Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Sex Educ. 2023 Jan 3;24(1):108–124. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2022.2162871

Parents’ attitudes towards the content of sex education in the USA: Associations with religiosity and political orientation

Jeffrey L Hurst a, Laura Widman a, Julia Brasileiro a, Anne J Maheux b, Reina Evans-Paulson c, Sophia Choukas-Bradley b
PMCID: PMC10923385  NIHMSID: NIHMS1862188  PMID: 38464814

Abstract

While most parents support their adolescents receiving school-based sex education, there is variability in which sex education topics receive the most support from parents. Conservative political orientation and greater religiosity have been independently associated with parents’ lack of support for school-based sex education; however, no studies have examined the intersection of these two factors. The three goals of this study were to: 1) identify how specific sexual education topics cluster together to form content areas; 2) examine if religiosity and political orientation are uniquely associated with these content areas; and 3) examine if political orientation moderates the relationship between parents’ religiosity and their perceived importance for the specific sex education content areas. Participants were a national sample of 881 US parents. The sex education topics clustered into three content areas: Factual Knowledge (e.g., STI transmission), Practical Skills (e.g., how to access condoms), and Pleasure and Identity (e.g., pleasurable aspects of sex). Politically conservative and more religious parents reported the lowest perceived importance for each content area. Importantly, these main effects were qualified by a significant interaction: parents who reported both political conservativism and high levels of religiosity reported the lowest perceived importance for these three content areas being taught.

Keywords: sex education, parenting, religion, political orientation

Introduction

School-based sex education is important for healthy sexuality development among young people. There are currently two primary forms of sex education offered in schools in the USA: 1) abstinence-only sex education and 2) comprehensive sex education (Hall et al. 2016). Abstinence-only sex education teaches that the best way to avoid negative sexual health outcomes is to abstain from sex (Trenholm et al. 2008). Comprehensive sex education teaches that beyond abstinence, people can avoid STIs and unplanned pregnancy in other ways (e.g., condom use, STI testing, and contraception; Trenholm et al. 2008). Additionally, comprehensive sex education may address several other topics, including consent, sexual orientation, gender identity, healthy relationships, and different types of sexual behaviours. Research has consistently shown that comprehensive sex education is associated with better sexual health outcomes for adolescents (Denford et al. 2017). For example, comprehensive sex education is associated with lower rates of unplanned pregnancy and STIs (Chin et al. 2012). In addition, adolescents who receive comprehensive sex education have lower levels of homophobia, a better understanding of gender, healthier romantic relationships, and decreased intimate partner violence perpetration and victimisation compared to adolescents who receive abstinence-only education or no education about sex (Goldfarb and Lieberman 2021). Despite the positive health outcomes associated with school-based sex education, only around half of adolescents currently receive sex education that meets US national standards for how and when topics such as healthy relationships, anatomy and physiology, and pregnancy and STD reduction strategies should be taught (Lindberg and Kantor 2022; Future of Sex Education Initiative 2020).

In some schools, sex education content can be influenced by parents’ attitudes about the type of sex education that should be taught (Eisenberg et al. 2012). While the vast majority of parents support comprehensive sex education being taught in schools (Kantor and Levitz 2017), parents vary greatly in their support of which topics should be taught (Peter et al. 2015). For example, parents are generally more supportive of instruction about topics such as physical health and relationships, as compared to topics such as sexual or gender identity and pleasure (Peter et al. 2015). Parents’ attitudes towards specific topics being taught in sex education can influence the specific sex education content their kids receive.

At a policy level, grassroots coalitions led by parents can influence the type of sex education that specific states require. For example, there are conservative Christian organisations, such as Abstinence Clearinghouse and the National Abstinence Education Association, which push for policies to only allow abstinence-only sex education to be taught in schools (Williams 2011). In contrast, there are other more progressive organisations, such as Metro TeenAIDS, that have formed a coalition of parents who have successfully advocated for HIV prevention to be taught in school-based sex education (Ogusky and Tenner 2010). At the school district level, decisions on whether districts or teachers teach specific topics in sex education can vary in part due to fear of backlash from parents (Eisenberg et al. 2012). For example, one study found that as many as 37% of sex education teachers felt they could not teach what they truly wanted, due to fear of backlash from parents (Eisenberg et al. 2013). Given parents’ potential influence on sex education, it is important to identify factors associated with the specific topics that parents believe are important to include in sex education.

Religiosity and Parental Attitudes About Sex Education

Parents’ level of religiosity is one factor that can influence the topics that parents approve of being taught in school-based sex education. On average, parents in the USA who are more religious tend to be less supportive of comprehensive sex education being taught in schools (Ito et al. 2006; Bleakley, Hennessy, and Fishbein 2010; Eisenberg et al. 2022). Many of the most practised religious affiliations in the USA (e.g., Catholicism and many Protestant Christian denominations) teach that sexual relations should only occur after marriage, between a husband and wife (Regnerus 2007)—which may help explain why religiosity is associated with support for abstinence-only sex education. Indeed, findings from one review indicated that more religious parents were more likely to convey to their children that sexual intercourse should only happen in the context of marriage compared to parents who were less religious (Flores and Barroso 2017). Despite some evidence for the link between religiosity and lower parental support for comprehensive sex education, not all religious parents are opposed to comprehensive sex education. For example, studies have found that some highly religious parents were in support of comprehensive sex education being taught in schools and were even opposed to abstinence-only sex education being taught (Dent and Maloney 2017; Cameron et al. 2020; Constantine, Jerman, and Huang 2007). It is possible that the inconsistent relationship between religiosity and beliefs about comprehensive sex education could be explained by parents’ political orientation.

