Promises, promises
Posted on December 29th, 2008 – 12:37 PMBy Josephine Marcotty
You’ve heard about the virginity pledge, right? That’s when an adolescent swears to abstain from sex until marriage. The idea was created by an Evangelical Christian organization, and touted by other religious groups as part of the movement for abstinence only sex education.
By 1995 13 percent of American adolescents reported taking the virginity pledge. The federal government uses the number of virginity pledges as a benchmark to prove the success of the $200 million a year it spends on abstinence-only sex education.
It turns out that an abstinence promise made is a promise to be broken — or denied. Five years after taking the pledge, 82 percent of adolescents said they never made such a promise, according to a study published today in the journal Pediatrics.
Researchers at Harvard followed 900 carefully matched teenagers for five years. The kids were equivalent in religious beliefs, educational and economic levels. 300 of them took the pledge and the rest did not. Five years later the only difference between them was the the pledgers were less likely to use condoms or other birth control, or be tested for STDs.
“Virginity pledges may not affect sexual behavior, but may decrease the likelihood of taking precautions during sex. Clinicians should provide birth control information to all adolescents, especially virginity pledgers,” the researchers concluded.
47 Responses to "Promises, promises"
Interesting. Another triumph for the religious right. Now we know that not only are these kids just as likely to have sex and are less likely to use birth control, also they are more likely to be liars.
This report does not give the whole picture and is misleading. It reflects bias on the part of the researchers and the newspaper to report such a skewed statistic. A responsible journalist would dig into this and get underneath the initial conclusion to find out if it really is what it claims to be. Instead we get a 30 second “read-bite” that caters to a particular world view. Poor journalism again from the purveyor of PC.
Fine, here are results from a non-partisan study and a congressionally-mandated study.
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/kirbyanswers.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html
If you follow the link, you will see that the study included under 300 of the so-called “pledgers”. Even if the survey is accurate, it is NOT statistically significant.
(in other words, the sample size is too small to accurately state that this result can be expected from the entire group.)
HD: What specific concerns do you have here? I don’t see why this statistic seems skewed or biased to you - it’s the result of a longitudinal, matched pair, peer reviewed study from Harvard that is in line with a number of other studies on similar behavior. The digging was done by the medical journal that published it. And after reading the study, it looks pretty solid to me.
People are using these virginity pledges to decide public policy, so they deserve some scrutiny. This study suggests that these pledges don’t work. Research that affirms a particular political view is not inherently biased, no matter how much you don’t like it.
My favorite quote: “Clinicians should provide birth control information to all adolescents, especially virginity pledgers.”
After reading the full text of the study it appears that the sample group was carefully matched up (pledgers vs. non-pledgers and their characteristics) and that the findings were statistically significant. Am I reading it wrong or is it just inferred from a sample size? If matched properly a sample of 300 can easily be statistically significant. Very interesting study - not surprising, but interesting.
Mark, 300 carefully chosen, well matched participants can be statistically significant. The research methodology seems solid here. Even if you don’t buy that, as JBL points out, it is just another in a long line of studies showing that abstinence only education strategies are ineffective. Add all the participants up in all those studies and you get large enough numbers to decide that these programs are a bad use of public funds.
The New Yorker recently published an article about research that is being done in this field that is finding the similar conclusions. It also discusses the fact that it’s the kids who have close-knit communities, especially families that pay attention to them, understand them, and have fun with them who are most likely to delay sexual activity–doesn’t matter if they belong to a church or not.
Anyway, it’s an interesting read and is a good supplement to this column: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot
Mark and hdsteare, your arguments for questioning the results of this research are poorly made and baseless.
hdsteare, on what facts do you base your assertion that the researchers were biased? For all you know, they wanted to prove that abstinence only sex education works. However, the research proved otherwise. It is you who are biased.
Mark, 300 (or almost 300) out of 900 is more than enough to be statistically significant. In fact, it’s very significant. If you disagree, please state facts that backup your opinion. I’d suggest you take a class in statistics first, though.
Abstinence only sex education does not reduce sexual activity and, in fact, increases the likelihood of pregnancy and contracting an STD.
