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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shinebourne, P. (2009). Using Q method in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800109.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Funding
This study was funded by the Departement Universitaire de Médecine Sociale et Communautaire (DUMSC)/University Department of Social and Community Medicine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the local research committee (Ethics Committee Vaud) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barrense-Dias, Y., Akre, C., Suris, JC. et al. Opinions of Adolescents on Prevention Related to Sexting: a Q-Methodology Study. Sex Res Soc Policy 17, 753–764 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00431-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00431-3