PERSONAL BRANDING AS MOTIVE FOR
SEXTING
Motives for sexting and the influence of personal branding on sexting
among adolescents
Author: Yoran Feenema
Student number: 10857761
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Willemijn van Dolen
Master Thesis Marketing (6314M0252)
MSc. Business Administration
Date: 29 – 6 – 2015
Statement of originality
This document is written by Yoran Feenema, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ... 3
1. INTRODUCTION ... 4
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 7
SEXTING ... 7
REQUIREMENTS PERSONAL BRANDING ... 9
PERSONAL BRANDING ... 10
POSITIVE VERSUS NEGATIVE ATTITUDE ... 12
SEXUAL EXPERIMENTATION ... 14 RELATIONSHIP COMMUNICATION ... 15 PEER PRESSURE ... 15 4. METHODS ... 18 SAMPLE ... 19 MEASURES ... 19 DEMOGRAPHICS ... 19 SEXTING ENGAGEMENT ... 20 PERSONAL BRANDING ... 20
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ATTITUDE ... 21
SEXUAL EXPERIMENTATION ... 22
RELATIONSHIP COMMUNICATION ... 22
PEER PRESSURE ... 22
5. RESULTS ... 24
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS ... 24
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SEXTING AND NON – SEXTING GROUP ... 26
LOGISTIC REGRESSION ... 28
6. DISCUSSION ... 32
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 37
APPENDIX I ... 40
APPENDIX II ... 42
ABSTRACT
Within the current digital world, adolescents have many possibilities to share information and all kinds of other materials with their peers. With the use of mobile devices, adolescents are writing, taking and sharing sexually explicit materials, which is also known as sexting. The term sexting, a combination of the words ‘sex’ and ‘texting’, is gaining more interest in the world of social and psychology studies, whereas this research tries to approach the term in a combination between psychology and marketing. Current exploratory research tries to identify the motives that adolescent have for engagement in sexting, including positive and negative attitude, sexual experimentation, relationship communication, peer pressure and has a specific focus on the term personal branding as a motive for sexting. Both an off – and online survey were conducted on a high school in the Netherlands in order to get an image of the differences between those that have engaged in sexting and those that have not. In total, 499 scholars filled in the survey, from which 474 (Males = 184 (41,2%) and Females = 263 (58,8%)) scholars were useful for data analysis. Based on both Independent t – test and logistic regression results, personal branding appeared to be the strongest predictor of sexting, whereas no significant differences were found between males and females. Based on current research, future (sexual) educational programmes can be developed in order to inform or consult adolescents about the risks of engagement in sexting in attempt to prevent them from the possible harmful outcomes sexting can have.
1. INTRODUCTION
At the age of 13, Katherine Brochu born in Canada, was asked to sent some sexually explicit pictures of herself to some boys she knew from class. She states that she did not have to think twice about this question. “I thought they would like me for my body and that they would appreciate me for that. That I would be loved by some guys because of how I looked,” Katherine explains (Montreal teen says she regrets sexting with classmates, 2013). Within a couple of days the boys had shared her picture throughout the school, resulting in the fact that rest of the boys from Montreal High School possessed her picture as well. “At that time I did not realize that my reputation would be damaged by sending such pictures. It was very difficult. I was alone. My friends did not want to be my friends anymore”, she tells. Katherine, at the age of 15 when telling her story, learned her lesson that day and says: “I still get requests from boys for explicit photos, but I definitely turn them all down from now on” (Montreal teen says she regrets sexting with classmates, 2013). In the case of Katherine there was ‘limited’ psychological damage. She clearly made a mistake and was able to learn her lesson at that moment. Unfortunately for some others more harm was done, resulting in severe mental health problems and lower psychological well – being, which in turn resulted for some of the cases in committing suicide (Inbar, 2009; Meyer, 2009)
The concept of ‘sexting’ is a combination of the words ‘sex’ and ‘texting’ and is defined as “youth writing sexually explicit messages, taking sexually explicit photos of themselves or others in their peer group, and transmitting those photos and/or messages to their peers” (DiFrancisco, 2012, p.190). Dir, Coskunpinar, Steiner & Cyders describe the term as “the exchange of sexually charged material (picture or text) via mobile phone or social networking sites” (2013). From both definitions we learn that it has to do with exchanging sexually explicit materials with others, using cell phones or online social media. For
adolescents it is important to understand that the exchange of materials, especially when they are of private matter, should be done with care. Something Katherine Brochu certainly knows by now.
As from today, little research is performed and little information is available about sexting among adolescents and the consequences it might have for them. Based on previously performed research regarding sexting (DiFrancisco, 2012; Gordon-Messer, Bauermeister, Grodzinski & Zimmerman, 2012; Dir et al, 2013), it can be assumed that within each adolescent’s social environment, sexting is occurring increasingly, whereas these young people are trying to find out who they are as a person and how to present themselves to their peers. Because substantial former research has pointed out negative outcomes resulting from sexting (Gorden – Messer et al., 2012) and other research has recently showed positive outcomes (Dir et al., 2013), it is important to know under which circumstances, why and how sexting comes to elicit. The purpose of this research is to find out whether or not adolescents find it important to personally identify oneself within a group or society and whether this identification process can cause adolescents to engage in sexting. More specific, it tries to get deeper insights into possible motives for sexting and tries to map and compare the difference in perception of sexting behaviour between those adolescents that have engaged in sexting and those that have not (referred to as being in the sexting or non – sexting group). With the help of a survey, adolescents were asked what their current view about sexting was, why they would or would not engage in sexting and which consequences they expected from such activities. This research is also the first one that uses the term ‘sexting’ in the light of personal branding. It tries to find out the motives that adolescents have or do not have for engaging in sexting and if personal branding additionally can be considered as an influencing factor for causing these adolescents to engage in sexting. Consequently, the following research question was formulated in order to answer the above stated matters:
Why do or don’t adolescents engage in sexting and what is the role of personal branding within performing such behaviour?
Additional information about personal branding related to sexting is theoretically relevant, in a way that it can contribute to the knowledge of interaction processes that hold within the adolescent phase. Concretely, this means that if it is possible to find out if identification and personal branding are important in the adolescent phase and if personal branding could lead to engagement in sexting, than those responsible for the well – being of the adolescents can anticipate on this fact, by warning them for possible risks or advising them about safe and responsible ways of performing such behaviour. Additionally, those responsible (e.g. parents, teachers, society) can formulate recommendations relating to personal branding, Social Media and privacy in order to increase awareness among adolescents. These people can start sexting oriented educational programmes or can make sure that within this digital world, the concept of sexting and the explanation of possible risks becomes part of the current sexual education. Iva Bicanic, researcher and coordinator at ‘Het Landelijk Psychotraumacentrum Utrecht’ also supports the relevance of this matter. “Education about sexting should already be given in primary school, whereas we see an increase in victims involved in sexting” (Nationale Onderwijsgids, 2015).
