The impact of sexual education and socialization on sexual satisfaction, attitudes, and self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relation between school-based sexual education and parental messages about sex received in adolescence, and sexual attitudes and experiences in young adulthood. Participants—99 Canadian undergraduate students aged 17–25 years—reported that their sexual education largely focused on traditional topics (e.g., negative health outcomes, physiology, etc.), while social and emotional topics were less likely to be formally covered. Parental sexual socialization that was more comfortable and accepting of teen sexuality was related to more permissive sexual attitudes in young adults, but was unrelated to self-efficacy or sexual satisfaction. When all variables were examined using hierarchical regression, sexual education and parental socialization did not predict sexual satisfaction. However, mediation analysis revealed an indirect effect of sexual self-efficacy on the relation between sexual education and sexual satisfaction. More comprehensive and higher-quality sexual education increased sexual self-efficacy, which was then related to higher sexual satisfaction beyond the role of gender and relationship status. This provides insight into the mechanism by which sexual education in Canada may impact sexual satisfaction. The influence of parental socialization and school-based sexual education are apparent and complementary. Both sources of information and values (parents/school) offered benefits for young adults’ positive sexual attitudes, but school-based education appears to be key. How sexual education is delivered (e.g., if teachers are knowledgeable and comfortable discussing topics) may be even more important than the content itself. These findings suggest that prioritizing teacher training to improve their comfort with delivery of sexual education programming would improve adolescents and young adults’ sexual lives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".