Reconceptualizing Adolescent Sexual Behavior: Beyond Did They or Didn’t They? By Daniel J. Whitaker, Kim S. Miller and Leslie F. Clark yet had sex, and the number and types of 8 Co n t ex t : Adolescent sexual behavior is typically studied as a dichotomy: Adolescents have had partners among adolescents who have. sex or they have not. Broadening this view would lead to a greater understanding of teenagers’ It classifies adolescents into five gro u p s , sexual behavior. on the basis of their experiences or ex- Me t h o d s : I n t e rv i ew data from 907 high school students in Alabama, New Yor k and Puerto Rico pectations with reg a r d to heterosexual ac- were used to examine the relationships between sexual exp e r ience and a var iety of social, psy- tivity: those who have not had sex and chological and behavi o r al vari a bl e s . Four groups of teenagers are compared: those who did not have a low expectation that they will do anticipate initiating sex in the next year (delayers), those who anticipated initiating sex in the so in the next year (delayers), those who n ext year (anticipators), those who had had one sexual partner (singles) and those who had have not had sex but have a high expec- had two or more partners (multiples). tation that they will in the next year (an- ticipators), those who have had sex one Re s u l t s : Compared with delayer s , anticipators reported more alcohol use and marijuana use; poorer psychological health; riskier peer behaviors; and looser ties to fam i l y , school and church. time (one-timers), those who have had sex Si m i l a rl y , multiples reported more alcohol and marijuana use, riskier peer behaviors and looser mo r e than once but with only one partner ties to family and school than singles. Risk behavi o r s , peer behavi o r s , family vari a bl e s , and school (steadies) and those who have had sex and church invol v ement showed a linear trend across the four categories of sexual behavi o r . m o re than once and with two or more partners (multiples). Conclusions: The traditional sex–no sex dichotomy obscures differences among sexually in- P revious re s e a rch indicates that com- experienced teenagers and among adolescents who have had sex. Prevention efforts must be pa r ed with delayers, anticipators engage tailored to the specific needs of teenagers with differing sexual experiences and expectations, in more precoital behaviors (kissing, touch- and must address the social and psychological context in which sexual experiences occur. i n g )9 and have less informational sup- Family Planning Perspectives, 2000, 32(3):111–117 po r t ; 10 multiples begin sexual activity ear- lier and use condoms less than one-timers and steadies.11 Other findings support the he study of adolescent sexual be- conceptualized in a negative and pro b- validity of the typology: Adolescents who havior has been motivated larg e l y lematic context,” with the intent of pre- anticipate having sex in the next six by the health and social pro b l e m s venting diseases and unplanned pre g- months are more likely to do so than are T 5 12 that may result when young people have n a n c i e s . For these and other re a s o n s , those who do not expect to, and teenagers u n p rotected sexual intercourse. Pre v e n- adolescent sexuality is typically concep- who have had multiple partners begin sex- tion efforts aimed at meeting national tualized and studied as a dichotomy: Ado- ual activity earlier and use condoms less health objectives have focused on delay- lescents have had sex or they have not. than those who have had only one.13 ing sexual onset among adolescents who Ho w ev e r , the dichotomous sex–no sex For our study, we adapted Miller and have not had sex and promoting condom view does not take into account the psy- colleagues’ typology by combining one- use among adolescents who are sexually chological and social context in which sex- timers and steadies into one group of ado- active. Although the proportions of ado- ual behavior occurs—for example, such lescents who had had one sex partner, lescents who delay sexual onset and who factors as whether an adolescent has had whom we term singles. We focused on use condoms have increased somewhat,1 one partner or many, how long the young comparisons between groups of teenagers a great deal of risky sexual behavior con- people have known each other, whether who had had sex (i.e., singles and multi- tinues.2 As a result, teenagers experience alcohol is used at the time of a sexual en- ples) and between those who had not had a large number of unplanned preg n a n c i e s counter and the age diff e rence between sex (i.e., delayers and anticipators), be- and sexually transmitted diseases, in- pa r t n e r s . 6 As a result, this view limits the cause these comparisons are obscured by cluding HIV.3 ability of programs, educators and others the traditional sex–no sex dichotomy. In Our understanding of adolescent sexu- to prevent teenagers from engaging in addition, we examined the linear tre n d ality is limited, and improving that un- risky behaviors.7 a c ross the four groups to better under- derstanding promises to speed the prog re s s A broader conceptualization of adoles- stand the association between the social, to w a r d meeting the nation’s public health cent sexual experiences will improve the psychological and behavioral variables objectives. For theoretical, practical and po- understanding of adolescent sexuality and and teenagers’ level of sexual experience. litical reasons, most res e a r ch has focused aid in preventing risky sexual behaviors. We analyzed dependent measures from on examining the correlates of early sexu- In this article, we examine social, psy- the perspective that sexual risk behavior is al initiation and condom use, rather than chological and behavioral diff e re n c e s on understanding adolescents’ sexual ex- a c ross an expanded typology of adoles- Daniel J. Whitaker is re s e a rch psychologist and Kim S. periences. Among these reasons are the se- cent sexual experience. Miller is res e a r ch sociologist, both at the Centers for Dis- ease Control and Prevention, Atlanta. Leslie F. Clark is cr ecy surrounding sexual behavior, which A typology advanced by Miller and col- associate pro f e s s o r, Department of Health Behavior, has hindered open communication about leagues considers the readiness to engage School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Bir- s e x u a l i t y,4 and the fact that “sexuality is in sex among adolescents who have not mingham. Volume 32, Number 3, May/June 2000 111 determined by multiple factors at multiple year (rated on a scale from one, indicating ceived control was made up of five items le v e l s . 14 For example, teenagers’ sexual ac- that they were sure it would not happen, ( “I have little control over the things that tivity or abstinence may be supported by to five, indicating that they were sure it happen to me”; “There is really no way I various levels of factors—individual (e.g., would happen); and the number of part- can solve some of the problems I have”; intellect and drug use), peer (e.g., norms ners sexually experienced teenagers had “Sometimes I feel that I’m being pushed and behavior), familial (e.g., parental mon- had. Data for one or more items were miss- around in life”; “There is little I can do to itoring and socioeconomic status) and in- ing for 13 participants, who thus could not change many of the important things in stitutional (e.g., school and church ) . 15 Tee n - be classified; our analyses are there f o re my life”; and “I often feel helpless in deal- agers who have had sex differ from those based on data for 894 adolescents. ing with the problems of life”). Positive fu- who have not with respect to attitudes and In all, 37% of the sample had never had tu r e outlook comprised four items (“What b e l i e f s ,1 6 peer norms,1 7 alcohol and dru g in t e r course and rated their expectation for happens to me in the future mostly de- u s e ,1 8 p a rental factors,1 9 school involve- having intercourse in the next year as less pends on me”; “I can do just about any- me n t 20 and church involvement.21 We ex- than 50%; we categorized these adoles- thing I really set my mind to do”; “My fu- amined whether diffe r ences for those vari- cents as delayers. Another 22% had never tu r e is what I make of it”; and “I have grea t ables existed for typology groups within had intercourse but rated their expecta- faith in the future”). Hopelessness in- the traditional sex–no sex dichotomy and tions for doing so in the next year as 50% cluded three items (“Sometimes I feel linearly across the typology grou p s .