J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:460470 DOI 10.

1007/s10826-012-9598-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Identifying Mediators of the Inuence of Family Factors on Risky Sexual Behavior

Leslie Gordon Simons Callie Harbin Burt Rachel Blyskal Tambling

Published online: 3 June 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract Participation in risky sexual behaviors has many deleterious consequences and is a source of concern for parents as well as practitioners, researchers, and public policy makers. Past research has examined the effect of family structure and supportive parenting on risky sexual behaviors among emerging adults. In the present study, we attempt to identify the mediators that explain this relationship. Using survey data from a sample of over 2,000 college students (1,297 females and 780 males) we use structural equation modeling to investigate the role of commitment to marriage, desired characteristics in an intimate partner, and sociosexuality in linking the inuence of family structure and supportive parenting to risky sexual behaviors. Results indicate that respondents from continuously married families were more committed to marriage, and this commitment reduced the probability of risky sexual behavior both directly, as well as indirectly through its negative impact on unrestricted sociosexuality. On the other hand, respondents who reported having supportive parents rated sensitivity and similarity of values as more important in a mate than physical attractiveness and sexual compatibility. This approach to mate selection reduces unrestricted sociosexuality and, in turn, risky sexual

behavior. Even after taking our mediators into account, there is still a direct effect of family factors on risky sexual behavior. Gender differences in the pattern of ndings are discussed and directions for future research are identied. Keywords Risky sexual behavior Family of origin Desired partner characteristics Commitment to marriage Sociosexuality

Introduction Participation in risky sexual behaviors is a source of major concern for parents, practitioners, researchers, and public policy makers. Risky sexual behaviors include early sexual debut, low rates of condom use, and high rates of partner change, including having multiple casual partners (Bond et al. 2002; Krantz et al. 2002; Metzler et al. 1992; Sarkar 2001). Participation in such behaviors has many serious implications. Having unprotected sex is associated with higher rates of unplanned pregnancy and an increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS and HPV, the latter of which is now the leading cause of cancers of the throat and cervix. Risky sexual behaviors also have important implications for psychological health. Having sex with a series of casual partners is associated with greater psychological distress including depression and anxiety, especially among women (Grello et al. 2003, Regenerus and Uecker 2011). There are potentially serious consequences for long-term relationships in adulthood as well. For example, age at rst intercourse is associated with number of premarital sexual partners, which is, in turn, positively related to incidence of extramarital sex (OConnor 2001). Both number of premarital sex partners and extramarital sex are predictive of

L. G. Simons (&) Department of Human Development and Family Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA e-mail: lgsimons@uga.edu C. H. Burt Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA R. B. Tambling Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA

123

J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:460470

461

marital instability (Previti and Amato 2004). Thus, risky sexual behavior during adolescence and emerging adulthood can have negative consequences in both the short and long term. Emerging adulthood was rst identied by Arnett (2000) and refers to a new developmental stage between adolescence and young adulthood. He notes that in the past several decades the experiences of most individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 who live in industrialized societies have undergone dramatic changes. Whereas in the past individuals routinely entered into marriage and parenthood in their early twenties, most people now do not make those transitions until they are in their late twenties or even older. Self-focused exploration related to intimate relationships, education, and career development now ll the period from the late teens through mid-twenties. From a developmental perspective, the lessons and messages learned at earlier stages continue to inuence individuals well into adolescence and emerging adulthood. For most individuals, the dominant developmental context is the family. The family serves as the primary agent of socialization and social control for children and adolescents (Simons et al. 2004). There is strong evidence that family factors are related to later participation in risky sex. Specically, two factors have been shown to be especially important: family structure and parenting. A large body of research indicates that individuals reared in single parent homes are at greater risk for participation in risky sexual behaviors. For both males and females, parental separation or divorce is related to teen pregnancy, permissive sexual behaviors, and frequency of intercourse (Jeynes 2001; Kiernan and Hobcraft 1997). Additionally, research has found that living with a single parent is related to early sexual debut and lower rates of contraceptive use (Miller 2002; Miller et al. 2001). Other studies report that parental relationship transitions such as divorce and reFamily Structure: Continuously Married

partnering are related to early sexual debut (Lohman and Billings 2007; Whitbeck et al. 1994) and an increased risk of teen pregnancy (Aseltine 2003; Miller 2002). Research has also established that certain parenting behaviors are associated with risky sexual behaviors. For instance, many studies have demonstrated the importance of parental warmth/support (Kapungu et al. 2006; Miller et al. 2001; Resnick et al. 1997; Rodgers 1999). Numerous studies (e.g., Miller et al. 2001; Resnick et al. 1997; Kapungu et al. 2006; Landor et al. 2011) have found that having warm and supportive parents is a protective factor against risky sexual behavior. Although there is compelling evidence that family structure and parenting practices inuence the probability of risky sexual behaviors, there is much less clarity regarding the mechanisms whereby these family factors produce this effect. It is this issue that informs the present study. We test a developmental model that species constructs that mediate the effect of family structure and parenting on risky sexual behavior. Developmental models assume that the family is an important socialization context that fosters attitudes and beliefs that are carried forward to inuence behavior during adolescence and continue into emerging adulthood (Arnett 2007). Using this framework, our hypothesized model (see Fig. 1) assumes that much of the impact of family structure and parenting on risky sexual behavior is mediated by attitudes and beliefs involving commitment to the institution of marriage, desired characteristics in a romantic partner, and desire for unrestricted or uncommitted sex. Using a developmental perspective, the theoretical model identies several avenues whereby family structure is related to risky sexual behavior. First, we expect family structure to be signicantly related to ideological commitment to marriage. For most individuals in late adolescence or emerging adulthood, marriage is a predictable life

