Family and partner communication about sex

184

Family and Partner Communication About Sex

Clay WarrenThe George Washington University

Laura Kolind WarrenAmerican Institutes for Research

O ver the past quarter century, the topic of teenage sex and sex education has been a front-cover subject in the U.S.

media, as well as an issue for public policy. The December 9, 1985 cover of Time Magazine read “Children Having Children: Teen Pregnancy in America,” and a year later the November 24, 1986 edition of Time explored “Sex Education: What Should Children Know? When Should They Know It?” In the May 24, 1993 Time edition, the subject continued with a cover presenting a big question: “Kids, Sex, and Values: Just Do It, Just Say No, Just Wear a Condom: What’s a Kid Supposed to Think?” The topic again flew high on the June 15, 1998 Time’s cover: “Everything Your Kids Already Know About Sex: Bet You’re Afraid to Ask.” Currently, popular media tend to treat the issue more sensationally, perhaps even

glamorously. For example, the August 20, 2010 edition of Us Weekly featured a “Teen Mom” star in her quest to find Mr. Right with the cover headline: “Inside Their Struggle: Teen Mom.” A month later, People Magazine headlined “We Miss Our Baby” on their September 2010 cover, with the inside story of two “16 and Pregnant” stars sharing their decision to give up their new-born daughter for adoption.

The same issue brought center stage by jour-nalists has become an integral part of U.S. public policy. In October 2010, the Obama administra-tion announced a plan to set aside $155 million for comprehensive sex education programs to reduce the troubling number of teen pregnan-cies. In 2010, President Obama also signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that requires private insurance companies to

CHAPTER 12

Copyright ©2015 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

Chapter 12. Family and Partner Communication About Sex——185

cover a wide range of preventative services in addition to offering free birth control. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Healthy People 2020 campaign seeks to reduce unintended pregnancies by 10% in a decade. A congressional report (Solomon-Fears, 2013) outlines the specifics of the two main federal teen pregnancy prevention programs: the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program (TPP) and the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP). TPP and PREP largely take a sex educa-tion approach to the problem.

Sex education and sex communication, how-ever, are not synonymous terms. This is an important distinction discussed later. And, fam-ily sex communication remains an area needing further research and attention, as we point out in this chapter. First, we discuss the significance of what many call a youth sex problem in the United States. Second, we highlight the differ-ence between sex education and sex communi-cation. Third, we examine findings on family sex communication and subsequently extend these findings to partner sex communication. Finally, we discuss limitations of past research and directions for future research.

Significance of the Youth Sex Problem in the United States

Communication about sex is an important issue in part because youthful sexual behavior is an important problem, one some writers described as epidemic from the 1970s to the 1990s. Since then, the issue has improved but not been solved. As of 2008, around 70% of American adolescents experienced intercourse by the time they reached 19 years-of-age. Yet, the share of all nonmarital births to U.S. teenagers declined from 52% in 1975 to 20% in 2010 (Martin et al., 2012). Whereas around 40% of teen pregnancies were terminated by abortion in the early 1990s, that percentage had declined to 26% among 15- to 19-year-olds in 2008 (Alan Guttmacher Institute,

1994; Kost & Henshaw, 2012). Nevertheless, despite a reported increase in contraceptive use and decrease in nonmarital births and abortions, U.S. teen pregnancy and abortion rates continue to be the highest in the world among developed countries (Weiss, 2012) and are twice as high as rates in Canada and Sweden (McKay & Barrett, 2010; Warren, 1992). Nearly 750,000 females aged 15 to 19 become pregnant each year (Kost & Henshaw, 2012) with more than 80% of the preg-nancies being unintended (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2012).

With these numbers in mind, it is useful to review attendant costs. We summarize three areas: costs to teenage parents, the child, and society.

Costs to Teenage Parents

There are many consequences of young people having frequent sex. In addition to nonmarital births and abortions, disease is a large concern. In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infec-tions was second highest among the cohort of young individuals aged 13 to 24 (CDC, 2010), and around half of all new STDs diagnosed each year may belong to young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 (CDC, 2008). Teenage mothers also present more depressive symptoms than adult mothers, both in pregnancy and at 2 to 3 months postpartum (Figueiredo, Pacheco, & Costa, 2007). Significantly more teenage fathers have high lev-els of anxiety and depression compared to older fathers (Quinlivan & Condon, 2005).

Evidence indicates that teenage mothers’ dis-tress levels were already higher than that of their peers before they became pregnant, and they remain higher after childbearing and into middle adulthood (Mollborn & Morningstar, 2009). Thus, depression among teenage mothers is an important concern and has been linked to later challenges, such as repeat pregnancies and lower maternal adjustment (i.e., fewer positive feelings about motherhood, less infant care, and low parenting competency) (Holub et al., 2007).


186———PART II. Family Behaviors and Dynamics

Until the turn of the 21st century, teenage mothers were less likely to finish high school, more likely to have a lower lifetime earning capacity, and more likely to apply for welfare than nonmothers in their cohort (Warren, 2000). In 2010, the same trend held true: Teen mothers compared to teens who delay childbearing were far less likely to complete high school or obtain a GED by age 22 (66% versus 94%, respectively) with a host of attendant economic hardships (Perper, Peterson, & Manlove, 2010). Teen fathers were more likely to have high rates of substance abuse, be unsuccessful in school, have limited earnings, and have trouble with the law (Elfenbein & Felice, 2003).

Costs to the Child

Maternal distress has been associated with harmful effects for children’s outcomes, includ-ing language development, coping skills, and social adjustment (Hubbs-Tait, Osofsky, Hann, & Culp, 1994; Mowbray, Oyserman, Bybee, & MacFarlane, 2002; Smith, 2004). Having at least one depressed parent also puts children of all age groups at risk for a greater rate of ER and sick visits and teenage children at risk for a lower rate of well-child-care visits (Sills, Shetterly, Xu, Magid, & Kempe, 2007). Infants born to teen mothers are at risk for low birth weight, physical neglect, and abuse, and daughters of teen moth-ers are more likely to become teenage mothers themselves (Elfenbein & Felice, 2003). Moreover, teens aged 12 to 17 years old from single-parent families (which is often the case among teenage parents) remain more likely than youths living with two biological parents to report running away from home, sexual activity, major theft, assault, and arrest (McCurley & Snyder, 2006).

