Understanding Differences in Sexting Behaviors Across Gender, Relationship Status, and Sexual Identity, and the Role of Expectancies in Sexting
Understanding Differences in Sexting Behaviors Across Gender, Relationship Status, and Sexual Identity, and the Role of Expectancies in Sexting
复制标题
DOI：
10.1089/cyber.2012.0545
复制
发表时间：
2013-08-01
影响因子：
6.6
通讯作者：
Cyders, Melissa A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dir, Allyson L.;Coskunpinar, Ayca;Cyders, Melissa A.
通过互联网社交网站或移动的电话发送色情短信或交换色情材料是一种越来越普遍的行为。该研究试图（1）确定对性短信行为的预期，（2）研究人口统计学（即，性别、性身份、关系状态）可能与发送性短信的预期和行为存在差异性相关，以及（3）检查这些并发关系是否与发送性短信的预期影响发送性短信行为的理论因果模型一致。样本包括278名本科生（平均年龄= 21.0岁，SD = 4.56; 53.8%女性; 76.3%白人）。因素分析支持的有效性和可靠性的Sextpectancies措施（α = 0.85-0.93的子量表），并表示两个期望域发送和接收sexts：积极的期望（性相关和影响相关）和消极的期望。男性报告了更强的积极预期（F = 4.64，p = 0.03），而女性报告了更强的消极预期（F = 6.11，p = 0.01）。在消极期望方面，不同关系状态也存在差异（发送者F = 2.25，p = 0.05;接收者F = 4.24，p = 0.002）。积极预期（F = 45.98，p < 0.001发送，F = 22.42，p < 0.001接收）和消极预期（F = 36.65，p = 0.02发送，F = 14.41，p < 0.001接收）对性短信行为也有显著影响（g2从0.04-0.13）。大学生报告了积极和消极的sextpectancies，虽然sextpectancies和sexting显着不同性别，种族，性身份和关系状态。并发关系与sextpectancies影响sexting行为的因果模型一致，本研究作为该模型的第一次测试，可以为未来的预防策略提供信息，以减轻sexting风险。
Sexting, or the exchange of sexually explicit material via Internet social-networking site or mobile phone, is an increasingly prevalent behavior. The study sought to (1) identify expectancies regarding sexting behaviors, (2) examine how demographics (i.e., gender, sexual identity, relationship status) might be differentially related to sexting expectancies and behaviors, and (3) examine whether these concurrent relationships are consistent with a theoretical causal model in which sexting expectancies influence sexting behaviors. The sample consisted of 278 undergraduate students (mean age = 21.0 years, SD = 4.56; 53.8% female; 76.3% caucasian). Factor analyses supported the validity and reliability of the Sextpectancies Measure (alpha = 0.85-0.93 across subscales) and indicated two expectancy domains each for both sending and receiving sexts: positive expectancies (sexual-related and affect-related) and negative expectancies. Males reported stronger positive expectancies (F = 4.64, p = 0.03) while females reported stronger negative expectancies (F = 6.11, p = 0.01) about receiving sexts. There were also differences across relationship status regarding negative expectancies (F = 2.25, p = 0.05 for sending; F = 4.24, p = 0.002 for receiving). There were also significant effects of positive (F = 45.98, p < 0.001 for sending, F = 22.42, p < 0.001 for receiving) and negative expectancies (F = 36.65, p = 0.02 sending, F = 14.41, p < 0.001 receiving) on sexting behaviors (g 2 from 0.04-0.13). College students reported both positive and negative sextpectancies, although sextpectancies and sexting varied significantly across gender, race, sexual identity, and relationship status. Concurrent relationships were consistent with the causal model of sextpectancies influencing sexting behaviors, and this study serves as the first test of this model, which could inform future prevention strategies to mitigate sexting risks.