Moderating Effect of Political Orientation

Although religiosity is often associated with political conservatism (Malka et al. 2012), religious people are a heterogeneous group. For example, recent evidence suggests that attitudes towards social justice movements are quite different when comparing religious people who are liberal to religious people who are conservative (Krull 2020). Specifically, liberal Protestant Christians are more likely than conservative Protestant Christians to focus on social justice issues, such as inclusivity (Krull 2020). In addition, one study examined the interaction between religiosity and political orientation concerning attitudes towards gay marriage, finding that religious conservative Christians were the least supportive of gay marriage compared to Christians who were liberal or moderate (Todd and Ong 2012). This indicates that a liberal political ideology may be associated with more tolerant views surrounding sexuality, even among people who identify as religious. Thus, understanding whether political ideology is also influential when it comes to parents’ beliefs about sex education is warranted. However, no studies to our knowledge have examined the moderating effect that political orientation has on the relationship between parents’ religiosity and how important they believe it is for comprehensive sex education topics to be taught in schools.

Purpose of this Study

The purpose of the current study was threefold. First, we aimed to identify what sex education topics parents believe are important to be taught in schools and to what extent these topics represent overarching content areas. As this was an exploratory analysis, we did not have a specific hypothesis. Second, we examined whether religiosity and political orientation were associated with specific topics taught in sex education. Based on prior work showing that conservative and religious parents are generally less supportive of comprehensive sex education, we hypothesised that being more religious and more conservative would each be uniquely associated with lower perceived importance for comprehensive topics being taught in sex education. Third, we sought to examine the moderating effect that political orientation has on the association between religiosity and parents’ support for comprehensive sex education topics being taught in schools. We hypothesised that parents who were both conservative and highly religious would have the lowest perceived importance for teaching topics in sex education that were comprehensive, such as how to use condoms and the pleasurable aspects of sex.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

Data for this study came from a larger study on parents’ attitudes about adolescent sexual health (Evans et al. 2020). Survey data were collected from a national USA sample of 903 parents recruited from MTurk, who had a child between the ages of 13–17. Parents were asked how many children they had that were between the ages of 13–17; if more than one, parents were randomly assigned to report on either the oldest or youngest child for the purposes of this study. One participant’s data was removed for not providing a valid response to the age variable. In an attempt to use the best data possible, we also removed 21 participants who reported their age was 26 or younger and that they had a biological child between the age of 13–17 years old, as it was highly likely this was a reporting error or careless responding. This left us with a final analytic sample of 881 parents.

Regarding parent gender, 28.1% of the sample were men (n = 248) and 71.9% were women (n = 633). The average age of the participants was 41.0 years (SD = 7.1). Regarding race/ethnicity, 80.5% of participants identified as White, 7.2% Black, 3.2% Hispanic, 4.9% multiracial, 3.6% other races/ethnicities, and 0.7% of participants did not report their race/ethnicity. Regarding religious affiliation, 63.2% of the sample identified as Christian (29.2% Protestant, 23.2% Catholic, 10.8% another Christian religious denomination), 16.2% were Atheist/Agnostic, 15.8% were ‘none/not religious’, 1.5% were Jewish, 0.3% were Muslim, and 3.1% were another religion. The mean age of the parents’ child was 14.7 (SD = 1.4). Regarding the gender of the child, 49.8% were boys (n = 439 cisgender boys; n = 0 transgender boys), 50.0% girls (n = 439 cisgender girls; n = 1 transgender girl), and 0.2% identified as non-binary (n = 2).

Measures

Parents’ Perceived Importance of Topics Being Taught in Sex Education

We included 20 items to assess the perceived importance that parents placed on 20 separate topics being taught in school-based sex education. These items were adapted from the North Carolina Parent Opinion Survey of Public School Sexuality Education (Kalsbeck et al. 2009). Specifically, parents identified how important it was to them that 20 different topics were included in school-based sex education for their children (e.g., abstinence; the basics of reproduction; how to use condoms; see Table 1 for a complete list of topics). Responses were reported on a scale of 1 = I am opposed to it being taught at any point, 2 = Not at all important, 3 = Not too important, 4 = Somewhat important, or 5 = Very important.

Table 1.

Factor Analysis of the Items Measuring Parent’s Attitudes Towards Including Specific Topics in Sex Education.

