[Paleopsych] Heritage: Adolescent Virginity Pledges, Condom Use, and Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Young Adults (Draft)
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Wed Jun 15 19:51:12 UTC 2005
Adolescent Virginity Pledges, Condom Use, and Sexually Transmitted
Diseases Among Young Adults (Draft)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/whitepaper06142005-1.cfm
[Click the URL to get the graphs, or grab the PDF.]
Research - Welfare
Adolescent Virginity Pledges, Condom Use, and Sexually Transmitted
Diseases Among Young Adults (Draft)
by Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
WebMemo
June 14, 2005 |
[23]Print PDF
Executive Summary
For more than a decade, organizations such as True Love Waits have
encouraged young people to abstain from sexual activity. As part of
these programs, young people are encouraged to take a verbal or
written pledge to abstain from sex until marriage.
A recent article by professors Peter Bearman and Hanna Bruckner in the
Journal of Adolescent Health claimed that, when they reach young adult
years, adolescents who made virginity pledges were as likely to have
sexually transmitted diseases (STD's), as were those who never made a
pledge. Bearman and Bruckner did not measure whether individuals had
ever had an STD or had had an STD during adolescence. They only
measured whether young adults were currently infected with an STD.
Since seven or more years might have elapsed between the time an
adolescent made a virginity pledge and the time STD's were measured,
their analysis poses a very rigorous test for virginity pledges. It
assesses the long-term health consequences of moral commitments made
in adolescence.
Bearman and Bruckner's analysis showed that, as young adults,
virginity pledgers actually had lower STD rates than non-pledgers, but
that the differences were not statistically significant. They
concluded that the STD rate of pledgers "does not differ from
non-pledgers." This assertion garnered very widespread press
attention. Bolstered by this finding, Bearman and Bruckner called for
the critical re-examination of federal funding for abstinence
education.
Examination of the Bearman and Bruckner article reveals that the
methods employed have serious limitations. For example, the methods
used to assess the impact of virginity pledges on STD's also
demonstrate that condom use has no effect in reducing STD's. This
peculiar result underscores the problematic nature of their analysis.
In the present paper, we re-examine the linkage between adolescent
virginity pledging and STD rates among young adults using the same
data set employed by Bearman and Bruckner, the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). The current analysis differs
in two key respects from Bearman and Bruckner's. While Bearman and
Bruckner used only one STD measure (the presence of three STD's in
urine samples), the present paper analyzes five STD measures based on
urine samples, STD diagnoses, and STD symptoms. Second, the Bearman
and Bruckner article was unusual in that it presented only simple
descriptive statistics; the present paper employs a wide range of
multivariate logistic regressions that simultaneously hold constant
relevant background variables such as race, gender and family
background.
Our analysis shows that with four of the five STD measures examined,
virginity pledging predicts lower STD rates among young adults with
statistical significance at the 95 percent confidence level or better.
With the fifth STD measure, virginity pledging was found to predict
lower STD rates at the 90 percent confidence level. (This fifth STD
measure was the one employed by Bearman and Bruckner: evidence of any
of three STD's in urine samples.)
We also analyze the relationship between condom use and STD rates.
Three measures of condom use were examined: condom use at last
intercourse; condom use at first intercourse and frequency of condom
use in the last year. Across the full range of analysis, using all
five dependent STD variables, virginity pledging was found to be a
better predictor of reduced STD rates when compared to any of the
condom use variables. Critically, none of the condom use variables
successfully predicts lower STD rates with the STD measure chosen by
Bearman and Bruckner (three STD's in urine samples); a fact the
emphasizes the problematic nature of that STD variable as a measure of
program success.
Bearman and Bruckner's conclusion that virginity pledgers have the
same STD rates as non-pledgers is clearly the result of serious
limitations in their analytic methods. Our current paper shows that
taking a virginity pledge in adolescence is associated with a
substantial decline in STD rates in young adult years. Across a broad
array of analysis, virginity pledging was found to be a better
predictor of STD reduction than was condom use. Individuals who took a
virginity pledge in adolescence are some 25 percent less likely to
have an STD as young adults, when compared with non-pledgers who are
identical in race, gender, and family background. The reduction in
STD's for virginity pledgers occurs despite the fact that many years
may have elapsed between the time the individual took a virginity
pledge and the time that the STD rate was measured. Moreover, after
initially taking a pledge, relatively few virginity pledgers will have
received continuing social support for their commitment to abstinence.
Lower STD rates is just one among a broad array of positive outcomes
associated with virginity pledging. Previous research has shown that,
when compared to non-pledgers of similar backgrounds, individuals who
have taken a virginity pledge are:
* Less likely to have children out-of-wedlock;
* Less likely to experience teen pregnancy;
* Less likely to give birth as teens or young adults;
* Less likely to have sex before age 18; and,
* Less likely to engage in non-marital sex as young adults.
In addition, pledgers have far fewer life-time sexual partners than
non-pledgers. There are no apparent negatives associated with
virginity pledging: while pledgers are less likely to use
contraception at initial intercourse, differences in contraceptive use
quickly disappear. By young adult years, sexually active pledgers are
as likely to use contraception as non-pledgers.
Introduction
For more than a decade, organizations such as True Love Waits have
encouraged young people to abstain from sexual activity. As part of
these programs, young people are encouraged to take a verbal or
written pledge to abstain from sex until marriage. In recent years,
increased public policy attention has been focused on adolescents who
take these "virginity pledges," as policy-makers seek to assess the
social and behavioral outcomes of such abstinence programs.
In the April 2005 issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health,
professors Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner claimed that adolescents
who have taken a virginity pledge have the same rate of STD infections
as those who have never taken a pledge.[25][1] This finding was
surprising since previous research had shown that taking a virginity
pledge was clearly associated with reductions in sexual risk behavior,
specifically a delay in initiation of sexual intercourse and decrease
in the number of lifetime sexual partners. Bearman and Bruckner
suggested that while virginity pledging may be related to a reduction
in STD's in early adolescence, by young adulthood any positive health
effects had disappeared. They stated, "As a social policy, pledging
does not appear effective in stemming STD acquisition among young
adults."[26][2] The authors called for a re-examination of federal
funding for abstinence education.
Bearman and Bruckner's claim was immediately seized on by the press
and repeated in hundreds of publications nationwide. For example,
* The Associated Press wire service reported, "teens who pledged
abstinence are just as likely to have STDs as their peers."[27][3]
* The San Francisco Chronicle stated "Virginity pledgers are just as
likely to contract sexually-transmitted diseases as other teens."
