Student Age,Inclusion of LGB Topics,and Specifying Appropriateness on Support for Sex Education in the United States: Results From a National Survey Experiment

Abstract

This study examines public opinion on school-based sex education using a survey experiment (N = 1,003) that varies grade level (elementary vs. high school), the inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) topics, and whether the curriculum is labeled “age appropriate.” Support was lower for elementary school curricula and for those that included LGB topics. The “age-appropriate” label had no effect. Critically, respondents presented with high school curricula that included LGB topics were no more supportive than those presented with elementary school curricula that included LGB topics, indicating that disapproval of LGB inclusion did not depend on age. However, in open-ended responses, many justified opposing the proposal by invoking concerns about student age. This study examines sex education as a critical cultural domain, showing how public judgments about what should be taught and when are shaped by moral discomfort, levels of institutional trust, and perceptions of legitimacy.

Keywords

sex education survey experiment sexuality public opinion

Introduction

Sex education in the United States is a site of political contestation with far-reaching implications for adolescent health, sexual well-being, and social inclusion (Mueller, Gavin, and Kulkarni 2008; Robin et al. 2004; Kirby 2002; Santelli et al. 2017). Around 90% of U.S. adults support some form of school-based sex education (Eisenberg et al. 2022; NORC at the University of Chicago 2025; Szucs et al. 2022), but approval varies depending on which curricular features are included (Pew Research Center 2022). In one report, only about two-thirds of Americans supported the inclusion of LGBTQ+ topics, and just about one-third supported introducing sex education in elementary school, reflecting deep cultural divides over which topics are considered appropriate to teach and when (Saavedra et al. 2024). Yet opinion polling cannot determine whether objections to LGBTQ+ topics or early instruction are driven by concerns about developmental readiness or by broader ideological discomfort, nor can it capture the cultural logics people use to justify their views.

Using a national vignette-based survey experiment, I examine how support for sex education varies across three experimental manipulations: the age of instruction (elementary school vs. high school), the inclusion of LGB (Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual) topics (vs. unspecified), and whether the curriculum is explicitly labeled “age appropriate.” The study design allows causal analysis of whether these features shape approval and whether their effects are interdependent. For example, does support for LGB content depend on whether the curriculum is intended for high school students? To better understand how respondents explain their views, I also collect and analyze a subset of open-ended responses. This mixed-methods design offers insight into both the intuitive judgments people make (Type 1 thinking) and the more deliberate explanations they offer afterward (Type 2 reasoning; Vaisey 2009).

Survey experiments have gained popularity in sociology because they allow researchers to isolate the causal effects of specific features on public attitudes (Bruch and Feinberg 2017; Sniderman and Grob 1996). While polls offer a valuable description of self-reported, aggregate attitudes, they cannot distinguish the effect of specific framing choices or policy decisions. Further, by prompting respondents to evaluate realistic scenarios rather than abstract questions, vignette designs can surface underlying intuitions and moral judgments that might not emerge in self-reported data (Atzmüller and Steiner 2010; Jerolmack and Khan 2014; Quadlin 2018).

This work also addresses long-standing gaps in the sociology of sexuality. Historically treated as marginal or taboo (De Craene 2024; Jones 2019; Schnabel 2018), sex education remains under-studied in mainstream sociological accounts. Recent scholarship calls for renewed attention to the cultural and institutional forces that shape how sex and sexuality are discussed, taught, and governed (Littlejohn and Stone 2025). School curricula are sites where these norms are actively constructed and contested, providing a valuable opportunity for sociologists to examine broader struggles over power and legitimacy (Binder 2009).

As an interpretive framework, I draw on cultural sociology and dual-process theory, which suggest that individuals’ moral judgments often arise automatically and are later justified using available explanations post hoc (Lizardo et al. 2016; Vaisey 2009). Intuitive reactions may be triggered by small cues (e.g., the mention of “age appropriate” or LGB topics) when policy language is ambiguous or contested (Mutz 2011). By combining experimental methods with qualitative analysis of open-ended justifications, this study isolates how specific framing features shape public approval and identifies different logics people use to interpret sex education.

Background

Curricular conflicts in sex education have long been driven by ideological differences regarding its purpose (Irvine 2002; Schalet 2011). Supporters commonly frame sex education as a means of providing youth with the information necessary to make informed decisions, particularly in cases where parental guidance is absent or insufficient (Luker 2007). Advocates further emphasize that sex education improves health, reduces violence, and promotes socioemotional development (Goldfarb and Lieberman 2020). In contrast, critics often argue that such instruction is developmentally inappropriate for children, infringes on parental authority, or exposes students to morally objectionable content (Alton et al. 2009; Szucs et al. 2022). These debates reflect broader cultural logics about childhood, sexuality, and institutional authority (Elia and Eliason 2010; Irvine 2014).

Only 41 U.S. states (and D.C.) mandate some form of sex and/or HIV education, and only 26 U.S. states require the curriculum to be medically accurate (Guttmacher Institute 2025). Most sex education in the United States begins in grades 6 to 9, omitting younger students altogether. Among schools that offer sex education, nearly 9 in 10 (89%) include content on pregnancy prevention and a similar proportion (88%) address sexually transmitted infections.

Fewer programs, however, include topics related to consent (66%) or LGB identities (49%) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2022; Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States [SIECUS] 2022). State and district policies differ widely, ranging from abstinence-only programs to curricula that include contraception and sexual diversity. Sexuality scholars have described an overemphasis on unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections as risk-based sex education, which frames sexual behavior primarily as a health threat to be managed (Santelli et al. 2006).

The dominance of risk-based approaches has historical roots in early twentieth-century moral reform movements, which emphasized abstinence, heterosexual marriage, and disease prevention (Irvine 2002). Federal funding restrictions later reinforced this model, discouraging discussion of contraception, gender diversity, or same-sex relationships (Kantor and Lindberg 2020). As a result, comprehensive and inclusive curricula were limited, and LGB+ topics, if included at all, were often discussed in terms of high-risk behavior (Bishop et al. 2021; Pampati, Virginia McCoy, and Szucs 2021).

Today, 86% of high schools emphasize abstinence as the most effective method for preventing STIs and unintended pregnancy, and about one-third still rely on abstinence-only curricula (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2022; Guttmacher Institute 2025). This narrow focus frequently sidelines content on agency, identity development, consent, and communication—topics especially relevant for younger students (Hirsch and Khan 2020). Public opinion data mirror these curricular divides: sex education framed around risk prevention for older students is widely accepted, while proposals including identity-based content or earlier instruction are far more contested (Saavedra et al. 2024). These distinctions highlight enduring tensions over what constitutes “age-appropriateness,” the boundaries of sexuality, and the role of schools in shaping knowledge (Schalet 2011).

Age at Instruction (Elementary vs. High School)

Public support for sex education is consistently higher when curricula are intended for high school students compared to younger students (Bleakley et al. 2006; Kantor and Levitz 2017). Early sex education can be seen as developmentally inappropriate because it challenges the assumption that sex education should only occur once young people might engage in sexual behavior. Teaching younger students reframes such education as developmental or socioemotional, rather than reactive and medical, thereby stretching the boundaries of the risk-based model (Goldfarb and Lieberman 2020; Seiler-Ramadas et al. 2021). Opposition may not stem solely from an evaluation of curriculum content, but from automatic, intuitive discomfort associated with the idea of sex education when applied to youth (Irvine 2023; Whitehead and Perry 2020).

