Contents lists available at ScienceDirectJournal of Adoles.docx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/adolescence
Young adolescents’ responsiveness to sexual communication
with
their mother: Distinguishing diverse intentions
Heather A. Sears∗ , Brett S. Robinson1, E. Sandra Byers
Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, P.O.
Box 4400, Fredericton, New Brunswick, E3B 5A3, Canada
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Responsiveness
Intentions
Sexual communication
Young adolescents
Mothers
A B S T R A C T
Introduction: It is unlikely that parents can have effective
sexuality discussions with their ado-
lescent if the adolescent is not responsive to their efforts. We
evaluated young adolescents’ in-
tentions of being responsive to sexual communication with their
mother and whether youths who
were likely, ambivalent, or unlikely to be responsive differed on
their characteristics, features of

previous sexual communication, and features of the mother-
adolescent relationship.
Methods: Participants were 259 Canadian adolescents (12–14
years; 53% girls) who received and
returned a survey by mail. They completed measures of
responsiveness intentions, expected
outcomes of sexual communication, extent of past sexual
communication, the frequency with
which mothers encouraged questions and provided information
about sexuality topics, open
communication, and mothers’ provision of warmth, structure,
and autonomy support.
Results: We found that 37% of adolescents were likely to be
responsive to sexual communication
with their mother, 34% were ambivalent, and 29% were unlikely
to be responsive. Youths’ re-
sponsiveness intentions were general rather than topic-specific.
A discriminant analysis showed
that only features of previous sexual communication separated
all three groups whereas specific
mother-adolescent relationship features (open communication
and structure) and one adolescent
characteristic (expected outcomes) separated the unlikely group
from the other groups.
Conclusions: Young adolescents' intentions of being responsive
to sexual communication from
their mother are diverse yet general in nature. Mothers'
engagement in sexual communication
appears essential for youths' openness to these discussions.
Enhancing specific mother-adolescent
relationship features and youths’ outcome expectations may
shift adolescents who are resistant to
sexuality discussions to being more sure.
1. Introduction

Communication between parents and their adolescents about
sexual health topics has the potential to be a win-win situation
for
both parties. For parents, sexual communication is an
opportunity to fulfill one of their acknowledged responsibilities
by providing
information that can prevent negative sexual outcomes and
sharing attitudes and values (Flores & Barroso, 2017; Jerman &
Constantine, 2010). For adolescents, sexual communication is
an opportunity to gain factual information and practical skills
from one
of their preferred sources of sexuality information (Baheiraei,
Khoori, Foroushani, Ahmadi, & Ybarra, 2014; Byers et al.,
2003a,
2003b; Pariera & Brody, 2018). However, in many families,
sexual communication occurs infrequently or not at all, and
when it does
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.02.006
Received 28 September 2019; Received in revised form 6
February 2020; Accepted 12 February 2020
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H.A. Sears).
1 BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada.
Journal of Adolescence 80 (2020) 136–144
Available online 20 February 2020
0140-1971/ © 2020 The Foundation for Professionals in
Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.
T

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01401971
https://www.elsevier.com/locate/adolescence
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.adolescence
.2020.02.006&domain=pdf
occur, it often lacks depth, is narrow in scope, has a negative
tone, and takes place too late to maximize its potential benefit
(Beckett
et al., 2010; Evans, Widman, Kamke, & Stewart, 2019; Holman
& Koenig Kellas, 2018; Ritchwood et al., 2018; Widman,
Choukas-
Bradley, Helms, Golin, & Prinstein, 2014). This reflects, in
part, many parents' and many adolescents' discomfort during
their in-
teractions (Elliott, 2010; Grossman, Jenkins, & Richer, 2018;
Jerman & Constantine, 2010). Parents' and adolescents’
discomfort
discussing sexuality may also be evident in their responsiveness
during these conversations. Responsiveness involves a range of
behaviors that signal engagement, such as verbal participation,
listening, paying attention to what is being said, and asking and
answering questions (Romo, Nadeem, Au, & Sigman, 2004;
Whitaker, Miller, May, & Levin, 1999).
Studies of responsiveness in parent-adolescent sexual
communication have focused primarily on mothers, with both
mothers and
adolescents highlighting the importance of mothers'
responsiveness in this context (e.g., Holman & Koenig Kellas,
2018; Pluhar &

Kuriloff, 2004). Mothers' responsiveness during sexuality
discussions is related to more frequent sexual communication,
discussion of
more topics, less dominance by mothers during discussions, and
more engagement and less avoidance by the adolescent (Afifi,
Joseph, & Aldeis, 2008; Lefkowitz, Romo, Corona, Au, &
Sigman, 2000; Miller et al., 2009; Miller, Kotchick, Dorsey,
Forehand, &
Ham, 1998; Pluhar & Kuriloff, 2004). Interestingly, even
though adolescents' characteristics and engagement are viewed
as critical
aspects of these interactions (see DiIorio, Pluhar, & Belcher,
2003; Flores & Barroso, 2017; Jaccard, Dodge, & Dittus, 2002),
their
responsiveness (i.e., their behavior or intentions) has received
little attention. It appears, however, that adolescents’ lack of
response
or negative response (e.g., not listening, silence, dismissal,
contempt) can deter parent-adolescent sexual communication
(Elliott,
2010; Pluhar & Kuriloff, 2004; Rosenthal, Feldman, & Edwards,
1998). Nevertheless, some youths are positive about and
responsive
to these discussions (Grossman et al., 2018; Holman & Koenig
Kellas, 2018; Yowell, 1997).
In this study, we assessed young adolescents' responsiveness
intentions – that is, their plan to be responsive to sexual
commu-
nication with their mother. Too few adolescents reported on
their communication with their father to be considered. We
focused on
adolescents' responsiveness intentions rather than their past
responsiveness behavior for two reasons. First, assessing
adolescents'
responsiveness intentions allowed us to include youths living in

