Anne J Maheux1, Reina Evans2, Laura Widman2, Jacqueline Nesi3, Mitchell J Prinstein4, Sophia Choukas-Bradley5. 1. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Psychology, 210 S. Bouquet St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA. Electronic address: ajm303@pitt.edu. 2. North Carolina State University, Department of Psychology, 640 Poe Hall, Campus Box 7650, Raleigh, NC, 27695-7650, USA. 3. Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, 222 Richmond St., Providence, RI, 02903, USA; Bradley/Hasbro Research Center, Rhode Island Hospital, 1 Hoppin St., Providence, RI, 02903, USA. 4. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Psychology, 235 E. Cameron Ave, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. 5. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Psychology, 210 S. Bouquet St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adolescents misperceive and are heavily influenced by the behavior of their popular peers, yet research has not yet investigated this phenomenon for a relatively new and potentially risky behavior: adolescent sexting. The present study investigates rates of sexting among popular and non-popular adolescents and the association between adolescents' perceptions of popular peers' sexting behavior and their own sexting behavior. METHODS: A school-based sample of 626 adolescents from a rural high school in the Southeastern U.S. (Mage = 17.4, 53.5% female) completed surveys indicating whether they had sent a sext in the past year. Participants also reported on perceptions of popular peers' sexting behavior and completed sociometric nominations of peer status. RESULTS: While 87.4% of adolescents believed the typical popular boy or girl in their class had sent a sext in the past year, only 62.5% of popular adolescents had actually sent a sext. There was no significant difference between rates of sexting among popular and non-popular (54.8%) adolescents. After adjusting for gender and sexual activity status, adolescents who believed that the typical popular peer sent a sext were over ten times more likely to have also sexted in the past year. Among adolescents who believed their popular peers had not sexted, girls were more likely than boys to have sexted themselves; however, this gender difference disappeared among adolescents who believed their popular peers had sexted. CONCLUSIONS: These results underscore the importance of peer status and perceptions of peer norms in adolescents' sexting.
INTRODUCTION: Adolescents misperceive and are heavily influenced by the behavior of their popular peers, yet research has not yet investigated this phenomenon for a relatively new and potentially risky behavior: adolescent sexting. The present study investigates rates of sexting among popular and non-popular adolescents and the association between adolescents' perceptions of popular peers' sexting behavior and their own sexting behavior. METHODS: A school-based sample of 626 adolescents from a rural high school in the Southeastern U.S. (Mage = 17.4, 53.5% female) completed surveys indicating whether they had sent a sext in the past year. Participants also reported on perceptions of popular peers' sexting behavior and completed sociometric nominations of peer status. RESULTS: While 87.4% of adolescents believed the typical popular boy or girl in their class had sent a sext in the past year, only 62.5% of popular adolescents had actually sent a sext. There was no significant difference between rates of sexting among popular and non-popular (54.8%) adolescents. After adjusting for gender and sexual activity status, adolescents who believed that the typical popular peer sent a sext were over ten times more likely to have also sexted in the past year. Among adolescents who believed their popular peers had not sexted, girls were more likely than boys to have sexted themselves; however, this gender difference disappeared among adolescents who believed their popular peers had sexted. CONCLUSIONS: These results underscore the importance of peer status and perceptions of peer norms in adolescents' sexting.
Authors: Sarah W Helms; Sophia Choukas-Bradley; Laura Widman; Matteo Giletta; Geoffrey L Cohen; Mitchell J Prinstein Journal: Dev Psychol Date: 2014-11-03
Authors: Christopher D Houck; David Barker; Christie Rizzo; Evan Hancock; Alicia Norton; Larry K Brown Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jonathon J Beckmeyer; Debby Herbenick; Tsung-Chieh Jane Fu; Brian Dodge; Michael Reece; J Dennis Fortenberry Journal: J Sex Marital Ther Date: 2019-05-31
Authors: Hanneke A Teunissen; Renske Spijkerman; Geoffrey L Cohen; Mitchell J Prinstein; Rutger C M E Engels; Ron H J Scholte Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2013-09-07 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Mara Morelli; Flavio Urbini; Dora Bianchi; Roberto Baiocco; Elena Cattelino; Fiorenzo Laghi; Piotr Sorokowski; Michal Misiak; Martyna Dziekan; Heather Hudson; Alexandra Marshall; Thanh Truc T Nguyen; Lauren Mark; Kamil Kopecky; René Szotkowski; Ezgi Toplu Demirtaş; Joris Van Ouytsel; Koen Ponnet; Michel Walrave; Tingshao Zhu; Ya Chen; Nan Zhao; Xiaoqian Liu; Alexander Voiskounsky; Nataliya Bogacheva; Maria Ioannou; John Synnott; Kalliopi Tzani-Pepelasi; Vimala Balakrishnan; Moses Okumu; Eusebius Small; Silviya Pavlova Nikolova; Michelle Drouin; Antonio Chirumbolo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 3.390