals -1.62 (.11) -l.10 (.27) 2.12 (.04)* 1.63 (.11)
Miscellaneous -.62 (.54) .15 (.88) .457 (.65) -.224 (.82)
Peer pressure -1.65 (.10) -.516 (.61) 1.12 (.27) .961 (.34)
Physical difi‘erences 1.84 (.07) 1.96 (.05)"' 1.95 (.05)"' 1.40 (.16)
Pregnancy 3.63 (.00)“ 2.54 (.01)" 2.52 (.01)" 2.74 (01)“
Relationships .546 (.59) .353 (.73) .672 (.50) 1.51 (.13)
Self esteem .798 (.42) 1.43 (.16) .132 (.89) .259 (.80)
Timing of sex .499 (.62) 1.23 (.22) .491 (.62) 1.25 (.21)

 

 

‘df=154.bg_f= 14o. °gg= 136.

*p< .05. "p< .01.

91

Table 5

Stu ent-Parti i tSatisfaction with Parental ommum'cation b To ic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mothers Fathers
Topics Amount‘l Valanceb Amountc Valanced
t value_(pL 1 value (p) 1 value (p) t value (p)
Abstinence -2.16 (.03)"' -1.74 (.08) -.224 (.83) -.308 (.77)
Abuse -.688 (.49) -.799 (.43) .93 (.37) .274 (.78)
Emotional differences -.570 (.57) .296 (.77) 1.49 (.14) 1.05 (.30)
Emotions 2.13 (.04)* .860 (.39) .543 (.59) .644 (.52)
General ‘sex’ talk 7.27 (.00)" 5.26 (.00)" 4.31 (.00)" 3.47 (.00)"
HIV, STDs 4.45 (.00)“ 3.95 (.00)" 2.66 (.01)" 1.54 (.13)
Homosexuality .711 (.48) .195 (.85) -2.30 (.02)* -2.33 (.02)‘
Infidelity 1.18 (.24) .95 (.34) .634 (.53) .279 (.78)
Morals 2.92 (.00)” 1.83 (.07) 3.93 (.00)“ 2.88 (.00)"
Miscellaneous .423 (.67) .616 (.54) 2.78 (.01)” 1.80 (.08)
Peer pressure 1.12 (.26) .893 (37) - -
Physical differences 3.14 (.00)“ 1.52 (.13) 2.95 (.00)" 2.03 (.04)‘
Pregnancy -l.06 (.27) -1.68 (.09) 6.54 (.00)“ 4.26 (.00)"
Relationships 3.15 (.00)“ 3.12 (.00)“ .293 (.77) -.081 (.94)
Self esteem -.290 (77) 1.33 (.19) -1.13 (.26) -1.33 (.19)
Timing of sex 1.32 (.19) .493 (.62) -.130 (.90) .897 (.37)

 

Nate, Dashes indicate the 1 value was no calculated for that category.

’1f= 120. ”gr: 159. °d_f= 159. dag: 121. *2 < .05. "p < .01.

92

Table 6

Frequency of sweat Recalled Messages by Traditional Sexnal Scrim Categog

Mothers Fathers

 

 

Message_ Conversation Values Conversation Values
Nontraditional
Meaning of sex -- -- -
Love as prerequisite 5 12 2
Emotional openness -
Reputation 2
1
6

 

Sexual knowledge
Morals
Abstinence/ experience
Sexual technique 1
Pride about sexuality -
Relationship equity 2
Responsibility and outcomes 15
Sexual violence ~-
Honesty/fidelity ~-
Desire for sex 2
Sexual advances/gatekeeping --
Traditional

Sexual advances/gatekeeping
Desire for sex
Honesty/fidelity
Sexual violence
Responsibility and outcomes
Relationship equity
Pride about sexuality
Sexual technique
Abstinence/experience
Morals
Sexual knowledge
Reputation
Emotional openness

___Love as prerequisite

u

9

I
I
'mw—di—Ih—Iul

:Noorsooa:-—§:3-:w

N N :—
$101 :gwwngwewA
NQIN—HSQ&~&

table continues

93

L__

.—1

Table 6 (cont’d.)

 

 

 

 

Mothers Fathers
Message Conversation Values Conversation Values
Additional topics
Homosexuality -- l 2 -
Health or cleanliness -— - -- -
“Never discussed” 32 20 50 25
STDs 5 1 3 2
Didn’t fit TSS 6 6 6 7
Self-esteem 1 2 -- 3
Biology or “parts” 10 -- 14 1
Total 215 213 159 147

 

94

Table 7

Frequency of agent recalled messages by Traditional Sexual Scnpt categog

 

 

 

 

 

Mothers Fathers
Message Conversation Values Conversation Values
Nontraditional
Meaning of sex - -- - -
Love as prerequisite 8 17 6 11
Emotional openness 2 4 1 1
Reputation - - 1 1
Sexual knowledge 1 1 - 1
Morals 4 8 -- 6
Abstinence/ experience 9 14 5 5
Sexual technique 1 - - -
Pride about sexuality 2 l -- 1
Relationship equity - 2 - -
Responsibility and outcomes 14 10 14 9
Sexual violence -- l 1 1
Honesty/fidelity 9 12 2 13
Desire for sex 2 -- - --
Sexual advances/gatekeeping 2 2 2 3
Traditional
Sexual advances/gatekeeping 16 7 10 8
Desire for sex 4 -- 6 2
Honesty/fidelity 13 14 13 1 1
Sexual violence 13 5 6 3
Responsibility and outcomes 27 18 17 18
Relationship equity - l -- 2
Pride about sexuality - - - 1
Sexual technique 1 - .- ..
Abstinence/experience 18 29 8 10
Morals 5 23 3 23
Sexual knowledge 4 - 1 ..
Reputation 4 5 3 3
Emotional openness 1 5 - 4
Love as prerequisite 17 23 1 1 16
g Meaning of sex 3 9 5 4
table continues

95

Table 7 (cont’d.)

