Why we Study

Or, to be more specific, why we study what we study is a question that keeps popping up in my mind when I run into studies that discover the obvious and conclude nothing. Take, for example, a study conducted by Stacy Armour, a doctoral student in sociology, and co-authored by Dana Haynie, an associate professor of sociology, both at Ohio State University.

Armour and Haynie conducted national survey of over 7,000 adolescents, based mostly on self-report, and published their results in the February 2007 issue of the Journal of Youth and Adolescence. The focus of their study was on the age of a youth's first sexual experience, compared to the average age for first sex within a youth's peer group. Their conclusion was that young people who had sex earlier than average for their peers showed a 20% increase in 'delinquent' acts one year later.

I had two reactions to this study; no kidding, and so what?

To begin with 'no kidding', did we really need a study conducted over 7 years (there were 3 survey points; initial, 1 year later, and 6 years later) to tell us that early sexual activity is one of the signs of a young person in trouble? Today's culture makes early adolescent sexuality an illicit, taboo activity -- and those who engage in such activities are already breaking the 'rules', and therefore are more likely to be breaking other 'rules'. Even the authors of the study admit this. "We're not finding that sex itself leads to delinquency, but instead, that beginning sexual relationships long before your friends is cause for concern," said Armour. I'm not challenging the truth of that statement, I'm simply pointing out that any youth worker worth his or her salt could have told you this in 7 seconds, not 7 years.

This brings me to the 'so what'. I read studies like this and wonder, what's the point? Even the authors themselves seem to grasp for profound insight. "The findings point out the importance of acting within normal bounds for your age group," Haynie said. "Those who start having sex too young may not be prepared to deal with the potential emotional, social and behavioral consequences of their actions." And this is where I have a real problem with studies like this.

Haynie's conclusion is only valid is early sex leads to delinquency, which her co-author Armour admits is not a finding of the study. It is, in my opinion, far more likely that early sex is an indicator, as are other so-called 'delinquent' behaviors, of risk influences affecting an adolescent's development. Does anyone want to bet me that if we conducted a further study we'd discover that those adolescents involved in early sexual activity demonstrate a much higher instance of sexual abuse than those who become sexually active later in life. Seriously, wanna' bet? Anyone?

I don't really mind that studies like this state the obvious. Its always good to be able to back up what you know. The real danger is when we start making up conclusions based on treating symptoms as causes. A study like this will probably be used to justify programs focused at adolescent sexual activity, diverting our attention away from the real, more complex issues that lead to adolescent sexual activity, and a host of other risk behaviors.