Journal of Adolescent

http://jar.sagepub.com/
Research

Parent-Adolescent Discussions about Sex and Condoms: Impact on Peer Influences of Sexual Risk
Behavior
Daniel J. Whitaker and Kim S. Miller
Journal of Adolescent Research 2000 15: 251
DOI: 10.1177/0743558400152004

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jar.sagepub.com/content/15/2/251

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Adolescent Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jar.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jar.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jar.sagepub.com/content/15/2/251.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 2000

What is This?

Downloaded from jar.sagepub.com at FORDHAM UNIV LIBRARY on October 30, 2013

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000
Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR

Parent-Adolescent Discussions
About Sex and Condoms:
Impact on Peer Influences of
Sexual Risk Behavior
Daniel J. Whitaker
Kim S. Miller
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
This research examined how parent-adolescent communication about initiating sex and
condoms influenced the relationship between peer norms and behavior. African Ameri-
can and Hispanic adolescents reported on parent-adolescent discussions about initiat-
ing sex and condoms, perceived peer norms about sex and condom use, and their own
behavior. Communication about sex and perceived peer norms about sex were each
related to sexual behavior, and communication about condoms and peer norms about
condoms were related to condom use behavior. For both sex and condom use, the peer
normbehavior relationship was moderated by parental communication: Peer norms
were more strongly related to behavior among adolescents who had not discussed sex or
condoms with a parent. Communication was also related to teens naming a parent as
their best source of information about sex. Results suggest that a lack of communication
may cause adolescents to turn to peers and that peers may then influence their behavior.

National surveys of school youth indicate that a sizable proportion of ado-

lescents are sexually active (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[CDC], 1998) and at risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases
(STDs) and becoming pregnant. In the 1950s, only a quarter of the women
less than 18 years old were sexually active, but today, the figure is about half
(Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1994). Currently, almost half of all high school
students report being sexually active, and 16% report having had four or more
sexual partners (CDC, 1998). Despite this increase in sexual activity, adoles-
cents are not using condoms at a particularly high rate. Only about half report
having used a condom during their most recent sexual encounter (CDC,

Address correspondence concerning this article to Daniel J. Whitaker, Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention: Surveillance
and Epidemiology, 1600 Clifton Road, Mail stop E-45, Atlanta, GA 30333; e-mail: dpw7@cdc.gov.

Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, March 2000 251-273

2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
251
252 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000

1998). As a result, each year, 3 million teens acquire an STD and 1 million
become pregnant (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1994), and people under the
age of 24 years account for a large percentage of new cases of HIV (CDC,
1997). Public health strategies to prevent pregnancy, STDs, and HIV among
adolescents must focus on delaying the onset of sexual activity and increas-
ing teens condom use. Researchers must try to better understand the factors
that influence adolescents sexual activity and condom use in order to pro-
mote abstinence and safer sex.
In examining factors that influence teen sexual behavior, many research-
ers have focused on two primary social influences of adolescent behavior:
parents and peers. Some researchers have focused on how parent-adolescent
communication influences adolescent sexual behavior (e.g., Jaccard, Dittus, &
Gordon, 1996; K. Miller, Levin, Whitaker, & Xu, 1998), whereas others have
focused on how peer group norms influence adolescent sexual behavior (e.g.,
DiClemente, 1991; Fisher, Misovich, & Fisher, 1992). Only a few studies
have examined the simultaneous influence of parents and peers on adoles-
cents sexual behavior (Holtzman & Rubinson, 1995; Romer et al., 1994),
and even fewer studies have examined the interactive effects of parent and
peer influence. This research examines how parental communication about
sex and about condoms interacts with peer norms about sex and about con-
doms to impact teens sexual behavior and condom use.
Examining the interactive influence of parents and peers on teens sexual
behavior is important because, although the research literature clearly shows
that peers attitudes and behavior influence teens own sexual behavior
(Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg, 1989; Coates & Greenblatt, 1989; Kandel,
Kessler, & Margulies, 1978; Krosnick & Judd, 1982; Mays & Cochran, 1989;
H. G. Miller, Turner, & Moses, 1990), the same cannot be said about parental
communication, where the research data are less clear (for review, see Jac-
card & Dittus, 1993).
Starting with the influence of peer norms, a number of studies has found
that perceptions of peers sexual attitudes and behaviors predict sexual risk
behavior for both adolescents and adults (Catania et al., 1989; DiClemente,
1990, 1991; Fisher et al., 1992; Friedman et al., 1987; Holtzman & Rubinson,
1995; Joseph et al., 1987; Kelly et al., 1990; Lowe & Radius, 1987; McKu-
sich, Coates, & Morin, 1990; Romer et al., 1994). For example, DiClemente
(1991) reported that among incarcerated youth, consistent condom use was
five times more likely when perceived peer norms supported condom use,
and Fisher et al. (1992) reported that college students perceived peer norms
about condom use predicted actual condom use measured 2 months later.
 Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR 253

