Youth Sexting Research Articles

Social and Psychological Factors of Rural Youth Sexting: An Examination of Gender-Specific Models

ABSTRACTTo date, few studies have examined the social and psychological effects of sexting behaviors. The current study examined how delinquency, social, and psychological factors were associated with sexting behavior in a sample of rural, high school students (n = 548). The results demonstrated that property delinquency, bully-victimization, alcohol, marijuana use, and bullying increased odds of sending and receiving nude photos. Gender specific models indicated that females who had participated in sexting behavior were more likely to report using alcohol and being a victim of bullying, while males were more likely to report using marijuana and being a perpetrator of bullying. Implications are discussed.

Youth Sexting: A Legislative and Constitutional Analysis

One central controversy with youth sexting is that adolescents may be prosecuted under child pornography and obscenity statutes that were originally created to protect children from sexual exploitation perpetrated by adults and do not adequately address consensual teen behavior. Due to this concern, many states have implemented laws specifically pertaining to youth sexting. This article examines the prevalence of youth sexting and criminal justice responses to this conduct. Youth sexting statutes in 23 states that currently have such legislation and laws regulating child pornography in all 50 states are analyzed. Results from a 50-state survey of legislation indicated a wide range of punishment options. This article also explores constitutional challenges to sexting statutes and prosecutions under obscenity or child pornography charges. The conclusion evaluates the implementation of sexting laws, recommends viable alternatives to criminal prosecution, and provides suggestions for future research.

Youth Sexting as Child Pornography? Developmental Science Supports Less Harsh Sanctions for Juvenile Sexters

It is critical that the legal and psychological issues surrounding youth sexting, a term derived from the joining of “sex” and “texting,” be considered. Based on current interpretations of the law, minors who engage in sexting can be charged with a felony offense and in some cases be required to register as a sex offender. Yet, when adults share sexually explicit photos of themselves, such behavior is protected under the First Amendment (provided the subject and the recipient of the image are consenting adults). The purpose of the present review is to examine the differential treatment of sexting by minors in the legal system and the controversy surrounding child pornography legislation. A brief history of child pornography legislation is provided, followed by a review of the existing literature on the prevalence and patterns of juvenile sexting. Available case law is summarized, with an emphasis on the consequences of sexting specifically for juveniles. The authors then address the developmental factors relevant to understanding youth sexting behavior. These considerations lead to a discussion of whether it is appropriate to consider adolescents culpable for such behavior and, if so, to what degree and under what circumstances. It is argued that sexting behavior be considered separate from child pornography, and as such, the authors propose that specific legislation be designed to address the unique situations in which sexting behavior occurs. Furthermore, based on developmental science, the authors conclude that juveniles should be considered less culpable for sexting behavior than adults, and recommend that the punishment for minors be more developmentally appropriate.

Youth Sexting: Prevalence Rates, Driving Motivations, and the Deterrent Effect of Legal Consequences

This study investigated the prevalence of and motivations behind the exchange of sexually explicit text messages (“sexting”)—including those with and without photographic images—among youth. Secondary aims included gauging youth awareness of potential legal and other negative consequences of sexting, and assessing the possible deterrent effect of anti-sexting legislation. Undergraduate students (N = 175) recruited from a large Northeastern university completed an anonymous online survey concerning their engagement in sexting as minors. Consistent with hypotheses, more than half of respondents reported sexting as minors, although only 28 % sent photographic sexts. Respondents demonstrated a general lack of awareness regarding legal consequences of underage sexting, with knowledge of legal consequences having a modest deterrent effect. Respondents who, as minors, were aware of legal consequences of youth sexting were significantly less likely than their peers to engage in underage sexting. Survey respondents were divided on the issue of whether minors should be prosecuted for sexting, and generally advocated for rehabilitative over punitive sanctions. Policy implications and future directions are discussed.

Blurred Lines? Responding to ‘Sexting’ and Gender-based Violence among Young People

The emerging phenomenon of youth ‘sexting’ presents a range of unique legal, policy and educative challenges. In this article we consider four key issues in recent responses to youth sexting behaviours: (1) the definitional dilemmas surrounding the term ‘sexting’; (2) the inadequacy of existing legislative frameworks for responding to these behaviours; (3) the problematic messages conveyed in anti-sexting campaigns; and (4) the relative silence around gender-based violence in non-consensual and abusive encounters. We argue that the non-consensual creation and distribution of sexual images has largely been framed in public debates as a problem of youth naiveté, with the effect of censuring young women's ‘risky’ sexual behaviour, and leaving unproblematised gender-based violence. We suggest that more nuanced understandings of sexting that distinguishes between the consensual and non-consensual creation and distribution of sexual images must inform legal, policy and education-based prevention responses to the misuse of new technologies.

“Sexting” and Sex Offender Registration: Do Age, Gender, and Sexual Orientation Matter?