families where sexual communication was not occurring as well
as
youths who may be reluctant to disclose previous
unresponsiveness to their parent's sexual communication.
Second, we found no
previous research on youths' responsiveness intentions in this
context. Information about the responsiveness intentions of
young
adolescents provides important information for parents who are
initiating sexual communication or planning to introduce new
topics
for discussion against a backdrop of the normative increase in
parent-adolescent conflict and decline in parent-adolescent
warmth
experienced in many families during early adolescence
(Askelson, Campo, & Smith, 2012; Shanahan, McHale, Osgood,
& Crouter,
2007; Shearer, Crouter, & McHale, 2005).
1.1. Adolescents’ responsiveness to parent-adolescent sexual
communication
Researchers have found considerable heterogeneity in
adolescents' responsiveness to sexual communication with their
mother.
For example, Romo et al. (2004) conducted an observational
study of 11-to-16-year-old youths' responsiveness to their
mothers'
questions during sexuality discussions. They reported that, on
average, youths responded with low to moderate levels of
attentiveness
and verbal engagement, although scores on these two indices
indicated substantial variation across adolescents. Using
interviews
with adolescent girls (11–13 years) and their mother, Yowell
(1997) identified three groups who reported different types of

en-
gagement: actively engaged girls who were willing to
participate in sexual communication even when they had
different perspectives
from their mother; passively engaged girls who were willing to
participate in sexual communication to comply with their
mother's
expectation that these discussions take place; and avoidant girls
who shut down discussions with their mother largely because of
a
desire for privacy. Rosenthal et al. (1998) interviewed mothers
of 16-year-olds about their sexual communication with their
ado-
lescent and found that mothers' descriptions ranged from their
youth being interested and engaged to their youth being largely
uninterested and even dismissive to their youth not being
willing to have sexuality discussions. Finally, Grossman et al.
(2018)
interviewed parents twice about family sexual communication,
when their adolescent was in seventh grade and tenth grade
(20/23
parents were mothers). At both interviews, a majority of parents
indicated that their adolescent was engaged during sexuality
discussions; however, in the second interview compared to the
first interview, almost twice as many parents described their
youth's
avoidance or negative reaction to the discussions.
Together, these studies indicate that adolescents respond in
various ways to their mother's efforts to have sexuality
discussions,
with some youths open to and engaged in these conversations,
other youths avoiding or refusing to engage in these
conversations,
and still other youths responding in a more emotionally
tempered way with limited engagement and perceived by their

mother as
having little interest. We reasoned that this diversity in youths'
responses to sexuality conversations with their mother may
reflect, in
part, diverse intentions to be responsive given that individuals'
behavioral intentions are a predictor of their subsequent
behaviors
(Sheeran, 2002; Webb & Sheeran, 2006). We expected that
some adolescents would be more positive about having a
sexuality
discussion with their mother (i.e., be likely to be responsive),
some would be more negative (i.e., be unlikely to be
responsive), and
some would be ambivalent, unsure, or neutral about engaging in
such a discussion (i.e., be neither likely nor unlikely to be re-
sponsive). We used a categorical approach in our evaluation of
adolescents' responsiveness intentions to ensure that the results
provided information about youths who are ambivalent or
unsure about having sexuality discussions with their mother; the
possibly
unique characteristics of these youths would be overlooked
using a dimensional approach. We were particularly interested
in whether
the youths who indicated that they were neither likely nor
unlikely to be responsive to sexual communication with their
mother
would differ in various ways from those who are either open to
or resistant to these discussions given that it may be difficult to
infer
adolescents' ambivalence or hesitance about having sexuality
discussions from observations of them or during interactions
with them.
It is important to provide parents with realistic expectations
about youths' responsiveness intentions in order to reduce their
fears

H.A. Sears, et al. Journal of Adolescence 80 (2020) 136–144
137
about the likelihood of a negative response from their
adolescent and/or to allow them to take steps in increase their
adolescent's
responsiveness. Further, this information may inform future
research and intervention efforts aimed at promoting parent-
adolescent
sexual communication. Currently, we have no information on
the proportion of youths who are likely, unlikely, or ambivalent
about
being responsive to sexual communication with their mother or
about factors that are associated with diverse intentions to be
responsive. Our first goal was to examine the percentage of
young adolescents in this sample who fell into three
responsiveness
intentions groups: Likely to be Responsive, Ambivalent, and
Unlikely to be Responsive.
1.2. Factors expected to distinguish adolescents with diverse
responsiveness intentions
Our second goal was to identify factors that describe differences
among adolescents in the three responsiveness intentions
groups.
Frameworks for studying parent-adolescent sexual
communication (see Flores & Barroso, 2017; Jaccard et al.,
2002) and previous
studies (e.g., Klein, Becker, & Stulhofer, 2018; Ritchwood et
al., 2018; Schouten, van den Putte, Pasmans, & Meeuwesen,
2007) have
identified youth characteristics, the sexual communication

context, and the family context as potentially important
domains.
Therefore, we selected two adolescent characteristics (gender,
expected outcomes), three features of previous mother-
adolescent
sexual communication (the extent of communication, the
frequency with which mothers had encouraged questions and
provided
information about sexual health topics), and four features of the
mother-adolescent relationship (open mother-adolescent
commu-
nication, mothers' provision of warmth, structure, and autonomy
support) for evaluation. Researchers have not investigated
whether
these factors describe group differences in young adolescents'
intentions of being responsive to their mother's sexual
communication.
There is indirect support, however, for our selection of these
factors.
Adolescent characteristics. It is likely that young male and
female adolescents differ on their intentions of being responsive
to
sexual communication with their mother. Romo et al. (2004)
found that adolescent girls were more responsive than
adolescent boys
to their mothers' questions during sexuality discussions, and
Fasula and Miller (2006) reported that adolescent girls
perceived their
mother as more responsive during sexual communication than
adolescent boys. In addition, Rosenthal et al. (1998) reported
that
more mothers of adolescent girls than adolescent boys described
mutually interactive discussions about sexuality, although
Grossman
et al. (2018) found no gender difference in parents' reports of

their teenager's positive or negative responsiveness. We also
evaluated
youths' expected outcomes of being responsive to sexual
communication with their mother because, in general, more
positive ex-
pected outcomes of a behavior are linked to higher intentions
related to that behavior (Jaccard et al., 2002). Although
adolescents
may expect both positive (e.g., questions will be answered) and
negative (e.g., they will be embarrassed) outcomes from sexual
communication (Jaccard, Dittus, & Gordon, 2000), adolescents
who expect more positive outcomes engage in more sexual com-
munication with their mother and their father (Schouten et al.,
2007).
Features of previous mother-adolescent sexual communication.
By the time young adolescents are in middle school, at least
some of them have had sexual communication with their mother.
However, according to both mothers and youths, these con-
versations typically are not extensive and parents encourage
sexual health questions infrequently (Byers & Sears, 2012;
Foster, Byers,
& Sears, 2011; Holman & Koenig Kellas, 2018). The likelihood
of youths being responsive during future communication is
expected to
be related to these previous experiences, including the extent of
previous communication (i.e., depth or level of detail), the
frequency
with which their mother encouraged questions about sexual
health topics, and the frequency with which their mother
provided
information about sexual health topics (e.g., books, videos).
Parents who engage in these behaviors may show their
adolescent that
they have knowledge about and comfort with at least some
sexuality topics and an openness and ability to share this

