Sexual Communication Between Early Adolescents and Their Dating Partners, Parents, and Best Friends

Abstract

This study assessed early adolescents’ sexual communication with dating partners, parents, and best friends about six sexual health topics: condoms, birth control, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), pregnancy, and abstinence/waiting. Using a school-based sample of 603 youth (ages 12 to 15; 57% female; 46% Caucasian), we examined communication differences across demographic and developmental factors, tested whether communication with parents and best friends was associated with greater communication with partners, and examined associations between communication and condom use. More than half of participants had not discussed any sexual topics with their dating partners (54%), and many had not communicated with parents (29%) or best friends (25%). On average, communication was more frequent among adolescents who were female, African American, older, and sexually active, despite some variation in subgroups across partner, parent, and friend communication. Importantly, communication with parents and friends—and the interaction between parent and friend communication—was associated with increased communication with dating partners. Further, among sexually active youth, increased sexual communication with partners was associated with more frequent condom use. Results highlight the importance of understanding the broader family and peer context surrounding adolescent sexual decision making and suggest a possible need to tailor sexual communication interventions.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the many research assistants and research participants that made this study possible.

Notes

¹Based on pilot testing, our definition of dating partner included a “boyfriend/girlfriend or someone you like as ‘more than friends’ who you have talked to or hung out with.” All participants were asked if they had a “boyfriend/girlfriend” or other dating partner, regardless of gender, to avoid assumptions about sexual orientation. Adolescents who reported not having had a dating partner in the past year did not receive questions about communication with dating partners. Tests between youth with and without partner communication data revealed groups did not differ by age, t (866) = −0.35, p = .73, or ethnicity, χ² = .52, p = .51. However, boys were less likely than girls to have dated, χ² = 5.90, p < .05. In addition, compared to youth who had dated, youth who had not dated reported less sexual communication with friends, t (833) = −5.30, p < .01, and parents, t (834) = −4.88, p < .001.

n (%) = number and percentage who have engaged in any sexual communication on that topic in the past year; dating partner, n = 603; parent, n = 601; best friend, n = 597. (Phi) = Phi coefficient effect size for chi-square comparisons.

*All between group comparisons were significant using a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons (.05/24 = p < .002).

Note. Scale range for number of sexual topics = 0 to 6. F (Within) = within-group comparison by communication partner (dating partner, parent, or best friend). F (between) = between-group comparison by gender, ethnicity, or sexual activity status. η² = partial eta squared effect size. N = 589 [14 participants were excluded due to missing data on parent or friend communication (n = 7), ethnicity (n = 1), or sexual activity status (n = 6)].

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Note. MR [95% CI] = Mean Ratio [95% Confidence Interval]. Gender: 0 = girls, 1 = boys. Reference category for ethnicity = Caucasian. Sexual Activity Status: 0 = has not had sex, 1 = has had sex. N = 589 for negative binomial regression model; participants were excluded from this analysis if they were missing data on parent or friend communication (n = 7), sexual activity status (n = 6), or ethnicity (n = 1).

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grant R01-HD055342 awarded to Mitchell J. Prinstein. This work was also supported in part by funding from NIH/NIAID 5 T32 AI 07001-34: Training in Sexually Transmitted Diseases and HIV awarded to Laura Widman, and support from the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR000083). We further wish to acknowledge support from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Center for AIDS Research Social & Behavioral, Biostatistics, and Developmental Cores (P30 A150410).