Strategies for Counseling Parents and Adolescents

E M P I R I C A L R E S E A R C H

Adolescent Sexuality and Positive Well-Being: A Group-Norms Approach

Zhana Vrangalova • Ritch C. Savin-Williams

Received: 26 October 2010 / Accepted: 17 January 2011 / Published online: 28 January 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The link between adolescent sexual activity

and psychological well-being is a controversial issue in

developmental psychology. This cross-sectional study

investigated the association between three aspects of

teenage sexuality (genital sexual experience, age of sexual

onset, and number of sex partners) and positive well-being

(hedonic, eudaimonic, and overall) in a sample of 475 high

school seniors (48% female; 89% White) from a single

school district in a rural upstate New York community.

Based on a group-norms perspective, we expected higher

well-being in adolescents whose sexual behaviors followed

group-normative patterns. As expected, sexually experi-

enced and on-time (at age 16) students reported higher

well-being than sexually inexperienced or late-onset (17 or

older) students. Contrary to expectations, a high number of

sex partners and an early sexual onset (15 or younger) were

not related to lower well-being. Early-onset girls reported

higher levels of well-being than normative-onset peers.

Findings are discussed in relationship to theoretical per-

spectives and past empirical findings of teenage sexuality

as a developmental asset versus risk.

Keywords Adolescent sexual behavior � Eudaimonic well-being � Hedonic well-being � Multiple sexual partners � High number of partners � Age of sexual onset

Introduction

Although adult sexual activity has multiple psychological

and physical health benefits (Levin 2007; Whipple et al.

2003), the association between sexuality and well-being

during adolescence has been a source of disagreement.

Adolescent sexual activity in contemporary Western soci-

eties has been primarily discussed as a developmental risk

factor, linked to a host of negative health and adjustment

outcomes; therefore, it should be delayed as long as pos-

sible (Diamond and Savin-Williams 2009). At the same

time, sexual curiosity and exploration are recognized as

normative and healthy processes during adolescence

(DeLamater and Friedrich 2002; World Health Organiza-

tion 2002), and thus could potentially be considered

developmental assets that facilitate rather than thwart

teenagers’ psychosocial adjustment. Compared to adjust-

ment problems, positive correlates of teenage sexual

activity have received little research attention. Further-

more, a number of theorists acknowledge the importance of

normative trajectories and peer group norms in the link

between various life experiences and well-being (Brooks-

Gunn and Petersen 1983; Neugarten 1979; Newcomb 1996;

Settersen 2003; Stratton and Spitzer 1967). Although a

number of empirical studies document the associations

between peer group norms and adolescent sexual activity

(for reviews, see Kotchik et al. 2001; Zimmer-Gembeck

and Helfand 2008), researchers seldom consider peer group

norms when investigating the relationship between sexu-

ality and well-being.

In the present study, we explore the links between well-

being and three aspects of teenage sexuality: having a

genital sexual experience, age of sexual onset, and number

of sex partners. We contribute to the existing literature in

two ways. First, we investigate the positive, rather than the

Z. Vrangalova (&) � R. C. Savin-Williams Department of Human Development, Martha Van Rensselaer

Hall, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca,

NY 14853-4401, USA

e-mail: sv99@cornell.edu

R. C. Savin-Williams

e-mail: savin-williams@cornell.edu

123

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944

DOI 10.1007/s10964-011-9629-7

negative, dimensions of well-being. Our research orienta-

tion is firmly grounded in the field of positive psychology

which argues that psychological thriving is not simply the

absence of psychological distress, and therefore requires

separate study (Keyes 2007; Seligman and Csikszentmih-

alyi 2000). Specifically, we focus on hedonic and eudai-

monic well-being, two overlapping yet distinct aspects of

positive well-being (Ryan and Deci 2001). Second, rather

than a priori assume the directionality of the link between

sexual activity and well-being, we consider the normative

patterns of sexual activity among our sample of adoles-

cents. Our population of two complete cohorts of adoles-

cents from a single, homogeneous, small town community

lends itself particularly well to this type of analysis. In this

way, we explore a more nuanced and balanced perspective

of adolescent sexuality.

Teenage Sexuality and Well-Being in Developmental

Perspective

Scholars have argued that adolescents are not yet cogni-

tively and emotionally mature to negotiate the challenges

of sex (Reyna and Farley 2006; Steinberg 2007), and

decades of research have linked teenage sexual and

romantic engagement to a variety of psychosocial adjust-

ment problems, including depression, suicidality, poor

school performance, low aspirations, delinquency, sub-

stance use, victimization, and disrupted family relation-

ships (for reviews, see Connolly and McIsaac 2009;

Kotchik et al. 2001; Zimmer-Gembeck and Helfand 2008).

However, sexuality is an integral aspect of human ontog-

eny, with a developmental continuity of sexual feelings and

behaviors that begin in early childhood and persist through

late adulthood (de Graaf and Rademakers 2006). Further-

more, the increase in sexual desires and interests during

adolescence is inherent in the physical maturation pro-

cesses that occur during this period (Udry 1988). As such,

engaging in sexual activity could be considered normative

and healthy, allowing teenagers to experience pleasure and

satisfaction, or helping them build positive personal char-

acteristics, such as autonomy, confidence, and connected-

ness. Recognizing these positive potentials of adolescent

sexual activity, several scholars suggest a shift in research

and policy toward adolescent sexual health that goes

beyond abstinence as the only positive outcome (Diamond

and Savin-Williams 2009; Romeo and Kelley 2009;

Russell 2005; Smith et al. 2005; Tolman et al. 2003).

These two perspectives of adolescent sexuality are not

mutually exclusive. Engaging in sexual activity could

present a developmental risk for some individuals, but an

asset for others; it could sometimes be a risk and at other

times an asset for the same individual; or it could simul-

taneously present both a risk and an asset for the same

individual. Increased interest over the past decade in

understanding and promoting psychological thriving, as

opposed to the traditional focus on alleviating distress, has

demonstrated that thriving and distress are not simply two

ends of the same bipolar continuum (Seligman and

Csikszentmihalyi 2000). Although negatively correlated,

they form two distinct unipolar continuums: thriving

requires not only the absence of distress, but also the

presence of positive well-being (Pavot and Diener 1993;

Keyes 2007). Given that negative well-being correlates

have frequently been researched in relation to teenage

sexuality, in this study we focus on its positive well-being

correlates.

Positive Well-Being

Positive well-being refers to optimal psychological func-

tioning and experience. Many of its components have been

identified over the past few decades, which can be orga-

nized into two relatively distinct, yet overlapping philo-

sophical and empirical traditions (Ryan and Deci 2001).

Hedonism considers well-being as consisting of positive

cognitive evaluations and affective states, such as pleasure,

happiness, and life satisfaction. Eudaimonism posits that

well-being lies in the actualization of human potentials and

successful coping with objective life challenges, such as

developing and maintaining positive relations with others,

self-acceptance, control over one’s environment, auton-

omy, purpose in life, and growth. Hedonic and eudaimonic

well-being have been established as related, yet unique

aspects of thriving that distinguish between a happy and a

meaningful life (Linley et al. 2009; Keyes et al. 2002).

Both have been related consistently to longevity, health,

and success (Chida and Steptoe 2008; Lyubomirsky et al.

2005; Pressman and Cohen 2005; Ryff and Singer 1998;

Wood and Joseph 2010). Although initially considered to

evaluate the lives of adults, they have since been recog-

nized as vital to adolescent adjustment (Bornstein et al.

