Everyday Sociology Blog

The Nature/Nurture Debate

  By Sally Raskoff

I’m reminded today that the world is an interdisciplinary place. National Public Radio (NPR) interviewed journalist Shankar Vedantam about his book, The Hidden Brain, in which he discusses how prejudice is based on brain functioning. No social science perspective on this cultural phenomenon was included the NPR story; prejudice is framed as something we are ”hard-wired” to do, since children’s behavior mirrors their observations rather than what they are told.

As a social scientist, I am often appalled by the dearth of social science research used by the media and policy makers. In our society at large, we seem to either use no scientific perspective when trying to explain something or we rely on the natural sciences (biology, chemistry, genetics) or economics. (Why economics is the only social science used in the public realm is a topic for another blog post.)

Vedantum’s book looks interesting, but I haven’t yet read it or checked his sources. (It’s important to do that with everything that claims to explain something – including this blog!) His Washington Post columns regularly reference sociologists and other social scientists, so his journalistic writing has a wide scientific perspective. However, the news stories about this book frame its findings as a biological reality rather than as a hypothesis informed by multiple scientific perspectives.

His discussion of brain studies and the “hidden brain associations” can help us explain how implicit associations are formed and how things like prejudice and discrimination are maintained in a culture. When people see mainly men, white, or straight people in positions of power and respect (and women, people of color, and gays and lesbians in more subordinate or deviant positions), the different social esteem that we assign to these groups are reinforced.

What those associations can explain is how prejudice and discrimination are perpetuated through subconscious or unconscious processes. They can also help us better understand how cultural norms function as social patterns reinforce psychological impressions about those patterns.

The “hidden brain associations” can explain the results of the controversial Implicit Association Test, which Vedantum mentions in his book. That so many people have biases about particular social groups, including those within those groups, is disturbing. Knowing that our subconscious does pay attention to social cues about how people in those groups are treated both in the media, in occupations, and in our daily lives, helps explain how such biases are created and persist.

People are also puzzled when they learn that people within a group participate in perpetuating the biases against those same groups. Hidden brain associations based on what people notice happening in their societies can explain why some women have sexist attitudes and may discriminate against women, why people of color can be prejudiced against their own groups, or why gays and lesbians themselves might internalize homophobic beliefs. Since women, people of color, and gays and lesbians are not treated well by our society and since people in those groups are not expected to attain esteemed or powerful positions, one’s subconscious can come to some specific conclusions about one’s status.

What “hidden brain associations” can’t explain is how those cultural realities have come to be. Without more analysis –and a more social scientific perspective – these associations alone cannot explain why societal patterns emerge or the many variations in prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice and discrimination don’t always occur together; bigots are not always the discriminator and those who discriminate are not always prejudiced.

Brain and genetic studies have not found definitive results that ”nature” rather than “nurture” can explain our behavior or social realities. In fact, the outcome of the Human Genome Project and similar studies typically reinforce the interaction of nature and nurture rather than the primacy of one (or the other), illustrating that biology alone is not destiny. Our behavior exists within an environmental and cultural context. Thus, only looking at the biology without also analyzing the larger societal context is, by definition, a partial perspective.

To develop a more complete perspective, we need to include social science perspectives when we analyze human phenomena. This would include not only psychological theories, which often incorporate biological realities, but also sociological theories. Sociology gives us more information on the societal foundation, the social context, and how individuals navigate through such social, biological, and environmental complexities.

Private Lives of Public People: Tiger Woods and Other Sex Scandals

By Janis Prince Inniss

I have many reactions to Tiger Woods’ televised mea culpa. The one that prompted this post is embarrassment, however. As I watched a recording of the entire 14 minute speech, I felt an overwhelming urge to look down in order to avoid looking at Woods’ eyes as he spoke. (When his face on camera failed and they moved to a side shot, I like that distance between us better.) Although Woods did not offer any real details about his extramarital affairs, this was the first time he had publicly said anything about them. Instead of releasing another short, crisp written statement on his website, this time he spoke directly to the viewer, saying to me, you, and the rest of the world things like:

Elin and I have started the process of discussing the damage caused by my behavior. As Elin pointed out to me, my real apology to her will not come in the form of words; it will come from my behavior over time. We have a lot to discuss; however, what we say to each other will remain between the two of us.

