Family and Peer Context of Adolescent Sexual Activity in Ecuador

1
Family and Peer Context of Adolescent Sexual
Activity in Ecuador

• Paul L. Schvaneveldt, Ph.D., CFLE
• Abigail A. Davenport
• Cory A. Eddington
• Douglas L. Rose
• Child and Family Studies
• Weber State University
• Paper Presented at the National Council on Family
  Relations Annual Meetings, November 2003,
  Vancouver, BC
  
• This project was supported by a Small Projects
  Research Grant funded by Partners of the
  Americas. Any opinions or claims are those of
  the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
  views of the sponsor.

2
Purpose of the Study

• To test a model of family, peer, and
• substance use influences on
• adolescent sexual activity among a
• sample of adolescents from
• Guayaquil, Ecuador.

3
Adolescent Sexual Activity and Unintended
Pregnancy in Latin America

• Teen pregnancy rate over 50 in certain regions
  in Latin America, particularly a concern among
  lower SES populations.
  
• Early fertility predictive of truncated education
  and career development (Heaton Forste, 1998)
  
• Early pregnancy associated with higher rates of
  poverty (Buviinic, 1997)
  
• Predictive of early marriage and subsequently
  unstable marriages (Buvinic, 1997)
  
• Children born to teen parents are negatively
  impacted (punitive and/or neglectful parenting
  practices low birth weight)
  
• High occurrence of unsafe abortions, AIDS, and
  other STDs (Buvinic, 1997)
  

4
Figure 1Full-Hypothesized Model of Adolescent
Sexual Activity in Ecuador
Positive Family Process
Substance Use
Sexual Activity
Negative Family Process
Peer Sexual Activity
5
Positive Family Process

• Positive family process associated with higher
  rates of abstinence, postponement of first sexual
  intercourse, fewer sexual partners, and increased
  use of contraceptives (Jaccard, Dittus,
  Litardo, 1996 Resnick et al., 1997).
• Predictive of positive peer group, less substance
  use, and ultimately less sexual activity
  (Scaramella, Conger, Simons, Whitbeck, 1998)

6
Negative Family Process

• Associated with earlier onset of sexual
  intercourse, less consistent use of
  contraception, and subsequently higher adolescent
  pregnancy rates (Billy, Brewster, Grady, 1994
  Feldman Brown, 1993).
• Family process impacts peer group values and
  affiliations which leads to deviant peer
  influence and ultimately early sexual activity
  (Benda DiBlasio, 1991 Dishion, 1990
  Ramirez-Valles, Zimmerman, Newcomb, 1998
  Whitbeck, Conger, Kao, 1993).

7
Peer Influence on Adolescent Sexual Behavior

• Peer group strongly influences adolescent
• sexual behavior (Miller et al., 1997)

Substance Use Influence on Adolescent Sexual
Behavior
Substance use associated with higher levels of
sexual activity (Rosenbaum Kandel, 1990 Lyons,
1996).
8
SES and Adolescent Sexual Behaviors

• In the United States, research suggests lower
  socioeconomic status associated with higher
  levels of sexual involvement among adolescents
  (Baumer South 2001).
• Hypothesized similar patterns would exist in
  developing Latin American countries such as
  Ecuador.
  
• In Ecuador, major contrast between the wealthy
  and disadvantaged.
  

9
Methodology

• A self-administered questionnaire was
  administered to 778 adolescents ages 12-18.
  
• Administered in Guayaquil, Ecuador in both public
  and private schools.
  
• Developed in conjunction with Research Faculty in
  the Department of Sociology at Universidad
  Catolica in Guayaquil, Ecuador.

10
Instrument

• Translated using the forward backward method.
• Pilot tested prior to final administration.
• Public and Private schools allowed investigators
  trained in research protocol to administer the
  instrument in the school.
  
• Measures Family process Peer sexual activity
  Substance use and, Sexual activity.

11
Family Process

• 15 items intending to reflect both positive and
  negative family interactions.
  