You can wish it wasn’t true as much as you want. But it won’t change the facts.
hdsreare, and any others who wish to pick apart the article, may want to first read the full PDF at the link above. Otherwise, claims of bias or poor methodology will be meaningless. The first salient point is that this was a comparison between teenagers who took the abstinence-only class and made a verbal or written pledge to remain abstinent until marriage and a “matched sample” of teenagers who reported similar socioeconomic, religious upbringing, and attitudes towards sex and birth control. The data was a subset taken from data in a longitudinal study that followed 7-12th grade students, surveying them three times, 1995, 1996, and 2001. There was no statistical comparison to the general population as a whole, but the authors did note that the pledged and non-pledged groups were more conservative in sexual views than the general population. In the 2001 “wave,” 82% of those who initially said they made a verbal or written pledge to remain a virgin until marriage stated that they made no such pledge. Between the two comparison groups, pledged students had higher STD rates and lower condom usage. The number of lifetime sexual partners and average of first time for sex were nearly identical between groups. The main take away on this article to me is the pledging doesn’t work, and it’s really your family, socioeconomic status, and religious attitude that change the outcome. The authors cannot make a claim that abstinence-only doesn’t work, though can claim the pledge students were less likely to engage is safe sex. That in itself could lead to an argument, or at least further study, on just how damaging abstinence-only education coupled with negative views on birth control and STD-prevention are to public health.
Morgan,
I aced my classes in statistics, thank you. While the 300 is statistically significant in terms of the “paired” numbers (roughly 1/3) the total number of only about 1,000 is not a large enough sample to indicate that the entire group (13% of america’s youth) will respond the same way.
I would also like to point out that the amount spent on abstinance based training is only a fraction of the total amount spent, and that I agree that ALL aspects should be taught.
The problem is that good studies are blown out of proportion and used to attack spending ANY money on abstinence.
Mark,
I also aced my statistics classes and am currently a researcher and I can tell you that a sample of 1000 will absolutely produce statistically significant results. Additionally, as a person specializing in developmental psychology I will tell you that when these students are asked to take these pledges they do so without understanding the changes they will be going through both physically and emotionally. Asking kids to make this decision is ridiculous. Its the same reason we have a juvenile justice system. We know from developmental psychology that adolescents are not adults, cannot reason like adults and cannot handle adult decisions because their brains are still developing as are their bodies. Teaching the benefits of abstinence is fine. Asking adolescents to make a promise is not. Its an absurd idea and in this context filled with adult pressure and peer pressure. Of course they are going to make the promise when they think adults are watching.
Aced classes in high school stats maybe but not college level statistical analysis.
1000 is a VERY large sample for a well done study.
Now if you honestly think abstinence education is worth a dime of our money then you are a clueless bafoon.
No matter what the bible says about humans WE ARE ALL JUST A BUNCH OF ANIMALS WHOSE BASIC DRIVE IS FOOD, WATER, SECURITY, AND SEXUAL REPRODUCTION.
Earlier on in development we are even more controlled by our animal instincts ESPECIALLY PUBECENT TEENS whose animal (hormonal systems) are on overdrive.
If you think for one second we can ‘control’ these teens through some Bullshiat program that intends to overide these natural urges then you must have really been damaged as a child or ugly as a donkey so as not to feel or be able to exhibit those basic urges as a teen.
“You are wrong Mark” You are wrong. 1000 is not a large sample size when compared to total youth popluation. As of 2006 there were 73.7 million children under the age of 18 in the U.S…. that means the sample size was 900 out of 73,700,000… that’s 0.0012212% of the total field for which the conclusion is based on. If 13% of those kids took the oath that would be 9,581,000… and yet 300 were observed… 0.0031312% a slightly larger sample size… yet still not impressive. While I do agree with you on the overall issue… that abstinence education is not the proper way to go and is inefficient. I disagree that this was a VERY large sample size given the size of the group which the conclusion is made. For research, you can NEVER have too much data.
I worked for planned parenthood for over 5 years and the results of this study are exactly what I observed in our patients time and time again.
