nach oben

Sexuality Research and Social Policy

Erschienen in:

04.02.2020

Opinions of Adolescents on Prevention Related to Sexting: a Q-Methodology Study

verfasst von: Yara Barrense-Dias, Christina Akre, Joan-Carles Suris, André Berchtold

Erschienen in: Sexuality Research and Social Policy | Ausgabe 4/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Introduction

Sexting has attracted the interest of researchers, media, and public opinion, but its definition still does not reach consensus. This gap may lead to diverging prevention messages. This study investigated the opinions of adolescents on a set of sexting-related preventive measures.

Methods

In 2018, 48 adolescents (27 females) aged 13 to 18 years participated in the study. To assess opinions of adolescents on sexting-related prevention, we conducted a Q-methodology study, a mixed methods research, in Lausanne (Canton of Vaud, Switzerland). The final Q-set constituted 58 statements reflecting a wide range of key messages, key actors, and materials. Each participant was asked to rank-order the 58 cards using a grid ranging from − 5 (completely disagree) to + 5 (completely agree).

Results

Five different profiles of considering sexting-related prevention were identified: Focus on consequences, sex education, and testimonies, focus on guidelines, focus on training/information, and peer prevention. The typical scenario used in many prevention campaigns illustrating a girl who is victim of a non-consensual sharing perpetrated by a boy was not appreciated. The topic of the Internet was not considered an appropriate gateway to discuss sexting. Pressure and bullying issues as topics to discuss in a sexting-related prevention were the most consensual statements.

Conclusions

This study highlighted the need to offer a multi-disciplinary, multi-resource and multi-concept approach in sexting-related prevention. Broader values such as respect and consent must be integrated. Consensual sexting must be clearly differentiated from non-consensual dissemination. Policy implications and future directions, including prevention strategies, are discussed.

Vorheriger Artikel The Administration of Desire: Governmentality and Sexual Politics in Mexico’s Demographic Shift of the 1970s

Nächster Artikel Sexual Anxiety Among Women Living with HIV in the Era of Antiretroviral Treatment Suppressing HIV Transmission

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Albury, K., & Crawford, K. (2012). Sexting, consent and young people’s ethics: Beyond Megan’s story. Continuum, 26, 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2012.665840.CrossRef

Allison, K. R., & Bussey, K. (2016). Cyber-bystanding in context: A review of the literature on witnesses’ responses to cyberbullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 65, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.03.026.CrossRef

Barrense-Dias, Y., Berchtold, A., Surís, J.-C., & Akre, C. (2017a). Sexting and the definition issue. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 61, 544–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.05.009

Barrense-Dias, Y., Suris, J.-C., & Akre, C. (2017b). La sexualité à l’ère numérique: les adolescents et le sexting (Raisons de santé 269) (1660–7104). Retrieved from http://www.iumsp.ch/Publications/pdf/rds269_fr.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2019.

Barrense-Dias, Y., Akre, C., Berchtold, A., Leeners, B., Morselli, D., & Suris, J.-C. (2018a). Sexual health and behavior of young people in Switzerland (Raisons de santé 291). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.16908/issn.1660-7104/291

Barrense-Dias, Y., De Puy, J., Romain-Glassey, N., & Suris, J.-C. (2018b). La prévention et le sexting: un état des lieux. Retrieved from https://www.iumsp.ch/Publications/pdf/rds285_fr.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2019.

Barrense-Dias, Y., Surís, J.-C., & Akre, C. (2019). “When it deviates it becomes harassment, doesn’t it?:” A qualitative study on the definition of sexting according to adolescents and young adults, parents, and teachers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 2357–2366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1358-5.CrossRefPubMed

Bashatah, L. S. (2016). Q-methodology: What and how? IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 6(5), 37–43.

Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91–138.

Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600408.CrossRef

Crofts, T., & Lee, M. (2013). ‘Sexting,’ children and child pornography. Sydney Law Review, 35(1), 85–106.