Costs to Society

In 2004, 63% of teen mothers were enrolled in public assistance (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). In

2006, 64% of births resulting from unintended pregnancies were paid for by public insurance programs, in comparison to 48% paid-for births overall (Sonfield, Kost, Gold, & Finer, 2011). The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (2011) calculated that teen childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers roughly $11 billion in 2008, including costs for health care, foster care, incarceration, and lost tax revenue. The health of a society is not predicated on mon-etary outlay alone, of course, and individuals’ mental and physical health issues previously dis-cussed collectively weigh in as important social indicators as well.

Sex Education Is Not Sex Communication

Many people have used the two terms inter-changeably. In fact, they represent distinctly different approaches to information sharing. Sex communication involves people exchanging verbal and nonverbal messages in a mutual effort to cocreate meaning about sexual beliefs, attitudes, values or behavior. Sex education, on the other hand, is characterized by senders didactically trying to transfer information about sexuality, sexual intercourse, reproduction, and birth control to receivers. This distinction is important because it helps us understand differ-ences in research results.

By the mid-1980s, summary reviews (Kirby, 1984; Search Institute, 1985) had been completed on more than 200 institutional sex education studies reported between 1970 and 1984. The news was not what sex educators hoped to hear:

Institutional sex education has not influ-enced students’ frequency of sexual inter-course, birth control attitudes/behavior and corresponding likelihood of producing an unintended teenage pregnancy, satisfaction with social life, and general self-esteem; institutional sex education has increased students’ knowledge about sexuality, tolerance



toward others’ sexual behavior (except for sexual coercion), and communicating with parents in parent-involved programs. (Warren, 1995, p. 179)

In other words, sex education was not proving to be an ideal solution, or at least not a solution in and of itself, for the problem of unintended teenage pregnancy—a fair descriptor to this day. For example, Wight and Fullerton (2013) exam-ined 44 community-based sex education pro-grams all designed to encourage delayed sex and to include parental involvement for at least 14 hours. Where measured, sexual behavior improved in fewer than half the programs. The study was hindered, however, by a lack of pro-grammatic measurement of parent-child con-nectedness and parental modeling, along with behavioral control.

Family Sex Communication

Around the same time as the 1980s major sum-maries on sex education, two thorough reviews (Philliber, 1980; Fox, 1981) summarized sex communication research. These reviews offered more promise for teen pregnancy intervention, in that there was support for the idea that family sex communication may impact children’s sexual behavior by delaying initiation of sexual inter-course and facilitating usage of birth control measures. However, as noted by Furstenberg, Herceg-Baron, Shea, & Webb (1986): “[Philliber and Fox agreed] that more research is needed on the way that both direct and indirect sex com-munication in the family influences adolescent behavior” (p. 220).

Research up to the mid-1980s tended to focus on content and quantitative issues in fam-ily sex communication. As one example, Fisher (1986) found that parent-child communication about sex is related to sexual values by frequency pattern: college students and parents who have had frequent communication have more similar sexual attitudes than students and parents with

infrequent communication. Fisher (1987) found similar results when she introduced an author-designed scale to measure frequency and content.

Some later studies have included qualitative along with quantitative issues. For instance, Bonnell and Caillouet (1991) discovered that teens strongly believe parents should learn how to communicate empathetically and supportively regardless of shared agreement over content- specific issues. Miller, Kotchick, Dorsey, Forehand, and Ham (1998) concluded that, as is consistent with White samples, mothers of Black and Hispanic teenagers are the primary parent com-municating about sex. Also, the likelihood of a sex topic being discussed and of mother-teenager agreement on that topic both increased with an increasing degree of openness in the communi-cation process. Blake, Simkin, Ledsky, Perkins, and Calabrese (2001) provided the following summary:

The quality of parent-child relationships and parenting style in general, and com-munications about sex and sexuality more specifically, appear to be strong determinants of adolescent sexual behavior. Relationships to adolescent sexual behavior have been found . . . particularly when parent-child communications were characterized as being “open and receptive.” (pp. 52-53)

Openness invariably is used as a positive qualitative term, one often operationally defined, however, by quantitative means. A qualitative-based Australian study (Kirkman, Rosenthal, & Feldman, 2005) explored the meaning of openness in families by interviewing at least one parent and one child as a set and discovered: “The meaning of openness in communication about sexual-ity . . . [is] far more complex than the number and frequency of sexual topics discussed within fami-lies” (p. 64). Aspy et al. (2006) also obtained data from one teenager and one parent to explore the quality of adolescents’ family communication and confirmed, “youth-parent agreement regarding their communication was associated with positive



youth behaviors, including abstinence and the use of contraception if sexually active” (p. 500).

Increasingly across the years, parents have expressed a need for specific guidance in how to discuss sexuality with their children. In response to one such survey, O’Donnell et al. (2007) created an innovative and blended sex communication/education strategy geared toward helping inner-city parents develop effective communication with their preteen children on the importance of delayed sexual initiation.

Yet, well-meaning research in this area, now sometimes called parent-adolescent sexual com-munication (PASC), continues to be yoked to past methods and problems: for example, a focus on content/topics, a lack of assessment of the parent-child relationship, and problematic sam-ples. For example, consider Coffelt (2010). This research sought to understand challenges pre-sented by PASC. For various reasons, including a self-described enormous challenge with recruiting participants via purposeful sampling from a targeted group of 500 college students (and their mothers), the study ended with nine 19-year-old females and their mothers, all of European descent. The attempt to obtain some kind of matched pair for examination is admirable; how-ever, the tiny number of homogeneous respon-dents, with a complete absence of sons or fathers, leaves the study compromised.

Existing Measures of Family Sex Communication

Fisher (1993) re-administered six indepen-dently constructed groups of measures of parent-child sex communication (not including the Warren-Neer scale, vide infra), in an attempt to validate the psychometric properties against behavioral outcomes and test for concurrent valid-ity. Results showed that the measures did not demonstrate concurrent validity. And, only two of the scales (Bennet & Dickinson, 1988; Rozema, 1986) endeavored to assess some attributes related to the quality of family sex communication. One

of the scales (Newcomer & Udry, 1985) contained only three questions in all. Fisher’s Weighted Topics Measure (1987) revealed the most concur-rent validity; however, it only assessed the extent and not the nature of family sex communication. Fisher (1993) concluded that “the scales . . . seemed to be measuring the concept of family sexual communication in some substantially different ways [and] this is clearly an area where further instrument development is essential” (p. 229).

