groves 9453087.0005.001 in
« Prev section Next section »

Chapter 6: The Sexual Trajectory Map: A Model for Examining Sexual Identity Development

Sharon M. Ballard
Rebecca Senn
East Carolina University

An important developmental task during adolescence and emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000) is the exploration of one’s identity, including gender identity and sexual identity. Regardless of their sexual behavior status, many young people struggle with questions about their development as sexual beings. These questions are more complicated than simply choosing with whom, where, and when to have sex; rather they engage in a process of making meaning related to their own sexuality. In their attempts to construct such meanings, youth often look to their social contexts for clues about what constitutes acceptable sexual behavior or what is sometimes referred to as a sexual script (Berntson, Hoffman, & Luff, 2014).

This paper is based on a qualitative study that examined sexual socialization from an ecological approach (Bronfenbrenner, 1992). The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of social context during adolescence on sexual identity development and sexual decision making using a sample of emerging adults (Arnett, 2000). Emerging adulthood includes ages 18-26 and is a unique time in which individuals are maturing and are able to reflect on their adolescence (Arnett, 2000). Adolescent experiences may provide an important foundation from which emerging adults construct their sexual identity and make decisions regarding their sexual behavior (Allen, Husser, Stone, & Jordal, 2008). As such, in this study, emerging adults were asked to reflect on sexual socialization and sexual decision making during their adolescence and relate it to their current sexual decision making. This paper reviews literature relevant to sexual socialization during adolescence followed by a brief description of the methods used in the study. The purpose of this paper is to present the sexual trajectory map, a model of sexual socialization and decision making that emerged from the data.

Literature Review

Shtarkshall, Santelli, and Hirsch (2007) distinguished between sex education and sexual socialization, indicating that whereas education is more structured and intentional, socialization is ongoing and informal. Sexual socialization may occur both in and outside the home, including influences of community, media, culture, and religion: It is within this broader context that identity and subsequent sexual behavior evolves. Although there are risks to early sexual involvement, sexuality should be framed as a positive aspect of life that does not always result in negative consequences. The goal is to help all young people make good decisions that are right for them, to develop a healthy sexual identity, and to become sexually-healthy adults encompassing all dimensions of health including physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being (World Health Organization, 2006).

In support of the goal of sexual health, there are an increasing number of researchers who are advocating for a paradigm shift in adolescent sexuality from one that views adolescent sexual activity as a deviant behavior to one that views adolescent sexual activity as a normative developmental task (Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2009; Gross, 2009; Halpern, 2010; Harden, 2014). Overall, condom and birth control use, absence of substance use, and having sex within a monogamous relationship all constitute more positive or competent sexual decision making (Gross, 2009). Competent sexual decision making among adolescents can result in positive outcomes such as positive well-being (Harden, 2014; Vrangalova & Savin-Williams, 2011), higher self-esteem (Goodson, Buhi, & Dunsmore, 2006), lower stress reactivity (Brody, 2002), positive-affect (Connolly & McIsaac, 2011), decreased likelihood of substance use (Manlove, Ryan & Franzetta, 2003), improved academics (Manlove, Ryan & Franzetta, 2003, and improved adult sexual functioning (Tolman & McClelland, 2011). Romantic relationships among adolescents can provide a learning experience that influences the development of future romantic relationships. Harden (2014) hypothesized that those who do not experience hugging, kissing, or romantic relationships during adolescence may fall behind in development and thus feel the need to catch up during emerging adulthood. This developmental progression described by Harden (2014) supports the idea of examining sexual decision making as a developmental process that is an integral part of sexual identity development.

Sexual Decision-Making

There is a myriad of studies that have explored factors that affect adolescent sexual decision making (e.g., Fantasia, 2008; Hensel, Hummer, Acrurio, James, & Fortenberr, 2015) and this sexual decision making often is framed as the decision to have sex for the first time as well as aspects of competent or safe decision making. For example, age has been identified as an important factor in sexual risk, yet, early first intercourse does not necessarily equate with incompetent decision making (McKee et al., 2010; Symons, Vermeersch, & Van Houtte, 2014). Relationship status at the time of first intercourse greatly influences emotional readiness and satisfaction with the first experience (Symons et al., 2014). Other relationship factors such as high commitment and satisfaction within the relationship (Harden, 2014; Manlove et al., 2003; Meier, 2007), minimum age difference between partners (Mercer et al., 2006; Symons et al., 2014), and having an element of control in making the decision to have sex (Allen, Husser, Stone, & Jordal, 2008; Symons et al., 2014) result in having a more positive sexual experience, less risk-taking, and more satisfaction with the decision to have sex. Receiving positive recognition regarding academic or extra-curricular activities positively influences sexual decision making (Lohman & Billings, 2008) and high academic achievement can be a protective factor in delaying sexual initiation (Lafflin, Wang, & Barry, 2008).