However, proponents of earlier sex education argue that introducing it in childhood can foster bodily awareness, respect for boundaries, and communication skills that help protect against abuse and support healthy development (Aynsley-Green and Hall 2009; Lindberg and Maddow-Zimet 2012; Reading et al. 2009; Robinson 2012; Schneider and Hirsch 2020). Despite these benefits, there remains stronger resistance to introducing sex education at younger ages. These tensions motivate the following hypothesis:

H1: Support for sex education will be lower for elementary school than for high school.

Inclusion Versus Exclusion of LGB Topics

LGB topics in sex education curricula have long been a site of public controversy. Surveys consistently show that sex education framed around heterosexual relationships and biological reproduction garners broader approval, while support declines when LGB topics are included (Kantor and Levitz 2017; Santelli et al. 2006, 2017). LGB inclusion suggests a shift away from managing certain sexual risks to providing exposure to different identities, diversity, and challenging the idea that sex education should be heteronormative, clinical, or strictly biological (Smith 2012). Resistance is often shaped by traditionalist religious beliefs (Kenneavy 2012; Schnabel 2016).

Beyond sex education, references to sexual minorities in public institutions are often framed as political or controversial, in contrast to the presumed neutrality and unmarked status of heterosexuality (Pascoe 2005; Powell 2017). Recent legislative efforts to restrict discussions of LGB+ topics in schools have substantially grown, with over 500 anti-LGB+ bills introduced in the United States in 2023 alone (American Civil Liberties Union 2025; Movement Advancement Project 2023). These political developments provide a cultural backdrop that shapes how members of the public interpret references to LGB content in educational settings. Thus, discomfort with LGB content may emerge intuitively, rooted in deep-seated intuitions about sexuality, morality, and social order (Lizardo 2017; Miles 2015). Accordingly, I hypothesize:

H2: Support for sex education will be lower when it includes LGB topics than when it does not include LGB topics.

Indicating “Age Appropriate”

The term “age appropriate” usually refers to whether educational content aligns with a child’s developmental stage in terms of cognitive ability, emotional maturity, and social understanding. In the context of sex education, this often means presenting information in ways that are accessible, relevant, and not perceived as overly explicit for a given age group. However, the phrase “age appropriate” functions as a contested cue that can shape support for sex education differently, depending on how a respondent interprets it (Fields 2008). For some, the label may signal that the curriculum has been vetted by experts and deemed suitable for children, reassuring those who trust educational institutions (Hunzaker 2016; Whitehead and Perry 2020). For others, however, the phrase may appear vague, politicized, or strategically deployed to mask objectionable content, especially among those who are skeptical of schools’ authority in domains such as sexuality and emotional development (Robinson and Ferfolja 2008).

The label “age-appropriate” may also shift the interpretive lens through which respondents evaluate sex education. When encountering a politically charged topic, people often rely on Type 1 thinking rather than Type 2 reasoning (Lizardo et al. 2016; Vaisey 2009). The phrase “sex education” alone may trigger discomfort rooted in norms around sexual propriety. However, a small cue, like the inclusion of “age-appropriate,” can redirect these intuitive responses by activating alternative scripts, such as those emphasizing care, responsibility, or protection (Robinson and Davies 2017). For a subset of respondents, the label could shift assumptions about what the content entails. Thus, I hypothesize:

H3: Support for sex education will be higher when it is labeled “age-appropriate” than when it is not explicitly labeled “age appropriate.”

Does Support for LGB Topics in Sex Education Depend on Students’ Age?

I further expect that the level of support for sex education will vary depending on both the age group being taught and whether LGB topics are included. Opposition to LGB-inclusive content in elementary school may be rooted in multiple logics of discomfort. Some draw specifically on a trope of childhood innocence to justify excluding LGB content (Jarkovská and Lamb 2018). Hypersexualization of LGB topics leads to the perception that discussing LGB topics is equivalent to discussing sexual activity, which is inappropriate for younger children (Robinson and Ferfolja 2008). Opposition to LGB+ inclusion in schools is often framed through the lens of child protection, drawing on cultural narratives that position non-heterosexual identities as inappropriate for children’s moral development (Stone 2012). Lastly, many high-profile debates surrounding anti-LGB bills are targeted toward school curricula. Respondents could already be sensitized to these debates.

Therefore, I hypothesize:

H4: Support for sex education that includes LGB topics in elementary school will be substantially lower than support for sex education that includes LGB topics in high school.

Does Support for LGB Topics in Sex Education Depend on the Indication of “Age Appropriate”?

Public reactions to LGB content are often shaped by cultural scripts that hypersexualize non-heteronormative identities, framing them as inherently sexual (Herek 2000; Schnabel 2016). Associations with these scripts may operate implicitly, activating intuitive judgments tied to childhood innocence and sexual propriety (Lizardo 2017; Vaisey 2009). Inclusion of a qualifier such as “age appropriate” could redirect these associations, triggering alternative scripts grounded in care, expertise, and educational responsibility (Robinson and Davies 2017).

Even so, “age appropriate” is a contested cue, given that notions of age and maturity are socially constructed and subject to political negotiation (Johfre and Saperstein 2023). Some respondents may interpret it as a neutral assurance of expertise, while others could view it as a vague or politicized label, especially if they distrust schools (Apple 2004). Nonetheless, for a subset of respondents, the label could meaningfully shift assumptions about what the curriculum entails.

In accordance, I hypothesize:

H5: Support for sex education that includes LGB topics will be higher when the curriculum is specified as age-appropriate.

Data and Methods

Dataset and Sampling

I draw on original data, collected as a part of a broader online survey regarding Americans’ political and social attitudes titled, titled the Public Views on Social Issues Survey. This survey experiment used an opt-in panel with an online nonprobability sample. Demographic quotas were implemented for gender, race, age, and education to better represent U.S. population demographics and limit sampling bias (Mullinix et al. 2015). In October 2022, I launched the survey using Qualtrics to a sample of English-speaking adults based in the United States.

The 1,005 responses were randomly divided across the three factors: (1) age of instruction (elementary vs. high school), (2) the inclusion of LGB topics (vs. unspecified), and (3) whether the curriculum was explicitly labeled “age appropriate” (or not). The result was a between-subjects design in which each respondent was randomly assigned to read one of eight (2 × 2 × 2) total possible variations. I conducted balance tests across all experimental conditions using chi-square tests for each pre-treatment covariate. As expected, random assignment was successful; no significant differences were found across demographic or attitudinal characteristics by condition (p > .05 for all variables).

All 1,005 respondents included in the initial dataset passed data quality checks, which screened for issues such as straightlining, speeding, contradictory or implausible answers, and nonsensical responses (Gummer, Robmann, and Silber et al. 2018). I then removed two cases: one due to item nonresponse on political identity (i.e., skipped), and one on the dependent variable, resulting in a final analytic sample of 1,003 respondents. The proportion of dropped cases (<0.02%) is well below levels associated with introducing bias via listwise deletion (>5%), minimizing concerns about missing data (Allison 2001). Five participants identified as transgender or with another sex other than male or female: all five were in favor of the sex education curriculum. Because this subgroup showed no variation on the dependent variable, they were excluded from the binary regression models due to perfect prediction. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics regarding the analytic sample of respondents.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 1,003).