Later researchers have sporadically continued to work on creating measures of family sex com-munication, most of which still center around sexual topics and demographic variables—sex roles, sexual attitudes and risks, social issues, sexual reproductive system, dating relationships, birth control, love and/or marriage, and so on (Raffaelli, Bogenschneider, & Flood, 1998; Rosenthal & Feldman, 1999; Somers & Canivez, 2003). Somers & Canivez (2003) reaffirmed that “the lack of psychometrically tested instruments has been somewhat problematic” (p. 44), and created a “broad but brief ” psychometrically adequate scale to once again measure frequency of communication about sexual matters. Some abbreviated scales (e.g., the 5-item “parent-adolescent communication scale” of Sales et al., 2008) additionally have been restricted to special target groups such as adolescent girls’ frequency of sexual communication with parents. Overall, the fact remains that these kinds of measures focus more on the content than on the quality of sex communication.

Warren and Neer (1986) developed the Family Sex Communication Quotient (FSCQ), estab-lishing and sustaining a long-running research program designed to explore both quality and content of family sex communication (see Appendix). In the questionnaire, the communi-cation comfort dimension was selected as one of the three main FSCQ measures because people positively experience supportive climates, which may be essential to open lines of communication. The information dimension was included because the home cannot function as a primary source of sexual learning without sufficient sharing of



information. The value dimension was included because long-range positive values about family discussions influence the likelihood of discussing sex with one’s own children.

The FSCQ has proved to be a highly reliable measure of family orientation to communication about sex (its alpha score averages above .90). Zamboni and Silver (2009) evaluated instrumen-tal features of the FSCQ. Because of its concep-tual strengths and good psychometric properties, the researchers proposed its use as a preferred scale to assess parent-child communication about sex. The scale was selected for inclusion in the family section of the latest volume of a handbook on measures related to sexuality (see Warren, 2011). It also has been featured as the lynchpin of a chapter (see Warren, 2006, as an example), as well as in chapters authored by others (e.g., see “Ten Tips for How Parents Should Talk to Their Children about Sex” in Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2010, pp. 186-187; “Four-Point Outline of Warren’s Research on Family Sex Communication” in Galvin, Bylund, & Brommel, 2012, p. 148) dis-cussing family sex communication in popular family and relational communication texts.

The program protocol has been undertaken in the following manner: A research sample of roughly 1,500 participants in aggregate is drawn from populations across western, central, and eastern North America; data are collected by survey and interview techniques; and measure-ment tools, including the FSCQ, along with ques-tions designed to survey respondents’ feelings about sexual behavior (e.g., “Sexual relations with the people I date are very important to me”; “The use of contraceptives should be discussed by a couple before having sex”) are administered, and objective data (e.g., “Have you had sexual intercourse?”; “Do you use birth control mea-sures?”) are gathered. The score patterns for respondents across the years have tended to show a moderate to low orientation (between 65 and 36) for family sex communication. Fewer than 10 of 100 respondents have reported a strong orien-tation of 72 or above. The scores on dimensions, however, do not run at the same level. Respondents

are apt to score much higher on the value dimen-sion than on the comfort or information dimen-sions. That result means that parents and children are not talking about sex in the family context as much as theoretically or practically desirable, or as valued by the children themselves.

Four important umbrella elements of family sex communication have emerged from this research program featuring the FSCQ. These ele-ments were introduced in Warren and Neer (1986), have been corroborated in other studies (for example, see Warren & Olsen, 2005, and Zamboni & Silver, 2009), and are summarized as follows: (1) satisfaction with family discussions about sex is dependent on the key factor of mutual dialogue, (2) the ability to communica-tive supportively about sex revolves around an attitude of openness, (3) for discussions to have the greatest impact, they should become part of the family patterns well before children reach 16, and (4) parent-child communication about sex that is frequent and regarded as effective tends to facilitate children’s open discussion with dating partners and to favorably influence their atti-tudes about birth control.

Suggestions for Parent-Child Communication about Sex

In 2012, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy stated:

Teens continue to say that parents most influence their decisions about sex—a find-ing consistent with all previous National Campaign surveys. This is particularly heartening news given the large body of social science research suggesting that over-all closeness between parents and their children, shared activities, parental presence in the home, and parental caring and con-cern are all associated with a reduced risk of early sex and teen pregnancy. Teens who are close to their parents and feel supported by them are more likely to delay sex, have fewer



sexual partners, and use contraception more consistently. (Albert, 2012, p. 12)

Regardless of how a contemporary family is configured, this unit is the principal context in which a child’s relationship orientation is formed. Among the offshoots of this orientation, in addi-tion to strength of emotional attachment, are communication patterns, including how one approaches discussions about sex. Based on available research, three overall principles appear sound: Families should talk about sexual issues (1) early, (2) openly, and (3) interactively. Further, the following eight specific suggestions can be offered with an acceptable degree of confidence.

Talk With Your Children. Some parents don’t talk enough, in general. Too many parents may drop into the trap of one-way rather than two-way communication. Two-way communication builds trust that then can be drawn on for sensi-tive issues. One-way communication builds resentment in children, which can mushroom in their teenage years.

Talk With Your Children about Sex. Not talking with your children about sex doesn’t stop them from seeking information; it just sends them to other sources, some of which are unreliable, at best, and often outright misleading. On the other hand, respondents from environments of per-ceived good family sex communication report the following attitudinal and behavioral orienta-tions: Sex should be pursued as a means of genu-ine caring, not promiscuous pleasure; sex doesn’t become the most important goal of dating; talk-ing about contraception doesn’t promote sexual license.

Begin Discussions With Your Children When They’re Young. Younger children are less likely to be judgmental. So, by talking about sex with them at an early age, you’re less likely to become defensive and more likely to perceive your role as that of confidante and helper.

Continue These Discussions Over Time. There is a domino effect here. General communication raises children’s expectations for parent-child communication about sex. Similarly, increased frequency of family sex communication raises children’s expectations that discussions will become more specific. In other words, talking about sex in general terms (e.g., interpersonal problems with dating partners) will lead children to expect parents to talk with them about sex more specifically (e.g., values about sex, methods of birth control).