2003; Suldo et al. 2009). Grounding our study in this

positive psychology research tradition, we investigate how

hedonic and eudaimonic well-being relate to three aspects

of teen sexuality: having genital sexual experience, age of

sexual onset, and number of sex partners.

Teenage Sexuality and Positive Well-Being

Past research on the links between teenage sexuality and

positive well-being has been relatively scarce and unsys-

tematic, and has yielded inconsistent results. Self-esteem, a

eudaimonic well-being component, is the most frequently

studied positive well-being aspect. In a recent review of

teen sexuality and self-esteem, the links with having sex

were positive in 13%, negative in 23%, and non-significant

932 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944

123

in 63% of 52 studies; of the nine studies that focused on the

link with early onset, one was positive, one was negative,

and the rest were non-significant (Goodson et al. 2006). Of

the two studies in this review that examined multiple

partners, one was negative and one was non-significant;

studies have also found positive links (Richter et al. 1993).

Inconsistent results have also been reported in relationship

to other eudaimonic well-being aspects. A set of integrative

reviews recently evaluated the links between teenage sex-

uality and connectedness, assertiveness, social and romantic

success, future outlook, autonomy, control, and self-effi-

cacy (Gloppen et al. 2010; House et al. 2010; Markham

et al. 2010). The association between these constructs and

having sex, early onset, or multiple partners ranged from

positive to negative, and were often non-significant. In

some studies, findings were dependent on participants’

gender, race, or age, but no consistent patterns emerged

across all variables.

Hedonic well-being is the least studied positive aspect in

relation to teen sexuality. Daily diary studies show that, at

the state level, sexual experiences are preceded by, coupled

with, and followed by higher positive and lower negative

affect (Shrier et al. 2007, 2010). At the trait level, however,

the links are less clear. Sexually experienced US, Cana-

dian, and male Native American adolescents reported no

differences in life satisfaction, happiness, or positive mood

compared to virgin peers (Feldman et al. 1997; Harvey and

Spigner 1995; Hellersted et al. 2006; Horne and Zimmer-

Gembeck 2005); sexually experienced Native American

females had higher life satisfaction and positive mood than

virgin peers (Hellersted et al. 2006). Only one adolescent

study examined hedonic well-being in regard to number of

partners: having two or more partners (compared to none or

one) was associated with lower life satisfaction among

White (but not Black) youth (Valois et al. 2002). Thus,

little is known about the links between various aspects of

teenage sexuality and trait levels of hedonic well-being.

Peer Group Norms and Well-Being

One explanation for the inconsistent results is the failure to

consider that the association between teenage sexuality and

well-being is not uniform across all adolescents or across all

occasions within the same adolescent. With the exception of

basic demographic characteristics, only a few of the myriad

potential individual, interpersonal, and social factors have

been examined (Russell 2005). One such factor is the nor-

mative patterns of sexual activity among adolescents’ peer

groups. Several theoretical models emphasize that engaging

in a specific behavior can have negative well-being conse-

quences for the individual if the behavior violates social

norms dominant in one’s reference group (Brooks-Gunn

and Petersen 1983; Leary and Baumeister 2000; Neugarten

1979; Newcomb 1996; Settersen 2003; Stratton and Spitzer

1967). Non-normative behaviors likely lead to social

rejection, threatening humans’ fundamental need to belong

to a social group (Baumeister and Leary 1995) and trig-

gering a neurochemical process toward emotional and

physical distress (Slavich et al. 2010). Sexual behaviors are

highly socially regulated and closely monitored by one’s

peer group (Baumeister and Twenge 2002; DeLamater

1981). While certain behaviors may be considered deviant

regardless of when they occur (e.g., a high number of sex

partners), for behaviors expected to occur at some point in

one’s life (e.g., initiating sex), timing is crucial. Engaging in

an age-normed behavior at the same time as the majority of

one’s peers (on-time), in contrast with earlier or later than

the group-normative timing, is unlikely to be met with

social sanctions (Neugarten 1979; Newcomb 1996; Setter-

sen 2003). Although sexual behaviors are regulated across

all social groups, the specific patterns vary greatly across

different groups (Abma et al. 2010; Meier 2007).

Although group norms have been frequently studied as

predictors of adolescent’s sexual attitudes and behaviors

(reviewed in Kotchik et al. 2001; Zimmer-Gembeck and

Helfand 2008), they rarely have been examined as potential

factors that influence the relationship between adolescent

sexuality and well-being. These few studies have resulted

in mixed findings. In a representative sample of US ado-

lescents, Meier (2007) computed the normative age for

losing one’s virginity for each adolescent based on others

of the same age, gender, race, and family income. One year

later, girls who had sex early relative to their group had

decreased levels of self-esteem; this was not the case for

on-time or late-onset girls or boys in any onset group. In a

relatively homogeneous sample of adolescents from a

geographically contained rural community followed annu-

ally from 7th through 12th grade, sexual onset was cate-

gorized as early, on-time, or late based on the median age

at first intercourse in the sample (Bingham and Crockett

1996; Crockett et al. 1996). Longitudinally, early onset was

preceded by higher self-esteem and peer relations than

on-time onset (as measured in 7th grade), and late starters

scored lowest on both measures (Crockett et al. 1996). By

their senior year, however, the three onset groups did not

differ in self-esteem, peer relations, or positive affect

(Bingham and Crockett 1996). Given these mixed results,

more research is necessary to understand the role that

group normative patterns play in the link between adoles-

cent sexual activity and well-being.

Current Study

In the present study, we test the relationship between

teenage sexuality and positive well-being by applying a

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944 933

123

group-norms-based approach to a unique and contemporary

sample of adolescents. Similar to Bingham, Crocket, and

colleagues (Bingham and Crockett 1996; Crockett et al.

1996), our sample consists of a geographically contained,

homogeneous group of adolescents. This allowed us to

construct sample-specific norms for sexual activity based

on the majority (median) experiences. By contrast to the

vast majority of studies on adolescent sexuality, we focus

on the positive, rather than the negative, dimension of

well-being. Furthermore, by assessing both hedonic and

eudaimonic well-being, we include a more complete and

theoretically grounded exploration of positive well-being

than other studies that have focused on isolated compo-

nents of positive well-being. Finally, we diverge from past

studies that focus exclusively on penile–vaginal inter-

course. Instead, we define ‘‘sex’’ as any genital experience,

including genital touching, oral, and anal behaviors. This

approach complements the understanding that adolescents

have as to what counts as sex (Byers et al. 2009) and

validates the experiential importance of other sexual

behaviors that can lead to both psychological and physical

pleasure as well as harm.

Based on this group-norms perspective, we predict that

the directionality of the link between the three aspects of

sexual activity and positive well-being will depend on what

is typical of the majority in the sample. Thus, if the majority

has engaged in genital sexual activity, sexually experienced

students will report higher hedonic, eudaimonic, and overall

well-being than their inexperienced peers; the reverse will

be true if the majority of our sample is sexually inexperi-

enced. Given that most US adolescents have at least one

genital sexual experience before the age of 18 (Mosher et al.