In regard to gender, males are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior in early adolescence, while females are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior in late adolescence (Cavazos-Rehg, et al., 2009; Fergus, et al., 2007). Males are more likely to have strongly desired their first sexual initiation, whereas, females are more likely to have mixed feelings around sexual initiation (Anonymous, 2006). Yet, despite these differences one of the most important similarities between men and women is in their contraception use—male and female adolescents use contraception at similar rates (Anonymous, 2006; Cavazos-Rehg, et al., 2009).

Although many of these studies adopt a more positive approach and identify influences on positive sexual experiences, they often lack an ecological perspective that encompasses a variety of environmental influences including community. Much research has been found to support the influence that community has in adolescent sexual decision making (Jones, Jensen, & Selzer-King, 2014; Kraft, Kulkarni, Hsia, Jamieson, & Warner, 2012; Volpe, Morales-Aleman, & Teitelman, 2014). Using Arnett’s broad and narrow socialization theory (1995), communities that adopt a broad sexual socialization provide sexual health information and create an atmosphere where sexuality is an open topic, thereby allowing adolescents to ask questions and feel more prepared in their sexual decisions (Akers, Muhammad, & Corbie-Smith, 2011; Arnett, 1995; Williams et al., 2014). A community that socializes sexuality in a narrow way is one that promotes abstinence and does not encourage discussions on sex or sexual exploration. Broad and narrow communities can be either urban or rural and have varying degrees of religiosity. It is how the community approaches sexuality that defines it as either broad or narrow rather than being labeled by the characteristics that make it up (i.e., geographical location, religiosity, and state requirements). Additionally, a community’s socialization practices may vary based on gender with the socialization practices of girls often narrower than the socialization practices of boys (Arnett, 1995).

An ecological perspective also can frame different types of sexual decisions and how they might link together to create a sexual trajectory. Through an ecological lens, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) concept of the chronosystem captures an individual’s history and accounts for the time frame in which environments are experienced. The chronosystem allows for an individual’s development to be mapped and viewed as a process; rather than viewing events separately. Emerging adults have the developmental capacity to reflect on their past experiences. Therefore, this developmental timeline reflected by the chronosystem allows for mapping sexual identity development while integrating contextual influences. Examination over time allows us to see that sexual decision making is a process and not a one-time event. Each time an individual engages in sexual intercourse, he or she is making multiple decisions such as giving consent to have sex, whether to do so while under the influence of a substance, or whether or not to use a form of birth control. Each sexual decision made is a part of the individual’s sexual map, which will then influence future sexual encounters and decisions. Additionally, the individual meaning that develops through these reciprocal influences provides an additional lens through which to gain understanding.

From a symbolic interaction perspective, meaning is created from interaction with others, including parents, peers, educators, culture, and media (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993; White, Klein, & Martin, 2015). The process of developing a sexual identity entails the interpretation and synthesis of multiple perspectives into a personal meaning in which one’s role as a sexual being emerges. This meaning then guides role enactment or sexual behavior. A person is more likely to be satisfied in his or her role of sexual being when the expectations of that role are clear; however, role strain is more likely when there is lack of consensus on the norms relative to that role (White et al., 2015). This meaning making is driven systemically through reciprocal interaction within multiple contexts. Gender is one such context and one that may exacerbate role ambiguity in relation to sexual identity, particularly for women. Women still report a sexual double standard in sexual decision making in which the sexual activity of men and of women is evaluated differently based solely on gender (Allen et al., 2008). Women’s sexual behavior is still likely to be viewed more negatively than men’s sexual behavior (Zaikman & Marks, 2014) and women have more trouble than men do in seeing themselves as agents in their own sexuality (Allen et al., 2008).

The Study

Shoveller, Johnson, Langille, and Mitchell’s (2003) study centered upon the assumption that the experiences and perceptions of youth are integral to understanding young people’s current sexual experiences. Following on this perspective, this research from which the sexual trajectory map emerged was conducted by the first author. Theoretical sampling was used to maximize variation resulting in a sample of 10 males and 10 females, ages 18-24, enrolled in a Southeastern university. The mean age was 20 years old. Sixty percent of the participants were Caucasian (n = 12), 20% were African American (n = 4), 15% were Hispanic/Latino (n = 3), and 3% were multiracial (n = 1). The majority of participants (60%, n = 12) grew up in suburbs and 90% of participants self-identified as being from average to well-off families. Almost all participants were exclusively heterosexual (90%, n = 18) and half of all participants reported that they were currently single and not involved in a sexual relationship, whereas the other half were either casually or exclusively dating or cohabitating.