It’s almost as if teens, I dunno, aren’t old enough to commit to contracts yet! Huh! As if people under 18 were still, what, CHILDREN in some ways. And as if the best way to raise children would be to ask them, in ignorance, to commit to something they don’t fully understand, rather than educating them and then guiding them towards making the right choices. But that would require, I dunno, parents to do something active like, oh, PARENTING or something. Much easier to pretend God will do the parenting, and shame ignorant children into impossible commitments no adult would even undertake… that way at least the parents don’t have to face their own sexual hang-ups. And isn’t protecting parents what a child’s job is all about?
Keep religion out of govt. and keep govt tax raised money out of religion. WTF….
Okay, I got a cramp in my snark on that one.
I am the father of three teens, with a decade of teen-parenting in total. We have NO problem with teen pregnancies or bad behaviors in this house? Why? COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION, in this case offered as a FULL YEAR COURSE through our church. Yep, in eighth grade all youth participate in a year long course that involves dedicated adults teaching and answering everything a child might want to know about sex.
Whether it scared the bejeezus out of them, or simply taught them how to make smart decisions, or maybe it’s just ’cause they’re great kids, but we have had NO problems with our teens*, and in fact they’re three of my favorite people.
*I don’t even need to knock wood.
Albatross is exactly right. Study after study after study has shown that abstinence-only programs do *not* work, if by *work* one expects less teenaged sex happening, and safer sex when it does happen.
If, however, the goal is to simply make self-righteous, head-in-the-sand adults feel more comfy, then they’re working just fine. Adults can feel comfy as they want as teens are getting pregnant and STDs because of misplaced shame.
Albatross: I, too, had comprehensive sex ed growing up (I graduated in ‘84) both in church and public school. I’ve never had an unintended pregnancy, never had an STD, and felt in control of my own sexuality and how I wanted to express it–or not express it until I was fully capable of dealing with it. By the fourth grade, I knew more Masters & Johnson than most adults, and it certainly didn’t lead me to act it out–quite the opposite, because I fully knew the risks and repurcussions. I’ve had a full, loving sex life as an adult, and I would want nothing less for my own children.
The analysis of variance that the researchers would have used are specially designed to use probability to determine the how likely these results would have been produced by chance. Using the 95% confidence level, the researchers are basically saying that only in 5% of random samples used out of the population being studied, would these numbers have appeared and been pure chance, and not related to the independant variable. That’s generally the gold standard. The idea is that you are taking a random sample from a target population. Everyone has an equal chance to be selected. That is the hallmark of statistical analysis. Many of the drug studies that we rely on every day have sample sizes of 300-1000 people, and many of the early studies for safety or even if the drugs work use even smaller sample sizes. And, with a few notable exceptions, most drugs are safe for the whole population of the US, or at least the intended segment of the population.
The point of this and other converging studies is pretty simple. If you shame teenagers, they will still have sex. If you teach them that it’s wrong to intend sex, they will not protect themselves. To do so would be to admit to themselves that they are doing it on purpose. If you teach them by implication that abstinence is (not just the best, but) the ONLY way to protect themselves, then they will not protect themselves. Again and again, when faced with these or similar data, conservatives appear to care more about appearing morally consistent than they do about protecting our young people.
DarthSpaceInvader - This phrase “statistically significant”…I do not think it means what you think it means. Statistical significance has a very specific meaning in statistics, and is a function of sample size, variance, population means, and other statistical concepts which you clearly don’t understand. A sample size of 900 for sociological studies is pretty large. Of course, just because a paper is published doesn’t make its conclusions correct, or that it’s methodology is sound, but here the case seems pretty strong in favor of the researchers’ conclusions.
With a sample size of 900 and a Population of 74 Million you have 95% certainty that the calculated rate is within at most 3.27% of the actual rate.
For the subset sample size of 300 you have 95% certainty that the calculated rate is within at most 5.66% of the actual rate.
for reference:
Failing to give sex education to teenagers for fear that they will have sex is like failing to give toothbrushes to children for fear they will eat sweets.
Kudos to albatross. That’s how parenting is supposed to be done.
The only conclusion that can be taken from this is that a virginity pledge taken one time, is not enough to sustain a decision forward until the teen marries. Having been a youth minister, what happens between the pledge and the 5 year measurement is much more important than the pledge itself.