 

 

 

 

 

Mothers Fathers
Message Conversation Values Conversation Values
Additional topics 3 1
Homosexuality - -- 3 1
Health or cleanliness 2 2 - 1
“Never discussed” 24 3 23 3
STDs 6 2 11 3
Didn’t fit TSS 6 11 4 12
Self-esteem 7 10 4 7
Biology or “parts” 14 1 8 -
Total 239 251 168 184

 

Stqr'ISth

cpcs

Appendix A
Sample Questionnaire (for Students)

General Instructions

This questionnaire addresses communication between parents and their
sons/daughters. We are interested in understanding the specific content of messages
that parents give to their sons/daughters about sexuality and relationships. This
questionnaire will use the words “mother” to describe the adult female primarily
responsible for raising you and “father” to describe the adult male primarily
responsible for raising you. These caregivers may be your biological mother/father,
step-parents, close relatives, adoptive parents, or another person. Whenever you see
the words “mother” or “father” please think of your primary caregiver, even if this
person was not your biological parent. N 0 one in your family will see your answers,
so please complete the following questions as openly and completely as possible.

MOTHERS
We are interested in the conversations you have had with your mother
concerning all aspects of sexual behavior. These conversations may have included
physical/biological differences, sexual activity, morals, relationships, dating,
contraceptives/birth control, etc. In the space below, please list any tapic related to
sexuality and relationships that you have discussed with your mother.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, please think of a memorable time when you and your mother discussed
sexuality and relationships. This may have been informal, such as a car ride home
from school, or a more formal “talk,” perhaps prompted by a health class during
your early school years. We are interested in WHAT YOUR MOTHER SAID TO
YOU about sexuality and relationships. This may have been instructive (what
should or shouldn’t be done) or may have been informative (information and facts).
We realize that you may or may not be able to recall one conversation, but only
pieces of several conversations you had over the years. Any information you can
recall would be useful. In the space provided below, please recall the actual
conversations, dialogue or words, you had with your mother about sexuality and
relationships.

97

Once again thinking about the conversations above, please describe any of
the valges or ideals that your mother wanted to instill in you about sexuality and
relationships. These could be religious beliefs, morals, or codes of conduct that your
mother wanted you to live by.

The following questions ask about your openness and general comfort with the
information your MOTHER has given about sexuality and relationships. Please
think about this information IN GENERAL when answering these questions. Please
indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement. No one in
your family will see your answers. For each statement, please circle the one number
that best represents your response.

1. I wish my MOTHER and I talked about these issues more often.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

2. I try to understand how my MOTHER feels about topics like these.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

3. I know how to talk to my MOTHER about topics like this.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

4. I am comfortable discussing these topics with my MOTHER.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

5. My MOTHER and I talk openly and freely about these topics.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

6. I would like to talk about these topics less often with my MOTHER

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

7. I don’t talk with my MOTHER about these topics.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

98

8. 1 would like to talk more often with my MOTHER about these topics.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

9. I am satisfied with how often my MOTHER and I discuss these topics and issues.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

10. I try to avoid discussing these topics with my MOTHER.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

11. 1 get embarrassed talking about these topics with my MOTHER.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

The following questions ask about your feelings regarding the information your

MOTHER has given you about sexuality and relationships. Please circle the one
number that best represents your response.

In general, the information my MOTHER gave me
about sexuality and relationships was...

1. Adequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Inadequate

2. Thorough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not thorough

3. Complete 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Incomplete

4. Comprehensive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not comprehensive
5. Enough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not enough

How do you feel about the information your MOTHER gave you
about sexuality and relationships?

1. Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bad

2. Pleased 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Displeased
3. Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unsatisfied
4. Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unhappy

5.Content 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Notcontent

owlhnsh

ram
We are interested in the conversations you have had with your father
concerning all aspects of sexual behavior. These conversations may have included
physical/biological differences, sexual activity, morals, relationships, dating,
contraceptives/birth control, etc. In the space below, please list any topic related to
sexuality and relationships that you have discussed with your father.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, please think of a memorable time when you and your father discussed
sexuality and relationships. This may have been informal, such as a car ride home
from school, or a more formal “talk,” perhaps prompted by a health class during
your early school years. We are interested in WHAT YOUR FATHER SAID TO
YOU about sexuality and relationships. This may have been instructive (what
should or shouldn’t be done) or may have been informative (information and facts).
We realize that you may or may not be able to recall one conversation, but only
pieces of several conversations you had over the years. Any information you can
recall would be useful. In the space provided below, please recall the actual
conversations, dialogue or words, you had with your father about sexuality and
relationships.

Once again thinking about the conversations above, please describe any of the
values or ideals that your father wanted to instill in you about sexuality and
relationships. These could be religious beliefs, morals, or codes of conduct that your
father wanted you to live by.

100

 

The following questions ask about your openness and general comfort with the
information your FATHER has given about sexuality and relationships. Please
think about this information IN GENERAL when answering these questions. Please
indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement. No one in
your family will see your answers. For each statement, please circle the one number
that best represents your response.

