Family Dialogues on Sexuality: A Contingential Analysis of Gender, Care, and Mother–Adolescent Children Communication

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I believe that the study was very well done and also quite practical.

I just have a few suggestions to improve the article:

- It would be great if you could explain why this study only focused on the role of mothers and why the role of fathers was not emphasized in this regard.

- Some of the explanations and comparisons can be included in the discussion section instead of the conclusion section.

- In contingential analysis, in addition to microcontingential and macrocontingential analysis, there are steps like solution analysis and selection, design and application of intervention and finally evaluation. If these were not the goals of the research, it would be good to suggest them as future studies.

Author Response

Comments 1:

“It would be great if you could explain why this study only focused on the role of mothers and why the role of fathers was not emphasized in this regard.”

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we added a clarification explaining the empirical absence of fathers during the recruitment process and how this reflects the gendered distribution of caregiving roles in the community. This justification strengthens the methodological decision to focus on mothers as the primary agents of family dialogue on sexuality.

“[Updated text added in the Participants section:

Although recruitment efforts initially included both mothers and fathers, male participation was nearly absent. This absence reflects the gendered distribution of caregiving practices and communicative responsibilities in the community; therefore, the analysis focused on mothers as the primary functional agents in dialogues about sexuality.]”

Comments 2:

“Some of the explanations and comparisons can be included in the discussion section instead of the conclusion section.”

 

Response 2:

We agree. We revised the structure by relocating interpretative and comparative elements from the Conclusion to the Discussion section. This modification ensures conceptual coherence and follows the journal’s conventions for qualitative articles.

“[Updated text moved from Conclusion to Discussion to properly contextualize interpretative comparisons.]”

Comments 3:

“In contingential analysis, in addition to microcontingential and macrocontingential analysis, there are steps like solution analysis and selection, design and application of intervention and finally evaluation. If these were not the goals of the research, it would be good to suggest them as future studies.”

Response 3:

Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree and have incorporated a statement in the Conclusion acknowledging that later phases of contingential analysis—solution analysis, intervention design, implementation, and evaluation—were beyond the scope of the present study. We now explicitly suggest these steps as directions for future research.

“[Updated text incorporated:

Future studies should extend this work by applying the subsequent phases of contingential analysis—solution selection, intervention design, implementation, and evaluation—to develop context-sensitive strategies that modify the social control conditions regulating sexual communication within families.]”

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1:

Thank you for the positive assessment. Even so, we conducted an additional proofreading pass to ensure clarity, consistency, and precision throughout the manuscript.

5. Additional Clarifications

All modifications suggested by Reviewer 1 have been incorporated as indicated.

No changes alter the central findings or interpretations of the study.

Pseudonyms and structural coherence in the Results section were revised to improve narrative flow and analytic clarity.

We appreciate Reviewer 1’s comments, as they significantly strengthened the rigor and clarity of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Peer review:  Family Dialogues on Sexuality: A Contingential Analysis of Gender, Care, and Mother–Adolescent Children Communication

Summary:

Overall, this is a really strong paper that presents some very interesting data. While the language comes across as overly complex, the approach is detailed and rigorous I believe this will be a very strong addition to the field. There are however, some minor areas for attention that will greatly improve the overall strength and authority of the piece! Thank you to the authors for this research.

Abstract:

• Spelling mistake of LGBTQIA+ acronym on line 28

Introduction:

• Literature discussion could be improved with a quick mention of the impacts of pornography and sexually explicit content, particularly on the role this plays when young people see information online without real-world context or understanding. Especially given that the results speak to the impact of media on sexual education.
• There may also be value in adding a little context to the moral and religious standing of the area, as this can help to further explain responses and the influence of community leaders and religious figures.
• The Comprehensive Sexuality Education framework needs greater definition and further clarity around how it connects to the research focus and its role.
• There needed to be greater clarity around why the focus is solely on mothers and not mother AND fathers.