The research literature concerning the influence of parental variables on

adolescents sexual behavior is less clear. Most studies have focused on
whether parental communication, rather than parental attitudes and behavior,
influences teens sexual behavior (however, see Kotchick, Dorsey, Miller, &
Forehand, 1997). Some studies have found that parental communication is
associated with less risky sexual behavior (Jaccard et al., 1996; Kallen, Ste-
phenson, & Doughty, 1983; K. Miller et al., 1998), but others have found it is
not (Fox & Inazu, 1980; Furstenberg, Herceg-Burton, Shea, & Webb, 1984;
Newcomer & Udry, 1985; Reiss, Banwart, & Forman, 1975).
One reason for the lack of clear findings about parental communication is
that, in many studies, parental communication has been conceptualized rela-
tively simply: either parents have talked to their teens about sex or they have
not. There are two problems with this conceptualization. The first is that a
general measure of sexual communication ignores the specific topics that are
discussed, which may be a critical component in determining whether
parent-adolescent communication relates to the adolescents behavior. For
example, parent-adolescent discussion about sexual development, masturba-
tion, and condoms could each be considered discussions about sex, but only
discussions about condoms should be expected to affect teens condom use.
The second problem with conceptualizing parent-adolescent sexual commu-
nication as simply whether a discussion about sex occurred is that important
aspects of the communication process are ignored. Recent studies have
shown that communication process variables relate to adolescent sexual
behavior. These process variables include the timing of the communication
(K. Miller et al., 1998), the breadth of the communication (K. Miller,
Kotchick, Dorsey, Forehand, & Ham, 1999), parental responsiveness during
the discussion (Whitaker, Miller, May, & Levin, 1999), and whether permis-
sive or conservative messages are conveyed (Jaccard et al., 1996; Moore,
Peterson, & Furstenberg, 1985).
A second possible reason for the lack of a clear relationship between paren-
tal communication and adolescent sexual behaviorone that we explore in
this articleis that parental communication may interact with peer norms to
influence adolescent sexual behavior (Jaccard & Dittus, 1993). Recent work
that has examined both parental and peer influences in the same study has
shown that both predict sexual risk behavior (Holtzman & Rubinson, 1995;
Romer et al., 1994). Holtzman and Rubinson (1995) found that parent-
adolescent communication about sex and adolescent-peer communication
about sex both predicted teens number of sexual partners but in opposite
directions: Parental communication was associated with fewer partners, and
254 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000

peer communication was associated with more partners. This work did not
address whether parents and peers interact to influence teenssexual behavior.
One way that parental variables and peer variables might interact to influ-
ence teens sexual behavior is that one factor might reduce the impact of the
other. For example, parent-teen communication about sex might reduce the
extent to which peer norms influence teens sexual behavior. There are sev-
eral ways this could happen. First, by communicating with teens about sex,
parents may provide teens with information that peers would not. Parents
presumably provide more accurate information about sex than peers do, and
if adolescents receive accurate information from parents, they may act on the
basis of that information rather than on the potentially inaccurate information
provided by peers. Recent surveys indicate that children and adolescents
want information about sex (Painter, 1997) but feel that they do not get
enough (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1994). If parents do not provide adoles-
cents with information about sex, they may turn to peers for that information.
Second, parent-adolescent communications about sex may reinforce parental
values about sex, which should make teens more likely to behave in a manner
consistent with those values (Jaccard et al., 1996; Moore et al., 1985) rather
than peers values, which may be different. Finally, parental communication
that provides teens with practical information, such as sexual decision-
making skills, may enhance teens ability to handle peer pressure. If teens
have the skills and abilities to decide on their own to abstain from sex or to use
a condom, they should be less likely to respond to peer pressure to have sex or
to have unprotected sex.
We tested the hypothesis that parent-adolescent sexual communication
would reduce the impact of peer norms on adolescentssexual behavior using
two different types of behavior: sexual activity and condom use. As we advo-
cated above, we measured specific communication topics (initiating sex and
condoms), rather than communication about sex in general, and examined
whether discussions about initiating sex relate to sexual behavior and
whether discussions about condoms relate to condom use behavior. For each
topic, we examined whether parental communication interacted with peer
norms to predict behavior. If so, we then computed the perceived peer
normsbehavior relationship separately for teens who had talked with a par-
ent about the topic and for teens who had not. We expected that the relation-
ship between peer norms and behavior would be stronger for teens who had
not talked with a parent about the topic than for teens who had. In addition,
we examined whether parental communication about sex and/or condoms
affected teens judgment about where useful information about sex can be
obtained.
 Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR 255

METHOD

Sample
Study participants were 907 adolescents that participated in the Family
and Adolescent Risk Behavior and Communication Study (FARBCS). The
FARBCS was a cross-sectional study of adolescents and their mothers
recruited from two public high schools in Montgomery, Alabama, and one
public high school each in the Bronx, New York, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Data collection took place between October 1993 and June 1994 at high
schools that had an overrepresentation of African American and Puerto
Rican adolescents, who are disproportionately at risk for HIV (Lindegren,
Hanson, Miller, Byers, & Onorato, 1994).
For recruitment purposes, a list of potential participants was obtained
from each high school, and students were recruited via fliers that were dis-
tributed in homerooms and sent to students homes. Interested participants
contacted the researchers, and at the same time, the adolescent-mother pair
was screened for eligibility. Eligibility criteria for the adolescent were the
following: between 14 and 16 years old; currently enrolled in the 9th, 10th, or
11th grade; must have lived with their mother for at least the past 10 years;
and must have lived in the recruitment area for at least the past 10 years. An
additional eligibility criterion for the mother was that she was the biological,
step, or adoptive parent of the adolescent. Of the 1,733 students that provided
screening information, 1,124 were eligible, and 982 (87%) of the eligible
pairs were interviewed. Analyses of data collected during the interviews
revealed that 907 pairs actually met eligibility requirements, and these pairs
were kept as the sample. Overall, the sample consisted of 259 Blacks in
Montgomery, 172 Blacks in the Bronx, 216 Hispanics in the Bronx, and 260
Hispanics in San Juan. There were 388 (43%) males and 519 (57%) females.
Three adolescents refused to report whether they had ever had sexual inter-
course and are excluded from all analyses, leaving 904 for the analyses. Sev-
eral of the analyses described below could only be conducted with the sample
of sexually active adolescents (n = 372).

Measures
Data were collected from both the adolescent and his or her mother for a
number of domains, including demographic data, sexual behavior, family
communication about sexual issues, family structure, personality factors,
and drug and alcohol use (for a more complete description of these domains,
256 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000

see K. Miller et al., 1997). Only the measures that are pertinent to this analy-
sis are described here, and all measures described below are taken from the
adolescents report.

Parent-adolescent communication. Adolescents were asked whether they

had ever had a discussion with their mother about when to start having sex,
whether they had ever had a discussion with their father about when to start
having sex, whether they had ever had a discussion with their mother about
condoms, and whether they had ever had a discussion with their father
about condoms. Separate groups of adolescents were created that had and
had not discussed sexual initiation with either parent and had and had not dis-
cussed condoms with either parent. For sexual initiation, 544 (60%) adolescents
had discussed the topic with either their mother or father, and 360 (40%) had
not.1 For condoms, only adolescents who reported having had sex at least one
time (n = 372) could be included in the analyses. Of those 372 adolescents,
291 (78%) had discussed condoms with a parent and 81 (22%) had not.