Dekker, A., Daubmann, A., Pinnschmidt, H. O., & Briken, P. (2019). (Don’t) look at me! How the assumed consensual or non-consensual distribution affects perception and evaluation of sexting images. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 8(5), 706. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8050706.CrossRefPubMedCentral

Döring, N. (2014). Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk prevention through abstinence education or safer sexting? Cyberpsychology, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-1-9.CrossRef

Fairweather, J., & Rinne, T. (2012). Clarifying a basis for qualitative generalization using approaches that identify shared culture. Qualitative Research, 12(4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111433000.CrossRef

Gasso, A. M., Klettke, B., Agustina, J. R., & Montiel, I. (2019). Sexting, mental health, and victimization among adolescents: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13), 2364. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132364.CrossRefPubMedCentral

Hislop, J., Mason, H., Parr, J. R., Vale, L., & Colver, A. (2016). Views of young people with chronic conditions on transition from pediatric to adult health services. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(3), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.04.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Holoyda, B., Landess, J., Sorrentino, R., & Friedman, S. H. (2018). Trouble at teens’ fingertips: Youth sexting and the law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36, 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2335.CrossRef

Jedeloo, S., van Staa, A., Latour, J. M., & van Exel, N. J. (2010). Preferences for health care and self-management among Dutch adolescents with chronic conditions: A Q-methodological investigation. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(5), 593–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.006.CrossRefPubMed

Johnson, M., Mishna, F., Okumu, M., & Daciuk, J. (2018). Non-consensual sharing of sexts: Behaviours and attitudes of Canadian youth. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/research-policy. Accessed 31 Oct 2019.

Jørgensen, C. R., Weckesser, A., Turner, J., & Wade, A. (2018). Young people’s views on sexting education and support needs: Findings and recommendations from a UK-based study. Sex Education, 19, 25–40. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1475283.CrossRef

Klettke, B., Hallford, D. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2014). Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.10.007.CrossRefPubMed

Krieger, M. A. (2017). Unpacking “sexting”: A systematic review of nonconsensual sexting in legal, educational, and psychological literatures. Trauma Violence Abuse, 18(5), 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016659486.CrossRefPubMed

Levick, M., & Moon, K. (2010). Prosecuting sexting as child pornography. Valparaiso Univ Law Rev, 44(4), 1035–1054.

Lippman, J. R., & Campbell, S. W. (2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…if you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8, 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.923009.CrossRef

Madigan, S., Ly, A., Rash, C. L., Van Ouytsel, J., & Temple, J. R. (2018). Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behavior among youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5314.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2014). Blurred lines? Responding to ‘sexting’ and gender-based violence among young people. Children Australia, 39(2), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/cha.2014.9.CrossRef

Pro Juventute. (2013). Campagne de sensibilisation “sexting”. Retrieved from https://www.projuventute.ch/Sexting-2013-2014.2477.0.html?&L=1. Accessed 31 Oct 2019.

Ramlo, S. E., & Newman, I. (2011). Q methodology and its position in the mixed methods continuum. Operant Subjectivity, 34(3), 172–191.

Ringrose, J., Gill, R., Livingstone, S., & Harvey, L. (2012). A qualitative study of children, young people and ‘sexting’: A report prepared for the NSPCC. Retrieved from https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/research-and-resources/pre-2013/qualitative-study-sexting/. Accessed 31 Oct 2019.

Salmivalli, C. (2014). Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in interventions? Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 286–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947222.CrossRef

Salmivalli, C., Poskiparta, E., Ahtola, A., & Haataja, A. (2013). The implementation and effectiveness of the KiVa Antibullying Program in Finland. European Psychologist, 18(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000140.CrossRef

Salter, M., Crofts, T., & Lee, M. (2013). Beyond criminalisation and responsibilisation: Sexting, gender and young people. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(3), 301–316.CrossRef

Schacter, H. L., Greenberg, S., & Juvonen, J. (2016). Who’s to blame?: The effects of victim disclosure on bystander reactions to cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.018.CrossRef

Scott, S., Baker, R., Shucksmith, J., & Kaner, E. (2014). Autonomy, special offers and routines: A Q methodological study of industry-driven marketing influences on young people’s drinking behaviour. Addiction, 109(11), 1833–1844. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12663.CrossRefPubMed

Shinebourne, P. (2009). Using Q method in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800109.CrossRef

Shinebourne, P., & Adams, M. (2007). Q-methodology as a phenomenological research method. Existential Analysis, 18, 103–116.

Stephenson, W. (1935). Correlating persons instead of tests. Journal of Personality, 4(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1935.tb02022.x.CrossRef

Strasburger, V. C., Zimmerman, H., Temple, J. R., & Madigan, S. (2019). Teenagers, sexting, and the law. Pediatrics, 143(5), e20183183. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3183.CrossRefPubMed

Suter, L., Waller, G., Bernath, J., Külling, C., Willemse, I., & Süss, D. (2018). JAMES - Jeunes, activités, médias - enquête Suisse: Rapport sur les résultats de l’étude JAMES 2018. Retrieved from https://www.swisscom.ch/content/dam/swisscom/fr/about/entreprise/durabilite/competencesmedias/documents/rapport-james-2018.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2019.

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. (2008). Sex and tech: Results from a survey of teens and young adults. Washington: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Tielen, M., van Staa, A. L., Jedeloo, S., van Exel, N. J., & Weimar, W. (2008). Q-methodology to identify young adult renal transplant recipients at risk for nonadherence. Transplantation, 85(5), 700–706. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e318166163e.CrossRefPubMed

Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., & Van Gool, E. (2014). Sexting: Between thrill and fear—How schools can respond. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(5), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2014.918532.CrossRef

Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., & Ponnet, K. (2018). Adolescent sexting research: The challenges ahead. JAMA Pediatrics, 172, 405–406. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0013.CrossRefPubMed

Walker, S., Sanci, L., & Temple-Smith, M. (2013). Sexting: Young women’s and men’s views on its nature and origins. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 697–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.01.026.CrossRefPubMed

Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Heirman, W., & Verbeek, A. (2015). Whether or not to engage in sexting: Explaining adolescent sexting behaviour by applying the prototype willingness model. Telematics and Informatics, 32, 796–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.03.008.CrossRef

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa.CrossRef

Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (Producer). (2011). Sexting: A typology. Retrieved from http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV231_Sexting%20Typology%20Bulletin_4-6-11_revised.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2019.

Wolfe, S. E., Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., & Ricketts, M. L. (2016). Routine cell phone activity and exposure to sext messages: Extending the generality of routine activity theory and exploring the etiology of a risky teenage behavior. Crime & Delinquency, 62(5), 614–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714541192.CrossRef

Wood, R. T. A., Griffiths, M. D., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2002). Adolescent accounts of the UK National Lottery and Scratchcards: An analysis using Q-sorts. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18(2), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015576731887.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Opinions of Adolescents on Prevention Related to Sexting: a Q-Methodology Study
verfasst von: Yara Barrense-Dias
Christina Akre
Joan-Carles Suris
André Berchtold
Publikationsdatum: 04.02.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Sexuality Research and Social Policy / Ausgabe 4/2020
Print ISSN: 1868-9884
Elektronische ISSN: 1553-6610
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00431-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2020

Sexual Anxiety Among Women Living with HIV in the Era of Antiretroviral Treatment Suppressing HIV Transmission

Sexual Functioning, Sexual Distress, and Well-being of Sexually Active Adult Women Living with HIV: an HIV Program-Based Cross-sectional Study

Intergroup Contact and Opposition to Same-Sex Parents: the Mediation Effect of Satisfaction with Contact

Navigating Tensions About Resident Sexual Expression in Alberta’s Continuing Care Homes: a Qualitative Study of Leaders’ Experiences

Meaning in Life as a Moderator between Homophobic Stigmatization and Coping Styles in Adult Offspring from Planned Lesbian-Parent Families

Missouri Sex Education Policy: Recommendations for Revision to Reduce Teen Pregnancy Rates