Followed by this introduction, the theoretical framework, including an explanation of variables, will be presented. Next, the research design, including methodology, data collection and results, will be discussed. Finally, the results will be explained in the discussion part,
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The framework in the next section of this study comes with a detailed description of the concept of sexting (as dependent variable) and a selection of possible motives that adolescents may have to engage or may have to not engage in sexting (as independent variables)
SEXTING
Previous research from various countries has shown that many adolescents are substantially exposed to sexually explicit Internet materials, resulting in the initial interest in sexuality (Flood, 2007; Lo & Wei, 2005; Peter & Valkenburg, 2010). During a research among Dutch adolescents, Peter and Valkenburg (2006) found out that 71% of male adolescents and 40% of the female adolescents had been exposed to some kind of online sexually explicit material in the last few months and that these materials as a consequence, led to increased sexual associations and attitudes among adolescents. Unfortunately, there is lack of knowledge about these associations and attitudes and why adolescents engage in sex – related online behaviour and the factors that could reduce negative consequences of young people’s Internet use (Doornwaard, Bickham, Rich, Vanwesenbeeck, van den Eijnden & ter Bogt, 2014). Research already has shown that during adolescence individuals are exposed to sexually explicit materials for the first time (Bryant & Brown, 1989, in Peter & Valkenburg, 2006), and that this is linked to adolescents’ curiosity about sexuality in this period of life (Savin – Williams & Diamond, 2004, in Peter & Valkenburg, 2006). These adolescents are increasingly using Internet and other media via mobile devices and as a result are exposed to greater amounts of (sexual) online content. The European Parliament confirms this phenomenon. According to their survey from EU Kids Online, the average age in the European Union for first Internet use is nine years old (Livingston, Haddon, Görzig & Kartan Olafsson, 2011).
Protection of these adolescents has become an important matter of public interest, in that this group is usually linked to the belief that young people are more influenceable, less critical and therefore more vulnerable than adults (Katsarova, 2013). Hence, the processing and handling of this online content can have different consequences for adolescents than for adults. Also, the Internet, increased mobile usage and the rise of social media offer numerous applications to engage in cybersex, which is exchanging of sexual messages and images with others via all kind of electronic devices (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006). This concept of cybersex can be divided into several kinds of sexually explicit acts, whereas one of them is called sexting. In their research about understanding the differences in sexting behaviour Dir et al. (2013) define sexting as the exchange of sexually charged material (image or text) via mobile phone or social networking apps. The concept of ‘sexting’ comes from the combination of the words ‘sex’ and ‘texting’ and is therefore only presumed to be possible with the use of mobile devices that make us able to send (text) messages (DiFrancisco, 2012,).
Substantial former research has pointed out the downsides of sexting, e.g. embarrassment, mental health problems, risky sexual behaviour and public distribution of sexual photos (Theodore, 2011; Mitchell, Finkelhor, Jones & Wolak, 2012; Benotsch, Snipes, Martin & Bull, 2013; van Ouytsel, Walrave & van Gool, 2014). Recent research however, show no negative consequences and provide even positive ones, e.g. sexual-related and positive affect related expectancies like feeling attractive or feeling sexually adventurous, as a result of sexting (Gordon-Messer et al., 2012; Dir et al., 2013). So having these positive, as well as negative consequences of sexting, should people let adolescents decide what is wrong or right and if so, where do we draw the line? Fact is that these recent researches point out that there are possible positive consequences as well as possible risks linked to sexting. Therefore creation and distribution of sexually explicit images and texts can have harmful consequences, not to mention that in some cases of sexting, people are punishable and can be
prosecuted according to the guidelines of the Landelijk Expertisecentrum Kinderporno (2013). Actual reports from the United States (Inbar, 2009; Horn, 2009) and also cases in the Netherlands state that in the most extreme and tragically cases these negative consequences eventually led adolescents to commit suicide.
REQUIREMENTS PERSONAL BRANDING
In order to create and build a strong personal brand, i.e. what makes you unique, relevant and compelling (William Arruda, 2007, in Rampersad, 2009), one has to know its strengths and weaknesses, whereas on the other hand one has to know its talents and values (Purkiss, 2012). This means that those who want to develop a personal brand first have to form a deeper understanding of who they are as a person, i.e. know what there identity is. Identity creation has always been an important aspect in the lives of people and is based on the social identity theory of Tajfel and Turner (1979). They state that, according to the social identity theory, people tend to classify themselves and others into various categories and that this social classification enables the individual to locate or define him – or herself in the social environment. With these classifications it is not only possible for one to define him – or herself, but also to identify where they belong to as an individual. Social identification is defined as “the perception of oneself with or belongingness to some human aggregate” (Ashfort & Mael, 1989, p.21). With the process of social identification we thus create an identity, which is also defined by Chryssochoou (2003, p.227) as “a system of common sense knowledge about the self and its enactment that is collectively constructed and shared”. Everyone’s social identity exists of talents and values. Talents are unique gifts that people are born with and are therefore resistant to change (Purkiss, 2012). Upon these talents, one can build a personal brand, only if he or she identifies the values or things he or she believes are
important. The combination of both the talents and the formulation of values thus are the basis for building a strong personal brand (Purkiss, 2012).
PERSONAL BRANDING
Since the existence of online social media and all the applications that have been developed from that moment, it is possible for people to share their personal life with others within the online environment. The usage of social networks is based on the fulfilment of different social needs that are present within someone’s social environment (Wilcox & Stephen, 2013). Wilcox and Stephen (2013), in their research about the relationship between social networks and self – esteem and self – control, point out that people place and send messages, mostly accompanied with one or more images in order to achieve affiliation, self – expression and self –presentation. The placement of these materials can therefore be seen as communicating the unique characteristics someone possesses. For that reason, it can also be seen as a way for people to personally brand themselves within society, so that others are able to find out how someone identifies him - or herself in their life environment. An important note related to the use of social networks is that people will likely share positive information about themselves in order to create a positive identity or personal brand (Wilcox & Stephen, 2013). William Arruda (2007, in Rampersad, 2009, p.8) defines personal branding as “Identifying and communicating what makes you unique, relevant and compelling. It’s a way of clarifying and communicating what makes you different and special”. Another author specialized in branding, describes the concept as “a fun and systematic way of becoming clearer and more defined as a person, not only in other people’s eyes, but also in your own mind” (Gad, 2001, in Rampersad, 2009, p.8). Innumerable possibilities in the social online environment have made it relatively easy for individuals to form such self – judgements. In this context, everyday people can use personal branding as a marketing tool, whereas everyone has the potential to create and to be their own brand (Shepherd, 2005). In summary, personal
branding is about communication and defining yourself in your own mind and in that of others, aiming to achieve a certain goal.