2005), we expected that, to the extent that our sample is

similar to the general teenage population, the former (higher

well-being) is more likely than the latter. Our second pre-

diction is that those who became sexually active at a nor-

mative age for our sample (‘‘on-time’’) will have higher

well-being than those who initiated sex before (‘‘early’’) or

after (‘‘late’’) the normative age. Our final prediction is that,

among sexually experienced students, those with a number

of sex partners higher than the median will report lower

well-being than those with a number of partners at or below

the median. However, given the differing perspectives of

teenage sexuality and the conflicting evidence in support of

each, we entertained competing hypotheses. To the extent

that teenage sexual activity universally poses a develop-

mental risk, sexually experienced students, early starters,

and those with high numbers of sex partners will report

lower well-being than sexually inexperienced students, late

starters, and those with few partners regardless of group

norms. The opposite findings will be found if teenage sex-

uality is a universally positive force in teenagers’ lives.

In all analyses, we include interactions with biological

sex because sexuality may be linked differentially to well-

being for boys and girls (Zimmer-Gembeck and Helfand

2008). Boys often report earlier engagement in sexual

activity, as well as higher numbers of partners (Mosher

et al. 2005). Furthermore, early sexual engagement and sex

with multiple partners is still considered more acceptable

for men than for women of all ages (Crawford and Popp

2003). In addition to sex, we control for several demo-

graphic and personal characteristics that have been related

consistently to sexual activity in adolescents, includ-

ing parents’ education, family structure, religiosity, and

educational aspirations. Specifically, adolescents from

lower-SES or single-parent families, less religious adoles-

cents, and those with lower professional aspirations engage

in sexual activity earlier and with more partners (for

reviews, see Diamond and Savin-Williams 2009; Kotchik

et al. 2001; Zimmer-Gembeck and Helfand 2008) and they

also are more likely to report lower psychological health

compared to adolescents from higher-SES or two-parent

homes, with higher religiosity or aspirations (Wong et al.

2006; Haase et al. 2008; Nickerson et al. 2007; Rushton

et al. 2002).

Method

Participants

Participants were 484 high school seniors in a single high

school representing one school district in a city of 20,000

residents in rural upstate New York. Nine surveys were

returned incomplete or with substantial amount of missing

data, and were thus excluded from the sample. The

remaining 475 students (52% males) spanned the ages 16

to 20 years (M = 17.3, SD = 0.54), with 97% of all stu-

dents either 17 or 18. The majority of participants was

white (89%); 3% was Hispanic; 2% was Native American;

and the rest was African American, Asian, or multiracial.

Regarding religious beliefs, 58% was Catholic, 16% was

Protestant, 19% was atheists, and the rest reported ‘‘other

religions.’’ The largest proportion of students (41%) indi-

cated that their father or mother had a high-school educa-

tion; 34% had a college degree or more; 19% had some

college education; and 6% had less than a high school

degree. Forty-four (13 female and 31 male) students did not

provide sexual behavior data; they did not differ from those

who responded to these questions on any demographic or

well-being variables (all ps [ .05). Two additional students had missing well-being data, resulting in an analytical

sample of 429.

934 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944

123

Procedures

The present sample represented the population of two

consecutive cohorts of seniors at the same high school: the

class of 2008 (213 students surveyed in April, 2008) and

the class of 2009 (271 students surveyed in October, 2008).

Data collection procedures were identical for each cohort.

The paper-and-pencil questionnaire was given to all seniors

present in mandatory on-campus English classes (total

classes = 30) over the course of one school day. In each

class, the study was described by a senior researcher with

two research assistants present to answer any questions.

Questions about sexuality and well-being were embedded

in a range of questions, which asked about friendships,

school-sponsored activities, gender roles, Internet use, and

other behaviors. Participants were given approximately

40 min to complete the questionnaire, at which point they

were compensated with $5.

The research design and questionnaire was approved by

the school district and the Institutional Review Board of the

authors. Prior to the survey administration, a letter was sent by

the school district to all parents of seniors describing the

study’s purpose: ‘‘We are interested in what you do in your

spare time, sports and activities that interest you, what you

believe in, and the people you like to hang out with.’’ The

study was not presented as focusing on sexuality. No parent

withdrew a child from the study; neither did any student

withdraw from the study prior to or during administration.

Although school records were not fully available, we estimate

that 11% of the senior class was not exposed to the ques-

tionnaire because they were absent, attended a vocational

program outside the school, had already fulfilled their English

requirement, or were taking advanced placement English at a

local university the day the survey was administered.

Measures

The 19-page questionnaire assessed a number of variables;

only the measures used in this study are described below.

Descriptive information for these variables is presented in

Table 1.

Dependent Variables: Positive Well-Being

Hedonic Well-Being The Satisfaction with Life Scale

(SWLS; Diener et al. 1985) assessed life satisfaction, the

cognitive component of hedonic well-being. SWLS is a

5-item measure frequently used with adolescents. Exten-

sive research with individuals of all ages and across dif-

ferent countries demonstrates strong internal consistency

and test–retest stability of the SWSL, as well as good

construct and discriminant validity (for reviews, see Gil-

man and Huebner 2003; Pavot and Diener 1993; Proctor

et al. 2009). Participants rated agreement to each item on a

6-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6

(strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater life

satisfaction. Consistent with other adolescent samples,

internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s alpha = .83).

Eudaimonic Well-Being Eudaimonic well-being was

measured with the 18-item Scales of Psychological Well-

Being (SPWB; Ryff and Keyes 1995), which assesses how

well one copes with life challenges in six domains: self-

acceptance, autonomy, purpose in life, relations with others,

environmental mastery, and personal growth. It also pro-

vides a total score of positive psychological functioning.

Previous research has used the subscales individually

(Linley et al. 2009), the total SPWB score (Taylor et al.

2003), or both (Wood and Joseph 2010). Because we held no

differential hypotheses for the subscales and because the

number of items per subscale was small, we used the total

SPWB score. The SPWB has established internal structure,

internal consistency, test–retest stability, and construct

validity among adults (Keyes et al. 2002; Linley et al. 2009;

Ryff and Keyes 1995; for a review see McDowell 2010).

Recent studies with adolescents and young adults report

similar psychometric properties (Casullo and Solano 2001;

Cheng and Chan 2005; Fernandes et al. 2010; Kitamura et al.

2004; Paradise and Kernis 2002; Ruini et al. 2009; Schwartz

et al. 2009; Taylor et al. 2003; van Dierendonck 2005;

Vleioras and Bosma 2005). Participants rated agreement to

each item on a 6-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6

(strongly agree). After recoding six negatively scored items,

responses were averaged such that higher scores indicate

higher eudaimonic. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79.

Overall Positive Well-Being Although, as discussed ear-

lier, eudaimonic and hedonic well-being tap into distinct

aspects of positive well-being, in the present sample

average SWLS and SPWB scores were strongly correlated,

r = .60, p \ .0001. Thus, to obtain the most reliable results, we also used a composite (an average score) of

these two scales, which represented the participants’

overall positive well-being.

Independent Variables: Sexual Experiences

Students indicated the number of boys and girls (separately

for each sex) with whom they have ‘‘had sex’’ (defined as

‘‘any kind of genital contact, including vaginal or anal

intercourse, oral sex, or genital touching’’), and the age at

which they first had sex with a boy and/or a girl. 1

Based on

these responses, the following variables were constructed.

1 Due to concerns within the participating school, no additional

questions regarding sexual activity were asked.

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944 935

123

Ever Had Genital Sexual Experience Students who

reported at least one genital sex partner of either sex were

categorized as sexually experienced, whereas those without

such experiences were categorized as sexually inexperienced.

