“Have you already done it?”
How discrepancies of perceived and actual peer sexual experience impact on the sexual development of adolescents
Masterthesis Preventieve Jeugdhulp en Opvoeding Pedagogical and Educational Sciences University of Amsterdam B.N. (Bente) van Gameren, 12251798 Supervisor: dhr. prof. dr. G. (Geertjan) Overbeek Second supervisor: mw. dr. L. (Loes) van Rijn-van Gelderen Amsterdam, [August 2019]
Abstract
Peer norms form an important frame of reference for adolescents’ sexual development. This four-wave longitudinal study focused on whether the discrepancy between adolescents’ perceptions of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience, peer-adolescent and parent-adolescent communication, and sexualized media consumption (at T1) predicted adolescents’ sexual debut (n = 66), sexual experience (n = 404), and sexual risk behavior (n = 390). Regression analyses showed that the discrepancy did not predict sexual behaviour of 13-17 year olds (M = 14.5). In conclusion, this study indicates that more than descriptive norms (what adolescents think their peers do), injunctive norms (what adolescents perceive that their parents and peers think is “the right thing” to do) may impact on adolescents’ sexual development.
Keywords: adolescence, peer relations, parent-adolescent communication, sexualized media consumption, sexual development
“Have you already done it?” How discrepancies of perceived and actual peer sexual experience impact on the sexual development of adolescents
Adolescence is an important period for individuals’ sexual development (Michels, Kropp, Eyre, & Halpern-Felsher, 2005). During this period, peers become a more important frame of reference for how to think and behave in the sexual arena (Van de Bongardt, Reitz, Sandfort, & Deković, 2015). Also, peers provide information about practices, risks and social norms related to sexual behavior (Graber, Britto, & Brooks-Gunn, 1999). According to both theory and research, social norms seem to guide adolescents’ intentions and motivation to engage in specific health-related behaviors (Prinstein, Meade, & Cohen, 2003). In general, social peer norms—how individuals perceive their peers’ sexual experience, such as having intercourse (i.e., descriptive norms)—are associated with adolescents’ likelihood of engaging in sexual behavior and intentions to have sex (Baams, Overbeek, Dubas, & Van Aken, 2014; Van de Bongardt et al., 2015). It is of importance to get more insight on the influences that peers have on sexual behavior and to what extent adolescents’ perceptions of peer sexual experience correspond with actual peer sexual experience. Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine to what extent the discrepancy between the perceptions of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience is related to an early sexual debut of adolescents, and thus predict a jump in the sexual domain. In addition to sexual debut, we will examine whether the discrepancy is related to sexual experience and sexual risk behavior of adolescents.
In the research literature, sexual experience is often defined in terms of French kissing, touching and caressing, oral sex, and intercourse (Overbeek, Van de Bongardt, & Baams, 2018). Sexual debut is often defined as having sexual intercourse for the first time (Armour & Haynie, 2007). In the Netherlands, the average age of engaging in intercourse for the first time is 17.2 years (De Graaf, Van den Borne, Nikkelen, Twisk, & Meijer, 2017), so an early sexual debut could be defined when adolescents’ under 17.2 years have had intercourse. Becoming sexually active during the period of adolescence is normal and expected, but also
associated with a higher probability of engaging in sexual risk behavior, such as having unprotected sex (Stone & Ingham, 2002; Strasburger, Donnerstein, & Bushman, 2014). Given that an early sexual debut (Davis & Lay-Yee, 1999; Greenberg, Magder, & Aral, 1992) and more sexual behavior (Gillmore, Butler, Lohr, & Gilchrist, 1999), are associated with more sexual risk behavior, it is important to also examine this concept in the current study. Perceptions of Peer Sexual Behavior
Timing of individuals’ sexual debut is related to individual (i.e., biological and
psychological) and social factors (i.e., family, peers, and culture) (Meschke et al., 2000). The peer context is one of the strongest predictors for the timing of sexual debut (Van de
Bongardt, Reitz, & Deković, 2012), due to unsupervised time shared with peers (Barnes, Hoffman, Welte, Farrell, & Dintcheff, 2007; Raffaelli & Crockett, 2003; Rink, Tricker, & Harvey, 2007). The social norms theory states that social peer norms influence adolescents’ own sexual experience (Basen-Engquist & Parcel, 1992; Caravajal et al., 1999; Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Whitaker & Miller, 2000). This is specified and confirmed by a meta-analysis (Van de Bongardt et al., 2015), which showed that adolescents’ perceptions of their peers’ sexual experience are indeed related to a higher likelihood of adolescents’ own sexual experience and sexual risk behavior. In addition, previous research showed that adolescents’ perceptions of their peers’ early sexual debut, is related to a higher likelihood of an early sexual debut of themselves (Whitaker & Miller, 2000). A cross-sectional study among 8.000 adolescents in the Netherlands found that one of the motives for 14-17 year olds to initiate intercourse is the thought that ‘everybody already had sex’ (De Graaf et al., 2017). This finding—that perceptions of peer sexual experience influence adolescents’ own sexual experience—is corroborated by a review study (Buhi & Goodson, 2007) and confirmed in several other studies (e.g. Collazo, 2005; Sieverding, Adler, Witt, & Ellen, 2005). However, in the same review by Buhi and Goodson (2007), five studies found no significant association between perceptions of peer sexual experience and adolescents’ own sexual experience (e.g.
Rucibwa, Modeste, Montgomery, & Fox, 2003; Villarruel, Jemmott, Jemmott, & Ronis, 2004) and one study found that the perceptions of peer sexual behavior only influenced boys’ sexual behavior (Robinson, Telljohann, & Prince, 1999). Because of these inconsistent findings, care has to be taken in drawing definite conclusions about whether adolescents’ perceptions of peer sexual experience predict adolescents’ own sexual experience. Discrepancy between Perceived Peer Sexual Experience and Actual Peer Sexual Experience
Social norms among sexual behavior are constructed in individuals’ heads, while they perceive peers and communicate with them (Prinstein & Dodge, 2008). This process could lead to discrepancies between the perceived and the actual behavior of peers (Prinstein & Dodge, 2008), due to the fact that some behaviors are more noticeable or more likely to discuss (Miller & Prentice, 1996). For example, boys are more likely to admit having sexual experiences than girls, because boys with sexual experience are thought to be seen as
successful, powerful, and mature, whereas girls may be seen as promiscuous, lacking in self-esteem or being irresponsible—which could determine the perceptions of peer sexual experience (Brooks-Gunn & Paikoff, 1993).
How can a discrepancy between perceived and actual peer sexual experience— something that adolescents are not aware of themselves—be related to adolescents’ sexual development? The answer can perhaps be found within the social norms theory, which holds that adolescents’ initiation of specific behavior will occur if they think a relevant other would approve this behavior or shows similar behavior. Thus, adolescents’ estimations of for
instance their peers’ behavior are related to behavioral changes of adolescents themselves (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Scholly, Katz, Gascoigne, & Holck, 2005). This relates to both descriptive and injunctive peer norms, where adolescents may think that if their peers are having sex, it has to be a wise or good thing to do (Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Fekadu & Kraft, 2002; Rivis & Sheeran, 2003).