I was embarrassed to hear this kind of information, for example, because I felt like a Peeping Tom. I could imagine an exchange between the couple in which Elin told Tiger that if he were really sorry he would stop having extramarital affairs. That’s couple talk though—what people couples say to each other in private.

As a professional marriage and family therapist, I have heard such private conversations in my office. But since I don’t know this couple personally, and I’m not their therapist it felt odd to be privy to their deeply personal conversation. It was interesting to note that Woods asked the public to request their privacy just after he revealed part of one of their private conversations. He also revealed where he’s been for the past month and a half:

It's hard to admit that I need help, but I do. For 45 days from the end of December to early February, I was in inpatient therapy receiving guidance for the issues I'm facing.

With this comment, Woods admitted what had widely reported in the news: that he had been undergoing treatment. Although Woods did not directly acknowledge that he was in a sex rehabilitation program, it is easy enough to put two and two together. Again, this is information that I consider private—despite the existence of a television show such as “Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew”.

As I proceed, I understand people have questions. I understand the press wants to ask me for the details and the times I was unfaithful. I understand people want to know whether Elin and I will remain together. Please know that as far as I'm concerned, every one of these questions and answers is a matter between Elin and me. These are issues between a husband and a wife.

Indeed, when I imagined what Woods could or would say if he finally made an appearance, like most people I thought he’d express remorse and perhaps offer details about his affairs. But how is any of this my business? When did details about the sex lives of public figures become open to the public? Why are they?

If you’re old enough to remember when the O. J. Simpson court case hijacked our televisions, you might recognize the name, Robert Kardashian. Kardashian—now deceased—was one of Simpson’s attorneys. Today, the name Kardashian is synonymous with the E! reality hit show – “Keeping Up With the Kardashians”– and its star, Kim Kardashian. Best as I can figure out, before getting involved with fashion, and being a spokesperson, Kim Kardashian was famous for co-starring in a sex tape with singer Ray J. Similarly, Paris Hilton’s road to fame seems to have been well paved by her sex video.

A number of the women who allege that Tiger Woods had affairs with them have also gained some media exposure which looks like it will be parlayed into 5 or 10, if not 15, minutes of fame. Rather than being ashamed of their roles in the damage to a marriage, many of these women have made television appearances:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Some of these women have made murmurings of regret and apology but don’t appear to be sufficiently embarrassed to want to crawl under a rock—the place I presume I would want to be if I were discovered in such an entanglement. Instead, high profile journalists such as Meredith Viera air of their stories. Perhaps the greatest example of this publicity hounding was the post Woods apology “news” conference by Veronica Siwik Daniels and her attorney, Gloria Allred. This alleged Woods mistress demanded a personal apology from Woods because she said she had given up so much for him, including her porn movie career.

Actually, I was hoping that Woods would never make a statement or do an interview about his affairs. Why? Because it would be an interesting sociological exercise in what happens when such public figures do not take this beaten path (coming forward to confess, and cry, as they unload their burdens on us).

Every media expert I saw discuss the Woods story said that in order for the golfer to return to the sport and continue to endorse products, he would have to at least make a statement and perhaps also agree to a big, tell-all interview with someone like Barbara Walters or Oprah Winfrey. The sociologist in me couldn’t help but wonder what would happen if he didn’t. Is there another path back? Can some one person redefine the bounds of privacy? Or perhaps Woods would stay out of the limelight…forever.

With 24 hour news reporting and online social media, how much detail about the private lives of public people does our appetite now demand? And what do we gain, or lose, from having access to the private lives of public people?

Aging and Inequality

By Karen Sternheimer

A few weeks before my college graduation, I went to return something at a local store. The clerk asked to see my driver’s license to write up the return. When she looked up at me, she said, “Oh, you’re probably too young to have a driver’s license, dear. That’s okay. Don’t worry about it.”

I was nearly 21, and incensed that someone would think I wasn’t yet 16! I told the clerk that I was graduating from college that month and that I most certainly had a driver’s license, which I handed to her to prove my age.

Today I would be flattered if someone thought I was several years younger than I am. But in my teens and early twenties I struggled to be taken seriously as a young person, particularly when I was on the job market. And now that I have established myself professionally, looking young is no longer a liability.

In fact, for many people struggling to find work, looking younger may be a plus. Local cosmetic surgeons send out coupons for procedures, suggesting that “facial rejuvenation” can get you that next job or promotion. If there were a pill that would stop the aging process, say around age 25, would you take it?

Recently, I read a novel that explores this very question. The Malthusian Catastrophe, by Ernesto Robles, tells the story of a Michael Jeffs, a recent MBA grad who can’t find the Wall Street job he’d always dreamed of because of the recession. Instead, he’s recruited by a firm that sells a nutritional supplement, “Sinsen,” rumored to stop the aging process.

Jeffs reluctantly takes the job, only to discover that the product seems to really work, causing a frenzy among consumers eager to get their hands on the supplements. He becomes rich and powerful as a result. Eventually the company becomes more powerful than most world leaders, and the president of the United States becomes a chief rival of the company’s CEO.

While all of this might sound great—who wouldn’t want to stay young and get rich in the process—the product triggers a series of unintended consequences.

First, the limited supply means that as demand grows, so does the price of staying young, so only wealthy people can afford it. Those who aren’t wealthy but are affluent enough to afford Sinsen cut back on their purchases of other things, which drives the economy into a downward spiral.

Second, so much land is needed to grow Sinsen’s active ingredient that farmers sell their land at a high profit and stop producing food, leading to starvation.

And finally, what will happen if the Earth’s population grows beyond its capacity to sustain life? This is what economist Thomas Malthus warned of at the end of the 18^th century, and is called the Malthusian catastrophe. The book’s title comes from warnings from a sociologist, Dr. Joanna Hochberg, who cautions the public that what first seems like a wonder drug could create massive social problems. Her warnings make for good news show debates, but they don’t deter the public (or Hochberg herself) from taking Sinsen if they can get it.

The Malthusian Catastrophe is a great page-turner (and one of the only novels I’ve read where a sociologist is a main character). It also raises several important issues to consider about health and aging in contemporary society.

As I have previously blogged about, access to regular health care is directly related with income. While health care reform seems to have stalled in Congress, many Americans have trouble obtaining or keeping their health insurance, particularly as premiums soar. They may be forced to live in communities closer to environmental hazards. A recent study found that living near a freeway is linked with heart disease and interferes with children's healthy lung development.

In the novel, lack of access to Sinsen becomes very visible—the people who don’t take Sinsen are the only ones who age—and it thus magnifies the relationship between socio-economic status and the appearance of aging in contemporary society.

Lower income people not only tend to work at jobs that are more dangerous, with less autonomy, and more stress, but economic struggles themselves are very stressful and leave visible traces of age.

Affluence often means more autonomy on the job and greater work satisfaction. Wealth can buy vacation time, healthier food, flattering wardrobes and other luxuries that may make people look younger. Facials, teeth whitening, and other selective procedures can minimize markers of age for those who can afford them. Yes, some people do go overboard and look bizarre after too many cosmetic treatments, as Sally Raskoff has blogged about. But these selective and hidden lifestyle issues do create visible markers of class.

It’s ironic that in a time when life expectancy continues to rise, aging becomes seen as problematic. Americans born in 2020 are expected to have an average life expectancy of nearly 80 years, compared with about 47 for those born in 1900. By contrast, when the United States was founded in the 18^th century, statesmen wore powdered wigs and white tights giving them an appearance of age beyond their years.

If appearing to age is considered socially undesirable, the market for products promising to provide the fountain of youth can expand unabated. But as Ernesto Robles warns in The Malthusian Catastrophe, an age-phobic society can produce dire consequences.

Experiences, Perspectives, and Frames

By Sally Raskoff

In the many meetings I attend at school, I often notice people saying things like, “in my previous life, …” or “where I used to work, …” to give examples of why or how things are done. It often annoys me since the rest of us weren’t there to know what the heck they are talking about so the connection to our present situations is lost on most of us.

I thought of this today when I also realized that one of my co-workers reminds me of someone I used to work with – thus whenever I encounter my current friend, I tend to think about my former friend. I find myself expecting the person in front of me to act like my previous friend.

These situations are related: both indicate the way that we human beings make sense of the world. We compare. We generalize. We try to categorize things so that we can make sense of them.

The comparisons of our present with former situations help us navigate situations that can be murky at best.

Most recently, I’ve heard these “where I used to work . . .” remarks in meetings about how to get through the current budget crisis as a publicly funded institution of higher education – a situation with few guideposts that make any sense. We are trying to make good decisions using what we have learned from previous situations. (The annoyance I felt was probably more related to the frustrating situation than the use of such language.)

We learn by linking what we encounter in the present to past experiences. As we get older, this process deepens and gets richer as we have more experiences to call upon. When we are younger, encountering new things is exciting, scary, and confusing since we don’t have much for comparison. As we age, we accumulate experiences and those experiences gradually shape us into the people we become.

This may explain why older people often say, “In my day, …” or spend so much time telling stories about what they have experienced. They can see the connections (or they just like to reminisce) but they may not always do in a way that seems fast or interesting enough to their younger listeners.

Such comparisons can also lock us into a narrow way of seeing the world. When my current co-worker reminds me of my previous co-worker, I try not to mention this out loud or to assume anything about their behavior or other characteristics. Even if they do remind me of each other, they are very different people.

Over-generalizing is, of course, a problem, as it is the very definition of stereotyping and leads to making unfair judgments about people based on ideas about entire groups.

Gaining perspective is important; it can help us make sense of things . Sociology and other sciences can help us attain perspective about things we don’t understand.. Science uses theories to guide our inquiry and our effort to better understand phenomena. Theories can help us compare empirical realities so that we can test the theory and how well it explains what goes on.

Whether we use them in daily life or in scientific studies, the limitations of such frameworks include the danger that by letting our perspective be guided one way we may not notice other possibilities. If you only use one theory or one point of view, you might miss some other important connection or explanation.

People who see the world only through their own experiences may miss opportunities to make new memories or have new experiences.

Thus, in sociology (and other sciences), it is crucial to try on different perspectives, to use different theories to see the same situation and identify different yet equally legitimate and viable explanations.

Looking at the world only through just one theoretical perspective (such as a Marxian, Parsonian , or feminist perspective), one cannot see the contributions of the others. I have great appreciation for Weber's theoretical approach because he attempted to not just debate with Marx’s theories, but he set about to look more widely. His theories, informed as they are by his reading of history, are of course partial, yet they dealt with many different levels of society, from examining the nature of authority to the spirit of capitalism.

It is more difficult for everyday people to do this. As we accumulate experiences, we have certain habits and perspectives that feel more comfortable to us. We are often driven to narrow our perspective rather than try out new points of view. This is how we perpetuate the status quo, but it is also how we blind ourselves to the realities of others.

Sociologist Jessie Bernard studied so-called “his and hers” marriages, where the husband and wife have very different views of the same relationship. Children who grow up in the same family don’t often have the same experience or memories. When some creature is cloned, it will not grow up to be an identical copy of the original since its experiences will be very different.

Everyone’s perspective is shaped by a number of things, not the least of which are the experiences they have as individuals. Partial or selective perception also plays a part since there is no way we can pay attention to everything that happens around us. Thus the child who remembers their parent complimenting them may have a different opinion on their childhood than their sibling who remembers their parent scolding them. The parent probably complimented and scolded them both yet each person remembers different things.

The perspectives are similar to Goffman’s concept of frames and his frame analysis. Goffman's concept of frame analysis. We use conceptual frames to make sense of the world and to define society and ourselves.

It seems that if things are happening in society that we don’t understand or agree with, using as many logical perspectives as possible to explain such things is a good idea. While we can’t always effectively use our own experiences to make sense of what goes on around us, we can use theories and historical patterns to better enlighten us.

For example, comparing the current debate over marriage rights to past marriage rights debates can illuminate how our laws and policies influence and relate to power in society. Getting out of our own (narrow) perspectives about how life works by attempting to see the world through another set of eyes can help our society serve all of its members rather than just a few.

The Function of Religion

By Janis Prince Inniss

When we were first married, my husband and I did not go to church on a regular basis. We only attended church with my father-in-law on special occasions: Father’s Day, Mother’s Day, Easter Sunday, and Christmas. So we weren’t exactly CEOs—people who attend church on Christmas and Easter only, but we weren’t regulars either.

We talked about the kind of church we would be interested in, but didn’t look for one. Once, however, we attended a function in which my father-in-law’s church showed a video of all their ministries, and we realized that this church was already doing many of the things we were looking for. So our decision was easy; we started attending that church on a weekly basis and found it fulfilling.

After we moved from Texas and once we settled into our Florida home, my husband and I started looking for a church to attend. We found the nearest church of the same denomination as the one in Texas and made that our new church (Church One). The experience was okay; we liked many of the church members and were happy to meet several people with whom we have become good friends.

We did not enjoy the sermons however, since they were boring! Yep—I said it. They were boring. Boiled down to essential elements, church services are music and sermon. The music at this church was definitely not my favored style, but that was okay with me. I hoped to find the sermons inspiring and educational though. Instead, they were dull; most Sundays we had trouble finding a take-home kernel.

Even more troubling was that my stepdaughter—then only about 12—got even less than my husband and I did from the sermons. (There weren’t enough youth at this church to support a separate ministry, so there was no respite from the impenetrable sermons for her.) When I learned that our minister was retiring, I decided that must explain his lack of enthusiasm for a subject he had spent decades studying. Without another church in our neighborhood of the same denomination, and not being willing to take a long drive on Sunday mornings, we stuck it out.

A few years after we had been attending Church One, on my own, I decided to stop in at Church Two to see why there were always so many cars heading there on Sunday mornings. Church Two is a different denomination from Church One, and is actually the one in which I was christened. I loved the sermon! The minister—the fictitiously named Pastor Smith—was a fantastic public speaker. As soon as I got home, I encouraged the rest of the family to give Church Two a try.

The next Sunday when the three of us arrived, someone whisked my step-daughter away to the Youth Ministry. The sermon was like any good talk: clearly laid out with excellent examples to demonstrate the major points, sprinkled with a few drops of humor. My husband enjoyed the service, as did I. But the true test was yet to come: What was my stepdaughter’s response to her experience? She was engaged. Excited. Curious. She talked all the way home about what she learned. And she was anxious to return to Church Two! And that’s how we became church members at Church Two.

Fast-forward some years. We still loved attending Church Two and continued to attend regularly. One Saturday afternoon as I read the newspaper, a headline caught my eye: it said something like “Pastor Admits Internet Pornography Addiction”. Stunned does not begin to describe my reaction. There was MY pastor—pictured—admitting that he was addicted to internet pornography. That was part of the news. The other major part: Pastor Smith was voluntarily stepping down from the church (although given that he confessed his addiction to church higher-ups, I suspect they helped him decide to resign). I called my husband over and together we read the shocking news.

There is no indication that Pastor Smith broke the law; he was not involved with child pornography, and as far as I know, even with a search from an outside computer firm, no pornography was found on any church computers. So should Pastor Smith have stepped down? Would his marital status affect your answer to this question? In light of other high-profile scandals, such as former megachurch pastor Ted Haggard's admission to using methamphetamines and visiting a male prostitute, Pastor Smith’s behavior seems less troubling.

Sociologist Emile Durkheim argued from a functionalist perspective that the function of religion in society is for cohesion. Religious people meet, usually at church, so that they can, with regularity, share a common set of values and beliefs. What happens, then, when a leading figure of the church behaves in a way that conflicts with church doctrine? How much imperfection can we and should we tolerate in church leaders? In the case of Church Two, the answer was swift and unequivocal: church administrators would decide when and if Pastor Smith could return to the pulpit after addiction treatment, but he would never be allowed to lead Church Two again. Does that response make sense to you from a functionalist perspective? What other sociological theories might explain why Pastor Smith might have lost is position in our church?

Sociology Majors on the Job Market

By Karen Sternheimer

If you are one of the many people seeking a job right now, you know that the market is pretty tight. With unemployment rates still close to ten percent nationally—and even higher in some areas—a job search can be pretty discouraging.

Some of you might not quite be at the job search stage, but find that you are really interested in sociology and wonder what kind of career it could lead to, aside from being a sociologist.

The American Sociological Association (ASA) published a report in January 2008 that details the jobs held by sociology majors who graduated three years prior. The largest proportion (26.5%) went on to have social service related jobs, while others became teachers, managers, or worked in sales or public relations. Some of my former students have also gone into the criminal justice field, advertising, law school, and medical school. According to the ASA study, of those reporting that their job was closely related to their major, 67.7% said they were “very satisfied” with their jobs.

In reality most undergraduate majors today do not necessarily provide clear vocational paths. Not all psychology majors become psychologists, not all business majors become entrepreneurs, and not all biology majors go on to medical school. Some people might be on a traditional career trajectory only to discover that they really don’t like the work it entails, so they change careers.

Sociology majors can leverage their unique expertise to be successful in many different kinds of careers. As you look for a job, it’s important to remember that you are your best asset; your skill set is only as attractive as your ability to market yourself. Each type of job will require different skills and experiences. For those of you who might not have a lengthy job history to draw from, you can use your resume to demonstrate how your sociology degree can enhance your qualifications. Here’s my advice for how to market the skills you learn earning a sociology degree:

1. Emphasize your data collection skills

If you have taken a research methods class, chances are you have conducted your own research project. Think about what skills you developed in the process and translate them into resume language. Did you develop, distribute, and collect surveys? If you conducted interviews, you likely composed questions and learned to build rapport with others.

Potential employers will like to know that you can create a work plan and follow through with your plan systematically. They would also like to know if you work well with others. If you completed any group projects, you might emphasize your leadership, negotiation, and teamwork abilities.

2. Emphasize your ability to analyze data

Along with collecting data, sociology students learn how to analyze information they collect. If you have taken statistics, you have developed tools that many employers will find useful. Knowing how to use a basic spreadsheet and do simple kinds of number crunching (calculating averages, graphing trends, creating charts) is very useful in many different industries. And if you are comfortable using software like SPSS or STATA that’s an added benefit (I have gotten several jobs and job offers for having these skills).

Sociology majors also learn to interpret information they collect. Even if a prospective job doesn’t require you to do any calculations, you can highlight your ability to interpret statistical findings. And if you are currently or will soon be taking a statistics class, pay close attention—what you learn there could be your edge in getting a job over someone who is afraid of numbers.

3. Emphasize your familiarity with diversity issues

As the ASA report mentioned about notes, a large proportion of sociology majors go on to work in social service kinds of jobs. These kinds of jobs require an awareness of and sensitivity to many forms of diversity. If you have studied issues of social stratification, race and ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or immigration you can note you have familiarity with diversity issues. This is especially important if you apply for work in human resources or in any kind of service profession. Your awareness of cultural differences and the problems of ethnocentrism can set you apart from others without this background.

4. Note how sociology promotes leadership skills

At its core, sociology is about the study of people in both large and small groups. If you have studied organizations, social psychology, urban sociology, or any other focus on group dynamics, you can emphasize how this training has prepared you for a management-track position (be patient--you might not get hired as a manager right away). Sociologists also learn to think critically. Learning about a variety of sociological theories, social problems, and social inequality gives you a background in how to consider a variety of different viewpoints, recognize, and solve problems.

