Family Religiosity, Parent Monitoring, and College Students Sexual Risk

Family Religiosity, Parent Monitoring, and College Students’ Sexual Risk Deirdre A. Quinn, MLitt, MSc University of Maryland School of Public Health

AIMS AND METHODS

Religion plays an important role in many people’s lives and can impact both physical and mental health. A growing body of research has examined potential links between family religiosity and health behaviors and outcomes in adolescents and young adults, in particular adolescents’ sexual risk behaviors. Consequences of sexual risk represent a major health concern in the United States, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Risky sexual behavior is common among college students; campus “hook- up” culture promotes casual and unplanned sexual encounters (Burdette, Hill, Ellison, & Glenn, 2009; Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006), and students often perceive potentially risky sexual behaviors (including oral sex and anal sex) to be less intimate (and therefore more allowable) than sexual intercourse (Chambers, 2007; Kelly & Kalichman, 2002; Lyons, Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2013). Parents have consistently been identified as the most important source of religious influence, both in childhood and adolescence, and into adulthood (Lambert & Dollahite, 2010; Smith & Denton, 2005; Smith, Faris, Denton, & Regnerus, 2003). Research also shows that parents can play an important role in adolescents’ sexual health decision making through their parent-teen relationships, parenting practices, and communication about sex and sexual risk (Aspy et al., 2007; Dittus, Miller, Kotchick, & Forehand, 2004; Hutchinson, Jemmott, Jemmott, Braverman, & Fong, 2003). Based on social learning theory’s principles of observation, communication, and social interaction, this study’s conceptual model predicts that college students’ religiosity and attitudes about sex, and ultimately their sexual risk and protective behaviors, are influenced by family modeling of religiosity and degree of parental monitoring during adolescence. Data presented here were collected at a large, public university in the mid- Atlantic via anonymous, online surveys of undergraduate students. Examined variables include frequency and importance of religious activities in the home during childhood and adolescence (measured by the Faith Activities in the Home Scale (FAITHS) (Lambert & Dollahite, 2010); degree of parental monitoring in the home during adolescence; students’ attitudes about sex, measured by the Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale (BSAS) (C. Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich, 2006); students’ religiosity, measured using four domains from the Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality (BMMRS) (John E. Fetzer Institute, 2003); students’ self-reported level of sexual activity (including age at first sex and number of lifetime partners); and students’ sexual risk behaviors (lack of contraceptive use, infrequency of condom use, use of alcohol or drugs before sex, and lack of HPV vaccine compliance).

FINDINGS

Preliminary bivariate analyses (n = 473) were conducted on some of the variables of interest. Students who had higher family religiosity, represented by the frequency of religious activities in the home during childhood (infrequent vs. frequent) were more likely never to have had vaginal sex (X2 = 15.410, p < .001). If they had vaginal sex, they were less likely ever to have had unprotected vaginal sex (X2 = 6.722, p = .01) or to have used alcohol or drugs before their most recent sexual encounter (X2 = 13.096, p<.001). Students with higher family religiosity were also less likely to have had oral sex (X2 = 16.128, p<.001) or anal sex (X2 = 7.168, p=.007). Students with higher family religiosity were also significantly more likely to have had more parental monitoring during adolescence (X2 = 13.773, p<.001) than their counterparts with low family religiosity. Subsequent analyses will further examine the causal relationship between family religiosity and student sexual behaviors; the potential mediating effect of parental monitoring on the relationships between family religiosity and student sexual activity and sexual risk; and the potential moderating effects of students’ sexual attitudes and students’ religiosity on those relationships.

IMPLICATIONS

Few studies have considered the specific impact of parental or family religiosity on students’ sexual outcomes, either directly or through influence on adolescents’ own religiosity; those that do exist have used single variables, such as parents’ report of religious involvement or of specific beliefs, as a proxy for family religiosity. The literature on individual student religiosity is similarly limited, using one-dimensional measures of religiosity that focus solely on service attendance, or self-rated ‘importance’ of religion; this study uses multidimensional measures of both individual and family religiosity to further unpack the role that families play in the religious and sexual socialization of children. A majority of the research on sexual behavior conflates sexual activity with sexual risk, and focuses on heterosexual vaginal sex; this study considers two separate constructs of ‘activity’ and ‘risk’ within the scope of college students’ sexual behavior. Based on the preliminary analyses described above, it appears that family religiosity during childhood may be protective against both sexual activity and sexual risk-taking during college. Future analyses will endeavor to better understand this relationship, as well as other factors that may influence it. Table 1. Demographics of Analytic Sample (n=473) Baseline Characteristics n (%) Age 18 22 (4.7%) 19 44 (9.3%) 20 112 (23.7%) 173 (36.6%) 21 74 (15.6%) 22 17 (3.6%) 23 4 (0.8%) 24 6 (1.3%) 25 18 (3.8%) 26 and older Race White 266 (56.2%) Black / African American 99 (20.9%) Hispanic / Latino 52 (11%) 87 (18.4%) Asian 6 (1.3%) American Indian or Alaskan Native 1 (0.2%) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 15 (3.2%) Other Gender Female 369 (78%) Male 103 (21.8%) Transgender 1 (0.2%) Year in School Freshman / First Year 23 (4.9%) Sophomore / Second Year 64 (13.5%) Junior / Third Year 139 (29.4%) 212 (44.8%) Senior / Fourth Year 34 (7.2%) Fifth Year or higher Relationship Status Single or In a Relationship 421 (89%) Married 10 (2.1%) Separated / Divorced 1 (0.2%) 37 (7.8%) Unmarried & Cohabiting Sexual Relationship Status No current sexual relationship 189 (40%) One casual partner, no serious partner 55 (11.6%) Monogamous serious partner 196 (41.4%) 4 (0.8%) Non-Monogamous serious partner 27 (5.7%) Multiple casual partners Religious Affiliation Roman Catholic 104 (22%) Protestant 78 (16.5%) Jewish 75 (15.9%) 18 (3.8%) Muslim 12 (2.5%) Orthodox 12 (2.5%) Hindu 7 (1.5%) Buddhist 2 (0.4%) Mormon 37 (7.8%) Atheist 52 (11%) Agnostic 71 (15%) Other Age at First Sex (Oral, Vaginal, or Anal) 17 or older 225 (47.6%) 15-16 123 (26%) 13-14 36 (7.6%) 5 (1%) 12 or younger 83 (17.5%) Never had sex # of Lifetime Sexual Partners (Oral, Vaginal, or Anal) 6 or more 154 (32.6%) 5 42 (8.9%) 4 31 (6.6%) 45 (9.5%) 3 46 (9.7%) 2 70 (14.8%) 1 85 (18%) Never had sex References

Aspy, C. B., Vesely, S. K., Oman, R. F., Rodine, S., Marshall, L., & McLeroy, K. (2007). Parental communication and youth sexual behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 30(3), 449–466. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.007. Burdette, A.M., Hill, T.D., Ellison, C.G., & Glenn, N.D. (2009). “Hooking up” at college: Does religion make a difference. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(3), 535–551. Chambers, W. C. (2007). Oral sex: Varied behaviors and perceptions in a college population. The Journal of Sex Research, 44(1), 28–42. Dittus, P., Miller, K. S., Kotchick, B. a., & Forehand, R. (2004). Why Parents Matter!: The conceptual basis for a community-based HIV prevention program for the parents of African American youth. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(1), 5–20. http://doi.org/10.1023/B:JCFS.0000010487.46007.08. Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(3), 255–267. Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Reich, D. A. (2006). The Brief Sexual Attitudes Scale. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 76–86. Hutchinson, M.K., Jemmott, J.B., Jemmott, L.S., Braverman, P., & Fong, G.T. (2003). The role of mother-daughter sexual risk communication in reducing sexual risk behaviors among urban adolescent females: A prospective study. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(2), 98–107. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00183- 6. John E. Fetzer Institute. (2003). Measurement of Religiousness / Spirituality for Use in Research. A Report of the Fetzer Institute/ National Institute on Aging Working Group, 1–103. Kelly, J.A., & Kalichman, S.C. (2002). Behavioral research in HIV/AIDS primary and secondary prevention: Recent advances and future directions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(3), 626–639. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.3.626. Lambert, N.M., & Dollahite, D.C. (2010). Development of the Faith Activities in the Home Scale (FAITHS). Journal of Family Issues, 31(11), 1442–1464. http://doi.org/Doi 10.1177/0192513x10363798. Lyons, H., Manning, W., Giordano, P., & Longmore, M. (2013). Predictors of heterosexual casual sex among young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(4), 585–593. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0051-3. Smith, C., & Denton, M.L. (2005). Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Smith, C., Faris, R., Denton, M. L., & Regnerus, M. (2003). Mapping American adolescent subjective religiosity and attitudes of alienation toward religion: A research report. Sociology of Religion, 64(1), 111–133.