1. I wish my FATHER and I talked about these issues more often.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

2. I try to understand how my FATHER feels about t0pics like these.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

3. I know how to talk to my FATHER about topics like this.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

4. I am comfortable discussing these topics with my FATHER.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

5. My FATHER and I talk openly and freely about these topics.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

6. I would like to talk about these topics less often with my FATHER.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

7. I don’t talk with my FATHER about these topics.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

8. I would like to talk more often with my FATHER about these topics.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

9. I am satisfied with how often my FATHER and I discuss these topics and issues.

Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

10. I try to avoid discussing these topics with my FATHER.
Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly
Agree Disagree

101

11. I get embarrassed talking about these topics with my FATHER.
Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly

Agree Disagree
The following questions ask about your feelings regarding the information your
FATHER has given you about sexuality and relationships. Please circle the one
number that best represents your response.

In general, the information my FATHER gave me
about sexuality and relationships was...
1. Adequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Inadequate
2. Thorough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not thorough
3. Complete 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Incomplete
4. Comprehensive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not comprehensive
5. Enough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not enough

How do you feel about the information your FATHER gave you
about sexuality and relationships?

1.Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bad
2. Pleased 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Displeased

3. Satisfied 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Unsatisfied

...a
N
U)
A
M
05
\J

4. Happy Unhappy

5. Content 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not content

content

Looking back on it now, what is the ONE THING you wish your parents would
have told you about sexuality and relationships?

FATHER:

MOTHER:
102

OVERALL, who was your MAIN SOURCE of information about sexuality and
relationships?

__ Mother __ Religious organization (e.g., church)
__ Father __ School

__ Brothers __ Doctor

__ Sisters __ Television shows

__ Friends __ Movies

__ Other __ Books

Looking back at the list above, IF MOTHER/FATHER WERE NOT YOUR
PRIMARY SOURCE OF INFORMATION about sexuality and relationships,
where would you rank them on a scale from 1 to 12?

(bl-main source of information; 12=last source of information)

 

__ Mother __ Father
Your sex: Male______ Female
Your age:
Are you currently sexually active? Yes __ NO

If “yes,” at what age did you FIRST engage in sexual intercourse?

Your ethnicity:
__ African American
__ Asian
Caucasian
Latino/Latina
Native American
Pacific Islander
__ Other

*
_
_
*

Which of the following statements best describes the family you spend the majority of
Your time with?

_ Biological (birth) parents still married

__ Parents divorced, I live with my mother

__ Parents divorced, I live with my father

__ Parents divorced, I live with another family member

__ Adoptive family

__ Other

Thank you for your participation in this study!

103

Appendix B
Coding for Thought-listing Items and “What I wished” Categories

Th -1' ' ic
Abstinence

Abuse

Emotional differences (between sexes)
Emotions

General sex talk

Sexually transmitted diseases
Homosexuality

Infidelity

Morals

Miscellaneous

Peer pressure

Physical differences
Pregnancy

Relationships

Self-esteem

Timing of sexual intercourse

“What 1 wishgd for” categories

Nothing — they did good, ‘nothing at all’

seriousness of sex -— emotions, commitment

more openness - wished we had been able to talk more. she always seemed embarrassed
rape/violence — date rape drug

consequences - stds, being pregnant

relationship issues — learning to stay together, the work relationships take, needs for
success

abstinence - emphasized more, talked about strategies

gender issues — why men want sex, why girls are emotional

values - religious beliefs or morals

aI’vaal — how sex can be beautiful, sex is fun

parts — biology

homosexuality — approval, ‘coming out’

birth control - getting from doctor, how to use, instruction

masturbation

104

Appendix C

Coding Categories from Traditional Sexual Script (TSS) for
Conversation and Values Items

W
Men as initiators of sexual activity (men will ‘come on’ to you)/can’t be expected to wait

(women are responsible for saying ‘no’; need to stop men’s advances)/peer
pressure

Men like sex more; men want sex more (all the time); men think about sex all the
time/visually stimulated
(women avoid sex; women don’t like sex)

Men are deceitful not honest(when it comes to sex); men lie (say ‘I love you’); cheating
(women are chaste, pine, and trusting; need to respect women, treat them ‘right’)

Men will use force, are dangerous; men rape; date rape drug
(women are vulnerable; women need to ‘be careful’; women need to be
protected)

Women are responsible for outcomes; women need avoid pregnancy (‘no glove, no love’)
(men hate condoms; men will try to avoid condoms; men don’t think about preg)

Women shouldn’t be aggressive/assertive; assertiveness is unattractive/not equal in
rel’ships
(men should call for dates/men chase women; men are ‘in charge’ of relationship)

(Women with Expm ce gr: Bad)
Men are/should be embarrassed about virginity

(women should be proud of virginity)

Men know a lot about sex (be “good in bed”)
(women should be sexually naive, not know about the details)

Men “sow wild oats”; Men need experience; playboy/acceptance/expectation of
experience
(women should be virgins! Abstinent; no sex until marriage)

Women who have lots of sex are ‘sluts’ or immoral (“two types of women”); morals

objection to sex
(men with experience are cool; men are ‘studs’)

105

Appendix C (cont’d).