Factor Loadings
Individual Scale Items Factual Knowledge Practical Skills Pleasure and Identity Eigenvalue Factor Alpha % Support
Factual Knowledge 9.65 .88
 How to deal with pressure to have sex 0.80 0.00 −0.01 - - 95.2
 Transmission and prevention of HIV, AIDS, or other sexually transmitted diseases 0.77 0.15 −0.12 - - 96.9
 The basics of reproduction or how babies are made, pregnancy, and birth 0.75 0.07 −0.08 - - 96.3
 What to do if one has been raped or sexually assaulted 0.72 0.04 −0.02 - - 95.0
 The risks of sexting 0.70 −0.13 0.19 - - 91.8
 Talking about what sexual consent means 0.66 0.01 0.16 - - 94.0
 How to deal with the emotional issues and consequences of being sexually active 0.66 0.13 0.11 - - 91.5
 How to talk with parents about sex and relationship issues 0.64 0.06 0.08 - - 88.9
 How to talk with a dating partner about sex and relationships 0.49 0.21 0.17 - - 89.3
 Effectiveness and failure rates of birth control methods, including condoms 0.47 0.43 −0.02 92.7
 Abstinence until marriage 0.45 −0.35 −0.07 56.0
Practical Skills - - - 1.70 .93
 How to use condoms 0.02 0.91 −0.01 - - 87.3
 Where to get birth control, including condoms 0.02 0.83 0.07 - - 84.9
 How to use other birth control methods, such as birth control pills, or Depo-Provera 0.09 0.80 0.01 - - 86.8
 Classroom demonstrations of how to use a condom correctly −0.12 0.74 0.20 - - 74.4
 How to get tested for HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases 0.23 0.62 0.09 - - 87.2
Pleasure and Identity - - - 0.88 .85
 Talking about what gender means −0.01 −0.01 0.86 - - 69.9
 Talking about what sexual orientation means −0.05 0.12 0.84 - - 72.9
 The pleasurable aspects of sex 0.01 0.16 0.59 - - 57.6
 The differences between pornography and sex in real life 0.28 0.00 0.51 - - 80.1
Open in a new tab

Note. % Support = the percentage of parents who indicated that these topics were either somewhat important or very important to include in school-based sex education.

Religiosity

Religiosity was assessed with a single item about religious attendance. Specifically, parents reported how often they attended religious services: 1 = Less than once a year or not at all, 2 = Yearly, 3 = Monthly, 4 = Weekly, 5 = More than once a week. This item was selected as it is a common way to assess religiosity in the literature (Koenig and Büssing 2010; Bleakley, Hennessy, and Fishbein 2010; Heller and Johnson 2013), and it is highly correlated with other measures of religiosity (Dunbar 2020).

Political Orientation

In line with the definition offered by Garneau and Schwadel (2022), we defined political orientation as ‘the positioning of oneself along an ideological continuum (e.g., liberal, moderate, conservative).’ Parents reported their political orientation as 1 = Very liberal, 2 = Somewhat liberal, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Somewhat conservative, 5 = Very conservative. This is a frequently used continuous measure of political orientation (Carney et al. 2008; Bixter 2015; Gries and Crowson 2010; Hatemi, Crabtree, and McDermott 2017), which has also been included in studies examining parents’ attitudes towards sex education (Eisenberg et al. 2008).

Demographics

Participants could report their gender as man, woman or another gender identity with an option to write-in a response (no participants selected this option). They reported their child’s gender as a boy, girl, or another gender identity with an option to write in a response. Parents’ sexual orientation was reported as 1 = Straight/Heterosexual, 2 = Gay/Lesbian, 3 = Bisexual, 4 = Another sexual identity (with an option to write-in a response). For analyses, we included sexual identity as a control variable and it was collapsed into 1 = Heterosexual, 2 = Sexual Minority (i.e., anyone who indicated gay/lesbian, bisexual, or another sexual identity).

Analysis plan

All analyses for this study were conducted in STATA v. 15.1. First, we calculated descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables. Then, to address our first aim, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine common categories for the importance parents placed on specific topics being included in sex education. Multiple criteria for how many factors to retain were used such as eigenvalues, visual scree plot analysis, primary loadings being greater than .4, and no cross-loadings greater than .2 (Howard 2015). An oblique rotation was applied due to the likelihood that the factors would be correlated (Howard 2015). Then we addressed the second and third aims of our study by running 3-step hierarchal regressions for each of the factors that emerged from Aim 1. In the first step of each model, given the known associations between these variables and preferences for sex education type, we entered the following as control variables: parent age, parent gender, and parent sexual orientation1 (Bleakley, Hennessy, and Fishbein 2010). In the second step, which tested our main effect hypothesis (Aim 2), we entered the control variables as well as the main effects of political orientation and religiosity. In the third step, which tested our moderation hypothesis (Aim 3), we entered the control variables, the main effects of political orientation and religiosity, and the interaction between political orientation and religiosity. The continuous2 predictors were mean-centred. For each statistically significant interaction, we conducted simple slopes analyses (Liu et al. 2017). The slopes showing the relationship between religiosity and the sex education content area were computed at two levels (1 SD below the mean and 1 SD above the mean) of political orientation to identify the moderating effect that political orientation had on the relationship between religiosity and the perceived importance of the sex education content area. In addition, margins commands in STATA were used to graphically view the interaction.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

First, descriptive statistics of all the main variables of the study were derived. The mean of religiosity was 2.18 (range = 1–5; SD = 1.35) indicating that, on average, the participants went to a religious service about once a year, but notable variability was observed. Specifically, 49.3% went to church less than once a year or not at all, 13.2% went yearly, 12.9% went monthly, 20.0% went weekly, and 4.7% went more than once a week. The mean of political orientation was 2.95 (range = 1–5; SD = 1.16) indicating that, on average, the participants were moderate in their political orientation. Specifically, 12.3% were very liberal, 23.0% were somewhat liberal, 32.2% were moderate, 22.7% were somewhat conservative, and 9.8% were very conservative. There were small-to-medium statistically significant correlations between variables of the study (rs between −.39 to .33). Higher levels of religiosity were associated with being conservative (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Study Variables

Variable M(SD) Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Religiosity 2.18 (1.35) 1–5 --
2. Political Orientation 2.95 (1.16) 1–5 0.34*** --
3. Factual Knowledge 4.52 (0.57) 1–5 −0.13*** −0.14*** --
4. Practical Skills 4.34 (0.99) 1–5 −0.39*** −0.35*** 0.60*** --
5. Pleasure and Identity 3.89 (1.08) 1–5 −0.25*** −0.38*** 0.51*** 0.65*** --
6. Parent Age 40.99 (7.09) 24–84 0.13*** 0.07* 0.00 −0.11** −0.03 --
7. Sexual Orientation (heterosexual) – n (%) 811 (92.05) 0–1 0.07 0.19*** 0.03 −0.08* −0.10* 0.12*** --
8. Parent Gender (man) – n (%) 248 (28.15) 0–1 0.01 0.11** −0.13*** −0.08* −0.05 0.07* 0.08* --
Open in a new tab

Note. For parent gender, 0 = woman, 1 = man; for sexual orientation, 0 = sexual minority, 1= heterosexual.

*

p<.05.

**

p<.01.

***

p<.001.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Based on the criteria outlined in the analysis plan above, a three-factor structure emerged as the best fitting model. The first three eigenvalues were large (see Table 1) and collectively explained 98% of the variance in the latent factor. All factor loadings were large (ranging from .45 to .91). There was one item that loaded onto two factors (effectiveness and rates of birth control). We ran all analyses with and without this item included in the composite of the scale it loaded onto the highest, and there were no changes in direction or significance of the tests. As such, we opted to keep this item in and not drop it. The factors that emerged were labeled: ‘Factual Knowledge’ (e.g., the basics of reproduction, STI transmission; n = 11 topics; α = .88), ‘Practical Skills’ (e.g., how to get condoms or birth control; n = 5 topics; α = .93), and ‘Pleasure and Identity’ (e.g., what gender or sexual orientation means, n = 4 topics; α = .85; see Table 1). Thus, the final three sex education content areas that make up the focus of this paper are Factual Knowledge, Practical Skills, and Pleasure and Identity. On average parents showed high perceived importance for all three content areas, with significant variability noted between people. Specifically, parents supported Factual Knowledge the most, with a mean of 4.52 (range = 1–5; SD = 0.57), followed by Practical Skills, with a mean of 4.34 (range = 1–5; SD = 0.99). Parents had the lowest average level of support for Pleasure and Identity, with a mean of 3.89 (range = 1–5; SD = 1.08). Bivariate correlations showed that higher levels of religiosity and being more conservative were each associated with lower levels of perceived importance for all three of the sex education content areas (rs −.39 to −.13; see Table 2).

Main Effects

For the first model with Factual Knowledge as the outcome variable, we controlled for parent age, parent gender, and parent sexual orientation in the first step (Table 3). In the second step, we added the main effects of religiosity and political orientation and found both main effects were significant. Specifically, being more conservative (β = −.11, p = .002) and having higher levels of religiosity (β = −.10, p = .006) were both associated with less perceived importance of Factual Knowledge being taught in sex education.

Table 3.

Three-step Hierarchical Regression Table for the Four Content Areas of Sex Education

Factual Knowledge Practical Skills Pleasure and Identity
β R 2 Δ R2 β R 2 Δ R2 β R 2 Δ R2
Step 1 .018 .021 .012
  Parent Age 0.01 −0.09** −0.01
  Sexual Orientation 0.04 −0.07* −0.09**
  Parent Gender −0.13*** −0.07* −0.05
Step 2 .045 .027*** .210 .188*** .165 .153***
  Parent Age 0.03 −0.05 0.02
  Sexual Orientation 0.06 −0.01 −0.03
  Parent Gender −0.12** −0.05 −0.02
  Political Orientation −0.11** −0.24*** −0.33***
  Religiosity −0.10** −0.30*** −0.14***
Step 3 .051 .007* .241 .030*** .187 .022***
  Parent Age 0.03 −0.05 0.02
  Sexual Orientation 0.06 −0.01 −0.04
  Parent Gender −0.12*** −0.04 −0.01
  Political Orientation −011** −0.23*** −0.32***
  Religiosity −0.08* −0.26*** −0.11**
  Interaction −0.08** −0.18*** −0.15***
Open in a new tab

Note. For parent gender, higher levels were indicative of being a man. For sexual orientation higher levels were indicative of being heterosexual.

*

p<.05.

**

p<.01.

***

p<.001.

For the second model with Practical Skills as the outcome variable, we included control variables in the first step (Table 3) and the main effects of religiosity and political orientation in the second step. Both main effects were significant. Specifically, being more conservative (β = −.24, p < .001) and having higher levels of religiosity (β = −.30, p < .001) were both associated with less perceived importance for Practical Skills being taught in sex education.

For the third model with Pleasure and Identity as the outcome variable, we included control variables in the first step (Table 3). In the second step, we added the main effects of religiosity and political orientation. Both main effects were significant. Specifically, being more conservative (β = −.33, p < .001) and having higher levels of religiosity (β = −.14, p < .001) were both associated with less perceived importance for Pleasure and Identity being taught in sex education.

Interaction Effects

We addressed Aim 3 in the third step of the hierarchal regression by adding the interaction between religiosity and political orientation. For support of Factual Knowledge being taught in school, there was a significant interaction between political orientation and religiosity (β = −.08, p = .016). Simple slopes analyses revealed that the relationship between religiosity and support for Factual Knowledge was statistically significant when participants’ political orientation was more conservative. Consistent with hypotheses, this indicated that participants who were more politically conservative and high on religiosity showed the lowest perceived importance for Factual Knowledge being taught in sex education (see Figure 1a). Overall, our model accounted for 5% of the variance in Factual Knowledge, R2 = .05, F(6, 874) = 7.90, p < .001.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Interaction Plots of Margins Estimations

Note. Interaction plots showing the slopes between religiosity and the content areas at high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD below the mean) levels of political orientation.

For support for Practical Skills being taught in school, there was also a significant interaction between political orientation and religiosity (β = −.18, p < .001). Simple slopes analyses revealed that the relationship between religiosity and Practical Skills was statistically significant when political orientation was more conservative. Participants who were more politically conservative and high on religiosity showed the lowest perceived importance for Practical Skills being taught in sex education (see Figure 1b). Overall, our model accounted for 24% of the variance in Practical Skills, R2 = .24, F(6, 874) = 46.21, p < .001.

Finally, for support for Pleasure and Identity being taught in school, there was a significant interaction between political orientation and religiosity (β = −.15, p < .001). Simple slopes analyses revealed that the relationship between religiosity and Pleasure and Identity was statistically significant when participants’ political orientation was more conservative. Participants who were more politically conservative and high on religiosity showed the lowest perceived importance for Pleasure and Identity being taught in sex education (see Figure 1c). Overall, our model accounted for 19% of the variance in Pleasure and Identity, R2 = .19, F(6, 874) = 33.61, p < .001.

Discussion

Comprehensive school-based sex education is important for adolescent sexual and relationship health (Denford et al. 2017), yet attitudes about sex education vary considerably among parents. The purpose of this study was to identify the importance that parents place on a variety of topics in adolescent school-based sex education and to identify how these topics cluster together to form content areas. Next, we examined the associations between religiosity and political orientation on these content areas and the moderating influence of political orientation on the association between parents’ religiosity and their perceived importance towards specific topics being taught in sex education. Like past research which has examined parents’ attitudes towards what is taught in sex education (Kantor and Levitz 2017), parents thought it was important that their adolescents received education on many sexuality topics. Three content areas of sex education were identified: Factual Knowledge, Practical Skills and Pleasure and Identity. Parents who were conservative and had high levels of religiosity showed the lowest perceived importance for these content areas being taught in sex education.

When we examined parents’ perceived importance of individual topics being taught in school-based sex education, we found high perceived importance for most topics. The highest perceived importance was for topics related to the transmission of STIs and HIV as well as relational topics such as how to deal with the pressures to have sex and what to do if sexually assaulted. Specifically, at least 95% of parents indicated that these topics were somewhat important or very important to be taught in school-based sex education classes. Prior research has also found that most parents think these topics were somewhat or very important to include in sex education (Kalsbeck et al. 2009; Peter et al. 2015; Kantor and Levitz 2017). The two topics that parents believed were the least important to be taught in schools were abstinence until marriage and the pleasurable aspects of sex. Specifically, only 56% of parents thought that abstinence until marriage was somewhat important or very important for their adolescents to learn about in sex education. This differed drastically from a prior study which showed that 94% of parents supported abstinence being taught (Kantor and Levitz 2017). These differences could show how parents’ attitudes have shifted over time. Additionally, only 57% of parents thought it was somewhat or very important for pleasure to be taught in sex education. This is consistent with previous studies which have found that parents are hesitant to talk about the pleasurable aspects of sex with their adolescents as they fear it could lead to their adolescents engaging in sexual activity (Pariera 2016), and that 55% of parents want pleasure to be taught in sex education (Peter et al. 2015).

We also found that the topics parents thought were important clustered into three content areas. The findings from this factor analysis emphasised past research which has found that even within support for comprehensive sex education there can be variability in what specific topics parents want to be taught (Peter et al. 2015). For example, parents thought it was very important for the content areas Factual Knowledge (e.g., how to deal with pressure to have sex and the basics of reproduction) and Practical Skills (e.g., how to use a condom and how to get tested for an STI) to be taught in sex education. Parents thought it was less important for Pleasure and Identity (e.g., sexual pleasure and the meaning of gender) to be taught in school. This suggests that, even among parents who feel comprehensive sex education is important, there is hesitation when it comes to certain contemporary or relatively controversial topics. Importantly though, parents were still, on average, in support of Pleasure and Identity being taught in school. These findings highlight the importance of taking a topic-based approach in understanding attitudes towards sex education rather than focusing on just the overarching type of sex education (i.e., abstinence-only vs. comprehensive) parents prefer.

As predicted, we found unique associations between parents’ perceived importance for school-based sex education and both religiosity and political orientation, individually. Consistent with past research (Bleakley, Hennessy, and Fishbein 2010), we found that more religious parents had lower levels of perceived importance for all three content areas being taught in sex education compared to less religious parents. Also consistent with past research (Kantor and Levitz 2017), we found that more conservative parents had lower perceived importance for all three content areas being taught compared to more liberal parents. However, a key contribution of our study, which extends limitations in prior research, is the consideration of the interaction between religiosity and political orientation.