[28][4]
* The CBS news show Sixty Minutes reported, "kids who take virginity
pledges [are] just as likely to have sexually transmitted diseases
as kids who don't."
Bearman and Bruckner's finding has quickly become a key element in the
advocacy of groups hostile to abstinence education. For example, the
nation's leading anti-abstinence organization, the Sexuality
Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) triumphantly
proclaims "pledgers have the same rate of sexually transmitted
diseases (STDs) as their peers who had not pledged."[29][5]
Clearly, virginity pledge programs and abstinence education are of
considerable public and political interest. Previous research by the
authors of the present paper has shown that adolescents who take
virginity pledgers have substantially improved life outcomes;
specifically, they are: less likely to engage in sexual activity while
in high school; have fewer sexual partners; are less likely to
experience teen pregnancy; and are less likely to bear children
out-of-wedlock.[30][6] The current paper will examine the link between
virginity pledging and sexually transmitted disease with specific
reference to the Bearman and Bruckner article.
Background
Our analysis will utilize the same database employed by Bearman and
Bruckner, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health
(hereafter simply "Add Health"), funded by the Department of Health
and Human Services and other federal agencies.[31][7] The Add Health
survey is longitudinal which means that it surveys the same group of
youth repeatedly over time. Interviews were conducted in three
succeeding periods: wave I in 1994, wave II in 1995, and wave III in
2001. When the Add Health survey started with wave interviews in 1994,
most of the respondents were junior-high and high-school students
nearly all aged 12 to 18. The students were tracked through high
school and into early adulthood. By the time of the wave III
interviews, the youth in the survey were nearly all young adults
between the ages of 19 and 25.
Virginity Pledgers and Non-pledgers
In each of the three waves of the Add Health survey, youth were asked
the question: "Have you ever taken a public or written pledge to
remain a virgin until marriage?" In the following analysis, youth who
reported, in any of the three waves of the survey, that they have
taken a pledge are counted as "pledgers". Youth who did not report
taking a virginity pledge in any of the Add Health interview waves are
counted as "non-pledgers." Roughly one fifth of the youth in the Add
Health survey report having taken a pledge in at least one interview
of the survey. The remaining four fifths have never reported taking a
pledge.
As Table 1 shows, pledgers are similar to non-pledgers in race, family
structure, and family income. Pledgers, in the sample, are slightly
younger than non-pledgers. Pledgers are more likely to be female: 61.8
percent of pledgers are girls compared to 46.6 percent of
non-pledgers. Pledgers are also somewhat more likely to be religious;
on a scale of one to four based on frequency of church attendance,
frequency of prayer, and importance of religion to the individual,
pledgers have a mean score of 3.4 compared to 2.7 for non-pledgers.
Virginity Pledging and Sexual Activity
Pledging is linked to large reductions in sexual activity during
adolescence. For example, 63 percent of non-pledgers had sexual
intercourse before age 18 compared to 39 percent of pledgers.[33][8]
As noted, by the third wave of the Add Health survey in 2001, the
adolescents in the survey had become young adults, with ages ranging
between 19 and 25. At this point many years may have elapsed since the
youth's promise to remain a virgin until marriage. In the intervening
years, relatively few pledging youth will have benefited from social
support systems aimed at bolstering their commitment to abstinence. As
a consequence, it is not surprising that differences in sexual
behavior between pledgers and non-pledgers diminish somewhat over
time. Nonetheless, by the third wave of the survey, real differences
in sexual behavior remain; roughly a fifth of all pledgers have never
engaged in any type of sexual activity (vaginal, oral, or anal)
compared to 8 percent among non-pledgers.
STDs and the Add Health Survey
Virginity pledge and abstinence education programs have a variety of
goals. Such programs seek to: improve the mental health of youth; help
youth develop true respect for others; prepare young people for
healthy marriages as adults; reduce the risk of teen pregnancy and
out-of-wedlock childbearing; and reduce the threat of sexually
transmitted diseases. As noted, virginity pledging has been shown to
be linked to a wide range of positive outcomes for youth; however,
recently, most attention has focused on the association between
virginity pledges and STDs.
While the Add Health survey has an abundance of data on STD's, most
are imperfect as means of assessing the impact of virginity pledging
in reducing STDs. One would expect a virginity pledge program to have
its maximum impact in reducing exposure to STDs in the years
immediately after the pledge was taken. The peak effectiveness of
pledge programs in decreasing STDs probably occurs in late
adolescence, the time when the behavioral differences between pledgers
and non-pledgers are greatest and the risk of acquiring STDs is
highest.
To measure the impact of virginity pledges on contraction of STDs,
analysts would ideally want to know: whether a youth has ever been
infected by a STD; the number of infections and the timing of each;
and the date the virginity pledge was taken. Unfortunately, the Add
Health survey does not contain this information. Critically, the Add
Health survey does not ask respondents whether they have ever had an
STD. Instead, most of the STD data in the Add Health survey relate to
current or recent STD infections occurring at the third interview wave
of the survey. By the third wave interview, as noted, the respondents
are no longer adolescents, but are young adults aged 19 to 25. Many
years may have passed since an individual made his or her virginity
pledge. Thus, the Add Health data provide an imperfect basis for
measuring the link between pledging and STDs.
While the question of whether virginity pledges, taken mainly in
adolescence, are linked to lower STD rates among young adults is a
valid research topic, this approach is very likely to underestimate
the effectiveness of pledging in reducing STD infections. Bearman and
Bruckner partially acknowledge this point, stating that STD data on
young adults "cannot tell us whether pledgers had a lower risk of STD
infection as young adolescents."[34][9] With this caveat in mind, the
present paper will follow the approach taken by Bearman and Bruckner,
measuring the relationship between adolescent virginity pledging and
subsequent STD rates among young adults. Again, readers should
recognize that this methodology, while informative, is very likely to
underestimate the health benefits of pledging.
Bearman and Bruckner's STD Analysis
To analyze the links between virginity pledging and STD's, Bearman and
Bruckner used STD data from the third interview wave of the Add Health
survey. As part of the third wave interviews, urine samples were taken
from some 90 percent of Add Health respondents, a total of around
14,000 individuals. The urine samples were examined for evidence of
current bacterial infection by three sexually transmitted diseases:
Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Trichomoniasis. According to the urine
sample data, some 6.8 percent of the sample was found to be currently
infected with one or more of these diseases.