Material and methods:

• What do the authors mean by this: “Each interview was considered an interbehavioral field, in which the interviewer and the participant constituted interacting systems regulated by institutional and social norms” – examples or details on how this occurred would be beneficial.
• There needs to be a discussion around some of the limitations of the study

Results:

• The results section is really strong, however I feel it would be good to have some demographic data surrounding the quotes, such as age, number of children, or even familial situation. This will just help to contextualise the quotes a little more, without identifying the mothers.
• Quotes also need consistency around naming participants, even though the authors are using pseudonyms, it would be good to bring fake names in to personalise the quotes and show connections between commentary.
• Section 5. Situations That Facilitate Dialogue needs a quote example for the TV and media component.
• Section 7. Difficult Topics and Value Hierarchies, needs a bit more of a proofread to reduce repetition and flow of the section.
• This sentence, found on line 423-425, sits oddly in its current position and either needs to be connected to the discussion better, moved or removed entirely: Sexual and reproductive health was associated with protection against pregnancy and infections, while sexual conduct and relationships were linked to promoting respect and communication among peers and within families.
• More quotes needed for section 10. Contingential Analysis of the Family Context
• Paragraph structure needs considerable improvement in section 11. Interpretative Synthesis of Functional Analysis, as every point seems to start on a new line. Consider building larger paragraphs of content that connect together. This section would also be strengthened with some references back to the literature, even if they are only brief.

Discussion:

• Needed to see some discussion around the gender paradigm impacting discussions with parents and youth, particularly around how the role may automatically fall to mothers. It would be good to engage with some research on this too.
• Also needed to be greater discussion here around the moral and religious impacts, as well as the influence of leaders in more public discussions and the impact this may have on future change.
• Would be good to see the Comprehensive Sexuality Education framework brought back into the discussion for stronger connections.

Conclusions:

• Remove “applied” from line 576

Author Response

Comment 1 – Abstract: Spelling mistake of LGBTQIA+ acronym.

Response 1:

Thank you for noting this oversight. The acronym has been corrected to “LGBTQIA+”.

The correction appears on page 1, line 28 of the revised manuscript.

“[Corrected: LGBTQIA+]”

Comment 2 – Introduction: Add mention of pornography and sexually explicit content as influential sources for adolescents.

Response 2:

We agree with this important suggestion. We added a brief discussion addressing pornography and sexually explicit content as contextual sources influencing adolescents’ sexual learning in digital environments.

This addition appears on page 2, paragraph 1, lines 42–48.

“[Updated text mentions that adolescents increasingly turn to Internet content—including pornography and sexually explicit material—which often lacks contextualization and produces distorted repertoires of sexual behavior.]”

Comment 3 – Introduction: Add context regarding moral and religious standing of the area.

Response 3:

We agree. We expanded the contextual description of the community, noting the influence of Catholic norms and community leadership in regulating acceptable discourse on sexuality.

This clarification appears on page 3, paragraph 2, lines 101–110.

“[Updated text incorporates the moral–religious background of San Bartolo as a factor modulating verbal behavior.]”

Comment 4 – Introduction: Clarify the link between the Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) framework and the research focus.

Response 4:

We agree. We strengthened the conceptual bridge between CSE and the study’s aims, explaining how CSE functions as the evaluative framework to identify alignment or discrepancy between maternal discourse and evidence-based sexuality education.

This revision appears on page 3, paragraph 4, lines 118–133.

“[Updated text defines CSE and justifies its analytical relevance.]”

Comment 5 – Introduction: Explain why the study focuses only on mothers and not both parents.

Response 5:

We appreciate the comment. We added a clear explanation stating that fathers were invited during recruitment, but their participation was almost absent. This empirical condition reflects the gendered distribution of caregiving and communicative responsibilities.

The clarification is included on page 4, paragraph 1, lines 147–154.

“[Updated text explains the empirical absence of fathers and the gendered norms that assign communicative duties to mothers.]”

Comment 6 – Methods: Clarify the meaning of “interbehavioral field” and provide examples.

Response 6:

We agree that clarification was needed. We expanded the description with examples illustrating how interviewer prompts operated as discriminative stimuli shaping verbal behavior during interviews.

This explanation appears on page 5, paragraph 2, lines 189–205.

“[Updated text adds situational examples of how the interbehavioral field functions.]”

Comment 7 – Methods: Add study limitations.

Response 7:

We agree. A new subsection titled “2.7. Limitations” was added on page 9, listing four limitations: lack of fathers, self-report bias, single-site vulnerability, and cross-sectional design.