Variable	Full sample (%)
Condition
Elementary school	12.16
Elementary school, age appropriate included	12.96
Elementary school, LGB topics included	13.36
Elementary school, LGB topics included, age-appropriate included	13.06
High school	12.36
High school, age-appropriate included	11.96
High school, LGB topics included	13.46
High school, LGB topics included, age-appropriate included	10.67
Support/oppose proposal
Overall support	69.09
Strongly support	35.89
Somewhat support	33.20
Overall oppose	30.91
Somewhat oppose	13.76
Strongly oppose	17.15
Respondent’s age
Below 35	29.61
35–54	30.21
55+	40.18
Respondent’s sex
Female	52.54
Male	46.97
Other (including transgender)	0.50
Education
No BA/BS	65.60
Has BA/BS	34.40
Race
White	65.70
Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish	12.56
Non-Hispanic Black	10.27
Non-Hispanic Asian	4.79
Other	6.68
Parenthood status
Parent	63.21
No children	36.79
Political identity
Liberal	28.71
Moderate	39.98
Conservative	31.31
Religious strength
Not religious	24.53
Slightly religious	20.34
Moderately religious	36.39
Very religious	18.74

Source: Public Views of Social Issues Survey 2022.

Note. Percentages of analytic sample reported. The sample was obtained through Qualtrics with demographic quotas for gender, race, age, and education level. See text for more details. LGB = Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual.

The study was part of an omnibus survey that included a wide range of demographic items and questions on social and political attitudes, covering areas such as parenthood, higher education, loan forgiveness, treatment of employees, and workplace flexibility. Immediately before the vignette, respondents viewed a transition screen that read: “Switching gears, please read the following scenario and then answer several questions. Please try to respond with your honest, uncensored impressions.”

Experimental Design

The independent variable is the respondents’ survey condition, indicating which hypothetical description about sex education in “Wayside (Elementary/High school)” was included in their question. Conditions varied based on the level of instruction (elementary vs. high school), the inclusion of LGB topics, and whether the curriculum was explicitly labeled age appropriate. I list the following vignette conditions:

Wayside (Elementary/High) School wants to start teaching a( - /an age-appropriate) sex education curriculum ( - /that includes lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) topics).

Would you be in favor of this change or against this change?

(Strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, oppose)

In a few sentences of your own words, please explain why you support or oppose this proposal.

(Open response)

Drawing on work that treats ambiguity as a strength in experimental design (Myers and Ureña Hernandez 2025; Khanna and Meadow 2023; Powell, Schnabel, and Apgar et al. 2017), I allow respondents to project their varied interpretations onto cues such as “elementary school,” “LGB topics,” and “age appropriate” without further specification. In doing so, I aim not to measure reactions to a specific curricular proposal, but to examine what meanings and logics are activated when individuals confront the kinds of generalized rhetoric commonly used in public and policy debates (Doan, Quadlin, and Powell et al. 2019; Mutz 2011).

Outcome Measures

Following the vignette, participants were asked how much they support or oppose the proposal. Response options included “strongly support,” “somewhat support,” “somewhat oppose,” “strongly oppose.” The use of a forced-choice outcome was intended to minimize the tendency for neutral responses. Forced-choice responses also help to reduce ambivalence and can yield more informative data about participants’ preferences (Vannette and Krosnick 2018). A randomly selected subset of respondents was also asked to explain why they supported or opposed this proposal in an open-ended response prompt. Open-ended responses provided individual insights into why Americans supported or opposed the sex education curriculum presented in the survey question.

Analytic Strategy

To analyze results, I collapsed responses into a binary variable indicating support versus opposition to the proposed sex education curriculum and fit logistic regression models. As a robustness check, I fit ordered logistic regression models with main effects and interactions; these models, shown in Supplemental Appendix Table A1, were substantively the same. I additionally focus on the binary outcome because it provides clearer implications for policy, where individuals are often confronted with forced-choice decisions (Sniderman, Brody, and Tetlock 1991; Zaller 1992). Models included binary indicators for each experimental condition: whether the curriculum was for elementary versus high school students, whether LGB topics were included, and whether the curriculum was labeled “age appropriate.” Results from the main effects models allow me to test Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, which concern the main effects of school level, the inclusion of LGB content, and whether the curriculum was described as age-appropriate, respectively.

Analyses began with logistic regression models containing only the experimental indicators. In survey experiments, respondents are randomly assigned to conditions, helping ensure that preexisting characteristics, including prior opinions, are unrelated to the effects of the conditions on the outcome (Sniderman and Grob 1996). Results with sociodemographic covariates were, as expected, virtually identical. While some debate exists over whether covariates are necessary in experimental survey studies, I included them (age, sex, education, race, parenthood, political identity, and religiosity) to (1) increase precision and (2) examine how baseline support (independent of experimental variations) varied across sociodemographic groups (Doan, Quadlin, and Powell et al. 2019; Gerber and Green 2012).

To assess the potential influence of sociodemographic characteristics, I fit two separate models. Model 1 added sociodemographic variables without political identity or religious strength to examine baseline demographic effects. Model 2 included both political identity and religious strength alongside all other covariates. This approach ensured that demographic effects were not obscured by ideological factors, allowing a clearer view of how sociodemographic characteristics relate to support for the curriculum. I also fit interacted models (Models 3 and 4) to assess whether the effect of one condition (e.g., school level) depended on the presence of another (e.g., LGB content), as per Hypotheses 4 and 5.

I also assessed whether demographic and political subgroups responded differently to the experimental conditions by including interactions between each group of interest and the three treatments. Given that these analyses were based on small subgroup sizes that limit statistical power and precision, and did not yield results that were theoretically meaningful, I do not present them.

To compare predicted probabilities across conditions, I used the post-estimation commands margins and mlincom in Stata 17, which, respectively, provide predicted probabilities from regression coefficients and compute differences. I evaluated interaction effects using post-estimation contrasts of predicted probabilities (i.e., contrasts of differences across conditions; Mize et al. 2019). This approach aligns with best practices for assessing conditional effects in factorial vignette experiments, clarifying whether observed differences are statistically meaningful or merely additive (Brambor, Roberts Clark, and Golder 2006). To facilitate interpretation, I also constructed figures to visualize the effects of the experimental manipulations on respondents’ approval of the curriculum.

To identify respondents’ justifications for supporting or opposing the curriculum, I conducted a qualitative content analysis of open-ended comments from a subset of respondents (N = 207). After removing blank responses, 166 comments remained: 106 supportive (64%) and 60 in opposition (36%). I then inductively coded the responses (Saldaña 2021), identified recurrent rationales, and grouped them into broader thematic categories. Themes were refined iteratively to ensure consistency and minimize interpretive bias (Charmaz 2006; Tracey 2010). I developed a codebook and applied it to all comments (Supplemental Appendix Tables B1 and B2) then compared theme distributions across experimental conditions.

I present results in four parts. First, I report the unadjusted percentage of respondents who supported sex education across all conditions. Second, I examine how support varied by each experimental condition: LGB topics, age of instruction, and “age appropriate” as well as whether these features interacted. Third, I analyze how support differed across key sociodemographic groups. Finally, I present the cultural logics from open-ended comments respondents used to explain their views, noting when a particular logic appeared more frequently in specific conditions.