Men should know about their ‘parts’; masturbation talk; male orgasms/pleasure
(women don’t talk about orgasms, or sexual pleasure)

Sex is costly for women (emotionally, watch your reputation)/need to be selective
(men can be relaxed about sex; no big deal)

(Emotig' nal vs. Mental)

Women are emotional; want to share feelings/be open and honest
(men are closed; fear of intimacy)

Men more accepting of ‘casual sex’ (no committed relationships)
(women only have sex if they are “in love” and committed relationship -— be sure
you ‘love’ him)

Women view sex = love; sex is an expression of love
(Men see sex as pleasurable, not about love; fun)

Additional Tgpics
Heterosexuality vs. homosexuality

Health and care for body; cleaning

“Did not talk about it;” “Gave reading materials;” “None”
Blank space - no written answer

STDs — descriptions or facts but NOT condoms or responsibility
Didn’t apply/fit any category

Self-esteem message

Strictly ‘parts’ talk

106

REFERENCES

Abma, J. C., & Piccinino, L. J. (1994, Nov.). Unintended births: Women’s attitudes vis-a-
vis their male partners’ attitudes, 1982-1990. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Sociological Association.

Abramson, Moriuchi, &. Perry (1983). Parental attitudes about sex education: Cross
cultural difference and co-variate controls. Archives of Sexual Behaviors 12 381-
396.

 

Adolph, C., Ramos, D. E., Linton, K. L. P., & Grimes, S. (1995). Pregnancy among
Hispanic teenagers: Is good parental communication a deterrent? mm
51, 303-307.

Aldous, J. (1993). On the published record. Marriage and Fgrpily Review, 18, 51.

Alter, J. S., Baxter, 8., Cook, A. T., Kirby, D., & Wilson, P. M. (1982). Teaching Parents

to E the my Sexuality Educagzrs of their Children, Vol. 1. Bethsada, MD:
Mathtec, Inc.

Amato, P. R. (1991). Extending families: The social networks of parents and their
children. Qontempprgy Smiolpgy, 20, 483-502.

Baldwin, J. D., & Baldwin, J. I. (1997). Gender differences in sexual interest. Archives 91
Sexual thavigr, 26, 181-210.

Baldwin, S. E., & Baranoski, M. (1990). Family interactions and sex education in the
home. Adolescence 25 573-582.

 

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.

Barth, R. P., Fetro, J. V., Leland, N., & Volkan, K. (1992). Preventing adolescent

pregnancy with social and cognitive skills. 192M of Adplescept Reggch, 7, 208-
232.

Barth, R. 1., & Kinder, B. N. (1988). A theoretical analysis of sex differences in same-sex
relationships. Sex Roles 9 349-363.

 

Bennett (1984). Family environment for sexual learning as a function of fathers’
involvement in family work and discipline, AW; 609-62 7.

Bennett & Dickinson (1980). Student-parent rapport and parent involvement in sex, birth

control, and venereal disease education. W16, 114-130.
107

Billy, J. O., Rodgers, J. L., & Udry, J. R. (1984). Adolescent sexual behavior and
friendship choice. Socrfl' Forces, 62, 653-678.

Billy, J. O., & Udry, J. R. (1985). Patterns of adolescent fi'iendship and effects on sexual
behavior. ial P cho o 4 27-41.

Bolton, F. (3., Morris, L. A., & MacEachron, A. E. (1989). Males at risk: The other side
pf chilg gxpal abaaa. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Brown, J. D., Childers. K. W., & Waszak, C. S. (1990). Television and adolescent
sexuality. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 11, 62-71.

Brooks-Gunn, J ., & Ruble, D. N. (1982). The development of menstrual-related beliefs
and behaviors during early adolescence. Child Develgprpent, 53, 1567-1577.

Browne, A., & Williams, K. R. (1993). Gender, intimacy, and lethal violence: Trends
from 1976 through 1987. Cenger and Spaiety, 7, 78-98.

Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication
and an initial test. HM Communication Research, 4, 129-142.

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration
and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monoggpha, 5 5, 5 8-79.

Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion?
Review of program research. Journal of Psychology and Human Saxualig, 8, 7-25.

 

Byers, E. S. (1988). Effects of sexual arousal on men and women’s behavior in sexual
disagreement situations. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 235-254.

Byers, E. S. (1980). Female communication of consent and nonconsent to sexual

intercourse. Jp_ur_r_1g of the New Bparawick Psychplpgigl Aaammp,’ ' 5, 12-18.

Byers, E. S., & Lewis, K. (1988). Dating couples’ disagreements over the desired level of
sexual activity. jibe Journal of Sex Remap, 24, 15-29.

Cancian, F. (1987). Eva rp' America. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Caroll, J. C., Volk, K. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences in motives for engaging in
sexual intercourse. Archives of final Bahavrp' r, 14, 131-143.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United
108

_ ...-van:
.

States (1998). M rbid d mo ' w 45 SS4.
Chodorow, N. J. (1989). Feminism and paychgagma'c theory. New Haven, CT; Yale

University Press.
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. (1990). Gender and social structure in the
demand/withdraw pattern in marital conflict. Jou_rpaJ of Pmpnality and Social
P hol 59 73 -8 1.
Christopher, F. S. (1988). An initial investigation into a continuum of premarital sexual

pressure. The Jam of Sex Research, 25, 255-266.

Davis, S. M., & Harris, M. B. (1982). Sexual knowledge, sexual interest, and sources of
sexual information of rural and urban adolescents from three cultures.

Adplesceng, 17, 162-170.

DeGaston, J. E, Weed, S., & Jensen, L. (1996). Understanding gender differences in
adolescent sexuality. Agolescence, 31, 217-231.

Dey, E. L., Astin, A. W., & Korn, W. S. (1991). The American freslarpap: Tweng-five

year trends. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.

DiClemente, R. J. (1991). Predictors of HIV-preventive sexual behavior in high risk

adolescent population: The influence of perceived peer norms and sexual
communication on incarcerated adolescents’ consistent use of condoms. qumal of

Adolescent Hgalth, 12, 385-390.