Sexual Onset The age of sexual onset was based on the

age at which participants first had sex with a partner (for

youth with partners of both sexes, the earlier of the two

ages was used). Three sexually experienced males failed to

provide these data and were excluded from analyses

involving this variable. Among the remaining 313 sexually

experienced students, sexual onset ranged from 12 to

18 years of age; 16 years was the median and modal age

for both sexes. Those who initiated sex at age 16 were

considered the on-time onset group, those initiating sex at

age 15 or earlier were considered the early onset group,

and those who initiated sex at age 17 or later were con-

sidered the late onset group. The number of students in the

late onset group was relatively small (23 males and 25

females). These students did not differ from those who

were currently aged 17 or older and had not yet initiated

sex (97% of the sexually inexperienced, n = 110) in any of

the well-being or control variables (all ps [ .10 for both sexes). To increase statistical power, the two groups were

combined to form the late onset group. Three students who

were 16 years old and sexually inexperienced were

excluded from these analyses.

Number of Sex Partners Among the sexually experi-

enced, the total number of sex partners was obtained by

Table 1 Descriptive information about participants’ sexual activity, well-being, and control variables used in the study

Variable Categorical variables

Men Women Sex difference

n % n % v2

Father’s education (some college or more) a

109 51 107 50 0.06

Parents married a

149 70 141 66 0.80

Had Sex a

165 77 151 70 2.61

Number of partners b

6.53

One 54 33 68 45

Two 32 19 25 17

Three 29 17 20 13

Four 8 5 10 7

Five or more 42 26 28 18

Onset c

0.42

Early (15 or earlier) 72 44.5 63 41.5

On-time (16) 67 41.5 63 41.5

Late (17 or later) 23 14 25 17

Continuous variables d

Variable M SD M SD t test

Religiosity a

2.01 1.02 2.25 1.03 2.44*

Aspirations a

-0.16 0.93 0.19 0.81 4.24***

Eudaimonic well-being a

4.57 0.63 4.67 0.56 1.68 �

Hedonic well-being a

4.06 1.09 4.12 1.17 0.57

Overall well-being a

4.32 0.79 4.40 0.80 -1.04

Religiosity—scored on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very); aspirations—expressed in standardized scores (a mean of educational aspiration and

future job prestige); psychological well-being—mean of the total SPWB (range 1–6); subjective well-being—mean of SWLS range 1–6; overall

well-being—mean of SWLS and SPWB a

Based on all men (n = 214) and women (n = 215) b

Based on all sexually experienced men (n = 165) and women (n = 151) c

Three sexually experienced men failed to provide onset data, therefore these analyses are based on all sexually experienced women (n = 151) and all but three sexually experienced men (n = 162) d

Higher scores denote greater presence of the variable � p \ .10; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01

936 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944

123

summing the number of male and female partners reported

by each participant. For both sexes, this number ranged

between 1 and 100, with a median of 2 (mode = 1). Based

on the median, students who reported one or two partners

were considered the low group; those with three or more

partners were categorized as the high group.2

Control Variables

Father’s Education Father’s education was coded as 1

(some college or more) or 0 (high-school diploma or less).

Mother’s education was used when father’s information

was missing.

Family Composition Family composition was coded as 1

(parents married) or 0 (parents separated, divorced, never

married to each other, or deceased).

Religiosity After identifying their religious affiliation by

birth, students rated the strength of their religious beliefs

on a scale of 1 (not at all religious) to 5 (very religious).

Aspirations Professional aspirations were measured with

two items. Students reported the highest educational degree

they hoped to attain, from high-school diploma (1) to

professional or doctoral degree (5), and indicated (as an

open-ended response) the job they hoped to have, coded on

a scale of lowest (1) to highest (7) job prestige, based on

Hollingshead’s occupational prestige scale (1958). We

constructed the measure of aspirations by standardizing the

two sets of responses and computing their mean.

Statistical Analyses

We explored the link between well-being and teenage

sexuality in a series of hierarchical linear regressions.

Separate regressions were run for hedonic, eudaimonic, and

overall well-being as outcomes, and for each of the three

aspects of teenage sexuality (having a genital experience,

age of sexual onset, and high number of sex partners) as

predictors. Control variables were entered in Step 1. The

sexuality predictor (coded as a dummy variable) was

entered in Step 2, and interaction terms between the pre-

dictor and participant’s sex were entered in Step 3. Inter-

actions that were at least marginally significant were

probed further using simple slopes. Where interactions

were not significant, we only discuss main effects (Step 2

results).

Results

Summary of Descriptive Findings

Table 1 presents descriptive sample information. The

majority of students (74%) reported having at least one

genital sexual experience. Sexual onset ranged from 12 to

18 years of age, with 16 years being the median and modal

age for both sexes. With 16 as the normative age of sexual

onset, 130 students were classified as on-time (42% of the

sexually experienced), 135 were classified as early (43% of

the sexually experienced), and 158 were classified as late

(including 15% of the sexually experienced and all students

who were currently aged 17 or older and had not yet initiated

sex). Based on the median number of sex partners, students

who reported one or two partners (57%) were considered the

low group (n = 179); those with three or more partners

(43%) were categorized as the high group (n = 137). The

percentage of male and female adolescents falling into each

category was comparable for all three sexual experience

variables (all ps [ .05). Consistent with prior studies of youth, well-being scores were fairly normally distributed

with a skew toward the high end of the scale for SWLS

(M = 4.10, SD = 1.13), SPWB (M = 4.62, SD = 0.60),

and their composite (M = 4.36, SD = 0.79).

Genital Sexual Experience and Positive Well-Being

Table 2 displays the regression analyses results for the first

predictor—having a genital sexual experience. After con-

trolling for family background, religiosity, and aspirations,

being sexually experienced was a significant predictor of

higher hedonic, eudaimonic, and overall well-being. Inter-

actions with participant’s gender were not significant,

indicating that this was true for both sexes. Given that

being sexually experienced was the norm in the sample,

these results support the predictions made by a group-

norms perspective.

Sexual Onset and Positive Well-Being

To test the links between the second predictor—sexual

onset—and positive well-being, we compared on-time (at

age 16) students with both early-onset (age 15 or earlier)

and late-onset (age 17 or later) peers. Results regarding late

onset confirm the group-norms predictions in respect to

hedonic, eudaimonic, and overall well-being (Table 3). In

all three cases, the negative and statistically significant

main effects of late-onset and non-significant interaction

terms indicated that late-onset students of both sexes

reported lower well-being than on-time peers.

Links between early onset and well-being differed for

young men and women, as indicated by the significant

2 Three students (two men and one woman) reported more than 30

partners (between 50 and 100). Because these constitute outliers, we

initially ran all analyses both including and excluding these individ-

uals. All results were identical. In the interest of preserving statistical

power, we chose to keep these participants in the analytic sample.

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944 937

123

interactions for both outcomes. To understand the nature of

these interactions, we conducted simple slopes analyses

contrasting early and on-time groups (excluding the late

group). Contrary to group norms predictions, early-onset

young women reported higher eudaimonic (B = 0.20,

SE = 0.10, p = .04), marginally higher hedonic (B =

0.35, SE = 0.20, p = .07), and higher overall well-being

(B = 0.28, SE = 0.14, p = .04) than on-time peers.

Among males, the slopes for the early-onset group were in

the predicted negative direction, but did not reach signifi-

cance for eudaimonic (B = -0.10, SE = 0.09, p [ .10), hedonic (B = -0.26, SE = 0.19, p [ .10), or overall well- being (B = -0.18, SE = 0.13, p [ .10), suggesting that young men who initiated sex earlier than on-time peers did

not report markedly lower well-being. Figure 1 presents

the adjusted means for eudaimonic well-being for the three

sexual onset groups, illustrating these sex differences.