Bearman and Bruckner then determined the pledge status of each
interviewee based on data from all three waves of the Add Health
survey. On the basis of this analysis, they concluded that "the STD
infection rate [of virginity pledgers] does not differ from
nonpledgers"[35][10] This claim has been repeated on television and in
hundreds of news stories and has been amplified by other groups.
We shall begin our examination of these claims by reporting the actual
STD infection rates in the Add Health sample. Chart 1 shows the STD
rates for pledgers and non-pledgers; the measure of STD infection is
the same one employed by Bearman and Bruckner: evidence of Chlamydia,
Gonorrhea or Trichomoniasis in urine samples. (We shall henceforth
refer to this variable as the "three STD's in urine sample" measure.)
Given the aggressive claims of the press and anti-abstinence groups,
many will be surprised to find that the Add Health survey data used by
Bearman and Bruckner actually show that pledgers have noticeably lower
STD infection rates than do non-pledgers. Male pledgers have an
infection rate 30 percent lower than non-pledgers (4.2 pecent to 6.1
percent.) Female pledgers have an infection rate some 15 percent lower
than non-pledgers (6.7 percent to 7.8 percent.) These differences are
roughly in line with what might be expected given that the behavioral
differences between the two groups have attenuated by young adulthood.
If the Add Health data show pledgers have lower rates of infection,
how can Bearman and Bruckner assert that the STD rate of pledgers
"does not differ" from non-pledgers? At the foundation of their
argument is the legitimate issue of "statistical significance".
Obviously, the Add Health survey does not contain all American youth;
it is a representative sample of some 15,000 individuals. In analyzing
data from the sample, it is important to estimate whether conditions
in the sample: a) reflect real conditions in the U.S. population as a
whole; or, b) may be the result of random distortion in the sample
itself. (If, for example, we took a sample of 10 persons and found
that seven were men, it would not be appropriate to conclude that 70
percent of all persons were male.) Statistical significance measures
the degree of confidence that analysts can have that conditions found
in the sample mirror conditions in the real world.
Bearman and Bruckner found that the differences in STD rates between
pledgers and non-pledgers were not statistically significant at the 95
percent confidence level, a conventional test of significance used in
social science. In other words, while the Add Health survey shows
differences in STD rates, we cannot be 95 percent certain that these
differences exist in the general youth population rather than just
within the confines of the Add Health sample.
It is true that, using the urine sample measure of three STDs, the
differences in STD rates between pledgers and non-pledgers are not
statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. But the
differences in STD rates do fall within a hairbreadth of the 95
percent significance threshold. Multivariate regressions (presented
later), using the three STD's in urine sample measure as the dependent
(predicted) variable reaffirm that pledgers have lower rates of STDs;
this finding is significant at the 91 to 94 percent confidence
levels.[37][11]
While technically accurate, Bearman and Bruckner's claim that "the STD
infection rate [of virginity pledgers] does not differ from
nonpledgers" represents rather severe example of the "null hypothesis
fallacy." In effect, they argue: differences in STD rates between
pledgers and non-pledgers appear in the Add Health sample, but these
differences are significant at the 90 percent rather than the 95
percent confidence level, therefore we assert categorically that no
STD differences exist between the two groups. The fallacy of this
logic is obvious. A passionate embrace of the null hypothesis (no
differences in outcomes exist between the groups) is likely to be
misplaced when the STD differences found in the sample are near the 95
percent confidence level and where other evidence exists indicating
that these STD differences are real. As we shall see this is the
situation with respect to virginity pledges and STDs.
Part of the difficulty of demonstrating statistical significance may
lie in the particular STD measure used by Bearman and Bruckner. The
three STD in urine sample measure shows a very low rate of current STD
infection; only 6.8 percent of young adults have an STD by this
measure. In addition, virginity pledgers are a relatively small group,
comprising roughly 20 percent of the Add Health sample. Overall,
pledgers testing positive for the three STDs in the urine sample were
about one percent of the Add Health sample. These factors make it
difficult to demonstrate statistically significant effects. Other
measures of STD infection in the Add Health data base may more readily
yield statistically significant results.
Other Measures of STD Infections
In addition, to the urine sample test, the third wave of the Add
Health survey contains other STD data: respondents are asked if they
have been diagnosed as having one of fourteen different STDs in the
last twelve months; they are also asked if they have had specific
physical symptoms of STD infection in the last year. We have utilized
these additional data to construct five different measures of STD
infection.
A. Three STDs in urine sample. We code respondents as having an STD
if their urine sample shows the presence of Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, or
Trichomoniasis. This is the same measure used by Bearman and Bruckner.
B. Three STDs in urine sample or three STD diagnosis. In addition to
testing urine for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Trichomoniasis, Add Health
also asks the individual if they have been diagnosed as have any of
these three diseases in the last 12 months. For this measure, we code
individuals as having an STD if they have a positive urine test or
have been diagnosed as having one or more of the three diseases in the
last year. Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Trichomoniasis are bacterial
infections. An individual who is diagnosed with one of these diseases
will immediately be given antibiotics. In nearly all cases, the
antibiotic will quickly eliminate the disease and remove evidence of
the disease from the urine. A urine sample alone will understate the
prevalence of these three diseases since many individuals will already
have been diagnosed and treated for them. Combining the urine sample
data with information on diagnoses during the prior 12 months provides
a more robust and useful measure of STD incidence.
C. Three STDs in urine sample or physical symptoms. There are many
STDs in addition to the three assayed in the urine samples. This
measure combines the urine sample data with reported physical
symptoms. Under this measure, individuals are coded as having an STD
if they have a positive urine test or if they report having
experienced any of the following physical symptoms in the last year:
"warts on your genitals", "painful sores or blisters on your genitals"
or "oozing or dripping from your penis or vagina".[38][12]
D. Diagnosis of having any of fourteen STDs. The Add Health survey
also asks respondents if, in the last 12 months, they have been told
by a doctor or health worker that they have any of the following
sexually transmitted diseases: chlamydia, gonorrhea, trichomoniasis,
syphilis, genital herpes, genital warts, human papilloma virus (HPV),
bacterial vaginosis, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), crevicitis or
mu copurulent cervicitis (MPC), urethritis (NGU), vaginitis, HIV or
AIDS, or other STD. Under this measure, individuals are coded as
having an STD if they report being diagnosed with any of the diseases
on the preceding list.