Results

Support for Sex Education

I first present the unadjusted percentages of respondents who indicated each level of support or opposition with the curriculum across conditions. Overall, 69% of respondents either somewhat or strongly supported the implementation of the sex education curriculum, and 31% somewhat or strongly opposed it. Among supporters, the responses were nearly evenly divided between those who somewhat supported the curriculum (33%) and those who strongly supported it (36%). Similarly, among opponents, 14% somewhat opposed the curriculum, while 17% strongly opposed it. This baseline level of support provides a context for understanding the specific effects of experimental conditions discussed in subsequent sections.

Sociodemographic Differences in Support for Sex Education

Table 2 provides logistic regression coefficients obtained from models predicting support for the sex education curriculum. Unsurprisingly, political identity and religious strength were both significant predictors of opposition to the curriculum. In Model 2, which includes both political identity and religious strength, respondents who identified as moderate (b = −1.08, p < .001) and conservative (b = −1.72, p < .001) were significantly less likely to support the proposed curriculum compared to politically liberal respondents. Higher levels of religious strength were also associated with lower approval of the proposed curriculum. Moderately religious respondents were less likely to support the curriculum compared to non-religious respondents (b = −0.72, p < .001), and the trend became even stronger among those who identified as very religious (b = −1.10, p < .001).

Table 2.

Raw Coefficients from Logistic Regression Models Predicting Binary Approval of Proposed Sex Education Curriculum (Main and Interaction Effects) N = 998.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Experimental conditions
Elementary school (ref. high school)	−0.43 (0.14)**	−0.62 (0.15)***	−0.94 (0.27)***	−1.03 (0.29)***
LGB topics included	−0.69 (0.14)***	−0.82 (0.15)***	−1.41 (0.27)***	−1.63 (0.28)***
Age-appropriate included	0.04 (0.14)	−0.03 (0.15)	−0.23 (0.29)	−0.27 (0.30)
Interactions
LGB topics included × Elementary school			0.88 (0.30)**	0.89 (0.31)**
Age-appropriate included × LGB topics			0.43 (0.29)	0.63 (0.31)*
Elementary school × Age-appropriate language included			0.02 (0.29)	−0.22 (0.31)
Age (ref. below 35)
35–54	−0.08 (0.20)	0.02 (0.21)	−0.08 (0.20)	0.02 (0.21)
55+	−0.43 (0.18)*	−0.23 (0.20)	−0.41 (0.19)*	−0.18 (0.20)
Sex (ref. female)
Male	−0.36 (0.16)*	−0.22 (0.17)	−0.37 (0.16)*	−0.23 (0.17)
Education (ref. no BA/BS)
Yes BA/BS	0.16 (0.16)	0.05 (0.17)	0.16 (0.16)	0.05 (0.17)
Race (ref. White)
Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish	0.30 (0.24)	0.15 (0.25)	0.34 (0.24)	0.19 (0.25)
Non-Hispanic Black	0.41 (0.26)	0.45 (0.28)	0.44 (0.26)	0.51 (0.28)
Non-Hispanic Asian	0.62 (0.38)	0.49 (0.40)	0.61 (0.38)	0.48 (0.40)
Other	0.18 (0.30)	0.02 (0.33)	0.20 (0.30)	0.05 (0.33)
Parenthood status
Parent	−0.24 (0.16)	−0.07 (0.17)	−0.26 (0.16)	−0.08 (0.17)
Political identity (ref. liberal)
Moderate		−1.08 (0.22)***		−1.08 (0.22)***
Conservative		−1.72 (0.23)***		−1.74 (0.23)***
Religious strength (ref. not religious)
Slightly religious		−0.22 (0.24)		−0.18 (0.25)
Moderately religious		−0.72 (0.21)***		−0.71 (0.21)***
Very religious		−1.10 (0.24)***		−1.14 (0.25)***

Source: Public Views of Social Issues Survey 2022.

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. Model 1 includes experimental conditions and sociodemographic controls. Model 2 adds political identity and religious strength. Models 3 to 4 introduce condition interaction terms, with the same sets of controls as Models 1 to 2, respectively. Models exclude five respondents who identified as transgender or another sex, all of whom expressed approval. Their removal was necessary due to perfect prediction when sex was included as a covariate. LGB = Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual.

p < .05, **p < .01, ***p ≤ .001.

Associations between sociodemographic characteristics, such as age and gender, and approval were also present. Older respondents aged 55 and above displayed lower support for the curriculum (b = −0.43, p < .05 in Model 1), but this difference became non-significant when political identity and religious strength were included in Model 2. Similarly, male respondents (b = −0.36, p < .05 in Model 1) showed lower approval, a pattern that disappeared after accounting for political identity and religious strength in Model 2. These findings suggest that opposition among older respondents and male respondents may be attributable to their political identity and religious strength.

Effect of the Experimental Conditions on Support for Sex Education

Here, I discuss findings in terms of Model 2, which includes all covariates. Estimates are consistent across model specifications, as one would expect. Accounting for school level and the curriculum being labeled “age appropriate,” there was lower support for LGB topics. The inclusion of LGB topics had a negative effect on support for the curriculum (b = −0.82, p ≤ .001). Similarly, accounting for LGB topics and age-appropriate, there was lower support for elementary sex education. The effect of school type (elementary school: −0.62, p ≤ .001) indicates that respondents were less likely to support the curriculum when the target age group was elementary school as opposed to high school. The results show that support for the curriculum varies based on the school type and inclusion of LGB topics, as expected. To illustrate the implications of these coefficients, Figure 1 presents the predicted probabilities of support for the sex education curriculum across different experimental conditions.

Figure 1.

Predicted probability of support for sex education, by experimental condition.

Respondents were more likely to support the curriculum when it targeted high school students (75%) compared to elementary school students (63%), a 12-percentage point difference (p < .001). Similarly, support was higher when LGB topics were excluded (76%) than when they were included (62%), a 15-percentage point difference (p < .001). In contrast, support did not vary based on whether the curriculum was labeled “age appropriate” or not; in both conditions, support remained at 69%, with no statistically distinguishable difference.

Does Approval for LGB Topics in Sexual Education Depend on Students’ Age?

Approval of sex education for high school students versus elementary school students depended on whether the sex education curriculum included LGB topics (Model 4). While this coefficient was positive (b = 0.89, p ≤ .01), the coefficient alone obscured the substantive pattern, which was clarified by the predicted probabilities in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Predicted probability of approval of sex education, by including versus excluding LGB topics, and high school versus elementary school.

When LGB topics were included, approval rates were statistically indistinguishable regardless of whether the curriculum was for high school students or elementary school students. Figure 2 shows that the predicted probability of approval was very similar: 64% for high school and 59% for elementary school when LGB topics were mentioned. This 5-percentage point difference never reached statistical significance (p = .22). However, when LGB topics were not mentioned, the difference in approval based on the age of the target audience was large: 85% for high school students versus 68% for elementary school students, a 17 percentage-point difference (p < .001). These differences—5-percentage points versus 17-percentage points—are significantly different from each other (p < .001), indicating the presence of an LGB topics-by-school level interaction.

Similar patterns were not evident when examining the interaction between LGB topics and age appropriateness. In contrast to the large difference in approval between including versus excluding LGB topics overall, the effect of including LGB topics did not vary depending on whether the curriculum was explicitly described as age-appropriate. Likewise, the difference in approval between elementary and high school proposals remained consistent regardless of whether the curriculum was labeled age appropriate.