Peer norms for sexual activity. All peer-norm measures were assessed as
perceived peer norms, that is, teens perceptions about their peers sexual
activity. Two measures of perceptions of peers sexual behavior were used.
First, adolescents estimated the age when most of their same-gender peers in
their geographical area (i.e., Montgomery, Bronx, Puerto Rico) first have sex
(M = 13.5 years, SD = 1.68 years). Second, adolescents reported the number
of close friends they had and the number of those close friends that had ever
had sex; from these reports, we computed the percentage of close friends that
had ever had sex (M = 56.7, SD = 39.6).

Adolescent sexual activity. Three self-report measures of sexual activity

were considered: teensreports of ever having had sex (41.2% had sex), age at
first intercourse (M = 13.7 years, SD = 1.54 years), and number of lifetime sex
partners (M = 3.85, SD = 5.24). Although reports of ever having had sex and
of age at first intercourse are most directly relevant to discussions about initi-
ating sex, we included the number of sexual partners as an outcome, because
problem behaviors such as early initiation of sex and multiple partners typi-
cally cluster together (Jessor & Jessor, 1977).

Peer norms for condoms. As with peer norms for sexual activity, peer
norms for condoms were assessed as perceived peer norms. Three measures
of peer norms were collected: two assessing perceived peer attitudes and one
assessing perceived peer behavior. The two measures of perceived peer atti-
tudes about condoms were answered along 4-point scales that range from 1
 Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR 257

(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The items were my friends think it

is too much trouble to use condoms (M = 2.00, SD = 0.83) and most of my
friends think that using condoms can protect them from getting the AIDS
virus (M = 3.18, SD = 0.70). The behavioral measure of peers condom use
was created from adolescentsreports of the number of close friends they had
and the number of close friends they had that had always used a condom dur-
ing sex; from these reports, we computed the percentage of friends that had
always used a condom during sex (M = 44.7, SD = 40.5).

Condom use. Four measures of condom use were examined. The first two
measures were adolescents reports of having used a condom during their
first episode of sexual intercourse (62.5% had used a condom) and adoles-
cents reports of having used a condom during their most recent episode of
sexual intercourse (70.4% had used a condom). The third measure was a mea-
sure of lifetime condom use and was based on the participants response to
the question, Of the ___ times you have had penile-vaginal intercourse, how
often did you use a condom? which was made along a 5-point scale that
ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always) (M = 3.81, SD = 1.31). Responses to this
question were also used to create the fourth measure, consistent condom use,
which was created by classifying participants as having always used con-
doms (participants who responded 5 = 41.9%) or not (participants who
responded 1 to 4 = 58.1%). Because the information about their first condom
use is redundant with the other condom use measures for adolescents who
had sex only one time (n = 48, which includes 38 who had talked with a parent
about condoms and 10 who had not), those individuals were excluded from
analyses that focused on most recent, lifetime, and consistent condom use.

Sources of information about sex. Adolescents were asked the open-ended

question, Where do you think you get the most useful information about
sex? Responses were classified as either a parent (mother or father), a peer
(friend, boyfriend, or girlfriend), or another source of information.

Procedure
Data collection occurred between October 1993 and June 1994. Partici-
pants were recruited via presentations in the classroom describing the
research and through fliers distributed to students and mailed to families of
students. Individuals expressing interest in the study were screened over the
telephone to determine their eligibility according to the requirements
described above.
258 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000

Face-to-face interviews were conducted separately with the mother and

with the adolescent by an interviewer who was matched on ethnicity and gen-
der to the participant. To ease the adolescents concerns that responses would
be discussed with his or her mother, the mother was interviewed first when-
ever possible (91% of the time). Mothers were paid $45 for their participa-
tion, and adolescents were paid $25.

RESULTS

Analytic Plan
The two risk behaviors of sexual activity and condom use were considered
separately. As we recommended earlier, we examined how peer norms about
sex and parent-teen communication about initiating sex relate to sexual
behavior outcomes, and how peer norms about condoms and parent-teen
communication about condoms relate to condom use. For sexual activity, we
first examined the simple bivariate relationships between parental communi-
cation about initiating sex, peer norms for sex, and sexual behavior outcomes.
Next, a series of two-step hierarchical regression models were conducted to
determine whether parental communication about initiating sex moderates
the relationship between peer norms about sex and sexual behavior (Jaccard,
Turrisi, & Wan, 1990). In the first step, each sexual behavior outcome (i.e.,
had sex vs. did not, age of sexual debut, number of partners) was regressed
onto a single peer-norm predictor and a dummy-coded variable representing
whether the adolescent had talked to a parent about initiating sex (coded 1) or
2
not (coded 0). Then in the second step, the interaction between the peer-
norm predictor and the dummy-coded grouping variable was added. A sig-
nificant interaction term at the second step would indicate that the relation-
ship between the peer-norm predictor and the sexual behavior outcome (i.e.,
the slopes) was different for teens who talked to a parent about initiating sex
versus those who did not. Thus, where the interactions are significant, we
computed slopes relating the peer-norm predictor to the sexual behavior out-
come separately for the two groups. The analytic strategy for condom use
was identical: First, the univariate relationships were examined, and then the
two-step hierarchical regressions were conducted. For the regression analy-
ses, linear regression was used when the dependent measure was continuous
(i.e., age at first intercourse, lifetime sex partner, and lifetime condom use)
and logistic regression was used when the dependent measure was binary
(had sex, condom use at first intercourse, condom use at most recent inter-
course, and consistent condom use).
 Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR 259

TABLE 1: Correlations Among Parent-Teen Discussion About Initiating Sex,

Perceived Peer Norms About Sex, and Sexual Behavior

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

Parent-teen discussions about initiating sex

a
1. Talked to parent
Peer norms
2. Age of peers sexual debut .09
3. Percentage of friends who had sex .001 .02
Sexual behavior
a
4. Had sex .02 .19** .48**

5. Age of sexual debut .09 .31** .05 NA

6. Number of partners (lifetime) .09 .07 .16** NA .38**
NOTE: All tests were two-tailed.
a. These were coded 0 (no) or 1 (yes).
*p < .05. **p < .01. p < .10.