Importantly, however, the social norms theory states that specifically misperceptions of peer norms and behaviors may have an important developmental role (Baumgartner,
Valkenburg, & Peter, 2011). Perceptions of peer sexual experience can differ from actual peer sexual experience, which occurs in a discrepancy that adolescents are not aware of themselves (Perkins, 1997). In specific instances, these discrepancies concern overestimations or
exaggerations of peer sexual behavior. It is known from the literature that such
overestimations may be a developmental marker of a growing behavioral intention, in this case to engage in sexual activity (Prinstein & Wang, 2005). Indeed, previous research showed that specifically overestimations of peer sexual experience were predictive for adolescents’ own sexual (risk) behavior (e.g. Lewis, Lee, Patrick, & Fossos, 2007; Lynch, Mowrey, Nesbitt, & O’Neill, 2004; Neighbors et al., 2007). These overestimations may be the result of ‘the false consensus bias’, where adolescents tend to overestimate the similarity of their own behavior to peer behavior, because they think their own behavior, or their own intended behavior, is normal or typical (Lewis et al., 2007; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). For example, women who had more sexual experience, made higher estimations of peer sexual experience than women who had less sexual experience (Whitley, 1998).
The discrepancy between perceived and actual peer sexual behavior—especially the overestimation of peer sexual experience—could thus form a marker to indicate a stronger intention to engage in sexual activity, and a higher likelihood of sexual initiation of
adolescents (Prinstein & Wang, 2005). Based on the social norms theory and ‘the false consensus bias’, then, it seems especially important to not only study peer perceptions, but also misperceptions (overestimations) of peer sexual behaviors as predictor of adolescents’ own sexual behavior over time.
Given the inconsistent findings on perceptions of peer sexual behavior and the possible discrepancy between perceptions of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience as a marker for adolescents’ sexual (risk) behavior, it seems of crucial importance
to examine both perceptions as this discrepancy—which are generally seen as key influences on adolescents’ sexual development (Christopher, 2000; Eggermont, 2005; Whitaker & Miller, 2000).
Based on previous research, we expect that a discrepancy between perceived peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience (i.e., an overestimation of peer sexual experience) and adolescents’ ‘false consensus bias’ could form a marker in predicting an early sexual debut, more sexual experience and sexual risk behavior of adolescents (Lewis et al., 2007; Lynch et al., 2004; Neighbors et al., 2007). However, another important question is how these discrepancies could be explained. Therefore, in the present study we not only examine a) whether discrepancies predict sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior, but also b) whether discrepancies and sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior are predicted by specific social contexts of adolescents. We will discuss three social contexts that seem to be related to sexual behavior and the discrepancy between perceptions of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience: Peer-adolescent communication about sex (e.g. Pick & Palos, 1995), parent-adolescent communication about sex (e.g. Furman et al., 1994), and sexualized media consumption (e.g. Overbeek et al., 2018). Peers, Parents, and Media
In the Netherlands, sex-based communication with peers is often about romantic relationships, being in love, and sexualized media content (De Graaf et al., 2017). When adolescents more often have sex-based discussions with their friends, they seem to initiate intercourse earlier than adolescents who have fewer discussions (Pick & Palos, 1995). The amount of communication about sex between peers also seems to influence the perceptions of peer sexual experience (Van de Bongardt, Reitz, & Deković, 2016). Specifically, adolescents who have more deviant sexual peer talk (e.g. concerning notions of risky sexual behavior), perceive their peers of being more sexually experienced and as more approving of being sexually experienced (Van de Bongardt et al., 2017). Additionally, a qualitative study among
Australian adolescents found that more communication with peers about sex seemed to create the perception that the majority of peers was sexually active (Skinner, Smith, Fenwick, Fyfe, & Hendriks, 2008). Specifically, “sex talk” left adolescents with a feeling of “being left behind” and “missing out on something” (Skinner et al., 2008). Although there is not much research on this topic, it seems that when peers communicate often about sex, it is more likely that adolescents have an early sexual debut and perceive more peer sexual behavior.
Besides peer influences, parent-adolescent communication about sex also appears to influence adolescents’ sexual behavior (Fisher, 1986; Spanier, 1977; Furman, Wehner, & Underwood, 1994). Communication with parents may also influence peer sexual perceptions that, in turn, could influence sexual behavior of adolescents (Jaccard & Dittus, 1993;
Whitaker & Miller, 2000). The majority of research among this topic examined frequency of parent-adolescent communication, but in these studies it was not clear whether more
communication about sex with parents was a predictor or a consequence of adolescents’ sexual initiation or behavior (Dilorio, Pluhar, & Belcher, 2003; Overbeek et al., 2018; Van De Bongardt, De Graaf, Reitz, & Deković, 2014). What could be of importance is what specific content of parent-adolescent communication about sex influences sexual behavior of
adolescents. In the Netherlands, adolescents and parents almost never talk about sexual wishes, boundaries, media use, and sexual transgressive behavior (De Graaf et al., 2017). They talk little about sexuality, sexually transmitted infections [STI’s], and birth conception, but more about romantic relationships and being in love (De Graaf et al., 2017). Recent research shows that communication with parents based on love-and-respect oriented sexual norms decreases adolescents’ sexual development (Overbeek et al., 2018). It could be
important to examine whether these conservative norms (i.e. love-and-respect oriented sexual norms) of parents would brake adolescents’ sexual development, and whether this affects the perceptions of peer sexual experiences.
Not only peers and parents, but also the consumption of sexualized media content— such as on television, in magazines, in movies, or on the Internet—form a primary source for adolescents’ sexual information (Kaiser Family Foundation, 1998; Sutton, Brown, Wilson, & Klein, 2002). Sexualized media consumption—referring to either explicit or pornographic images as to media that shows the 'ideal' sex life (Kim et al., 2007)—seems to increase the likelihood of more sexual experiences (Collins et al., 2004; Hennessy et al., 2009; Overbeek et al., 2018) and an early sexual debut (Aubrey, Harrison, Kramer, & Yellin, 2003; L’Engle, Brown, & Kenneavy, 2006; Vandenbosch & Eggermont, 2013). Because of limited research it is of importance to indicate if sexualized media consumption influences adolescents’
perceptions of peer sexual experience, and so impacts their own sexual behavior. The Present Study
If peer norms are of such great importance in the sexual development of adolescence, it is crucial to examine a) the discrepancy between perceived peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience, to see if adolescents’ estimation of their peers’ behavior is reflecting the developmental truth, and b) to examine the extent to which such discrepancies impact on adolescents’ sexual development over time. Finally, it is important c) to examine which factors impact on these discrepancies. In the present study we therefore examined the following two questions: (1) “To what extent does a discrepancy between the perception of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience predict timing of sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior of adolescents”, and (2) “To what extent do peer-adolescent communication, parent-peer-adolescent communication and sexualized media
consumption predict the discrepancy between perceived and actual peer sexual experiences, and so predict the timing of sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior of adolescents?”.
Based on our literature review, we expected that the discrepancy between perceived peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience—with perceptions of peer sexual
experience being higher than actual peer sexual experience (i.e., a positive discrepancy)— would predict a higher likelihood of an early sexual debut, more sexual experience, and more sexual risk behavior. For the following expectations we created a hypothesized mediation model (see Figure 1). First, we expected that more peer-adolescent communication would lead to a perception of peers as sexually more experienced (i.e., a positive discrepancy), which increases the likelihood of sexual debut, and increases sexual experience and sexual risk behavior. Second, we expected that conservative norms about sexuality between parents and adolescents would lead to less perceptions of peer sexual experience (i.e., a negative discrepancy), and so would lead to a less likely sexual debut, more limited sexual experience and less progressed sexual risk behavior. At last, we expected that sexualized media
consumption would lead to more perceptions of peer sexual experience, and thus a positive discrepancy, which increases an early sexual debut of adolescents, and more sexual
experience and sexual risk behavior.