Respondents’ Logic for Approval or Opposition of Sex Education

The preceding analyses reveal variation in support across experimental conditions, but they do not show the reasoning behind respondents’ judgments. To complement the statistical patterns described above, I analyze participants’ open-ended explanations, which uncover the broader logics through which respondents framed sex education as acceptable or not.

I analyzed 166 open-ended responses: 106 supportive and 60 in opposition. Below, I report each theme’s share within supportive or in opposition responses and, where relevant, its distribution across LGB versus non-LGB proposals and elementary versus high school proposals. I intentionally present proportions to facilitate comparison without overstating the influence of any one experimental condition (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Prominent themes in favor of the proposal, across all conditions (n = 106 comments).

In Favor

Knowledge

The most common rationale among supportive respondents emphasized the value of providing accurate information to students. Over half (54%; 57 of 106) of supportive responses referenced the importance of knowledge, with many stressing that formal instruction prevents misinformation from peers, media, or unreliable sources. One participant wrote, “It’s important kids learn about this stuff the right way and not the wrong way.” Forty-three percent of these comments came from LGB-inclusive proposals, slightly below the share of all supportive comments in those conditions.

Inevitability of Exposure

About 15% (16 of 106) of supportive comments argued that students would encounter sexual or relationship topics regardless of school instruction, often through media or peers, and that schools should proactively provide accurate information. “In the time we live in, kids are exposed to sex at an early age through TV and other things,” one respondent noted. This theme was somewhat less common in LGB-inclusive proposals (38%) than in non-LGB proposals.

Normalization of LGB Identities (LGB Only)

Sixteen percent (17 of 106) of supportive responses framed being gay as a normal part of human diversity and described inclusive curricula as essential for reducing stigma. Respondents viewed representation as a way to challenge heteronormative assumptions, stating, for example, “We can’t act like (being gay) isn’t something normal” and “Not everyone is heterosexual.”

Inclusivity (LGB-Inclusive Only)

Nearly a quarter (23%; 24 of 106) of supportive comments focused on affirming the identities and family structures of all students, particularly those with LGB+ family members. These respondents highlighted visibility and belonging as core benefits of inclusive education. As one participant put it, such instruction “would help empathize with others,” while another said, “Kids should not be ashamed for who they are” (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Prominent themes in opposition to the proposal (n = 60 comments).

In Opposition

Too Young. The most frequent reason for opposition, raised in 47% (28 of 60) of responses, was that the content was premature or developmentally inappropriate. One participant explained, “Elementary schoolers are just not ready to learn about these topics. Let kids be kids.” This concern was more prevalent in elementary school proposals (71%) than in high school proposals (29%), suggesting that developmental timing was a salient factor for many in opposition.

Parental Rights

Forty-five percent (27 of 60) of comments in opposition argued that parents, not schools, should decide when and how children learn about sex or sexuality. These comments framed curricular decisions as matters of parental authority. “This takes away the rights of parents to decide what their kids are exposed to,” one respondent wrote.

Not Appropriate for Schools

Twenty percent (12 of 60) of responses in opposition objected more broadly to schools teaching about sex or sexuality at all, regardless of timing. These comments often described such topics as outside the scope of the educational system, for example, “It’s not school, government, or teachers that have the right to teach about sex” and “They should be teaching other, more important stuff.” Although framed as a general objection, this theme appeared disproportionately in LGB-inclusive proposals (83%).

Anti-LGB+ Sentiment (LGB-Inclusive Only)

Seventeen percent (10 of 60) of comments in opposition expressed explicit anti-gay or stigmatizing views, such as “We shouldn’t be normalizing this lifestyle.” These responses rejected LGB+ topics outright, often framing them as morally wrong or inappropriate for any educational setting.

Conditional Importance of Student Age and Maturity

The most cited reason for opposing the curriculum was the belief that students were too young. Many open-ended comments expressed greater support for sex education at later developmental stages, often referencing middle school as a more appropriate setting: “Should be taught in middle school,” “Better to wait for middle school,” and “Depends on the age, should be no earlier than middle school.” These responses were both overrepresented in elementary conditions, as opposed to high school, and reflect a widespread view that the appropriateness of sex education, including content related to LGB topics, depends on students’ age.

While these comments convey a logic that older students are more appropriate recipients of sex education, this reasoning was not consistently reflected in the quantitative results. Specifically, when LGB topics were included, respondents were no more likely to support the curriculum in high school than in elementary school. In other words, the age-based logic did not translate into significantly higher support in high school conditions when LGB topics were present but appeared across conditions in the open-ended responses. Quantitatively, this age-based reasoning held only for non-LGB-inclusive curricula. This discordance suggests that while the discourse of age appropriateness is a dominant justification in all conditions, its influence may be contingent on the absence of LGB content.

LGB Topics as Not Appropriate for Schools

A smaller share of responses in opposition reflected the belief that sex education was not appropriate for schools to address. These comments questioned the broader role of educational institutions in teaching topics related to sex or sexuality. However, this theme appeared disproportionately in the sex education proposal that included LGB topics (10 of 12 total comments), suggesting that it was not sex education itself, but the inclusion of LGB content, that respondents viewed as institutional overreach. The pattern may also reflect opposition to LGB-inclusive curricula that is justified post hoc through generalized or content-neutral frames, enabling respondents to express discomfort with LGB topics without being explicit.

Discussion

This study contributes to cultural sociology, sexuality studies, and public opinion by identifying how public support for sex education varies by curricular content and framing. I find evidence for hypotheses H1 and H2: respondents were more likely to support sex education for high school than elementary school (H1) and less likely to support it when LGB topics were included (H2). These results align with the existing literature, which finds that public opinion is more favorable toward sex education when it excludes discussions of sexual orientation and focuses on sexual risks, topics perceived as more relevant for older students (Bleakley, Hennessy, and Fishbein 2006; Santelli et al. 2017).

I did not find support for hypotheses H3, H4, or H5. Respondents were no more likely to approve the curriculum when it was labeled “age-appropriate” (H3) even when LGB topics were included (H5). Labeling the curriculum age-appropriate did not mitigate concerns that respondents had about the appropriateness of LGB content. Most notably, respondents were no more likely to support sex education in high school compared to elementary school, as long as LGB topics were present (H4). The disapproval of LGB topics across both elementary and high school raises questions about the underlying rationale of those who argue against the inclusion of these topics based on concerns about student maturity and age appropriateness.

In conjunction, the open-ended comments provide insight into how respondents justified their support or opposition. Many invoked themes of developmental readiness, often expressing that children were too young to be exposed to sex education. These concerns were overrepresented in elementary school conditions and appeared across both LGB-inclusive and non-LGB conditions. However, the logic only aligned with actual disapproval patterns in the non-LGB conditions: when curricula excluded LGB topics, respondents were more likely to approve sex education in high school than in elementary school. In contrast, when LGB topics were included, disapproval remained high regardless of grade level. This disconnect suggests that appeals to student maturity, when LGB topics are present, may not reflect genuine concern about age-appropriateness, but rather serve as post hoc rationalizations for intuitive discomfort with LGB content.

In a subset of open-ended comments, respondents emphasized that the curriculum was “Not Appropriate for Schools,” arguing that the school was overstepping its role by addressing topics related to sex and sexuality. This framing appeared more frequently in response to LGB-inclusive conditions, suggesting that it was the inclusion of LGB topics (rather than sex education more broadly) that these respondents viewed as an institutional overreach. Such generalized, content-neutral language enables respondents to oppose LGB inclusion without explicitly citing their discomfort (Doan et al. 2019; Powell, Schnabel, and Apgar et al. 2017). Taken together, the data illuminates how ostensibly neutral rationales can mask underlying biases in relation to LGB inclusion.

