Abstract
This study examined the extent to which active and passive sexting behaviors are associated with family-, school-, peer-, and romantic-level variables. Young people (N = 3,322; 49.1% female, 48.3% male, 2.6% other) aged 11 to 15 years old (M = 12.84, SD = 0.89) took part, and all attended mainstream secondary schools in Scotland. Participants completed self-report measures of school connectedness, parental love and support, perceived susceptibility to peer- and romantic-pressure (e.g., to display behaviors just to impress others), and their involvement in active and passive sexting. The importance of both school- and family-level factors was evident, though perceived romantic-pressure had the largest effect. However, neither school- nor family-level variables were moderated by either perceived romantic-pressure or perceived peer-pressure. Efforts to reduce sexting or increase its safety should primarily seek to tackle young people’s ability to respond effectively to romantic-pressure. It may also be helpful to develop school connectedness and to help families provide support that is constructive and not intrusive.
Highlights
Sexting refers to sending or receiving of sexually explicit messages or images using the internet or mobile phone (Choi et al, 2016)
We examine the extent to which both active sexting and passive sexting are associated with variables at each level of the social-ecological framework, and whether family- and school-level factors can reduce the negative outcomes associated with peer and romantic interactions
We draw on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994) ecological systems framework to assess the relative contributions of peer-pressure, romantic-pressure, school connectedness, and parental love and support in adolescent sexting behavior, an important contribution if we aim to understand young people’s behaviors and experiences
Summary
Sexting refers to sending or receiving of sexually explicit messages or images using the internet or mobile phone (Choi et al, 2016). Adolescents often see sexting as normal behavior (Lippman & Campbell, 2014; Walker et al, 2013) despite the legal (Lee & Darcy, 2021; O’Connor et al, 2017), social (Lippman & Campbell, 2014; Strassberg et al, 2013), and interpersonal (Van Ouytsel et al, 2017) problems that are associated with it. To better understand this behavior, it is important to study it within a social-ecological framework that acknowledges the influence of factors at various levels.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