This process of communicating yourself encompasses some challenges due to difficulties that arise when people are active within the online media environment. For example, people who want to create a trustworthy personal brand have to be authentic in order to make it a sustainable and enduring brand (Harris & Rae, 2011). Another challenge in the creation of a solid personal brand is taking control of the personal brand, meaning that individuals know beforehand when and whom to persuade. If such challenges aren’t detected, personal branding can have far going negative consequences for its users. Despite the chance for negative consequences, Labrecque et al. (2011) conclude that personal branding is unavoidable when participating in an online environment. While the majority of the people are fully aware of how and why they are self – branding, a part of the people does not always realize the negative consequences that may result from their actions.
While work employment is often the main goal of personal branding, it is not simply the only aim; people self – brand for many other non – work, more social related reasons including dating, establishing friendships, or simply for self – expression, both off – and online (Shepherd, 2005; Labrecque, Markos & Milne, 2011, Wilcox & Stephen, 2013). In the case of these social related reasons, those adolescents that want to create a personal brand therefore have to expose themselves and have to share personal information with their social environment. Personal branding therefore leads to self – expression. Whether it is writing someone a sexually explicit message or sending someone a sexually explicit photo, both forms can be described as a form of self – expression. Hence, those adolescents that have a higher urge for personal branding might have a higher urge for self – expression and are therefore more likely to share personal information with someone else than those that don’t
have the urge to share personal information. If we should assume that personal information is equivalent to sexually explicit materials, it follows that:
H1: Personal branding leads to a higher likelihood of engagement in sexting, in that there is more personal branding involved for those that have engaged in sexting, than those that have not engaged in sexting.
POSITIVE VERSUS NEGATIVE ATTITUDE
Explained in the theory of planned behaviour by Ajzen (1991), people form attitudes towards the kind of behaviour they perform. Attitude towards behaviour is referred to as the degree to which an individual has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation about the behaviour in question (Ajzen, 1985). When looking at attitudes, Zajonc and Markus (1982) state there are 2 components that form a certain attitude, namely cognitive responses and affective responses. Cognitive responses are responses based on people’s beliefs or thoughts and come from the inner mind, whereas affective responses are based on feelings and emotions (Zajonc & Markus, 1982). There is much discussion within psychology if affect has to follow cognition. In earlier research, Zajonc (1980) states that there has to be a cognitive process before
affection (traditional view); other developed research from Zajonc (1978) suggests that in certain circumstances cognitive participation is not necessary for the occurrence of an
affective reaction. Within this current research, the ‘traditional view’ is followed. This means that people have to experience a certain behaviour or event in order to form a preference or in order to like something. The current research also makes a partition between positive and negative attitude towards sexting, which is based on a study about understanding the
differences between sexting behaviours (Dir et al., 2013). Dir et al. (2013) make a distinction between positive and negative expectancies about sexting. Their findings are in line with
former research about reasons to engage in sexting, which state that people engage in sexting because it is a fun and flirtatious way of getting acquainted with someone else and it is an adventurous way of exploring and experimenting with sexual activities (Lenhart, 2009, Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011). However, in the past, until Dir et al.’s study was published, considerable other research pointed out that when people had engaged in sexting, the
outcomes or expectancies where mostly negative (Theodore, 2011; Mitchell et al.; Benotsch et al., 2013; van Ouytsel, Walrave & van Gool, 2014). So while some researchers say there are positive expectancies related to engagement in sexting, others state that those that have engaged in sexting mostly experience negative thoughts and feelings. Based on these earlier findings and the theories of cognition and affect, it could be stated that those adolescents that have experienced sexting situations, can form a more complete, grounded judgement, based on both affect (resulted from experience) and cognition, whereas those that do not have any experience can only base those judgements on cognitive responses. Therefore those
adolescents that have engaged in sexting may have experienced negative feelings and
therefore will likely report a more negative attitude towards sexting behaviour, whereas those that have not engaged in sexting, do not have any experience and/ or feelings and
consequently are not able to form a complete, grounded judgement. Therefore they will likely report a more positive attitude towards sexting behaviour. These expectations lead to the following hypothesis:
H2a: Those adolescents that have engaged in sexting will likely report a more negative attitude towards sexting behaviour.
H2b:Those adolescents that have not engaged in sexting will likely report a more positive attitude towards sexting behaviour. .
SEXUAL EXPERIMENTATION
Adolescence, the period in life in which human move from their childhood to their adulthood, is mostly a period of sexual experimentation (Kourany, Martin & Armstrong, 1997). “The search for sexual experiences is sometimes nothing more than a desire to experiment with one’s body, which in times leads to experimentation and involvement with others”(Kourany et al, 1997, p.284). Peter and Valkenburg (2008), in their study about sexual uncertainty and attitude towards sexual exploration, prove that because of the increased sexual uncertainty among adolescents, they tend to form more positive attitudes towards sexual exploration and experimentation. As a consequence, adolescents tend to experiment with sexual behaviour, relations or any other sexually explicit activity that is possible. Adolescents can have both a positive and a negative attitude towards sexual exploration, whereas adolescents who have a positive attitude place a high value on sexual experimentation and those that have a negative attitude towards sexual exploration, place a low value on sexual experimentation (Peter en Valkenburg, 2008). If we assume that sexting is a form of sexual exploration, it can be stated that those that have a positive attitude towards sexting, also have strong experimental values, whereas those that have a negative attitude towards sexting have low experimental values. Based on these assumptions and the theory explained in the previous paragraph, the urge for sexual experimentation could lead to a higher likelihood of sexting. Also, because those in the non – sexting group presumably have a more positive attitude towards sexting, they also have higher experimental values and thus, the likelihood for engagement in sexting is higher for this specific group. It follows that:
H3: Sexual experimentation leads to a higher likelihood of engagement in sexting, whereas this likelihood is higher for those in the non – sexting group.