Theoretically, these findings align with dual-process models of culture, which distinguish between intuitive, affective responses and deliberative, rationalized justifications (Vaisey 2009). Discomfort may emerge intuitively and affectively, while justifications like “too young” or “not appropriate for school” function as post hoc rationalizations that legitimize disapproval. This distinction between moral reactions and culturally acceptable justifications helps clarify the empirical finding that disapproval remained consistent across both elementary and high school conditions when LGB content was included, despite the discourse of the open-ended comments.

Similarly, the null effect observed for the inclusion of “age-appropriate” labeling in the sex education curriculum suggests skepticism from respondents of individual agents or institutions responsible for determining what is “age-appropriate.” Respondents may perceive varying standards or definitions of age-appropriateness across different educational authorities, cultural norms, and personal beliefs (Apple 2004).

These findings have clear implications for policy debates. Understanding where political opinions diverge regarding sex education has crucial implications, as policy frequently reflects public opinion (Brooks and Manza 2006; Page and Shapiro 1983). Legislative efforts to restrict discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades may reflect attitudes of individuals who would express disapproval regardless of the grade level at which these topics are introduced. While some respondents express concern regarding age at instruction, a similar amount of disapproval at both educational stages when LGB topics were present suggests that many of those objections may have been less about developmental readiness and more reflective of biases towards LGB content itself.

Some caveats are worth keeping in mind. Although respondents’ open-ended explanations provided valuable insight into the cultural logics people use to justify their support or opposition, the qualitative sample was limited to less than one-fifth of the total respondents. As is often the case in qualitative analyses, this smaller subsample makes it difficult to determine whether certain themes were meaningfully overrepresented in specific conditions. Future work with larger samples could more confidently assess the distribution of themes across experimental treatments. In addition, this study focused specifically on the inclusion of LGB topics in sex education to isolate responses to sexual orientation. Future research could additionally extend these findings by examining how support shifts when curricula also include transgender topics or broader references to gender identity, as well as by exploring how respondents’ evaluations are shaped by their own social positions, including race, gender, and class.

Conclusion

In this study, I asked participants about a hypothetical sex education curriculum and varied the age at instruction, the inclusion of LGB topics, and whether the words “age-appropriate” were included. Including LGB topics in sex education curricula resulted in less support (compared to not including LGB topics), as did introducing sex education at the elementary level (compared to the high school level). Including the words “age-appropriate” made no difference in how respondents evaluated sex education. When the proposed curriculum included LGB topics, there was no significant difference in the level of opposition to sex education between respondents surveyed about elementary school and respondents surveyed about high school.

The open-ended comments revealed a prevalent concern about the age of students, with many respondents suggesting that middle or high school would be more appropriate for such topics. Another common rationale, framing the curriculum as “Not Appropriate for Schools,” appeared more often in LGB-inclusive conditions. This language positioned the curriculum as institutional overreach and allowed respondents to voice opposition to LGB inclusion without explicitly citing discomfort.

While some individuals believe elementary school is too early for any type of sex education, the consistency in disapproval of LGB topics across both elementary and high school conditions suggests that these two positions reflect distinct logics. The former reflects concern about developmental readiness; the latter likely reflects moral discomfort with LGB inclusion, justified through appeals to student maturity or institutional overreach. By disentangling these motivations from their justifications, advocates can better distinguish between cultural resistance and surface-level concerns about student readiness.

These findings build on existing public opinion data showing that support for sex education is widespread but declines for younger students and for curricula that include LGB topics (Saavedra et al. 2024). Such polling patterns are often taken to mean that Americans agree with sex education in principle but disagree about when and how it should be taught. Yet the results here complicate that interpretation: similar levels of disapproval across grade levels when LGB topics were included suggest that objections attributed to “age appropriateness” may instead reflect ideological discomfort with LGB+ topics or broader mistrust of schools. By distinguishing between developmental and ideological concerns, this study reinterprets existing polling data to show that debates about timing and appropriateness can function as proxies for moral boundaries around sexuality and institutional authority.

Using original data and a mixed-methods design, I illustrate what curricular features shape support for sex education, and document the logics that respondents use to justify their views. Drawing on dual-process theory, I demonstrate how intuitive responses, and culturally acceptable rationales interact in sex education curricula to potentially mask intuitive discomfort with LGB topics. While sex education remains a central site of political debate in adolescent socialization, it has been relatively neglected in mainstream sociology. This study responds to recent calls to treat sexuality as a critical cultural domain (Fahs and McClelland 2016; Littlejohn and Stone 2025), showing how concerns about moral discomfort, institutional trust, and cultural legitimacy define the boundaries of acceptable instruction.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sns-10.1177_30333717261416944 – Supplemental material for Student Age, Inclusion of LGB Topics, and Specifying Appropriateness on Support for Sex Education in the United States: Results From a National Survey Experiment

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sns-10.1177_30333717261416944 for Student Age, Inclusion of LGB Topics, and Specifying Appropriateness on Support for Sex Education in the United States: Results From a National Survey Experiment by Tania Ravaei in Sex & Sexualities

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-sns-10.1177_30333717261416944 – Supplemental material for Student Age, Inclusion of LGB Topics, and Specifying Appropriateness on Support for Sex Education in the United States: Results From a National Survey Experiment

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-sns-10.1177_30333717261416944 for Student Age, Inclusion of LGB Topics, and Specifying Appropriateness on Support for Sex Education in the United States: Results From a National Survey Experiment by Tania Ravaei in Sex & Sexualities

Supplemental Material

sj-xlsx-3-sns-10.1177_30333717261416944 – Supplemental material for Student Age, Inclusion of LGB Topics, and Specifying Appropriateness on Support for Sex Education in the United States: Results From a National Survey Experiment

Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-3-sns-10.1177_30333717261416944 for Student Age, Inclusion of LGB Topics, and Specifying Appropriateness on Support for Sex Education in the United States: Results From a National Survey Experiment by Tania Ravaei in Sex & Sexualities

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Brian Powell, Dr. Jennifer Barber, and Dr. Andrew Halpern-Manners for their advice and guidance on this paper.

ORCID iD

Tania Ravaei

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Department of Sociology at Indiana University Bloomington and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Health Policy Research Scholars program.

Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Allison

Paul D.

2001. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Alton

Forrest L.

Valois

Robert F.

Oldendick

Robert

Drane

J. Wanzer

. 2009. “Public Opinion on School-Based Sex Education in South Carolina.” American Journal of Sexuality Education 4(2): 116–38.

American Civil Liberties Union. 2025. “Mapping Attacks on LGBTQ Rights in U.S. State Legislatures.” https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-2025.

Apple

Michael W.

2004. Ideology and Curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge.

Atzmüller

Carina

Steiner

Peter M.

2010. “Experimental vignette studies in survey research.” Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 6(3):128–138.

Aynsley-Green

Albert

Hall

David

. 2009. “Safeguarding Children: A Call to Action.” Lancet 373(9660):280–81.

Binder

Amy J.

2009. Contentious Curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism in American Public Schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bishop

Meg D.