DiClemente, R. J., Lanier, M. M., Horan, P. F ., & Lodico, M. (1991). Comparison of
AIDS knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among incarcerated adolescents and a

public school sample in San Francisco. American Joru'nal pf flrblic Healgh, 81,

628-643.
Dickinson, G. E. (1978). Adolescent sex information sources: 1964-1974. Adolescenga,
_1_3,, 653-658.

Dittus, P. J ., Jaccard, J ., & Gordon, V. V. (1999). Direct and nondirect communication of
maternal beliefs to adolescents: Adolescent motivations for premarital sexual

activity. lama of Applied Social momma, 29, 1927-1964.

Farrell, W. (1991). We should embrace traditional masculinity. In K. Thompson (Ed.), _T_‘p
be a man (pp. 10-15). Los Angles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher.

 

Feigenbaum, R., Weinstein, E., & Rosen, E. (1995). College students' sexual attitudes
and behaviors: Implications for sexuality education. Wag“

M14, 112-118.

109

 

..." H .. -

Forrest, J ., & Singh, S. (1990). The sexual and reproductive behavior of American

women. 19812-1988. W22. 206-214.

Fox, M., Gibbs, M., & Auerbach, D. (1985). Age and gender dimensions in fi'iendship.
thplogy of Women Qaapthy, 9, 489-501.

Fox, G. L., & Inazu, J. K. (1980). Mother-daughter communication about sex. 13m
Relations, 29, 347-352.

Fischer, G. J. (1996). Deceptive, verbally coercive college males: Attitudinal predictors

and lies told. _;A_rphives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 527-533.

Fisher, T. D. (1986). Parent-chfld communication about sex and young adolescents’
sexual knowledge and attitudes. Adplescence, 21, 518-527.

Fisher, T. (1987). Family communication and the sexual behavior and attitude of college

students. Jp_ur_na1 pf Youth and Adolesceng, 16, 481—495.

Fisher, T. D. (1989). An extension of the findings of Moore, Peterson, and F urstenberg
(1986) regarding family sexual behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 2?,

638.

Fisher, J. D., Misovich, S. J ., & Fisher, W. D. (1992). Impact of perceived social norms
on adolescents’ AIDS-risk behavior and prevention. In R. J. DiClemente (Ed.),

Adolespgnta and AIDS: A generation in jeopam (pp. 117-136). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Forrest, J ., & Singh, S. (1990). The sexual and reproductive behavior of American
women, 1982-1988. Family Planning Par;s_pe_ctives, 22, 206-214.

Fromme, R. E., & Emihovich, C. (1998). Boys will be boys: Young males’ perceptions of
women, sexuality, and prevention. Education and Urban Society, 30, 172-188.

Furstenberg, F. R., Herceg-Burton, R., Shea, J ., & Webb, D. (1984). Family
communication and teenagers’ contraceptive use. Family Planning Perspagp'ves,

Jfi, 163-170.

Gager, N., & Schurr, C. (1976). Sexual AME! Confronting Rape in Mensa. New

York: Grossett and Dunlap.
Gagnon, J. H. (1985). Attitude and responses of parents to pre-adolescent masturbation.

Arghivea of Sexual Bahavior, 14, 451-466.

Gartrell, N., & Mosbacher, D. (1984). Sex differences in the naming of children’s
genitalia. ex R01 10 869-876.

110

Gilbert & Bailis (1980). Sex education in the home: An empirical task analysis. T___'h_e_

W16. 148-161.
Gordon, S., & Dickman, I. R. (1977). The mm role. New York: Public Affairs
Committee, Inc.

Gray, J. (1998). Men m Mars and women are fro Venus: A tactical ide for

appro rdg' commieation an getting what yop want in your relationships.
London: Thorsons.

Green, S. K., & Sollie, D. L. (1989). Long-term effects of a chmch-based sex education
program on adolescent communication. Family Relations, 38, 152-168.

Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Husbands’ participation in domestic labor: The interactive
effects of wives’ and husbands’ gender ideologies. W

Family, S8, 585-595.

Greer, A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. Joar_nal of
Sex Researcg 31, 185-201 .

Guyer, B., Strobino, D. M., Ventura, S. J., & Singh, G. (1995). Annual summary of vital
statistics — 1994. Pediatrics, 96, 1029-1040.

Haurin, R. J ., & Mott, F. L. (1990). Adolescent sexual activity in the family context: The
impact of older siblings. mmography, 27, 537-557.

Heights, R., & Chapin, J. R. (2000). Adolsecent sex and mass media: A developmental
approach. Adolsgence, 35, 799-811.

Hepburn, E. H. ( 1981). The father’s role in the sexual socialization of adolescent females

in an upper and upper-middle class population. Journal of Early Adolescence, 1S,
523-534.

Hochschild, A. (1989). The agond shifl: Working parents and the revolution at bdmg.
New York: Viking Press.

Holtzrnan, D., & Rubinson, R. (1995). Parent and peer communication effects on AIDS-

related behavior among US. high school students. W9,
L7, 235-240, 269.

Inman, M. (1974). What teenagers want in sex education. medcan Jdumg pf Nursing,
14, 1866-1867.

Jaccard, J.,&Dittus, P. (1991).? t- m ommuni ' n: Tow the v ntion of
W. New York: Springer-Vedas-

111

Jaccard, J., & Dittus, P. (1993). Parent-adolescent communication about premarital
pregnancy. 'lies in ' : The of o tern H 1th ervi
219-234.

