Sex is a wonderful thing that has
potentially life-altering consequences—particularly for teens. Teen pregnancy can derail educational
opportunities. Sexually transmitted
diseases from unprotected sex can have lifelong consequences.
Because sex is so consequential,
sex education is a routine part of teen education, though regions vary in the
content of that education. Some areas of
the United States focus primarily on “abstinence only” education that asks
teens to refrain from having sex at all.
Other regions have a broader base for their sex education that suggests
that teens wait to have sex until they are older, but also provides information
about contraception and ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections.
The best possible outcome for sex education
programs is for teens to have an appreciation for the desirability of sex and
for them to be able to engage in healthy sexual behavior. The longer that teens wait to initiate having
sex and the more that they practice safe sex (like using condoms) the less
likely that they will suffer from the potential negative consequences of having
sex.
The most effective programs take a
broad-based approach to sex education.
They provide facts about sexual function and healthy sexual
practices. They provide information
about risks. They also give teens
practice having difficult conversations about saying no and using condoms. In addition, they give homework to teens to
speak to pharmacists about condoms in order to reduce their anxiety about
buying them at the store.
A fascinating paper by Valerie
Reyna and Britain Mills in the August, 2014 issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General explored whether a
sex education curriculum could be improved by using an understanding of
differences between the way teens and adults learn about risks.
Valerie Reyna and her colleagues
have developed a comprehensive model of learning they call fuzzy trace theory. One of
the components of this model is that people store information in a number of
different ways. They learn about the
surface of what they were told as well as the gist, which is a summary of the broad meaning of what they were
told.
An interesting component of this
theory is that adults tend to focus on the gist of what they learn, but that
teens often focus on the surface details.
In the case of sex education, this
can be a problem, because many of the facts that teens learn about the
consequences of unprotected sex are taught as probabilities. For example, teens may be taught that the
chances of getting pregnant after having unprotected sex are about 1 in
12. That means that heterosexuals who
repeatedly have unprotected sex are highly likely to create a pregnancy.
Adults readily store this gist
information, but teens tend to get focused on the details and remember the
probability. Consequently, they judge
unprotected sex as less risky than they should.
In order to overcome this bias in
teens, Reyna and Mills took an established sex education curriculum (called Reducing
the Risk) and modified it to include more focus on gist level information
and less focus on details that teens might remember in ways that would reduce
their assessment of the severity of the risks of unsafe sex.
In a randomized experiment, over
700 teens from three states were assigned either to the original Reducing the
Risk curriculum, the modified curriculum that included more gist information,
or a control condition that focused on communication skills. The classes in
each condition involved a total of 16 hours of instructions with some homework.
The teens were given assessments
of their sexual behavior and their attitudes and beliefs about sex before the
classes and several times afterward with a final assessment a year after taking
the class to which they were assigned.
A year after taking the class,
teens who took either curriculum felt they were better equipped to say no if
they did not want to have sex, were better prepared to use protection during
sex, and had a better understanding of the risks unprotected sex than those in
the control condition.
In addition, a year after the
class, fewer people who took one of the two classes were deciding to become
sexually active than those in the control condition. Those students who took the course that
focused on gist level information were least likely of all the groups to become
sexually active. For those students who
were sexually active, those who took the course that focused on gist had fewer
partners than those who took the standard curriculum or those in the control
condition.
In addition, the students who took
the class that focused on gist also had a better understanding of social norms
about safe sex than those who took the standard curriculum or those in the
control condition.
That said, once students became
sexually active, they engaged in about the same number of acts of unprotected
sex and expressed about the same degree of intention to engage in safe sex
regardless of whether they took one of the sex education classes or not.
Overall, these results suggest
that a broad-based sex education curriculum does help reduce the amount of
risky sexual behavior that teens engage in.
In particular, it can increase knowledge, decrease the likelihood of
becoming sexually active, and potentially reduce the number of sexual partners
that teens engage with. Using an
understanding of the way teens learn can improve the effectiveness of sex education,
and it can help teens to develop more accurate knowledge about the risks
associated with unprotected sex.
This is just another way that
research in cognitive science can be used to improve the way people learn.