The implication is that abstinence only education doesn’t work…faulty conclusion. Abstinence for teenagers is a decision to go against the flow of a sexually permissive culture. Like all of us, teenagers need people and organizations around them that support their decision to be abstinent. If there was a comprehensive abstinence support system following the 300 teenagers, I know that this survey would look very different.
Furthermore, while traditional sex-ed may lead teens to practice safe sex, is that what we really want? This study doesn’t point out that teen girls who are sexually active are 3 times more likely to be depressed and/or suicidal. This is only one of the emotional dangers that come from teen sex.
I taught high school for 12 years and was surprised at first to see the more religious kids getting pregnant or having negative sexual encounters. After a while I was not surprised. It seems that the “bad” kids may have known what they were up to! BTW, its 5:21 by my clock and the last post says 5:54… Is somebody’s clock messed up??
Albatross, you reminded me of learning sex ed at my Catholic church 25 years ago. When we eighth graders filed in for that first class, we expected a nun to shame us into submission. Instead, we got parents - nervous, squeamish, but sincere parents - armed with detailed anatomical diagrams and answers to all of our questions. Coupled with comprehensive sex ed at school (which has since been cut in my district), and I could find a vas deferens faster than I could locate Idaho on a map. When did we start sliding so far backwards?
As a 16 year old teen girl, I have 16,000 reasons to not have sex. My parents and God are not any of the reasons, my reasons are those STD pictures they showed us in school along with the symtomes. I have never had boyfriend (gasp) and don’t feel the need for one, very rarley do I talk to my parents about sex because I feel that I have enough information to tell my self that I am no where near ready for sex.
Religion is not my thing and it probably never will be and I am a firm believer in keeping religion out of schools. This program that our government is paying for is outdated and should incorperate safer sex practices. We all know there is now safe way to have sex, with out the the worry of an STD or pregnancy, but we can be at least aware that there is a risk, and lower it. Education is great, but parents need to take the initive and parents, you have more of an impact on your teen than you may think.
As a teenager, I feel that I should get some say in my education. If parents don’t feel comfortable having their students in non-abstinence only classes, fine, but do not try to ruin it for those kids who need it most. Our country is full of hypocrites who need to take a second look at themselves. Oh and by the way, I am not influenced by sex on TV, movies or anywhere else, I am influenced by my values. DO NOT blame movies and tv, parents can enforce values and live to them.
What an interesting story on the same day that Sarah Palin’s daughter gave birth to her son. Statistics aside, if your the daughter of the lead bible banger shouldn’t you defy the stats?
My feeling is no since my best evidence is that I once was a kid who saw many friends take non-smoking and drinking pledges who ended up doing one or both. No need for a fancy study…its just common sense that you change as you age.
“Abstinence is possible” asks: “Furthermore, while traditional sex-ed may lead teens to practice safe sex, is that what we really want?”
What I really want is for all people over adolescence to make healthy, sound, reasoned choices about their own sexuality and how to express or not express it.
Would I be more comfortable if all teenagers waited until adulthood? Certainly, but biologically speaking, that’s *not* going to happen across the board.
I’m much more concerned that young people who do have sex do so under their own volition, armed with knowledge and confidence and contraception and disease control. That’s my personal goal.
I also do not support blanket “no sex until marriage” ideals; I would never wait, myself, and I think people should delay marriage (but it’s a personal choice). Abstaining from sex AND delaying marriage don’t go together all that well. 
To “Ateenat16″: Kudos to you for knowing that you’re not currently ready for sex and having the knowledge, personal power, and reasoning to not then have it.
We need more of that in the world. Not because sex is bad, because it’s not, but because it, like anything else in the world, comes with baggage, and we need to empower people to make choices *for their own lives* based on reasoning and not peer pressure and not “abstinence-only” pressure.