E. Fourteen Disease Diagnosis, positive urine sample, or physical
symptoms. This measure combines the previous four measures.
Individuals are coded as having an STD if they: have a positive urine
test; have any of the three physical symptoms; or have been diagnosed
with any of the fourteen STDs in the last year.[39][13]
Chart 2 shows the incidence and 95 percent confidence intervals for
each of the five STD measures. (The confidence intervals indicate that
we can have 95 percent certainty that the infection rate in the real
world falls within the interval range.) The three STD urine sample
measured used by Bearman and Bruckner has the lowest point estimate of
incidence (at 6.7 percent) and the largest confidence interval
relative to the point estimate. This indicates that it will be
comparatively more difficult to make statistically significant
predictions with this STD measure compared to the others.
We hypothesize that virginity pledge status is more likely to be a
statistically significant predictor of reduced STD infection for the
STD measures with higher incidence. We hypothesize further that the
same pattern will hold between condom use variables and STD measures.
Confirmation of these hypotheses will provide compelling evidence that
Bearman and Bruckner's failure to find significant differences in the
STD rates of pledgers and non-pledgers was a result of the operational
measure of STD's they employed.
The Role of Social Background Variables
Teens who make virginity pledges may differ substantially from those
who do not in a wide range of important social background factors. If
pledgers have better STD outcomes than do non-pledgers, it is possible
that the outcome differences are the result of social background
factors rather than pledge activity per se. To compensate for this
possibility, we analyzed the role of virginity pledges on STD outcomes
through a set of multivariate logistic regression analyses which hold
relevant social background factors constant. In this statistical
procedure, teens who made virginity pledges were compared to
non-pledging teens who were otherwise identical in social background
characteristics.
A number of independent or predictor variables were used in the
regression analyses. These were:
Pledge status -Individuals were identified as "pledgers" if they
responded that they had made a virginity pledge in at least one wave
of the survey. Individuals were identified as "non-pledgers" if they
answered that they had not taken a virginity pledge in each of the
three waves of the survey.[41][14]
Gender - whether the individual was male or female
Age - whether the individual was white, black, Asian or Hispanic
Family background - whether the individual came from an intact married
family containing both biological parents, a single parent family, a
step parent or cohabiting family or other family.
Religiosity - a continuous variable on a scale of 1 to 4 based on the
average scores of responses to the questions: how often do you attend
religious services, how often do you pray, and how important is
religion to you.
All Add Health youths for which STD data were available were included
in the regressions. The independent or predictor variables were
deployed in four models. These were:
Model One - pledge status was used as a single predictor variable
without controls.
Model Two - The independent or predictor variables were: pledge
status, age, gender, and race.
Model Three - The independent variables were the same as Model Two but
family structure variables were added.
Model Four - The independent variables were the same as Model Three
but religiosity was added.
Virginity Pledging as a Predictor of Lower Rates of STD Infection
To fully examine the relationship between virginity pledging and the
STD rates of young adults, the five dependent STD measures were each
analyzed in all four regression models described above, yielding a
total of 20 separate regressions. Data on the individual logistic
regressions is provided in the appendix.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the 20 regressions. Using all five
dependent STD variables, virginity pledgers were found to have lower
STD rates across all 20 regressions; in each case the odd ratios for
pledging were below 1.00 indicating that pledging was linked to lower
STD rates. Virginity pledging was found to be a statistically
significant predictor of lower STD rates at, at least, the 95 percent
confidence level, for four of the STD measures: (B) three STDs in
urine or three STD diagnosis; (C) three STD's in urine or physical
symptoms; (D) diagnosis of any of 14 STDs; and, (E) diagnosis of 14
STD's positive urine sample or physical symptoms. In many cases,
statistical significance reached the 99 percent confidence level. (The
sole exception to these results was STD measure (C) in model one, a
regression without controls; the results here were not significant.)
The regression models using STD measure (A) or three STDs in urine
sample, as the dependent variable, differ somewhat from the other
regressions. This is the STD measure employed by Bearman and Bruckner.
All four models using STD measure (A) show that virginity pledgers
have lower STD rates than non-pledgers. The magnitude of STD reduction
(odds ratio) is virtually identical to the other sixteen regressions
using STD measures (B), (C), (D), and (E) as dependent variables.
However, the models using STD measure (A) as a dependent variable fall
just short of the 95 percent statistical significance level. With this
STD measure, in models 2, 3, and 4, virginity pledge status is shown
to be statistically significant as a predictor of reduced STDs at the
92 to 94 confidence level. Unfortunately, STD measure (A) is the only
one employed in Bearman and Bruckner's analysis.
In summary, in all cases the Add Health data show that virginity
pledgers have lower STD rates when compared to non-pledgers. In four
of the five STD measures presented, virginity pledging predicts lower
STD rates with a statistical significance of 95 percent or greater.
With the fifth STD measure, virginity pledging is shown to predict
lower STD rates with a 90 percent confidence. No STD measures in the
Add Health survey show virginity pledgers to have same or higher STD
rates as non-pledgers. In view of this aggregate data, it is
implausible to conclude that pledgers and non-pledgers in reality have
the same STD rates. Bearman and Bruckner's conclusion that there were
no meaningful differences in STD rates between pledgers and
non-pledgers is contingent on the single STD measure they employ.
Moreover, even with this measure, virginity pledging falls short of
statistical significance by a razor thin margin.
Condom Use and STD's
The next step in our analysis was to examine the relationship between
STD's and an array of measures of condom use. This enables us to
compare the efficacy of virginity pledges and condom use as predictors
of STD's. It also provides an independent method of assessing the
utility of various measures of STD infection. We hypothesized that
those STD measures that lacked a statistical significant association
with the virginity pledge as a predictor would also lack a
statistically significant link to condom use as a predictor. If true,
this could underscore the problematic nature of those dependent STD
variables.
Using Add Health interview data, we constructed three independent
(predictor) variables for condom use. They were:
Condom Use at First Vaginal Intercourse. This measures whether an
individual used a condom during the first instance of intercourse in
his or her life. The variable is a three part dummy variable: never
had vaginal intercourse; had vaginal intercourse and used condom in
first intercourse; and had vaginal intercourse and did not use condom
in first intercourse. (The last category was the default.)
Condom Use in Last Vaginal Intercourse. This variable measures whether
a condom was used during last intercourse. It is a three part dummy
variable: never had vaginal intercourse; had vaginal intercourse and
used a condom during last intercourse; and, had intercourse and did
not use a condom during last intercourse. (The last category was
treated as the default.)
Frequency of Condom Use. For individuals who report they had vaginal
intercourse during the last year, the Add Health survey asked how
frequently condoms were used during intercourse: never; some of the
time; half of the time; most of the time; or, all of the time. A five
point continuous independent variable was created with these
responses. Regressions using this variable were necessarily limited to
those who reported having vaginal intercourse during the last year.
We tested each of these condom use variables as predictors of the five
dependent STD measures. Socio-economic control variables were used
according to the four models specified earlier in the paper. A total
of twenty logistic regressions were performed using each of the three
independent variables of condom use, for a total of 60 regressions in
all. (Information on the individual regressions is presented in the
appendix.)
The results are summarized in table 3. Each of the condom use
independent variables either fails to predict or predicts inadequately
with respect to the three STD measures at the top of the table: three
STDs in urine sample; three STDs in urine sample or three STD
diagnoses; and three STDs in urine sample or physical symptoms. Using
these three STD measures as dependent variables, statistical
significance is not achieved in 27 of 36 regressions; in 9
regressions, significance reaches the 90 percent confidence level.
The two STD measures at the bottom of the table (diagnosis of fourteen
STD's, and diagnosis of fourteen STD's combined with positive urine
sample or physical symptoms) present a different story. With these STD
measures, the three condom use variables are able to predict, in
almost all models, a reduction of STD's at 95 or 99 percent confidence
levels. These patterns of significance loosely match those found with
virginity pledge variable. The data in table 3 underscore the fact
that statistical significance of predictor variables is highly
contingent on the particular STD measure used. The data suggest that
it would be unwise to base conclusions on one measure only.
The failure of all three condom use variables to successfully predict
reductions in Bearman and Bruckner's chosen STD measure (a positive
test for 3 STD's in the urine sample) is important. The condom use
variables not only failed to predict a reduction in STD's according to
this measure, they failed very badly. (Specific information is
provided in regression tables 6, 11, and 16 in the appendix.) While
the virginity pledge variable predicted STD reduction at the 90
percent confidence level according to this STD measure, the condom use
independent variables achieved, at best, a 35 percent confidence in
predicting reductions in this STD variable. One variable actually
achieves a statistically significant prediction of increased STD's
using this STD measure under model I. This is undoubtedly a fluke, but
it calls attention to the problematic nature of the three STDs in
urine sample measure as a dependent variable.
Comparison of Virginity Pledge and Condom Use as Predictors of STD
Reduction
Table 4 compares the predictive power of the virginity pledge variable
to the predictive power of the condom use variables (condom use at
first intercourse, condom use at last intercourse and frequency of
condom use in last year). The virginity pledge variable predicts a
reduction in STD's with at least a 95 percent confidence with four of
the five dependent STD variables. It predicts reduction in the fifth
STD variable with 90 percent confidence. By contrast the three condom
use variables predict reductions at 95 percent confidence with only
two of the five STD measures.
The virginity pledge variable predicts reduced STD's at the 99 percent
confidence with three STD variables. It predicts at 95 percent
confidence with the fourth STD variable and 90 percent with the fifth
STD measure (A). By contrast, the most effective condom use variable
(condom use at first intercourse) predicts STD reduction at the 99
percent confidence level with one measure and at the 95 percent
confidence with another. It achieved 90 percent confidence with two
other STD measures and failed to predict with the final dependent
measure (A): three STD's in urine sample.
Overall, in the analysis 80 regressions were performed: 20 with the
virginity pledge variable and 60 with the three condom use variables.
In every instance, across all 80 regressions, the virginity pledge
variable always achieved higher levels of confidence as a predictor of
STD reduction when compared to any of the corresponding condom use
variables. In other words, in predicting reduction of each dependent
STD variable in each of the four regression models, the virginity
pledge variable always outperformed all the condom variables. While it
is possible that future research may improve the predictive power of
both the pledge variable and the condom use variables, it is very
difficult in light of the evidence in table 4 to conclude, as Bearman
and Bruckner did, that "the STD infection rate [of pledgers] does not
differ from non-pledgers".[45][15]
Finally, note that the comparison of virginity pledging against condom
use is unfair to virginity pledge programs because it compares
pledging, which is merely a promise to behave a certain way in the
future, against actual behavior: the use of condoms. A fair comparison
would be to contrast the outcomes of virginity pledges against
adolescent promises to use condoms in the future. Of course, no
"condom promise" programs exist; if they did they would be unlikely to
compare well against virginity pledge programs.
Methodological Differences with Bearman and Bruckner Analysis
While the present analysis and the Bearman-Bruckner article both used
the same Add Health database, they reached very different conclusions
concerning the relationship between the virginity pledges and STD's.
These differences stem from three factors.
First, and most obvious, Bearman and Bruckner examined only one
measure of STD occurrence whereas the present paper examines five.
Second, the Bearman and Bruckner article presented only simple
descriptive statistics and confidence intervals. The present paper
relies primarily on multivariate logistic regressions. The use of
simple descriptive data can cause difficulties when groups compared
differ in background characteristics. In this case, the fact that
pledgers are more likely to be women and that women are more likely to
have STD's is particularly relevant.
Third, the Bearman and Bruckner article divided Add Health respondents
into three categories: non-pledgers, inconsistent pledgers, and
consistent pledgers.[46][16] Structuring the pledge data in this way,
Bearman and Bruckner actually found, as expected, that non-pledgers
had the highest STD rates, followed by inconsistent pledgers in the
middle, while consistent pledgers had the lowest rates; however, the
differences were not statistically significant. This three-part
division of pledge status is heuristically useful, and the present
authors have successfully used it in previous research; however, it
does have drawbacks. Dividing the already small population of pledgers
into two smaller sub-groups reduces the probability of achieving
statistically significant predictions. Consequently, in the present
paper, we have followed the Bearman and Bruckner's approach to pledge
status closely, but the two categories of inconsistent and consistent
pledgers have been combined into the single group called "pledgers."
Considerations on Differences in STD Measures
If pledgers and non-pledgers truly had identical rates of STD
infection, one would expect to see a wider variation in outcomes
across various STD measures; some STD measures would probably show the
pledgers had higher disease rates; others would show the STD rates of
pledgers and non-pledgers to be nearly identical, and other measures
would show pledgers to have lower rates. The Add Health data clearly
do not show this pattern; all five STD measures show that pledgers
have lower STD rates. The only real difference between the five STD
measures is that four show the relationship between pledging and
reduced STD's is significant at the 95 to 99 percent confidence levels
while the fifth measure shows significance at a 90 percent confidence.
This seems to build a prima facie case that virginity pledgers do have
lower STD rates in their young adult years despite the fact that many
years may have elapsed since they took their pledges.
Despite the array of different STD data available from the Add Health
survey, Bearman and Bruckner analyzed only the urine sample data. They
apparently regard the Add Health STD diagnoses data to be biased
against non-pledgers, arguing that non-pledgers are more likely to
perceive themselves at risk of STD's and more likely to go to a doctor
and be diagnosed and treated. Assuming that this idea has some
validity, it has interesting implications. Diagnosis and treatment
will remove evidence of gonorrhea, Chlamydia and Trichomoniasis from
the urine. If it is true that medical diagnoses rates of STD's are
biased against non-pledgers because they are differentially more
likely to be diagnosed and treated for each STD occurrence, it follows
that post-treatment physical evidence (such as the urine sample) would
be biased, conversely, against pledgers.
For example, if it were true, that, 1) pledgers and non-pledgers have
identical rates of pre-treatment STD infections; and, 2) non-pledgers
are more likely to go to a doctor and be diagnosed and treated, then
it would follow that the post-treatment urine samples should show
non-pledgers with lower rates of current infection. Obviously, this is
not the case. This provides yet another piece of evidence indicating
that pledgers do in fact have lower STD rates than non-pledgers.
Table 5 shows the STD rate ratios for the five STD measures. The
ratios represent the STD rate of pledgers divided by the STD rate of
non-pledgers; they report raw or non-standardized data. The ratios
have inconsistencies but they provide some evidence suggesting that
non-pledgers may, indeed, be differentially more likely to go to a
doctor and be diagnosed per STD occurrence. The ratio for the 14 STD
diagnosis measure (which is based on diagnosis only) is lower than the
other measures based on physical evidence or physical evidence and
diagnosis combined.
If it is true that non-pledgers are more likely to seek treatment per
STD occurrence, then STD measures using diagnosis would be somewhat
biased in favor of pledgers and STD measures based on post-treatment
physical evidence (such as urine samples) would be biased against
pledgers. The real inter-group difference would lie somewhere between
the urine sample STD measure and the STD diagnosis measure.
The question of biases in the STD measures would be critical if the
different STD measures presented opposite findings: if one measure
showed pledgers had better outcomes while another showed non-pledgers
had better outcomes. But, of course, all the STD measures show
pledgers have better outcomes.
Again, if the real pre-treatment STD rates for pledgers and
non-pledgers were identical we would expect that the urine measure
would show non-pledgers with lower STD rates while the diagnosis
measure would show non-pledgers with higher rates. Of course, this is
not the case. All the measures show that pledgers have lower STD
rates; the only difference is between those that show significance at
the 95 or 99 percent confidence level and the one measure with 90
percent confidence. Thus, the potential bias of the individual STD
measures for or against pledgers does not disturb the large body of
evidence indicating pledgers have lower STD rates.
Magnitude of Predicted STD Reduction
The power or magnitude of STD reduction predicted by the virginity
pledge variable is fairly constant across all the regression models.
In general, virginity pledgers were found to have STD rates about 25
percent lower than the STD rates of non-pledgers of the same gender,
race and family background. This is illustrated in Chart 3. The chart
uses the broadest STD measure: the combined measure of diagnosis of
fourteen STD's, three STD's in the urine or physical symptoms. Chart 3
shows the predicted STD rates for an Hispanic male age 22 raised in a
step-family. If this individual had never taken a virginity pledge,
the predicted probability of STD's would be 19.9 percent. If he had
taken a virginity pledge, the predicted probability would be around
one fourth lower at 14.6 percent. The chart also shows the predicted
STD rates for a white male, also aged 22 and raised in a step family.
If this individual had never taken a virginity pledge, the predicted
probability of STD's would be 12.5 percent. If he had taken a pledge,
the probability of STD's would be around one fourth lower or 9.0
percent. Similar STD reductions would occur for individuals different
gender, race or family background.
Other Behavioral Outcomes
The fact that virginity pledgers are less likely to have STD's is just
one among a broad array of positive outcomes associated with virginity
pledging.[49][17] Previous research has shown that, when compared to
non-pledgers of similar backgrounds, individuals who have taken a
virginity pledge are:
* Less likely to have children out-of-wedlock;
* Less likely to experience teen pregnancy;
* Less likely to give birth as teens or young adults;
* Less likely to have sex before age 18; and,
* Less likely to engage in non-marital sex as young adults.
Pledgers will have fewer life-time sexual partners than non-pledgers.
Pledgers engaging in sexual activity in young adult years are as
likely to use contraceptives as are non-pledgers. Pledgers are also
less likely to have abortions although the reported incidence low
enough that the difference is not statistically significant.
Success or Failure?
Virginity pledge programs provide a strong positive social message
emphasizing: self-control; future orientation and respect for self and
others. Adolescents who make virginity pledges promise to abstain
until marriage. Virginity programs are often criticized because a
majority of those making pledges fail to meet their goal and do have
sex before marriage. However, this criticism seems misplaced. Even if
pledgers fail to abstain till marriage, pledging is still associated
with positive life decisions. As noted, when compared to non-pledgers,
pledgers are more likely to delay substantially the onset of sexual
activity and to have fewer sex partners. Pledging is linked to strong
positive outcomes for the individual and society.
Given such outcomes, it is difficult to imagine how virginity pledge
programs could be judged failures. Consider, for example, a
hypothetical program in which a group of adolescents all promised to
attend Harvard. Two years later, few were attending Harvard, but the
overall college attendance rate was up 30 percent compared to
adolescents who never made such a promise. Would such a program
possibly be deemed a failure?
Questions of Causation
This paper has presented a strong finding showing that adolescent
virginity pledging is associated with lower STD rates. This should not
be surprising, because in young adult years virginity pledgers have
lower levels of sexual activity and fewer sexual partners when
compared to non-pledgers. Overall, the evidence concerning the
positive effects of virginity pledges is extremely strong. Still,
skeptics might argue that the simple fact that teens who make
virginity pledges have substantially improved behaviors does not prove
that virginity pledge programs themselves have a positive impact on
behavior. It is conceivable that participating in a virginity pledge
program and taking a pledge merely ratifies pro-abstinence decisions
that the teen would have made without the program or pledge. From this
perspective virginity pledge programs may be a redundant fifth wheel
with no effect, rather than an operative factor leading to less risk
behavior.
The fact that research on the outcomes of associated with virginity
pledging controls for a wide range of social background variables
makes this less likely. Still, given the limitations of the Add Health
data, it is impossible to fully disprove this type of skepticism.
Nonetheless, such an argument violates common sense. Teens do not make
decisions about sexual values in a vacuum. A decision to abstain and
delay sex activity does not emerge in a teen's mind, ex nihilo, but
will reflect the sexual values and messages that society communicates
to the adolescent. Unfortunately, teens today live in a sex saturated
popular culture that celebrates casual sex at an early age. To
practice abstinence, teens must resist peer and media pressure, as
well as control physical desire. It seems implausible to expect teens
to abstain in the absence of social institutions (such a virginity
pledge programs) that teach strong abstinence values. Similarly, it
seems implausible that programs that teach clear abstinence values
will have no influence on behavior, even among teens who embrace those
values.
Since decisions to practice abstinence do not emerge in a vacuum, it
seems very likely that the messages in virginity pledge programs
contribute to positive behavior among youth. Participation in
virginity pledge programs encourages youth to make pro-abstinence
choices, and taking a public abstinence pledge reinforces the teen's
commitment, helping him to stick with the abstinence life style.
Public Policy Issues
Today's teens live in a sex-drenched media culture that promotes
vulgarity, permissiveness and casual sex. Most parents are eagerly
seeking social forces that can counteract this tide of permissiveness
and communicate an uplifting message of self restraint to youth.
Nearly 90 percent of parents want schools to teach youth to abstain
from sex until they are married or in an adult relationship that is
close to marriage.[50][18] This is the predominant message of
abstinence education programs.
Unfortunately, these parental values are rarely taught in the
classroom. The focus of government continues to be on "safe sex," or
promoting contraceptive use. Today, government spends, at least,
twelve dollars promoting and distributing contraception for every one
dollar spent encouraging abstinence.[51][19] If the comparison is
limited to funding for teens, government still spends at least four
dollars promoting contraceptives for every dollar spent on abstinence.
Moreover these figures dramatically undercount the efforts to promote
contraception since they do not include most state and local spending
of sex education, nearly all of which continues to have a heavy, if
not exclusive, emphasis on contraception.
Today, nearly all students in the U.S. are taught about
contraception[52][20]; however, students rarely receive more than
token references to abstinence. Authentic abstinence programs which
strongly encourage youth to abstain from sexual activity are rare. The
abstinence programs that do exist are limited, generally providing 10
to 15 hours of instruction per year. It is true that, in the limited
time available, abstinence programs teach abstinence not
contraception; however, this does not mean that youth participating in
abstinence programs never receive information about contraception. In
schools where abstinence is taught, students will generally receive
information about contraception as well, in a separate venue such as a
biology or health class. Polling shows that a majority of parents
believe that, if contraception is to be taught, it should be taught
separately from abstinence.[53][21]
Bearman charges that youth who participate in abstinence education are
ignorant and afraid of contraception. He states that virginity
pledgers "have been taught that condoms don't work; they're fearful of
them. They don't know how to use them...They have no experience with
them. They don't know how to get them." While it is true that
participants in abstinence programs are taught about the limitations
of contraception, there is no evidence to substantiate the rest of
Bearman's claim. The wave II interviews of the Add Health survey
contains a "knowledge quiz" that section that tests individuals'
knowledge of contraception and reproduction. The differences between
pledgers and non-pledgers in this knowledge are marginal; moreover,
the degree of contraceptive knowledge does not predict lower STD
rates. As young adults, virginity pledgers are no less likely to use
contraception than non-pledgers.[54][22]
To recapitulate, the general situation in sex education and sexuality
issues in the U.S. is as follows: The vast majority of government
funding is focused on the distribution and promotion of contraception.
Nearly, all youth receive instruction in contraception. Even where
abstinence is taught, students will generally still receive
information about contraception in a separate school program. Despite
the fact that nearly all parents want youth taught a very strong
abstinence message, the real teaching of abstinence is still
relatively rare. Few students receive more than token references to
abstaining.
Remarkably, despite the overwhelming popularity of abstinence
education among parents, there is currently a vigorous effort to
eliminate abstinence education from the schools, led by groups such as
the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
(SIECUS) and Advocates for Youth. The focal point of this campaign is
an effort to eliminate federal funding for abstinence education. The
attack of Bearman and Bruckner against virginity pledge programs plays
a major role in the advocacy of these groups.
Those seeking is to eliminate abstinence education wish to replace it
with "comprehensive sex ed" programs, sometimes also called
"abstinence plus."[55][23] While proponents of these programs claim
they emphasize abstinence, content analyses reveal such curricula
contain virtually no abstinence material, in fact, many such materials
implicitly undermine and denigrate abstinence.[56][24] Comprehensive
sex ed curricula all convey the message that it is okay for teens to
have sex as long as they use contraception. Only seven percent of
parents agree with that message. Very few parents want youth taught
materials that condone and accept casual sex at an early age;
unfortunately, that is the message contained in comprehensive sex ed
curricula.[57][25]
The main issue in sex education today is not, as Bearman and Bruckner
apparently believe, whether society should "ban discussion of
contraception and STD protection from sex education."[58][26] As
noted, nearly all youth are currently taught about contraception. The
real question is whether youth will be taught anything besides
contraception. Evidence from the virginity pledge programs indicates
that youth can respond positively to messages of self-restraint
contained in abstinence programs. Other evaluations show that
abstinence education is effective in reducing sexual activity.
[59][27] Parents want-- and youth need-- more uplifting messages of
self-control from abstinence education, not less.
Conclusion
The analysis of Bearman and Bruckner indicating that virginity
pledgers have the same STD rates as non-pledgers has garnered
widespread media and political attention. However, the same methods
used by Bearman and Bruckner to analyze virginity pledges also show
that condom use has no effect in reducing STD's. This clearly
illustrates the serious limitations of Bearman and Bruckner's
methodology.
The paper has shown that taking a virginity pledge in adolescence, in
fact, is associated with a substantial decline in STD rates in young
adult years. Across a broad array of analysis, virginity pledging was
found to be a better predictor of STD reduction than was condom use.