A male interviewer conducted interviews with male participants and a female interviewer conducted female interviews. At the beginning of each interview, study participants completed a brief survey to capture socio-demographic characteristics, sexual histories during teenage years, and current sexual behavior patterns. Interview questions focused on the following areas of sexual socialization during adolescence: community level norms (e.g., community’s approach to sexual health issues among teenagers), religion, education, personal decision making, familial influences, peer influences, and media influences. Examples of interview questions were: “How would you describe the general attitude in your community toward sexual activity among teenagers?”, “How did you decide what was best for you when you were making decisions about sex as a teenager?”, and “As you were growing up, what did your parents think about teenagers having sex?” Interviews lasted an average of 45 minutes, were audio-recorded, and subsequently transcribed. Each participant received an honorarium in the form of a gift card that was worth $20. Approval to conduct this study was granted from the Institutional Research Board at the first author’s institution.

Data from this study depicted emerging adults’ perceptions of contextual influences on their sexual socialization and sexual behavior. The specific aim of this paper is to share “The Sexual Trajectory Map” which emerged from the data as a model of sexual identity development and sexual decision making.

The Sexual Trajectory Map

Grounded theory methodology (LaRossa, 2005) was used to analyze the data and help move the data toward theory development. A three-step process of coding was used for both the male and female data: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Early in the open coding process, the category of “sexual decision-making trajectory” emerged which captured the ideas of sexual decision making as a process rather than a one-time event and that the factors influencing sexual decision making, and the meanings associated with sex, may change over time. This initial category evolved into the concept of a sexual trajectory map (See Figure 1). In this model, the word “trajectory” is used to describe the path that one takes as part of sexual identity development. The sexual trajectory map captures socialization and sexual identity development as an ongoing process that includes sexual messages received, factors influencing sexual decisions (push/pull factors), attitudes toward sex, sexual decisions made, and consequences from sexual decisions (see Figure 1). Each sexual decision made is a part of the individual’s sexual map, which will then influence future sexual decisions.

A map was created from each participant’s interview data and use of the map as a framework for each participant facilitated constant comparison and development of key concepts. Specifically, the initial interviews were compared to the information included in the map to determine if the map fully represented the participant’s sexual trajectory, to view the data through a symbolic interaction lens, and to identify patterns across participants. During the selective coding process, specific quotes were selected that illustrated the concepts identified in the sexual trajectory map during the open and axial coding stages. Contextual factors such as gender, race, and urban or rural background provide a context for the map (See Figure 1). Sexual messages were identified and examined for consistency. Many of these messages fed into the trajectory with several acting as push/pull factors influencing various sexual decisions. The decision to have sex for the first time is the central decision on the map but other decisions may be depicted before and after this central decision of sexual initiation along with consequences of sexual decisions. Changing attitudes toward sex were captured at the bottom of the map and may have a reciprocal influence with the decisions being made. Each component of the map is discussed below with participant quotes to illustrate each concept.

Sexual Messages as Push/Pull Factors

Messages received about sexuality fell into five overarching domains of influence: family, peers, religion, school, and media. Some of these messages served as pull factors (pulling one away from engaging in sexual activity) and others as push factors (pushing one toward sexual activity). Each source of sexual messages (e.g., friends, religion, parents) could be either a pull or a push factor depending on context and perspective.

Overall, participants indicated a lack of discussion (“it wasn’t talked about in my house”), implied messages (“we just knew...“) or surface-level messages that focused on birth control, condoms, or reproduction (“It’s very limited. We had maybe one or two classes about it”). This lack of information, coupled with the pervasive idea that everyone was having sex, acted as a push factor for some participants. One female participant whose only message from parents and church was to wait until marriage said:

I don’t know. I guess since everybody was doing it, I wanted to try it. Then it was kinda like, I don’t know. I guess like peer pressure from everybody, including my boyfriend at the time, to do it, so. It’s probably why I did it.

Media was a strong socializing agent described by the participants and some of them described the media as a push factor or a factor that pushed them toward having sex. One male participant described it this way:

They [media] definitely made it seem like you know you needed to have sex to be cool, to fit in. You know growing up I kind of felt like, you know if I don’t have sex then you’re not going to be the cool guy, you’re going to be the nerd on every sitcom.