Asking kids to pledge as youngsters is just as manipulative as peer pressure; in the latter, we tell kids to use their brains, but in the former, A-only folks seem to want kids to turn OFF their brains.
preaching abstinence is like in the cartoons with the little kid who is told not to press the red button. in the end the kid pushes it anyway… so therefore abstinence is like the red button.
however not that there is anything wrong with abstinence. i personally believe it would save a number of my friends at college a lot of stress.
i myself am not ready for sex. i have also chosen to wait for marriage. but that is a choice i made on my own accord.
ive seen it ruin people’s friendships, relationships, and self esteem. because of the repercussions of their choices. for one a lot of people aren’t mature enough to be able to handle it. Or they do it but in turn they just dont know how to take responsibility for themselves or their emotions.
but i believe that one should learn about birth control from a trusted source like a doctor or a school classroom instead of the locker room or wikipedia.
if people are going to choose to have sex. they should be informed. they should know what they’re doing.
i think it would save our government a lot of money in the long run.
also…i forgot to add this… i think it would help prevent the emotional stresses of a single parent household.
Interestingly enough, I read this story on yahoo and it had more information. One of the pieces that the yahoo reporter mentioned that wasn’t mentioned in this article was that religious youth delay having sex until later in life. One of the contributing factors to this is a support network that encourages abstinence.
The attack on “the virginity pledge” is a strawman to make abstinence only education look bad. While the comparison may have a separate matched comparison group, the key to their choices lies in the standards and influence of their support network.
Abstinence is possible. Yes, a one time pledge probably won’t be enough to make it happen, but it can be done. And while a condom may protect a person from some STD’s, it won’t protect teens from the emotional baggage that comes from teenage sex. Our teens deserve the best that’s available for them.
What’s not being considered here at all is the ethical implications of this study. If kids are pushed into making pledges that they later convince themselves that they never made, will that make the more likely to do similar things in the future? Does it make them more likely to have little regard for the importance of the pledges they will make in the future? Are they more likely to break their marriage vows than they otherwise would be, or testify falsely in court after pledging to tell the truth. I’m not saying I know this to be true - maybe it is just the age they make these pledges at and denying that they made these pledges doesn’t have any future consequences because they grow up - I just think it’s important to investigate the possibility that pushing teens to make these pledges turns them into less ethical adults.
I made a pledge as a freshman in high school to refrain from sex until marriage. This was in the late 90’s. I abstained until marriage, 7 years later. The pledge made an impact on me.
A number of my close friends took advantage of the free condoms distributed in the Minneapolis public schools (where I attended as well) and were all quite sexually active not long after. The good part is that none of them, that I know of got HIV or AIDS. The funny part is a number of them got their girlfriends pregnant. So…either the “protection” everyone says is so effective wasn’t effective, or…maybe teens not taking the pledge were a bit more likely to then go on and have sex - or maybe…those who didn’t make a promise didn’t do so because they knew they were going to have sex and didn’t want to be hypocrites.
I have to agree, regardless, though, 300 is such a minuscule number it can not even pretend to give accurate results.
And I’m not surprised to see someone who worked for planned parenthood for five years to say they agree with the story’s findings. I’m sure they’d also say that statistically abortions are emotionally and psychologically healthy and beneficial for the mother who aborted.
Jason,
I somehow missed the part of the story that said Sarah Palin’s daughter took the pledge.
The level of willful ignorance of statistics here by the detractors of this study really grinds my gears (I teach college level social science statistics and research methodology).
1. 300 is a decent sized sample if it is well chosen.
2. Statistical significance is not related to the fraction of of the population that the sample represents.
3. The pairing of subjects is helpful, though not strictly necessary.
4. Statistical significance is not only a function of the sample size, it is also a function of the size of the effect.To pick up subtle differences between groups, you need a large sample, but not so for large differences between groups.
5. Replication can make us more confident that results are true, and this is not the first study that has cast doubt on abstinence only sex ed and virginity pledges
Abstinence is possible: “Interestingly enough, I read this story on yahoo and it had more information. One of the pieces that the yahoo reporter mentioned that wasn’t mentioned in this article was that religious youth delay having sex until later in life. One of the contributing factors to this is a support network that encourages abstinence.”
I don’t doubt this is true…but the point here is that studies such as this one have shown over and over and over and over the last few years that abstinence-only education in public schools is counterproductive.