+
Commitment to Marriage Unrestricted Sociosexuality Commitmentrelated Partner Attributes Risky Sexual Behaviors

+
Quality of Parenting

Fig. 1 Theoretical model

123

462

J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:460470

cycle transition; they expect and desire to marry sometime in their future and view marriage as a life-long commitment (Martin et al. 2001, 2003). Overall, most of these individuals are also positive about the idea of marriage and tend to overrate their abilities to sustain a successful marriage (Martin et al. 2003). Family structure plays a key role in the development of commitment to marriage (Martin et al. 2003; Risch et al. 2004). Those from single-parent (divorced or never married) or blended family households are less likely to believe that they have the skills necessary for a successful marriage (Martin et al. 2003). Research indicates that adolescents and emerging adults view divorce as a negative and unwanted outcome of marriage (Risch et al. 2004) but family structure appears to make a difference in views of how likely they feel that they are to divorce (Amato and DeBoer 2001; Risch et al. 2004). Individuals who have experienced divorce in their family of origin are more likely to believe that their own marriage will end in divorce (Risch et al. 2004). Such individuals are likely to report lower levels of commitment to marriage and more likely to report positive feelings about divorce as a normal variation in family patterns (Amato and DeBoer 2001; Amato and Rogers 1999). Therefore, we expect that individuals whose parents have not been continuously married to have lower commitment to the institution of marriage. We expect that commitment to marriage, in turn, inuences an individuals willingness to engage in sexual relations without closeness, commitment, and other indicators of emotional bonding, an approach referred to as unrestricted sociosexuality (Simpson and Gangestad 1992). Those who seek high commitment partners, such as potential marital partners, have been found to desire sex as part of a loving, committed relationship more than individuals who seek low commitment partners or who seek partners primarily on the basis of physical attractiveness or sexual compatibility (Oliver and Sedikides 1992; Simpson and Gangestad 1992). If an individual seeks to enter and maintain a marital relationship, highly unrestricted sociosexuality would not be benecial to the maintenance of that relationship. We also expect that family structure is associated with sociosexuality. Research has shown that divorced mothers develop less restrictive attitudes toward sex (Thornton and Camburn 1987; Whitbeck et al. 1994) and that their daughters perceived this shift in attitude and subsequently developed more casual attitudes toward sex themselves. Ultimately, these daughters were found to be more sexually active than their counterparts from twoparent families. We interpret these ndings as indicating that individuals from divorced or single parent families have more unrestricted attitudes about sex. We expect that this view of sex to, in turn, predict involvement in risky sexual behavior. Past research has reported a strong association between acceptance of casual sex and subsequent

early sexual debut as well as an increased numbers of partners (Kan et al. 2010; Musick and Bumpass 1999; Rostosky et al. 2003; Whitbeck et al. 1994). Finally, in addition to its indirect inuence through commitment to marriage and unrestricted sociosexuality, we expect that family structure has a direct effect on risky sexual behavior. Single and divorced parents ability to exert control over or to monitor and discipline their offspring is lessened (Demo and Acock 1996). Decits in control, monitoring, and discipline have all been linked to a variety of problem behaviors, including early sexual debut (Breivik et al. 2009; Dishion and McMahon 1998). Individuals who live in single-parent homes as a result of divorce engage in sexual intercourse earlier and to have more sexual partners (Huebner and Howell 2003; Miller et al. 1999). This relationship remains after controlling for other predictors of early sexual debut and number of sexual partners (Breivik et al. 2009; Miller et al. 1999). Family structure may also inuence sexual behavior through modeling (Whitbeck et al. 1994). Young people become aware of their divorced or otherwise single parents sexuality and dating behaviors. One would expect the parents dating behaviors to be particularly salient to their offspring who are dealing with similar issues in their own lives. Our developmental model posits that supportive parenting impacts the probability of risky sexual behavior through a somewhat different set of avenues than those identied for family structure. First, supportive parenting is expected to inuence the characteristics that an individual seeks in a romantic partner. Parentchild relationships tend to serve as developmental precursors to the types of relationships that are established with peers and romantic partners (Conger et al. 2001). Youths who have had an intimate, trusting relationship with their parents grow up to value friendships and romantic relationships involving selfdisclosure and emotional closeness (Berlin et al. 2006). Those with harsh or rejecting parents; on the other hand, develop a cynical, distrustful view of others and their peers as well as romantic relationships are often supercial, volatile, and unstable. Thus, we posit that warm, supportive parenting increases the probability that individuals will emphasize romantic partner characteristics that enhance intimacy, trust, and closeness, such as sensitivity and similarity of attitudes and values. In contrast, we expect that those who received low levels of parental support are likely to stress more supercial partner characteristics such as physical attractiveness and sex appeal while showing little concern with attributes that foster closeness and intimacy. We posit that individuals who prefer commitment-related characteristics in a partner, in turn, exhibit a decrease in casual attitudes about sex and involvement in risky sex. This expectation is supported by studies showing a

123

J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:460470

463

difference in the factors associated with the selection of a long term mate versus a short term sexual partner. In general, individuals report they are more likely to engage in casual sexual relationships with partners who are physically attractive, sexually responsive, and have a high sex drive (Regan and Joshi 2003). When looking for a shortterm partner, such as when one is dating for fun or hooking up, physical attractiveness is a very important consideration (Buss and Schmitt 1993, Buss et al. 2001). Similarly, Simpson and Gangestad (1992) found that individuals with more casual attitudes about sex tend to seek romantic partners who are physically and sexually attractive. When attention turns towards establishing a more long-term or stable romantic relationship, however, the basis for attraction broadens to include emotional and social compatibility (Regan et al. 2000). In addition to its effect through partner characteristics, we expect that supportive, parenting inuences offsprings sexual attitudes. In general, parents want their offspring to develop a responsible, safe approach to sex. Warm, supportive parents tend to have open lines of communication with their teens and engage in discussion of difcult topics such as sex (Clawson and Reese-Weber 2003). Further, offspring who have a close relationship with their parents are more likely to espouse values similar to those of their parents (Meschke et al. 2000). Therefore, we expect that individuals who experienced warm and supportive parenting will have developed lower sociosexuality. Finally, we expect that supportive parenting will have a direct effect upon involvement in risky sex. For example, attachment theory would predict that parents low in warmth and support tend to foster a cynical, distrusting view of intimate relationships (Main et al. 1985). Past research shows that insecurely attached persons prefer short-term sexual relationships involving little commitment or intimacy (Gentzler and Kerns 2004; Tracy et al. 2003). There is also evidence that some insecurely attached individuals use sex early in a relationship or engage in casual sex as a means of gaining acceptance (Bogaert and Sadava 2002; Gangstad and Thornhill 1997). Thus, based on the principles of attachment theory, we expect that rejecting, uninvolved parents increase their offsprings chances of engaging in risky sexual behavior during late adolescence and emerging adulthood through the interpersonal models fostered by their parenting practices.

urban areas during the 20012002 academic years. IRB approval was obtained at both institutions. Questions focused on family of origin and various issues salient to a college student population such as current and past relationship experiences, and attitudes and behaviors regarding sex and marriage. Pencil and paper surveys were administered and, due to the personal nature of some items, completion of the survey was proctored like an exam. Participation was voluntary and there were no identiers on the survey instrument. Virtually all students present in class on the day the survey was administered agreed to participate. This yielded a sample consisting of 791 (37.5 %) males and 1,317 (62.4 %) females. As expected, more than 95 % of the sample were less than 25 years of age, with 241 individuals (11 %) 18 years or younger, 1,031 (49 %) 1921 years, 759 (36 %) 2124 years, 48 (2 %) 2530 years, and 31 (\1.5 %) 31 years or older. A majority of the sample (68 %) came from families where both parents received more than a high school education. Median family income for the sample fell in the range of $50,000 to $75,000 per year. Data provided by the universities Housing ofces indicates that approximately one-third of the students live in university dorms, 15 % live in fraternity or sorority housing, and of the remaining who reside off campus, approximately 5 % live at home with their parents or legal guardians. Thirty-three respondents were missing on one or more of the study variables and were dropped from the analyses; thus, the sample size for the analyses presented here is 2,077 (1,297 females, 780 males). Measures Risky Sexual Behavior Three items were used to construct the dependent variable. The items included: age at rst sexual intercourse, number of premarital sex partners, and frequency of condom use (1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = always). The items were recoded such that individuals who had never experienced sexual intercourse were scored zero. The items were standardized, summed, and averaged, creating a mean scale. The resulting measure ranges from -1.41 (those who never experienced sexual intercourse) to 1.94 (those who rst engaged in intercourse before the age of 15, have had intercourse with more than 8 partners, and never use condoms). Chronbachs alpha was .70. Unrestricted Sociosexuality This construct was assessed using Reisss 5-item Sexual Permissiveness Scale (Reiss 1967). Respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they agreed (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) that sexual intercourse is acceptable on a

Method Sample Data were collected from 2,108 undergraduates enrolled in sociology courses at two large state universities located in

123

464

J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:460470

rst date, when casually dating, in an exclusive relationship for more than 1 year, engaged to be married, or married. A high score was consistent with a less restricted approach to sexuality. Chronbachs alpha for this scale was .86. Commitment-related Partner Characteristics This four item mean scale indicated the extent to which the respondents rate as important (1 = not at all important to 5 = extremely important) various characteristics of potential partners. The items included: being sensitive and having similar values, as well as reverse coded physical attractiveness and sexual compatibility. High scorers indicated that having similar values and being sensitive are extremely important whereas physical attractiveness and sexual compatibility were less important. Chronbachs alpha was .68. Commitment to Marriage This construct was created from three items that assess the respondents beliefs about marriage. Respondents were asked about their beliefs about the following statements: Marriage is a lifelong commitment, Getting married is very important to me, and People should stay married for their children even if the marriage is not personally satisfying. Responses ranged from 1 Strongly disagree to 5 Strongly agree. High scorers on this mean scale strongly agreed with all three statements. Chronbachs alpha for the measure was .60. Supportive Parenting This construct was assessed using the Parental Support Scale developed for the National Youth Survey (Elliott et al. 1985, 1989). Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which the following four statements described their parents attitudes and behaviors while they were growing up: My parents really trusted me, My parents were unhappy with many of the things I did, My parents often found fault with me even when I didnt deserve it, and My parents really cared about me. The response format ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The second and third items were reverse coded; thus, higher scores indicated more supportive parenting. Chronbachs alpha for the mean scale was .73. Reports of parental support by offspring have been shown to correlate highly with parent and observers reports of those parenting behaviors (Conger and Elder 1994). Continuously-married Family Structure This dichotomous measure was formed using an item that asked the respondents to indicate their parents current

marital status. Response categories included: my parents were never married, my parents were married but are now divorced, one or more of my parents has remarried, my parents are still married to each other. Respondents who indicated their parents were still married were coded 1, comprising 75 % of the sample. All other family forms were coded zero. Family SES Respondents were asked to report their family income according to 15 categories, range from 1 = less than $30,000 (4.0 %) to 5 = more than $120,000 (32.6 %). Median income was $50,000$75,000. Respondents were also asked to report the highest education level of their mother and father, separately. Responses ranged from 1 = Grade school or less to 5 = Completed college or more. Median response for both parents was completed high school and attended some college or technical school.

Results Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlation matrices separated by gender for the study variables. The correlations for females are above the diagonal whereas those for females are below the diagonal. In general, the pattern of correlations is similar for males and females and is largely consistent with the model to be tested. Both continuously-married family structure and supportive parenting show signicant associations with risky sexual behavior. In addition, continuously-married family structure is related to commitment to marriage and quality of parenting is associated with commitment-related partner characteristics. Risky sexual behavior is related to all of the potential mediators. Unexpectedly, however, both continuously-married family structure and supportive parenting are related to unrestricted sociosexuality for males but not females. Also, supportive parenting is signicantly correlated with commitment to marriage for females but not males. Structural equation modeling (AMOS 5.0; Arbuckle 2003) was used to test the proposed theoretical model. To assess goodness-of-t, Steigers Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Browne and Cudek 1992), the comparative t index (CFI; Bentler 1990), and the Chisquare divided by its degrees of freedom (t ratio) were used. The CFI was truncated to the range of 01, and values close to 1 indicated a very good t (Bentler 1990). An RMSEA smaller than .05 indicated a close t; an RMSEA between .05 and .08 showed a reasonable t (Browne and Cudek 1992). Due to divergences in the

123

J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:460470 Table 1 Correlation matrix for study variables 1 1. Family structure (1 = continuously married) 2. Supportive parenting 3. Commitment to marriage 4. Commitment-related partner characteristics 5. Unrestricted sociosexuality 6. Risky sexual behavior Mean SD .02 -.14** -.04 .09** .16** .23 .42 2 -.05* .02 .11* -.09* -.15** 1.34 .59 .13** -.17** -.07* 3.11 .39 -.34** -.20** 3.08 .37 3 -.19** .07** 4 -.04 .10* .07** 5 .04 -.01 -.10** -.23** -.35** 2.82 .68 -.06 .76 6 -.19** -.15** -.14** -.19** .33** Mean .27 1.41 2.97 3.37 2.65 -.05

465

SD .44 .59 .40 .35 .61 .80

Correlations for females above the diagonal (n = 1,297) and for males below the diagonal (n = 780) * p B .05; ** p B .01 (two-tailed)

Fig. 2 Reduced structural equation model for males

Continuously Married Family Structure .15*

-.13* Commitment to Marriage -.12*

-.11* Unrestricted Sociosexuality -.32* -.08* .31* RiskySexual Behaviors

.02

Commitmentrelated Partner Attributes .11* Supportive Parenting -.11*

n = 780; * t >2.50; 2 (df) = 4.43 (4) p =.351 CFI =.998 RMSEA =.012 GFI =.990 2 =4.43(4) p =.351

correlations by gender, we estimated the SEM models separately for males and females. In addition, we examined whether there are signicant gender differences in these structural relations. Finally, we controlled for family socioeconomic status and age of respondent. We began by estimating the fully recursive SEM model for males. Several of the paths were near zero and had low t values. In an effort to obtain a more parsimonious model, paths with a t statistic of 1.5 or below were deleted, and the model was re-estimated. The results for the reduced model are presented in Fig. 2. The Chi-square, CFI, and root mean squared error of approximation all indicated that the model adequately t the data. The difference in Chi-square (Dv2 = 4.43, df = 4) between the reduced and fully recursive model did not approach statistical signicance (p = .351). Thus, the reduced model appeared to provide a more parsimonious t to the data. Importantly, the model trimming did not modify the relative valence of the remaining paths in the model. The magnitude and signicance levels for the paths shown in Fig. 2 were comparable with those obtained in the fully recursive model.

Figure 2 shows partial support for the predictions. Continuously-married family structure is positively related to commitment to marriage (b = .13), and this commitment, in turn, has a signicant, negative association with unrestricted sociosexuality (b = -.11). However, as shown in Table 2, the indirect effect of continuouslymarried family structure on unrestricted sociosexuality only approaches statistical signicance. Commitment to marriage directly inuences risky sexual behavior and also has a signicant indirect effect through unrestricted sociosexuality. In addition to its signicant indirect effect through commitment to marriage and unrestricted sociosexuality, continuously-married family structure also shows a direct effect on risky sexual behaviors (b = .13). The zero-order correlation between continuously-married family structure and risky sex reported in Table 1 was -.17. This relationship is reduced to -.13 in the path model in Fig. 2. This indicates that the mediating variables of commitment to marriage and unrestricted sociosexuality explained 24 % of the association between continuouslymarried family structure and risky sexual behavior.

123

466 Table 2 Signicant indirect effects by gender Mediated effect of Quality of parenting Quality of parenting Continuously married family structure Continuously married family structure Commitment-related partner characteristics Commitment to marriage * p B .05; ** p B .020;

J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:460470

On this variable Unrestricted sociosexuality Risky sexual behavior Unrestricted sociosexuality Risky sexual behavior Risky sexual behavior Risky sexual behavior p \ .10 (two-tailed tests)

Females -.021* -.014* -.021** -.017** -.069** -.032*

Males -.029** -.027** -.281* -.031 -.102** -.037**

Fig. 3 Reduced structural equation model for females

Continuously Married Family Structure

-.15* .19*
Commitment to Marriage

-.10* .05
Commitmentrelated Partner Attributes

-.09*
Unrestricted Sociosexuality

.30*

Risky Sexual Behaviors

-.22*

-.10*

.10*
Supportive Parenting

-.12*
n = 1297; * t >2.50; 2(df) = 2.317(3) p =.509 CFI = 1.000 RMSEA = .000 GFI = 1.000 2 = 2.317 p =.509

Figure 2 shows that supportive parenting has a signicant effect on commitment-related partner attributes (b = .10). Commitment-related partner attributes has a strong inverse association with unrestricted sociosexuality (b = -.32) which, in turn, shows a strong positive relationship (b = .32) with risky sexual behavior. As shown in Table 2, this indirect effect of commitment-related partner attributes on risky sexual behavior is statistically signicant. Commitment-related partner attributes also shows a direct association with risky sexual behavior (b = -.08). The table also shows that the indirect effect of quality of parenting on unrestricted sociosexuality through partner characteristics is statistically signicant as is its indirect effect on risky sexual behavior through commitment-related partner characteristics and unrestricted sociosexuality. The zero-order correlation between supportive parenting and risky sexual behavior in Table 1 was -.15. The direct effect of supportive parenting on risky sexual behavior in Fig. 2 is -.11. Thus, commitment-related partner characteristics and unrestricted sociosexuality mediate 27 % of the impact of supportive parenting on risky sexual behavior. The explained variance (R2) for risky sexual behaviors in the reduced model for males is roughly 18 %.

We estimated the model for females in the same manner as for males. The reduced model is shown in Fig. 3. The difference in Chi-square (Dv2 = 2.317, df = 3) between the reduced and fully recursive model was not signicant (p = .509). The indices of model t suggested that the model t the data well. The RMSEA was .000 and the GFI was .99. Figure 3 shows a pattern of ndings that is very similar to that found for males. As was the case for males, continuously-married family structure is positively related to commitment to marriage (b = .19) and the indirect effect of commitment-related family structure on unrestricted sociosexuality through marital commitment is signicant; likewise the direct inuence of family structure on risky sexual behaviors was signicant (b = -.15). Commitment to marriage directly inuences risky sexual behavior and also has a signicant indirect effect through unrestricted sociosexuality. In addition to its signicant indirect effect through commitment to marriage and unrestricted sociosexuality, family structure also shows a direct effect on risky sexual behaviors (b = -.15). The zeroorder correlation between commitment-related family structure and risky sex reported in Table 1 was -.19. Thus, the mediating variables of commitment to marriage and

123

J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:460470

467

unrestricted sociosexuality explained 21 % of the association between commitment-related family structure and risky sexual behavior. As was the case for males, Fig. 3 shows that supportive parenting is signicantly associated with commitmentrelated partner attributes (b = .07) for females. Commitment-related partner attributes has an inverse association with unrestricted sociosexuality (b = -.22), which in turn is positively related to risky sexual behaviors b = .30). This indirect effect of commitment-related partner attributes on risky sexual behavior through unrestricted sociosexuality is statistically signicant. Also, the indirect effect of supportive parenting through commitment-related partner attributes and unrestricted sociosexuality is statistically signicant. Finally, in addition to this indirect effect, supportive parenting shows a signicant direct effect of -.12. The zero-order correlation between these two variables in Table 1 was .15. Thus, for females 20 % of the variance between supportive parenting and risky sexual behavior is mediated by commitment-related partner attributes and unrestricted sociosexuality. The variance in risky sexual behavior explained in the reduced model for females was 19 %. Comparing Figs. 2 and 3, a few of the path coefcients appear to differ by respondents gender. To determine whether these differences are statistically signicant, we ran multiple group analyses. In the rst part of these analyses, we compared two models: a constrained model, in which all structural weights were required to be equal across groups, and an unconstrained model, in which these parameter estimates were allowed to differ across the groups. Comparison tests for the gender invariance models demonstrated that the non-restricted model t the data better than the restricted model, as measured by a Chisquare difference test (Dv2 df 88:7410 ; p \ .001). Thus, statistically, the structural model was different for males and females, which begs the question: which parameters vary by gender? To answer this question, we estimated a sequence of models testing the extent to which the model t deteriorated when various parameters were constrained to be equivalent. As shown in Table 3, gender moderated the effects of only two parameters. In both instances the nature of the difference was that the effect was stronger for
Table 3 Signicant differences by gender of respondent Path from Marital commitment Continuously married family structure Commitment-related partner characteristics Quality of parenting
a

males. This was true for the path from continuously-married family structure to marital commitment as well as the path from commitment-related partner characteristics to unrestricted sociosexuality.

Discussion Participation in risky sexual behavior has many serious implications. Past research has provided strong evidence for the inuence of family factors on this behavior. Specically, a household that includes two caregivers as well as a warm, supportive approach to parenting have been shown to be negatively related to risky sexual behavior. We extend this research by investigating potential mediating mechanisms in the relationship between family factors and risky sexual behavior. Our results were quite similar for males and females and largely consistent with our hypothesized model. Our ndings indicate that the two components of family context that have been found to inuence an adolescents probability of engaging in risky sexual behaviorfamily structure and supportive parentingexert their inuence through somewhat different avenues. Past research has reported that children of divorced and single parent families possess a more cynical view of marriage than those raised in two-parent, continuously married families (Amato and Rogers 1999; Amato and DeBoer 2001; Riggio and Weiser 2008). In keeping with this nding, we found that family structure exerts an indirect effect upon risky sexual behavior through its impact on marital commitment. Respondents from continuously married families were more committed to marriage, and this commitment reduced the probability of risky sexual behavior both directly, as well as indirectly through its negative impact on casual sexual attitudes. This pattern of ndings suggests that orientation toward marriage may be an important variable in understanding an individuals approach to sexual behavior in emerging adulthood. Strong commitment to marriage seems to operate as a social control by fostering lower sociosexuality and fewer risky sexual behaviors. Supportive parenting, on the other hand, had an indirect effect on risky sexual behavior through its effect on partner

To this variable Risky sexual behavior Marital commitment Unrestricted sociosexuality Commitment-related partner characteristics

Femalesa -.06 .19 -.22 .05

Malesa -.11 .13 -.32 .09

Dv2 17.34 5.99 12.53 4.29

p .000 .014 .001 .038

Standardized beta shown

123

468

J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:460470

attributes. Respondents who reported having supportive parents rated sensitivity and similarity of values as more important in a mate than physical attractiveness and sexual compatibility. The opposite was true for those with less supportive parents. We expect that this association is explained in large measure by the models of intimate relationships fostered by these two approaches to parenting. Supportive parents demonstrate the importance of qualities like sensitivity and closeness. Their offspring are likely to seek those qualities in a romantic partner. On the other hand, low parental support has been linked to a cynical, distrustful view of intimate relationships (Feeney 2008). Consequently, offspring might be expected to emphasize partner qualities unrelated to closeness, such as partner attractiveness and sexual compatibility. Our results indicate support for this idea. Regardless of whether relational models explain the association between supportive parenting and partner preferences, our results indicate that valuing sensitivity and shared values over physical attractiveness and sexual compatibility reduces unrestricted sociosexuality and, in turn, risky sexual behavior. In addition to this indirect effect, partner preferences also have a small direct effect on risky sexual behavior. Thus, it appears that the characteristics preferred in a romantic partner, as was the case with commitment to marriage, operates as a social control that fosters more restricted sociosexuality and less risky sexual behaviors. After taking into account their indirect effects through commitment to marriage and preferred partner characteristics, both family structure and supportive parenting continued to be associated with risky sexual behavior. While 2030 % of the effect of these family variables on risky sexual behavior was mediated by the various constructs included in our model, this raises the question of the mechanisms that might account for the remainder these family inuences. We surmise that two unmeasured factors partially explain the remaining effect of family structure on risky sexual behavior. First, several studies have reported that single parents tend to engage in parenting characterized by lower demandingness (e.g., lower monitoring and less consistent discipline) than two continuously married caregivers (Apel and Kaukinen 2008; Breivik et al. 2009; Simons et al. in press). It may be that this less restrictive approach accounts for some portion of the association between family structure and adolescent risky sexual behavior. Second, there is evidence that adolescents are inuenced by the dating behavior of their single parents (Whitbeck et al. 1994). Thus, it may not be children of single parents in general, but rather those with dating parents who are at higher probability of engaging in risky sexual behavior. In addition to commitment to marriage, future research investigating the on the effect of family structure on adolescent risky sexual behavior needs to

include parental monitoring and dating activities as potential mediating variables. Perhaps the remaining effect of supportive parenting on risky sexual behavior can be explained by relational models fostered by this approach to parenting. As demonstrated by research on attachment theory, avoidantly attached persons are comfortable in short-term sexual relationships involving little commitment or intimacy (Gentzler and Kerns 2004; Tracy et al. 2003) and anxiously attached individuals often use early sex, sex without commitment or emotional bonding, and indelity as a means of gaining acceptance (Bogaert and Sadava 2002; Gangstad and Thornhill 1997). Thus, parents who display little warmth or support may increase their childs chances of risky sexual behavior through the insecure attachment styles and associated relational models fostered by their parenting behavior. Therefore, in addition to preferred partner characteristics, future research investigating the effect of supportive parenting on risky sexual behaviors in emerging adulthood needs to include attachment style. In the present study we use attachment theorys perspective on models of relationships to develop and test ideas about the inuence of supportive parenting on preferred partner characteristics and sexual attitudes and behaviors, but we did not actually assess relational models. However, our present ndings are consistent with the idea that it is relational models that link the various constructs in our study. This idea needs to be tested in subsequent research. As noted, the pattern of ndings was quite similar for males and females. Only two associations differed by gender, and in both instances the nature of the difference was that the effect was stronger for males. This was true for the path from continuously-married family structure to marital commitment as well as the path from commitment-related partner characteristics to unrestricted sociosexuality. These differences were unexpected. It may be, however, that an intact, two-parent family has more of an impact upon the marital commitment of males as they are generally less committed to marriage than females (Whitehead and Popenoe 2001). Similarly, preferred partner characteristics may have more of an impact on the sexual attitudes of males because, compared to females, they are generally more concerned with physical attractiveness and sexual compatibility than to sensitivity and similarity in values (Simpson and Gangestad 1992; Buss et al. 2001). Thus, in both cases, the explanatory variables could be having more of an effect on the outcome because it is inuencing a strong tendency for males to behave otherwise. On the other hand, because these coefcients are in the same direction and of roughly comparable magnitude, their statistical difference may simply be a result of the large number of cases in the sample. Finally, the limitations of the study need to be acknowledged. First, abbreviated measures were used for

123

J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:460470

469 Arnett, J. J. (2007). Socialization in emerging adulthood. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 208255). New York: Guilford Press. Aseltine, R. H. (2003). The impact of parental divorce on premarital pregnancy. Adolescent and Family Health, 3, 122129. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative t indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246. Berlin, L. J., Cassidy, J., & Appleyard, K. (2006). The inuence of early attachments on other relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 333347). New York: Guilford Press. Bogaert, A. F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behavior. Personal Relationships, 9, 191204. Bond, L., Lavelle, K., & Lauby, J. (2002). A comparison of the risk characteristics of ever-pregnant and never- pregnant sexually active adolescents. Journal of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Education for Adolescents and Children, 5, 123137. Breivik, K., Olweus, D., & Endresen, I. (2009). Does the quality of parent-child relationships mediate the increased risk for antisocial behavior and substance use among adolescents in singlemother and single-father families? Journal of Marriage and Divorce, 50, 400426. Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model t. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230258. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204232. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half-century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491503. Clawson, C. L., & Reese-Weber, M. (2003). The amount and timing of parent-adolescent sexual communication as predictors of late adolescent sexual risk-taking behaviors. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 256265. Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (1994). Families in troubled times. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Conger, R. D., Ming, G., & Bryant, C. M. (2001). Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family inuences. Prevention and Treatment, 4, 125. Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1996). Family structure, family process, and adolescent well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 457488. Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 6175. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, substance use, and mental health problems. New York, NY: Springer. Feeney, J. A. (2008). Adult romantic attachment: Developments in the study of couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 456481). New York: Guilford. Gangstad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolutionary psychology of extra pair sex: The role of uctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 6988. Gentzler, A. L., & Kerns, K. A. (2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual experiences. Personal Relationships, 11, 249265. Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., Harper, M. S., & Dickson, J. W. (2003). Dating and sexual relationship trajectories and adolescent functioning. Adolescent and Family Health, 3, 103112.

some of the constructs. As a consequence, the reliabilities for these measures were somewhat lower than optimal. It is the case, however, that reduced reliability has the effect of attenuating the true relationships that exist between constructs. Thus, the fact that signicant effects were obtained might be interpreted as a conservative test of the relationship between the study constructs. Still, there is a need to replicate our ndings using more comprehensive measures. Second, the present study did not consider other factors known to inuence risky sexual behavior, specically peer inuence. Extant research has demonstrated that peers are an important inuence when it comes to participation in risky sexual behavior. Unfortunately, such data were not available in the present study. Our ndings are limited to inuences associated with the family of origin. Third, we did not have data on some variables that may be important considerations for future research. Specically, we do not have data on marital status. It is likely the case that there are some married respondents in our sample, though to the extent that this is true, it would likely have the effect of attenuating the magnitude of the relationships between variables. Also, we do did not include respondents present living arrangements or religious commitment. Each of these factors could inuence other variables in the model. Finally, while the theoretical model tested makes causal assumptions, the data used to test it were cross-sectional and we were limited to retrospective reports. The model presented needs to be investigated using prospective, longitudinal data. Although the study suffered from these limitations, it is the rst to demonstrate the importance of commitment to marriage, preferred partner characteristics, and sociosexuality as mediators of the effect of family context on risky sexual behavior. This suggests a new direction to be investigated in future research and could also have implications for factors to be considered when developing preventative interventions designed to reduce participation in risky sexual behaviors.

References
Amato, P. R., & DeBoer, D. D. (2001). The transmission of marital instability across generations: Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 10381051. Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1999). Do attitudes toward divorce affect marital quality? Journal of Family Issues, 20, 6986. Apel, R., & Kaukinen, C. (2008). On the relationship between family structure and antisocial behavior: Parental cohabitation and blended households. Criminology, 46, 3570. Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS 5 for windows. Chicago: Smallwaters. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 5, 469480.

123

470 Huebner, A., & Howell, L. (2003). Examining the relationship between adolescent sexual risk-taking and perceptions of monitoring, communication, and parenting styles. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 7178. Jeynes, W. (2001). The effects of recent parental divorce on their childrens sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 35, 115133. Kan, M. L., Cheng, Y. A., Landale, N. S., & McHale, S. M. (2010). Longitudinal predictors of change in number of sexual partners across adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 2531. Kapungu, C., Holmbeck, G. N., & Paikoff, R. L. (2006). Longitudinal association between parenting practices and early sexual risk behaviors among urban African American adolescents: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 787798. Kiernan, K. E., & Hobcraft, J. (1997). Parental divorce during childhood: Age at rst intercourse, partnership and parenthood. Population Studies, 51, 4155. Krantz, S. R., Lynch, D. A., & Russell, J. M. (2002). Gender-specic proles of self-reported adolescent HIV risk behaviors. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 13, 2533. Landor, A., Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., Brody, G. H., & Gibbons, F. X. (2011). The inuence of religion on African American adolescents risky sexual behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 296309. Lohman, B. J., & Billings, A. (2007). Protective and risk factors associated with adolescent boys early sexual debut and risky sexual behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 723735. Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton, & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 50, pp. 66104. Martin, P. D., Martin, D., & Martin, M. (2001). Adolescent premarital sexual activity, cohabitation, and attitudes toward marriage. Adolescence, 36, 601609. Martin, P. D., Specter, G., Martin, D., & Martin, M. (2003). Expressed attitudes of adolescents toward marriage and family life. Adolescence, 38, 359367. Meschke, L. L., Bartholomac, S., & Zentall, S. R. (2000). Adolescent sexuality and parent-adolescent processes: Promoting healthy teen choices. Family Relations, 49, 143154. Metzler, C. W., Noell, J., & Biglan, A. (1992). The validation of a construct of high-risk sexual behavior in heterosexual adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 233249. Miller, B. C. (2002). Family inuences on adolescent sexual and contraceptive behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 2226. Miller, B. C., Benson, B., & Galbraith, K. A. (2001). Family relationships and adolescent pregnancy risk: A research synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 138. Miller, K. S., Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. A. (1999). Adolescent sexual behavior in two ethnic minority samples: The role of family variables. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 8598. Musick, K., & Bumpass, L. (1999). How do prior experiences in the family affect transitions to adulthood? In L. Wu & B. Wolfe (Eds.), Out of wedlock: Causes and consequences of nonmarital fertility (pp. 348). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. OConnor, M. L. (2001). Men who have many sexual partners before marriage are more likely to engage in extramarital sex. International Family Planning Perspectives, 27, 4849.

J Child Fam Stud (2013) 22:460470 Oliver, M. B., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects of sexual permissiveness on desirability of partner as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 321333. Previti, D., & Amato, P. R. (2004). Is indelity a cause or a consequence of poor marital quality? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 217230. Regan, P. C., & Joshi, A. (2003). Ideal partner preferences among adolescents. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 1320. Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Gate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 121. Regenerus, M., & Uecker, J. (2011). Premarital sex in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Reis, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823832. Riggio, H. R., & Weiser, D. A. (2008). Attitudes toward marriage: Embeddedness and outcomes in personal relationships. Personal Relationships, 15, 123140. Risch, S. C., Jodl, K. M., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Role of the fatheradolescent relationship in shaping adolescents attitudes toward divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 4658. Rodgers, K. B. (1999). Parenting processes related to sexual risktaking behaviors of adolescent males and females. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 6, 99109. Rostosky, S. S., Regnerus, M. D., & Wright, M. L. C. (2003). Coital debut: The role of religiosity and sex attitudes in the add health survey. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 358367. Sarkar, M. B. (2001). Adolescents and young adults sexual behavior, STD and AIDS. International Medical Journal, 8, 167173. Simons, R. L., Simons, L. G., & Wallace, L. E. (2004). Families, delinquency, and crime: Linking societys most basic institution to antisocial behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 3151. Tracy, J. L., Shaver, P. R., Albino, A. W., & Cooper, M. L. (2003). Attachment styles and adolescent sexuality. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 137159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Thornton, A., & Camburn, D. (1987). The inuence of the family on premarital sexual attitudes and behavior. Demography, 24, 323340. Whitbeck, L. B., Simons, R. L., & Kao, M. (1994). The effects of divorced mothers dating behaviors and sexual attitudes on the sexual attitudes and behaviors of their adolescent children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 615621. Whitehead, B., & Popenoe, D. (2001). The state of our unions: The social health of marriage in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Marriage Project.

123

Copyright of Journal of Child & Family Studies is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.