Although many studies showed the importance of peers and perceptions of peer sexual behavior on adolescents’ own sexual behavior and debut (Van de Bongardt et al., 2015; Whitaker & Miller, 2000), hardly any research until now has focused on the role of discrepancies between perceived and actual peer sexual experience on the sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior of adolescents themselves. Current study adds to the growing literature by examining both perceptions and a discrepancy on peer sexual experience. Besides, research on this topic could be of great societal importance, because it is known that an early sexual debut can result in higher likelihood of unprotected sex (Stone & Ingham, 2002), STI’s (Kaestle, Halpern, Miller, & Ford, 2005), teenage pregnancy (Wellings et al., 2001), and sexual health problems such as sexual risk behavior (Sandfort, Orr, Hirsch, & Santelli, 2008). By exploring adolescents’ life events among sexuality, sexual education could take advantage and possibly reduce sexual risk behavior of adolescents by educating adolescents about misperceiving others’ sexual behavior (Schroeder & Prentice, 1998).
Method Description
The current study was based on secondary data analysis, using quantitative data from a larger study, with data collected from 2009-2011. The data was collected with a questionnaire in different regions in the Netherlands. Ten secondary schools agreed to participate, after checking for all questionnaire content and learning about the design of the study. The study was based on a 4-wave longitudinal design among 13-17 years old adolescents in the Netherlands. All adolescents were selected based on the schools and classes that agreed to participate in the study. The questionnaire consisted of questions focusing on adolescents’ sexual behavior, sexual attitudes, relationships, communication with parents and peers about sex, and sexualized media consumption. Because the questionnaire was focused on romantic and sexual development, this data collection fit with the main question of current study. Sample and Procedure
The first wave (T1) took place in October 2009, the second wave (T2) after 6 months in March and April 2010, the third wave (T3) after 12 months in October and November 2010, and the fourth wave (T4) in March and April 2011, after 1,5 years. At baseline (T1), 514 students (50.2% boys) aged 13–17 years (M = 14.51; SD = 0.64) participated in completing the questionnaire. There were 341 students (66.4%) that followed pre-vocational secondary education and 172 students (33.6%) that followed senior general and pre-university education tracks. Additionally, 427 students (83.1%) had an indigenous Dutch background (adolescent and both parents born in the Netherlands), where 87 students (16.9%) had various other ethnic backgrounds (adolescent or at least one parent not born in the Netherlands, e.g., Morocco, Turkey, Surinam, Indonesia, or Aruba). Regarding sexual orientation, 410 adolescents (81.7%) identified as heterosexual, 59 (11.2%) identified as gay/lesbian, 4 (0.8%) identified as bisexual, and 29 (5.8%) said they were unsure about their sexual orientation.
Due to class composition changes, there was a sizeable attrition in the sample size between T2 and T3. Seven of ten schools still participated in the study at T4 (70%). The central reason for schools to drop out of the study was that most of the students from T1 had
graduated and left school. Hence, within schools it was impossible to retain all T1 students in the longitudinal sample. A logistic regression analysis showed that adolescents following pre-vocational secondary educational tracks were more likely to drop out of the study than adolescents following senior general and pre-university educational tracks (OR = 3.11, 95% CI: 2.09–4.62). However, the dropout from T1 to T4 was not predicted by one of the other socio-demographic background variables (religious background, age, ethnicity, and gender). Measures
Actual peer sexual experience. The sexual experience of peers was assessed with four items at T1 and T4 (i.e., French kissing, touching and caressing, oral sex, and
intercourse). Each item had three answer options (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, and 2 = often), which created a sexual experience score per wave. We summed all item scores into one experience score per wave. The highest adolescents could score was 8, which referred to a lot of sexual experience, whereas 0 meant no experience. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.88 to 0.89 from T1 to T4.
Perceived peer sexual experience. At T1 and T4, perceived peer sexual experience was assessed by using scores of a question where the adolescents answered the following question about their perceptions of peers regarding four sex related items: “What do you think? Do most of you classmates ever… French kissed someone, touched someone, had oral sex, had intercourse?”. There were three response options on a 3-point scale (0 = the majority not yet, 1 = around half of them, and 2 = the majority already). This score thus reflected adolescents’ perceptions of peer sexual experience (i.e., descriptive peer norms). Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.66 to 0.79 from T1 to T4.
Developmental discrepancy peer sexual experience. To measure the discrepancy between perceived peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience (at T1 and T4) we calculated the differences between the perceived peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience. First, we used the scores of the perceived peer sexual experience. We used the individual perceptions of peers in their class on French kissing, touching and caressing, oral sex, and intercourse. Perceived peer sexual experience is thus measured on a 3-point-scale (0 = the majority not yet, 1 = around half of them, and 1 = the majority already).
Second, for the actual peer sexual experience we created class scores of sexual experiences per class on each item at T1 and T4. Due to the fact that this was measured on 3-point-scale (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, and 2 = often)—that differed from the perceived peer sexual experience scale—it was not possible to compare both scales. Therefore, we needed to adjust the actual peer sexual experience scale to the scale of perceptions of peer sexual experience (0 = the majority not yet, 1 = around half of them, and 1 = the majority already). First, we dichotomized every item per wave: French kissing, touching and caressing, oral sex, and intercourse (0 = no experience, 1 = experience). Second, we calculated a proportion score for each class: We counted the number of adolescents from one class who scored 1
(experience) and counted the total number of adolescents in the same class that had answered the question. After this, we divided the number of adolescents with experience by the number of received answers, to get a proportion score of the class, ranging from 0 to 1. We decided that a proportion of < .45 was equal to the majority not yet and is scored with 0. The proportion between .45 and .55 was equal to around half of them and is scored with 1. This range was chosen because in this way all the scores, close to .50, were taken into account as well. Last, the proportion of > .55 was equal to the majority already and is scored with 2. By making this transition, the scale of the actual peer sexual experience of the class became equal to the scale of the individual perceptions of peer sexual experience (0 = the majority not yet, 1 = around half of them, and 2 = the majority already).
When these scores were subtracted—individual perceived peer sexual experience minus actual peer sexual experience of the class—the discrepancy scores, ranging from -2 to 2, appeared. A positive (+) discrepancy (i.e., overestimation) meant that the perceptions of peer sexual experience were higher than the actual peer sexual experience, and thus peers were less experienced than thought. A negative (-) discrepancy (i.e., underestimation) meant that the perceptions of peer sexual experience were lower than the actual peer sexual
experience, and thus peers were more experienced than thought. Peers could also perceive the actual experience of their classmates, meaning that there was no discrepancy between
perceived peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience. The discrepancy scores were only used when the questions on both scales (i.e., perceptions of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience) had been answered in the questionnaire. Discrepancy scores were calculated for each item (i.e., French kissing, touching and caressing, oral sex, and intercourse) at T1 and T4.