You may be right about religious youth in pro-abstinence households surrounded by pro-abstinence infrastructures, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about *all* youth–or do you only care about those who share your religious beliefs? I don’t think that’s true at all.
If we’re all looking to decrease unplanned pregnancies and the incidence of STDs, then we have to look beyond philosophy and find what’s *practical*, and the studies, over and over and over again, have shown what works best.
Nothing’s perfect, of course, but what works best, time and time again, is comprehensive sex education. What you choose to promote in your own family, with your own religious ideals, is your business…but don’t put it onto my kids.
Part of the problem readers are having is that the summary provided by the journalist did not explain the study well. The study is nationally representative by design; sampling statistics were used to select subjects stratified by age, race/ethnicity, geography, etc. such that each subject “represents” many other very similar teens; i.e., the responses aren’t biased by the particular characteristics of the individuals who were chosen. This is a result of it’s careful design; in addition to it’s representative nature, it is also much more statistically powerful than it would otherwise be given the sample size. So contrary to the unsupported assertion of “hdsteare”, the study is very unbiased, and in contrast to Mark’s reasoning, inference can be drawn from these statistics and the conclusions can be considered reliable.
To the Reverend (”Abstinence is possible says”), who wrote, “The implication is that abstinence only education doesn’t work…faulty conclusion.” - is exactly wrong; the study’s conclusions follow directly from it’s findings. In a nationally representative sample of US teens, 5 years after they were asked if they did or did not take the abstinence pledge(i.e., they either did or did not receive the abstinence sex ed), the two groups did not differ in self-reported sexual behavior over the intervening period. I.e., the study found no evidence that the abstinence sex ed led to reduction in teen/young adult sexual activity. This study was exceptionally well-designed and conducted, and was properly analyzed. Pediatrics is a top tier medical journal; this paper was likely highly scrutinized before publication.
Nate, I’m glad that the pledge worked for you and that you’re happy about the choices you’ve made. That’s anecdotal, just as my earlier anecdotal evidence about my own choices, reached via a far different path.
What I’m trying to get at here is that many of us–myself and most people I know–are not against pre-marital sex. I would never preach that to my children, though if that’s what they chose I would fully support them in their choices.
I think we’re talking over each other because too many of us see the ultimate goal as “no sex until marriage,” when that’s not completely accurate.
Many of us are seeking *healthy* sexuality–including abstinence–that, no matter what, doesn’t lead to complications such as pregnancy, STDs, and the kind of shame that leads to the lying and denial shown in the originating article.
We’re not all going to agree on “no sex until marriage” so I find it counterproductive to behave as if that’s the *only* objective; we sell our kids short when we pretend that it’s so.
Preach, albatross! That’s exactly what these “abstinence only” programs are. It makes a parents life SO much easier when your son or daughter crosses their heart and hopes to die that they will never have sex! WHEW! Now that that’s taken care of, I can go about my merry life and never have to have one of those uncomfortable “talks” with them. Personally, I’d rather be more involved than that in my child’s life. Especially on something that can be as life-altering as sex. Kids, STDs, hell even the mental scarring that can come if they’re not ready or get taken advantage of. Personally, as much as I don’t like the idea of her having sex, I’m going to stay involved in my girlfriend’s daughter’s life if we’re still together and keep up to date on what’s been happening so I can talk with her and be there for her. Thatll be my job as a parent, correct? I’d much rather have her come talk to me than be scared to because sex is an off-limits topic, which is how I was raised. I learned about sex from my friends and the internet because I had no adults I could talk to without feeling like I was dirty for even thinking about it. I think all kids deserve better than that, an I know for sure I want to provide better.
People here failed to actually research the findings of the study.
Dr. Bernadine Healy, who is the former head of the Red Cross as well as the National Institutes of Health pointed out why the study Josephine quoted produced the results it did. Janet Elise Rosenbaum, who authored the study actually got her desired results by comparing teens who have taken the pledge with religiously conservative teens who did not take the pledge. In other words, she compared two very similar groups. So Dr. Bernadine Healy, who today works as the health editor for U.S. News & World Report actually took the time to study the report and discovered what many religious conservatives have known all along; teens who take a pledge to remain a virgin until marriage are less likely to engage in sex.