Sexual Activity

Simple bivariate relationships. Table 1 shows the correlations between

peer-norms measures for sex, parental communication about sex, and sexual
behavior outcomes. There are several points to note from this table. First,
note that parental-adolescent communication about sex was not related to
any of the perceived peer-norms measures. Second, the correlations between
talking to a parent about sex and two of the three sexual behavior outcomes
(age at first intercourse and number of partners) are marginally significant.
Teens who talked to a parent about initiating sex tended to initiate sex at a
later age (M = 13.8 years vs. 13.5 years) and tended to have fewer partners
(M = 3.47 vs. 4.43). Finally, four of the six relationships between the peer-
norm predictors and the sexual behavior outcomes are significant and in the
expected direction. Specifically, earlier perceived sexual debut of peers was
associated with a greater likelihood of having had sex and a younger age of
sexual debut, and having a greater percentage of sexually active friends was
associated with a greater likelihood of having had sex and a greater number of
partners. Thus, these data replicate prior findings that peer norms predict sex-
ual behavior.

Moderation of peer normssexual behavior relationship by parental com-

munication. To examine whether parental communication moderated the
relationship between perceived peer norms about sex and sexual behavior, we
conducted six hierarchical regressions (two peer-norm predictors for three
sexual behavior outcomes). Table 2 shows the results from the second step of
260 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000

TABLE 2: Main and Interactive Effects of Parent-Teen Discussions About Ini-

tiating Sex and Peer Norms About Sex on Teens Sexual Behavior

Sexual Behavior Outcome

Number of
Had Age of Partners
Predictor Sexa Sexual Debut b (Lifetime) b

Peer-norm predictor: Average age when

kids in your area have sex
Age of peers sexual debut 0.374** 0.628** 0.707*
Talked to a parent about sex 2.559* 6.524** 10.546*
Age of peers sexual debut talked 0.184* 0.479** 0.733*
Slope for age of peers sexual debut:
Talked 0.190 0.149 0.027
Slope for age of peers sexual debut:
Did not talk 0.374 0.628 0.707
Peer-norm predictor: Percentage of friends
that have had sex
Percentage of friends that have had sex 0.032** 0.009* 0.036*
Talked to a parent about sex 0.171 0.596 0.405
Percentage of friends who had sex talked 0.004 0.011* 0.016
Slope for percentage of friends: Talked 0.002
Slope for percentage of friends: Did not talk 0.009
NOTE: All regression coefficients are unstandardized and from a model that includes
both main effects and the interaction between the parent-teen discussion variable and
the peer-norm predictor. All tests were two-tailed.
a. These were analyzed using logistic regression that modeled yes response.
b. These were analyzed using linear regression.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

the regressions models, which contain the peer-norm predictor, the dummy-
coded parental communication variable, and the interaction between the two.
Where there is a significant Peer Norm Parental Communication interac-
tion, the slope between the peer-norm predictor and the outcome is displayed
below the interaction term separately for teens who talked with a parent and
for teens who had not.
In each of the six regression models, the peer-norm predictor was signifi-
cantly related to the sexual behavior outcome. However, in four of the six
cases, the relationship between the peer-norm predictor and the sexual
behavior outcome was moderated by parental communication about initiat-
ing sex. Inspection of the individual slopes relating the peer-norm predictors
to sexual behavior outcomes separately for teens who did versus teens who
did not talk to a parent about initiating sex shows that, in cases where modera-
 Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR 261

Figure 1. Plot of slopes of the estimated age of peers sexual debut and teens
own age of sexual debut separately for adolescents who did and adolescents
who did not talk to a parent about sex.
NOTE: Low and high values of the estimated age of peers debut are 1 standard de-
viation below and above the mean.

tion occurred, the slope was greater in magnitude among teens who had not
talked with a parent than among teens who had. This indicates that the rela-
tionship between perceived peer norms and sexual behavior is stronger
among teens who had not discussed sex with a parent than among teens who
had. To illustrate the effect, the interaction between the estimated age of
peers sexual debut and parental communication about sex on teens own age
of sexual debut is plotted in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows that the slope relating
the age of peersdebut and age of ones own debut is steeper among teens who
had not talked with a parent (b = 0.628) than among teens who had (b =
0.149). Note, however, that not every interaction will have exactly the same
form.

Condom Use
Parallel analyses were conducted for condom use. Table 3 shows the
bivariate relationships between parent-teen communication about condoms,
peer norms about condoms, and condom use. Again, there are several points
to note from these data. First, parent-teen communication about condoms and
peer norms about condoms are not related. Second, the parent-teen condom
262 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000

TABLE 3: Correlations Between Parent-Teen Communication About

Condoms, Perceived Peer Norms About Condoms, and
Condom Use Outcomes

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Parent-teen discussions
about condoms
a
1. Talked to parent about condoms
Peer norms about condoms
2. Percentage of friends who use
condoms .07
3. Too much trouble to use
b
condoms .01 .28**
b
4. Condoms protect against HIV .03 .01 .09
Teens condom use
a
5. Condom use at first intercourse .02 .29** .26** .05
6. Condom use at most recent
a
intercourse .22** .35** .21** .06 .46**
c
7. Lifetime condom use .18** .39** .29** .10 .70** .70**
a
8. Consistent condom use .11 .36** .29** .01 .69** .55** .77**
NOTE: For correlations involving condom use at most recent intercourse, lifetime con-
dom use, and consistent condom use, adolescents who reported only one sex act were
excluded. All tests were two-tailed.
a. These were coded 0 (no) or 1 (yes).
b. These were coded from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
c. This was coded from 1 (never ) to 5 (always).
*p < .05. **p < .01. p < .10.

discussion variable is related to three of the four condom use measures such
that condom discussions are related to greater condom use at most recent
intercourse (75.7% vs. 51.4 %), greater lifetime condom use (M = 3.86 vs.
3.49 on a 5-point scale), and greater consistent condom use (44.6% vs.
31.9%). Finally, two of the three peer-norm measures were related to condom
use measures such that the belief that peers do not use condoms or dislike
using them is related to lower condom use. Thus, these findings are similar to
the findings for sexual behavior: For each behavior, parent-teen discussions
did not relate to peer norms, but parent-teen discussions and peer norms
related to behavior (sexual behavior or condom use).