RELATIONSHIP COMMUNICATION
During adolescence, adolescents become more aware of their sexual orientation and identity, resulting in more concerns about their attractiveness and whether their peer groups accept them (Tulloch & Kaufman, 2013). Consequently, adolescents may fall in love resulting in the engagement in dating and consequently in relationships. Both forms can be described as a form of social relationship, whereas those that are dating still have to get to know each other and those in s relationship already have a more close relation with each other (Giordano, Manny and Langmore, 2010). Compared to being single, when being in a relationship communication processes are different. One presumably has the feeling that he or she can trust his counterpart and that confidences can be shared in a way that its safe within each relationship. Giordano et al. (2010) underline this assumption and state that interactions between two people in a relationship proceed from superficial to a more intimate way. As a result, the level of intimate self – disclosure, defined as telling another about one’s intimate feelings, attitudes, and experiences (Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004), increases (Giordano et al., 2010). Based on these findings one could assume that higher levels of (intimate) self – disclosure could lead to a higher likelihood of sexting, since producing and sending sexually explicit materials can be considered as a form of intimate self – disclosure. Based on these expectations the following hypothesis is formulated:
H4: Being in a relationship or in a situation of dating leads to a higher likelihood of engagement in sexting, than being single
PEER PRESSURE
It is not a secret that peers often influence human beings within their living environment. This is especially the case for those human beings that are in the adolescence of their life. Within
this stage, adolescents are becoming more independent and are likely to spend more time with their peers (Kiran – Esen, 2012). Moreover, being a member of peer groups is an important part within the adolescence phase, whereas peer groups offer adolescents a feeling of independence and provide them safety, giving them the feeling that they are valued within a certain group (Kiran – Esen, 2012). As a result, “adolescents will feel recognized and accepted by peers that are of the same age and stage as they are themselves” (Cook & Daley, 2001, in Kiran – Esen, 2012). One possible risky outcome of being a member of a peer group is the (unconscious) occurrence of peer pressure. Peer pressure is defined by Santor, Messervery and Kusumakar (2000) as “a subjective experience of feeling pressured, urged, or dared by others to do certain things or actually doing particular things because others have pressured, urged, or dared you to”. One addition to the definition of peer pressure has to be made. When someone experiences peer pressure, this can be experienced both directly and indirectly. Direct peer pressure leads to behavioural influences where the one who is being pressured fully realizes that he or she actually is pressured; the indirect method leads to behavioural influences without someone’s realization that he or she is being pressured (Kiran – Esen, 2012). Hence, within the adolescence phase, human beings are likely to experience more peer pressure (both direct and indirect) when faced with decision-making and other social situations. In the survey of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (2010), adolescents were asked why they would send suggestive sexual messages to others. Answers showed that 51% of the female adolescents say that pressure from a male is a reason why they have send sexually explicit content to someone. In case of the male adolescents, only 18% experiences peer pressure from their female counterparts. These results show that female adolescents are mostly asked or even pressured to send sexual suggestive messages and images to the male adolescents. Therefore the following hypothesis is formulated:
H5a: Those adolescents who perceive more peer pressure have engaged in sexting rather than those who do perceive less peer pressure.
H5b: Whereas females do perceive more peer pressure than their male counterparts.
An overview of all the formulated hypotheses can be found in the table below:
Table 1: Overview of hypotheses
H1 Personal branding leads to a higher likelihood of engagement in sexting, in that there is more personal branding involved for those that have engaged in sexting, than those that
have not engaged in sexting.
H2a Those adolescents that have engaged in sexting will likely report a more negative attitude towards sexting behaviour
H2b Those adolescents that have not engaged in sexting will likely report a more positive attitude towards sexting behaviour.
H3 Sexual experimentation leads to a higher likelihood of engagement in sexting, whereas this likelihood is higher for those in the non – sexting group.
H4 Being in a relationship or in a situation of dating leads to a higher likelihood of engagement in sexting, than being single.
H5a Those adolescents who perceive more peer pressure have engaged in sexting activities rather than those who do perceive less peer pressure.
4. METHODS
The ‘Methods’ section describes the research methodology of this study, along with the data collection procedures, a detailed description of the sample and its demographics and a description of the variable measures (including questionnaire).
PROCEDURES
Because this exploratory study is focused on adolescents, scholars from ‘Het Drachtster Lyceum’ (a High school in the North of the Netherlands) were asked to fill in a questionnaire. Before visiting the school in order to collect the data, a pre – test was performed and a letter of agreement was send to the school. Approximately 15 randomly chosen adolescents where asked to fill in the questionnaire and give feedback about the length of the questionnaire, the clearness of the definitions and the comprehensibility of the survey. After this feedback, the questionnaire was modified in order to spread the most optimal questionnaire among the scholars. The letter of agreement included information about the procedures of data collection, the anonymity of data, the fact that all activities were voluntary for all scholars and what would be expected from both the school and the scholars (see appendix I). After agreement, both an offline and online survey were conducted (see appendix II). The choice of this method is based on the use of hypotheses, where statistical inferences want to be made about the population being studied. Beforehand, the school had informed parents about the participation of their children in the survey, however, approval was not necessary for participation in the study. The offline questionnaire was filled in during class sessions, in which all scholars separately answered the items of the questionnaire. Each adolescent was asked to fill in the questionnaire as honest as possible and was asked to fill in what he or she would have chosen if he or she had engaged in sexting activities (i.e. what they probably would have perceived when having engaged in sexting activities) One research assistant and
one teacher supervised each class that filled in the questionnaire. Because this setting was used, response rate was approximately near 100%. Because the offline delivery and collection questionnaire was time consuming for both the school and the researcher, there was also chosen for conducting an online survey (created with the use of Qualtrics), in order to collect more respondents. Additionally, online questionnaires have some advantages over the offline questionnaire (e.g. structured, speed and convenience), which makes this form of data collection desirable and accurate (Malhorta & Birks, 2007).
SAMPLE
The population concerning this research consists of adolescents within the age of 12 to 18, whereas the sampling frame consists of high school students from the Netherlands. In total, four hundred and seventy-four Dutch scholars participated in both of the questionnaires. Because twenty-seven scholars did not fill in questions regarding their demographics or engagement in sexting, they were excluded from the data list. As a result, a total of four hundred and forty-seven respondents were collected (Males = 184 (41,2%) and Females = 263 (58,8%)), whereas two hundred and fifty-nine scholars filled in the offline questionnaire and one hundred and eighty-eight filled in the online questionnaire. The ages ranged from 12 to 18 years (Mean = 14,38, SD = 1,45) and the relationship status of the respondents was 84,1% single, 5,4% dating and 10,5% having a relationship.