“[Full text of limitations now included in manuscript.]”

Comment 8 – Results: Add demographic context around quotes.

Response 8:

We added pseudonyms and demographic context (when appropriate) to the quotes (e.g., number of children, family type), ensuring anonymity while improving interpretability.

Revisions appear throughout pages 10–22, affecting multiple subsections (3.2–3.10).

Comment 9 – Results: Use consistent pseudonyms.

Response 9:

We standardized all pseudonyms across the dataset.

Revisions appear from page 10 to 22 across all quotes.

Comment 10 – Results: Add a quote for the TV/media component in Section 3.5.

Response 10:

We added a representative quote illustrating TV/media as an antecedent stimulus.

Inserted on page 17, lines 320–325.

“[Example quote referring explicitly to a TV scene triggering dialogue.]”

Comment 11 – Results: Improve flow in “Difficult Topics and Value Hierarchies”.

Response 11:

We revised the section for clarity and reduced repetition.

Edits appear on page 18, lines 345–398.

We also relocated the sentence flagged as out of place (“Sexual and reproductive health was associated with…”) to integrate it logically.

Comment 12 – Results: Add more quotes in the Contingential Analysis section.

Response 12:

We added three additional quotes illustrating microcontingency genesis, conflict avoidance, and the influence of caregivers’ own childhood histories.

These additions appear on page 21, lines 430–455.

Comment 13 – Results: Improve paragraph structure in Section 3.11.

Response 13:

We reorganized the section into coherent thematic paragraphs instead of line-by-line statements.

Revisions appear on page 22–23.

Comment 14 – Results: Add references to literature in Section 3.11.

Response 14:

We added brief citations connecting functional findings to previous research in Latin America and interbehavioral psychology.

Inserted on page 22, lines 470–490.

Comment 15 – Discussion: Address gender paradigms and why mothers assume communicative responsibility.

Response 15:

We expanded the discussion to analyze gendered caregiving norms and cite relevant regional literature demonstrating maternal centrality in sexual education.

Added on page 24, lines 525–542.

Comment 16 – Discussion: Add discussion on moral and religious influences and leadership structures.

Response 16:

We added a subsection discussing how community leaders and local religion modulate normative control of speech.

Inserted on page 24, lines 542–560.

Comment 17 – Discussion: Reinforce connection to CSE Framework.

Response 17:

We added explicit connections showing how mothers’ discourse aligns or diverges from CSE axes.

Added on page 25, lines 566–580.

Comment 18 – Conclusions: Remove the word “applied”.

Response 18:

The term “applied” has been removed.

Change appears on page 26, line 602.

4. Response to Comments on Quality of English Language

Point 1: The reviewer indicated the English is fine and requires no improvement.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this assessment. Minor stylistic edits were nonetheless incorporated to enhance clarity and coherence throughout the manuscript (noted in red in the tracked changes version).

5. Additional Clarifications

We added:

A clear operational definition of “sexuality” used during interviews (page 5).

A refined explanation of how functional frequencies were calculated (page 10).

Ethical approval details and protocol codes (page 28).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. While the topic is important, I think the paper could be improved in several areas. My comments are intended to help you strengthen your manuscript. I hope you find them useful.

 

Introduction section:

• There is a lack of relevant literature on the topic, particularly regarding prior studies on family interactions about sexuality and the factors that can influence them, as mentioned in page 2, lines 60–62.

 

Methods section:

• There is a lack of relevant information on the characteristics of the participants, which could impact the results. For instance, what is their socio-economic status, level of education and degree of religiousness? It would also be interesting to know the ages of their sons and daughters. Please consider including a table with the sociodemographic information of the sample.
• Page 3, lines 121–126: Please clarify the following sentence: 'This context operates as an antecedent macro contingency that establishes the probabilities of occurrence for family communicative practices related to sexual topics'.
• Page 4 and 5: The structure of the interview guide (Table 1) is unclear, and it seems that categories and questions are repeated. Importantly, it is unclear how 'sexuality' was defined and presented to participants. Please clarify.
• Please also specify whether the study was approved by an ethics committee.

 

Results and discussion:

• The current structure of the results is unclear. It would be useful to include a brief introduction to the different themes/categories identified. These could also be presented in table format to make the results easier to understand.
• Please clarify how the quantitative data was calculated (see lines 194 and 195, for example).
• The results section includes some elements that should appear in the discussion section (see lines 256–259, for example). Please check.
• Are there differences in mothers' response patterns according to the gender of their children (sons versus daughters)? It would be interesting to explore this and present it in your results.
• In its current form, it is unclear whether some of the conclusions are based on the results, and further evidence and explanations are needed (see, for example, lines 289–293 and 503–505).

 

Author Response

Comment 1 (Introduction):

“There is a lack of relevant literature on the topic, particularly regarding prior studies on family interactions about sexuality and the factors that can influence them.”

Response 1:

Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that the introduction required additional references and conceptual grounding. Therefore, we incorporated a broader review of existing literature on family communication about sexuality, including empirical findings from Latin America and Mexico. These additions clarify how avoidance, morality, gender norms, and emotional communication shape parental dialogue.

Revisions were made on page 3, paragraphs 3–5, lines 85–116.

“[Updated text: we added a new literature synthesis referencing studies on parental communication patterns, avoidance, social norms, and contextual influences.]”

Comment 2 (Methods – Participant Characteristics):

“There is a lack of relevant information on the characteristics of the participants… Please consider including a table with the sociodemographic information of the sample.”

Response 2:

We agree. We added complete sociodemographic information about participants—including age, marital status, socioeconomic status, education, occupation, and religious affiliation.

These details now appear in section 2.3 Participants, page 14, paragraph 2, lines 255–288.

“[Updated text: expanded participant description and integrated a narrative demographic profile instead of a table.]”

Comment 3 (Methods – Clarification of Macrocontingency Sentence):

Page 3, lines 121–126: “Please clarify the following sentence…”

Response 3:

We clarified the conceptual meaning of “antecedent macrocontingency” and rewrote the sentence to explain how structural vulnerability, violence, and moral norms increase or reduce the probability of certain communicative behaviors.

Revised on page 10, paragraph 1, lines 167–180.

“[Updated text clarifies the functional effect of contextual conditions on dialogue probabilities.]”

Comment 4 (Methods – Interview Guide):

“The structure of the interview guide is unclear; categories appear repeated. It is unclear how ‘sexuality’ was defined for participants.”

Response 4:

We reorganized the interview guide for clarity, removed duplicate category labels, and added a statement explaining how the concept of sexuality was presented to participants prior to interviews (following UNESCO’s CSE framework).

Revised on page 8–9, lines 140–165.

“[Updated text defines sexuality as biological, emotional, social, and rights-based, using UNESCO guidance.]”

Comment 5 (Methods – Ethical approval):

“Please specify whether the study was approved by an ethics committee.”

Response 5:

We added explicit information about ethical approval from CONAHCYT and BUAP.

Revised on page 16, lines 337–341.

“[Updated text: added the ethics committee approval code and dates.]”

Comment 6 (Results Structure):

“The results section is unclear. Please include a brief introduction to the categories.”

Response 6:

We added an introductory paragraph summarizing the eleven functional categories and explaining their organization across micro- and macrocontingential systems.

Revised on page 17, paragraph 1, lines 350–364.

“[Updated text introduces the structure and logic of the results section.]”

Comment 7 (Quantitative Calculation Method):

“Please clarify how quantitative data were calculated.”

Response 7:

We inserted a methodological explanation specifying that frequencies were calculated by counting discrete response units coded under each category.

Revised on page 17, paragraph 2, lines 364–371.

“[Updated text: clarified coding and functional quantification logic.]”

Comment 8 (Results – Discussion overlap):

“Some elements of results appear to belong in the discussion.”

Response 8:

We reviewed and relocated interpretative passages originally placed in the Results. These were moved to the Discussion to maintain analytical coherence.

Revisions appear on pages 20–23.

Comment 9 (Gender Differences):

“Are there differences in response patterns according to the gender of children?”

Response 9:

We analyzed this explicitly and added a clarification indicating that no major differences were found, although slight tendencies emerged.

Inserted on page 33, paragraph 3, lines 635–645.

“[Updated text: brief statement on minor gender-related tendencies.]”

Comment 10 (Conclusions Not Fully Supported):

“Some conclusions are not clearly based on the results.”

Response 10:

We revised the Conclusion to ensure every claim maps directly onto the empirical findings. Overly general or theoretical statements were removed or rewritten.

Revised on page 35, paragraph 1–3.

“[Updated text: conclusions now reflect empirical observations only.]”

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

The reviewer did not request specific English-language corrections.

Response:

We revised the entire manuscript for clarity, coherence, and simplification of overly technical language, ensuring accessibility without compromising conceptual rigor.

5. Additional Clarifications

We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful suggestions, which significantly strengthened theoretical clarity, methodological transparency, and empirical alignment. All revisions have been marked in red in the revised manuscript as requested by the journal.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for taking on the feedback and offering detailed and thorough responses!

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

 

Thank you for the revisions you provided. While I believe the paper has improved, I still have some comments and suggestions. I hope you find them useful.

 

• Abstract: Please begin the abstract by providing a brief theoretical background to the study, followed by the aim.

 

• Methods: The current structure is unclear. I would suggest beginning this section with 1) the “context” of the study, 2) the “participants”, and then 3) the “Theoretical-Methodological Framework”. As you talk about your analytic approach in point 3, it makes more sense to refer to it then.

 

• Page 7-8, lines 231-240: The limitations should be mentioned in the discussion section. Please consider moving this information there.

 

• Results: Due to the large number of results, please consider creating a table that lists the main themes and sub-themes identified. This would clarify readers' understanding of your results.

 

• Are the participant names included in the results true names or pseudonyms? Please clarify.

 

• Discussion: Please start the discussion by stating the aim of the study.

 

Author Response

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comments 1:

Abstract: Please begin the abstract by providing a brief theoretical background to the study, followed by the aim.

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the opening of the abstract to explicitly include a brief theoretical background grounded in an interbehavioral and contingential perspective, followed immediately by a clear statement of the study aim. This modification situates the study conceptually before presenting methodological and empirical elements.
This change can be found in the Abstract, first two sentences of the revised manuscript (p. 1).

Updated text:
“From an interbehavioral and contingential perspective, family dialogues about sexuality are understood as patterns of verbal interaction regulated by social, gender, and caregiving contingencies rather than as individual attitudes or intentions. This study aimed to analyze the functional conditions under which mothers engage in dialogues about sexuality with their adolescent daughters and sons, considering caregiving roles and gender norms.”

 

Comments 2:

Methods: The current structure is unclear. I would suggest beginning this section with 1) the “context” of the study, 2) the “participants”, and then 3) the “Theoretical-Methodological Framework”.

Response 2:
We agree with this suggestion and have restructured the Methods section accordingly. The section now begins with a description of the context of the study, followed by a clearly delimited Participants subsection, and then a Theoretical–Methodological Framework subsection, where the analytic approach is explicitly introduced and justified.
These changes can be found in Section 2 (Methods), subsections 2.1–2.3 of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 3:

Page 7–8, lines 231–240: The limitations should be mentioned in the discussion section. Please consider moving this information there.

Response 3:
We agree with this comment and have moved the limitations from the Results/Methods section to the Discussion section. This adjustment allows the limitations to be interpreted in relation to the findings and their implications, consistent with standard reporting practices.
The revised limitations are now included in the Discussion section, final subsection.

 

Comments 5:

Are the participant names included in the results true names or pseudonyms? Please clarify.

Response 5:
Thank you for raising this point. We clarify that all participant names used in the Results section are pseudonyms, employed solely to protect confidentiality and anonymity.
This clarification has been added to the Results section (introductory paragraph).

Updated text:
“All participant names used in the results are pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality and protect participants’ identities.”

 

Comments 6:

Discussion: Please start the discussion by stating the aim of the study.

Response 6:
We agree with this recommendation and have revised the opening of the Discussion section to explicitly restate the aim of the study. This provides a clear conceptual bridge between the results and their interpretation.
The revised opening sentence can be found in the Discussion section, first paragraph.

Updated text:
“The aim of this study was to analyze family dialogues about sexuality through a contingential interbehavioral framework, focusing on the functional conditions that regulate maternal communication with adolescent daughters and sons.”