Peers are another important socializing factor in terms of sexual identity, and peers emerged as both a push and a pull factor for participants. One male participant talked about how his peers acted as a pull factor for him and helped him refrain from engaging in sex: “I guess that it would help a lot when all of your peers and everything are on the same level as you are, thinking the same way you are.” Others did not get consistent messages from peers: “Several of us were engaging in it [sex] and then several of us were completely against it” which allowed some to hear different perspectives. For example, an 18-year-old female participant who had not yet engaged in sexual intercourse said: “I guess lots of my friends were sexually active, so they were talking about having sex, pros and cons.”

In family discussions, dads were less strict with sons than with daughters. Moms also appeared less strict, but still were the ones telling their sons to wait to have sex and “not get a girl pregnant.” Rather than acting as an initial pull factor, family communication often facilitated a more positive trajectory for participants by providing more information and tools to make healthy decisions, even if that decision was to be sexually active. One 19-year-old male participant whose parents discussed sex and potential consequences of sex with him described a healthy decision making process that emerged as a teenager:

As a teenager, I discussed with the person who I had sex with, like we just talked about how that’s what we really want to do and we are ready for that and it wasn’t anything rushed, it didn’t like just happen or anything. We definitely talked about it before. That’s what influenced me to do it because we both felt comfortable with it.

Other parents revised their messages as their children got older. One male participant described it this way:

At a younger age, it was ‘don’t have sex’. But as I started to get older, my mom realized that she couldn’t stop me from having sex, so she was going to prepare me ‘okay if you do have sex, here be safe.’ As I started to get older and develop more, she started to give me more information and tell me what it is.

Other male participants described a similar dynamic with their mothers in that mothers did not necessarily say no but did put some parameters around sexual activity. For example, one male participant said, “So mom was like you’re going to respect my house and not have sex in here until you’re of appropriate age or whatever.” Another male participant described how his mom helped him to see potential consequences of having sex with an underage girl and therefore served as a pull factor.

I had discussions with my mom about sex because this year I was dating a girl who was still in high school and she was worried she was too young or something like that. She told me to not do it, like she said if I wanted to I could but not with her because I could go to jail or something.

Participants who had parents who attempted conversation about sexuality (even if they were not successful) and were perceived as approachable often made safer sexual decisions. They acknowledged that their parents were available to discuss sex even if they did not take advantage of it: “I always knew that I could go to her to ask her anything” or “there was always like an open-door policy, like if we wanted to talk about anything with my parents, we could.”

Siblings can also be a source of messages for both males and females. One male participant’s brother served as a pull factor:

My older brother, he would be like you don’t want babies. We do not want to raise no babies or whatever. You may not be financially stable to raise a baby so you may need to take that into perspective I guess.

Some participants recognized that earlier experiences influence their sexual decision making in emerging adulthood. When talking about a sexuality teacher in high school, a female participant stated, “she definitely laid a foundation for me and my knowledge and so I could build on it...” Many did not immediately recognize the lasting value of previous education, but were still able to reflect on a few salient points.

Finally, several female participants cited pull factors such as their own maturity level or aspirations for the future: “I mean, I just, I feel like in high school, especially like, you are so young, you don’t need to be having sex, or whatever.” Another said: “I want to finish up school, stuff like that. That’s my main priority right now. So basically, it’s school, my family, and... that’s it.”

Consistency of Messages

Framing the data for each participant using the sexual trajectory map allowed us to discern the intersecting influence of various socialization agents and how various combinations of messages influenced decisions as well as the meaning associated with these decisions. Some of these intersecting influences resulted in consistent messages. For example, many participants discussed the intersection of religion and peers in influencing their sexual decision making. One female participant described the fact that she chose friends with whom she shared similar attitudes and values and how this acted as a pull factor for her.

Well, most of my friends were Christians. And now that I moved here, most of my friends are Christians. And they think the same way. I’m not gonna say all of them follow, but we believe, and if they don’t, I mean, that’s their decision. But I’ll stick to my decision. I will not actually be sexually active, because they do it. I will remain pure because I want to and it’s my decision.

One participant described how media messages conflicted with her parents and affected her decision making in this way.

I would firstly think media definitely says have sex, have sex, it’s ok. So, I guess it makes decisions harder. You know, do I follow what mom and dad say? Or do I do what everyone else is doing what, you know, TV shows. So, it just made it harder to make my decision.

Another described the discrepancy between media messages and church messages regarding sexuality: “they [church members] say abstain, abstain, abstain, but it’s so hard when sex is being thrown at you constantly from you know watching TV.”