As a job seeker, the burden is always on you to demonstrate how your unique skills and experiences can benefit a potential employer. Many people aren’t exactly sure what sociology is all about (I still have to remind some people that I’m not a psychologist), so it’s your responsibility to inform prospective employers what special skills sociology majors can bring to their work.

You might even create a section of your resume listing these skills—just as a good research report explicitly highlights its specific findings, you should clearly delineate how your sociology background will make you an outstanding employee.

Just Say No to Sex: Is Abstinence Only Education Effective?

By Sally Raskoff

A recent study about sex education is now big news: abstinence-only sex education is effective! No other scientific study of such programs has found any success, so it’s no surprise that this should make a splash in the news media.

Looking at the study more closely, and with a sociological lens, there are some important issues to consider.

The basic study used data from four different urban (low income) middle schools in the same northeastern city in four groups: one received an 8 hour “abstinence-only” curriculum by specially trained teachers who discussed the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs); one received an 8 hour “safer-sex” curriculum; one received a more comprehensive curriculum for either 8 or 12 hours that included information from both programs already mentioned; and one group received an 8 hour “healthy living” curriculum that is not considered sex education.

The research design states that they were randomly assigned into these groups. The curriculum was for an 8-10 hour learning experience and the students were re-surveyed 24 months after the initial class to assess their sexual histories during that time.

Two years after the class, it appears that 48.5% of the control (healthy living) group was sexually active compared to 42% in the comprehensive group, 52% in the safer sex group, and 33.5% in the abstinence-only group.

The abstract of the article summarizes these findings and includes some other details. The mean age of the African American participants was 12.2 years, thus their average age at the follow up would be a young 14. About 84% of the them were still enrolled at the follow up survey, so the overall findings omit 16% who moved or dropped out of the study.

Are these points relevant? Perhaps.

We’re talking about 12 and 14 year olds and their likelihood to have sex.

Looking at the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) Youth Risk Behavior Survey data for a northeastern urban city (New York City), almost half of the high school students reported ever having sexual intercourse – although less than 10% had done so for the first time before they were 13 years old. Of course, while this data is for the entire city of New York, the study in question is specifically in low-income urban schools thus they may not be comparable.

Here are the data for the Boroughs individually and two other northeastern cities:

The study group was in 8-9^th grade when they were followed up thus comparing these data above (for the 9^th grade) to the study’s findings, it appears that the 40-50% figures aren’t too far out of the norm. Some of these cities have a large population of people who have relatively lower average income levels, compared to averaging out all of New York City.

Is it problematic that 15.6% of the people are missing from the analysis? Whether or not their inclusion would have altered the pattern is an unknown factor. There are many reasons why these students would have dropped out , and in fact a 15.6% disappear from a low-income urban school population is lower than one would expect.

Access to the research report is only through a subscribed database thus the public wouldn’t be able to find out any more details. If your school library gives you access, look up the study and see what else you can find out about its research design and methods.

The authors, interviewed on NPR and other media outlets, talk more about the specific curriculum and how it was different from previous ‘abstinence-only’ programs. This curriculum was “not moralistic” nor was it “negatively oriented” according to the media reports. Instead, it sounds like they discussed the very sociological concept of how life chances are affected by the choice of whether or not to have sex.

One might also notice that this study did not ask about pregnancy or STI incidence nor did it follow the subjects past the age of 14 (yet). Not much attention has been paid to some of their other significant findings, e.g., multiple partners. The students that received the more comprehensive curriculum had “reduced reports” of having multiple partners compared to the control group.

When you consider risk behavior of children, i.e., having sex before one is 13 or 14, this study is fascinating, but more detailed analysis needs to be done before we jump to broad conclusions about what type of program is effective. The media reports have mentioned that the researchers (and others) caution about drawing societal conclusions from the results of any one study. Such warnings are important to heed – especially once you look into the details!