Jaccard, J ., Dittus, P. J., & Gordon, V. V. (1996). Maternal correlates of adolescent
sexual and adolescent sexual behavior. Famin Planning Pagspagdves, 2S, 159-165.

Jaccard, J ., Dittus, P. J ., & Gordon, V. V. (1998). Parent-adolescent congruency in
reports of adolescent sexual behavior. Child Develdpment, 69, 247-252.

Jaccard, J ., Dittus, P. J ., & Gordon, V. V. (2000). Parent-teen communication about
premarital sex: Factors associated with the extent of communication. Jdap1_a_l_o_f

Adolamt Reseamh, 15, 187-208.

J essner, C. J. (1978). Male responses to direct verbal sexual initiatives of females. Jdppng
of Sex Rm 14, 118-128.

Kallen, D. J ., Stephenson, J. J ., & Doughty, A. (1983). The need to know: Recalled
adolescent sources of sexual and contraceptive information and sexual behavior.

Journal of Sex Rasearch, 19, 137-159.

Kalof, L. (1995). Sex, power, and dependency: The politics of adolescent sexuality.
Jam of Youth and Adplescepce, 24, 229-249.

Koblinsky, S., 8!. Atkinson, M. (1982). Parental plans for children’s sex education.
Famib; Coordinator, 31, 29-35.

Korman, S. K., & Leslie, G. R. (1982). The relationship of feminist ideology and date
expense sharing to perceptions of sexual aggression in dating. The Journal of Sex
Rfigarch, 18, 114-129.

Koss, P., & Oros, C. (1982). Sexual experience survey: A research instrument
investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Jdumal pf Copsulting and
Clinicfl nghpldgy, 50, 455-457.

Kunkel, D., Cope, K. M., & Biely, E. (1999). Sexual messages on television: Comparing
findings from three studies. The Jom of Sex Researcla 36, 230-236.

Langan, P. A., & Innes, C. A. (1986). Preventing dogma vipleng 3% wow.
Washington DC: US. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

LaPlante, M. M., McCormick, N., & Brannigan, G. C. (1980). Living the sexual script:
College students’ views of influence in sexual encounters. WM

We. 338-355.

Lauer, R. H., Lauer, J. C., & Kerr, S. T. (1990). The long-term marriage: Perceptions of
1 12

stability and satisfaction. Th In '0 l o of A ' H
W31. 189-199.

Laumann,E. O., Gagnon,J. H., Michael, R.T., &Michaels, S. (1994). _T_'h______e social

Mn pf m: Sexual mices in the United States. University of
Chicago Press: Chicago.

Leaper, C., Leve, L., Strasser, T., & Schwartz, R. (1995). Mother-child communication
sequences: Play activity, child gender, and marital status effects. Merrill-Palmer

9123111111., 307-319-

Leve, L. D. & Fagot, B. I. (1997). Gender-role socialization and discipline process in
one- and two-parent families. Sex Roles 36 1-21.

 

Lock, 8. E., & Vincent, M. L. (1995). Sexual decision-making among rural adolescent
females. W12, 47-58.

Lowry, D. T., & Towles. D. E. (1989a). Soap opera portrayals of sex, contraception, and
sexually transmitted diseases. Jdurnal of Communicatiop, 39, 76-83.

Lowry, D. T.. & Towles, D. E. (1989b). Prime time TV portrayals of sex, contraception
and venereal diseases. Journalism Mtg, 66, 347-362.

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical
overview. Qavelopmeng Psychology, 2S, 1006-1017.

MacCOrquodale, P. (1989). Gender and sexual behavior. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher

(Eds), Hdm_a_n sexpalig: The societal and rp' terparsonal context (pp. 91-112).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Marks, S. R. (1994). Studying workplace intimacy: Havens at work. In D. L. Sollie & L.

A. Leslie (Eds), Gender, fgpily, and clo_sa reladonships (pp. 145-168). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marsiglio, W. (1988). Adolescent male sexuality and heterosexual masculinity: A
conceptual model and review. Jdumal of Adplamt Remap, S, 285-303.

Marsiglio, W. & Mott, F. L. (1988). Does wanting to become pregnant with a first child
affect subsequent marital behaviors and infant birth weight. Jo urnalof Mgrage

thhe Fagdiy,50-,10231037.

McCabe, M. P., & Collins, J. K. (1984). Measurement of depth of desired and
experienced sexual involvement at different stages of dating. M95
M29. 377-390-

McCormick, N. B. (1979). Come-ans and Put-offs: Unmarried students’ strategies for
113

having and avoiding sexual intercourse. Psyghology pf Womea Mly, 4, 194-
211.

McCormick, N. B., Brannigan, G. G., & LaPlante, M. N. (1984). Social desirability in the
bedroom: Role of approval motivation in sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 11, 303-
3 14.

McKusick, L., Coates, T. J ., & Morin, S. (1990). Longitudinal predictors of unprotected
anal intercourse among gay and bisexual men in San Francisco: The HIV
Behavioral Research Project. American Journal of Publig Health, 80, 978-983.

Mercer, G. W., & Kohn, P. M. (1979). Generation differences in the integration of
conservatism, sex urge, and sexual behaviors among college students. The Jogdai

of Sax Ra_se__argl_r, 15, 129-142.

Metts, 8., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1992). Thinking about safer sex: The risky business of
‘Know Your Partner’ advice. In T. Edgar, M. A. Fitzpatrick, & V. S. Freirnuth

(Eds), AIDS: A ddmmunication mpacjve. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Miller, B. C., Norton, M. C., Jenson, G. 0., Lee, T. R., Christopherson, C., & King, P. K.
(1993). Pregnancy prevention programs: Impact evaluation of ‘Facts & Feelings’
a home-based video sex education curriculum. arnil Relations 42 392.