information in a
way that is not intrusive or embarrassing. Young adults
identified an openness to questions as a strength of parents'
sexual com-
munication (Pariera & Brody, 2018), and the frequency with
which parents encouraged questions was the strongest predictor
of
young adolescents’ perception of higher quality sexuality
education by their parents (Foster et al., 2011). We also
assessed the
frequency with which mothers provided sexual health
information because we thought that mothers doing so may
reduce the dis-
comfort of both parties by providing a focus and helping them
prepare in advance for a discussion.
Features of the mother-adolescent relationship. Mother-
adolescent sexual communication is most likely to occur in the
context
of a positive mother-adolescent relationship. For example, more
open general communication has been associated with
adolescents'
more positive evaluation of their mother as a sex educator and
with caregivers', but not young adolescents', reports of more
com-
munication about sexual health topics and sensitive sex topics
(Feldman & Rosenthal, 2000; Ritchwood et al., 2018). In
addition,
parents' provision of warmth, structure, and autonomy support
have been related to parent-adolescent sexual communication, in
at
least some studies. For example, various markers of a positive
relationship (e.g., satisfaction, support) have been linked to
adoles-
cents' reports of more sexual communication and more frequent
sexual communication (Jaccard et al., 2000; Klein et al., 2018),

but
not consistently (e.g., Afifi et al., 2008). Mothers' provision of
structure during a sexuality discussion in the form of more
open-ended
questions, information, and feedback has been positively
associated with adolescents' level of engagement and desire for
additional
conversations (Mauras, Grolnick, & Friendly, 2012; Romo et
al., 2004). Parents' provision of autonomy support has been
linked to
more frequent sexual communication between parents and girls
over time (Klein et al., 2018), although autonomy support was
not
related concurrently to girls’ experience of sexuality
discussions (Mauras et al., 2012). We thought that each of these
relationship
features would contribute to a positive climate that would make
young adolescents more likely to be responsive to sexual com-
munication.
1.3. The current study
It is unlikely that parents can have effective sexuality
discussions with their adolescent if the adolescent is not
responsive to their
138
efforts. However, we know little about adolescents'
responsiveness to parent-adolescent sexual communication from
adolescents'
perspective and nothing about their intentions to be responsive

to these conversations. Therefore, we examined young
adolescents'
intentions of being responsive to sexual communication with
their mother. We generated three groups of youths (Likely to be
Responsive, Ambivalent, and Unlikely to be Responsive) and
developed two research questions. First, what proportion of
young
adolescents fall within each of the three groups? Second, do
adolescents' characteristics, features of previous sexual
communication
with their mother, and features of the mother-adolescent
relationship distinguish the three groups? We expected that the
Likely to be
Responsive group would be comprised of a higher proportion of
girls and that youths in this group would score higher than
youths in
the Unlikely to be Responsive group on all of the other factors
assessed. We did not make hypotheses about the proportion of
adolescents who would fall within each group or the position of
youths in the Ambivalent group relative to those in the other
two
groups given that there has been no research on adolescents’
responsiveness intentions.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
The participants were 259 Canadian adolescents (137 girls, 122
boys) who ranged in age from 12 to 14 years (M
(SD) = 12.97(.72)) and were enrolled in either grade 7 (51%) or
grade 8 (49%). A majority (70%) reported that they lived with
their
mother and father; 12% were living with a parent and
stepparent, and 18% were living with their mother on her own.

To recruit the sample, 683 survey packages were mailed to
parents who had participated in research conducted by our lab
in the
previous 12 months, all of whom had a young adolescent.
Parents were asked to provide our survey to their adolescent and
to sign a
consent form if they were willing to have them participate in
this study. Adolescents who wished to participate were asked to
sign
their own consent form, to complete the survey at home, and
then to return the survey and both consent forms directly to the
researchers by mail in a self-addressed stamped envelope. The
319 youths who returned a completed survey each received $20.
After
accounting for the 14 surveys that were returned by the post
office, the response rate was 48%. Sixty surveys were excluded
because
they were returned too late (n = 5) or without a signed parent
consent form (n = 18), or the youths exceeded the age range for
the
study (12–14 years; n = 4), were living with someone other than
a parent (n = 2), reported on sexual communication with their
father (n = 29), or were missing data on the dependent variable
(n = 2). The final sample size was 259.
2.2. Measures
Demographic characteristics. Adolescents were asked to report
their gender, age, grade, and with whom they were living.
Intentions of being responsive. Adolescents’ intentions of being
responsive to discussions about sexuality with their mother
were assessed using 12 items adapted from a measure of sexual
communication intentions (Byers & Sears, 2012). Youths were
provided with a description of responsiveness (“Being
responsive means listening, paying attention to what is being

said, and asking
or answering questions”) and asked to indicate how likely it was
that, in the next six months, they would be responsive or willing
to
have a conversation or discussion with their mother about each
of 12 topics (see Table 1). Their responses were made on a 5-
point
Likert scale (1 = very unlikely, 2 = unlikely, 3 = neither
unlikely nor likely, 4 = likely, 5 = very likely).
Adolescent characteristics. Two adolescent characteristics were
assessed. First, youths reported whether they were female or
male in the demographic characteristics section. Second, they
indicated the extent to which they expected positive and
negative
outcomes to occur if they were responsive to a discussion with
their mother about sexual health. The 12 items reflected
possible
outcomes for the adolescent (e.g., I would not learn anything
new about sexuality; my parent would listen to me) or their
mother (e.g., my
parent would be embarrassed; my parent would think that I am
planning to have sex). Five items were adapted from Jaccard et
al. (2000),
two items were adapted from DiIorio et al. (2001), and five
items were developed for this study. Responses were made
using a 5-point
Table 1
Factor loadings of sexual communication topics on adolescents’
responsiveness in-
tentions.
Sexual Communication Topic Factor Loading
Correct names for genitals .78

Puberty/Physical development .74
Reproduction & birth .87
Birth control methods & safer sex practices .85
Sexually transmitted diseases .82
Abstinence .81
Sexual coercion & sexual assault .86
Sexual behavior .80
Masturbation .76
Homosexuality .76
Sex in the media and on the Internet .82
Sexual decision-making in dating relationships .84
Note. N = 259.
139
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The
sum of the 12 items was computed after reverse coding the six
negative
outcomes, with a higher score reflecting youths’ expectations of
more positive outcomes as a consequence of being responsive.
The
internal consistency of this measure was .81.
Features of previous sexual communication. Adolescents’ views
of three features of previous sexual communication with their
mother were assessed. First, youths indicated the extent to
which they had talked to their mother in the last six months
about each of
the same 12 topics used to assess their responsiveness
intentions. Their responses were made using a 4-point scale (1 =
not at all,

2 = in general terms only, 3 = in some detail, 4 = in a lot of
detail), with higher mean scores indicating more extensive
communication.
Consistent with previous research with parents (e.g., Byers &
Sears, 2012), the internal consistency was high (α = .95). The
ado-
lescents also reported on the frequency, in the last six months,
with which their mother had encouraged them to ask questions
about
sexual health topics (Foster et al., 2011) and their mother had
given them information about sexual health topics (e.g., books,
videos)
(developed for this study). Their responses were made using a
5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very often), with higher scores
on each
item indicating that the behavior had occurred more often.
Features of the mother-adolescent relationship. Adolescents
completed four measures of the mother-adolescent relationship.
We assessed their perceptions of more open communication
with their mother using the 20-item Parent-Adolescent
Communication
Scale (Barnes & Olsen, 1985; e.g., I find it easy to discuss
problems with my parent). Responses were made on a 5-point
Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). After reverse coding
the 10 negative statements, the 20 items were summed, with a
higher
score reflecting more open general communication. Barnes and
Olsen (1985) provided evidence for the reliability and validity
of the
scale (α = .89 in this study). We also evaluated adolescents’
perceptions of their relationship with their mother using the
Parents as
Social Context Questionnaire (Adolescent Report) (Skinner,
Johnson, & Snyder, 2005). The measure includes three

subscales –
warmth (e.g., My parent thinks I am special); structure (e.g.,
When I want to understand how something works, my parent
explains it to me);
and autonomy support (e.g., My parent lets me do things I think
are important). Each subscale consists of four items and
responses were
made on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all true, 4 = very true).
Subscale items were averaged, with a higher mean score
indicating more
warmth, more structure, and more autonomy support by their
mother. Skinner et al. (2005) provided evidence for the
reliability and
validity of the scale (αs = . 81, .81, and .74 for warmth,
structure, and autonomy support, respectively, in the current
study).
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analysis
First, we used a principal component analysis (PCA) to confirm
that adolescents’ intentions of being responsive to sexual com-
munication with their mother are best conceptualized as a
composite rather than some combinations of sexual health
topics. An
analysis of the 12 responsiveness intentions items, with oblimin
rotation, revealed a one factor solution that accounted for
65.43% of
the variance. Component loadings ranged from .74 to .87 (see
Table 1). The internal consistency of this responsiveness
intentions
composite was .95.
3.2. Young adolescents’ intentions of being responsive to sexual
communication with their mother

Next, youths were assigned to one of three groups based on
their mean score on the 12-item responsiveness intentions
measure:
Adolescents who indicated that, on average, they were very
unlikely or unlikely to be responsive to sexual health
discussions with
their mother (mean score between 1.00 and 2.49) were placed in
the Unlikely to be Responsive group; those who were neither
unlikely nor likely to be responsive to sexual health discussions
(mean score between 2.50 and 3.49) were placed in the
Ambivalent
group; and those who were likely or very likely to be responsive
to sexual health discussions (mean score between 3.50 and 5.00)
were placed in the Likely to be Responsive group. Cutoff scores
for the groups were selected to position the Ambivalent group
under
the “neither unlikely nor likely” response anchor and centrally
between the other two groups. Overall, 29% of the young
adolescents
were in the Unlikely to be Responsive group, 34% were in the
Ambivalent group, and 37% were in the Likely to be Responsive
group.
3.3. Factors that distinguish youths with diverse responsiveness
intentions
The intercorrelations among the two adolescent characteristics,
the three features of previous sexual communication with their
mother, and the four features of the mother-adolescent
relationship are presented in Table 2. Adolescent gender was
not related to
any of the other factors. With only a few exceptions, the
remaining factors were significantly correlated.
We used discriminant analysis to examine whether young

adolescents’ reports of their characteristics, features of previous
sexual
communication with their mother, and features of the mother-
adolescent relationship separated the three groups. Discriminant
analysis assesses whether one or more linear combinations of
variables (i.e., linear discriminant functions) are related to
group
differences (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Linear discriminant
functions maximize differences between groups, are generated
suc-
cessively, and are orthogonal. A canonical correlation is
presented for each function, and each canonical correlation
squared indicates
the proportion of variance in the function that is explained by
the group differences. With three groups, two linear
discriminant
functions are estimated and tested for significance. Group
centroids are the mean discriminant scores for each group and
show how
the groups are spaced or separated along each function.
Structure coefficients are bivariate correlations between
individual variables
and the linear discriminant function and identify the
contribution of the variables to group separation. Results from
univariate
analyses indicate how the groups differ on significant correlates
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
140
The discriminant analysis revealed two functions separating the
groups. The first function was significant (Wilk's λ = .62, Rc =

.60, χ2[18, N = 259] = 120.64, p < .001) and accounted for 95%
of the between-group variance explained by the two functions
and 36% of the variance explained by the groups. The second
function, which accounted for the remaining 5% of the between-
group
variance explained by the two functions, was not significant
(Wilk's λ = .97, Rc = .17, χ
2[8, N = 259] = 7.24, ns) and was not
considered further. Inspection of the group centroids showed
that the significant function separated the Likely to be
Responsive group
(group centroid = .84) from the Unlikely to be Responsive
group (group centroid = −1.01), with the Ambivalent group
falling
between these two groups (group centroid = −.04). Using the
recommended correlation of .33 as a cut-off for interpretation
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), we found that all of the factors
assessed except adolescent gender and mother's provision of
warmth and
autonomy support were correlated significantly with the
significant function (see Table 3). The features of previous
sexual com-
munication provided the largest structure coefficients.
Univariate ANOVAs comparing the three groups on the six
significant cor-
relates were signficant. Follow-up Tukey tests showed that for
extent of past sexual communication, mother's encouragement
of
sexual health questions, and mother's provision of sexual health
information, youths in the Likely to be Responsive group scored
significantly higher than youths in the Ambivalent group who
scored significantly higher than youths in the Unlikely to be
Responsive
group. In addition, for expected outcomes and for open mother-
adolescent communication and mother's provision of structure,

adolescents in the Unlikely to be Responsive group scored
significantly lower than youths in both the Ambivalent group
and the
Likely to be Responsive group which did not differ significantly
from one another (see Table 3).
4. Discussion
Adolescents' responsiveness to sexual communication with a
parent is critical for facilitating these discussions, both in the
mo-
ment and on a repeated basis, yet this topic has received
surprisingly little attention from researchers. To address this
deficit, we
examined young adolescents' intentions of being responsive to
sexual communication with their mother. Our first research
question
focused on the proportion of young adolescents who were
likely, unlikely, or ambivalent about being responsive to sexual
com-
munication. We found that our participants were distributed
fairly evenly across the three groups, with a substantial
minority of
youths likely to be responsive to sexual communication with
their mother, unlikely to be responsive, and unsure about
engaging in
sexual communication. That adolescents were distributed across
the groups is consistent with previous research showing that
ado-
lescents respond to sexuality discussions in various ways (e.g.,
Rosenthal et al., 1998; Yowell, 1997). Of practical note,
contrary to
Table 2
Pearson correlations among the proposed distinguishing factors.

Proposed Distinguishing Factors 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Adolescent Gender .00 -.11 -.08 -.11 .07 .05 .00 .03
2. Adolescent Anticipated Outcomes – .34*** .34*** .18**
.69*** .44*** .48*** .48***
3. Extent Previous Sex Communication – .59*** .58*** .32***
.18** .22*** .19**
4. Mother Encouraged Questions – .56*** .27*** .14* .19** .10
5. Mother Gave Information – .19** .06 .20*** .07
6. Mother-Adolescent Communication – .61*** .63*** .67***
7. Mother Conveys Warmth – .63*** .73***
8. Mother Provides Structure – .68***
9. Mother Supports Autonomy –
Note. N = 259. For gender, girls = 0 and boys = 1.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Table 3
Summary of the discriminant analysis results for the three
responsiveness intentions groups.
Factors Structure
Coefficients
Unlikely to be Responsive
(n = 76)
Ambivalent (n = 87) Likely to be Responsive
(n = 96)
F (2, 256)
Function 1 M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Adolescent Gendera -.07 53/47 47/53 58/42 N/A
Adolescent Anticipated Outcomesb .40 3.38a (.58) 3.64b (.51)

3.78b (.53) 11.93***
Extent Previous Sex Communicationc .90 1.48a (.59) 2.05b
(.73) 2.64c (.75) 59.33***
Mother Encouraged Questionsb .66 1.70a (.91) 2.34b (1.00)
2.93c (1.09) 31.60***
Mother Gave Informationb .64 1.36a (.71) 1.82b (.91) 2.52c
(1.22) 30.52***
Mother-Adolescent Communicationd .40 65.04a (11.33) 71.56b
(10.69) 73.42b (11.40) 12.78***
Mother Conveys Warmthc .23 3.71 (.48) 3.82 (.33) 3.87 (.32)
N/A
Mother Provides Structurec .36 3.30a (.64) 3.58b (.45) 3.64b
(.42) 10.78***
Mother Supports Autonomyc .24 3.45 (.59) 3.64 (.43) 3.66 (.41)
N/A
Note. Structure coefficients (correlations) .33 or greater are in
bold. Means in the same row that do not share subscripts differ
at p < .05.
aPercentage of girls and boys in the group. bPossible range = 1–
5. cPossible range = 1–4. dPossible range = 20–100.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
141
many parents’ fears that their young adolescents are not open to
sexual communication, at least some parents can expect a
positive
response and other parents may encounter hesitance but not
resistance.
Our results also indicated that the likelihood of young

adolescents being responsive to sexuality discussions with their
mother is
general (i.e., consistent across a range of topics) rather than
topic-specific. This may reflect their positive or negative
response
disposition toward sexuality, termed erotophobia-erotophilia
(Fisher, Byrne, White, & Kelley, 1988; Rye, Meaney, Yessis, &
McKay,
2012). Erotophobia-erotophilia is thought to emerge from
parents' socialization of sexuality, including whether sexuality
issues are
addressed in overt or covert ways. Alternatively, it may reflect
adolescents' perception of the quality of their relationship with
their
mother, such that adolescents who have a more positive or more
negative relationship with their mother are more inclined or not
inclined to have sexuality discussions regardless of the topic.
Another possible explanation is that these young adolescents are
not yet
involved in sexual behaviors with a partner and thus are not
aware of gaps in their sexual information. Given that we studied
young
adolescents, it is important to also investigate the
responsiveness intentions of older adolescents as well as
whether the respon-
siveness intentions of adolescents change with age and continue
to be general or become topic-specific. Parents' reports of their
youth's engagement suggest that some adolescents become more
negative during sexuality discussions with their parent as they
get
older (see Grossman et al., 2018).
Our second research question focused on whether adolescents'
characteristics, features of previous sexual communication with
their mother, and features of the mother-adolescent relationship
would distinguish the three groups of youths with diverse re-

sponsiveness intentions. Consistent with frameworks describing
parent-adolescent sexual communication (e.g., Flores &
Barroso,
2017; Jaccard et al., 2002), adolescents' responsiveness
intentions were related to factors from each of these domains.
However, the
three features of adolescents' previous sexual communication
with their mother showed the highest correlations with the
significant
discriminant function. This result suggests that it is mothers
communicating openness to and comfort with sexuality
discussions
specifically more than a generally positive mother-adolescent
relationship that is particularly important for higher
responsiveness
intentions of young adolescents. This interpretation is further
supported by our findings that neither mothers' provision of
warmth
nor mothers' provision of autonomy support separated the
groups and by previous research which also found no link
between these
two relationship markers and parent-adolescent sexual
communication (e.g., Afifi et al., 2008; Mauras et al., 2012).
Parents who have
not discussed sexuality with their young adolescent may be
communicating overtly or covertly that they would find these
con-
versations difficult. Unexpectedly, adolescents' gender also did
not separate the three responsiveness intentions groups. It may
be that
more sexual communication between mothers and their
daughters than sons and daughters' greater responsiveness
during these
conversations, as found in past research (Jerman & Constantine,
2010; Romo et al., 2004), reflects characteristics of mothers and
not

adolescents’ willingness to have these discussions.
Six of the factors we investigated were significant and
contributed most to the separation of adolescents in the Likely
to be
Responsive group and adolescents in the Unlikely to be
Responsive group. That is, adolescents in the Likely to be
Responsive group
reported an optimal combination of previous sexual
communication with their mother that was significantly more
extensive or more
frequent as well as significantly more positive expected
outcomes of sexual communication and more open
communication and more
structure in the mother-adolescent relationship. This
combination describes a scenario in which youths' openness to
sexual com-
munication with their mother seems to reflect their experiences
communicating with her in the past, both generally (i.e., about
nonsexual issues) and with respect to sexuality topics
specifically. Similarly, Feldman and Rosenthal (2000) found
that adolescents'
perceptions of both good mother-adolescent communication and
mothers' comfort with sexual communication predicted more po-
sitive evaluations of their mothers as sex educators.
Interestingly, the mean scores for each of the previous sexual
communication
variables in the Likely to be Responsive group were not
particularly high (i.e., mothers' sexual communication was not
described as
extensive or frequent), and the mean scores for expected
outcomes, open communication, and provision of structure in
the Unlikely to
be Responsive group were not particularly low (i.e., at or above
their midpoint). It seems that adolescents’ responsiveness
intentions

are sufficiently sensitive that even small differences in key
characteristics, mother-adolescent relationship features, and
features of
previous sexual communication are important for distinguishing
youths who are likely to be responsive to sexual communication
from those who are not.
Our results also shed light on the characteristics of a previously
unstudied group – young adolescents who are uncertain about
how they will respond to sexual communication with their
mother. They suggest that these adolescents are sufficiently
comfortable
with their interactions with their mother that they reported
positive conversations with her about nonsexual issues yet they
are
hesitant to commit to being responsive to sexual
communication, in part because of their more limited
experiences with sexual
communication. That is, the adolescents in the Ambivalent
group were significantly different from youths in the other two
groups on
features of previous sexual communication with their mother,
with their scores on all three features falling in between those
of the
other groups. However, in other ways, youths in the Ambivalent
group were different only from youths in the Unlikely to be
Responsive group, showing significantly higher mean scores on
expected outcomes of sexuality discussions and on open
commu-
nication and provision of structure in the mother-adolescent
relationship. They did not differ significantly from youths in the
Likely to
be Responsive group on these variables. These additional results
draw attention to the importance of specific characteristics of
youths
and specific, but not all, features of the mother-adolescent

relationship for young adolescents to be at least somewhat open
rather
than resistant to sexual communication.
Reviews of the efficacy of interventions for improving parent-
adolescent sexual communication have indicated that these in-
terventions increase many parents' sexual communication with
their adolescents (e.g., Akers, Holland, & Bost, 2011; Santa
Maria,
Markham, Bluethmann, & Dolan Mullen, 2015). The results of
this study provide information that could be incorporated into
these
interventions. For example, our finding that a substantial
minority of young adolescents are likely to be, unlikely to be,
or ambivalent
about being responsive to sexual communication with their
mother suggests that intervention facilitators could discuss with
youths
142
what they think it would be like to talk to their parent about
sexuality, various ways they could respond, and how their
respon-
siveness contributes to sexual communication. Parents also need
to be made aware of this variation in young adolescents' respon-
siveness intentions instead of assuming that they will encounter
a lack of interest or resistance and to consider ways they could
respond to hesitation or resistance. Given that specific topics
were not linked to the likelihood of young adolescents being
responsive,
parents should be encouraged to discuss a range of topics,

including topics that they view as relevant as well as topics of
interest to
their youth. Our results also suggest that having conversations
about sexuality, encouraging youths to ask questions, and
providing
sexuality information in other forms will, in turn, make it more
likely that young adolescents will be responsive to future
sexuality
conversations. It seems that youths who are ambivalent about
being responsive to sexual communication with their mother in
particular need clearer indications that she is open to engaging
in discussions about sexuality. Mothers’ provision of more
explicit
cues to their young adolescents may elevate at least some
youths who are unsure about sexual communication to being
more sure.
Various limitations of this study must be kept in mind when
considering the results. First, the participants were recruited
through
their mothers, all of whom had participated in previous
research. Although this situation may suggest that these youths
represent a
“best case scenario” and therefore the distribution of their
responsiveness intentions is likely positively biased, we did
find the full
range of responsiveness intentions in this select sample.
Nevertheless, additional research is needed to determine
whether the current
results generalize to a more representative sample of
adolescents. Additional information about participants, such as
the family's
socioeconomic status, would also be useful for assessing how
specific results compare across adolescent samples. Second, this
study
focused on the mother-adolescent dyad and the results may not

generalize to communication between young adolescents and
their
father or other primary caregivers. Third, single items were
used to measure specific aspects of sexual communication (i.e.,
en-
couraged questions, provided information). Multi-item measures
of concrete behaviors that may occur during sexual
communications
may provide a more reliable and valid assessment of these
interactions. Fourth, a categorical rather than a dimensional
approach was
used to examine youths' responsiveness intentions. While this
analytic strategy allowed us to assess whether adolescents who
were
categorized as ambivalent about sexual communication differed
from adolescents who were likely or unlikely to be responsive
to
these discussions, it is important to note that some youths in
adjacent groups have similar responsiveness intentions scores.
Finally,
the cross-sectional design of this study does not permit a
temporal evaluation of young adolescents' responsiveness
intentions and
their mother's sexual communication behaviors. A longitudinal
evaluation of these variables is needed to reveal how they occur
and
interact over time.
5. Conclusions
Adolescents' willingness to be responsive to sexuality
discussions with their mother is key to the occurrence and tone
of these
conversations. Our evaluation of young adolescents'
responsiveness intentions suggests that youths' intentions are
diverse: some

youths are willing to have these discussions, some are
ambivalent about them, and some are resistant to them. Further,
these stances
are consistent across sexuality topics. We also found that the
frequency and extent of youths' past experiences communicating
with
their mother about sexuality are particularly important for
understanding differences among these three groups. Specific
parent-
adolescent relationship features and youths' outcome
expectations of these discussions shed additional light on
similarities and
differences between specific groups. These patterns reflect
adolescents' willingness to be responsive to sexuality
discussions initiated
by their mother. Research on adolescents' and mothers’
responsiveness to conversations initiated by the adolescent is
also needed
since adolescents may be more responsive in this situation.
Given that the correlates of adolescents' responsiveness
intentions we assessed are markers of only some of the elements
described
in frameworks used to understand parent-adolescent sexual
communication (e.g., Flores & Barroso; Jaccard et al., 2002),
other
markers of these elements and other elements should be
considered in future research. For example, multiple source or
parent
characteristics, such as respect for privacy and ability to control
emotions, have been identified by adolescents and young adults
as
important factors for effective parent-adolescent sexual
communication (e.g., Holman & Koenig Kellas, 2018; Pariera &
Brody, 2018).
Markers of the message or sexuality discussion, such as the

relative importance of more structure and specific topics in a
discussion,
could also be assessed. In addition, whether specific contexts,
such as youths' recent experience with sexuality education at
school or
promotion of the HPV vaccine, are related to variation in
adolescents' responsiveness intentions could be examined. A
better un-
derstanding of the variation in adolescents’ willingness to be
responsive to sexual communication and of factors related to
their
responsiveness intentions can be used to equip adolescents and
their parents for these sensitive conversations.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
References
Afifi, T. D., Joseph, A., & Aldeis, D. (2008). Why can't we just
talk about it? An observational study of parents' and
adolescents' conversations about sex. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 23, 689–721.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408323841.
Akers, A. Y., Holland, C. L., & Bost, J. (2011). Interventions to
improve parental communication about sex: A systematic
review. Pediatrics, 127, 494–510. https://doi.
org/10.1542/peds.2010-2194.
Askelson, N. M., Campo, S., & Smith, S. (2012). Mother-
daughter communication about sex: The influence of
authoritative parenting style. Health Communication, 27,
439–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.606526.

Baheiraei, A., Khoori, E., Foroushani, A. R., Ahmadi, F., &
Ybarra, M. L. (2014). What sources do adolescents turn to for
information about their health concerns?
143
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408323841
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2194
https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.606526
International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 26,
61–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2012-0112.
Barnes, H. L., & Olsen, D. H. (1985). Parent-adolescent
communication and the circumplex model. Child Development,
56, 438–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129732.
Beckett, M. K., Elliott, M. N., Martino, S., Kanouse, D. E.,
Corona, R., Klien, D. J., et al. (2010). Timing of parent and
child communication about sexuality relative to
children's sexual behaviors. Pediatrics, 125, 34–42.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0806.
Byers, E. S., & Sears, H. A. (2012). Mothers who do and do not
intend to discuss sexual health with their young adolescents.
Family Relations, 61, 851–863. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00740.x.
Byers, E. S., Sears, H. A., Voyer, S. D., Thurlow, J. L., Cohen,
J. N., & Weaver, A. D. (2003a). An adolescent perspective on
sexual health education at school and at
home: I. High school students. The Canadian Journal of Human
Sexuality, 12, 1–17.

Byers, E. S., Sears, H. A., Voyer, S. D., Thurlow, J. L., Cohen,
J. N., & Weaver, A. D. (2003b). An adolescent perspective on
sexual health education at school and at
home: II. Middle school students. The Canadian Journal of
Human Sexuality, 12, 19–33.
DiIorio, C., Dudley, W. N., Wang, D. T., Wasserman, J.,
Eichler, M., Belcher, L., et al. (2001). Measurement of
parenting self-efficacy and outcome expectancy related to
discussions about sex. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 9, 135–
149.
DiIorio, C., Pluhar, E., & Belcher, L. (2003). Parent–child
communication about sexuality: A review of the literature from
1980–2002. Journal of HIV/AIDS Prevention &
Education for Adolescents & Children, 5, 7–32.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J129v05n03_02.
Elliott, S. (2010). Talking to teens about sex: Mothers negotiate
resistance, discomfort, and ambivalence. Sexuality Research
and Social Policy, 7, 310–322. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13178-010-0023-0.
Evans, R., Widman, L., Kamke, K., & Stewart, J. L. (2019).
Gender differences in parents' communication with their
adolescent children about sexual risk and sex-
positive topics. The Journal of Sex Research.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1661345.
Fasula, A. M., & Miller, K. S. (2006). African American and
Hispanic adolescents' intentions to delay first intercourse:
Parental communication as a buffer for sexually
active peers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 193–200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.12.009.
Feldman, S. S., & Rosenthal, D. A. (2000). The effect of

communication characteristics on family members' perceptions
of parents as sex educators. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 10, 119–150.
https://doi.org/10.1207/SJRA1002_1.
Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988).
Erotophobia-erotophilia as a dimension of personality. The
Journal of Sex Research, 25, 123–151. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224498809551448.
Flores, D., & Barroso, J. (2017). 21st century parent-child sex
communication in the United States: A process review. The
Journal of Sex Research, 54, 532–548. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1267693.
Foster, L. R., Byers, E. S., & Sears, H. A. (2011). Middle
school students' perceptions of the quality of the sexual health
education received from their parents. The
Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 55–65.
Grossman, J. M., Jenkins, L. J., & Richer, A. M. (2018).
Parents' perspectives on family sexuality communication from
middle school to high school. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15, 107.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15010107.
Holman, A., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2018). “Say something
instead of nothing”: Adolescents' perceptions of memorable
conversations about sex-related topics with their
parents. Communication Monographs, 85, 357–379.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1426870.
Jaccard, J., Dittus, P. J., & Gordon, V. V. (2000). Parent-teen
communication about premarital sex: Factors associated with
the extent of communication. Journal of

https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558400152001.
Jaccard, J., Dodge, T., & Dittus, P. J. (2002). Parent-adolescent
communication about sex and birth control: A conceptual
framework. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 97, 9–41.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.48.
Jerman, P., & Constantine, N. A. (2010). Demographic and
psychological predictors of parent-adolescent communication
about sex: A representative statewide
analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1164–1174.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9546-1.
Klein, V., Becker, I., & Stulhofer, A. (2018). Parenting,
communication about sexuality, and the development of
adolescent women's sexual agency: A longitudinal
assessment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1486–1498.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0873-y.
Lefkowitz, E. S., Romo, L. F., Corona, R., Au, T. K., &
Sigman, M. (2000). How Latino American and European
adolescents discuss conflicts, sexuality, and AIDS with
their mothers. Developmental Psychology, 36, 315–325.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.315.
Mauras, C. P., Grolnick, W. S., & Friendly, R. W. (2012). Time
for “the talk”…Now what? Autonomy support and structure in
mother-daughter conversations about sex.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 458–481.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431612449385.
Miller, K. S., Fasula, A. M., Dittus, P., Wiegand, R. E.,
Wyckoff, S. C., & McNair, L. (2009). Barriers and facilitators
to maternal communication with preadolescents

about age-relevant sexual topics. AIDS and Behavior, 13, 365–
374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-007-9324-6.
Miller, K. S., Kotchick, B. A., Dorsey, S., Forehand, R., &
Ham, A. Y. (1998). Family communication about sex: What are
parents saying and are their adolescents
listening? Family Planning Perspectives, 30, 218–235.
Pariera, K. L., & Brody, E. (2018). “Talk more about it”:
Emerging adults' attitudes about how and when parents should
talk about sex. Sexuality Research and Social
Policy, 15, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0314-
9.
Pluhar, E. I., & Kuriloff, P. (2004). What really matters in
family communication about sexuality? A qualitative analysis of
affect and style among African American
mothers and adolescent daughters. Sex Education, 4, 303–321.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1468181042000243376.
Ritchwood, T. D., Peasant, C., Powell, T. W., Taggart, T.,
Corbie-Smith, G., & Akers, A. Y. (2018). Predictors of
caregiver communication about reproductive and sexual
health and sensitive sex topics. Journal of Family Issues, 39,
2207–2231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X17741920.
Romo, L. F., Nadeem, E., Au, T. K., & Sigman, M. (2004).
Mexican-American adolescents' responsiveness to their mothers'
questions about dating and sexuality. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 501–522.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.08.002.
Rosenthal, D. A., Feldman, S. S., & Edwards, D. (1998). Mum's
the word: Mothers' perspectives on communication about
sexuality with adolescents. Journal of
Adolescence, 21, 727–743.

https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1998.0192.
Rye, B. J., Meaney, G. J., Yessis, J., & McKay, A. (2012). Use
of the “comfort with sexual matters for young adolescents”
scale: A measure of erotophobia-erotophilia for
youth. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 21, 91–100.
Santa Maria, D., Markham, C., Bluethmann, S., & Dolan
Mullen, P. (2015). Parent-based adolescent sexual health
interventions and effect on communication outcomes:
A systematic review and meta-analyses. Perspectives on Sexual
and Reproductive Health, 47, 37–50.
https://doi.org/10.1363/47e2415.
Schouten, B. C., van den Putte, B., Pasmans, M., & Meeuwesen,
L. (2007). Parent-adolescent communication about sexuality:
The role of adolescents' beliefs, subjective
norm, and perceived behavioral control. Patient Education and
Counseling, 66, 75–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2006.10.010.
Shanahan, L., McHale, S. M., Osgood, D. W., & Crouter, A. C.
(2007). Conflict with mothers and fathers from middle
childhood through adolescence: Within and
between family comparisons. Developmental Psychology, 43,
539–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.539.
Shearer, C. L., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2005). Parents'
perceptions of changes in mother-child and father-child
relationships during adolescence. Journal of
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558405275086.
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual
and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology,
12, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/

14792772143000003.
Skinner, E., Johnson, S., & Snyder, T. (2005). Six dimensions
of parenting: A motivational model. Parenting: Science and
Practice, 5, 175–235. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327922par0502_3.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate
statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral
intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the
experimental evidence. Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.132.2.249.
Whitaker, D. J., Miller, K. S., May, D. C., & Levin, M. L.
(1999). Teenage partners' communication about sexual risk and
condom use: The importance of parent-teenager
discussions. Family Planning Perspectives, 31, 117–121.
Widman, L., Choukas-Bradley, S., Helms, S. W., Golin, C. E.,
& Prinstein, M. J. (2014). Sexual communication between early
adolescents and their dating partners,
parents, and best friends. The Journal of Sex Research, 51, 731–
741. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.843148.
Yowell, C. M. (1997). Risks of communication: Early
adolescent girls' conversations with mothers and friends about
sexuality. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 17,
172–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316970170020/04.
144
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2012-0112

https://doi.org/10.2307/1129732
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00740.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00740.x
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0140-1971(20)30033-6/sref8
https://doi.org/10.1300/J129v05n03_02
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-010-0023-0
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-010-0023-0
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1661345
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.12.009
https://doi.org/10.1207/SJRA1002_1
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551448
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551448
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1267693
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1267693
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15010107
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1426870
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558400152001
https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.48
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9546-1
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0873-y
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.315
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431612449385
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-007-9324-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0314-9
https://doi.org/10.1080/1468181042000243376
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X17741920

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.08.002
https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1998.0192
https://doi.org/10.1363/47e2415
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2006.10.010
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.539
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558405275086
https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003
https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0502_3
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0502_3
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.843148
https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316970170020/04Young
adolescents’ responsiveness to sexual communication with their
mother: Distinguishing diverse
intentionsIntroductionAdolescents’ responsiveness to parent-
adolescent sexual communicationFactors expected to distinguish
adolescents with diverse responsiveness intentionsThe current
studyMethodParticipants and
procedureMeasuresResultsPreliminary analysisYoung
adolescents’ intentions of being responsive to sexual
communication with their motherFactors that distinguish youths
with diverse responsiveness
intentionsDiscussionConclusionsmk:H1_14References

Contents lists available at ScienceDirectJournal of Adoles.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Contents lists available at ScienceDirectJournal of Adoles.docx

Similar to Contents lists available at ScienceDirectJournal of Adoles.docx (20)

More from maxinesmith73660

More from maxinesmith73660 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Contents lists available at ScienceDirectJournal of Adoles.docx