• Likert Scale Strongly Agree to Strongly
  Disagree
  
• We can say what we really feel.
• We do nice things for each other.
• We try to please each other.
• Members of the family are cruel to one
  another.
  
• Some family members make fun of others.
• Some family members are critical of others.

12
Peer Sexual Activity

• Measured by asking the adolescent how many
  friends were sexually active.
  
• Responses included
• None
• A few
• About half
• Most
• All

13
Substance Use

• Measured by asking the adolescent the frequency
  of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana use.
  
• Responses included
• Never
• Used to but not now
• A few times a year
• A few times a month
• Once a week
• Daily

14
Sexual Activity

• Guttman-type scale used to measure adolescent
  sexual activity.
  
• Adolescents were asked (Yes/No)
• Have you ever kissed another person for a long
  time?
  
• Have you ever touched another persons private
  parts?
  
• Have you ever allowed another person to touch
  your private parts?
  
• Have you ever engaged in voluntary sexual
  intercourse?

15
Hypothesized Theoretical Model
Adolescent at-risk Behavior
Family Process
Mediating Variables
Closeness/warmth Trust Support Communication In
teraction
Peer Influence Substance use
Sexual behavior
16
Descriptive Statistics

• Average age of the sample participants was 15.8
  (sd2.06).
  
• 309 of participants were male and 469 were
  female.
  
• 74.3 were enrolled in public schools.
• 73 were Catholic, 10.5 Evangelical Baptist,
  9.4 none specified, 3.3 Jehovah Witness, 2
  Mormon, 1 Seventh Day Adventist, 1 Jewish.

17
Descriptive Statistics (Contd)

• Very few reported using substances with 11
  reporting use of Tobacco at least monthly, 13
  reported use of alcohol at least monthly, and 3
  reported monthly use of marijuana.
• 37 of the full sample reported that they were
  sexually experienced at the time of the survey.
  
• Mean age at first sexual intercourse
• Females 15.69 (sd1.94)
• Males 15.06 (sd1.88)

18
Table 1 Mean comparison of public and private s
chools on at-risk behaviors
p
19
Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Latent Constructs

• Positive Family Process
• Six Items
• X2 27.3 (df9) p RMSEA.056
  
• Negative Family Process
• Five Items
• X2 30.8 (df8) p RMSEA.061
  
• Substance Use
• Standardized Factor Loadings with constraint of
  1
  
• Alcohol .826
• Tobacco .759
• Marijuana .549

20
Figure 2Results of Full Hypothesized Model of
Adolescent Sexual Activity in Ecuador
Positive Family Process
Substance Use
-.172
.324
.203
Sexual Activity
-127
.412
.119
Negative Family Process
Peer Sexual Activity
X2 140.6 (df82) p RMSEA.031
21
Figure 3Hypothesized Full Model of Adolescent
Sexual Activity in Ecuador Private and Public
School Comparisons (Private in parentheses)
Positive Family Process
Substance Use
-.15 (-.11)
.31 (.32)
.19 (.15)
Sexual Activity
-.09 (-.02)
.40 (.42)
.07 (.224)
Negative Family Process
Peer Sexual Activity
22
Figure 4Hypothesized Full Model of Adolescent
Sexual Activity in Ecuador Male and Female
Comparisons (Male in parentheses)
Positive Family Process
Substance Use
-.05 (-.327)
.24 (.33)
.30 (.18)
Sexual Activity
-.07 (-.19)
.35 (.42)
Negative Family Process
.18 (.12)
Peer Sexual Activity
23
Conclusion

• Positive family process predicted fewer peers who
  were sexually active and less substance use.
  
• Negative family process predicted more peers who
  were sexually active and greater substance use.
  
• Peer sexual activity and substance use predicted
  sexual activity
  
• Gender differences were identified
• Positive family process significant for males
  only
  
• Negative family process significant for females
  only
  
• SES differences were identified
• Positive family process significant for lower SES
  youth only
  
• Negative family process significant for upper SES
  youth only