Moderation of peer normscondom use relationship by parental commu-

nication. Regression analyses were used to examine whether parental discus-
sion about condoms moderated the relationship between peer norms and teen
condom use. Again, each peer-norm measure was considered in a separate
regression model for each condom use outcome. Thus, 12 two-step regres-
 Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR 263

sion models were conducted, as there were 3 peer-norm predictors 4 con-

dom use outcomes. Table 4 displays the results from the second step of those
12 regression analyses. Again, where the interaction between the peer-norm
and the parental communication variable are significant, separate slopes for
the peer-norm predictor and the condom use outcome are computed for teens
who had discussed condoms with a parent and teens who had not.
The Peer Norm Parental Communication interaction is significant in 6
of the 12 models and marginally significant in 2 others. An inspection of the
individual group slopes shows that for all eight of these models, the peer
normbehavior slope is larger in magnitude for teens who had not talked with
a parent about condoms than for teens who had, indicating that peer norms for
condoms are a stronger predictor of condom use for teens who did not talk. To
illustrate the effect, the interaction between the percentage of friends who
always use a condom and parent-teen communication on teens own lifetime
condom use is plotted in Figure 2. The figure shows that the slope relating the
perceived peer consistent condom use to ones own condom use is steeper
among teens who did not communicate with a parent about condoms (b =
0.019) than among teens who did (b = 0.010). Again, not all of the eight inter-
actions will have an identical form. For all eight, however, the slope is steeper
among teens who had not talked with a parent about condoms than among
teen who had. This matches the findings for sexual behavior.

Does Gender Moderate the Parental

Communication Peer Norm Interaction?

It is possible that the Parental Communication Peer Norm interactions

on sexual behavior and condom use would be moderated by gender. That is,
these effects may be stronger or weaker for girls than for boys. To test this, we
reran each of the regression models just discussed, adding gender main
effects and gender interactions. We were primarily concerned with any
three-way interactions involving gender, parental communication, and the
perceived peer-norm variable. Of the six models on sexual behavior out-
comes, there was one significant three-way interaction (Gender Perceived
Age of Peers Debut Parental Communication About Sex on Teens Age of
Sexual Debut, p < .01) and one marginally significant interaction (Gender
Perceived Age of Peers Debut Parental Communication About Sex on
Number of Lifetime Sex Partners, p = .07). For each of these interactions, the
Peer Norm Parent-Teen Sex Communication interaction was stronger for
boys than for girls. For the 12 models on condom use outcomes, there were no
significant or marginally significant three-way interactions of gender, paren-
264 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000

TABLE 4: Main and Interactive Effects of Parent-Teen Discussions About

Condoms and Peer Norms About Condoms on Teens Condom Use

Condom Use Outcome

Condom Condom
Use at Use at Lifetime Consistent
First Most Recent Condom Condom
Predictor Intercoursea Intercoursea Useb Usea

Peer-norm predictor: Percentage of

friends who always use a condom
Percentage of friends 0.016* 0.024** 0.019** 0.034**
Talked to a parent about condoms 0.133 1.297** 0.912** 1.422*
Percentage of friends who use
condoms talked 0.001 0.003 0.009* 0.018*
Slope for percentage of friends:
Talked
. . 0.010 0.016
Slope for percentage of friends:
Did not talk
. . 0.019 0.034
Peer-norm predictor: Friends who
c
think it is too much trouble
Friends who think it is too much
trouble 1.132** 0.635* 0.638** 1.438*
Talked to a parent about condoms 1.043 0.912 0.081 0.780

Too much trouble talked 0.578 0.100 0.248 0.774
Slope for too much trouble: Talked 0.554
. . 0.664
Slope for too much trouble:
Did not talk 1.132 .
. 1.438
Peer-norm predictor: Friends who
c
think condoms protect against AIDS
Friends who think condoms
protect 0.973** 0.829* 0.713** 0.689*
Talked to a parent about

condoms 3.246* 1.692 1.655* 2.286
Condoms protect talked 1.045* 0.872* 0.712** 0.907*
Slope for condoms protect: Talked 0.073 0.042 0.001 0.218
Slope for condoms protect:
Did not talk 0.973 0.829 0.713 0.689
NOTE: All regression coefficients are unstandardized and from a model that includes
both main effects and the interaction between the parent-teen discussion variable and
the peer-norm predictor. Analyses of condom use at most recent intercourse, lifetime
condom use, and consistent condom use excluded adolescents who only had sex once.
a. These were analyzed using logistic regression that modeled yes response.
b. These were analyzed using linear regression with lifetime condom use, and they
were coded from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
c. These were coded from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
*p < .05. **p < .01. p < .10.
 Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR 265

Figure 2. Plot of slopes of perceived percentage of friends who are sexually ac-
tive and lifetime condom use for adolescents who did and did not talk to a parent
about condoms.
NOTE: Low and high values of percentage of friends to always use a condom are 1
standard deviation below and above the mean.

tal communication, and the peer-norm variable. It is also worthy to note that
the inclusion of gender did not appreciably alter the results already discussed
in that the Parental Communication Peer Norm interaction remained sig-
nificant in most cases.