Critically, the current study found that political orientation moderated the relationship between religiosity and parents’ perceived importance for all three content areas being taught in sex education. Specifically, we found that parents who had high levels of religiosity and who were more conservative reported the lowest perceived importance for Factual Knowledge, Practical Skills, and Pleasure and Identity. However, when parents were religious and liberal, they had high perceived importance for all three content areas being taught. Similarly, when parents were conservative but not religious, they also had high perceived importance for all content areas being taught. Although not about sex education attitudes, these findings are similar to a past study that found the relationship between religiosity and attitudes toward gay marriage was moderated by political orientation, such that when participants were more religious, they were the least supportive of gay marriage, with this relationship being the strongest when participants were conservative (Todd and Ong 2012). Our results highlight the need to examine both religiosity and political orientation together in future studies as these factors clearly work in tandem to influence parents’ attitudes.

Research on moral foundations theory (Haidt and Joseph 2004) could help explain why parents who are religious and conservative were lower on perceived importance of comprehensive sex education than parents who are only high on one of these characteristics (but not the other). According to moral foundations theory, there are five foundational general moral domains in which individuals develop virtues and moral practices: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity (Haidt and Graham 2007). People who are politically conservative value all five of the foundational domains, whereas people who are politically liberal tend to place the most importance on harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, with less emphasis on ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity (Graham, Haidt, and Nosek 2009). Reliance on these moral foundations and the intersection of religiosity can explain why political orientation moderates the relationship between religiosity and parents’ attitudes towards which topics to include in sex education. With the reliance on ingroup/loyalty and authority/respect, individuals who are conservative tend to put trust in an organisation that they are a part of and do not question (Haidt and Graham 2007). Thus, when people are religious and conservative, they may adhere more strictly to the teachings of their religious organisation (which may assert that it is important to be abstinent until marriage). On the other hand, if an individual is religious but not conservative, they could have a more open mind about what is taught in sex education because they are not as motivated to strictly abide by their religious organisation’s teachings. Future research could examine the influence that these five moral foundations have on parents’ attitudes towards what is taught in sex education.

Limitations and Future Directions

While this study has strong findings that add to the literature on parents’ preferences towards what should be taught in school-based sex education, it also has some limitations. The first limitation lies in the use of an MTurk sample, which may not be representative of the general population. MTurk samples tend to be younger, more educated, more liberal, less religious, and of lower socioeconomic status than the average US resident (for reviews, see: Levay, Freese, and Druckman 2016; Sheehan 2018; Walters, Christakis, and Wright 2018). Additionally, our sample did not reflect the racial/ethnic diversity of the USA, with over 80% of our participants identifying as white. However, using MTurk, we were able to recruit a large sample of parents who were diverse in political orientation and religiosity. Another limitation of our study was the one-item measure of religiosity. Some scholars have recommended using more comprehensive measures of religiosity that capture other domains such as religious salience or religious identity (Hardy et al. 2019), rather than just a behavioural measure of religiosity such as religious service attendance. Future studies should seek to replicate these findings with more comprehensive measures of religiosity. An additional limitation of this study was the lack of racial diversity and inability to examine between-group differences by race and ethnicity. Past research has produced mixed findings regarding preferences for type of sex education between racial/ethnic groups. For example, some studies find no differences in support for sex education based on race/ethnicity (Eisenberg et al. 2008; Heller and Johnson 2013; Ito et al. 2006), and others find that parents of colour have higher levels of support for school-based sex education than White parents (Millner, Mulekar, and Turrens 2015). Additionally, research examining parental support for specific sex education topics has found that parents of colour are more supportive of topics such as sexual orientation and gender identity being taught in sex education (Barr et al. 2014). Future research would benefit from further investigating attitudes toward sex education among parents of colour and whether religiosity and political orientation are influencing these views.

Future research could examine how religiosity and political orientation influence sex education policy. Decades of research point towards the criticality of comprehensive sex education to adolescent development and lifelong wellbeing. Therefore, in addition to better understanding how religiosity and political orientation influence parents’ support of what is taught in sex education, research and interventions could consider how to promote positive attitudes towards comprehensive sex education among all parents. For religious and conservative parents, what is taught in sex education may be a matter of morality (Haidt and Graham 2007), and researchers who do not see this as a moral issue should consider and strategise ways to promote comprehensive sex education that still align with the moral feelings that these parents have.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the moderating influence of political orientation on religiosity and parental support for topics being taught in school-based sex education. While we found that most parents are supportive of the three content areas being taught in sex education, parents who are politically conservative and highly religious showed the least support. Findings from this study can help inform future research, programmes and interventions to better understand the reasons why some parents do not want their adolescents to receive comprehensive sex education. Future interventions can leverage parents’ existing values and concern for their children’s well-being and help them understand how comprehensive sex education can be beneficial for adolescents and still align with their political and religious beliefs.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. 1940700 awarded to Anne J. Maheux as well as the National Institute of Mental Health of the US National Institutes of Health under Award Number F31MH126763 awarded to Julia Brasileiro. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the US National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

1

We also ran all models with child gender as a control variable. Since there were only two participants with non-binary children, they were excluded from this analysis. The same pattern of findings emerged when child gender was included in the model as when it was not included. Thus, to include participants who had non-binary children, we retained the model without child gender as the final model.

2

As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran our models with both political orientation and religiosity recoded as categorical variables. For religiosity, we created a group for less religious (participating in religious services yearly or less) and a group for more religious (participated in religious services monthly or more). For political orientation, we created three categories: conservative (very conservative and somewhat conservative), moderate, and liberal (somewhat liberal and very liberal). We then ran a 2 x 3 ANOVA with an interaction term between religiosity and political orientation. The direction and significance of the results did not differ from when the variables were treated as continuous.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

  1. Barr Elissa, Moore Michele, Johnson Tammie, Forrest Jamie, and Jordan Melissa. 2014. “New Evidence: Data Documenting Parental Support for Earlier Sexuality Education.” Journal of School Health 84 (1): 10–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bixter Michael. 2015. “Happiness, Political Orientation, and Religiosity.” Personality and Individual Differences 72: 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bleakley Amy, Hennessy Michael, and Fishbein Martin. 2010. “Predicting Preferences for Types of Sex Education in US Schools.” Sexuality Research and Social Policy 7 (1): 50–57. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cameron Amanda, Smith Ellie, Mercer Nicholas, and Sundstrom Beth. 2020. “‘It is our Duty:’ Understanding Parents’ Perspectives on Reproductive and Sexual Health Education.” Sex Education 20 (5): 535–551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carney Dana, Jost John, Gosling Samuel, and Potter Jeff. 2008. “The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things they Leave Behind.” Political Psychology 29 (6): 807–840. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chin Helen, Sipe Theresa, Elder Randy, Mercer Shawna, Chattopadhyay Sajal, Jacob Verughese, Wethington Holly, Kirby Doug, Elliston Donna, and Griffith Matt. 2012. “The Effectiveness of Group-Based Comprehensive Risk-Reduction and Abstinence Education Interventions to Prevent or Reduce the Risk of adolescent Pregnancy, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and Sexually Transmitted Infections: Two Systematic Reviews for the Guide to Community Preventive Services.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 42 (3): 272–294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Constantine Norman, Jerman Petra, and Huang Alice. 2007. “California Parents’ Preferences and Beliefs Regarding School-Based Sex Education Policy.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 39 (3): 167–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Denford Sarah, Abraham Charles, Campbell Rona, and Busse Heide. 2017. “A Comprehensive Review of Reviews of School-Based Interventions to Improve Sexual-Health.” Health psychology review 11 (1): 33–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dent Lauren, and Maloney Patricia. 2017. “Evangelical Christian Parents’ Attitudes Towards Abstinence-Based Sex Education:’I Want my Kids to have Great Sex!’.” Sex Education 17 (2): 149–164. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dunbar RIM 2020. “Religiosity and Religious Attendance as Factors in Wellbeing and Social Engagement.” Religion, Brain & Behavior 11 (1): 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  11. Eisenberg Marla, Bernat Debra, Bearinger Linda, and Resnick Michael. 2008. “Support for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Perspectives from Parents of School-Age Youth.” Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (4): 352–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Eisenberg Marla, Madsen Nikki, Oliphant Jennifer, and Sieving Renee. 2013. “Barriers to Providing the Sexuality Education that Teachers Believe Students Need.” Journal of School Health 83 (5): 335–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eisenberg Marla, Madsen Nikki, Oliphant Jennifer, and Resnick Michael. 2012. “Policies, Principals and Parents: Multilevel Challenges and Supports in Teaching Sexuality Education.” Sex Education: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisenberg Marla, Oliphant Jennifer, Plowman Shari, Forstie Melanie, and Sieving Renee. 2022. “Increased Parent Support for Comprehensive Sexuality Education Over 15 Years.” Journal of Adolescent Health. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Evans Reina, Widman Laura, Kamke Kristyn, and Stewart J. 2020. “Gender Differences in Parents’ Communication With Their Adolescent Children about Sexual Risk and Sex-Positive Topics.” Journal of Sex Research 57 (2): 177–188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Flores Dalmacio, and Barroso Julie. 2017. “21st Century Parent-Child Sex Communication in the United States: A Process Review.” Journal of Sex Research 54 (4–5): 532–548. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Future of Sex Education Initiative. 2020. “National Sex Education Standards: Core Content and Skills, K-12.” Future of Sex Education. [Google Scholar]
  18. Garneau Christopher, and Schwadel Philip. 2022. “Examining the Influence of Political Affiliation and Orientation on Political Tolerance.” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 8: 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldfarb Eva, and Lieberman Lisa. 2021. “Three Decades of Research: The Case for Comprehensive Sex Education.” Journal of Adolescent Health 68 (1): 13–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Graham Jesse, Haidt Jonathan, and Nosek Brian. 2009. “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psycholy 96 (5): 1029–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gries Peter, and Crowson H. 2010. “Political Orientation, Party Affiliation, and American Attitudes Towards China.” Journal of Chinese Political Science 15 (3): 219–244. [Google Scholar]
  22. Haidt Jonathan, and Graham Jesse. 2007. “When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize.” Social Justice Research 20 (1): 98–116. [Google Scholar]
  23. Haidt Jonathan, and Joseph Craig. 2004. “Intuitive Ethics: How Innately Prepared Intuitions Generate Culturally Variable Virtues.” Daedalus 133 (4): 55–66. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hall elli, Sales Jessica, Komro Kelli, and Santelli John. 2016. “The State of Sex Education in the United States.” Journal of Adolescent Health 58 (6): 595–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hardy Sam, Nelson Jenae, Moore Joseph, and King Pam. 2019. “Processes of Religious and Spiritual Influence in Adolescence: A Systematic Review of 30 Years of Research.” Journal of Research on Adolescents 29 (2): 254–275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hatemi Peter, Crabtree Charles, and McDermott Rose. 2017. “The Relationship Between Sexual Preferences and Political Orientations: Do Positions in the Bedroom Affect Positions in the Ballot Box?” Personality and Individual Differences 105: 318–325. d [Google Scholar]
  27. Heller Janet, and Johnson Helen. 2013. “Parental Opinion Concerning School Sexuality Education in a Culturally Diverse Population in the USA.” Sex Education 13 (5): 548–559. [Google Scholar]
  28. Howard Matt. 2015. “A Review of Exploratory Factor Analysis Decisions and Overview of Current Practices: What We Are Doing and How Can We Improve?” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 32 (1): 51–62. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ito Kristin, Gizlice Ziya, Judy Owen-O’Dowd Evelyn Foust, Leone Peter, and Miller WWilliam. 2006. “Parent Opinion of sexuality Education in a State with Mandated Abstinence Education: Does Policy Match Parental Preference?” Journal of Adolescent Health 39 (5): 634–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kalsbeck William, Agans Robert, Kosorok Michael, Reimer Barbara, and Thorp H. 2009. “North Carolina Parent Opinion Survey of Public School Sexuality Education: An Update to a 2003 Survey.” Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Campaign of North Carolina. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kantor Leslie, and Levitz Nicole. 2017. “Parents’ Views on Sex Education in Schools: How Much do Democrats and Republicans Agree?” PLoS One 12 (7):e0180250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Koenig Harold, and Büssing Arndt. 2010. “The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A Five-Item Measure for Use in Epidemological Studies.” Religions 1 (1): 78–85. [Google Scholar]
  33. Krull Laura. 2020. “Liberal Churches and Social Justice Movements: Analyzing the Limits of Inclusivity.” Journal for the Scientific Study Of Religion 59 (1): 84–100. [Google Scholar]
  34. Levay Kevin, Freese Jeremy, and Druckman James. 2016. “The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples.” Sage Open 6 (1):2158244016636433. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lindberg Laura, and Kantor Leslie. 2022. “Adolescents’ Receipt of Sex Education in a Nationally Representative Sample, 2011–2019.” Journal of Adolescent Health 70 (2): 290–297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu Yu, West Stephen, Levy Roy, and Aiken Leona. 2017. “Tests of Simple Slopes in Multiple Regression Models with an Interaction: Comparison of Four Approaches.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 52 (4): 445–464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Malka Ariel, Lelkes Yphtach, Srivastava Sanjay, Cohen Adam, and Miller Dale. 2012. “The Association of Religiosity and Political Conservatism: The Role of Political Engagement.” Political Psychology 33 (2): 275–299. [Google Scholar]
  38. Millner Vaughn, Mulekar Madhuri, and Turrens Julio. 2015. “Parents’ Beliefs Regarding Sex Education for Their Children in Southern Alabama Public Schools.” Sexuality Research and Social Policy 12 (2): 101–109. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ogusky Jeremy, and Tenner Aadam. 2010. “Advocating for Schools to Provide Effective HIV and Sexuality Education: A Case Study in how Social Service Organizations Working in Coalition can (and Should) Affect Sustained Policy Change.” Health Promotion Practice 11 (1): 34S–41S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pariera Katrina. 2016. “Barriers and Prompts to Parent-Child Sexual Communication.” Journal of Family Communication 16 (3): 277–283. doi: [Google Scholar]
  41. Peter Christina, Simovska Venka, Kane Ros, Tasker Timothy, and Horn Stacey. 2015. “Parents’ Attitudes Toward Comprehensive And Inclusive Sexuality Education.” Health Education 115 (1): 71–92. [Google Scholar]
  42. Regnerus Mark. 2007. Forbidden Fruit : Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers New York, United States: Oxford University Press, Incorporated. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sheehan Kim. 2018. “Crowdsourcing Research: Data Collection with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Communication Monographs 85 (1): 140–156. [Google Scholar]
  44. Todd Nathan, and Ong Katherine. 2012. “Political and Theological Orientation as Moderators for the Association Between Religious Attendance and Attitudes Toward Gay Marriage for White Christians.” Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 4 (1): 56–70. [Google Scholar]
  45. Trenholm Christopher, Devaney Barbara, Fortson Kenneth, Clark Melissa, Quay Lisa, and Wheeler Justin. 2008. “Impacts of Abstinence Education on Teen Sexual Activity, Risk of Pregnancy, and Risk of Sexually Transmitted Diseases.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27 (2): 255–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Walters Kelly, Christakis Dimitri, and Wright Davene. 2018. “Are Mechanical Turk Worker Samples Representative of Health Status and Health Behaviors in the US?” PloS one 13 (6):e0198835. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Williams Jean. 2011. “Battling a ‘Sex-Saturated Society’: The Abstinence Movement and the Politics Of Sex Education.” Sexualities 14 (4): 416–443. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES