Attitudes of Mothers toward Sex Education
\nDORIS BLOCH, RN, DRP H
\nAbstract: Data are presented on the attitudes of
\nmothers from the entire social class spectrum toward
\ncontent and timing of sex education for children (CTAttitudes), and also toward sex education in school (SAttitudes) in two California communities in 1969.
\nFindings underscore the necessity to consider these
\ntwo attitudinal variables separately. As a result of their
\nseparation for study purposes, it was possible to arrive
\nat a four-fold typology or grouping of mothers: 1) CT
\nliberals in favor, and 2) CT liberals opposed to sex
\neducation in schools, 3) CT conservatives in favor,
\nand 4) CT conservatives opposed to school programs
\nof sex education. It is inferred that educational planners need to pay due regard to the sentiments of all
\nfour maternal groups and all social classes in developing sex education programs for families and for
\nschool children. (Am J Public Health 69:911-915
\n1979.)
\nThere is need for a better understanding of parental attitudes about sex education in school. Previous studies have
\nsuffered from a lack of precision in defining “attitudes
\ntoward sex education.” Attitude measurement has generally
\nmixed two different components which should not be intermeshed or mistaken one for the other. These components
\nare: 1) attitudes toward the content and timing of sex education (CT-Attitudes), and 2) attitudes toward sex education in
\nschool (S-Attitudes).
\nThe data reported in this paper are derived from a larger
\nstudy whose purpose was to examine the dilemma which
\nmay occur when there is a gap between what mothers feel
\nthey should do and what they are actually doing in the sex
\neducation of their children.’- ^
\nMethodology
\nThe Sample
\nThe study here presented was carried out in two California locations, a small industrial city and a suburban “bedroom” community. A random sample of 194 names was
\ndrawn from the roster of all seventh-grade girls enrolled in
\nAddress reprint requests to Doris Bloch, RN, DrPH, Chief, Research Support Section, Division of Nursing, Bureau of Health
\nManpower, Health Resources Administration, Department of
\nHealth, Education, and Welfare, Center Bldg., Room 3-50, 3700
\nEast-West Highway, Hyattsville, MD 20782. This paper, submitted
\nto the Joumal August 9, 1978, was revised and accepted for publication April 18, 1979.
\nthe respective school districts. Interviews were requested
\nwith the mothers of all 194 girls. As 4.6 per cent of the
\nmothers could not be located, 5.1 per cent had insufficient
\ncomprehension of English to participate in a satisfactory interview, and 17.5 per cent declined to participate in the
\nstudy, interviews were conducted with 141 mothers (72.7 per
\ncent) of the original sample. Of these 141 interviews, 17 constituted the basis for a pilot study. Consequently, the data
\nhere reported reflect interviews with 124 mothers, whose index daughters (all seventh graders) ranged in age from 11 to
\n14.*
\nThe socioeconomic status of the study families was estimated by use of the Hollingshead two-factor index of social
\nposition^ (Table 1). Most of the mothers were currently married (87.1 per cent) and almost all (95.2 per cent) were between ages 30 and 49.
\nVariables and their Measurement
\nCT-Attitudes: For this research a number of scales for
\nthe measurement of sex education attitudes were examined.*”* However, none of these existing tools were found
\nentirely applicable to the present study because they mixed
\nS- and CT-Attitudes and because many items were unsatisfactorily worded.
\nA provisional Likert scale consisting of 25 items was
\ntherefore constructed to measure mothers’ attitudes toward
\ncontent and timing of sex education (CT-Attitudes). Some of
\nthe component items were newly formulated, others were
\n*23.4 per cent age 11,71 percentage 12, 5.6 per cent over age
\n12; 65.3 per cent had not yet passed menarche.
\nAJPH September 1979, Vol. 69, No. 9 911
\nBLOCH
\nTABLE 1-Distribution of Respondents by Ethnic Group and TABLE 2-Mean CT Attitude Scores, by Sociai Class
\nSocial Class
\nl&l l
\nIII
\nIV
\nV
\nTotal
\nS>0(
\nNo,
\n44
\n17
\n21)
\n10
\n91
\nciai uiass
\nWhite
\nPercent
\n48.4
\n18.7
\n22.0
\n11.0
\n100
\nNo.
\n0
\n0
\n9
\n10
\n19
\nBlack
\nPer Cent
\n.0
\n.0
\n47.4
\n52.6
\n100
\nSpanish
\nNo. Percent
\n0 .0
\n1 7.1
\n5 35.7
\n8 57.1
\n14 100
\nNo.
\n44
\n18
\n34
\n28
\n124
\nTotal
\nPer Cent
\n35.5
\n14.5
\n27.4
\n22.8
\n100
\nSoclal Class
\nl&l l
\nIII
\nIV
\nV
\nTotal
\naF = 6.51; d.f.
\nN
\n44
\n18
\n34
\n28
\n124
\n= 3, 120; p < .001.
\nMean^
\n15.36
\n14.00
\n12.64
\n11.57
\n13.56
\nSD
\n2.82
\n4.05
\n3.83
\n4.89
\n4.07
\ntaken from existing scales. Approximately one-half were
\nworded to denote a liberal opinion and the other one-half a
\nconservative opinion toward sex education. Subsequently,
\nthis collection of items was revised to encompass the final
\n10-item scale (Appendix 1).**
\nThe possible range of scores for this 10-item scale is
\nfrom 0 (most conservative) to 20 (most liberal). The actual
\nrange for the study sample was 0 to 20, with a mean of 13.56
\nand a standard deviation of 4.07. Testing by split-half reliability revealed a correlation of 0.54, corrected to 0.70 by the
\nSpearman Brown formula.'”
\nS-Attitudes: A 25-item scale for measuring attitudes
\ntoward sex education in school was likewise constructed and
\nsubsequently revised into a 10-item scale (Appendix 2).**
\nPossible range of scores for this scale is 0 (most unfavorable)
\nto 20 (most favorable). Actual range of scores for the study
\nsample was 0 to 20, with a mean of 13.42 and a standard
\ndeviation of 4.71. Split-half reliability was 0.83, corrected to
\n0.91 by the Spearman-Brown formula.
\nThe mothers were also asked to choose from a list of sex
\ninformation sources those which should be considered as
\nfirst, second, and third in importance. As limited evidence of
\nvalidity, it should be noted that the mothers who named the
\nschool as the most preferred choice had the highest mean SAttitude score of any of the study participants; and those
\nwho did not name the school as a desirable choice at all had
\nthe lowest mean scores of the entire sample. When tested by
\none-way analysis of variance, the difference between the
\nmeans was found to be statistically significant (F = 5.18;
\nd.f. = 3, 120; p < .005).
\nFindings
\nAs indicated, the study data were analyzed in relation to
\nsocioeconomic status. They reveal that 83.9 per cent of the
\nmothers gave either the mother or both parents as the preferred source of sex information for children. Some 93.5 per
\ncent of the socioeconomic class (SEC) I-III mothers named
\nparents as the preferred source of sex information, compared to 79.4 per cent of those in SEC IV and 67.8 percent of
\nthe SEC V participants. This finding indicates that the higher
\ntheir socioeconomic status, the more likely are mothers to
\n**Additional information about scale development is available
\nin references 1 and 9.
\nregard parents as the preferred source of sex education for
\nchildren (Chi-square = 10.10; d.f. = 2; p < .01).
\nWithin SECs IV and V, no significant relationship was
\nfound between ethnic group (white, Spanish-sumamed, or
\nblack) and preferred information source, although a somewhat larger proportion of the white mothers named “parents” as the preferred sex educator.
\nAttitudes toward Content and Timing of Sex Education
\n(CT-Attitudes)
\nOn a possible scale of 0 to 20, with 0 representing the
\nmost conservative position and 20 the most liberal, the mean
\nCT-Attitude score of the total participating group was 13.56,
\nwith a standard deviation of 4.07. The data show a significant
\nrelationship between social class and CT-Attitudes. The
\nhigher the social class of the mothers, the more likely are
\nthey to hold liberal CT-Attitudes (Table 2).
\nAttitudes toward Sex Education in School (S-Attitudes)
\nOn a possible scale of 0 to 20, the mean S-Attitude score
\nof the 124 mothers was 13.41, with a standard deviation of
\n4.70. As was also the case with CT-Attitudes, analysis of
\nvariance indicated a significant relationship between S-Attitudes and socioeconomic class. However, a comparison of
\nTable 2 and Table 3, which follows, shows that the CT-and
\nS-Attitude responses present quite different patterns.
\nWhile the mean CT-Attitude scores follow a striaghtline pattern for the socioeconomic groups, with mothers in
\nClasses I-II most liberal and those in Class V most conservative, the pattern of mean S-Attitude scores for these
\nrespective class groups is less clear. In the case of S-Attitudes, t-tests for equality of means indicate a statistically significant difference between the S-Attitudes of Classes I, II,
\nand III mothers (combined) and Class IV and V mothers
\n(combined) (t, 2-tailed, = 4.28; d.f. = 122; p < .001), with
\nmothers in the two lower socioeconomic classes holding the
\nmost favorable attitudes toward sex education in school, and
\nthose in the upper three SEC classes holding the least favorable attitudes.
\nRelationship between CT-Attitudes and S-Attitudes
\nAs anticipated, the data reveal a significant positive association between the two sex education attitude variables:
\nthe more liberal the attitudes toward the content and timing
\nof sex education, the more favorable are the attitudes toward
\n912 AJPH September 1979, Vol. 69, No. 9
\nATTITUDES TOWARD SEX EDUCATION
\nTABLE 3\u2014Mean S-Attltude Scores, by Social Class TABLE 4-Mean S-Attitude Scores, by Attitudes toward ConSocial Class
\nl&l l
\nIII
\nIV
\nV
\nTotal
\nN
\n44
\n18
\n34
\n28
\n124
\nMeana
\n12,18
\n10,61
\n15,23
\n14,96
\n13,41
\nSD
\n5 34
\n4,57
\n3,48
\n3,62
\n4,70
\nleni ai
\nCT-Attitudes”
\nConservative
\nModerate
\nLiberal
\nTotal
\nna liming or s
\nN
\n38
\n57
\n29
\n124
\n\u00abx Education
\nMeana
\n11,73
\n13,43
\n15,58
\n13.41
\nSO
\n4,88
\n4,64
\n3.75
\n4.70
\n= 6.64; d.f. = 3, 120; p < .001 ^F = 5.94; d.f. = 2, 121; p < .005,
\n”Conservative: score 0-11; moderate: score 12-16; liberal: score 17-20.
\nsex educatioti in school (Table 4), Iti additioti, however, they
\nsupport the belief that the two attitude componetits are
\nlargely independent of each other (Figure 1). It is evident
\nthat the correlation between the CT- and S-Attitudes is far
\nfrom perfect, Pearson product-moment correlation between
\nthem is ,28, only 7.8 per cent of the variance between the
\ntwo distributions being shared. It was possible, therefore, to
\ndelineate four diflFerent types of mothers in terms of their
\nvarying attitudes toward content-timing, and school sex education: 1) mothers with high scores on both components (HIHIs, N = 40); 2) those with low scores on both components
\n(LO-LOs, N = 41); 3) CT-liberals with relatively unfavorable S-Attitudes (HI-LOs, N = l8);and4)CT-conservatives
\nwith relatively favorable S-Attitudes (LO-HIs, N = 25),
\nIn an effort to discover which factors distinguish these
\nfour groups of mothers, the four groups were compared on a
\nnumber of variables. All 18 CT-liberals with unfavorable SAttitudes belonged to Classes I, II, and III, and almost all
\nCT-conservatives with favorable S-Attitudes belonged to
\nClasses IV and V, A sizable majority of mothers in all
\ngroups\u2014but less so in the LO-HI group\u2014preferred the home
\n20
\n19
\n18
\n17
\n16
\n15
\n14
\n13
\n12
\n11
\n10
\n9
\n8
\n7
\n6
\n5
\n4
\n3
\n2
\nI
\n0
\nO
\ni
\na: <
\no o
\no X
\nu ijj
\nI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
\nI 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
\nSCORE FOR ATTITUDES TOWARO CONTENT AND
\nTIMING OF SEX EDUCATION
\nFIGURE 1\u2014Scattergram of Attitudes toward the Content and Timing
\nof Sex Education and Attitudes toward Sex Education in School
\n(N=124)
\nas the source of sex information. The LO-LO mothers were
\nmost likely to refuse permission for a daughter interview***
\n(Table 5),
\nDiscussion
\nMaternal attitudes toward sex information for children
\nwere analyzed with a focus on attitudes toward the source of
\nsuch information, and attitudes toward the content and timing of sex information. Content and timing were combined
\ninto one tool, because these elements appeared too closely
\nallied to permit separation. Data were derived from interviews with 124 mothers of the seventh grade girls.
\nThe analyses have included the variable “social class,”
\nsince other significant variables, such as religion and
\nmother’s sex knowledge, are themselves highly correlated
\nwith SEC class. Other variables, such as mother’s own sex
\neducation, did not seem to relate to attitudes. Data on a number of daughter variables, such as birth order and whether or
\nnot the daughter had passed menarche, were collected, but
\nwere not analyzed in relation to maternal attitudes.
\nAs expected, the overwhelming majority of the mothers
\nin the sample (84 per cent) took the traditional view that parents should be primarily responsible for the sex education of
\ntheir children. Witmer* reported in 1929 that over 90 per cent
\nof mothers expressed the belief that children should receive
\nsex information in the home. Although the two studies are
\nnot strictly comparable, there seems to have been little
\nchange in 40 years,
\nCT-Attitudes were conceptualized as relevant to the parental role. They are regarded as that part of the role which
\nprescribes what and when children should be taught about
\nsex. Consistent with certain prior studies, this investigator
\nfound a positive association between CT-Attitudes and social class. From the study data it may be concluded that the
\nhigher the social class of mothers, the more likely they are to
\nfeel that parents should be the primary (but not necessarily
\nthe sole) sex educators, and that children should be taught
\nthe facts of life at an early age and in extensive degree. Conversely, the lower their social class, the more likely are they
\nto feel that sources other than parents should assume the sex
\n***The daughter interview was requested to gain information
\nabout the extent and sources of the girls’ sex knowledge. These data
\nwill be reported elsewhere.
\nAJPH September 1979, Vol. 69, No. 9 913
\nBLOCH
\nTABLE 5-Distribution of Respondents by Attitude Typoiogy, and by Sociai Ciass, Preferred
\nSource of Sex Information, and Completion of Daughter interviews
\nSocial Class\u00ae
\nmill
\nIVV
\nHome Preferred Source”
\nYes
\nNo
\nDaughter Interview”^
\nCompleted
\nRefused
\nNo.
\n20
\n20
\n35
\n5
\n34
\n6
\nHI-HI
\nPer Cent
\n50.0
\n50.0
\n87.5
\n22.5
\n85.0
\n15.0
\nCT Attitude\u2014S-Attitude Typology
\nNo.
\n18
\n0
\n18
\n0
\n15
\n3
\nHI-LO
\nPer Cent
\n100.0
\n.0
\n100.0
\n.0
\n83.3
\n16.7
\nNo.
\n3
\n22
\n16
\ng
\n22
\n3
\nLO-HI
\nPer Cent
\n12.0
\n88.0
\n64.0
\n36.0
\n88.0
\n12.0
\nNo.
\n21
\n20
\n35
\n6
\n21
\n20
\nLO-LO
\nPer Cent
\n51.2
\n48.8
\n85.4
\n24.6
\n51.2
\n48.8
\nNo.
\n62
\n62
\n104
\n20
\n92
\n32
\nTotal
\nPer Cent
\n50.0
\n50.0
\n83.9
\n16.1
\n74.2
\n25.8
\na) x2 = 32.46; df. = 3; p < .001
\nb) x’ = 11.33; df. = 3;p < .025
\nc) x* = 17.02; df. = 3;p < .001
\neducation function, and that relatively little should be revealed to children, and that little relatively late.
\nS-Attitudes were also conceptualized as relevant to the
\nparental role. In contrast to CT-Attitudes, the data do not
\nindicate a linear, positive association between social class
\nand attitudes toward sex education in school. Mothers in the
\nlower social strata were most favorably inclined toward having sex education a school responsibility.
\nPrevious opinion studies, using various methodologies,
\nhave consistently found parents to be highly favorable
\ntoward sex education in school.””” However, the need to
\nseparate CT and S sex education attitude components has
\nnot been recognized in the past, so that the peculiar correlation between social class and S-Attitudes has gone unnoticed. Sex education experts have generally labored under
\nthe belief that support for sex education in schools is highest
\nin the higher social classes.*’ “\u2022 ‘*
\nIntuitively it would be expected that mothers with liberal attitudes toward the content and timing of sex education
\nwould also be favorably inclined toward sex education in
\nschool. However, a sizable proportion of the sample did not
\nfit the expected pattem.
\nIf these findings can be generalized, professionals planning parent sex education groups, and those planning school
\nsex education programs for children should consider four,
\nrather than two types of parents. That is to say, they have to
\ntake into account not just parents who are for and parents
\nwho are against sex education, but four types of parents who
\nmay react differently to the type of program that is proposed
\nand\/or offered.
\nThe HI-HI group may be most likely to take advantage
\nof parent education programs, but not need it as much as the
\nother parents. If they themselves are not doing a good job of
\nsex education with their children\u2014despite the fact that they
\nwant to\u2014they are happy to have the school fill in the gaps.
\nThe LO-LO group may not be very interested in parent
\nor school sex education, presumably feeling that sex and
\nsex education are better “swept under the rug.” However,
\nan attempt to involve these mothers in facing the issues
\nmay possibly result in relatively high payoff in terms of liberalized CT-Attitudes as well as in liberalized S-Attitudes.
\nThe HI-LO group may or may not take advantage of
\nparent education. Other data from the study (not reported
\nhere) tend to support the belief that these mothers feel that
\nthey are already doing a good job, although the validity of
\ntheir self-assessment can be questioned. Their CT-Attitudes
\nare already liberal; if they are not doing a good job of sex
\neducation themselves, this may be due to deeper psychological factors on which parent education may have little if any
\nefiFect. They are unlikely to favor school programs in any
\ncase.
\nThe LO-HI group may well feel too insecure about
\ndoing the job of sex education themselves to be interested in
\ntaking advantage of any parent education program that might
\nbe ofiFered. It may be that they and their children are most
\nbenefited by a good school sex education program.
\nProfessionals planning new or improved school family
\nlife and sex education programs for children must consider
\nthese four types of parents; to think only in terms of parents
\nwho favor and those who oppose sex education would be an
\ninadequate explanation of reality, and could result in misunderstanding both those parents who favor and those who
\nare opposed to sex education in schools.
\nREFERENCES
\n1. Bloch D: Attitudes and practices of mothers in the sex education of their daughters. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 1970.
\n2. Bloch D: Sex education practices of mothers. Joumal of Sex
\nEducation and Therapy 4:7-12, 1978.
\n3. Hollingshead AB; Two factor index of social position. New
\nHaven; Author, 1957.
\n4. Harris MH; Parent-teacher attitudes toward sex education and
\nthe film. Human Growth. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Oregon, 1949.
\n914 AJPH September 1979, Vol. 69, No. 9
\nATTITUDES TOWARD SEX EDUCATION
\n5. Lemon B: Parental attitudes toward sex education. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Oregon, 1948.
\n6. Reeve SB: Parental attitudes toward sex education in junior
\nhigh school. Unpublished master’s thesis, Florida State University, 1963.
\n7. Shaw ME and Wright JM: Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967, pp. 63-64.
\n8. Witmer HL: The attitudes of mothers toward sex education.
\nN.p.: The University of Minnesota Press, 1929.
\n9. Ward MJ and Lindeman CA: Instruments for Measuring Nursing Practice and Other Health Care Variables: Psychosocial and
\nPhysiological, Volume 1 and 2. DHEW Pub. No. HRA 78-53
\nand 78-54, Division of Nursing, Bureau of Health Manpower,
\nHealth Resources Administration, Washington, DC, 1979.
\n10. Fox DJ: Fundamentals of research in nursing. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966, pp. 231-232.
\n11. Paddack CT: Public opinion of the people of Washington regarding the teaching of sex education in the public schools. Unpublished master’s thesis. The State College of Washington, 1951,
\npp. 14-15.
\n12. Fink K: Public thinks sex education courses should be taught in
\nthe schools. Journal of Social Hygiene 37:62-63, 1951.
\n13. Field MD: Poll favors high school sex courses. San Francisco
\nChronicle, p. 14, August 29, 1969.
\n14. Gallup G: Sex revolution in U.S., Part II. Princeton, NJ: American Institute of Public Opinion, June 23, 1969. (Report of Opinion Poll).
\n15. Libby RW: Parental attitudes toward high school sex education
\nprograms. The Family Coordinator 19:234-247, 1970.
\n16. Bowers RS: A study of opinions concerning the teaching of sex
\neducation in the public schools. Unpublished master’s thesis.
\nEast Tennessee State College, p. 58, 1962.
\nACKNOWLEDGti\/IENTS
\nThis investigation was supported through fellowship No. NU27,049 from the National Institutes of Health, Division of Nursing;
\nalso (in part) through General Research Support Grant SOl-FR05441 from the National Institutes of Health to the School of Public
\nHealth, University of Califomia, Berkeley, and (in part) through a
\nGraduate Student Grant-in-Aid from the Graduate Division of the
\nUniversity of California, in Berkeley.
\nThe writer wishes to express appreciation to Dr. Susan Gortner. Dr. Eugene Levine, and Mr. Roger Libby for reading and commenting upon a draft of this paper. Special thanks go to Mrs. Evelyn
\nLazzari for her extensive Helpance with the most difficult task, the
\ncondensing of a lengthy manuscript. This paper reports on a portion
\nof the author’s doctoral dissertation, completed at the University
\nof California, Berkeley, in 1970.
\nAPPENDIX 1 \u2014Revised CT-Attitude Scale APPENDIX 2\u2014Revised S-Attitude Scale
\nA U D Children should not be told about intercourse
\n0 1 2 until they are at least 12 years old.
\nA U D If a child of 6 asks where babies come from,
\n0 1 2 heshouldbe told: “From God; He lets a little
\nseed grow under mother’s heart.”
\nA U D Children should be taught that playing with
\n0 1 2 themselves is a bad habit.
\nA U D Children should be told that women have to
\n0 1 2 be married to have babies.
\nA U D Children should be allowed to see their pets
\n2 1 0 mate.
\nA U D Parents should teach their children not to talk
\n0 1 2 about the facts of life with other children.
\nA U D If a young child asks how the baby got inside
\n0 1 2 the mother, it’s best to change the subject.
\nA U D Children should only be told about the facts
\n0 I 2 of life when they ask questions.
\nA U D A child who wants to know how babies get
\n2 I 0 out of the mother, should be told the truth, no
\nmatter how young he is.
\nA U D When a 5-year-old asks how babies get out of
\n0 1 2 the mother, he should be told he is too young
\nto know.
\nA U D Teaching the facts of life in school is as im2 1 0 portant as teaching reading, writing, and
\narithmetic.
\nA U D Children should learn about the facts of life as
\n2 1 0 part of their regular work in school.
\nA U D When the facts of life are taught in school,
\n0 1 2 children are given too much information
\nwhen they are too young.
\nA U D When children are given a good sex educa2 1 0 tion in school, they will make wiser decisions
\nwhen they grow up.
\nA U D The facts of life should be taught in school, so
\n2 1 0 that children get the proper information.
\nA U D Schools should take the lead in teaching the
\n2 1 0 facts of life.
\nA U D Boys and girls should be together in classes
\n2 1 0 where the facts of life are taught.
\nA U D Teachers are too overworked to teach sex
\n0 1 2 education in addition to all their other duties.
\nA U D If the facts of life are taught in school, chil2 1 0 dren leam that sex is a normal part of life.
\nA U D Classroom discussion about sex will stimu0 1 2 late too much interest in raw sex.
\nAJPH September 1979, Vol. 69, No. 9 915<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Attitudes of Mothers toward Sex Education DORIS BLOCH, RN, DRP H Abstract: Data are presented on the attitudes of mothers from the entire social class\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7316,7318,7317,7315,7319,7321],"tags":[441,7323,628,7326,7325,7322,7324],"class_list":["post-49215","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-best-dissertation-writers-uk","category-british-dissertation-writers","category-dissertation-help-online","category-dissertation-writing-services-uk","category-help-with-dissertation-writing","category-uk-dissertation-help","tag-cheap-dissertation-writing-services","tag-dissertation-help-london","tag-dissertation-help-online","tag-dissertation-tutor","tag-expert-assignment-help","tag-masters-dissertation-help","tag-university-assignment-help"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49215","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49215"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49215\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}