This article investigates public attitudes regarding sanctions for youth and young adult sexting behaviors. Recently, youths have been charged under child pornography laws for sending or receiving a nude photo via their cell phones. This study investigates the impact that age, gender, and sexual orientation of the relationship has on the public's agreement with sex offender registration as a sanction for sexting.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study

Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study

Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study

To obtain national estimates of youth involved in sexting in the past year (the transmission via cell phone, the Internet, and other electronic media of sexual images), as well as provide details of the youth involved and the nature of the sexual images. The study was based on a cross-sectional national telephone survey of 1560 youth Internet users, ages 10 through 17. Estimates varied considerably depending on the nature of the images or videos and the role of the youth involved. Two and one-half percent of youth had appeared in or created nude or nearly nude pictures or videos. However, this percentage is reduced to 1.0% when the definition is restricted to only include images that were sexually explicit (ie, showed naked breasts, genitals, or bottoms). Of the youth who participated in the survey, 7.1% said they had received nude or nearly nude images of others; 5.9% of youth reported receiving sexually explicit images. Few youth distributed these images. Because policy debates on youth sexting behavior focus on concerns about the production and possession of illegal child pornography, it is important to have research that collects details about the nature of the sexual images rather than using ambiguous screening questions without follow-ups. The rate of youth exposure to sexting highlights a need to provide them with information about legal consequences of sexting and advice about what to do if they receive a sexting image. However, the data suggest that appearing in, creating, or receiving sexual images is far from being a normative behavior for youth.

How Often Are Teens Arrested for Sexting? Data From a National Sample of Police Cases

To examine characteristics of youth sexting cases handled by police and their outcomes in response to clinical and other concerns about the risks of sexting behavior. Mail surveys were sent to a stratified national sample of 2712 law enforcement agencies followed by detailed telephone interviews with investigators about a nationally representative sample of sexting cases handled by police during 2008 and 2009 (n = 675). The cases involved "youth-produced sexual images" that constituted child pornography under relevant statutes according to respondents. US law enforcement agencies handled an estimated 3477 cases of youth-produced sexual images during 2008 and 2009 (95% confidence interval: 3282-3672). Two-thirds of the cases involved an "aggravating" circumstance beyond the creation and/or dissemination of a sexual image. In these aggravated cases, either an adult was involved (36% of cases) or a minor engaged in malicious, non-consensual, or abusive behavior (31% of cases). An arrest occurred in 62% of cases with an adult involved, in 36% of the aggravated youth-only cases, and in 18% of the "experimental" cases (youth-only and no aggravating elements). Most of the images (63%) were distributed by cell phone only and did not reach the Internet. Sex offender registration applied in only a few unusual cases. Many of the youth sexting cases that come to the attention of police include aggravating circumstances that raise concerns about health and risky sexual behavior, although some cases were relatively benign. Overall, arrest is not typical in cases with no adults involved.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study

Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study

Adrift in the Middle: Parental Rights after Troxel v Granville

Previous articleNext article No AccessAdrift in the Middle: Parental Rights after Troxel v GranvilleEmily BussEmily Buss Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Supreme Court Review Volume 20002000 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/scr.2000.3109681 Views: 16Total views on this site Citations: 10Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 2001 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Brian Holoyda, Jacqueline Landess, Renee Sorrentino, Susan Hatters Friedman Trouble at teens' fingertips: Youth sexting and the law, Behavioral Sciences & the Law 36, no.22 (Mar 2018): 170–181.https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2335William Bernet Custody and Visitation Evaluations, (Mar 2015): 1–10.https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470061589.fsa231.pub3Shelley A. Riggs, Angela Cusimano The Dynamics of Military Deployment in the Family System: What Makes a Parent Fit for Duty?, Family Court Review 52, no.33 (Jul 2014): 381–399.https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12099William G. Austin, Marsha Kline Pruett, H.D. Kirkpatrick, James R. Flens, Jonathan W. Gould Parental Gatekeeping and Child Custody/Child Access Evaluation: Part I: Conceptual Framework, Research, and Application, Family Court Review 51, no.33 (Aug 2013): 485–501.https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12045William Bernet Custody and Visitation Evaluations, (Mar 2013).https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470061589.fsa231.pub2Jack A. Gottschalk, Daniel P. Greenfield Informed Consent, Parental Consent, and the Right to Refuse Treatment, (Dec 2012): 430–437.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118340851.ch43Jonathan W. Gould, David A. Martindale Child Custody Evaluations: Current Literature and Practical ApplicationsWe wish to acknowledge the extraordinary assistance of Milfred “Bud” Dale, PhD, JD, and William G. Austin, PhD, in the preparation of this chapter., (Sep 2012).https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop211006William Bernet, Joseph Kenan Visitation Rights, (Sep 2009).https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470061589.fsa231Michael C. Gottlieb TROXEL v. GRANVZLLE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR FAMILIES AND PRACTICE: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY SYMPOSIUM, Family Court Review 41, no.11 (Mar 2005): 8–13.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.2003.tb00863.xShelley A. Riggs RESPONSE TO TROXEL v. GRANVILLE, Family Court Review 41, no.11 (Mar 2005): 39–53.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.2003.tb00865.x