Being open with your mouth shut: themeaning of ‘openness’ in familycommunication about sexualityMaggie Kirkman*, Doreen A. RosenthalaandS. Shirley FeldmanbaLa Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia;bStanford University, USAAn Australian study of parent–adolescent communication about sexuality revealed complexmeanings inherent in the understanding of ‘openness’. These included willingness to answerquestions while not keeping a spotlight on the topic; having an open-minded attitude; balancingopenness with privacy; and being responsive to characteristics of the child. Various constraintsapplied to the application of open communication in this sensitive area. Given the range ofmeanings encompassed by ‘openness’, the authors recommend that social scientists limit theirapplication of this term in the study of communication in families, and that sex educators take careto be more specific in recommending openness in communication about sexuality.As part of a large project (Rosenthal et al., 1998; Rosenthal & Feldman, 1999;Kirkman et al., 2001, 2002), in-depth interviews with adolescents and their parentswere used to investigate discourses of communication about sexuality. One of themost intriguing discourses to emerge surrounded the notion of ‘openness’. The term‘open communication’ was not raised by the research interviewers, but the almostinvariable description by the participants of good communication as open, inconjunction with their apparently paradoxical usage of the term (exemplified by thetitle of this paper), alerted us to the need to interrogate the meaning of ‘openness’.This paper presents the results of our investigation of what people actually meanwhen they describe family communication as ‘open’. It is based on an assumption ofthe significance of subjective meaning in communication and relationships (Dixson,1995).The desirability of openness in family communication is generally endorsed in theresearch literature (Neer & Warren, 1988; Kafka & London, 1991; Nolin &Petersen, 1992; Duncan, 1996; Riesch et al., 1997). For example, it has been arguedthat open communication is essential to the development of social and coping skills*Corresponding author. Key Centre for Women’s Health in Society, The University ofMelbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. Email: [email protected] EducationVol. 5, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 49–66ISSN 1468-1811 (print)/ISSN 1472-0825 (online)/05/010049-18# 2005 Taylor & Francis Group LtdDOI: 10.1080/1468181042000301885in adolescents (Noller & Callan, 1991); that well-functioning families tend to haveopen communication styles (Barnes & Olson, 1985); that open and receptivecommunication styles by parents are associated with less adolescent sexual risk-taking (Kotchick et al., 1999); and that less open communication is associated withmore, and more serious, delinquency in adolescents (Clark & Shields, 1997).Emotional disclosure to parents is associated with adolescent perceptions of theopenness of family communication (Papini et al., 1990), and adolescent–motherdyads who perceive their communication as open and problem-free have been foundto be more likely to agree on the source of influence in decision-making thanadolescent–mother dyads who perceive their communication as less open andproblem-free (White, 1996).Differences in openness according to gender have been investigated; it is oftenfound that mothers are credited with being more open communicators than fathers(Youniss & Smollar, 1985; Miller et al., 1998; Rosenthal et al., 1998; Rosenthal &Feldman, 1999). All family members, however, find sexuality to be a difficult topicabout which to communicate (Kirkman et al., 2002), although adolescents reportingopen family communication also reported gaining more sex education at home(Baldwin & Baranoski, 1990); and the more openly families communicate about sexand alcohol, the greater the likelihood that students will act safely in relation to sexand alcohol (Booth-Butterfield & Sidelinger, 1998). One study found that adultdaughters remembered exchanges about sex with their mothers as primarilynegative, not much more than rules and warnings; what the adult daughters haddesired was emotionally responsive, open communication (Brock & Jennings, 1993).Warren (1995, p. 183) concluded that ‘Supportive communication about sexdepends more on an attitude of openness, with all the accompanying nonverbaltrappings, and less on discursive strategies.’The meaning of ‘openness’ is so taken for granted in the literature that it is usuallynot defined. Some definitions given or implied can be simplistic, such as ratingopenness on the sum of specified (sexual) topics reported to have been discussed inthe family (Miller et al., 1998). The most common means of operationalizingopenness is to use the Parent–Adolescent Communication Scale (PACS) (Barnes &Olson, 1982). Examples of this approach include, Barnes and Olson (1985), Fisher(1990), White (1996), and Clark and Shields (1997). (Fisher uses the PACS as ameasure of general communication; in relation to communication about sex,openness is taken as the number and frequency of various sexual topics discussed.)The PACS consists of two scales, each of 10 items. One scale is designed to measurethe degree of openness and the other to assess the extent of problems in familycommunication. The Open Family Communication Scale includes items such as‘My [mother/father/child] tries to understand my point of view’, ‘It is easy for me toexpress all my true feelings to my [mother/father/child]’, and ‘My [mother/father/child] is always a good listener.’ The Problems in Family Communication Scaleincludes ‘My [mother/father/child] has a tendency to say things to me which wouldbe better left unsaid’, ‘I don’t think I can tell my [mother/father/child] how I reallyfeel about some things’, and ‘When we are having a problem, I often give my50 M. Kirkman et al.[mother/father/child] the silent treatment.’ The PACS is an attempt to specify thecomponents of openness. However, the analysis of our interviews indicates that thediscourse around open communication is even more complex.In order to capture the period of communication about sexuality that precedes thenegotiation of an adolescent sexual relationship, we chose to study families thatincluded at least one child in early adolescence. Because all participants in socialinteraction contribute to the construction of meaning,