Sexual debut. Sexual debut is measured at T1 and T4 by dichotomizing the question: “Have you ever had.. intercourse” (0 = no experience, 1 = experience). After this we
measured sexual debut only when adolescents had intercourse for the first time during our longitudinal study. Thus, we excluded adolescents who already had sex before the start of our data collection, and thus scored 1 at T1.
Sexual experience. The sexual experience of adolescents is assessed in the same way as the ‘actual peer sexual experience’ with four items (i.e., French kissing, touching and caressing, oral sex, and intercourse). Each item had three answer options (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, and 2 = often), which created a sexual experience score per wave. We summed all item scores into one experience score per wave. The highest adolescents could score was 8, which referred to a lot of sexual experience, whereas 0 meant no experience. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.88 to 0.89 from T1 to T4.
Sexual risk behavior. To get knowledge about engaging in risky sexual behavior, we used eight questions (e.g. “stripped naked in front of a webcam”, “had sex without a
condom”, and “had sex with someone you just met”), with three answer options (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, and 2 = often). We summed all item scores into one sexual risk behavior score at T1 and T4. Based on a sum score of all eight items per wave, the highest adolescents could score was 16, referring to a lot of sexual risk behavior, whereas 0 meant no sexual risk behavior. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.66 to 0.79 from T1 to T4.
Peers, parents, and media. The predictors of the discrepancy were assessed within three domains from the questionnaire. First, for peer-adolescent communication, we used the following question: “Do you ever talk with your friends about sex?”. The answer options ranged on a 5-point-scale (1 = daily, 2 = often, 3 = average, 4 = sometimes, and 5 = never). We dichotomized this item into 0 = no (i.e., sometimes and never) and 1 = yes (i.e., daily, often, and average). Second, the parent-adolescent communication, was assessed with a question about love-and-respect oriented norms: “Do your parents ever tell you… To not have sex before marriage, to not have sex when there is no love, that you should not do things in the sexual area when you do not want to, that you should not do things in the sexual area when the other person does not want to?” The answer options appeared on a 3-point-scale (1 = a lot, 2 = sometimes, and 3 = never). Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .72 to .81 from T1 to T4. At last, sexualized media consumption was measured through the following question, followed by four examples of sexualized media consumption: “How often have you, in the last 6 months, consciously watched... photos with clearly visible genitals, video’s in which clear genitals were visible, photos of people having sex with each other, videos of people who have sex with each other?”. The answer options ranged on a 5-point-scale (1 = daily, 2 = a couple times a week, 3 = once a week, 4 = once a month, and 5 = never). Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .92 to .96 from T1 to T4.
Covariates. In the Netherlands, it is known that low educated 12-17 year olds have more experience with intercourse than adolescents who are high educated (De Graaf et al., 2017). Additionally, it seems that in the Netherlands, Surinam and Antillean 12-17 year olds have more experience with intercourse than Dutch adolescents, while they have more
experience than both Turkish and Moroccan adolescents (De Graaf et al., 2017). Third, because of different gender norms (Brooks-Gunn & Paikoff, 1993) and different sexual experience in each age (De Graaf et al., 2017) it was important to take all this in account. We controlled for these variables in current study, to examine whether for different gender, age, educational level and ethnic subgroups the relations between adolescents’ perceptions of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience were the same or different.
Statistical Analysis
In the analysis we excluded classes where less than one-third of the total class size responded to the questions. We found it not representative to compare the perceptions of the whole class with experience scores of just one-third of the class, or the other way around. Any further outliers have been excluded from the analyses. Before we did a linear and logistic regression we controlled for the assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, and
multicollinearity. Multicollinearity was checked by using the variance inflation factor (VIF). Besides, in all analyses we controlled for the following background variables: gender, age, educational level, and ethnicity. Furthermore, we chose a time interval from T1 to T4, because this measured a longitudinal prediction of 1,5 years and our sample size for sexual debut was highest at T4, which is important for a relevant power.
The main analysis that was done, concerned the first question of current study: “To what extent does a discrepancy between the perception of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience influence an early sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior of adolescents?”. To examine this question, logistic regression analyses were used when we examined sexual debut and linear regression analyses were used when we examined
sexual experience and sexual risk behavior. To use these regression analyses we first
calculated the discrepancy scores of each adolescent. After that, a prediction of the timing of a sexual debut and the increase of sexual behavior was made, based on the calculated
discrepancy scores. We used the discrepancy scores (i.e., with intercourse) at T1 as a predictor for sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior at T4.
To go further into the discrepancy, we did a sensitivity analysis. Where we used one original part of the discrepancy (i.e., perception of peer sexual experience). We analyzed how the perceptions (i.e., with intercourse) at T1 predict the sexual debut, sexual experiences, and sexual risk behavior at T4.
To examine the second question: “To what extent do peer-adolescent communication, parent-adolescent communication and sexualized media consumption predict the discrepancy between perceived and actual peer sexual experiences, and so predict the timing of sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior of adolescents?” we also used logistic and linear regression analyses. The predictors were peer-adolescent communication, parent-adolescent communication, and sexualized media consumption. We examined whether these predictors at T1 predicted the sexual debut, sexual experience, sexual risk behavior, the discrepancy between perceptions of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience, and the perceptions of peer sexual experience at T4.
Results
Before answering our research questions, we checked whether the variables met the assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity. The dependent variables sexual debut (D(196) = .443, p < .05, n = 219), sexual experiences, (D(196) = .407, p < .05, n = 404), and sexual risk behavior (D(196) = .222, p < .05, n = 390) did not met the assumption of normality. Because of the large sample sizes, we can assume that we still met the normality assumption however, according to the Central Limit Theorem (Anderson, 2010). In addition, multicollinearity was not found in the regression analyses for sexual debut, sexual experience,
and sexual risk behavior (VIF = 1.000). At last, based on several scatterplots, we did meet the assumptions of homoscedasticity.
Of all adolescents, 10.0% (n = 66, M = 15.9) had their sexual debut at T4. For sexual experience (n = 404, M =15.9) and sexual risk behavior (n = 390, M = 15.9) the findings of our data demonstrated that the majority of adolescents did not have a lot of sexual experiences and almost no adolescents showed sexual risk behavior. When taking a closer look at the discrepancy between perceived and actual peer sexual experience (i.e., with intercourse), the results showed that adolescents become less precise in predicting their peers’ actual sexual experience over time. Specifically, the discrepancies—both over- and underestimations— increased over time (see Table 1). Adolescents’ discrepancy scores correlated positively with their general perception of how sexually experienced their peers were. This means that when adolescents overestimated their peers’ sexual experience, they also perceived more peer sexual experience. This also seems to work the other way around—when adolescents perceived more peer sexual experience, they were more likely to overestimate their peers’ sexual experience. At T4, the correlation between the discrepancy and sexual experience was negative. This means that when adolescents overestimated their peers’ sexual experience, they also perceived their peers to be less sexually experienced. This also seems to work the other way around—when their peers seemed to be less sexually experienced, adolescents
overestimated their peers’ sexual experience (see Table 2).
Discrepancy Between Perceived and Actual Peer Sexual Experience: Predicting Sexual Debut, Sexual Experience, and Sexual Risk Behavior
In order to examine the main research question on how developmental discrepancies predict sexual debut (i.e., having intercourse), sexual experience (i.e., across all different sexual behaviors assessed, such as French kissing, touching and caressing, oral sex, and intercourse), and sexual risk behavior, we used both logistic and linear regression analyses.
First, to examine whether the discrepancy between perceived and actual peer sexual experience (i.e., with intercourse) at T1 predicted a sexual debut between T1 and T4, we used a logistic regression. The discrepancy did not significantly predict sexual debut at T4, p > .05, OR = 1.099 (95% CI: .338-3.571). We controlled for gender (p > .05), age (p > .05),
educational level (p > .05), and ethnicity (p < .05) in this regression model—adolescents who did not have a Dutch ethnicity had a likelihood of an early sexual debut between T1 and T4, OR = .097. Thus, the likelihood of having a sexual debut between T1 and T4 was not higher when adolescents at baseline (T1) perceived their peers to be more sexually experienced or less sexually experienced than they actually were.
Second, to examine whether the discrepancy between actual and perceived peer sexual experience (i.e., with intercourse) at T1 predicted sexual experience at T4, we used a linear regression analysis. The discrepancy did not significantly predict sexual experience at T4, (β = -.325; t(242) = -.527; p > .05). We controlled for gender (p > .05), age (p > .05), educational level (p > .05), and ethnicity (p < .05) in this regression model—again adolescents who did not have a Dutch ethnicity had a likelihood of having more sexual experience between T1 and T4 (β = -1.242). Thus, the likelihood of having more sexual experience between T1 and T4 was not higher when adolescents at baseline (T1) perceived their peers to be more sexually
experienced or less sexually experienced than they actually were.
Third, to examine whether the discrepancy between actual and perceived peer sexual experience (i.e., with intercourse) at T1 predicted sexual risk behavior at T4, we used a linear regression analysis. We found that the discrepancy did not significantly predict sexual risk behavior at T4, (β = -.198; t(310) = .231; p > .05). We again controlled for gender (p < .05), age (p > .05), educational level (p > .05), and ethnicity (p > .05) in this regression model— boys had a likelihood of more sexual risk behavior between T1 and T4 (β = -.141). Thus, the likelihood of showing more sexual risk behavior between T1 and T4 was not higher when
adolescents at baseline (T1) perceived their peers to be more sexually experienced or less sexually experienced than they actually were.
With these results we answered research question one (see Table 3). In conclusion, the discrepancy between perceived and actual peer sexual experience (i.e., with intercourse) at T1 did not predict sexual debut, sexual experiences, and sexual risk behavior at T4, when
controlled for gender, age, educational level, and ethnicity. Sexual debut, sexual experiences and sexual risk behavior of adolescents thus did not rely on the differences between
adolescents’ perceptions of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience. Sensitivity Analysis
To examine whether instead of the discrepancy between perceived and actual peer sexual experience, perhaps only their perceptions of peer sexual experience would predict any of the outcome variables (i.e., sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior), we performed a set of regression analyses—again controlling for gender, age, educational level, and ethnicity. Adolescents’ perceptions of their peers’ sexual experience at T1 were entered as predictor variable in these regression analyses. These analyses indicated that perceptions of peer sexual experience were neither associated with sexual debut, p >.05, OR = .770 (95% CI: .244-2.436) nor with sexual experiences (β = -.494; t(243) = -.923; p > .05) nor with sexual risk behavior (β = -.306; t(236) = -.724; p > .05) at T4. Thus, adolescents’ sexual debut, sexual experiences, and sexual risk behavior did not depend on whether or not adolescents perceived their peers to be more sexually experienced or less sexually experienced.
The Role of Peer-Adolescent Communication, Parent-Adolescent Communication, and Sexualized Media Consumption
Because we found no significant relation between the discrepancy of perceived and actual peer sexual experience and the outcome variables (i.e., sexual debut, sexual
experiences, and sexual risk behavior) it was clear that the hypothesized mediation model did not hold true (see Figure 1). Therefore, we only examined the direct predictive relationships
from peer-adolescent communication, parent-adolescent communication, and sexualized media consumption to (1) the sexual outcome variables (i.e., sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior) and (2) the discrepancy between perceived and actual peer sexual experience (i.e., with intercourse).
First, we found that talking with friends about sex at T1 predicted a sexual debut at T4 (p <.05, OR = 2.715 (95% CI: 1.414-5.212)—controlling for gender (p > .05), age (p > .05), educational level ( p > .05), and ethnicity (β = -2.561; p < .05). Also, talking with friends at T1 significantly predicted sexual experience at T4 (β = 1.558; t(245) = 4.877; p < .05), again controlling for gender (p > .05), age (p > .05), educational level (β = -.793; p < .05), and ethnicity (β = -1.614; p < .05). At last, talking with friends at T1 predicted sexual risk
behavior at T4 (β = .640; t(238) = 2.391; p < .05)—again controlling for gender (p > .05), age (p > .05), educational level ( p > .05), and ethnicity (p > .05). Thus, the more adolescents’ talk with their friends about sex, the higher the likelihood of having an early sexual debut, more sexual experience, and more sexual risk behavior (see Table 4).
Second, we examined whether love-and-respect oriented sexual norms of parents predict sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior—controlling for gender (p > .05), age (p > .05), educational level (p > .05), and ethnicity (p > .05). We found that when parents communicate love-and-respect oriented sexual norms to their adolescents at T1, this predicted their sexual experience at T4 (β = .829; t(246) = 2.003; p < .05), but not their sexual debut, p >.05, OR = 5.404 (95% CI: .721-40.486) or their sexual risk behavior (β =
.548; t(239) = 1.565; p > .05) (see Table 5). Specifically, the results showed that when parents more often convey love-and-respect oriented norms from parents (i.e., ‘not to have sex before marriage’), this made it likelier for adolescents to have more sexual experience.
Furthermore, we found no significant longitudinal associations between sexualized media consumption at T1 and sexual debut (p >.05, OR = .782 (95% CI: .526-1.164), sexual experience (β = .-226; t(229) = -.190; p > .05), and sexual risk behavior (β = .037; t(236)
=.235; p > .05) at T4—controlling for gender (p > .05), age (p > .05), educational level (p > .05), and ethnicity (p > .05). Thus, exposure to sexualized media consumption did not make it likelier for adolescents to have an early sexual debut, more sexual experience, or more sexual risk behavior.
Finally, when we examined whether peer-adolescent communication, parent-adolescent communication, and sexualized media consumption at T1 predicted the
discrepancy between perceptions of peer sexual behavior and actual peer sexual behavior, or the perceptions of adolescents’ peer sexual experience (i.e., with intercourse) at T4, we found no significant longitudinal relationships (see Table 6). With regard to the control variables, however, we did find that adolescents with a lower educational level were more likely to have higher peer sexual perceptions (β = -.296; t(239) = -2.855; p < .05). Thus, talking with peers or parents about sex or consumption of sexualized media did not impact whether adolescents over- or underestimate their peers sexual experience.
Discussion
Social scientists have done much previous research on the importance of peer norms in the development of sexual experience during adolescence (e.g. Prinstein et al., 2003; Van de Bongardt et al., 2015). It is relevant to explore the impact that peer norms and overestimations of peer norms have on adolescents’ sexual behavior, so sexual education can take advantage and possibly reduce sexual risk behavior by implementing evidence-based prevention
programs in schools and by educating adolescents (Frans & Michielsen, 2018; Kirby, Laris, & Rolleri, 2007). The aim of this study was to examine to what extent the discrepancy between adolescents’ perceptions of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience was related to an early sexual debut, more sexual experience, and more sexual risk behavior of adolescents—and thus would form a marker for sexual (risk) behavior. In addition, we examined what possibly predicts this discrepancy—to what extent peer-adolescent
predict the discrepancy between perceived and actual peer sexual experiences, and also
predict the timing of sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior of adolescents. In this study, we found a high correlation between the two main concepts of current study: the perceptions of peer sexual experience and the discrepancy between perceived peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience. This correlation displays that these concepts are closely linked, and thus show that—confirming results of previously mentioned studies (e.g. Perkins, 1997; Prinstein & Dodge, 2008)—that the more adolescents perceive their peers as sexually experienced the higher the likelihood of an overestimation of their peers sexual experience.
The results of the current study, first and foremost, demonstrate that a discrepancy between perceived peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience did not predict the likelihood of adolescents’ early sexual debut, nor did it predict adolescents’ sexual experience and sexual risk behavior. We thus did not find proof for our expectation based on the social norms theory, where the discrepancy and adolescents’ ‘false consensus bias’ were a marker for the imminent initiation of sexual (risk) behavior. Clearly, we did not find strong evidence to support this ‘developmental push idea’, that assumes that peer norms (i.e., in our study descriptive peer norms, related to perceptions of peers engagement in intercourse) are associated with an accelerated sexual development of adolescents (Van de Bongardt et al., 2012; 2015; Whitaker & Miller, 2000).
A first possible explanation for this counter-intuitive finding is the relatively small
number of adolescents with a sexual debut over the course of the study. Because of the lack of adolescents with a sexual debut, the false consensus bias might not apply to these adolescents, what could have resulted in few adolescents who overestimated their peers sexual experience. For example, adolescents who engage in more sexual risk behavior have a higher likelihood of overestimating their peers sexual risk behavior (Urberg et al., 1990). Also, the lack of a high statistical power in a logistic regression with a dichotomous dependent variable could
perhaps explain why we did not find an ‘effect’ of discrepancies on sexual debut (Cremers, Wager, & Yarkoni, 2017). However, for sexual experience and sexual risk behavior (i.e., continuous variables) we found similar results, so statistical power or a limited sample size may not be the most likely explanation for this “null finding”.
How then do we best explain these results, also for sexual experience and sexual risk behavior? According to Dutch research the average age for a sexual debut is 17.2 (De Graaf et al., 2017). This means that the average age of adolescents in the Netherlands—engaging in intercourse—is higher than the average age of the sample in present study (M = 15.9). Possibly, the adolescents in our study were too young to have (high) sexual experience or a likely sexual debut, or too young to show sexual risk behavior (De Graaf et al., 2017). Thus, this topic may have held limited developmental relevance in our sample. There might be a chance that the results would turn out differently if the average age of our sample was around the average age for adolescents’ sexual debut in the Netherlands (De Graaf et al., 2017).
Furthermore, our study did neither found peer-adolescent communication nor parent-adolescent communication nor sexualized media consumption as significant predictors of a possible discrepancy (i.e., between perceived peer sexual behavior and actual peer sexual behavior). Nevertheless, the study did indicate that the more adolescents talked about sex with their peers, the higher the likelihood of having a sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior. How can we explain that the peer sexual perceptions did not result in a
developmental push towards sexual behavior, but talking about sex with peers did? First, a possible explanation could be the content of the peer norms. This study examined the impact of descriptive peer norms (i.e., perceptions of peer sexual experience) (Rivis & Sheeran, 2003), where some studies have focused on a different type of peer norms: injunctive peer norms.These norms are based on peer-adolescent communication about acceptable and unacceptable behavior (Borsari & Carey, 2003). For example, it seems that injunctive peer norms might predict the intention to drink alcohol more than descriptive peer norms do
(Larimer, Turner, Mallett, & Geisner, 2004; Real & Rimal, 2007). Similarly, talking with peers about sex adolescents could give an idea of positive (accepted) and negative
(unaccepted) behavior, and it could be that such injunctive norms—much more than what adolescents perceive their peers to do—influence adolescents sexual development (Van de Bongardt et al., 2016). Thus, talking with friends about sex could leave adolescents with more injunctive peer norms and this makes it different from our measured descriptive peer norms (i.e., perceptions of peer sexual experience) (Real & Rimal, 2007). Yet another explanation for the missing link between the discrepancy and adolescents’ sexual development may be that the discrepancy does ‘affect’ adolescents sexual behavior. This might only be the case for less advanced sexual behavior (Prinstein et al., 2003), such as French kissing and touching and caressing—due to the fact that adolescents are likely to imitate behavior of their peers, which in early-to-mid-adolescence is oftentimes still in the beginning stage of sexual behavior (De Graaf et al., 2017). Therefore, future research should perhaps focus on all sexual
behaviors, including the more ‘novice’ behaviors like French kissing or touching and
caressing, to better estimate the role of peer influences on adolescents’ sexual development. Besides peers, we examined parental effects on the discrepancy between perceived and actual peer sexual experience. Parents’ love-and-respect oriented norms (i.e., ‘never have sex before marriage’), did predict sexual experience of adolescents. In contrast to previous research—where these norms brake adolescents’ sexual experience (Overbeek et al., 2018), our results indicate that parents’ love-and-respect oriented norms made adolescents likelier of having more sexual experience. We found two reasonable explanations for the fact that parents—precisely with these norms—do not have the expected ‘brake effect’ on adolescents’ sexual experience. First of all, parent-adolescent communication about sex often occurs when adolescents already had sex (Beckett et al., 2010; Overbeek et al., 2018; Raffaelli,
Bogenschneider, & Flood, 1998; Van de Bongardt et al., 2016). This ‘after the fact’
decrease adolescents’ sexual experience. On the other hand, when parents convey moral sexual norms with their children, adolescents’ may not want to engage with these moral instructions and allusions about sex (Ritchwood et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2010). To elucidate, when parental control is high—where the child does not have a lot of freedom of choice—it seems that the adolescents’ conformity decreases (Frans & Michielsen, 2018; Rollins & Darwin, 1979). Indeed, high parental control and parent-adolescent communication focused on sexual risks has been associated in previous research with an earlier sexual debut (Deptula, Hendry, & Schoeny, 2010; Pedersen et al., 2003), due to the fact that strict parental control seems contrary to autonomy development of adolescents—where adolescents decide and do things on their own (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, when parents convey these strict and moral instructions (i.e., ‘not to have sex before marriage’) this might result in contrary behavior of adolescents, such as earlier and more sexual experience.
At last, we examined sexualized media consumption, and found no prediction of sexualized media consumption to either sexual debut, sexual experience, and sexual risk behavior, neither for the discrepancy nor perceptions of peer sexual experience. A possible explanation for this, could be given by the social cognitive theory—the fact that individuals more often imitate things when they perceive it as realistic, and when they expect similar outcomes to what they perceive in media (Bandura, 1994). Because adolescents do not always perceive sexualized media as realistic (De Graaf, Nikken, Felten, Janssens, & Van Berlo, 2008), it could be that the adolescents in the current study did not identify themselves or their peers with the sexualized media they have seen, and thus this media did not ‘affect’ their sexual debut, sexual experience, sexual risk behavior, or their perceptions of peer sexual experience.
This study was limited by the fact that we studied a relatively young—perhaps too young—sample of 13-17 year olds (M = 15.9) and by the relatively small number of adolescents with a sexual debut over the course of the study. Future research might address
these issues by examining older participants—late adolescents and young adults for example, when the likelihood of engaging in intercourse is higher (De Graaf et al., 2017). At last, self-report might have biased our study due to the fact that boys tend to over-self-report—because boys could feel more powerful—whereas girls tend to under-report—because girls could feel promiscuous—when reporting about sexual behavior (Brooks-Gunn & Paikoff, 1993; Siegel, Aten, & Roghmann, 1998). Due to the sensitivity of the topics about sexuality in the
questionnaire, there is no reasonable alternative to examine sexual behavior without the use of self-report (Mayeux, Sandstrom, & Cillessen, 2008; Prinstein et al., 2003).
Despite these limitations, our study profits from its strengths. First, the study was based on a unique four-wave longitudinal design, and thus we can present findings on longitudinal associations in adolescents’ sexual development. Also, because we had access to a large sample—and thus a relatively high statistical power—our ability to generalize our results to adolescents in the Netherlands from 13-17 years old increased (Bryman, 2016). Another strength is that we examined a developmentally relevant and new concept: the discrepancy between perceptions of peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience. Due to our main analyses and our added sensitivity analyses, finally, we can be confident about the importance of the concept in predicting sexual development of adolescents.
Important implications for future research thus could be an examination of older
adolescents (De Graaf et al., 2017), especially targeting their possible misperceptions of peer sexual experience, to provide useful information about how to best prevent adolescents’ from engaging in sexual risk behavior (Prinstein & Wang, 2005). Besides, it could be important to examine the specific content of peer-adolescent communication that results in more sexual risk behavior. Furthermore, it is of importance to keep in mind that the use of sexualized media rapidly changed over time (De Graaf et al., 2012; De Graaf et al., 2017) and that these changes could entail risks (Frans & Michielsen, 2018). It could thus be of importance to examine the recent sexualized media consumption and to guide adolescents in their sexualized
media consumption, to prevent that these possible risks become problems (Frans &
Michielsen, 2018). It could be a contribution to already existing holistic sexual education— focusing on adolescents’ autonomy, bonding, and competences—to implement all these implications and so prevent adolescents from a risky sexual development (Holley et al., 2015; Verhaak et al., 2010). At last, the conceptualization of sexual debut as ‘the first time’
adolescents have intercourse (Armour & Haynie, 2007) could or perhaps should be changed. For future research I would recommend defining a sexual debut as having a wanted sexual experience for the first time—not forced, and pleasant on both sides. Making this change could contribute to the fact that sexual education should be supplemented with the positive and pleasurable sides of sex, instead of only approach sex and intercourse as dangerous and risky (Van Lunsen & Laan, 2017).
The most important lesson we learned from the present study is that peers affect adolescents’ sexual development, but in a different way than we originally expected.
Specifically, the more often adolescents talked with friends about sex the more likely they had an early sexual debut, more sexual experience, and more sexual risk behavior. This suggests that injunctive peer norms may be more important than descriptive peer norms (related to the question of how sexually experienced peers are perceived to be). Thus, we should bear in mind that adolescents’ perceptions of peer sexual experience do not necessarily influence adolescents’ sexual behavior and that the discrepancy between perceived peer sexual experience and actual peer sexual experience in current study does not form a marker to indicate sexual (risk) behavior. To conclude and refer back to this study’s title, adolescents’ perceptions on the question “Have you already done it?”, did not determine whether adolescents’ had an early sexual debut, were more sexually experienced or engaged in more sexual risk behavior.
References
Anderson, J. (2010). Central Limit Theorem. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. doi:10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0160
Armour, S., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent sexual debut and later delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(2), 141-152. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9128-4
Aubrey, J. S., Harrison, K., Kramer, L., & Yellin, J. (2003). Variety versus timing: Gender differences in college students' sexual expectations as predicted by exposure to sexually oriented television. Communication Research, 30(4), 432-460. doi:10.1177/ 0093650203253365
Baams, L., Overbeek, G., Dubas, J. S., & Van Aken, M. A. G. (2014). On early starters and late bloomers: The development of sexual behavior in adolescence across personality types. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 754–764. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.802758 Bandura, A. (1994). Social cognitive theory and exercise of control over HIV infection. In R.
DiClemente & J. Peterson (Eds.), AIDS prevention and mental health. Preventing AIDS: Theories and methods of behavioral interventions (1st ed.) (pp. 25-59). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York, USA: General Learning Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barnes, G. M., Hoffman, J. H., Welte, J. W., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2007).
Adolescents’ time use: Effects on substance use, delinquency and sexual activity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 697–710. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9075-0 Basen-Engquist, K., & Parcel, G. S. (1992). Attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy: A model of
adolescents' HIV-related sexual risk behavior. Health Education Quarterly, 19(2), 263 277. doi:10.1177/109019819201900209
injunctive peer norms on adolescents' risky sexual online behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(12), 753-758. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0510 Beckett, M. K., Elliott, M. N., Martino, S., Kanouse, D. E., Corona, R., Klein, D. J., &
Schuster, M.A. (2010). Timing of parent and child communication about sexuality relative to children’s sexual behaviors. Pediatrics, 125(1), 34. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0806
Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: a meta-analytic integration. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(3), 331-341. doi:10. 15288/jsa.2003.64.331
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Paikoff, R. L. (1993). “Sex is a gamble, kissing is a game”: Adolescent sexuality and health promotion. In S. Millstein, A. Petersen, E. Nightingale (Eds.), Promoting the Health of Adolescents: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century (2nd ed.) (pp. 186-187). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Buhi, E. R., & Goodson, P. (2007). Predictors of adolescent sexual behavior and intention: A
theory-guided systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(1), 4-21. doi:10. 1016/j.jadohealth.2006.09.027
Christopher, F. S. (2000). To Dance the Dance: A Symbolic Interactional Exploration of Premarital Sexuality. New York, USA: Psychology Press.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed.) (pp. 151-192). New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Collazo, A. A. (2005). Theory-based predictors of intention to engage in pre-cautionary
Sexual behavior among Puerto Rican high school adolescents. Journal of HIV/AIDS Prevention in Children & Youth, 6(1), 91–120. doi:10.1300/J499v06n01_06
A. (2004). Watching sex on television predicts adolescent initiation of sexual
behavior. American Academy of Pediatrics, 114(3), 843-843. doi:10.1542/peds.2003-1065-L
Cremers, H. R., Wager, T. D., & Yarkoni, T. (2017). The relation between statistical power and inference in fMRI. PloS One, 12(11), 1-20. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184923 Davis, P., & Lay‐Yee, R. (1999). Early sex and its behavioral consequences in New
Zealand. Journal of Sex Research, 36(2), 135-144. doi:10.1080/00224499909551978 Deptula, D. P., Henry, D. B., & Schoeny, M. E. (2010). How can parents make a difference?
Longitudinal associations with adolescent sexual behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 731. doi:10.1037/a0021760
De Graaf, H. (2012). Seks onder je 25e: Seksuele gezondheid van jongeren in Nederland anno 2012. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Eburon.
De Graaf, H., Nikken, P., Felten, H., Janssens, K., & Van Berlo, W. (2008). Seksualisering: Reden tot zorg? Een verkennend onderzoek onder jongeren. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Rutgers Nisso Groep/Nederlands Jeugdinstituut/Movisie.
De Graaf, H., Van den Borne, M., Nikkelen, S., Twisk, D., & Meijer, S. (2017). Seks onder je 25e: Seksuele Gezondheid van Jongeren in Nederland anno 2017. Utrecht, The
Netherlands: Eburon.
Dilorio, C., Pluhar, E., & Belcher, L. (2003). Parent-child communication about sexuality: a review of the literature from 1980–2002. Journal of HIVl/AIDS Prevention &
Education for Adolescents & Children, 5, 7–32. doi:10.1300/ J129v05n03_02. Eggermont, S. (2005). Young adolescents’ perceptions of peer sexual behaviors: The role of
television viewing. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31(4), 459-468. Retrieved from www.nederlandsjeugdinstituut.nl
Fekadu, Z., & Kraft, P. (2002). Expanding the theory of planned behavior: The role of social norms and group identification. Journal of Health Psychology, 33-43. doi:10.1177/
1359105302007001650
Fisher, T. D. (1986). Parent–child communication about sex and young adolescents’ sexual knowledge and attitudes. Adolescence, 21, 517–527. Retrieved from https://
search.proquest.com
Frans, E., & Michielsen, K. (2018). Seksuele vorming en opvoeding. In L. Gijs
(Ed.), Leerboek Seksuologie (3th ed.) (pp. 205-219). Houten, The Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Furman, W., Wehner, E. A. & Underwood, S. (1994). Sexual Behavior, Sexual
Communication, and Relationships. In R. Turner (Ed.), Sexuality and Interpersonal Relationships. San Diego, USA: Society for Research in Adolescence.
Gillmore, M. R., Butler, S. S., Lohr, M. J., & Gilchrist, L. (1992). Substance use and other factors associated with risky sexual behavior among pregnant adolescents. Family Planning Perspectives, 255-268. doi:10.2307/2135854
Graber, J. A., Britto, P. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1999). What's Love Got to Do With it? Adolescents' and Young Adults' Beliefs About Sexual and Romantic Relationships. In W. Furman, B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The Development of Romantic
Relationships in Adolescence (1st ed.) (pp. 364-395). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Greenberg, J., Magder, L., & Aral, S. (1992). Age at first coitus. A marker for risky sexual behavior in women. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 19(6), 331-334. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/pages/default.aspx
Hennessy, L. R., Bleakly, A., Fishbein, M., & Jordan, A. (2009). Estimating the longitudinal association between adolescent sexual behavior and exposure to sexual media content. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 586–596. doi:10.1080/ 00224490902898736
Prevalence and predictors of major depressive disorder for fertility treatment patients and their partners. Fertility and Sterility, 103(5), 1332-1339. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert. 2015.02.018
Jaccard, J., & Dittus, P. J. (1993). Parent-adolescent communication about premarital pregnancy. Families in Society, 74, 329-343. doi:10.1177/104438949307400602 Kaestle, C. E., Halpern, C. T., Miller, W. C., & Ford, C. A. (2005). Young age at first sexual
intercourse and sexually transmitted infections in adolescents and young adults. American Journal of Epidemiology, 161, 774-780. doi:10.1093/aje/kwi095 Kaiser Family Foundation. (1998) Kaiser Family Foundation and YM Magazine National
Survey of Teens: Teens Talk about Dating, Intimacy, and Their Sexual Experiences. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Kim, J. L., Sorsoli, C. L., Collins, K., Zylbergold, B. A., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 145–157. doi:10.1080/00224490701263660 Kirby, D. B., Laris, B. A., & Rolleri, L. A. (2007). Sex and HIV education programs: their
impact on sexual behaviors of young people throughout the world. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(3), 206-217. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.143
Larimer, M. E., Turner, A. P., Mallett, K. A., & Geisner, I. M. (2004). Predicting drinking behavior and alcohol-related problems among fraternity and sorority members: examining the role of descriptive and injunctive norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(3), 203. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.18.3.203
L’Engle, K. L., Brown, J. D., & Kenneavy, K. (2006). The mass media are an important context for adolescents’ sexual behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(3), 186-192. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.03.020
Lewis, M.A., Lee, C.M., Patrick, M.E. (2007). Gender-specific normative misperceptions of risky sexual behavior and alcohol-related risky sexual behavior. Sex Roles, 57, 81–90.
doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9218-0
Lynch, J., Mowrey, R., Nesbitt, G., & O'Neill, D. F. (2004). Risky business: Misperceived norms of sexual behavior among college students. NASPA Journal, 42(1), 21-35. doi:10.2202/1949-6605.1412
Mayeux, L., Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. (2008). Is being popular a risky
proposition? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(1), 49-74. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00550.x
Meschke, L. L., Zweig, J. M., Barber, B. L., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Demographic, biological, psychological, and social predictors of the timing of first intercourse. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 315–338. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/journal/15327795
Michels, T. M., Kropp, R. Y., Eyre, S. L., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2005). Initiating sexual experiences: How do young adolescents make decisions regarding early sexual activity? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 583-607. doi:10.1016/0090- 4295(92)90211-E
Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1996). The construction of social norms and standards. In E. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic
principles (2nd ed.) (pp. 799-829). New York, USA: Guilford Press.
Neighbors, C., Lostutter, T. W., Whiteside, U., Fossos, N., Walker, D. D., & Larimer, M. E. (2007). Injunctive norms and problem gambling among college students. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 259–273. doi:10.1007/s10899-007-9059-3
Overbeek, G., Van de Bongardt, D., & Baams, L. (2018). Buffer or Brake? The Role of Sexuality-Specific Parenting in Adolescents’ Sexualized Media Consumption and Sexual Development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(7), 1427-1439. doi:10. 1007/s10964-018-0828-3
resources, problem behavior, or romantic appeal? A population based longitudinal study. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 333-345. doi:10.1080/00224490209552199 Perkins, H. W. (1997). College student misperceptions of alcohol and other drug use norm
among peers. In H. Perkins (Ed.), Designing alcohol and other drug prevention programs in higher education: Bringing theory into practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 177-206). Newton, MA: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. Pick, S., & Palos, P. A. (1995). Impact of the family on the family on the sex lives of
adolescents. Adolescence, 30, 667–75. Retrieved from yoquieroyopuedo.org.mx Prinstein, M. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2008). Understanding peer influence in children and
adolescents. New York, USA: Guilford Press.
Prinstein, M. J., Meade, C. S., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Adolescent oral sex, peer popularity, and perceptions of best friends' sexual behavior. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 28(4), 243-249. doi:10.1093/joeosy/jsg012
Raffaelli, M. R., Bogenschneider, K., & Flood, M. F. (1998). Parent-teen communication about sexual topics. Journal of Family Issues 19(3), 315–333. doi:10.1177/ 019251398019003005
Raffaelli, M., & Crockett, L. J. (2003). Sexual risk taking in adolescence: The role of self regulation and attraction to risk. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1036–1046. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub/115
Real, K., & Rimal, R. N. (2007). Friends talk to friends about drinking: Exploring the role of peer communication in the theory of normative social behavior. Health
Communication, 22(2), 169-180. doi:10.1080/10410230701454254
Rink, E., Tricker, R., & Harvey, S. M. (2007). Onset of sexual intercourse among female adolescents: The influence of perceptions, depression, and ecological factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 398–406. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.017