Rather than consistency of messages, the data pointed to the importance of receiving a balance of positive and negative messages. A consistent message of abstinence was not always as effective as a balance of messages in producing a positive sexual trajectory. An example of balanced messages was from a female participant who was reflecting on her changing attitudes toward sex:

I guess just seeing that sex isn’t always a bad thing. You know, I see people who have sex and have a great relationship. I guess friends kind of made me see that sex isn’t a bad thing. And at the same time, church kind of keeps me from it, from just running around.

Decisions

Although the decision to have sex for the first time was used as a focal point on the sexual trajectory map, other sexual decisions were captured as well in order to examine the way in which decisions were cumulative. For example, participants shared decisions such as who to have sex with, decisions about condom use or other birth control, or decisions to use drugs and how that in turn influenced decisions about having sex.

Aside from the decision to have sex for the first time, one of the most important decisions discussed by male participants was the decision to use a condom and this decision was consistent over time. This was perceived to be the most important piece of information learned in sexuality education programs in schools and the message that they were most likely to remember. One 23-year-old male participant admitted that most of the information that he got in school sexuality education classes was not useful but he did learn one important lesson: “...cause the only useful bit of information that I got was you know wear a condom. And I mean that it affects my sexual activity today whereas you know I wear a condom.” Boys, in particular, received a variety of creative messages about the importance of condoms, often from their mothers. One described advice his mother gave him about condoms:

...just because I give you this, don’t mean you can run around doing every girl you see. Everything that glitters is not gold. Be careful. What did she say?... before you go in a storm make sure you have a rain coat. That’s what she said. That’s her saying.

Whereas boys focused on condoms and didn’t mention other types of contraception, girls talked about both birth control pills and condoms and were more likely to be aware of services such as Planned Parenthood or other places to get contraception. One female participant recognized the importance of both the birth control pill and condoms: “You can take the pill and use condoms to prevent pregnancy, also condoms to prevent spreading the STDs.”

Other participants realized that some of the other decisions that they made led to the decision have sex. A female participant stated, “I decide before I start drinking, I’m not going to have sex and make sure that it doesn’t happen.” Another female participant stated that her decision to use drugs was her decision to have sex knowing that drug use generally leads to sex.

And then once I started having sex, the decision-making process was due to drugs and alcohol...my first time was also the first night I did cocaine and I really didn’t make the decision. It just sort of happened. And I didn’t even know the guy. So, there were a few years of just recklessness and people I didn’t know. Then I kinda straightened up, met my boyfriend, and since then, it’s been monogamous.

Socialization agents work together in different ways and often, if a teen experienced more positive socialization factors, they were more likely to experience competent decision making. One female participant illustrates this positive intersection of socialization influences by discussing peers, school activities, family, and school sex education and then describing her decision-making process. First, she described her peers:

None of my friends were sexually active in high school. Maybe some were senior year. I guess we talked about it. I wasn’t, they were like tell me about stuff and I mean we always talked about being safe and they were with their boyfriends so it wasn’t like they were sleeping around.

School activities acted as another pull factor: “I was really really busy in high school and I never had a boyfriend.” This participant also had open family communication:

I guess my mom does a lot of it [talking about sex] just telling us different things and stuff, I mean we all participate. I mean around my dad it’s a little awkward, we didn’t talk about it with my dad, but with my brother and my mom and I, it gets kind of funny. But we know it’s serious.

Finally, she talked about what she learned in school sexuality education: “I guess you always have to think about what we’ve learned, the STD’s and pregnancy...now I guess I’ve learned to develop safe sex.” This intersection of positive socialization sources resulted in healthy decision making for this participant:

I was in like a yearlong relationship until now and I haven’t had sex with anyone else since that relationship. I guess with that person, we had a love relationship. It was more intimate, and that kind of thing. So having, I guess having sex wasn’t as big of a deal.

Consequences of Sexual Decisions

Some participants established conditions for having sex (e.g., only within marriage), and the level of adherence to these established conditions when making decisions about sexual behavior often influenced the outcome or perceptions of the event. For some, this might have been a negative influence (e.g., guilt or regret) and for others it was viewed as more of a learning experience or fulfillment of different goals during that developmental period. Two female participants established the condition of waiting until marriage before having sex and neither met this condition. However, one experienced gut-wrenching guilt and regret; whereas, the other expressed some regret but was able to move forward and learn from her “mistake.”

I know for me, it [religion] played a large role, because I have always seen myself waiting because of my religion. That does not end up happening, but I dated my first boyfriend, who I actually ended up losing my virginity to. He was the same way I was, you know, don’t have sex until marriage. And that actually was what ended up breaking us up. It was just we both kind of gave into it. I think we were just really disappointed in ourselves and maybe almost resented each other a little bit for it. It was a pressure, a lot of pressure.