Miller, G. R., & Steinberg, G. (1975). Bet—wan paople. Chicago: Science Research
Associates.

Miller, K., Kotchick, B. A., Dorsey, S., Forehand, R., & Ham, A. Y. (1999). An analysis
of family communication about sex: What are parents saying and are their

adolescents listening? Family Planning Perspgtives, 30, 218-222, 235.

Miller, K., Levin, M. L., Whitaker, D. J ., & Xu, X. (1998). Patterns of condom usage
among adolescents: The impact of mammal-adolescent communication. M

km of 231911; Health, S8, 1542-1544.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of
personality. PMologM Raview, 80, 252-283.

Moen, P. (1992). Wprpan's two gigs: A contempprary dd' am__r_n_a. New York: Auburn

House.

Moore, K. A., Miller, B. C., Glei, D., & Morrison, D. R. (1995). W

contracgptifl arid phildmng’ ', A review pf mat research. Washington. DC:
Child Trends.

Mueller, K. E., & Powers, W. G. (1990). Parent-child sexual discussion: Perceived
114

communicator style and subsequent behavior. Adolflnpa, 25, 469.

Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). "Nice women" don't say yes and "real men" don‘t say no:
How miscommunication and the double standard can cause sexual problems.

Warpap and T'hgapy, 7, 95-108.

Mynatt, C. A., & Allgeier, E. R. (1985, June). Sexual coercion: Reported effects of
acquaintances and social contact. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for
the Scientific Study of Sex, Mid-continent Region, Chicago, IL.

Neer, M., & Warren, C. (1988). The relationship of supportive communication to sex

discussion in the home. Communication Reaaapgh Rm, 5, 154-160.

Nelson, K. (1995). The conflict over sexuality education: Interviews with participants on
both sides of the debate. SIECLJS Rm, 24, 12-16.

Newcomer, S. F., & Udry, I. R. (1985). Parent-child communication and adolescent
sexual behavior. F m‘ly Plannipg' Persgtives, 17, 169-184.

Nolin, M. J., & Peterson, K. (1992). Gender differences in parent-child communication
about sexuality: An exploratory study. Journal of Adolescant Research, 7, 59-79.

Nugent, J. K. (1991). Cultural and psychological influences on the father’s role in infant
development. Journal of Mar_riage and the Family, 53, 475-485.

Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis.
chhological Bulletgg’ 114, 29-51.

O’Sullivan, L., & Byers, E. S. (1992). College students’ incorporation of initiator and
restrictor roles in sexual dating interactions. The Jdumal of Sex Reggae; 29,
435-446.

Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. J. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relationships.
qumg of Social Issues, 33, 86-109.

Perry, C. L., Kelder, S. H., & Komro, K. A. (1993). The social world of adolescents:
Family, peers, schools and the community. In S. Millstein, A. Petersen, & E.
Nightingale (Eds). Promot' the heal of ole : N w ' 'ons fo
twenty-first ceanry (pp. 73-97). New York: Oxford.

Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1993). Masculinity ideology: Its impact on
adolescent males' heterosexual relationships. f ocial I cs 49 11-29.

Ram, P. (1975). Sociometric status context of pupils’ socio-school adjustment. JpprpaLpf
ch 1 'cal 19 20-23.

115

Reid, H. M., & Fine, G. A. (1992). Self-disclosure in men’s fi'iendships: Variations
associated with intimate relations. In P. M. Nardi (Ed), MW (pp.
132-152). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Roberts, E. J., Kline, D., & Gagnon, J. (1978). Farah life and agxual learning.
Population Education: Cambridge.

Robinson, 1., Ziss, K., Ganza, B., Katz, S., & Robinson, E. (1991). Twenty years of the

sexual revolution, 1965-1985: An update. JoLupal of Marriage and the Family, 53,
216-220.

Roche, J. (1986). Premarital sex: Attitudes and behaviors by dating stage. Adolaagnge,
21, 107-121.

Romer, D., Black, M., Ricardo, 1., Feigelman, S., Kaljee, L., Galbraith, J ., Nesbit, R.,
Homik, R. C., & Stanton, B. (1994). Social influences on the sexual behavior of
youth at risk for HIV exposure. American Journal of Public Hgalld 84, 977-985.

Rodgers, J. L., Rowe, D. C., & Harris, D. F. (1992). Sibling differences in adolescent
sexual behavior: Inferring process models from family composition patterns.

Jom pf Marriag and thg Emily, 54, 142-152.
Rotter, J. B. (1982). The devalopment and applications pf social learning dim. New

York: Praeger.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social Legging and cliniag melloldgy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Rozema, H. J. (1986). Defensive communication climate as a barrier to sex education in
the home. Family Relations, 35, 531-537.

Russell, G., & Russell, A. (1987). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle
childhood. Child fivelopment, 58, 1573-1585.

Sapir, E. (1964). flame and parspnality. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Scales & Kirby (1981). A review of exemplary sex education programs for teenagers
offered by non-school organizations. Fm’ly Relfiog, 30, 238-245.

Schreck, L. (1999). Adolescent sexual activity is affected more by mothers‘ attitudes and
behavior than by family structure. F '1 ' e tiv 31 200-201.

Shah, F., & Zelnik, M. (1981). Parent and peer influence on sexual behavior,
contraceptive use, and pregnancy experience of young women. 19M
Wail. 339-348-

116

Sherrod, D. (1989). The influence of gender on same-sex friendships. In C. Hendrick
(E4). Wes (PP- 154-136) Newbury Park: Sage.