Preferred Sources of Information About Sex

One final analysis examined adolescents reports of their best source of
information about sex. Open-ended responses to the question, Where do
you think you get the most useful information about sex? were classified as a
parent (mother or father), a peer (boyfriend, girlfriend, friend), or a different
source (e.g., teacher, doctor). Frequency analyses showed that teens who
talked to a parent about initiating sex, when compared to those who did
not, were more likely to name a parent (85.1% vs. 51.7%) but less likely to
name a peer (8.6% vs. 27.3%), (2) = 120.40, p < .01. Similar findings were
2 3
266 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000

obtained for sexually active teens who talked to their parents about condoms
versus those who did not. Teens who talked about condoms with a parent were
more likely to name a parent than teens who did not (80.1% vs. 29.6%), but
they were less likely to name a peer (13.1% vs. 50.6%), (2) = 76.29, p < .01.
2

DISCUSSION

This research examined how parental communication affects the influ-

ence of peer norms on adolescents sexual behavior and condom use. When
looked at individually, parental communication about sex and peer norms
about sex both related to sexual behavior. Likewise, parental communication
about condoms and peer norms about condoms both related to teenscondom
use. However, we hypothesized that the two sourcesparental communica-
tions and peer normswould interact to affect teens behavior. Specifically,
we expected that parental communication about initiating sex and about con-
doms would reduce the extent to which perceived peer norms related to teens
sexual behavior and condom use, respectively. This prediction was strongly
supported for both sexual behavior and condom use: Peer norms about sex
related to teens sexual behavior more strongly among teens who did not talk
to a parent about initiating sex than among teens who did, and peer norms
about condoms related to teens condom use more strongly among teens who
did not talk to a parent about condoms than among teens who did. In addition,
having a discussion about initiating sex or about condoms was associated
with the greater belief that parents, rather than peers, were the best source of
information about sex. In sum, parental discussions were associated with less
risky sexual behavior, less conformity to peer norms, and a greater belief that
parents provide the most useful information about sex.
Although causal inferences cannot be made from this correlational data,
one possible causal sequence is that teens who do not discuss sexual issues
with a parent attend to peer norms that guide their sexual behavior. In con-
trast, teens who discuss sexual issues with their parents see their parents as
the most useful source of information and norms about sex, and are therefore
buffered from influence from peer norms. This line of reasoning is consistent
with and complementary to the data presented by K. Miller et al. (1998), who
found that maternal discussions about condoms that occur before sexual
debut influenced condom use at first intercourse, and condom use at first
intercourse influenced subsequent condom use. Thus, the K. Miller et al.
(1998) data showed that parental discussions about condoms can have a
 Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR 267

direct impact on adolescents condom use. Our data complement those find-
ings by suggesting that parental discussions about sex and condoms can also
impact adolescent behavior by moderating the extent to which peer norms
guide sexual behavior and condoms use.

Public Health Implications

Two primary strategies for preventing HIV infection among adolescents
are to encourage sexual delay and to promote condom use among sexually
active youth. This data suggest that parental communication can influence
these behaviors by reducing the extent to which peer norms influence sexual
activity and condom use (and peers may promote rather than prevent risky
behavior, e.g., Holtzman & Rubinson, 1995; Romer et al., 1994). Of course,
parents cannot completely eliminate peer influence (peer attitudes and
behavior often related to teensbehavior, even among teens who had talked to
a parent), but parents should be informed of the potential benefits of talking to
their children about sex, they should be encouraged to talk to them, and they
should talk to them before their children begin having sex (K. Miller et al.,
1998). Parents are often adolescents preferred source of sexual information
(as indicated by this data and data presented elsewhere, e.g., the Kaiser Fam-
ily Foundation survey reported by Painter, 1997), and teens whose parents do
not discuss sexual issues with them may turn to peers when they have a ques-
tion or problem. Not talking to teens about sex may open the door a bit wider
for peers to influence adolescents sexual behavior. The public health mes-
sage for parents to be gleaned from this data may be a relatively simple one: If
you do not provide your teens with information and norms about sex, some-
one else will (in this case, peers), and they may influence your teens to engage
in high-risk behaviors.

Why Do Parent-Child Discussions

Reduce Peer Influences?
We discussed several possible ways that parent-child discussion might
reduce the influence of peers on adolescents sexual behavior. Specifically,
we suggested that parent-teen discussions about specific sexual issues (a)
provide information to teens, (b) reinforce parental values, and (c) buffer
teens from peer pressure. The data presented are consistent with the informa-
tional function of parents (teens who talked with a parent about sex or con-
doms were more likely than teens who did not to name a parent as the best
268 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000

source of information about sex) and the buffering function of parents (teens
who talked with a parent about sex were less likely to behave like their peers
than teens who did not) described above. These mechanisms should not be
considered exclusive, however, as they may operate simultaneously.
An alternative explanation for the findings focuses on parental closeness
and monitoring rather than on the specifics of parent-child communication. It
is possible that parents who talk to their children about sex or condoms have
closer relationships with their children and may monitor their childrens
activities more closely than parents who do not talk to their children about sex
or condoms. If this were true, the children of parents who talk to them about
sex and condoms would spend relatively more time with their parents and
less time with their peers than the children of parents who do not talk to them
about sex and condoms. If so, then the greater influence of peer norms for
teens who do not versus those who do discuss sex or condoms with a parent
may simply be due to the greater exposure that those teens receive to peer atti-
tudes and behavior.
We conducted several additional tests to examine this alternative explana-
tion. Using a four-item parental-monitoring measure, = .68 (adapted from
Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992), and a four-item
parental-closeness measure, = .85, we examined differences between teens
who did and teens who did not talk to a parent about sex, and teens who did
and teens who did not talk to a parent about condoms. There were no differ-
ences in parental monitoring as a function of whether initiating sex was dis-
cussed ( p = .12) or whether condoms were discussed ( p = .61). There were
differences in closeness, however, with adolescents who talked with a parent
about sex reporting greater closeness than those who did not (M = 13.5 vs.
12.8, p = .01) and adolescents who talked with a parent about condoms
reporting greater closeness than those who did not (M = 13.4 vs. 12.4, p <
.001). Consequently, we included parental monitoring and closeness as
covariates in all regression models presented above. With monitoring and
closeness as covariates, the overall results changed only slightly; one signifi-
cant interaction was reduced to a marginal level of significance, one margin-
ally significant effect became significant, and one nonsignificant effect
became marginally significant. Thus, although monitoring and closeness
may be important predictors of deviant behavior (Forehand, Miller, Dutra, &
Watts-Chance, 1997), in this data, the interactive effect of parental communi-
cation and peer norms on teens sexual behavior and condom use was inde-
pendent of parental monitoring and closeness.
 Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR 269

Theoretical Implications
The data show that parental communication moderates the relationship
between teensperceptions of peer norms and their sexual behavior. This sug-
gests that the effect of parental communication on teen sexual behavior may
be indirect, rather than or in addition to being direct. This is important
because some studies have found no relationship between parent-adolescent
communication and adolescent sexual behavior, leading some to conclude
that parents have little impact. This work suggests that parental communica-
tion about sexual issues can have an impact by affecting other correlates of
teens sexual behavior. This is important to recognize because it is possible
that parent-teen communication might affect the correlates of teen sexual
behavior but not the overall level of teen sexual behavior, and examining only
the main effect of parental communication would lead one to conclude that
parental communication has no impact. The broader implication of this is
that researchers need to focus on understanding how and why parental com-
munication affects teen sexual behavior rather than simply on whether or not
it does. To do this, researchers must examine interactions and specific
process variables. Such process-based research that focuses on how parental
communication influences risk behavior will aid in the development of theo-
retical models that account for multiple sources of influence on adolescent
sexual behavior.

Limitations of This Work

There are some limitations of this work. First, as noted above, the data are
strictly correlational, so the direction of causality cannot be determined. The
proposed causal sequence, that is, that children who do not talk to their par-
ents turn to their peers for information and norms that guide their own sexual
behavior, cannot be established based on this data alone. Longitudinal inves-
tigations that track the development of attitudes and values as a function of
parental communication and peer norms are needed to make more confident
causal inferences. Second, the study population consisted of minority youth,
and therefore, the sample is not a representative sample, so the findings may
not be generalizable to nonminority populations. Nevertheless, minority
populations are at an increased risk for STDs including HIV (Lindegren et al.,
1994) and are therefore an important population to study. A third limitation
pertains to the fact that peer norms were measured as perceptions of peers
attitudes and behavior rather than peers actual attitudes and behavior. It is
270 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000

well documented that people use their own behavior to judge the attitudes and
behaviors of others (e.g., Ross, Greene, & House, 1977), particularly when
objective information is scarce. This raises the possibility that the causal
direction of the relationship between perceived peer norms and teens behav-
ior is reversed (i.e., behavior influences perceived peer norms rather than per-
ceived peer norms influence behavior), and the moderation of this relation-
ship by parent-teen discussions is due to the fact that parent-teen discussions
provide teens with information that reduces the extent to which they are able
to distort their perceptions of peers norms. For example, discussing sex with a
parent may provide the teen with information that reduces his or her belief
that all my friends are having sex. The findings presented here may be more
compelling if they are replicated using measures of the actual attitudes and
behaviors of teens peers.

Conclusions
Public health objectives regarding HIV prevention for adolescents focus
on the delay of sexual onset and on condom use among sexually active
youths. Parental communication may play a critical role in achieving the pub-
lic health objectives for sexual activity among adolescents, which focus on
delaying the onset of sex and promoting condom use. Recent research on
parental communication that has examined the communication process and
interactive influences of parents and peers has shown that parental communi-
cation is a robust predictor of childrens sexual behavior. The continued
examination of these factors will allow researchers and educators to deter-
mine the important elements that make parental communication effective and
to develop effective programs based on those elements.

NOTES

1. Mothers also reported on whether they had ever discussed initiating sex and discussed con-
doms with their child. Adolescents and mothers agreement was 65% for initiating sex and 68%
for condoms. No additional data were available about fathers reports. For more complete re-
ports, see Miller, Kotchick, Dorsey, Forehand, and Ham (1999).
2. Each predictor was considered in separate regression equations because we were inter-
ested in examining the interactive effects of parental communication on the predictors and not in
the combined predictive effect of the various peer-norm measures. For the most part, the predic-
tors were not highly correlated. The correlation between the two peer-norm predictors of sexual
behavior was only r = .19, and the correlations between the three measures of peer norms for
condom use were .27, .01, and .09, respectively.
 Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR 271

3. This result remained significant when only sexually active adolescents who did talk to a
parent about initiating sex versus those who did not talk to a parent about initiating sex were con-
sidered, and when only children who named a parent or a peer were considered (i.e., when those
whose responses were classified as other were dropped).

REFERENCES

Alan Guttmacher Institute. (1994). Sex and Americas teenagers. New York: Author.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1989). Adolescent sexual behavior. American Psycholo-
gist, 44, 249-257.
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 HIV-related health interventions. Jour-
nal of Sex Research, 26, 514-524.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). HIV/AIDS surveillance report, 9(1).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1998). CDC surveillance summaries. Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(SS-3), 1-89.
Coates, T. J., & Greenblatt, R. M. (1989). Behavioral change using community level interven-
tions. In K. Holmes (Ed.), Sexually transmitted diseases (pp. 1075-1080). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
DiClemente, R. J. (1990). Adolescents and AIDS: Current research, prevention strategies and
public policy. In L. Temoshok & A. Baum (Eds.), Psychological aspects of AIDS and HIV
disease (pp. 52-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DiClemente, R. J. (1991). Predictors of HIV-preventive sexual behavior in a high-risk adolescent
population: The influence of perceived peer norms and sexual communication on incarcer-
ated adolescents consistent use of condoms. Journal of Adolescent Health, 12, 385-390.
Fisher, J. D., Misovich, S. J., & Fisher, W. D. (1992). Impact of perceived social norms on adoles-
centsAIDS-risk behavior and prevention. In R. J. DiClemente (Ed.) Adolescents and AIDS:
A generation in jeopardy (pp. 117-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Forehand, R., Miller, K. S., Dutra, R., & Watts-Chance, M. W. (1997). Role of parenting in ado-
lescent deviant behavior: Replication across and within two ethnic groups. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 1036-1041.
Fox, G. L., & Inazu, J. K. (1980). Patterns and outcomes of mother-daughter communication
about sexuality. Journal of Social Issues, 36, 7-29.
Friedmen, S. R., DesJarlais, D. C., Sotheran, J. L., Garber, J., Cohen, H., & Smith, D. (1987).
HIV and self-organization among intravenous drug users. International Journal of the
Addictions, 22, 201-220.
Furstenberg, F. F., Herceg-Burton, R., Shea, J., & Webb, D. (1984). Family communication and
teenagers contraceptive use. Family Planning Perspectives, 16, 163-170.
Holtzman, D., & Rubinson, R. (1995). Parent and peer communication effects on AIDS-related
behavior among U.S. high school students. Family Planning Perspectives, 27, 235-240, 268.
Jaccard, J., & Dittus, P. J. (1993). Parent-adolescent communication about premarital pregnancy.
Families in Society, 74, 329-343.
Jaccard, J., Dittus, P. J., Gordon, V. V. (1996). Maternal correlates of adolescent sexual and con-
traceptive behavior. Family Planning Perspectives, 28, 159-165.
272 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / March 2000

Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudi-
nal study of youth. New York: Academic Press.
Joseph, J. G., Montgomery, S. B., Emmons, C., Kessler, R. C., Ostrow, D. G., Wortman, C. B.,
OBrien, K., Eller, M., & Eshleman, S. (1987). Magnitude and determinants of behavioral
risk reduction: Longitudinal analysis of a cohort at risk for HIV. Psychology and Health, 1,
73-96.
Kallen, D. J., Stephenson, J. J., & Doughty, A. (1983). The need to know: Recalled adolescent
sources of sexual and contraceptive information and sexual behavior. Journal of Sex
Research, 19, 137-159.
Kandel, D. B., Kessler, R. C., & Margulies, R. Z. (1978). Antecedents of adolescent initiation
into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7,
13-40.
Kelly, J. A., St. Lawrence, J. S., Brasfield, T. L., Stevenson, L. Y., Diaz, Y. Y., & Hauth, A. C.
(1990). HIV risk behavior patterns among gay men in small southern cities. American Jour-
nal of Public Health, 81, 168-171.
Kotchick, B. A., Dorsey, S., Miller, K., & Forehand, R. (1997). Adolescent sexual risk-taking in
single parent ethnic minority families. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 93-102
Krosnick, J. A., & Judd, C. M. (1982). Transitions in social influence at adolescence: Who
induces cigarette smoking? Developmental Psychology, 18, 359-368.
Lindegren, M. L., Hanson, C., Miller, K., Byers, R. H., & Onorato, I. (1994). Epidemiology of
human immunodeficiency virus infection in adolescents, United States. Pediatric Infections
Disease Journal, 13, 525-535.
Lowe, C. S., & Radius, S. M. (1987). Young adults contraceptive practices: An investigation of
influences. Adolescence, 22, 291-304.
Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (1989). Issues in the perception of HIV risk and risk reduction
activities by black and Hispanic/Latina women. American Psychologist, 43, 949-957.
McKusick, L., Coates, T. J., & Morin, S. (1990). Longitudinal predictors of unprotected anal
intercourse among gay and bisexual men in San Francisco: The HIV Behavioral Research
Project. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 978-983.
Miller, H. G., Turner, C. F., & Moses, L. E. (Eds.). (1990). HIV: The second decade. Washington,
DC: National Academy.
Miller, K., Clark, L. F., Wendell, D. A., Levin, M. L., Gray-Ray, P., Velez, C. N., & Webber, M. P.
(1997). Adolescent sexual experience: A new typology. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20,
179-186.
Miller, K., Kotchick, B. A., Dorsey, S., Forehand, R., & Ham, A. Y. (1999). An analysis of family
communication about sex: What are parents saying and are their adolescents listening? Fam-
ily Planning Perspectives, 30, 218-222, 235.
Miller, K., Levin, M. L., Whitaker, D. J., & Xu, X. (1998). Patterns of condom use among adoles-
cents: The impact of maternal-adolescent communication. American Journal of Public
Health, 88, 1542-1544.
Moore, K. A., Peterson, J. L., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1985). Parental attitudes and the occurrence
of early sexual activity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 777-782.
Newcomer, S. F., & Udry, J. R. (1985). Parent-child communication and adolescent sexual
behavior. Family Planning Perspectives, 17, 169-184.
Painter, K. (1997, February 20). Preteens ripe for parental straight talk. USA Today, p. D1.
Reiss, I. L., Banwart, A., & Forman, H. (1975). Premarital contraceptive usage: A study and
some theoretical explanations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37, 619-630.
 Whitaker, Miller / PARENT, PEERS, AND SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR 273

Romer, D., Black, M., Ricardo, I., Feigelman, S., Kaljee, L., Galbraith, J., Nesbit, R., Hornik, R. C., &
Stanton, B. (1994). Social influences on the sexual behavior of youth at risk for HIV expo-
sure. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 977-985.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias is
social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13,
279-301.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting
practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and
encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.
Whitaker, D. J., Miller, K. S., May, D. C., & Levin, M. L. (1999). Teenage partners com-
munication about sexual risk and condom use: The importance of parent-teenager dis-
cussions. Family Planning Perspectives, 31, 117-121.

Daniel J. Whitaker is a research psychologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention (CDC), National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS
Prevention, Surveillance and Epidemiology. Dr. Whitaker received his Ph.D. in social
psychology in 1996 from the University of Georgia and joined the CDC in 1997. His
research interests include HIV prevention in adolescents, self-processes as they relate to
risk behavior, and the development of relationship schemas and how those schemas
affect sexual risk behavior.

Kim S. Miller is a research sociologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Pre-
vention, Surveillance and Epidemiology. Dr. Miller joined the CDC in 1991, following
the completion of her doctoral degree in sociology at Emory University. Her research in-
terests include the examination of familial factors on the enactment of HIV risk and risk
reduction behaviors in adolescents, and the design and implementation of interventions
to prevent HIV in adolescents.