Both Parents Should Talk in a Two-Parent Family. Studies suggest parents are most effective when both participate in the discussion. In the past, the tendency was for mothers to make more of an effort in this area, particularly in the con-text of mother-daughter communication. Just as boys have a role in teen pregnancy, however, leaving fathers out of the picture sidesteps half the context.

Talk to All Children. Just as both parents should talk, all children should be part of the dialogue. Females in research samples have been more likely than males to value contra-ceptive usage. Parents, however, have been more likely to talk with daughters about sex even when both parents were actively involved in discussion. Such one-sided practice may reinforce the so-called double standard; and, considering the statistics on unintended teen pregnancy, it appears evident that female-directed discussion has left unrealized goals. Sons need, and deserve, to be included in fam-ily sex communication.

Establish Mutual Dialogue. The heart of the dif-ference between a communication and an educa-tion approach to family sex communication revolves around this suggestion. Parents’ ability to facilitate children’s initiation of discussion is key (as noted by children, themselves). If family



discussions degenerate into all-knowing adults prescribing cures to know-nothing children, mutual dialogue isn’t the goal, and many teens will stop listening.

Create a Supportive Environment. Feeling com-fortable when discussing sensitive issues is important, and that feeling usually comes from practice of good principles. Discussants, particu-larly parents, must remember a few things about supportiveness as they engage in family commu-nication. Sex communication involves a cocre-ation of meaning, which means that children’s attitudes about sex are equal in importance to parents’ attitudes. A parent may have more knowledge to share, but sharing isn’t done in a defensive climate. Nonverbal communication is important: How something is said is just as meaningful as what is said.

Sex Communication Between Dating Partners

Family sex communication, whether frequent or infrequent, and whether rich or meager in effectiveness, is the beginning. Later, children will have effective or ineffective com-munication about sex with dating partners. Later still, enduring partners themselves may face the issue of parent-child communication about sex.

Family Sex Communication Translates Into Partner Sex Communication

As mentioned earlier, frequent and effective parent-child communication about sex facili-tates children’s open discussion with dating partners and positively influences, at least to some extent, children’s attitudes about birth control measures. Respondents reporting effective family sex communication also identified having a caring, nonpromiscuous

philosophy about sex (Warren & Neer, 1986). Catania et al. (1989) reported findings that show condom use and number of sexual part-ners were correlated with partner communica-tion skills. Whitaker, Miller, May, & Levin (1999) found that parent-teenager discussions about sexuality and risk that were open, skilled, and comfortable were associated with an increased likelihood of teenager-partner dis-cussion about sexual risk and condom use along with actual greater condom use. Stone and Ingham (2002) found that among young men, parents’ openness to talking about sex was a factor significantly associated with the odds of their having discussed contraceptive use when they had sex for the first time; simi-larly, among young women, the warmth and availability of parents were factors significantly associated with the odds of their having dis-cussed contraceptives when they had sex for the first time. Richards (2013) found “emerg-ing adults” (ages 18 to 28) who grew up with less controlling and more caring parents, and who engaged in parent-child communication about sex, were those respondents most likely to have better quality relationships and communication with partners and to practice safer sex.

Safer-Sex Negotiation and Sexual Consent

Further narrowing the scope of partner sex communication, one of the most important con-tent items is how dating partners perceive and communicate sexual consent. This issue exploded onto the national scene when the press brought public attention to the Antioch College policy in the autumn of 1993. This policy, developed by Antioch College three years earlier, required all Antioch students to obtain consent from their dating partners prior to engaging in sexual activ-ity and, once engaged in that activity, before proceeding to the next level of intimacy. Antioch



College (1990) defined consent as “the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in spe-cific sexual contact or conduct” (p. 1). Although the goal of this policy, according to Antioch’s president, was to encourage students to commu-nicate openly and honestly about their sexual desires and intentions, it created an international controversy. The Antioch policy was featured across the country and the globe.

The inescapable conclusion, even so close to the second millennium, was this: It’s one thing for young people in the United States to have sex, perhaps swept away in the heat of the moment; but to premeditatedly, dispassion-ately, rationally talk about and perhaps plan for sex was not culturally acceptable. It is precisely this kind of cultural climate, many argue, that does not help us solve the American youth sex problem.

Although the Antioch policy generated research interest in this area, scholars throughout the 1990s believed that little was known about specific consent patterns between dating part-ners (Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999), and later researchers continued to note that “little exist[s] in the extant literature on the tremendous role that communication has in the discussion and practice of safer sex” (Emmers-Sommer & Allen, 2005, p. xi). What, then, is known? In general, dating partners tend to avoid hot topics such as previous sexual experiences and planning for sexual intercourse (Knobloch & Carpenter-Theune, 2004). It appears that partners, both men and women, would rather engage in indirect than direct approaches to communicate sexual intent, perhaps because this pattern permits inti-mate access without the embarrassment of overt rejection (Lindgren, Schacht, Pantalone, & Blayney, 2009). Also, stark statements such as “I consent to sexual intercourse,” one of the scripts found in the guidelines of Antioch College, are unlikely to meet the romantic needs of most dating partners.

Nevertheless, “[S]afer-sex negotiation is con-sidered crucial for the implementation of safer

sexual behavior in dating partners’ sexual scripts” (Buysse & Ickes, 1999, p. 121). Negotiation is crucial because of the inconsistency of condom use among sexual intimates, despite the overall strides in recent years of reported condom use at last intercourse and declining nonmarital births among teens. Using a condom is the method most recommended to practice safe sex; too often, however, individuals forego condom usage in favor of their perceived ability to distinguish safe from unsafe partners. Indeed, partner selec-tion has been the preferred method in 70% to 80% of stable relationships to protect oneself from AIDS (Buysse, 1998).

Do three quarters of the sexually active young people in the United States have a reliable ability to select safe partners? The STD statistics along with the current rate of new HIV infection among teenagers argue otherwise; yet, only 53% of females and 45% of males discussed contra-ception or STDs with their partner prior to hav-ing first sex (Ryan, Franzetta, Manlove, & Holcombe, 2007).

Suggestions for Partner Sex Communication

Effective perception and communication of sexual consent? Negotiation of safer-sex? Current research compels the conclusion that such desir-able communication patterns among dating part-ners are still too often the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, the three basic principles and eight practical suggestions for parent-child communication about sex apply equally to sex communication between partners. Reworked, they might read as follows. In principle, serious dating partners should discuss sexual issues early in their relationship (even if they aren’t having sexual relations), openly, and interactively. Practically speaking, dating partners should try to have good general communication as well as effective communication about sex—begun early in the relationship and continuing throughout its



life—that features mutual dialogue created in a supportive environment.

Limitations of Past Research and Directions for Future Research

A critical look at the progress of an area is bound to discover areas for improvement or all answers would be in and there would be no further need for investigation. We first review methodological issues of past research and then offer suggestions for future research.

Past Research: Methodological Issues

In the mid-1990s, a major review was under-taken to assess the state of family sex communi-cation research (Warren, 1995). It is noteworthy that much of the research criticism still applies. To a great extent, research about family sex communication, and later partner communica-tion about sex, has proceeded less robustly and innovatively than desirable because the research question, nature of participants, and interaction venue constitute a tough nut to crack. When faced with getting access to the right cadre of subjects in order to get timely information from them about the most personal of matters, researchers may settle for expediency over exac-titude. A number of methodological issues con-tinue to surface and appear to be remarkably enduring across the years. The seven highlighted issues are causality, convenient subject selection, lack of longitudinal study, masking effect, reli-ability of measures, retrospective surveys, and sampling error.

Causality. Causality and correlation used to be methodological topics of concern. Many contem-porary researchers appear to have accepted the notion that correlation simply is the investigative

procedure most applicable to the human condi-tion. Nevertheless, in problem-oriented investiga-tion, causality still comes up. A compelling example in this area concerns studies that indicate a positive correlation between contraceptive use and effective family sex communication. It would be useful to know, of course, to what extent adolescents who faithfully engage in contraceptive behavior have adopted the practice because of effective parent-child communication about sex, or whether sexu-ally active and contraceptively responsible adolescents are more willing to talk with parents and partners about their beliefs and behaviors. Studies have not answered this question.

Convenient Subject Selection. Family and part-ner sex communication subjects often have been heterosexual older teenagers and college-aged young adults rather than adolescents actively engaged in the problem. It has been difficult for researchers to clear school review committee hurdles when questions about youth and sex are involved. Nevertheless, there are two significant problems with using older con-venience samples: (1) the difficulty for respon-dents to accurately recall real experiences, and (2) the motivation for respondents to answer questions (especially if sensitive ones) in socially desirable ways. Further, there is a pau-city of data on gay and lesbian family sex communication.

Lack of Longitudinal Study. A significant effect of parent-child communication about sex is long-range consequence; however, there is a dearth of longitudinally designed studies in the area. Most studies must guarantee ano-nymity to respondents who complete self-reports or agree to personal interviews. Partner sex communication respondents, who retro-spectively discuss family sex communication, achieve a kind of longitudinal effect; however, this set-up is a pale substitute for the true lon-gitudinal study that tracks respondents through significant portions of their relevant life-span.



Masking Effect. One of the more intriguing arti-factual inference problems is the effect of mask-ing the indices of dispersion. This effect largely is due to overall infrequent and ineffective levels of family sex communication. As previously summarized:

Sex-specific topics (e.g., contraceptive behavior) tend to emerge behind sex- general topics (e.g., attitudes about the role of sex in society) as significant variables during canonical correlation trials of fre-quency and effectiveness. Knowledge of adolescent development, however, would suggest this result happens not because sex-general topics are more important or rele-vant than sex-specific topics, but because the latter are seldom discussed. . . . The lack of a respondent group with high scores on the FSCQ or on other tests measuring effec-tive family sex communication therefore confounds data analysis through a masking effect. (Warren, 1995, p. 198)

This summary remains relevant. People, including children, are able to evaluate best that to which they are regularly exposed. As a result, partner communication studies experience less of a problem with the masking effect.

Reliability of Measures. Despite the knowledge that perceptual measures inherently contain a lot of error, single-item rather than multiple-item measurements of the dependent variable con-tinue to be used. Thus, measurement error (pos-sible only with multiple-item analysis) has been underreported. Moreover, a number of studies have yielded only moderately reliable dependent measures.

Retrospective Surveys. Paper-and-pencil tests also continue to be widely used as well as prob-lematic. The memory structuring process is cen-trally important to what gets stored; however, respondents generally are unable to analyze a

memory of the mediating process that initially stored a detail in the memory bank. Thus, accu-racy of self-reports and attendant information-coding often is a barrier in retrospective surveys. Years ago, Schwartz (1973) noted that experien-tial meaning is stored as an emotion, often a general feeling such as ease or disease. Experiences cannot be cued symbolically because they have not been stored as verbally based symbols. Paper-and-pencil tests nevertheless have mostly been exercises in fact finding (symbol recall) rather than attempts to obtain reference points of feel-ing, despite the decidedly emotional essence of the topic—teen sexuality.

Sampling Error. Surveys usually have been distributed only to one half of the child-parent unit—the child. Interviews have followed suit (partner research has fared somewhat better). Since respondents are often college-aged and in college, they not only must try to recall ado-lescent behavior and attitudes but they often must produce secondhand estimates of corre-sponding parental behavior and attitudes. Without actual parent reports, these youth recollections have no possibility to be verified and validated. For studies about preteen and teenage sex communication with parents, researchers often use select samples constitut-ing nonrepresentative groups that do not facil-itate random assignment.

Future Research: Directions and Implications

The following is a suggested list of future direc-tions that flow directly from the methodological issues. Four future targets include: naturalistic approach to response elicitation, paired response or interaction data-gathering, refinement of scales and tests, and theoretical models.

Naturalistic Approach to Response Elicitation. Using videotaped scenarios of family sex



communication might prove a creative way to manage inherent problems that accompany the use of surveys to gather information about ado-lescents’ often highly charged thoughts and feelings about sex. Adolescents grouped demo-graphically (by age and by level of sexual activ-ity, for example) could view a family sex communication video. Later, in focus groups, they could generate a list of effective versus ineffective strategies. Later still, different groups could sort and evaluate these lists. This type of naturalistic approach is a nonthreaten-ing (and underused) way to elicit suggestions from adolescents for parent-child communica-tion about sex.

Paired Response or Interaction Data-Gathering. Common sense dictates that data should be gathered from all parties involved in family sex communication. Despite this unarguable per-spective, data collection has proceeded too often as a one-sided (child-sided, with the child being of adult or almost-adult age) paper-and-pencil venture.

Historically, it has been difficult to get schools to allow the distribution of questionnaires about sex to students (the younger the students, the more difficult the access). Moreover, in the small number of cases attempting paired data-gathering, the dropout rate has been high when parents discovered their responses would be matched with their children’s. Paired sets of interviews often must be content with one parent participant from two-parent families. Interaction data-gathering (i.e., observing parents and chil-dren engaging in family sex communication) has been used even less. Partner studies, on the other hand, show greater respondent willingness to match answers.

This research area needs to forge ahead to analysis of paired responses among the constitu-ents of the family (including both parents, if relevant). Such a paired analysis will yield far richer information than do surveys and inter-views of only children or only parents or only one

parent matched with child in a two-parent unit or a mixture of the unmatched two. (See Warren & Olsen, 2005, for an extended discussion of paired responses.)

Refinement of Scales and Tests. Schor (1992) has suggested: “The interaction between what we want and what we get is . . . compli-cated . . . with standard survey evidence . . . per-fectly consistent with both views [do we get what we want or want what we get?]” (pp. 129-132). Forward-looking surveys constitute a type of structure that can help differentiate between these views, simply using forward-looking questions along with time-current questions in the instrument make-up. Time-current questions need to be used for respon-dents who are doing the activity in question. In an area of study where more respondents are inactive rather than active, however, time-cur-rent questions may be problematic for the same reason that the masking effect promotes arti-factual inference.

In developing the FSCQ, for example, Warren and Neer (1986) included three for-ward-looking, along with three time-current, questions in the value dimension category. Analysis of the FSCQ, across three dimensions and 18 questions, showed only two items not to contribute to the factor structure of the instrument—these were the time-current value questions (which were retained in the ques-tionnaire because they did not reduce the alpha estimate).

Forwarding-looking questions are a creative way to tackle the interactive evidence conun-drum. Even simpler, multiple scale items should replace single scale items of communication-based constructs in order to better test reliabil-ity issues.

Theoretical Models. Last but not least, a fam-ily and partner sex communication model eventually must be developed. Research in this area largely has been driven by need (high teen



pregnancy and abortion rates) and by outcomes (management/prevention of teen pregnancy, control of STD and HIV infection among sex partners). Furthermore, sex education studies have overshadowed sex communication stud-ies, with many researchers perhaps not under-standing the substantial difference between these two approaches. Finally, general family communication model building—often termed Family Communication Patterns (FCP) in line with the influential schema and scale of Koerner & Fitzpatrick (2006)—into which more specialized family communica-tion theories might be woven, remains in its own adolescent state of development. For example, studies have not addressed idealized and perceived FCP nor have they solved ques-tions about family satisfaction, still commonly proceeding to collect data from single respon-dents—typically older children (Baxter & Pederson, 2013). All of these conditions have slowed model building in family and partner sex communication.

In a full communication model for parent-child or partner communication about sex, mostly-ignored factors such as disclosure and empathy must receive full weight. In addition, strategies of conversation management (dis-course analysis) and concordant cues creation (nonverbal behavior) need to be developed so that parent-child or partner communication about sex is initiated and proceeds in ways to help all discussants feel more comfortable. And, the full range of demographic factors influencing communication styles (e.g., cultural background, educational attainment, gender differences, income level, political outlook, religiosity, sexual beliefs) must be identified so that parent and student education programs can identify and de-anchor attitudes that hinder effective communi-cation about sex. Without models to test, the final bedrock validity estimates of communica-tion as a mediator of sexual attitudes and behav-ior will remain more indeterminate than need be the case.

Conclusion

Despite the several research limitations identified, several important issues and conclusions related to family and partner sex communication have been discussed in the literature. In general, too many families do not have frequent or effective communication about sex. On the other hand, children who report satisfaction with parent-child sex communication also describe a predis-position toward open sex discussion with romantic partners as well as an overall sexual philosophy that includes caring attitudes and nonpromiscuous behaviors. One could say:

Of course I love you, / So let’s have a kid/ Who will say exactly / What its parents did; / “Of course I love you, / So let’s have a kid / Who will say exactly / What its parents did; / ‘Of course I love you, / So let’s have a kid / Who will say exactly / What its parents did —’” / Et cetera.

Vonnegut, 1985, p. 66.

Kurt Vonnegut captured a lot in this short poem: the power of parents to shape the outlook and actions of their children, the ubiquity and perhaps the serendipity of the love urge, and an imaginative reason to become an advocate for effective communication about sex with parents and partners. The arts and sciences appear to agree. It’s never too late or too early to start communicating.

References

Alan Guttmacher Institute. (1994). Sex and America’s teenagers. New York, NY: Author.

Alan Guttmacher Institute. (2012). Facts on unin-tended pregnancy in the United States. New York, NY: Author.

Albert, B. (2012). With one voice 2012: America’s adults and teens sound off about teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.



Antioch College. (1990). Sexual violence and safety. Yellow Springs, OH: Author.

Aspy, C. B., Vesely, S. K., Oman, R. F., Rodine, S., Marshall, L., Fluhr, J., & McLeroy, K. (2006). Youth-parent communication and youth sexual behavior: Implications for physicians. Adolescent Medicine, 38, 500-504.

Baxter, L. A., & Pederson, J. R. (2013). Perceived and ideal family communication patterns and family satisfaction for parents and their college-aged children. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 132-149.

Bennett, S. M., & Dickinson, W. B. (1988). Sex educa-tion inventory: Preferred and actual sources. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Sexuality-related measures: A compendium (pp. 73-77). Lake Mills, IA: Graphic.

Blake, S. M., Simkin, L., Ledsky, R., Perkins, C., & Calabrese, J. (2001). Effects of a parent-child communications intervention on young adoles-cents’ risk for early onset of sexual intercourse. Family Planning Perspectives, 33, 52-61.

Bonnell, K. H., & Caillouet, L. M. (1991, April). Patterns and communication barriers between teenagers and parents about sex-related topics. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Buysse, A. (1998). Safer sexual decision making in stable and casual relationships: A prototype approach. Psychology and Health, 13, 55-66.

Buysse, A., & Ickes, W. (1999). Communication pat-terns in laboratory discussions of safer sex between dating versus nondating partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 121-134.

Catania, J. A., Dolcini, M. M., Coates, T. J., Kegeles, S. M., Greenblatt, R. M., Puckett, S., Corman, M., & Miller, J. (1989). Predictors of condom use and multiple partnered sex among sexually-active adolescent women: Implications for AIDS-related health interventions. The Journal of Sex Research, 26, 514-524.

Centers for Disease Control. (2008). Sexually trans-mitted disease surveillance, 2007 [Pamphlet]. Atlanta, GA: Department of Health and Human Services.

Centers for Disease Control. (2010). Diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States and depen-dent areas, 2010 HIV surveillance report. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance/resources/

reports/2010report/pdf/2010_HIV_Surveillance_Report_vol_22.pdf

Children having children: Teen pregnancy in America. (1985, December 9). Time, cover.

Coffelt, T. A. (2010). Is sexual communication chal-lenging between mothers and daughters? Journal of Family Communication, 10, 116-130.

Elfenbein, D. S., & Felice, M. E. (2003). Adolescent pregnancy. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 50, 781-800.

Emmers-Sommer, T. M., & Allen, M. (2005). Safer sex in personal relationships: The role of sexual scripts in HIV infection and prevention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Everything your kids already know about sex: Bet you’re afraid to ask. (1998, June 15). Time, cover.

Figueiredo, B., Pacheco, A. P., & Costa, R. A. (2007). Depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period in adolescent and adult Portuguese mothers. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 10, 103-109.

Fisher, T. D. (1986). Parent-child communication about sex and young adolescents’ sexual knowl-edge and attitudes. Adolescence, 21, 517-527.

Fisher, T. D. (1987). Family communication and the sexual behavior and attitudes of college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 481-495.

Fisher, T. D. (1993). A comparison of various measures of family sex communication: Psychometric prop-erties, validity, and behavioral correlates. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 229-238.

Fox, G. L. (1981). The family’s role in adolescent sexual behavior. In T. Ooms (Ed.), Teenage pregnancy in a family context (pp. 73-130). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Herceg-Baron, R., Shea, J., & Webb, D. (1986). Family communication and contraceptive use among sexually active adoles-cents. In J. G. Lancaster & B. A. Hamburg (Eds.), School-age pregnancy and parenthood: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 219-243). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Galvin, K., Bylund, C., & Brommel, B. J. (2012). Family communication: Cohesion and change (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2010). Close encounters: Communication in relationships (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). ‘By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom’: How



young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 258-272.

Holub, C. K., Kershaw, T. S., Ethier, K. A., Lewis, J. B., Milan, S., & Ickovics, J. R. (2007). Prenatal and parenting stress on adolescent maternal adjust-ment: Identifying a high-risk subgroup. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 11, 153-159.

Hubbs-Tait, L., Osofsky, J. D., Hann, D. M., & Culp, A. M. (1994). Predicting behavior problems and social competence in children of adolescent mothers. Family Relations, 43, 439-446.

Inside their struggle: Teen mom. (2010, August 20). Us Weekly, cover.

Kids, sex, and values: Just do it, just say no, just wear a condom: What’s a kid supposed to think? (1993, May 24). Time, cover.

Kirby, D. (1984). Sexuality education: An evaluation of programs and their effects: An executive summary. Santa Cruz, CA: Network.

Kirkman, M., Rosenthal, D. A., & Feldman, S. S. (2005). Being open with your mouth shut: The meaning of ‘openness’ in family communication about sexuality. Sex Education, 5, 49-66.

Knobloch, L. K., & Carpenter-Theune, K. E. (2004). Topic avoidance in developing romantic relation-ships: Associations with intimacy and relational uncertainty. Communication Research, 31, 173-205.

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2006). Family communication patterns theory: A social cogni-tive approach. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication (pp. 50-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kost, K., & Henshaw. S. (2012). U.S. teenage pregnan-cies, births and abortions, 2008: National trends by age, race and ethnicity [Pamphlet]. New York City, NY: Guttmacher Institute.

Lindgren, K. P., Schacht, R. L., Pantalone, D. W., & Blayney, J. A. (2009). Sexual communication, sexual goals, and students’ transition to college: Implications for sexual assault, decision-making, and risky behaviors. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 491-503.

Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Ventura, S. J., Osterman, M. J. K., Wilson, E. C., McCurley, C., & Snyder, H. (2006). Risk, protection, and family structure [Bulletin]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Protection.

McKay, A., & Barrett, M. (2010). Trends in teen pregnancy rates from 1996-2006: A comparison of Canada, Sweden, USA, and England/Wales. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 19, 43-52.

Miller, K. S., Kotchick, B. A., Dorsey, S., Forehand, R., & Ham, A. V. (1998). Family communication about sex: What are parents saying and are their adoles-cents listening? Family Planning Perspectives, 30, 218-222.

Mollborn, S., & Morningstar, E. (2009). Investigating the relationship between depression and teenage childbearing using longitudinal evidence. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50, 310-326.

Mowbray, C., Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & MacFarlane, P. (2002). Parenting of mothers with a serious mental illness: Differential effects of diagnosis, clinical history, and other mental health vari-ables. Social Work Research, 26, 225-240.

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (2011). Counting it up—The public cost of teen childbearing: Key data [Pamphlet]. Washington, DC: Author.

Newcomer, S. F., & Udry, J. R. (1985). Parent-child communication and adolescent sexual behavior. Family Planning Perspectives, 17(4), 169-174.

O’Donnell, L., Wilson-Simmons, R., Dash, K., Jeanbaptiste, V., Myint-U, A., Moss, J., & Stueve, A. (2007). Saving sex for later: Developing a parent-child communication intervention to delay sexual initiation among young adolescents. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 7, 107-125.

Perper, K., Peterson, K., & Manlove, J. (2010). Diploma attachment among teen mothers [Fact sheet]. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Philliber, S. G. (1980). Socialization for childbearing. Journal of Social Issues, 36, 30-44.

Quinlivan, J. A., & Condon, J. (2005). Anxiety and depression in fathers in teenage pregnancy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39, 915-920.

Raffaelli, M., Bogenschneider, K., & Flood, M. K. (1998). Parent-teen communication about sexual topics. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 315-333.

Richards, N. M. (2013). Parental care, control, and communication about sex: The relation to risky sexual behaviors and relationship style in emerging adults. (Senior honors thesis). Retrieved from http://commons.emich.edu/honors/345.



Rosenthal, D. A., & Feldman, S. S. (1999). The impor-tance of importance: Adolescents’ perceptions of parental communication about sexuality. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 835-851.

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

Ryan, S., Franzetta, K., Manlove, J., & Holcombe, E. (2007). Adolescents’ discussions about contra-ception or STDs with partners before first sex. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39, 149-157.

Sales, J. M., Milhausen, R. R., Wingood, G. M., DiClemente, R. J., Salazar, L. F., & Crosby, R. A. (2008). Validation of a parent-adolescent communication scale for use in STD/HIV prevention interventions. Health Education and Behavior, 35, 332-345.

Schor, J. B. (1992). The overworked American. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schwartz, T. (1973). The responsive chord. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Search Institute. (1985). The life and family national demonstration project field experiment: Design, measures, analyses, and rationale. Minneapolis, MN: Author.

Sex education: What should children know? When should they know it? (1986, November 24). Time, cover.

Sills, M. R., Shetterly, S., Xu, S., Magid, D., & Kempe, A. (2007). Association between parental depres-sion and children’s health care use. Pediatrics, 119, 829-836.

Smith, M. (2004). Parental mental health: Disruptions to parenting and outcomes for children. Child and Family Social Work, 9, 3-11.

Solomon-Fears, C. (2013, April 15). Teenage pregnancy prevention: Statistics and programs (CRS paper). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Somers, C. L., & Canivez, G. L. (2003). The sexual communication scale: A measure of frequency of sexual communication between parents and ado-lescents. Adolescence, 38, 43-56.

Sonfield, A., Kost, K., Gold, R. B., & Finer, L. B. (2011). The public costs of births resulting from unin-tended pregnancies: National and state-level esti-mates. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 43, 94–102.

Stone, N., & Ingham, R. (2002). Factors affecting British teenagers’ contraceptive use at first intercourse:

The importance of partner communication. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34, 191-197.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Participation of mothers in government assistance programs: 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Vonnegut, K. (1985). Galápagos. New York, NY: Delacorte.

Warren, C. (1992). Perspectives on international sex practices and American family sex communi-cation relevant to teenage sexual behavior in the United States. Health Communication, 4, 121-136.

Warren, C. (1995). Parent-child communication about sex. In T. Socha & G. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, chil-dren, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 173-201). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Warren, C. (2000). Talking with your children about sex. In C. G. Waugh, W. I. Gorden, & K. M. Golden (Eds.), Let’s talk: A cognitive skills approach to interpersonal communication (pp. 292-295). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Warren, C. (2006). Communicating about sex with parents and partners. In K. M. Galvin & P. J. Cooper (Eds.), Making connections: Readings in relational communication (4th ed., pp. 319-326). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Warren, C. (2011). Family sex communication quo-tient. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (3rd ed., pp. 140-142). New York, NY: Routledge.

Warren, C., & Neer, M. (1986). Family sex communica-tion orientation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 14, 86-107.

Warren, C., & Olsen, N. (2005, November). A paired analysis of parent-child communication about sex. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, Boston, MA.

We miss our baby. (2010, September 20). People, cover.Weiss, D. (2012). Reducing teenage pregnancy [Fact

sheet]. New York, NY: Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Whitaker, D. J., Miller K. S., May, D. C., & Levin, M. L. (1999). Teenage partners’ communication about sexual risk and condom use: The importance of parent-teenager discussions. Family Planning Perspectives, 31, 117-121.



Wight, D., & Fullerton, D. (2013). A review of inter-ventions with parents to promote the sexual health of their children. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 4-27.

Zamboni, B. D., & Silver, R. (2009). Family sex com-munication and the sexual desire, attitudes, and behavior of late adolescents. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 4, 58-78.

Appendix

Family Sex Communication Quotient (FSCQ)

Directions: The following statements represent personal feelings about family discussions of sex. Please circle one of the five response categories that best describes your opinion: SA=strongly

agree, A=agree, N=neutral (or don’t know), D=disagree, SD=strongly disagree. Also, please answer these questions regardless of whether you have ever talked about sex with your parents. Don’t spend much time on any one question; make a choice and move to the next. Don’t ask others how they are answering their questions or how they think you should answer yours.

1 Sex should be one of the most important topics for parents and children to discuss.

SA A N D SD

2 I can talk to my parents about almost anything related to sex.

SA A N D SD

3 My parents know what I think about sex. SA A N D SD

4 It is not necessary to talk to my parents about sex. SA A N D SD

5 I can talk openly and honestly with my parents about sex. SA A N D SD

6 I know what my parents think about sex. SA A N D SD

7 The home should be a primary place for learning about sex.

SA A N D SD

8 I feel comfortable discussing sex with my parents. SA A N D SD

9 My parents have given me very little information about sex. SA A N D SD

10 Sex is too personal a topic to discuss with my parents. SA A N D SD

11 My parents feel comfortable discussing sex with me. SA A N D SD

12 Much of what I know about sex has come from family discussions.

SA A N D SD

13 Sex should not be discussed in the family unless there is a problem to resolve.

SA A N D SD

14 Sex is too hard a topic to discuss with my parents. SA A N D SD

15 I feel better informed about sex if I talk to my parents. SA A N D SD

16 The least important thing to discuss with my parents is sex. SA A N D SD

17 I feel free to ask my parents questions about sex. SA A N D SD

18 When I want to know something about sex, I generally ask my parents.

SA A N D SD



Scoring: The FSCQ measures a general orienta-tion toward discussion about sex in the family unit along three dimensions: Comfort (items 2-5-8-11-14-17), Information (items 3-6-9-12-15-18), and Value (items 1-4-7-10-13-16). You can give each SA answer a “5,” A answer a “4,” N a “3,” D a “2,” and SD a “1.” Six of the questions need to be reverse-scored (items 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16). Reverse scoring means the 5 and 1 weights are

interchanged, the 4 and 2 weights are interchanged, and the 3 remains the same. It is used in question-naire design to detect set-response behavior— a tendency of some folks to not think about the questions and, thus, to use the same answers regardless of the question asked. After pairing a number with the 18 questions, you can total them. A strong FSCQ orientation would be 72 or above.


Family and partner communication about sex

Documents

Transcript of Family and partner communication about sex