MEASURES
DEMOGRAPHICS
Respondents were asked to fill in their age (continuous measure), gender (‘Male’ = 0 and ‘Female’ = 1) and whether they had a relationship or not. This meant they had to fill whether
they were single, were dating or if they had a relationship, at the moment the survey took place.
SEXTING ENGAGEMENT
The engagement in sexting was measured using a single item, dichotomous measure: ‘Have you ever send a sexually explicit message or image to someone?’, providing two answer possibilities, ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. In order to make sure all respondents were aware of the meaning of ‘sexting’, a definition was given before the items regarding sexting were to be discussed: ‘the term sexting is a combination of the words sex and texting. Sexting means that people produce, send and receive sexually explicit messages or (semi) naked pictures, making use of mobile devices like smartphones and laptops’ (DiFrancisco, 2012, p.190; Dir et al., 2013). To test whether the respondents were already familiar with the concept of sexting, an additional item was added: ‘Have you ever heard of sexting’?, providing the same answer possibilities as the first item regarding sexting. Finally, the variable was recoded into a different variable so that ‘No sexting’ was coded as ‘0’ and ‘Sexting’ was coded as ‘1’.
PERSONAL BRANDING
For the measurement of personal branding, a five – item measure was specifically created. Because this study is the first one that focuses on the relationship between personal branding and sexting, there had to be made a new, non – existing scale. Since this measure was newly introduced and formed a factor analysis was constructed in order to find out the underlying constructs. Based on the analysis, the items loaded onto 2 factors, accounting for 33,99% and 27,32% respectively. Due to the fact that the Cronbach’s alpha of the first factor was above .700 (α = .744) and the Cronbach’s alpha of the second factor was below .700 (α = .435), this
last factor was excluded from further analysis. Based on a 7 – point Likert scale, respondents were asked to fill in their need for personal identification and personal branding. The two items were formulated as: ‘I find it important to identify myself within a group or society’ and ‘Personal branding is important for me’ (1 = Totally disagree to 7 = Totally agree). Before these items were discussed, as with the concept of sexting, a definition of personal branding was provided to the respondents. An overview of these items and its mean, standard deviation and Cronbach’s alpha is presented in Table 3.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ATTITUDE
Attitude was measured using a 7 – point Likert scale, divided in positive and negative attitude. For the positive attitude, five items were used to measure the construct: ‘If I (would) send sexy photos of myself, I (would) feel good’, ‘If I (would) send sexy photos of myself, I (would) feel sexy’, ‘If I (would) send sexy photos of myself, I (would) feel adventurous’, ‘I (would) like to send sexually explicit materials to someone’ and ‘I (would) feel excited to send sexually explicit materials to someone’. These items, based on previous research from Weiskirch et al. (2011), Walrave et al. (2013) and Dir et al. (2013), were all answered with 1 = Totally disagree to 7 = Totally agree (see also Table 1 for an overview of each item and its range). For the negative attitude, three items were used in order to measure the construct: ‘If I (would) send sexy photos of myself, I (would) feel guilty’, ‘If I (would) send sexy photos of myself, I (would) feel afraid to get bullied’ and ‘I (would) feel vulnerable when sending sexually explicit materials to someone’. These items were also based on previous research regarding sexting behaviour (Weiskirch et al. 2011; Walrave et al. 2013; Dir et al. 2013). Both positive and negative attitude had a Cronbach’s alpha that was larger than .700, namely .810 and .723 respectively.
SEXUAL EXPERIMENTATION
With the help of existing literature (Weiskirch et al., 2013; Dir et al. 2013), a three – item measure was created in order to measure levels of sexual experimentation. These three items were formulated as follows: ‘I (would) send a sexually explicit message because it is a safe way of sexual experimentation’, ‘I perceive sexting as a way of flirting’, ‘If I would engage in sexting activities, I would do it in order to gain sexual activity’. After a reliability test for this construct (α = .717), no item was deleted from the construct.
RELATIONSHIP COMMUNICATION
As with the sexual experimentation construct, this construct also consisted of a three– item measure, all having a range from 1 (Totally disagree) to 7 (Totally agree). Items were formulated as: ‘If I (would) have a relationship, sexting would keep it exciting’, ‘If I (would) have a relationship, sending sexually explicit materials to each other would confirm my relationship’ and ‘If I (would) have a relationship, sending sexually explicit materials would not have any negative consequences for me’. These items were used in order to perform a reliability analysis, resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of .710.
PEER PRESSURE
For the measurement of peer pressure, a three – item measure was created, based on the literature of Walrave et al. (2013) and Dir et al. (2013). Surprisingly, after reliability analysis it appeared that the Cronbach’s alpha could not get any higher than .578, meaning it not meets the rule for α > .700, hence making the construct and its items not reliable. In order to be able to make use of this measure within this research, a Chi – square test was performed in order to find out which of the items significantly related to the dependent variable sexting engagement.
After performance of this test, only one item appeared to be significantly related to the dependent variable, namely: ‘I would send someone sexually explicit messages or images when he or she asks for it’. In Table 2 the Crosstab for this item can be found. As a result, this item is used as the construct of peer pressure.
Table 2: Chi – square crosstab for peer pressure construct
I would send someone sexually explicit messages or images when he or she asks for it Totally disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Nor agree or disagree Slightly agree Agree Totally agree Total Send sext Yes % within ‘Send sext’ % of total 23 46,9% 5,2% 7 14,3% 1,6% 5 10,2% 1,1% 7 14,3% 1,6% 4 8,2% 0,9% 2 4,1% 0,4% 1 2,0% 0,2% 49 100% 11,0% No % within ‘Send sext’ % of total 284 71,5% 63,7% 64 16,1% 14,3% 13 3,3% 2,9% 19 4,8% 4,3% 9 2,3% 2,0% 6 1,5% 1,3% 2 0,5% 0,4% 397 100% 89,0%
5. RESULTS
The next part provides the results that were found during the process of analysis. It starts with an overview of correlations between constructs after which the results from the t – test and the logistic regression analysis for each construct will be discussed.
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Starting with descriptive statistics, no errors were found during the data screening process, where the frequencies of answers were checked for any irregularities. In the dataset, missing values were given the value ‘999’ after which each case that contained a missing value was excluded list wise and therefore not used for analysis. In Table 4, an overview of the correlations is given, showing the correlations between the sexting behaviour construct and the sexting motives scales. In the table, the correlations with the demographic (gender and relationship status) constructs can also be found.
From this table can be found that most of the variables are positively, significantly related to each other. However, this effect between variables is in many cases not that strong (p< .50). In order to control for social desirability bias, three items were added to the questionnaire, based on the social desirability scale of Crowne and Marlowe (1960). These scale items were formulated as ‘If I would make a mistake, I would admit it’ (Mean = 4,90, SD = 1,61), ‘I always tell the truth’ (Mean = 4,57, SD = 1,58) and ‘It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work, if I am not encouraged’ (Mean = 3,56, SD = 1,95). For the first two items it means that the higher the mean, the more social desirable the answer is. For the other item it means the exact opposite. Social desirability is always a limitation when doing self – reporting studies, however based on these means it could be stated that the answering of the items is only slightly biased (based on a 7 – point Likert scale).
Note: N = 447
Table 3: Descriptive overview of study constructs
α Mean SD Range
Personal branding .837
I find it important to identify myself within a group or society 4.79 1.40 1-7 Personal branding is important for me 4.13 1.58 1-7
Positive attitude .810
If I (would) send sexy photos of myself, I (would) feel good 1.95 1.47 1-7 If I (would) send sexy photos of myself, I (would) feel sexy 2.64 1.77 1-7 If I (would) send sexy photos of myself, I (would) feel adventurous 2.67 1.67 1-7
I (would) like to send sexually explicit materials to someone 2.14 1.60 1-7 I (would) feel excited to send sexually explicit materials to someone 2.50 1.79 1-7
Negative attitude .723
If I (would) send sexy photos of myself, I (would) feel guilty 4.42 2.16 1-7 If I (would) send sexy photos of myself, I (would) feel afraid to 4.49 2.20 1-7
get bullied
I (would) feel vulnerable when sending sexually explicit 4.79 1.84 1-7 materials to someone
Sexual experimentation .717
I (would) send a sexually explicit message because it is a safe 2.12 1.50 1-7 way of sexual experimentation
I perceive sexting as a way of flirting 3.09 1.90 1-7 If I would engage in sexting activities, I would do it in order to 2.97 1.87 1-7
provoke sexual activity
Relationship communication .708
If I (would) have a relationship, sexting would keep it exciting 2.68 1.71 1-7
If I (would) have a relationship, sending sexually explicit materials 2.00 1.36 1-7 to each other would confirm my relationship
If I (would) have a relationship, sending sexually explicit materials 2.90 1.74 1-7 would not have any negative consequences for me
Peer pressure N.A.
I would send someone sexually explicit messages or images when 1.66 1,25 1-7 he or she asks for it
Sexting engagement N.A.
Table 4: Estimated correlation matrix Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Personal branding (.84) 2. Positive attitude .19** (.81) 3. Negative attitude -.05 -.07 (.72) 4. Sexual experiment. .12** .61** .00 (.72) 5. Relationship comm. .13** .54** -.05 .58** (71) 6. Peer pressure .13** .61** .08 .50** .44** - 7. Sexting engagement -.08 -.19** .07 -.19** -.16** -.09 - 8. Gender .00 .-07 .04 -.09* -.06 .00 -.06 - 9. Relationship status .14** .09* -.11* .05 .02 .04 .41** .03 - **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SEXTING AND NON – SEXTING GROUP
In order to test the hypotheses, two types of analysis were performed in order to create a clear view of the areas of motives for engagement in sexting activities and to find out if personal branding can also be considered as a motive for sexting. First, an Independent T – test was performed in order to get insight into the differences (mean differences) between adolescents who have engaged in sexting and those who have not. This test was also performed in order to find out the individual effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable. Later on the complete model, including all variables, will be tested in order to find out if certain individual effects still hold for the complete model.
BIVARIATE RESULTS SEXTING AND NON – SEXTING GROUP
Each variable was analysed separately using an Independent T – test in order to be able to compare the means of each of the constructs in relation to the likelihood of engagement in sexting activities. From the results it shows that personal branding is more important for those who have engaged in sexting (Mean = 4,78, SD = 1,27) than for those who haven’t engaged
in sexting (Mean = 4,40, SD = 1,35). However, this difference between means is not that big and therefore not significant, t (447) = -1,66 p = 0,098, 95% CI [-0,73, 0,06]. For positive attitude towards sexting, the analysis shows that people who have engaged in sexting activities (Mean = 2,27, SD = 1,22) score lower positive attitudes than those who have not engaged in sexting (Mean = 3,26, SD = 1,63). This difference is also proven to be significant at the two – tailed level (t (447) = 5,08 p = 0,000, 95% CI [0,60, 1,36]). Negative attitude towards sexting is however not so different between those in the sexting group (Mean = 4,60, SD = 1,54) and those in the non – sexting group (Mean = 4,22, SD = 1,71). This difference appeared to be non – significant, t (447) = -1,62 p = 0,255, 95% CI [- 85, 0,08]. For the construct of sexual experimentation there appeared to be a significant difference at the two – tailed level (t (447) = 5,09 p = 0,000, 95% CI [0,60, 1,37]. This significant difference is due to the fact that adolescents that have engaged in sexting show lower scores on sexual experimentation (Mean = 2,63, SD = 1,40) than those adolescents who have not engaged in sexting (Mean = 3,48, SD = 1,29). For relationship communication, those who have engaged in sexting have a lower mean score (Mean = 2,44, SD = 1,17) than those who have not engaged in sexting (Mean = 3,20, SD = 1,41). This difference appeared to be significant at the two – tailed level (t (447) = 4,16 p = 0,000, 95% CI [0,40, 1,11]). Finally, peer pressure was also scored low in the sexting group (Mean = 1,57, SD = 1,16), and higher in the non – sexting group (Mean = 2,42, SD = 1,70). This difference also appeared to be significant (t (447) = 4,64 p = 0,000, 95% CI [0,49, 1,22]). In the table below an overview of the results and whether they represent a motive for engaging or for not engaging in sexting can be found.
Table 5: Overview of motives concerning sexting (from high to low predictors)
Sexting group Non – sexting group
Motive concerning sexting Mean Mean
Personal branding 4.78 4.40 Negative attitude 4.60 4.22 Sexual experimentation 2.63 3.48 Relationship comm. 2.44 3.20 Positive attitude 2.27 3.26 Peer pressure 1.57 2.42 LOGISTIC REGRESSION
Before analyzing the models using logistic regression analysis (including all the constructs that could explain the engagement in sexting), a test was performed in order to check if the Collinearity tolerance for each construct was above .10. This was the case for each construct, making it possible to perform a logistic regression analysis. Logistic regression analysis is chosen when the dependent variable is a dichotomous variable and the independent variables are interval or ratio variables (possible to include dichotomous variables as independent variable).
PEER PRESSURE AND GENDER (H5)
First, the model for the effect between peer pressure and gender on the likelihood of sexting was tested in order to find out if those adolescents who perceive more peer pressure have engaged in sexting activities than those who do perceive less peer pressure (H5). The model, including the variables peer pressure and gender, appeared to be statistically significant (X2 (2, N = 447) = 18,75, p < .001. The model explained between 4,1% (Cox and Snell R Square) and 8,2% (Nagelkerke R Squared) of the variance for likelihood of sexting. From Table 6, it can be found that only peer pressure made a significant contribution to the model (B = -.412,
p < .001). It shows that the effect is negative and therefore indicates that those adolescents, who perceive less pressure have engaged in sexting activities and those that have not engaged in sexting, perceive more peer pressure. The Exp. (B) represents the amount each motive variable increases or decreases the likelihood of sexting. In this case, it means that perceiving peer pressure decreases the chance of engagement in sexting activities with .662. Because there was no significant relation found between gender, peer pressure and the likelihood of sexting, it could be stated that there is no difference between males and females when looking at the relation between peer pressure and likelihood of sexting. Therefore peer pressure is perceived less as a reason for sexting for those who have engaged in sexting than for those who haven’t, equally for both male and females.
Table 6: Logistic regression model for peer pressure, gender and sexting
95% CI for Exp. (B)
B S.E. Wald p Exp. (B) Upper Lower Peer pressure -.412 .095 18,85 .000** .662 .550 .798
Gender -.524 .333 2,48 .115 .592 .308 1.137
Note: N = 474
**. Significant at the 0.01 level (two – tailed)
Additionally, direct logistic regression was performed with the complete model in order to show the influence of several factors on the likelihood of engagement in sexting activities. Secondly, this analysis was performed in order to research if all the bivariate results still hold in the complete regression model. The regression model contained 8 variables (personal branding, positive attitude, negative attitude, sexual experimentation, relationship communication, peer pressure, gender and relationship status). The full model, including all the variables, appeared to be statistically significant, X2 (8, N = 447) = 82,15 p < .001,
indicating that the model was able to distinguish between adolescents who had engaged, and who had not engaged in sexting activities. The model explained between 16,8 % and 33,7 %
of the variance for likelihood of engagement in sexting. Table 7 gives an overview of each of the variables and its relation with the likelihood of engagement in sexting.
Table 7: Logistic regression model (all variables)
95% CI for Exp. (B)
B S.E. Wald p Exp. (B) Upper Lower Personal branding .082 .143 .333 .564 1.086 .821 1.473 Positive attitude -.155 .169 .836 .360 .856 .614 1.194 Negative attitude .044 .116 .144 .704 1.045 .833 1.311 Sexual experimentation -.184 .175 1.499 .293 .832 .590 1.172 Relationship Comm. -.221 .180 2.871 .221 .802 .563 1.142 Peer pressure -.205 .121 2.871 .090 .814 .642 1.033 Gender -.559 .371 2.260 .133 .572 .276 1.185 Relationship status -2.503 .942 45.77 .000** .080 .038 .166 Note: N = 474
**. Significant at the 0.01 level (two – tailed)
From Table 7 it can be found that the effect of personal branding on the likelihood of sexting (B value) is positive, although not significant (B = .0.82, p = .564). The value of B indicates the direction of the effect between personal branding and likelihood of sexting. Therefore, a positive effect indicates that there is a greater extent of personal branding involved for those adolescents who have engaged in sexting activities than for those who haven’t engaged in sexting activities (H1). There is however no significant difference between those adolescents having engaged in sexting and those that have not. For positive attitude towards sexting the direction of the effect is the opposite (B = -.155, p = .360), meaning that those that have engaged in sexting activities, have less positive expectancies than those who have not engaged in sexting. This relationship is however also not significant (H2a). For negative attitude towards sexting a positive relation can be found with the likelihood of sexting (B = .044, p = 704) This means that adolescents in the sexting group, have a more negative attitude
towards sexting than those in the non – sexting group. This relation is however not significant (H2b). Sexual experimentation is on the other hand negative in relation to the likelihood of sexting (B = -.184, p = .293). This means sexual experimentation leads to a higher likelihood of sexting for those adolescents that have not engaged in sexting than for those that have engaged in sexting. This relation is again not significant (H3). Relationship communication also has a negative relation with the likelihood of sexting (B = -.221, p = .221), meaning that adolescents in the sexting group state that the occurrence of sexting is less due to the fact that they are in a relationship.. Adolescents in the non – sexting group therefore state that it would be more due to the fact that they are having a relationship. This relation is however not significant (H4). Whereas peer pressure was significantly proven to be a possible reason for adolescents to engage in sexting in the first logistic regression model, this is not the case anymore when applied in the complete model. The relation appears to be negative and non – significant (B = .205, p = 0.90). This means that adolescents in the sexting group perceived peer pressure less likely as a reason for engagement in sexting, than those in the non – sexting group. Differently formulated, it means that those that perceived less pressure had engaged in sexting and those that perceived more peer pressure had not engaged in sexting (H5). The last two variables indicate that the there is a lower chance that woman engage in sexting in contrast to their male counterparts (B = -.559, p = .133) and that there is a lower chance that adolescents who are dating or are in a relationship, engage in sexting activities rather than when they are single. This last relationship is the only relation that is significant at the 0.01 two – tailed level (B = -2.503, p = .000). When looking at the Exp. (B) values in Table 7, the strongest predictor of engagement in sexting is personal branding, although not significant (Exp (B) = 1.086). This means that the importance of personal branding among adolescents increases the chance of engaging in sexting activities with 1,086.
6. Discussion
After analysing the results, which were formulated with the use of different statistical procedures and tests, it is possible to give answer on the different hypotheses that were formed in the theoretical framework. These hypotheses are to be found in the overview below (Table 8), including whether they are supported or not, based on the analysis and numbers in the result section.
Table 8: Overview hypotheses
Hypotheses Outcome
H1 Personal branding leads to a higher likelihood of engagement Not supported
in sexting, in that there is more personal branding involved for those that have engaged in sexting, than those that have not engaged in sexting.
H2a Those adolescents that have engaged in sexting will likely report Not supported
a more negative attitude towards sexting behaviour.
H2b Those adolescents that have not engaged in sexting will likely Not supported
report a more positive attitude towards sexting behaviour.
H3 Sexual experimentation leads to a higher likelihood of engagement Not supported
in sexting, whereas this likelihood is higher for those in the non – sexting group.
H4 Being in a relationship or in a situation of dating leads to a higher Not supported
likelihood of engagement in sexting, than being single
H5a Those adolescents who perceive more peer pressure have engaged Not supported
in sexting activities rather than those who do perceive less peer pressure.
H5b Whereas females do perceive more peer pressure than their male Not supported
counterparts.
This research started with a completely new vision towards a possible new motive for adolescents to engage in sexting activities. Former research already pointed out that adolescents do engage in sexting because of various, different reasons. Some of those reasons
were already treated in different kinds of scientific literature, except the one that is based on the principle of personal branding. This research tried to find out the motives that adolescents have or do not have for engaging in sexting and if personal branding additionally can be considered as an influencing factor for causing these adolescents to engage in sexting. By dividing the adolescents into those having engaged in sexting and those having not engaged in sexting, it tried to give a clear overview of the differences between those groups. In order to find out the motives adolescents have, this research came up with the following main research question:
What are the motives for adolescents to engage in sexting and what is the role of personal branding within this process?
Within current research, the findings indicate that personal branding indeed could play a role in the decision to engage in sexting. Former research already has shown that several motives lie at the base for the decision to engage in sexting and that this decision can lead to several negative outcomes (Theodore, 2011; Mitchell, Finkelhor, Jones & Wolak, 2012; Benotsch, Snipes, Martin & Bull, 2013; van Ouytsel, Walrave & van Gool, 2014). However, no former research has shown signs that personal branding could be one of those reasons whether to engage in sexting or not. Although these findings are not significantly proven, the results provide an indication that adolescents perceive personal branding as an important predictor for engaging in sexting. In line with expectations, in times where adolescents are constantly present in the online social environment, self – expression is constantly occurring (Wilcox & Stephen, 2013), which is, based on current research’s findings, something adolescents attach importance to. From both the Independent T – test and the logistic regression, it can be learned that for those adolescents that have engaged in sexting, more personal branding was
reported than for those who have not engaged in sexting. Also the average scale score are relatively high for both the sexting and non – sexting group, indicating that personal branding might increase the likelihood of engagement in sexting.
The second finding is also in line with what was hypothesized regarding positive and negative attitudes towards sexting. Interestingly, no research before has made a distinction between those that have engaged in sexting and those that have not, in that respondents were asked to fill in what they would do or would perceive in a certain situation. Based on the findings, although not significant, about these attitudes in the current research, it is plausible that those in the sexting group have a less positive or more negative attitude towards sexting than those in the non – sexting group. Assuming that affect must follow cognition (Zajonc & Markus, 1982), those that have experience with sexting, can base their judgements on both cognition and affect, whereas those without experience only can base their judgements on only the cognitive part, therefore making it a less grounded judgement. This could indicate that judgements and thoughts about sexting become negative, after experience. With this information, those that are responsible for the adolescents can make them aware of the fact that sexting might look attracting, whereas after experience, this positive attitude could change into a negative one.
For the construct of sexual experimentation there appeared to be a significant difference based on the t – test analysis. As hypothesized, this significant difference is due to the fact that adolescents that have engaged in sexting show lower scores on sexual experimentation than those adolescents who have not engaged in sexting activities. If we look at the complete regression model, this significant effect disappears, whereas the direction of the relation remains the same. However, this does not mean that sexual experimentation does not lead to a higher likelihood of engagement in sexting. The findings from current research are in line with expectations and show that those in non – sexting group have a more positive
attitude towards sexting, whereas sexual experimentation is considered to be higher in the non – sexting group. Based on the combination of these findings, it is plausible that those that have not (yet) engaged in sexting, have a higher urge for sexual experimentation and thus could exercise this urge by engaging in sexting (as a form of sexual experimentation). As former research about sexual experimentation among adolescents already has proven that exactly in this life stage the search for sexual experience is at its highest level (Kourany et al., 1997), it is important that those responsible advice adolescents and that proper sexual education is given (e.g. risks of unsafe sexual experimentation).
The last findings regarding relationship communication and peer pressure are against expectations and show surprising results. As former research already has pointed out that relationship communication and peer pressure are motives for sexting (Gorden – Messer et al., 2012; Dir et al., 2013, Santor et al., 2000), current research shows the exact opposite. Both variables appeared to be the lowest predictor of engagement in sexting and showed opposite results regarding what was hypothesized. For relationship communication, there was expected that those in a relationship or those that were dating would have a higher likelihood of engagement in sexting. Because within relationships intimate self – disclosure is higher (Giordano et al., 2010), one could expect that within these relationships, sexting would occur more than when being single. However, the findings from current research show that this is not the case and that being single enlarges the likelihood of engagement in sexting. In order to find out if peer pressure was perceived more by those that have engaged in sexting and in specific whether females perceive more peer pressure than males; only those variables were inserted into the model. There appeared to be a significant effect, although this effect was negative. Based on these surprising findings, it appears that those that perceive less peer pressure have engaged in sexting activities and those that perceive more peer pressure have not engaged in sexting. This could be due to the fact that within current research, respondents
did not perceive peer pressure as being a motive for engagement in sexting or, as a more plausible reason that respondents did not want to acknowledge that their social environment pressured them in engaging in sexting.
The current research results have some implications for the literature. While the occurrence of sexting is increasing with the growing digitalization within social environments, it is important to map and monitor all possible reasons and outcomes that are linked to sexting. With the results from this study, it is showed that personal branding among adolescents could be a motive for engagement in sexting, whereas it might be that personal branding mostly unconsciously results in sexting. Adolescents want to identify themselves and are, both intentionally and unintentionally, communicating their unique characteristic to their environment (Chryssochoou, 2003). Current research findings can be used in order to develop (sexual) educational programmes or campaigns that can be communicated via schools or parents. Adolescents have to be made aware of the fact that engagement in sexting could lead to harmful outcomes (e.g. spreading of photos via Internet, cyber bullying, feelings of guilt and sorrow), which can follow the victim for a long period of time. Based on this research schools could ad sexting prevention to lessons that are given in the first year of high school, explain the risks of sexting with the help of theoretical and practical examples that are recognizable for adolescents and make sure that adolescents can get advice or information regarding sexting at the school they are in. This study was also the first study that made a comparison between those that have engaged in sexting and those that have not. With these findings, it could be argued that those in the non – sexting group have a more positive attitude towards sexting, which is because of lack of experience regarding sexting. Those in the sexting group report a more negative attitude, probably because of bad experience and feelings regarding sexting.