Number of Sex Partners and Positive Well-Being

The final research question concerns the number of genital

sex partners among the sexually experienced. From a

group-norms perspective, having more sex partners than

the majority of sexually experienced participants should be

related to lower well-being. Because the median number of

partners in our sample was two, we considered those with

three or more partners as having a high number of partners.

As Table 4 indicates, the group-norms predictions were not

confirmed, nor were the alternative predictions based on

the perspectives of teenage sexuality as universally

Table 2 Unstandardized regression coefficients (B), standard errors (SE), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the association between having a genital sexual experience and well-being

Predictor Hedonic well-being Eudaimonic well-being Overall well-being

R2D B SE 95% CI R2D B SE 95% CI R2D B SE 95% CI

Step 1 .08*** .08*** .09***

Controls

Step 2 .02** .02** .02**

Had sex 0.38** 0.12 (0.14, 0.62) 0.20** 0.06 (0.07, 0.32) 0.29** 0.08 (0.12, 0.45)

Step 3 .00 .00 .00

Had sex 9 gender -0.21 0.24 (-0.68, 0.27) -0.17 0.13 (-0.27, 0.23) -0.11 0.17 (-0.44, 0.22)

Total R2 .10*** .10*** .11***

Control variables include gender, father’s education, family structure, religiosity, and aspirations. Includes all participants (n = 429). Had sex is dummy coded 1 (sexually experienced) and 0 (sexually inexperienced) �

p \ .08; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Table 3 Unstandardized regression coefficients (B), standard errors (SE), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the association between age of sexual onset and well-being

Predictor Hedonic well-being Eudaimonic well-being Overall well-being

R 2D B SE 95% CI R2D B SE 95% CI R2D B SE 95% CI

Step 1 .08*** .09*** .09***

Controls

Step 2 .02* .03** .03**

Early 0.03 0.13 (-0.24, 0.29) 0.04 0.07 (-0.10, 0.18) 0.04 0.09 (-0.15, 0.22)

Late -0.30* 0.13 (-0.56, -0.04) -0.20** 0.07 (-0.33, -0.06) -0.25** 0.09 (-0.43, -0.07)

Step 3 .01 �

.01 �

.01*

Early 9 gender -0.60* 0.27 (-1.13, -0.08) -0.31* 0.14 (-0.58, -0.04) -0.46* 0.19 (-0.82, -0.09)

Late 9 gender -0.21 0.26 (-0.72, 0.30) -0.23 0.14 (-0.50, 0.04) -0.22 0.18 (-0.57, 0.13)

Total R 2

.11*** .13*** .13***

Control variables include gender, father’s education, family structure, religiosity, and aspirations. Includes all sexually experienced participants

who provided sexual onset information and participants aged 17 or older who were not yet sexually experienced (n = 423). Sexual onset is coded using two dummy variables: early onset, coded 1 (age 15 or earlier) and 0 (age 16 or later), and late onset, coded 1 (age 17 or later) and 0 (age 16

or earlier) �

p \ .08; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

938 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944

123

negative or universally positive. Having three or more

partners was not significantly related to hedonic, eudai-

monic, or overall well-being in either sex.

Given the paucity of research on the links between

number of partners and positive well-being among adoles-

cents and the variety of operationalizations of ‘‘multiple

partners’’ considered particularly risky or problematic in

past research, we further explored the link between number

of partners and well-being by running similar regressions

using two other key values as cutoff points: two or more,

and four or more partners. Two partners or more is the most

frequently used definition of multiple partners, particularly

in research with adolescents (Valois et al. 2002; Whitaker

et al. 2000). Four partners or more distinguished the most

sexually active quartile of students (28% of the sexually

active) and represented the point at which the percentage of

those reporting any number of partners dropped to less than

10% (Table 1). It is also the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention definition of ‘‘multiple’’ partners (http://www.

cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/). Having two or

more partners (compared to one) was not a significant

predictor of hedonic (B = 0.03, SE = 0.06, p [ .10), eudaimonic (B = 0.05, SE = 0.13, p [ .10), or overall well-being (B = 0.04, SE = 0.09, p [ .10) for either sex (no interaction effects). Similarly, students with four or

more partners did not differ from those with one to three

partners in hedonic (B = -0.24, SE = 0.14, p = .08),

eudaimonic (B = -0.03, SE = 0.07, p [ .10), or overall well-being (B = -0.13, SE = 0.09, p [ .10). There were no interaction effects.

3

Discussion

Knowledge about the sexual feelings and behaviors of

adolescents, their links to psychological well-being, and

the factors that matter for this association is crucial for

understanding adolescent development. This study, using a

group-norms perspective, examined the links between three

aspects of teenage sexual activity (having a genital sexual

experience, age of sexual onset, and number of sex part-

ners) and three aspects of positive well-being (hedonic,

eudaimonic, and overall). Consistent with predictions of

the group-norms approach, adolescents who were less

sexually active than their peer group reported lower levels

of well-being. Specifically, youth with no sexual experi-

ence and those initiating sex later than the normative age of

16 scored lower on hedonic, eudaimonic, and overall well-

being. Predictions that adolescents who were more sexually

active that the group norm would report lower well-being

than normative peers were not confirmed. Specifically,

early-onset boys reported levels of well-being similar to

those of on-time boys; early-onset girls reported higher

well-being than on-time girls. In addition, reporting a high

number of sex partners was not linked to well-being for

either sex.

Our findings of lower well-being among less sexually

active adolescents were consistent with group-norms based

models and theories suggesting that sexual experiences

violating normative group patterns are linked to lower

well-being (Brooks-Gunn and Petersen 1983; Leary and

Baumeister 2000; Neugarten 1979; Settersen 2003; Stratton

and Spitzer 1967). In a group of adolescents in which the

majority initiated sexual activity by the age of 16, delaying

sexual experience beyond this age might be an indicator of

lack of social skills or social rejection. However, our

findings were also consistent with the perspective of sexual

exploration as a normative adolescent developmental task,

necessary for establishing a healthy sexual life in adulthood

(Diamond and Savin-Williams 2009). Given that most

adolescents begin puberty before the age of 12 and reach

sexual maturity by the age of 16 (Walvoord 2010),

engaging in sexual exploration during this time may indi-

cate a healthy curiosity triggered by the activation of sex

hormones. Contrary to expectations based on a group-

norms approach, earlier and more active sexual engage-

ment was not linked to lower well-being, and even may be

linked to higher well-being. These results further support

the perspective of adolescent sexuality as normative, sug-

gesting that even in the absence of majority support,

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

Early On-time Late

E u

d a im

o n

ic W

e ll -B

e in

g

Men

Women

Fig. 1 Estimated adjusted means for eudaimonic well-being scores of young women and men initiating genital sexual activity early (15

or younger), on-time (16), and late (17 or later). Eudaimonic well-

being—mean of the total SPWB score (range 1–6). Means adjusted

for father’s education, family structure, religiosity, and aspirations.

Includes all sexually experienced participants who provided sexual

onset information and participants aged 17 or older who were not yet

sexually experienced (n = 423)

3 We also ran regressions with number of partners as a continuous

predictor of the three well-being outcomes. Prior to analyses, all

Footnote 3 continued

responses of more than 20 partners (6 cases) were recoded to 20 to

reduce the impact of outliers; the variable was then log transformed to

reduce non-normality. Results were not significant for any outcomes

in either sex. Tables available on request.