Shoop, D. M., & Davidson, P. M. (1994). AIDS and adolescents: The relation of parent
and partner communication to adolescent condom use. Journal of Adoleagence,
J], 137-148.

Sillars, A. L., Pike, G. R., Jones, T. S., & Murphy, M. A. (1984). Communication and
understanding in marriage. Hm Communigan'on Manoggaphs, 10, 317-350.

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of
Sandal Behavior; 15, 97-120.

Smith, T. E. (1983). Parental influence: A review of the evidence of influence and a

theoretical model of the parental influence process. Wang
Education and Socailztion, 4, 13-45.

Smith, M. D., & Self, G. D. (1980). The congruence between mothers’ and daughters’

sex role attitudes: A research note. Jouranl of Marriage and the Family, 42, 105-
109.

Sonenstein, F. L. (1986). Pregnancy among teenagers: Mat can be dong? Washington
DC: Urban Institute.

Spender, D. (1981). Man’s studies modified: The impact of feminism on the academia
diaaiplines. Oxford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of individuals.
Jo x R 26 232-248.

Sprecher, S., & Hatfield, E. (1996). Premarital sexual standards among US. college
students: Comparison with Russian and Japanese students. Archives of Sexual

W 261-288-
Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1993). Sexuality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbach, T. L. ( 1987). Has the double standard
disappeared? An experimental test. Social Paypholngy 9mg, 59, 24-31.

Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1996). College virgins: How men and women perceive
their sexual status— WW 3-15.

Stanley,J. P. (1977). Paradigmatic woman. The prostitute. InD. L. Shores&C. P. Hines
(Eds.,) WW9 303-321). Tuscaloosa,AL: University of
Alabama Press.

117

Starrels, M. E. (1992). The evolution of workplace family policy research. jljlre 10ml pf
W 259-287.

Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage,
work, and parenthood. Jamal of Maniage and tha lely, 51, 845-871.

Tontodonato, P., & Crew, B. K. (1992). Dating violence, social learning theory, and
gender: A multivariate analysis. Violenga and yictims, 7, 3-14.

Townsend, J. M. (1987). Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: Effects of
increasing socio-economic status. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 427-446.

Townsend, J. M. (1995). Sex without emotional involvement: An evolutionary
interpretation of sex differences. Arnhives pf Sexual Behayior, 24, 173-206.

Tucker, S. K. (1989). Adolescent patterns of communication about sexually related
topics. Adolescenga, 24, 269-278.

Ventura, S. J ., Taffel, S. M., & Mosher, W. D. (1988). Estimates of pregnancies and
pregnancy rates for the United States, 1976-85. Ameridan Jouranl pf Enblic
m 506-511-

Walsh, R H. (1989). Premarital sex among teenagers and young adults. In K. McKinney

& S. Sprecher (Eds), Human sexuality: The societal and interparsonal context
(pp. 162-186). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wasserheit, J. (1994). Effect of changes in human ecology and behavior on patterns of
sexually transmitted diseases including human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Procegdinga of the National Agdemy of Sciences of the United States of
Amerida, 91, 2430-2435.

Welch-Cline, R. J ., Johnson, S. J ., & Freeman, K. E. (1992). Talk among sexual partners
about AIDS: Interpersonal communication for risk reduction or risk
enhancement? Health Co ic 'on 4 39-56.

Wellman, B. (1992). Men in networks: Private communities, domestic friendships. In P.
M. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s frienfihips (pp. 74-114). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Whitaker, D. J., Miller, K. S., May, D. C., & Levin, C. (1999). Teenage partners’
communication about sexual risk and condom use: The importance of parent-

teenagers discussions. Family Planning Persmtives, Jl, 117-112.

Whitaker, D. J., & Miller, K. S. (2000). Parent-adolescent discussions about sex and

condoms: Impact on peer influences of sexual risk. Wm
Bambi}. 251-273-

118

Whitley, B. E. (1988). The relation of gender-role orientation to sexual experience among
college students. Sax Roles, 19, 619-638.

Widmer, E. (1997). Influence of older siblings on initiation of sexual intercourse. Jdlnnal
pf Mmag' e ad the; Eamifl, 59, 928-938.

Wilson, S. M., & Medora, N. P. (1990). Gender comparisons of college students’
attitudes toward sexual behavior. Addlescence, 25, 615-627.

Wood, J. T. (1993). Engendered relationships: Interaction, caring, power, and
responsibility in close relationships. In 8. Duck (Ed.), Processes Q close

relationship: Contenta of algae, relationshipa (V 01. 3). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wood, J. T. (1999). Gandegd lives: Communicflon, ganddr, gd cult_u;§. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Wood, J. T., & Lenze, L. F. (1991). Gender and the development of self: Inclusive

pedagogy in interpersonal communication. Women’s St_ndies in Commglication,
l4, 1-23.

Zelhnan, G. L., Johnson, P. B., Giarrusso, R, & Goodchilds, J. (1979, September).
Adolescents’ expectations for dating relationships: Consensus and conflict
between the sexes. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological
Association, New York, NY.

Zimbardo, P., & Formica, R (1963). Emotional comparison and self-esteem as
determinants of affiliation. Journal of Personalig, 31, 141-162.

Zimmerman, R S., Sprecher, S., Langer, L. M., & Holloway, C. D. (1995). Adolescents’

perceived ability to say “no” to unwanted sex. Journal of Adolescent Research,
1_0_, 383-402.

119

.L’j- _

. .
_ illH ' '

 

11111

11'
1293 02177 075