Mallory

Allen B.

Gessner

McKenna

Frost

David M.

Russell

Stephen T.

2021. “School-Based Sexuality Education Experiences across Three Generations of Sexual Minority People.” Journal of Sex Research 58(5):648–58.

Bleakley

Amy

Hennessy

Michael

Fishbein

Martin

. 2006. “Public Opinion on Sex Education in US Schools.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 160(11):1151–56.

10.

Brambor

Thomas

Roberts Clark

William

Golder

Matt

. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14(1):63–82.

11.

Brooks

Clem

Manza

Jeff

. 2006. “Social Policy Responsiveness in Developed Democracies.” American Sociological Review 71(3):474–94.

12.

Bruch

Elizabeth

Feinberg

Fred

. 2017. “Decision-Making Processes in Social Contexts.” Annual Review of Sociology 43:207–227.

13.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2022. School Health Profiles 2020: Characteristics of Health Programs among Secondary Schools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

14.

Charmaz

Kathy

. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

De Craene

Valerie

. 2024. “‘Oops, I Didn’t Know We Couldn’t Talk about Sex’: Sex Researchers Talking Back to the Erotophobic Academy Using the Researcher’s Erotic Subjectivities.” Sexualities 27(1–2):6–19.

16.

Doan

Long

Quadlin

Natasha

Powell

Brian

. 2019. “Americans’ Perceptions of Transgender People’s Sex: Evidence from a National Survey Experiment.” Socius 5:2378023119852015.

17.

Eisenberg

Marla E.

Oliphant

Jennifer A.

Plowman

Shari

Forstie

Melanie

Sieving

Renee E.

2022. “Increased Parent Support for Comprehensive Sexuality Education over 15 Years.” Journal of Adolescent Health 71(6):744–50.

18.

Elia

John P.

Eliason

Mickey J.

2010. “Dangerous Omissions: Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage School-Based Sexuality Education and the Betrayal of LGBTQ Youth.” American Journal of Sexuality Education 5(1):17–35.

19.

Fahs

Breanne

McClelland

Sara I.

2016. “The Sexuality of Pleasure and Danger: Complexity and Contradictions for Women across Age, Race, and Sexual Identity.” Sex Roles 74(7–8):281–95.

20.

Fields

Jessica

. 2008. Risky Lessons: Sex Education and Social Inequality. New York, NY: Routledge.

21.

Flores

Andrew R.

Mallory

Christy

Conron

Kerith J.

2010. “Public Attitudes about Emergent Issues in LGBTQ Rights: Conversion Therapy and Religious Refusals.” Research & Politics 7(4):2053168020966874.

22.

Gerber

Alan S.

Green

Donald P.

2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

23.

Goldfarb

Eva S.

Lieberman

Lisa D.

2021. “Three Decades of Research: The Case for Comprehensive Sex Education.” Journal of Adolescent Health 68(1):13–27.

24.

Gummer

Tobias

Robmann

Joss

Silber

Henning

. 2018. “Using Instructed Response Items as Attention Checks in Web Surveys: Properties and Implementation.” Sociological Methods & Research 50(1):238–64.

25.

Guttmacher Institute. 2025. Sex Education and HIV Education. Washington, DC: Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved September 11, 2025 (https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education).

26.

Herek

Gregory M.

2000. “The Psychology of Sexual Prejudice.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 9(1):19–22.

27.

Hirsch

Jennifer S.

Khan

Shamus

. 2020. Sexual Citizens: A Landmark Study of Sex, Power, and Assault on Campus. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

28.

Hunzaker

M. B. Fallin

. 2016. “Cultural Sentiments and Schema-Consistency Bias in Information Transmission.” American Sociological Review 81(6):1223–50.

29.

Irvine

Janice M.

2002. Talk About Sex: The Battles over Sex Education in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

30.

Irvine

Janice M.

2014. “Is Sexuality Research ‘Dirty Work’? Institutionalized Stigma in the Production of Sexual Knowledge.” Sexualities 17(5–6):632–56.

31.

Irvine

Janice M.

2023. Talk about Sex: How Sex Ed Battles Helped Ignite the Right. PA: Temple University Press.

32.

Jarkovská

Lucie

Lamb

Sharon

. 2018. “Not Innocent, but Vulnerable: An Approach to Childhood Innocence.” Pp. 76–93 in The Cambridge Handbook of Sexual Development: Childhood and Adolescence, edited by Jen

Gilbert

Lamb

Sharon

. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Jerolmack

Colin

Khan

Shamus

. 2014. “Talk Is Cheap: Ethnography and the Attitudinal Fallacy.” Sociological Methods & Research 43(2):178–209.

34.

Johfre

Sasha

Saperstein

Aliya

. 2023. “The Social Construction of Age: Concepts and Measurement.” Annual Review of Sociology 49(1):339–358

35.

Jones

Angela

. 2019. “Sex Is Not a Problem: The Erasure of Pleasure in Sexual Science Research.” Sexualities 22(4):643–68.

36.

Kantor

Leslie M.

Lindberg

Laura

. 2020. “Pleasure and Sex Education: The Need for Broadening Both Content and Measurement.” American Journal of Public Health 110(2):145–48.

37.

Kantor

Leslie M.

Levitz

Nicole

. 2017. “Parents’ Views on Sex Education in Schools: How Much Do Democrats and Republicans Agree?” PLoS One 12(7):e0180250.

38.

Kenneavy

Kristin

. 2012. “Support for Homosexuals’ Civil Liberties: The Influence of Familial Gender Role Attitudes across Religious Denominations.” Social Forces 90(4):1347–75.

39.

Khanna

Katharine

Meadow

Tey

. 2023. “The Fragile Male: An Experimental Study of Transgender Classification and the Durability of Gender Categories.” Gender & Society 37(4):553–83.

40.

Kirby

Douglas

. 2002. “The Impact of Schools and School Programs upon Adolescent Sexual Behavior.” Journal of Sex Research 39(1):27–33.

41.

Lindberg

Laura Duberstein

Maddow-Zimet

Isaac

. 2012. “Consequences of Sex Education on Teen and Young Adult Sexual Behaviors and Outcomes.” Journal of Adolescent Health 51(4):332–8.

42.

Littlejohn

Krystale E.

Stone

Amy L.

2025. “Nurturing a Sociology of Sex and Sexualities.” Sociology of Sex & Sexualities 1:1–10.

43.

Lizardo

Omar

. 2017. “Improving Cultural Analysis: Considering Personal Culture in Its Declarative and Nondeclarative Modes.” American Sociological Review 82(1):88–115.

44.

Lizardo

Omar

Mowry

Robert

Sepulvado

Brandon

Stoltz

Dustin S.

Taylor

Marshall A.

Ness

Justin Van

Wood

Michael

. 2016. “What Are Dual Process Models? Implications for Cultural Analysis in Sociology.” Sociological Theory 34(4):287–310.

45.

Luker

Kristin

. 2007. When Sex Goes to School: Warring Views on Sex—and Sex Education—Since the Sixties. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

46.

Miles

Andrew

. 2015. “The (Re)Genesis of Values: Examining the Importance of Values for Action.” American Sociological Review 80(4):680–704.

47.

Mize

Trenton D.

Doan

Long

J. Scott

. 2019. “A General Framework for Comparing Predictions and Marginal Effects Across Models.” Sociological Methodology 49(1):152–89.

48.

Movement Advancement Project. 2023. Under Fire: The War on LGBTQ People in America. Boulder, CO: Movement Advancement Project. (https://www.mapresearch.org/file/Under%20Fire%20report_MAP%202023.pdf).

49.

Mueller

Trisha E.

Gavin

Lorrie E.

Kulkarni

Aniket

. 2008. “The Association between Sex Education and Youth’s Engagement in Sexual Intercourse, Age at First Intercourse, and Birth Control Use at First Sex.” Journal of Adolescent Health 42(1):89–96.

50.

Mullinix

Kevin J.

Leeper

Thomas J.

Druckman

James N.

Freese

Jeremy

. 2015. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2(2):109–38.

51.

Mutz

Diana C.

2011. Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

52.

Myers

Andrew

Hernandez

Crista Urena

. 2025. “The Labeling Power of Critical Race Theory: Evidence from a National Survey Experiment.” Sociology of Education 98(3):223–40.

53.

NORC at the University of Chicago. 2025. “General Social Survey (GSS) Variable: SEXEDUC—Would You Be for or against Sex Education in the Public Schools?” GSS Data Explorer. Retrieved September 11, 2025 (https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/626/vshow).

54.

Page

Benjamin I.

Shapiro

Robert Y.

1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review 77(1):175–90.

55.

Pampati

Sanjana

Johns

Michelle M.

Szucs

Leigh E.

Bishop

Meg D.

Mallory

Allen B.

Barrios

Lisa C.

Russell

Stephen T.

2021. “Sexual and Gender Minority Youth and Sexual Health Education: A Systematic Mapping Review of the Literature.” Journal of Adolescent Health 68(6): 1054.e1–1054.e12.

56.

Pascoe

C. J.

2005. “‘Dude, You’re a Fag’: Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse.” Sexualities 8(3):329–56.

57.

Pew Research Center. 2022. “Parents Differ Sharply by Party over What Their K–12 Children Should Learn in School.” Retrieved September 10, 2025 (https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2022/10/ST_2022.10.26_Parents-K-12_REPORT.pdf).

58.

Powell

Brian

. 2017. “Changing Counts, Counting Change: Toward a More Inclusive Definition of Family.” Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences 17(1):1–15.

59.

Powell

Brian

Schnabel

Landon

Apgar

Lauren

. 2017. “Denial of Service to Same-Sex and Interracial Couples: Evidence from a National Survey Experiment.” Science Advances 3(12):eaao5834.

60.

Quadlin

Natasha

. 2018. “The Mark of a Woman’s Record: Gender and Academic Performance in Hiring.” American Sociological Review 83(2):331–60.

61.

Reading

Richard

Bissell

Susan

Goldhagen

Jeffrey

Harwin

Judith

Masson

Judith

Moynihan

Sian

Parton

Nigel

, et al. 2009. “Promotion of Children’s Rights and Prevention of Child Maltreatment.” The Lancet 373(9660):332–43.

62.

Robin

Leah

Dittus

Patricia

Whitaker

Daniel

Crosby

Richard

Ethier

Kathleen

Mezoff

Jane

Miller

Kim

, et al. 2004. “Behavioral Interventions to Reduce Incidence of HIV, STD, and Pregnancy among Adolescents: A Decade in Review.” Journal of Adolescent Health 34(1):3–26.

63.

Robinson

Kerry H.

2012. “‘Difficult Citizenship’: The Precarious Relationships between Childhood, Sexuality and Access to Knowledge.” Sexualities 15(3–4):257–76.

64.

Robinson

Kerry H.

Davies

Cristyn

. 2017. “Sexuality Education in Early Childhood.” Pp. 217–242 in The Palgrave Handbook of Sexuality Education, edited by Louisa

Allen

Rasmussen

Mary Lou

. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

65.

Robinson

Kerry H.

Ferfolja

Tania

. 2008. “Playing It Up, Playing It Down, Playing It Safe: Queering Teacher Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24(4):846–58.

66.

Saavedra

Anna R.

Polikoff

Morgan S.

Silver

Dan

Rapaport

Amie

Garland

Marshall W.

Scollan-Rowley

Jamie

. 2024. Searching for Common Ground: Widespread Support for Public Schools but Substantial Partisan Divides about Teaching Potentially Contested Topics. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, Center for Applied Research in Education.

67.

Saldaña

Johnny

. 2021. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

68.

Santelli

John S.

Kantor

Leslie M.

Grilo

Stephanie A.

Speizer

Ilene S.

Lindberg

Laura D.

Heitel

Jennifer

Schalet

Amy T.

, et al. 2017. “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage: An Updated Review of U.S. Policies and Programs and Their Impact.” Journal of Adolescent Health 61(3):273–80.

69.

Santelli

John

Ott

Mary A.

Lyon

Maureen

Rogers

Jennifer

Summers

Daniel

Schleifer

Rebecca

. 2006. “Abstinence and Abstinence-Only Education: A Review of U.S. Policies and Programs.” Journal of Adolescent Health 38(1):72–81.

70.

Schalet

Amy T.

2011. Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

71.

Schnabel

Landon

. 2018. “Sexual Orientation and Social Attitudes.” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 4:1–18.

72.

Schnabel

Landon

. 2016. “Gender and Homosexuality Attitudes across Religious Groups from the 1970s to 2014: Similarity, Distinction, and Adaptation.” Social Science Research 55:31–47.

73.

Schneider

Madeline

Hirsch

Jennifer S.

2020. “Comprehensive Sexuality Education as a Primary Prevention Strategy for Sexual Violence Perpetration.” Trauma, Violence & Abuse 21(3):439–55.

74.

Seiler-Ramadas

Radhika

Grabovac

Igor

Winkler

Roman

Dorner

Thomas Ernst

. 2021. “Applying Emotional Literacy in Comprehensive Sex Education for Young People.” American Journal of Sexuality Education 16(4):480–500.

75.

Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). 2022. Sex Ed State Law and Policy Chart: SIECUS State Profiles. Washington, DC: SIECUS.

76.

Smith

Sarah H.

2012. “Reading Sociology into Scholarship on School-Based Sex Education: Structure and Culture.” Sociology Compass 6(8):614–23.

77.

Sniderman

Paul M.

Grob

Douglas B.

1996. “Innovations in Experimental Design in Attitude Surveys.” Annual Review of Sociology 22:377–99.

78.

Sniderman

Paul M.

Brody

Richard A.

Tetlock

Philip E.

1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

79.

Stone

Amy L.

2012. Gay Rights at the Ballot Box. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

80.

Szucs

Leigh E.

Harper

Christopher R.

Andrzejewski

Jack

Barrios

Lisa C.

Robin

Leah

Hunt

Pete

. 2022. “Overwhelming Support for Sexual Health Education in U.S. Schools: A Meta-Analysis of 23 Surveys Conducted between 2000 and 2016.” Journal of Adolescent Health 70(4):598–606.

81.

Tracey

Sarah J.

2010. “Qualitative Quality: Eight ‘Big-Tent’ Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16(10):837–851.

82.

Vaisey

Stephen

. 2009. “Motivation and Justification: A Dual-Process Model of Culture in Action.” American Journal of Sociology 114(6):1675–715.

83.

Vannette

David L.

Krosnick

Jon A.

, eds. 2018. The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

84.

Whitehead

Andrew L.

Perry

Samuel L.

2020. Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

85.

Zaller

John

. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB