Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 12, No.

5, 1983

Parental Attitudes about Sexual Education:

Cross-Cultural Differences and
Covariate Controis
Paul R. Abramson, P h . D . , 1,4 K. Derek Moriuchi, M.A., 2
Martha S. Waite, M.S.W., 3 and Lisa B. Perry, M.S.W.~

Cross-cultural differences in parental attitudes and experiences o f

childhood sexual education were examined. Parental attitudes and
experiences were isolated for study because of their significance as a vehicle
for transmitting culturally prescribed norms. The present study also tested
for artifactual differences between cultures, in terms of explaining the
differences with concomitant variability. Couples with children ranging in
age from 1 to 10 were utilized and were drawn from four subcultures
(Mexican-American, N = 22, Black American, N = 20, Caucasian
American, N = 27, and Japanese-American, N = 18). The most salient
and consistent finding was the pronounced significance o f the covariate
controls (especially father's education and mother's religiosity). That is,
although a f e w cross-cultural effects remained significant despite the
influence of a covariate, most o f the findings were biased by a concomitant
(i.e., demographic) variable.

KEY WORDS: parental attitudes; sex education; cross-cultural differences.

This research was supported in part by Bio-Medical Research Funds from the University of
California, Los Angeles.
'Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
90024.
2Department of Psychology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201.
»School of Social Welfare, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
90024.
~To whom correspondence should be addressed.

381

0004-0002/83/1000-0381 $03.00/0 © 1983 Plenum Publishing Corporation

382 Abramson, Moriuchi, Waite, and Perry

INTRODUCTION

Sexuality can be characterized as a heterogeneous form of

expression. That is, variability in sexual expression exists across (and
within) individuals, cultures, and species (Davenport, 1976; Ford and
Beach, 1951). The evidence of malleability within the sexual domain has led
a number of researchers to conclude that human sexual behavior is best
understood within the frame of reference provided by the culture (or
subculture) of which the individual is a member (Ford and Beach, 1951;
Kinsey et al., 1948, 1953). Furthermore, it has recently been suggested that
society shapes its members through cultural definitions of what is sexually
appropriate or pleasurable, which in turn has the effect of creating sexual
standards that reflect cultural sanctions (Abramson, 1984).
One of the most striking pieces of-evidence of the significance of
cultural norms is the finding that sexuality is often loaded with special
cultural meanings and relevancies that have no direct relationship to sexual
gratification or reproduction (Davenport, 1976). Thus, cultural variability
in human sexual behavior is a primary indicant of the effectiveness of social
pressures and restraints (Kinsey et al., 1948, 1953). The purpose of the
present study is to examine cross-cultural differences in parental attitudes
and experiences regarding childhood sexual education. Parental attitudes
and experiences were isolated for study because of their significance as a
vehicle for transmitting culturally prescribed norms (Abramson, 1984;
D'Andrade, 1966).
In a previous study, Abramson and Imai-Marquez (1982) examined
cultural differences in sexual standards and the process of acculturation
using three generations of Japanese-Americans (Issei, Nisei and Sansei) and
matched Caucasian American controls. A number of significant findings
emerged. First, the results indicated that although the Japanese-American is
a highly acculturated ethnic group (Wilson and Hosokawa, 1980),
significant cross-cultural differences continue to exist, especially among
Japanese-American women. Furthermore, where gender differences did
occur, they favored greater flexibility for men in general and for
Japanese-American men in compirison to Japanese-American women.
Finally, the results of this study also suggested that pronounced cultural
changes in sexual standards have occurred over the past 70 years.
As a follow-up to our research on cross-cultural differences in
sexuality between Japanese-Americans and Caucasian Americans, the
present study assesses variations in child-rearing attitudes and experiences.
For the present experiment, however, parents (with children ranging in age
from 1 to 10) of four cultural groups (Japanese-Americans, Caucasian
Americans, Black Americans, and Mexican-Americans) were included.
sexual Education 383

Selection of cultural groups was determined by previous investigations of

related topics (Tuddenham et al., 1974). Also, selection of the range of
children's ages was determined by conceptualizations of "early" and
"middle" childhood (Block, 1973; Whiting and Edwards, 1973).
Since parental training is often a significant determinant of cultural
variability, the present study focuses on parental attitudes and experiences
as a means of accounting for cultural disparity in sexual expression.
Although sexual conduct is ultimately determined by a variety of interacting
mechanisms (endocrinological, physiological, cultural, etc.), it is out belief
that certain aspects of sexual learning exist as a manifestation of cultural
conditions. However, an alternative conceptualization of cross-cultural
differences will also be examined. That is, through the use of covariate
controls (i.e., religiosity, education, income, etc.), the present study will
test for artifactual differences between cultures, in terms of explaining the
differences with concomitant variability. Consequently, the present study is
also intended to distinguish between the appearance and the existence of
cross-cultural differences.

METHOD

Subjects

All subjects were at least second- or third-generation Americans.

Moreover, at least one parent of every couple was fluent in English. Of the
87 couples, 22 were Mexican-American, 20 were Black American, 27 were
Caucasian American, and 18 were Japanese-American. Median income for
each cultural group was as follows: Mexican-American, $12,750; Black
American, $27,800; Caucasian American, $28,000; and Japanese-Ameri-
can, $28,000. Other demographic characteristics of this sample include the
following: husband's education (mean number of years; Japanese-Ameri-
can, M = 16.05; Black American, M = 14.17; Mexican-American, M =
11.93; Caucasian American, M = 16.20); wife's education (mean number
of years; Japanese-American; M = 15.27; Black American, M -- 14.94;
Mexican-American, M = 10.80; Caucasian American, M = 15.73);
number of waking hours the father spends at home with the children per
weck (Japanese-Americans, 25 hours; Black Americans, 15 hours;
Mexican-Americans, 17 hours; Caucasian Americans, 19 hours); number of
waking hours the mother spends at home with the children per week
(Japanese-Americans, more than 25 hours; Black Americans, 22 hours;
Mexican-Americans, 23 hours; Caucasian Americans, more than 25 hours);
husband's religion (Japanese-Americans, i16% Catholic, 42% Buddhist,
384 Abramson, Moriuchi, Waite, and Perry

25°70 other Christian, and 16°7o Baptist; Black Americans, 33°70 Catholic,
6°70 Methodist, 11°7o Protestant, 11% other Christian, 33% Baptist, and
6o70 Episcopalian; Mexican-Americans, 78o70 Catholic, 6070 Evangelical, 11070
Protestant, and 6% other Christian; Caucasian Americans, 67°70 Catholic,
22°70 Jewish, 5% Buddhist, and 6°70 Methodist) wife's religion
(Japanese-Americans, 19°7o Catholic, 25°70 Buddhist, 19°7o Methodist, 25%
other Christian, and 12°7o Baptist; Black Americans, 24% Catholic, 6°70
Methodist, 24°70 Protestant, 12°7o other Christian, 29°70 Baptist, and 6°70
Episcopalian; Mexican-Americans, 72°7o Catholic, 6°70 Evangelical, and
11°7o Protestant; Caucasian Americans, 15007o Catholic, 23% Jewish, 9%
Methodist, 9°70 Protestant, 5°70 Baptist, and 5°70 Episcopalian).

Procedure

Subjects were obtained through both formal and informal sources.

The formal sources were institutional (i.e., Brentwood Elementary School)
or organizational (i.e., the Japanese American Citizen League) settings. A
four-step process was utilized for obtaining data from the formal sources.
First, the institution or organization was contacted by phone in order to set
up an interview. During the initial telephone contact, an administrative
official was informed of the nature of the study and assured that the
research was being conducted under the auspices of the UCLA Psychology
Department. Neafly 95°70 of the institutional or organizational sources
consented to an interview with one of the coauthors of this study. (Selection
of institutions and organizations was based on ethnic composition and
demographic characteristics.) The second step of this process was the
interview. At this time, sample questionnaires were discussed and a detailed
description of the study was presented. While some institutions or
organizations made an immediate decision regarding participation, most
requested time for further deliberation. Eventually, 58% of our formal
sources consented to assist in this research project. Reasons for declining
participation were usually associated with the "sensitive" nature of the
study. Thus, while we made a concerted effort to obtain a representative
sample of formal sources, self-selection bias is undoubtedly involved.
The third step of the process was to enlist administrative support for
disseminating the questionnaire. We felt that if an institutional or organiza-
tional administrator distributed the questionnaire we would be assured of
racial similarity between "experimenter" and subject and that the study
would be perceived as having institutional or organizational support.
Although a standardized instructional set was utilized, there were two
methods of returning the questionnaries. For reasons of convenience, some
Sexual Education 385

subjects returned their anonymous questionnaires, in sealed envelopes, to

the institutional or organizational setting. These were later picked up in
person. For others, self-addressed stamped envelopes were included with the
questionnaire. Return rate, which was 47%0, did not differ as a function of
collection procedure. As a fourth step, all institutions and organizations
were sent a thank you note for their assistance. Also, regardless of how the
data were obtained, all parents who requested results of the study were
mailed a summarized version of this experiment.
Approximately 81% of the sample was obtained through formal
sources. The remaining 19% or the subjects were obtained from an
informal network. These additional subjects were recruited in order to
complete specific ethnic categories. For example, members of the Japanese-
American community were asked to distribute a few questionnaires to
families with children who fit the criteria of our study. Of the
questionnaires distributed to families, 42% were returned. Subjects
recruited by this method did not differ significantly from other subjects of
the same ethnic background in terms of either demographic characteristics
or child-rearing attitudes. Futhermore, there were no significant differences
in participation percentages among the four ethnic groups.

Sex Education Questionnaire

Every questionnaire had a cover letter reproduced on departmental

stationery. This letter indicated the sponsorship of the study (including the
principal investigator's phone number); the focus of the study (i.e.,
examining how parents teach their children of ages 1-10 about sexuality and
reproduction), the value of the experiment, and assurances of anonymity
and confidentiality.
The first part of the questionnaire assessed demographic variables.
Inclusion of a specific demographic variable was determined either to allow
for an adequate description of the sample or for use as a covariate control.
The demographic variables included in this study were as follows: dual-
versus single-parent household; age of each parent; occupation of each
parent; educational level of each parent; face of each patent; combined
income; religion of each parent; religiosity of each parent; marital status;
and the number of waking hours each parent spent at home with the child
(or children).
In regard to specific attitudes about child-rearing and sexuality,
parents were asked to provide consensual responses (of individual responses
for single-parent housholds) to four aspects of sex education. Part 1
assessed parental comfort with discussing specific sexual issues (masturba-
386 Abramson, Moriuchi, WaRe, and Perry

tion, sexual intercourse, orgasm, etc.) with their child (of children); t4
sexual issues were included, and parents responded on a 5-point Likert scale
from very comfortable to very uncomfortable. Part 2 measured parental
beliefs about the age at which children should be taught various aspects of
sexuality. The same 14 sexual issues were included, and parents responded
separately for male and female children. Part 3 consisted of 8 questions
designed to assess experiences with discussing sexuality with children (e,g.,
"Which parent does your female child most offen approach about sex [if
you have no female children go on to the next quesfion]; a) father; b)
mother; c) both equally"). Finally, the fourth part presented 7 open-ended
questions that were designed to obtain more qualitative information (i.e.,
"What has been the most awkward sexual situation you have encountered
with your children?").

RESULTS

A one-way analysis of variance, using cultural group as the

independent factor, was computed for each dependent criterion. The
Scheffe test was used for within-group comparisons. Also, an analysis of
covariance, using husband's education, wife's education, husband's
religiosity, wife's religiosity, husband's time spent with children, wife's time
spent with children, and combined income as the covariates, was computed
for each significant dependent criterion.

Parental Comfort with Discussing Sexual Issues

Where these attitudinal questions are concerned, a number of

significant cultural effects emerged. However, the direction of the effects is
nearly uniform across variables, with Mexican-American parents reporting
the most discomfort with discussing sexual issues. For instance, Mexican-
American parents expressed the most discomfort discussing masturbation
(F = 4.06; df = 3/82, p < 0.01), sexual intercourse (F = 6.61, p < 0.001),
sexual garnes (F = 3.71, p < 0.01), parental sexual privacy (F = 4.24, p <
0.008), wet dreams (F = 2.39, p < 0.07), same-sex touching (F = 4.75, p <
0.004), opposite-sex touching (F = 4.92, p < 0.003), and nudity (F -- 8.01,
p < 0.001). In the case of touching parents' genitals (F = 4.19 < 0.008), both
Mexican-American and Japanese-American patents expressed discomfort
in discussing this issue. The means and standard deviations are presented in
Table I.
As indicated above, an analysis of covariance was computed for each
of the significant effects. Although most of the covariates were
Sexual Education 387

Table I. Means and Standard Deviations for Parental Comfort with Discussing Sexual
Issues

Mexican- Japanese- Caucasian Black

American American American American

Masturbation M 3.77 2.72 2.59 2.94

SD 1.57 1.31 1.18 1.30
Sexual M 3.54 2.55 2.07 2.05
intercourse SD 1.68 1.29 1.17 0.93
Sexual garnes M 3.45 2.83 2.14 2.38
SD 1.65 1.42 1.13 1.28
Paren tal M 3.04 2.00 1.85 1.94
sexual SD 1.75 1.32 0.98 1.05
privacy
Wet dreams M 3.38 2.24 2.37 2.77
SD 1.80 0.98 1.24 1.39
Same-sex M 3.85 2.94 2.62 2.44
touching SD 1.52 1.25 1.18 1.29
Opposite- M 3.14 2.44 1.88 1.94
sex touching SD 1.87 1.04 1.10 0.99
Touching M 3.90 3.55 2.62 2.66
parents' SD 1.57 1.33 1.24 1.23
genitals
Nudity M 3.04 1.88 1.37 1.94
SD 1.86 1.07 0.83 1.21

n o n s i g n i f i c a n t , h u s b a n d ' s e d u c a t i o n was r e l a t e d to each o f the a b o v e

findings ( c o v a r i a t e o f h u s b a n d ' s e d u c a t i o n : m a s t u r b a t i o n , F = 13.57, p <
0.001; sexual i n t e r c o u r s e , F = 4.70, p < 0.03; c h i l d r e n ' s sexual garnes, F =
7.11, p < 0.01; p a r e n t a l sexual p r i v a c y , F = 8.43, p < 0.005; wet d r e a m s , F
= 4.29, p < 0.04 s a m e - s e x t o u c h i n g , F = 3.79, p < 0.05; o p p o s i t e - s e x
t o u c h i n g , F = 14.50, p < 0.0001; t o u c h i n g p a r e n t s ' genitals, F = 3.52, p <
.005; n u d i t y , F = 6.54, p < 0.01). F u r t h e r m o r e , except f o r the issue o f
t o u c h i n g p a r e n t s ' genitals (where the m a i n effect r e m a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n t , F =
2.73, p < 0.05) the significant c o v a r i a t e r e d u c e d the m a i n effect to a
n o n s i g n i f i c a n t level. Thus, the results r e p o r t e d a b o v e a r e a t t r i b u t a b l e to
d i f f e r e n c e s in h u s b a n d ' s e d u c a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n to c u l t u r a l differences, with
families with bester e d u c a t e d h u s b a n d s being m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e with
discussing sexual issues.

Age of Chiidren When Sex Should Be Discussed

Several significant c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s e m e r g e d . F o r the age at which

b o t h b o y s a n d girls s h o u l d be t a u g h t a b o u t s a m e - s e x t o u c h i n g , M e x i c a n -
A m e r i c a n p a r e n t s suggested the earliest age (boys, M = 5.44, SD = 2.96,
girls, M = 5.00, S D = 3.12; the earliest age for b o y s f o r t h e o t h e r c u l t u r a l
388 Abramson, Moriuchi, Waite, and Perry

groups were as follows: Japanese-Americans, M = 9.30, SD = 3.27; Black

Americans, M = 9.23, SD = 3.91; Caucasian Americans, M = 7.40, SD =
2.71 [F = 2.95, p < 0.04]; and for girls: Japanese-Americans, M = 9.30,
SD = 3.19; Black Americans, M = 9.00, SD = 4.21; Caucasian Americans,
M = 7.90, SD = 2.99 [F = 2.95, p < 0.04]). Where opposite-sex touching
for boys and girls is concerned, Mexican-American parents once again
suggested the earliest age for teaching (boys, M = 5.36, SD = 3.38; girls, M
= 5.36, SD = 3.38; for boys in other cultural groups" Japanese-Americans,
M = 9.69, SD = 3.35; Black Americans, M = 8.28, SD = 4.10; Caucaslan
Americans, M = 7.70, SD = 2.58 [F = 4.36, p < 0.01]; and for girls in
other cultural groups: Japanese-Americans, M = 9.53, SD = 3.28; Black
Americans, M = 8.20, SD = 4.23; Caucasian Americans, M = 7.90, SD =
2.64 [F = 4.19, p < 0.01]). A significant cultural difference also emerged
for teaching boys about nudity. Japanese-Americans suggested the oldest
age (M = 7.07, SD = 4.12) for teaching such an issue (other cultural
groups: Black Americans, M = 4.92, SD = 3.45; Mexican-Americans, M
= 3.22, SD = 2.68; Caucasian Americans, M = 2.66, SD = 1.61 [F =
3.41, p < 0.03]). Finally, significant cultural differences also exist for
teaching boys about oral-genital sex. Mexican-American parents suggested the
earliest age (M = 6.62, SD = 5.31; other cultural groups: Black Amer]cans;
M = 11.81, SD = 3.45; Caucasian Americans, M = 10.62, SD = 2.50;
Japanese-Americans, M = 12.23, SD = 4.39 [F = 4.04,p < 0.01]).
The analysis of covariance produced varied findings. For some signi-
ficant effects, there were no significant covariates, whereas for others signi-
ficant covariates did emerge. Moreover, in the case where significant
covariates emerged, the main effect for some variables was reduced to a
nonsignificant level, whereas for others it remained significant. For
instance, no significant covariates emerged for the age o f teaching boys
about nudity or oral-genital sex. While significant covariates emerged for
the other four variables, in the case of the age of teacbing about same-sex
touching (for boys and girls) the significnat covariates reduced the main
effect to a nonsignificant level. However, for the age of teaching a b o u t
opposite-sex touching (for boys and girls), the significant covariates did not
reduce the main effect. Thus, for teaching about same-.sex touching, the
wife's education level (F = 6.60, p < 0.02) and degree of religiousity (F =
4.61, p < 0.04) reduced the main effect (for both boys and girls) to a
nonsignificant level, suggesting that in families where the wife is either very
religious or lacks much education children are taught about same-sex
touching at an earlier age. For opposite-sex touching, the amount of time
the mother spends with the child (boys, F = 5.09, p < 0.03; girls, F = 6.37,
p < 0.02) is related to the age of suggested teaching. However, the main
effect remains significant (boys, F = 3.55, p < 0.04" girls, F = 3.49, p <
Sexual Education 389

0.05). Consequently, although the covariate is significant, it still appears

that Mexican-American parents suggest the earliest age for teaching
children about opposite-sex touching.

Experiences with Discussing Sexuality

Parents were first asked whether sex education should take place in
the home or at school. No significant cultural differences emerged. In fact,
98% of the entire sample agreed that sex education should take place in
both the home and school. However, a significant cultural difference was
discovered (x 2 = 19.39, df = 6, p < 0.003) for the gender o f parent who
most frequently discusses sex (mother, father, or both equally). The results
indicated that, in general, the mother (60%) most often discusses sex (father,
1%; both equally, 39%). However, for Japanese-Americans, the discussion
of sex is more likely to be shared by both parents. When this question is
broken down by the gender of the child, a significant cultural difference
also emerges for which parent discusses sex more frequently with a male
child 0( 2 -- 19.09, df = 6, p < 0.004). For black Americans either the
mother or both patents discuss sex with a male child, whereas for Japanese-
Americans either the father or both parents discuss sex with a male child. For
Mexican-Americans and Caucasian Arnericans, the discussion of sex was
distributed throughout the three choices.
Where comfort with discussing sex is concerned, a significant cultural
difference was observed 0(2 = 20.78, df = 3, p < 0.0001). Caucasian
Americans were more likely to continue discussing sex with their children
even if it made them uncomfortable. Other cultural groups were more likely
to change the subject, give the child a book, and so on. Also, where the
child is concerned, boys are more likely to approach their fathers about sex
in Mexican-American homes and Japanese-American homes, whereas boys
are more likely to approach their mothers in black and Caucasian American
homes 0( 5 = 18.60, df = 6, p < 0.004). Girls, regardless o f the culture, are
more likely to approach their mothers about sex.
The analysis of covariance produced consistent results: a significant
covariate emerged for all but one of the above findings and reduced the
main effect to a nonsignificant level. For instance, the gender difference in
the frequency o f discussing sex can be understood in terms o f the father's
education. Highly educated fathers discussed sex as orten as mothers (F =
4 . 3 3 , p < 0.05). Where the gender of the child is concerned, discussing sex
with a male child can be understood in terms of the husband's education (F
= 7 . 7 5 , p < 0.01), the combined income (F = 4 . 1 7 , p < 0.05), or the wife's
religiosity (F = 3.99, p < 0.05). Better educated husbands, wealthier
390 Abramson, Moriuchi, Waite, and Perry

families, and less religious wives are more likely to discuss sexuality with
male children. Furthermore, although boys are more likely to approach
their fathers about sex in some cultures, less religious mothers are also
frequently approached about sex (F = 6.73, p < 0.02).
The only significant main effect that was not reduced by a covariate
was the finding that Caucasian parents were more likely to talk about sex
even if it made them uncomfortable.

Qualitative Responses

Since these data were not reduced to a statistical analysis,

cross-cultural differences and covariate controls will not be introduced.
Instead, trends within the data, as they related to the entire sample of
parents, will be discussed.
Parents were asked to describe their manner (and philosophy) o f
teaching a child about sex. In general, most parents indicate that the child
(regardless of gender) should be provided with accurate and understandable
information about sex, whenever he or she desires it. Moreover, parents
suggest either an appropriate book (so as to facilitate discussion) or an
informal discussion as the vehicle for presenting sexuat information.
Additional suggestions included experiences with parential nudity ("We've
always taken baths in semiprivate and allow our children to see us nude. I
feel it gives t h e m a sense of pride in their bodies, and that it's not something
to be ashamed about--however we don't overdo it--we don't walk about
nude all the time--just in the normal course of taking showers or baths.");
discussions o f the child's sexual self-exploration; observing animals having
sex, with impromptu talks; and providing some indication o f the concept of
love (e.g., " A p p r o a c h sex in a realistic, humanistic way. Be truthful,
concise, use simple language, and above all, give correct information. Also,
emphasize love and responsibility, but leave some mystery so that the child
can have fun discovering his or her sexuality.").
Patents were also asked to indicate the kinds o f sex-related questions
that their children ask, and to provide the age and gender of the child when
the asking was done. The most common questions, all associated with early
childhood, focused on three issues: reproduction ( " H o w are babies made?),
gender differences ( " H o w come girls don't have a penis?"), and
parent-child differences ("Why do you have pubic hair and breasts and I
don't?"). Almost all other questions resembled simple scientific queries
(e.g., " H o w do babies breathe in the w o m b ? " ; " H o w does sperm reach the
vagina?"; " W h y does a penis become erect when t o u c h e d ? " ; etc.).
Where specific sexual situations are concerned, patents indicate that
the most frequent to arise are masturbation, same-gender sexual play,
Sexual Education 391

opposite-gender sexual play, nudity, touching parent's genitals, and

observing (or disturbing) parental sexual intercourse. Parents differ,
however, in the manner o f handling such situations. For some parents,
stating disapproval (e.g., for children's sexual play; " I just told them very
nonchalantly that it is not a good idea," and for masturbation; " I
discovered hirn masturbating and questioned why he is doing it. He told me
it felt good. I explained to him that it's not to be touched for that
purpose.") was the preferred method o f handling their child. For other
parents, teaching discretion ("I understand that feels good, but it is
something that you should do in private.") or ignoring what is termed
"innocent play" is another method of teaching about sexuality. Open
discussion (e.g., when a child walked into the bedroom while parents were
having sexual intercourse; " W e would stop, sit down with him and calmly
discuss why he snuck in. We explained that older people need their privacy
and we suggested alternative things that he could do. We also let him know
that later on we would all be doing something together") was yet a third
method of handling such situations. Among the more unusual situations
and methods of responding were the following: " H e got on top of me [a
2-year-old] while we were both clothed, and humped up and down. I
laughed, and turned hirn on his back and tickled h i m . " ; " I n the bath while I
was washing my vagina, my 2-year-old son helped. I hurried through this to
let hirn wash another part o f my body. Once, I said, " O . K . , now let me
wash your pee-pee"; and " M y son [a 6-year-old] often shows me how his
penis grows! I usually say, "Yes, it sure is bigger."
Finally, we asked parents if they would relate any "interesting or
amusing" experiences with teaching their children about sexuality. What
follows is a sample of their responses. (1) " J e r e m y wanted to know why his
penis wasn't as bit as Daddy's. He thought that his penis was " s h r u n k e d . " '
(2) " U p o n seeing his mother using the restroom, my son (2lA)said,
" M o m m a ! Where is your peepee s h o o t e r ? ' " (3) " M y 5-year-old son said,
" W h e n are you going to get fat and have a baby come out?' I answered,
" W h e n I find a new daddy and we decide to have a b a b y . " He said, 'When
are you going to find a new daddy?' I said, 'That takes time.' He said, 'Well
why can't I make the baby?' I said, 'You have to be a grown man first.'
Then he said, 'Mummy, will I be old enough when I am six?'" (4) "Once
our daughter walked in on us during intercourse. She was 4 and she asked us
what we were doing. We told her we were playing. The next morning she
came into our room and asked if we could play, and then asked if she would
have to take her doths o f t . " (5) " M y son often plays with himself, so I ask
hirn what he is doing. He says, 'I'm playing with Birdie.' So his father caUs
him Birdie Man. One morning while I was bathing he came into the
bathroom to use the toilet. When I got out of the tub he looked at me and
said, 'Mommy, you don't have a birdie.' I said, 'No, I d o n ' t . ' He then
392 Abramson, Moriuchi, Waite, and Perry

asked, 'What do you have?' My answer was simply that ! did not have a
birdie. So he said, 'That's O.K. because me and Daddy have a birdie."'

DISCUSSION

There are several components of the present investigation that are

unique to the study of human sexual behavior. First and foremost is the use
of covariate controls to assess the verity of cross-cultural differences.
Second, it is one of the few studies to use samples from more than two
subcukures within the United States. Finally, in addition to the assessment
of demographic characteristics, the present study utilized a multimethod
(attitudinal, behavioral, and qualitative) measurement procedure for
examining parental attitudes and experiences.
The most salient and consistent finding of the present investigation is
the pronounced significance of the covariate controls. That is, although a
few cross-cultural effects remained significant despite the influence of a
covariate, most of the findings were biased by a concomitant (i.e.,
demographic) variable. The strength of this effect was unexpected, given
the importance attributed to cross-cultural differences in sexual expression.
However, the results are by no means disparate with the literature on
factors influencing sexual functioning. That is, concomitant variables
examined in this study represent a source of variation that is difficult to
control in an experimental situation, yet these variables have demonstrated
significance for sexual attitudes and experience (which was the reason for
their inclusion). For instance, Kinsey et aL (1948, 1953) and others more
recently (Bell, 1966, 1974; Wallin, 1957) have emphasized the extent to
which education, religion, religiosity, and so on influence sexual experience.
While these factors have been moderated (Reiss, 1964, 1967) or diminished
(Spanier, 1976) in certain samples, the concomitant variables remain a
major source of influence on human sexual behavior.

Parental Comfort with Diseussing Sexual Issues

Without reference to the covariate controls, one might be led to

conclude that cross-cultural differences exist for how comfortable parents
are with discussing sexual issues. On the surface, it appears that
Mexican-American parents are the least comfortable with discussing such
topics. However, as the demographic characteristics indicate, the Mexican-
American sample is the least educated of the four subcultures.
Furthermore, as the analysis of covariance indicates, the results reported
Sexual Education 393

above are more attributable to differences in husband's education than to

cultural differences, with families with better educated husbands being
more comfortable with discussing sexual issues.
Kinsey (Kinsey et al., 1948, 1953) believed that educational level was
highly correlated with a man's pattern of sexual behavior. Kinsey proposed
a three-part process to account for the correlation: (1) psychological
conditioning of attitudes; (2) social group; and (3) educational attainment.
That is, attitudes are determined by social group, which in turn is highly
related to educational attainment. In terms of the present findings, it
appears that families with better educated husbands endorse more
progressive attitudes about sexual education. Moreover, prohibitive
attitudes about sexual education seem to be related to a lower educational
level of the father and, perhaps, a more provincial social network. It is also
interesting to note that when education did emerge as a significant covariate
it was almost always for the husband. This finding is consistent with
Kinsey's conclusion that educational attainment is of limited relevance to
female sexuality.

Age of Children When Sex Should Be Discussed

The difference between this set of questions relating to parental

comfort is that the latter assess general attitudes, while the former require a
specific piece of information (i.e., an age). Although both are undoubtedly
influenced by similar processes, they may tap different aspects of child
rearing. For instance, a couple's attitude about comfort may be more
related to dominance within the couple. Since husbands are often more
influential in the decision-making process, perhaps husband-related
variables (i.e., education) are more critical in this regard. However, where
specific child-rearing information is concerned, mother-related variables
become more important due to the presence of the mother as primary
caretaker of the child. The pattern of significant covariates is consistent
with this interpretation. Husband variables appear critical to general
attitudes of the couple, whereas wife variables appear critical to specific
child-rearing suggestions.
The configuration of age-related findings is more complex than the
findings for parental comfort. It appears that genuine cross-cultural effects
do emerge, with Mexican-American parents suggesting the earliest age for
training. Thus, when the objective is prohibitory sexual education, training
is initiated at an earlier stage. In this case, parents do not perceive sexual
curiosity as a form of innocent play but, instead, as the inception of a
maladaptive (or morally unacceptable) pattern of behavior. As such, it is
labeled early and discouraged from there on.
394 Abramson, Moriuchi,Waite, and Perry

Although Mexican-American parents suggested the earliest age for

teaching children about opposite-sex touching and oral-genital sex,
Japanese-American parents suggested the latest age for instructing boys
about nudity. Thus, it appears that Japanese-American parents have the
most flexible standards in this regard. Moreover, although Japanese-
American parents suggest nudity training well before puberty (i.eo, 7 years
of age), their suggestion is rauch less severe than any other cultural group
(black Americans, almost 5 years of age; Mexican-Americans, 3 years of
age; Caucasian Americans, 2½ years of age).
Where the concomitant variables are concerned, several mother-re-
lated covariates appear significant. Mothers with little education or who are
very religious are also likely to initiate sexual training at an earlier age.
Thus, mothers who have little education or who are very religious are more
likely to endorse a prohibitive method of sexuat education, especially in
regard to same-sex touching. Where opposite-sex touching is concerned,
although the cross-cultural effect for Mexican-American parents remains
significant, the results also indicate that mothers who spend rnore time with
their children are more likely to instruct their children about opposite-sex
touching at an earlier age.

Experiences with Discussing Sexuality

In a comparative study of the process of sex-related communication

between patents and children, Roberts and Gagnon (1978) discovered that
when sexual communication does occur, it is usually between mother and
child. Roberts and Gagnon suggest that children (of both sexes) are more
likely to approach their mothers about sexual issues because (1) she is more
available, (2) she is more likely to be perceived as affecti'onate and
emotionally experienced; (3) she is usually not the disciplinarian; and (4) she
is perceived as more knowledgeable about reproduction. The resutts of the
present study are consistent with this finding. When the sample is not
divided by subculture or gender of the child, the data strongly indicate that
mothers are rauch more likely to discuss sex with their children.
However, when interaction effects are obtained, it appears that the
above finding is moderated by both culture and the gender of the child. For
instance, in the Japanese-American home the discussion of sex is more
likely to be shared by both parents. Furthermore, in the Japanese-American
home (as well as the Mexican-American home) boys are more likely to
approach their fathers about sex. Although this finding appears to be in
contrast to the results of Roberts and Gagnon (1978), it should be
mentioned that in the present sample Caucasian American and Black
Sexual Education 395

American boys were rnore likely to approach their mothers about sex;
Roberts and Gagnon's sample consisted predominantly of the latter two
subcultures.
Unfortunately, confidence in all of these findings is further
moderated by the prevalence of significant covariates. Instead of
cross-cultural differences, the findings indicate that husband's education
and wife's religiosity are more salient interaction effects. Better educated
fathers discuss sex as often as mothers. Moreover, although boys are more
likely to approach their fathers about sex in some cultures, less religious
mothers are also frequently approached about sex. The only significant
main effect not reduced by a covariate was the finding that Caucasian
parents were more likely to talk about sex even if it made them
uncomfortable. Perhaps the demand characteristics of sexual training are
experienced to a greater extent by Caucasian American parents. This latter
finding may also account for the cross-cultural difference (Abramson and
Irnai-Marquez, 1982). That is, Caucasian American parents are more likely
to continue sexual dialogue even if it makes thern uncomfortable, which
could have the effect of providing a more detailed sexual training.

Qualitative Responses

The open-ended questions were included for two reasons: (1) to

obtain a general sense of the types of sex-related issues that parents
confront with children; and (2) to provide another data source for
examining variability within the sample. Where the first objective is
concerned, the trend within the data suggests that early parent-child sexual
training is focused on reproduction, gender differences, and parent-child
differences. Secondly, the data also indicate a considerable range in sexual
training rnethods and philosophies. That is, in addition to the statistical
properties of our other data, the qualitative responses suggest that the
sample is composed in part of parents who believe strongly in sexual
inhibition, and in another part of parents who believe strongly in a
progressive sexual education.

CONCLUSION

Before concluding, several limitations of the present investigation

merit attention. First, although the present samples are comparable to other
volunteer populations in sexuality studies (Rosenthal and Rosnow, 1975),
they vary from the general population. For instance, the cornbined income of
396 Abramson, Moriuchi, Waite, and Perry

every culture group exceeds the national average. However, given the
sensitive topic under investigation, volunteer populations are a necessary
prerequisite for preserving ethical requirements (Abramson, 1977; Perry
and Abramson, 1980). This latter consideration is also presumed to have
influenced the return rate. That is, despite a considerable range and
variability in parental attitudes and experiences (across each method),
self-selection is evidently involved. Nevertheless, ethical requirements once
again dictate that we obtain volunteer populations that are cognizant of the
nature of the study and that have the right to decline participation without
prejudice or duress. Consequently, in light of the issues discussed above, we
cannot exclude the possibility that certain limits exist on the generalizability
of these results.
In conclusion, the present study is significnat in at least two respects.
First, the results stress the necessity of distinguishing between the
appearance of a cross-cultural difference and the existence of a
cross-cultural difference, via either experimental or statistical control.
Given the strength of the concomitant variables in the present study, one
needs to question to what extent the abundance of cross-cultural differences
(at least within the United States) are statistical artifacts. Of course, this is
not to say that cross-cultural differences do not exist. It only means that the
source of variation may be attributable to factors other than (or in
conjunction with) cultural sanctions. Second, the results of the present
study also question the presumed dominance of the mother in the sexual
education of children. The results presented above make it clear that
parental dominance (or equivalence) varies with subculture and with
method of assessment (or focus of study). Thus, when drawing conclusions
about parental influences on sexual education of children, future research
will need to specify both the population under study and the psychometric
properties of the measurement device.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors express thanks to Joan Murray and Douglas Bonett for
their assistance with the data analysis.

REFERENCES

Abramson, P. R. (1977). Ethical requirements for research on human sexual behavior: From
the perspective of participating subjects. J. Soc. Issues 33: 184-192.
Abramson, P. R. (1984). The Sexual System: A Theory o f Human Sexuai Behavior. Academic
Press, New York (in press).
Sexual Education 397

Abramson, P. R., and Imai-Marquez, J. T. (1982). The Japanese American: A cross-cultural,

cross-sectional study of sex guilt. J. Res. Pers. 16: 227-237.
Bell, R. R. (1966). Premarital Sex in a Changing Society. Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Bell, R. R. (1974). Religious involvement and marital sex in Australia and the U. S. J. Comp.
Family Stud. 5:109-116.
Block, J. H. (1973). Conceptions of sex role: Some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspec-
tives. Amer. Psychol. 28: 512-526.
D'Andrade, R. G. (1966). Sex differences and cultural institutions. In Maccoby, E. (ed.), The
Development o f Sex Differences, Standford University Press, Stanford, California.
Davenport, W. H. (1976). Sex in cross-cultural perspective. In Beach, F. (ed.), Human
Sexuality in Four Perspectives, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Ford, C. S., and Beach, F. (1951). Patterns ofSexualBehavior. Harper & Row, New York.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., and Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human
Male. Saunders, Philadelphia.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., and Gebhard, P. A. (1953). SexualBehavior
in the Human Female. Saunders, Philadelphia.
Perry, L. B., and Abramson, P. R. (1980). Debriefing: A gratuitous procedure? Amer. Psy-
chol. 22: 298-299.
Reiss, I. (1964). Premarital sexual permissiveness among Negroes and Whites. Amer. Sociol.
Rev. 17: 688-698.
Reiss, I. (1967). The Social Context o f Premarital Sexual Permissiveness. Holt, New York.
Roberts, E. J., and Gagnün, J. (1978). Family Life and Sexual Learning. Population
Education, Inc., New York.
Rosenthal, R., and Rosnow, R. (1975). The Volunteer Subject. Wiley, New York.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Perceived sexual knowledge, exposure to eroticism, and premarital
sexual behavior: The impact of dating. Social Quart. 17: 247-261.
Tuddenham, R. D., Brooks, J., and Milkovich, L. (1974). Mothers' reports of behavior of
ten-year-olds: Relationships with sex, ethnicity and mother's education. Dev. Psychol.
10: 959-995.
Wallin, P. (1957). Religiosity, sexual gratification and marital satisfaction. Amer. Sociol. Rev.
22: 300-305.
Whiting, B., and Edwards, C. P. (1973). A cross-cultural analysis of sex differences in the
behavior of children aged three to eleven. J. Soc. Psyehol. 91: 171-188.
Wilson, R., and Hosokawa, B. (1980). East to American. Morrow, New York.