The gut-wrenching guilt experienced by this participant was evident throughout the interview. However, another female participant was able to look back at some of her earlier sexual activity and put it in place in her trajectory. Even though her behavior can be considered risky, she described her period of drug use and sleeping around as awesome. But, now she only has sex with her boyfriend. “Well, I went through a period where I sort of slept around. And I would talk to my other girlfriends who enjoyed that too. You know, like real serious descriptive. We discovered sex and it was awesome.”

Attitudes about Sex

Participants discussed attitudes and feelings related to sexual decisions and reflected on how they have progressed or matured in their ability to make decisions over time. Additionally, the meaning associated with sex changed since adolescence and many of the comments reflected this process of making meaning out of being a sexual being and the development of their sexual identity. For example, many female participants described a change in attitudes toward sex from more negative to more positive. One female participant stated,

I guess just being that you know, kind of sex is a bad thing. If you have sex, you are gonna get pregnant, you are gonna get STD. But there’s ways to prevent that. So sex isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Another female participant talked about her changing attitudes this way:

I used to think sex was so scary in high school. I couldn’t imagine. Then I guess I came to college and I realized more people were having sex and it was not as big a deal as I thought it was. But to me, it was still a big deal and I guess now, it still scares me to be honest. But now, it may be not as huge of a deal because I’ve done it and I know what it is. But it’s still a big deal to me. I don’t take it as something light.

One female talked about how peer pressure had influenced her when she was in high school. When asked about how she made decisions currently, she said “I’m not as easily influenced by other people. I’m a lot more independent than what I was then. Other people don’t influence my decisions; I do what’s best for me or whatever I think is best at the time.”

Many participant comments reflected shifting goals within their relationships. In particular, male participants were getting more serious in their developmental task of finding a mate so their decisions were made more carefully. One male participant described it this way: “it’s more relationships, just getting to know the person, I guess. It might sound cheesy, but that’s how I view it now.” Another male participant said, “But I think now with my friends, getting older, like we started thinking about like dang, alright, I need to stop messing around and actually try to find somebody to settle down with.”

Discussion

Reframing sexual decision making to move beyond a focus on sexual initiation provided insight into the factors that can determine the level of sexual health one might experience as an adult. Socialization is an ongoing process that involves many different sexual messages from a variety of sources, push and pull factors, and attitudes about sex. Sexual decision making encompasses many different types of decisions and these decisions link together to influence future sexual decision making and future outcomes. The sexual trajectory map provided a longitudinal perspective of decision making that supports the paradigm shift of viewing sexual activity as a normative developmental task (Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2009; Gross, 2009; Halpern, 2010; Harden, 2014).

One example of competent decision making was in protection against unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Both male and female participants mentioned the regular use of the birth control pill and/or condoms, which is consistent with previous literature that found that men and women were similar in their contraception use (Anonymous, 2006; Cavazos-Rehg et al., 2009). However, data revealed that female participants were more likely than males to mention the birth control pill, whereas, male participants mainly talked about condoms.

Consistent with the findings of previous literature (Allen et al., 2008; Symons et al., 2014), the sense of being in control of sexual decisions seemed to result in a more positive experience and therefore, more positive trajectory; whereas, participants who expressed feelings of losing self-control tended to express feelings of guilt associated with their decisions. From a symbolic interaction perspective, one’s perception of events, in this case sense of control, was important and the meaning made from the decisions was important in consequences. As Allen et al. (2008) found, participants did not necessarily characterize their behavior as making mistakes but rather learning life lessons, which is turn contributes to one’s developmental progression and identity development (Harden, 2014).

However, it is important to keep in mind the variety of decisions that comprise one’s trajectory and to think about what control looks like for each of these types of decisions. For example, the female participant who chose to use drugs and subsequently had sex might initially appear as having a lack of self-control. But her comments suggested that she was very much in control of her decision to use drugs and that she was fully aware that this also meant that she would end up having sex. Although her behavior could certainly be considered risky, she expressed satisfaction with her experiences. In contrast, the female participant who, along with her boyfriend, was planning to wait until marriage to have sex but “gave in to it,” experienced intense dissatisfaction with this decision to have sex. Although she ultimately appeared to have made a clear decision (wait until marriage), she lost control and had sex, which resulted in the negative consequences of a break-up with her boyfriend and intense guilt. These two examples illustrate the importance of looking at the context for multiple decisions rather than just the dichotomous decision to have sex or not. Future research might examine variables such as perceived control over sexual decision making and satisfaction with various decisions made.

Influences interact to create a new influence. It is not necessarily consistent messages that lead to positive and healthy decisions but a balance of messages that helped them to see multiple aspects of sexual decisions. Having more information about sexuality and an exposure to a broad array of sexual perspectives may provide an element of control in sexual decision making. Those who consistently had narrow socialization (Arnett, 1995) had more difficulty negotiating their sexual decisions. In other words, those who had consistency among their socialization sources but the messages left little room for deviation (e.g., wait until marriage, little comprehensive information) seemed to have more negative consequences of their decisions, such as feelings of guilt and regret. This supports research that suggests that adolescents are more likely to experience regret after sexual decisions if they are going against religious values (Osorio et al., 2011). Additionally, female participants were more likely than male participants to express regret regarding their sexual decisions, which supports the idea that socialization experiences of girls often are narrower than the socialization experiences of boys (Arnett, 1995).

In looking at sexual identity development and the sexual decision-making process from symbolic interaction and ecological perspectives, understanding is gleaned from more than the actual decisions but from the perception and meaning made from a decision and from the interpretation of consequences. The sexual trajectory map illustrates these theoretical perspectives in that the participant’s current sexual identity was not dependent on the actual decisions made (e.g., had sex or not) but on the context for the decision making (which was captured by the model).

Limitations of this study include the small sample size and the fact that the sample was predominantly heterosexual and seemingly cis-gender. Further research with a larger and more varied sample is needed to support and to further expand the sexual trajectory map. However, this model can be used to further understand the complexity of sexual identity development and those factors that can influence whether or not one achieves a state of sexual health. Overall, the sexual trajectory map provides a model for examining how sexual socialization factors work together to influence sexual decision making and identify development over time.

References

  • Allen, K. R., Husser, E. K., Stone, D. J., & Jordal, C. E. (2008). Agency and error in young adults’ stories of sexual decision making. Family Relations, 57, 517-529. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00519
  • Anonymous. (2006). Sexual initiation. American Sexual Behavior, 3-31.
  • Arnett, J. J. (1995). Broad and narrow socialization: The family in the context of a cultural theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 617-628. doi:10.2307/353917
  • Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480. doi: http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
  • Aronowitz, T., Rennells, R. E., & Todd, E. (2006). Ecological influences of sexuality on early adolescent African American females. Journal of Community Health and Nursing, 23, 113-122. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327655jchn2302_4
  • Barnett, R. V., Jackson, T. L., Smith, S., & Gibson, H. J. (2010). The effects of religiosity and sibling relationships on the timing of sexual debut. Family Science Review, 15, 66-83.
  • Berntson, M. A., Hoffman, K. L., & Luff, T. L. (2014). College as context: Influences on interpersonal sexual scripts. Sexuality & Culture 18, 149–165. doi 10.1007/s12119-013-9180-7
  • Blackburn, T. (2009). The influence of sex education on adolescent health: Abstinence-only vs. comprehensive programs. The Journal of Undergraduate Nursing Writing, 3, 3-10.
  • Brody, S. (2002). Age at first intercourse is inversely related to female cortisol stress reactivity. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 27, 933-943. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4530(02)00007-0
  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues. London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Inc.
  • Cavazos-Rehg, P. A., Krauss, M. J., Spitznagel, E. L., Schootman, M., Bucholtz, K. K., Peipert, J. F., ... & Bierut, L. J. (2009). Age of sexual debut among US adolescent. Contraception, 80, 158-162. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.02.014
  • Connolly, J., & McIsaac, C. (2011). Romantic relationships in adolescence. In M. K. Underwood & L. H. Rosen (Eds.), Social development: Relationships in infancy, childhood, and adolescence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Davis, S., & Tucker-Brown, A. (2013). Effects of black sexual stereotypes on sexual decision making among African American women. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 5, 111-128.
  • Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2006). The intimate relationships of sexual-minority youths. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  • Fantasia, H. C. (2008). Concept analysis: Sexual decision-making in adolescence. Nursing Forum, 43, 80-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6198.2008.00099
  • Fergus, S., Zimmerman, M. A., & Caldwell, C. H. (2007). Growth trajectories of sexual risk behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1096-1101. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2005.074609
  • Goodson, P., Buhi, E. R., & Dunsmore, S. C. (2006). Self-esteem and adolescent sexual behaviors, attitudes, and intentions: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 310-319. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.05.026
  • Gross, K. (2009). Adolescent sexual competence: A paradigm shift. Family Science Review, 14, 33-47.
  • Harden, K. P. (2014). A sex-positive framework for research on adolescent sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 455-469. doi: 10.1177/1745691614535934
  • Hensel, D. J., Hummer, T. A., Acrurio, L. R., James, T. W., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2015). Feasibility of functional neuroimaging to understand adolescent women’s sexual decision making. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 389-395. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.11.004
  • Jones, C. L., Jensen, R. E., & Selzer King, A. (2014). Future sex educator perceptions of rural versus urban instruction: A case for community-centered sexual health education. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 9, 464-484. doi: 10.1080/15546128.2014.976299
  • Kraft, J. M., Kulkarni, A., Hsia, J., Jamieson, D. J., & Warner, L. (2012). Sex education and adolescent sexual behavior: Do community characteristics matter? Contraception, 86, 276-280. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.01.004
  • Laflin, M. T., Wang, J., & Barry, M. (2008). A longitudinal study of adolescent transition from virgin to nonvirgin status. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 228-236. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.014
  • Larossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 837-857. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00179
  • LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. C. (1993). Symbolic interactionism and family studies. In, P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York, NY: Plenum.
  • Lohman, B. J., & Billings, A. (2008). Protective and risk factors associated with adolescent boys early sexual debut and risky sexual behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 723-735. doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9283
  • Manlove, J., Ryan, S., & Franzetta, K. (2003). Patterns of contraceptive use within teenagers’ first sexual relationships. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35, 246-255. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1363%2Fpsrh.35.246.03
  • McKee, A., Albury, K., Dunne, M., Grieshaber, S., Hartley, J., Lumby, C., & Mathews, B. (2010). Healthy sexual development: A multidisciplinary framework for research. International Journal of Sexual Health, 22, 14-19. doi: 10.1080/19317610903393043
  • Meier, A. M. (2007). Adolescent first sex and subsequent mental health. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1811–1847. doi: 10.1086/512708
  • Mitchell, K., & Wellings, K. (1998). First sexual intercourse: Anticipation and communication. Interviews with young people in England. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 717-726. doi: 10.1006/jado.1998.0191
  • Mueller, T. E., Gavin, L. E., & Kullkarni, A. (2008). The association between sex education and youth’s engagement in sexual intercourse, age at first intercourse, and birth control use at first sex. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42. 89-96. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.002
  • Murray, K. M., Ciarrocchi, J. W., & Murray-Swank, N. A. (2007). Spirituality, religiosity, shame and guilt as predictors of sexual attitudes and experiences. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 35, 222-234.
  • Osorio, A., Lopez-del Burgo, C., Carlos, S., Ruiz-Canela, M., Delgado, M., & de Irala, J. (2012). First sexual intercourse and subsequent regret in three developing countries. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 271-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.012
  • Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Frisco, M. L. (2006). Parental involvement, family structure, and adolescent sexual decision making. Sociological Perspectives, 49, 67–90, doi: 10.1525/sop. 2006.49.1.67
  • Shoveller, J. A., Johnson, J. L., Langille, D. B., & Mitchell, T. (2004). Socio-cultural influences on young people’s sexual development. Social Science and Medicine, 59, 473-487. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.11.017
  • Shtarkshall, R. A., Santelli, J. S., & Hirsch, J. S. (2007). Sex education and sexual socialization: Roles for educators and parents. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39, 116-119. doi: 10.1363/3911607
  • Smith, V. C., & Shaffer, M. J. (2013). Gone but not forgotten: Virginity loss and current sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 39. 96-111. doi: 10.1080/0092623X.2012.675023
  • Symons, K., Vermeersch, H., & Van Houtte, M. (2014). The emotional experiences of early first intercourse: A multi-method study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29, 533-560. doi: 10.1177/0743558414528976
  • Tolman, D. (2002). Dilemmas of desires: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Tolman, D. L., & McClelland, S. I. (2011). Normative sexuality development in adolescence: A decade in review, 2000-2009. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 242-255. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00726
  • Vivancos, R., Abubakar, I., Phillips-Howard, P., & Hunter, P. R. (2013). School-based sex education is associated with reduced risky sexual behaviour and sexually transmitted infections in young adults. Public health, 127, 53-57. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2012.09.016
  • Volpe, E. M., Morales-Aleman, N. M., & Teitelman, A. M. (2014). Urban adolescent girls’ perspectives on romantic relationships: Initiation, involvement, negotiation, and conflict. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 35, 776-790. doi: 10.3109/01612840.2014.910582
  • Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2011). Adolescent sexuality and positive well-being: A group-norms approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 931-944. doi: 10.1007/s10964-011-9629-7
  • White, J., Klein, D., & Martin, T. (2015). Family theories: An introduction (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • World Health Organization (2006). Sexual and reproductive health. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/sexual_health/sh_definitions/en/
« Prev section Next section »