Individuals who took a virginity pledge in adolescence are some 25
percent less likely to have an STD as young adults, when compared with
non-pledgers who are identical in race, gender, and family background.
The reduction in STD's for virginity pledgers occurs despite the fact
that many years may have elapsed between the time the individual took
a virginity pledge and the time that the STD rate was measured.
Moreover, after initially taking a pledge, relatively few virginity
pledgers will have received continuing social support for their
commitment to abstinence.
Other research has shown that, when compared to non-pledgers of
similar backgrounds, individuals who have taken a virginity pledge
are:
* Less likely to have children out-of-wedlock;
* Less likely to experience teen pregnancy;
* Less likely to give birth as teens or young adults;
* Less likely to have sex before age 18; and,
* Less likely to engage in non-marital sex as young adults.
Pledgers will have fewer lifetime sexual partners than non-pledgers,
and pledgers engaging in sexual activity in young adult years are as
likely to use contraceptives as are non-pledgers.
Virginity pledge and similar abstinence education programs are among
the few forces in our society pushing back against a tide of sexual
permissiveness. These efforts need to be strengthened and expanded.
_______________________
[81][1]Hannah Bruckner and Peter Bearman, "After the Promise: the STD
consequences of adolescent virginity pledges," Journal of Adolescent
Health, April 2005, pp. 271-278.
[82][2]Ibid., p. 277
[83][3] Matt Apuzzo, "Study: Many who pledge abstinence substitute
risky behavior" AP wire service, March 18, 2005
[84][4]San Francisco Chronicle, "Key to Sex Education: Discipline or
Knowledge,"May 22, 2005.
[85][5] Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United
States, "Virginity Pledgers More Likely to Engage in Risky Sexual
Behavior Including Oral and Anal Sex", press release, March 18, 2005.
[86][6]Robert Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., and Jennifer A.
Marshall, "Teens Who Make Virginity Pledges Have Substantially
Improved Life Outcomes," The Heritage Foundation Center for Data
Analysis Report No. CDA04-07, September 21, 2004.
[87][7]This research uses data from Add Health, a program project
designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan
Harris and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17
other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and
Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Persons
interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add
Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 West Franklin Street, Chapel
Hill, NC 27516-2524 ([88]addhealth at unc.edu).
[89][8]Rector, Johnson, and Marshall, op. cit
[90][9]Bearman and Bruckner, op. cit., p 277.
[91][10]Ibid., p. 271
[92][11] See regression table 1 in the Appendix.
[93][12] The Add Health survey also asks three other questions about
symptoms: "painful or very frequent urination, bleeding after
intercourse or between your periods [for females only], and itching in
the vagina or the genital area [females only]". We did not include
these symptoms in the STD measure because of the high probability that
they were caused by non-STD factors.
[94][13] In each of the five STD measures, individuals are categorized
in a binary fashion: "yes" for having an STD if they report positively
on one or more of the relevant conditions (urine sample test,
symptoms, or diagnosis) and "no" if they report negatively on all the
relevant conditions. The measures, thus, do not reflect the degree of
disease; for example, an individual diagnosed with three diseases
would be coded the same as an individual diagnosed with one disease.
[95][14] In some cases individuals failed to answer the pledge
question on one or more waves of the survey; an individual who
responded negatively to this question on at least one wave and gave no
response on the other waves was categorized as a non-pledger.
[96][15] Bruckner and Bearman, p. 271
[97][16]Consistent pledgers are individuals who affirmed in at least
one wave of the survey that they had made a pledge and did not provide
contradictory information in any subsequent wave. Inconsistent
pledgers reported that they had ever taken a pledge in at least one
wave of the survey, but then contradicted themselves by reporting they
had never taken a pledge in a subsequent wave. In our analysis, we
were able to precisely duplicate Bearman and Bruckner's pledge
categorization. As noted, for purposes of the present paper, we merged
the inconsistent and consistent pledgers into the single category of
pledgers.
[98][17]Rector, Johnson, and Marshall, op. cit.
[99][18]Robert Rector, Melissa Pardue, and Shannan Martin, "What Do
Parents Want Taught in Sex Education Programs?," Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder No. 1722, January 28, 2004.
[100][19]Melissa Pardue, Robert Rector, and Shannan Martin,
"Government Spends $12 on Safe Sex and Contraceptives for Every $1
Spent on Abstinence," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1718,
January 14, 2004.
[101][20]Eighty percent of 7-12^th grade students report that their
most recent sex education course was considered comprehensive. 82
percent of 7-12^th grade students report receiving information about
birth control in their sex education course. See The Kaiser Family
Foundation, Sex Education in America: A Series of National Surveys of
Students, Parents, Teachers, and Principals, September 2000, pgs.
17-18.
[102][21]Rector, Pardue, and Martin, "What Do Parents Want Taught in
Sex Education Programs?," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1722,
January 28, 2004.
[103][22]While it is true, that virginity pledges are less likely to
use contraception during their very first experience of intercourse,
by young adult years differences in contraceptive use between sexually
active pledgers and non-pledgers have completely disappeared. The main
importance of contraceptive or condom use at first intercourse as a
variable is that it predicts subsequent contraceptive use; lower rates
of contraceptive use at first intercourse may indicate lower
contraceptive use in later years. However, as noted, sexually active
virginity pledgers are not less likely to use contraceptives by Wave
III of the Add Health survey. Thus, the fact that pledgers are less
likely to contracept at first intercourse seems to have little
significance.
[104][23]Shannan Martin, Robert Rector, and Melissa Pardue,
Comprehensive Sex Education vs. Authentic Abstinence: A Study of
Competing Curricula, The Heritage Foundation, 2004.
[105][24]Ibid.
[106][25]A major reason that law governing the federal funding of
abstinence education stipulates that funded abstinence programs should
not teach or promote contraceptive use is to prevent the piracy of
abstinence funds by pseudo "abstinence plus" programs that pretend to
teach abstinence, but, in reality, denigrate it.
[107][26]Bruckner and Bearman, op.cit., p. 277.
[108][27]See Robert Rector, "The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education
Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth," The Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder No. 1533, April 8, 2002 and Melissa Pardue,
"More Evidence of the Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs,"
The Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 738, May 5, 2005.
About [120]Robert Rector and [121]Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
References
23.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=79366
120. http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/RobertRector.cfm
121. http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/KirkJohnson.cfm
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list