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944 939

123

exploring one’s sexuality can be a marker of psychological

thriving. This is consistent with past findings that sexually

active youth have an independent and mature personality,

positive self-image, and better peer relationships (Costa

et al. 1995; Crockett et al. 1996; Rafaelli and Crockett

2003; Savin-Williams 1998; Waller and Dubois 2004).

Our findings may appear discrepant from previous

investigations that linked teenage sex, particularly early

onset and multiple sex partners, with mental health prob-

lems (Kotchik et al. 2001; Zimmer-Gembeck and Helfand

2008). However, although mental health problems and

positive well-being are negatively correlated (Pavot and

Diener 1993), the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact,

studies that include both types of measures find that sex-

ually active adolescents report higher depression, anxiety,

or suicidality, but also higher life satisfaction, self-esteem,

or social connectedness than sexually inexperienced peers

(Hellersted et al. 2006; Longmore et al. 2004; Valle et al.

2005). One explanation of these findings is that sexual

activity can be both a risk factor and an asset for the same

individual. Alternatively, sexual activity could present a

risk factor for some youth, but an asset for other adoles-

cents; in this case, the sexually active group of adolescents

would consist of two subgroups—those who are doing

particularly well and those who are doing particularly

poorly compared to the sexually inexperienced group.

Future research should use measures of both positive and

negative well-being and take a person-centered rather than

variable-centered analytic approach in order to clarify this

issue.

Another explanation for discrepancies between our

study and past research is our broad definition of sex that

included non-intercourse genital contact. Most studies that

examine well-being and teenage sexuality focus exclu-

sively on sexual intercourse. Although both non-inter-

course and intercourse activities require close physical

intimacy and may be meaningful to adolescents, they might

have different well-being correlates. For example, Dalton

and Galambos (2008) found that over the course of

6 months, oral sex, but not intercourse, was related to

positive affect in college freshmen. Intercourse carries

greater sexual health risks than genital touching or oral sex,

and experiencing sexual health problems is linked to

increases in distress (Buffardi et al. 2008; Robertson et al.

2004). Intercourse is also more imbued with meaning than

other sexual acts and perhaps more closely socially moni-

tored, leading to more substantial consequences for con-

forming or violating group norms. In addition to these

differences between intercourse and non-intercourse geni-

tal sexual acts, additional error in our measure may have

been introduced if some students, despite being provided

with a definition of ‘‘sex,’’ nonetheless used their own

definition of sex. Finally, due to limitations posed by the

school administration on the number of sex-related ques-

tion, there was no way to distinguish between coercive and

consensual sexual experiences. Future research should ask

about intercourse and non-intercourse behaviors separately,

and eliminate non-consensual experiences from analyses.

Our sample of two complete cohorts of adolescents from

a circumscribed homogeneous small town community lent

itself particularly well to examining age-graded and other

norms for sexual behavior. Even though we did not directly

assess students’ perceptions of normative sexual patterns,

most high school students in a closed group would likely

have a general idea of the other students’ level of sexual

activity. Sexual issues and experiences are frequently dis-

cussed and shared among young people of both sexes

(Epstein and Ward 2008; Lefkowitz et al. 2004) and peers

often serve as one of the main sources of sex-related

information (Powell 2008; Wood et al. 2002). Moreover,

although young people typically overestimate the liberality

of their peers’ sexual standards and behaviors, their

Table 4 Unstandardized regression coefficients (B), standard errors (SE), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the association between high number of partners and well-being

Predictor Hedonic well-being Eudaimonic well-being Overall well-being

R2 D B SE 95% CI R2 D B SE 95% CI R2 D B SE 95% CI

Step 1 .06** .08*** .07**

Controls

Step 2 .00 .01 .00

High 0.01 0.13 (-0.24, 0.26) 0.10 0.06 (-0.02, 0.30) 0.06 0.09 (-0.11, 0.23)

Step 3 .00 .00 .00

High 9 gender -0.01 0.25 (-0.51, 0.48) 0.09 0.13 (-0.16, 0.33) 0.04 0.17 (-0.30, 0.38)

Total R2 .06** .09*** .07**

Control variables include gender, father’s education, family structure, religiosity, and aspirations. Includes all sexually experienced men and

women (n = 316). High number of sex partners is dummy coded 1 (three or more) and 0 (one or two partners) �

p \ .08; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

940 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944

123

perceptions of whether a specific behavior or attitude is

endorsed by the majority of group members are usually

accurate (Hines et al. 2002; Lambert et al. 2003). Future

research using a group-norms approach should include

measures of both participants’ perceptions of normative

patterns and of actual normative patterns.

One of the main limitations of our study is its cross-

sectional design, which prevents determination of the

directionality of established links. Although it is possible

that engaging in sexual exploration leads to greater life

satisfaction and psychological growth, it is also possible

that adolescents who are more satisfied with their lives and

more autonomous or socially connected are also more

likely to engage in sexual exploration (Crockett et al.

1996). Furthermore, given the age of our participants and

our sample’s normative age for sexual debut, late onset

would have been more salient to participants and less prone

to retrospective recall biases at the time of the data col-

lection than early onset, rendering our study better able to

capture the links between well-being and late, rather than

early onset. Longitudinal research that follows youth from

a younger age is necessary to address these issues. In

addition, our sample of small town, predominantly Cath-

olic, low income adolescents represents only one of many

adolescent subgroups that exist in the US today. Before

generalizing these findings to other subgroups, they need to

be replicated in different samples with different sexual

norms and patterns.

Future research also should include statistical controls

for personality, as the shared variance between some traits

(primarily extraversion and neuroticism) and well-being is

well-known (Lucas and Fujita 2000). Although some

contend that life satisfaction is the key indicator of hedonic

well-being (Veenhoven 1988), future studies should also

assess affect, the other constituent part of hedonic well-

being (Diener et al. 1999). Due to time limitations, we were

unable to include these additional measures. The variance

in well-being explained by the sexual behavior variables

was relatively small, indicating that sexuality is one of

many factors influencing well-being, and future studies

should attempt to include more of these factors to get a

more complete predictive model of positive well-being.

Finally, because of the novelty of our approach to ado-

lescent sexuality and the paucity of past findings on many

positive well-being components, we chose to focus on the

two higher-order factors of positive well-being, hedonic

and eudaimonic well-being. Future research needs to assess

and analyze individual components of positive psycho-

logical functioning separately to establish whether the

positive links between teenage sexuality and well-being

that emerged in our study are limited to certain well-being

components or universal across all components.

Although many questions remain unaddressed, these

data contribute to moving the field toward reconceptual-

izing teenage sexuality from a deviant behavior to poten-

tially a developmental asset and a positive force. Sexual

activity can undoubtedly be a source of physical and

mental suffering for adolescents (when, for example, it is

coerced, leads to unwanted pregnancy, or results in social

ostracism); however, it can also be a source of pleasure,

satisfaction, and growth. More research is needed to

understand the specific individual, interpersonal, and social

conditions under which sexual exploration plays a positive

role in adolescent development. The normative group

patterns explored here is only one of many such potential

factors.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to Dr. Andrew Smiler for his assistance in designing the study and data collection, to the upstate

New York State school district and school staff who were extraor-

dinarily cooperative, to Vickie Liang for help with data preparation,

and for financial support provided by Federal Formula Funds

Research No. 2007-08-077 to the second author. This research was

supported in part by the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment

Station federal formula funds, Project No. NYC-321416, received

from the National Institutes for Food and Agriculture (NIFA,) U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or

recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department

of Agriculture.

References

Abma, J. C., Martinez, G. M., & Copen, C. E. (2010). Teenagers in

the United States: Sexual activity, contraceptive use, and

childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth 2006–2008.

National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, Series, 23(30). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ series/sr_23/sr23_030.pdf.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire

for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motiva-

tion. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of

female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6, 166–203. Bingham, C. R., & Crockett, L. J. (1996). Longitudinal adjustment

patterns of boys and girls experiencing early, middle, and late

sexual intercourse. Developmental Psychology, 32, 647–658. Bornstein, M. H., Davidson, L., Keyes, C. L. M., & Moore, K. A.

(Eds.). (2003). Well-being: Positive development across the lifespan. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Petersen, A. C. (Eds.). (1983). Girls at puberty: Biological and psychosocial perspectives. New York, NY: Plenum.

Buffardi, A. L., Thomas, K. K., Holmes, K. K., & Manhart, L. E.

(2008). Moving upstream: Ecosocial and psychosocial correlates

of sexually transmitted infections among young adults in the

United States. American Journal of Public Health, 98(6), 1128–1136.

Byers, E. S., Henderson, J., & Hobson, K. M. (2009). University

students’ definitions of sexual abstinence and having sex.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 665–674.

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944 941

123

Casullo, M. M., & Solano, A. C. (2001). El significado del bienestar

psicológico en estudiantes adolescentes. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica, 12(2), 57–70.

Cheng, S.-T., & Chan, A. C. M. (2005). Measuring psychological

well-being in the Chinese. Personality and Individual Differ- ences, 38, 1307–1316.

Chida, Y., & Steptoe, A. (2008). Positive psychological well-being

and mortality: A quantitative review of prospective observa-

tional studies. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70, 741–756. Connolly, J. A., & McIsaac, C. (2009). Romantic relationships in

adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, Vol. 2: Contextual influences on adoles- cent development (3rd ed., pp. 104–151). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Costa, F. M., Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Fortenberry, J. D. (1995).

Early initiation of sexual intercourse: The influence of psycho-

social unconventionality. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 93–121.

Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review

and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26.

Crockett, L. J., Bingham, C. R., Chopak, J. S., & Vicary, J. R. (1996).

Timing of first sexual intercourse: The role of social control,

social learning, and problem behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 89–111.

Dalton, A. L., & Galambos, N. L. (2008). Affect and sexual behavior

in the transition to university. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 675–687.

De Graaf, H., & Rademakers, J. (2006). Sexual development of

prepubertal children. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexu- ality, 18, 1–21.

DeLamater, J. (1981). The social control of sexuality. Annual Review of Sociology, 7, 263–290.

DeLamater, J., & Friedrich, W. N. (2002). Human sexual develop-

ment. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 10–14. Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2009). Adolescent

sexuality. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, Vol. 1: Individual bases of adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 479–523). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The

satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–76.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999).

Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.

Epstein, M., & Ward, L. M. (2008). ‘Always use protection’:

Communication boys receive about sex from parents, peers, and

the media. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 113–126. Feldman, L., Holowaty, P., Harvey, B., Rannie, K., Shortt, L., &

Jamal, A. (1997). A comparison of the demographic, lifestyles,

and sexual behaviour characteristics of virgin and non-virgin

adolescents. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6, 197–209.

Fernandes, H. M., Vasconcelos-Raposo, J., & Teixeira, C. M. (2010).

Preliminary analysis of the psychometric properties of Ryff’s

Scales of Psychological Well-Being in Portuguese adolescents.

Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 1032–1043. Gilman, R., & Huebner, S. (2003). A review of life satisfaction

research with children and adolescents. Social Psychology Quarterly, 18, 192–205.

Gloppen, K. M., David-Ferdon, C., & Bates, J. (2010). Confidence as

a predictor of sexual and reproductive health outcomes for youth.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, S42–S58. Goodson, P., Buhi, E. R., & Dunsmore, S. C. (2006). Self-esteem and

adolescent sexual behaviors, attitudes, and intentions: A sys-

tematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 310–319.

Haase, C. M., Heckhausen, J., & Köller, O. (2008). Goal engagement

during the school-work transition: Beneficial for all, particularly

for girls. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 671–698. Harvey, S. M., & Spigner, C. (1995). Factors associated with sexual

behavior among adolescents: A multivariate analysis. Adoles- cence, 30, 253–264.

Hellersted, W. L., Peterson-Hickey, M., Rhodes, K. L., & Garwick,

A. (2006). Environmental, social, and personal correlates of

having ever had sexual intercourse among American Indian

youths. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 2228–2234. Hines, D., Saris, R. N., & Throckmorton-Belzer, L. (2002). Pluralistic

ignorance and health risk behaviors: Do college students

misperceive social approval for risky behaviors on campus and

in media? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2621–2640. Hollingshead, A. B. (1958). Two-factor index of social position. New

Haven, CT: Yale University.

Horne, S., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2005). Female sexual

subjectivity and well-being: Comparing late adolescents with

different sexual experiences. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 2, 25–40.

House, L. D., Bates, J., Markham, C. M., & Lesesne, C. (2010).

Competence as a predictor of sexual and reproductive health

outcomes for youth: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, S7–S22.

Keyes, C. L. D. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as

flourishing: A complementary strategy for improving national

mental health. American Psychologist, 62, 95–108. Keyes, C. L. D., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing

well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007–1022.

Kitamura, T., Kishida, Y., Gatayama, R., Matsuoka, T., Miura, S., &

Yamabe, K. (2004). Ryff’s psychological well-being inventory:

Factorial structure and life history correlates among Japanese

university students. Psychological Reports, 94, 83–103. Kotchik, B. A., Shaffer, A., Forehand, R., & Miller, K. S. (2001).

Adolescent sexual risk behavior: A multi-system perspective.

Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 493–519. Lambert, T. A., Kahn, A. S., & Apple, K. J. (2003). Pluralistic

ignorance and hooking up. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 129–133. Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of

self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lefkowitz, E. S., Boone, T. L., & Shearer, C. L. (2004). Commu-

nication with best friends about sex-related topics during

emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 339–351.

Levin, R. J. (2007). Sexual activity, health and well-being: The

beneficial roles of coitus and masturbation. Sexual and Rela- tionship Therapy, 22, 135–148.

Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Osborn, G., & Hurling, R.

(2009). Measuring happiness: The higher order factor structure

of subjective and psychological well-being measures. Personal- ity and Individual Differences, 47, 878–884.

Longmore, M. A., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Rudolph, J. L.

(2004). Self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and adolescents’

sexual onset. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 279–295. Lucas, R. E., & Fujita, F. (2000). Factors influencing the relation

between extraversion and pleasant affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1039–1056.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of

frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?

Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855. Markham, C. M., Lormand, D., Gloppen, K. M., Peskin, M. F., Flores,

B., Low, B., et al. (2010). Connectedness as a predictor of sexual

942 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944

123

and reproductive health outcomes for youth. Journal of Adoles- cent Health, 46, S23–S41.

McDowell, I. (2010). Measures of perceived well-being. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69, 69–79.

Meier, A. M. (2007). Adolescent first sex and subsequent mental

health. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1811–1847. Mosher, W. D., Chandra, A., & Jones, J. (2005). Sexual behavior and

selected health measures: Men and women 15–44 years of age, United States, 2002. Advance data: Vital and Health Statistics, Number 362. CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf.

Neugarten, B. (1979). Time, age, and life-cycle. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 887–894.

Newcomb, M. D. (1996). Pseudomaturity among adolescents: Con-

struct validation, sex differences, and associations in adulthood.

Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 477–504. Nickerson, C., Schwarz, N., & Diener, E. (2007). Financial aspira-

tions, financial success, and overall life satisfaction: Who? And

How? Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 467–515. Paradise, A. W., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). Self-esteem and psycho-

logical well-being: Implications of fragile self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 345–361.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life

scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172. Powell, E. (2008). Young people’s use of friends and family for sex

and relationships information and advice. Sex Education, 8, 289–302.

Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence

health? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 925–971. Proctor, C., Linley, P. A., & Maltby, J. (2009). Youth life satisfaction

measures: A review. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 128–144.

Rafaelli, M., & Crockett, L. J. (2003). Sexual risk taking in

adolescence: The role of self-regulation and attraction to risk.

Developmental Psychology, 39, 1036–1046. Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent

decision making: Implications for theory, practice and public

policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 1–44. Richter, D. L., Valois, R. F., McKeown, R. E., & Vincent, M. L.

(1993). Correlates of condom use and number of sexual partners

among high school adolescents. Journal of School Health, 63, 91–96.

Robertson, E., Grace, S., Wallington, T., & Stewart, D. E. (2004).

Antenatal risk factors for postpartum depression: A synthesis of

recent literature. General Hospital Psychiatry, 26, 289–295. Romeo, K. E., & Kelley, M. A. (2009). Incorporating human sexuality

content into a positive youth development framework: Implica-

tions for community prevention. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1001–1009.

Ruini, C., Ottolini, F., Tomba, E., Belaise, C., Albieri, E., Visani, D.,

et al. (2009). School intervention for promoting psychological

well-being in adolescence. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 40, 522–532.

Rushton, J. L., Forcier, M., & Schecktman, R. M. (2002). Epidemi-

ology of depressive symptoms in the National Longitudinal

Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(2), 199–205.

Russell, S. T. (2005). Conceptualizing positive adolescent sexuality

development. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 2, 4–12. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human

potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic

well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological

well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 69, 719–727.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human

health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1998). ‘‘…And then I became gay’’. Young men’s stories. New York, NY: Routledge.

Schwartz, C. E., Keyl, P. M., Marcum, J. P., & Bode, R. (2009).

Helping others shows differential benefits on health and well-

being for male and female teens. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 431–448.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive

psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. Settersen, R. A. (2003). Propositions and controversies in life-course

scholarship. In R. A. Settersen Jr (Ed.), Invitation to the life course: Toward new understandings of later life (pp. 15–45). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Shrier, L. A., Koren, S., Aneja, P., & de Moor, C. (2010). Affect

regulation, social context, and sexual intercourse in adolescents.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 695–705. Shrier, L. A., Shih, M. C., Hacker, L., & de Moor, C. (2007). A

momentary sampling study of the affective experience following

coital events in adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, e351–e358.

Slavich, G. M., O’Donovan, A., Epel, E. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2010).

Black sheep get the blues: A psychobiological model of social

rejection and depression. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 39–45.

Smith, L. H., Guthrie, B. J., & Oakley, D. J. (2005). Studying

adolescent male sexuality: Where are we? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 361–377.

Steinberg, L. (2007). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent

risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 76–106. Stratton, J. R., & Spitzer, S. P. (1967). Sexual permissiveness and

self-evaluation: A question of substance and a question of

method. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 29, 434–441. Suldo, S. M., Huebner, E. S., Friedrich, A. A., & Gilman, R. (2009).

Life satisfaction. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 27–35). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S., Sherman, D. K., Sage, R. M., &

McDowell, N. K. (2003). Are self-enhancing cognitions associ-

ated with healthy or unhealthy biological profiles? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 605–615.

Tolman, D. L., Striepe, M. I., & Harmon, T. (2003). Gender matters:

Constructing a model of adolescent sexual health. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 4–12.

Udry, J. R. (1988). Biological predispositions and social control in

adolescent sexual behavior. American Sociological Review, 53, 709–722.

Valle, A.-K., Torgersen, L., Røysamb, E., Klepp, K.-I., & Thelle, D.

S. (2005). Social class, gender and psychosocial predictors for

early sexual debut among 16 year olds in Oslo. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 185–194.

Valois, R. F., Zullig, K. J., Huebner, E. S., Kammermann, S. K., &

Drane, J. W. (2002). Association between life satisfaction and

sexual risk-taking behaviors among adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 427–440.

van Dierendonck, D. (2005). The construct validity of Ryff’s Scales

of Psychological Well-Being and its extension with spiritual

well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 629–643. Veenhoven, R. (1988). The utility of happiness. Social Indicators

Research, 20, 333–354. Vleioras, G., & Bosma, H. A. (2005). Are identity styles important for

psychological well-being? Journal of Adolescence, 28, 397–409. Walvoord, E. C. (2010). The timing of puberty: Is it changing? Does

it matter? Journal of Adolescent Health, 47, 433–439. Waller, E. M., & DuBois, D. L. (2004). Investigation of stressful

experiences, self-evaluations, and self-standards as predictors of

sexual activity during early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 431–459.

J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944 943

123

Whipple, B., Knowles, J., & Davis, J. (2003). The health benefits of

sexual expression. White Paper. New York: Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc, and the Society for the Scientific

Study of Sexuality (Updated 2007 by Gianotten, W. L., & Golub,

D.).

Whitaker, D. J., Miller, K. S., & Clark, L. F. (2000). Reconceptu-

alizing adolescent sexual behavior: Beyond did they or didn’t

they? Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 111. Wong, Y. J., Rew, L., & Slaikeu, K. D. (2006). A systematic review

of recent research on adolescent religiosity/spirituality and

mental health. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 27, 161–183. Wood, A. M., & Joseph, S. (2010). The absence of positive

psychological (eudemonic) well-being as a risk factor for

depression: A ten year cohort study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 122, 213–217.

Wood, E., Senn, C. Y., Desmarais, S., Park, L., & Verberg, N. (2002).

Sources of information about dating and their perceived

influence on adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 401–417.

World Health Organization. (2002). Defining sexual health: Report of a technical consultation on sexual health 28–31 January 2002, Geneva. Sexual Health Document Series.

Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Helfand, M. (2008). Ten years of

longitudinal research on U.S. adolescent sexual behavior:

Developmental correlates of sexual intercourse, and the impor-

tance of age, gender and ethnic background. Developmental Review, 28, 153–224.

Author Biographies

Zhana Vrangalova received her BA in 2004 from the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Ss. Cyril and

Methodius in Skopje, Macedonia. She is currently a doctoral

candidate at the Human Development Department at Cornell

University. Her research has been supported by Grants-in-Aid awards

from the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality and the

Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues. Her interests include

the sexual development of adolescents and young adults, the nature of

sexual orientation, and the links between sexuality and psychological

health across the lifespan.

Ritch C. Savin-Williams is a Professor and Chair of Human Development and Director of the Sex & Gender Laboratory at Cornell

University. His most recent book is ‘‘The New Gay Teenager’’ (Harvard University Press, 2005). He is currently writing a book

about unconventional heterosexuality among young men. He is

currently interested in the experiences of growing up with same-sex

attractions, mostly heterosexual individuals, the resiliency of sexual-

minority youth, and the sexual development of heterosexual youth.

944 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:931–944

123

Copyright of Journal of Youth & Adolescence is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and

its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.