A qualitative study of children, young people and 'sexting ... - NSPCC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A qualitative study of children, young people and ‘sexting’ ‘Sex Tech’, commissioned by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy in 2009, found that as many as 48% of 13–19 year olds reported receiving messages online or via a cell phone in a non-probability online sample of US 13–19 year olds, and 20% reported sending or posting ‘nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves’. Cox Communications (2009) found that 19% of US 13–18 year olds had exchanged ‘sexually suggestive or nearly nude photos’ and 9% had sent a ‘nude or nearly nude’ picture of themselves. An MTV/AP (2009) survey reported that 10% of their respondents aged 14–24 had sent a naked image of themselves. Reviewing the available literature to date, Lounsbury, Mitchell, and Finkelhor (2011) express concern at the variability in research quality (especially the use of unrepresentative or even convenience sampling techniques) and lack of consensus over definitions (ranging from highly inclusive to very tightly defined). It is these methodological flaws, they contend, that accounts for the wide divergence in estimates for the incidence of sexting in the literature – ranging from 15% to 40% or more. From the above, it appears that the representative surveys produce lower estimates of incidence than the convenience or online samples. It is also difficult to know if ‘sexting’ is under-reported because of social desirability factors (e.g. embarrassment on the part of respondents) or over-reported because of response biases (those who do it may be more likely to respond to surveys). The definition of ‘sexting’ is also a concern. Lounsbury et al recommend that stricter definition focused on illegal images being exchanged by legal minors (under 18 years old) in order that the evidence directly informs legal interventions. While instead taking the position that sexting should, at this early stage in the research process, be defined more broadly, especially open to including the phenomena that concern young people themselves, we note Lounsbury et al’s point that sexting may be rather less common than some of much hyped survey findings suggest. But what should be included in ‘sexting’ if one includes more than strictly illegal images of minors – for example, should words as well as images be included? Pew Internet included only ‘sending or receiving phone messages of sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude photos of videos of themselves or of someone they knew on their cell phones’ (2009: 4), excluding text messages without visual content or those shared by other means such as email or social networking sites. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy survey referred to ‘sexually suggestive pictures/video’ and written ‘sexually suggestive messages’, and similarly, the MTV/AP survey asked about sending and receiving ‘sexual words and images’. Cox Communications focused on the sending and receiving of ‘nude or nearly-nude’ photographs, while EU Kids Online (2009) examined online (not mobile) ‘sexual messages or images … (by which is meant) talk about having sex or images of people naked or having sex.’ Rarely too do surveys clarify who has sent sexual messages to the respondent, leaving it unclear if the sender is a known peer, an unknown peer or an adult. Given the considerable concern over possible contact afforded to young people from unknown adult predators, it is important that research explores not only the incidence but also the nature of these sexual encounters. How are contacts made and negotiated in peer groups? In the context of mass ‘friending’ and contact lists through Facebook and Blackberry, what are the possibilities for gendered and sexual risk in the everyday relations in the young people’s immediate, inside-known realm of peer-to-peer relations in their social networks both on and offline (see also Ringrose and Erickson-Barajas, 2011)? A decision to limit ‘sexting’ to just mobile phones or online messages may also be unduly restrictive, now that young people move freely among diverse and convergent technologies. Particularly, social networking sites combine features of websites (via online profiles and the posting of content in public) with various possibilities for private messaging and chat. Research on gender, sexuality and social 12
networking has indicated increased levels of sexual objectification and intensified social comparison online, through the visual representations and cultures on social networking sites (Manago et al., 2008). Research on Myspace has found a significant proportion of young people ‘included pictures of revealing sexual poses (59%), partial frontal male nudity (28%), partial frontal female nudity (17%), full male nudity (2%) and full female nudity (6%)’ (Pierce in Patchin and Hinduja, 2010: 201). Ringrose’s (2010) UK based qualitative research explored sexual identity construction online for younger teenagers, finding that boys and girls were under new performative pressures to pose in ‘sexy’ and body-revealing ways through their social networking profiles, with boys posting their ‘six-packs’ and girls posting photos in bikinis and bras and knickers. Even though not all participants participated in posting revealing photos, for example, the peer group as a whole are affected by the developing gender norms of the online culture (see also Livingstone, 2008). Young people have to make complex decisions about what to post and what it would mean for their wider social relations at school and beyond. To make sense of the array of sexting practices, Wolak and Finkelhor (2011) distinguish between aggravated (including criminal or abusive elements in the creation of sexual images) and experimental (youth-produced) sexting, further dividing the latter by motivation (romantic, sexual attention-seeking, other). In the Pew Internet focus groups conducted to accompany their survey, interviewees mostly discussed the latter not the former type of sexting, as supported also by qualitative (written) answers in an open-ended section of the survey. Some younger tweens/teenagers reported that sexual images are circulated in place of sexual activity, ‘sexting’ being seen as safer than having sex. However, whether these were boys sending pictures of themselves/or male genitalia, or girls sending pictures of themselves etc. was not clear. Further, it seemed that sexually suggestive images were being used as a form of ‘relationship currency’ with boys asking for them and with ‘pressures’ upon girls to produce/share such images. The young people also wrote about how sexting brands a girl ‘slutty’, gives girls a ‘slut reputation’, is ‘gross’ and ‘disrespecting themselves’. It was notable that there were no similar derogatory comments about males by girls, although one boy said he wouldn’t send explicit images of himself as he didn’t want to be seen as a ‘perv’. The distinction between acceptable and unacceptable images is also gendered – one boy commented (of girls’ pictures), ‘it’s not a big deal if it’s just a top-less photo but when it’s the bottom also it’s a lot more serious’. It seems, then that sending of nude pictures is viewed as a more risky practice for girls, and that more often the images are of nude or nearly nude girls rather than boys. However, the nature, range and consequences of different ‘sexting scenarios’ remains to be explored. contextualising ‘sexting’ in relation to other online risks The EU Kids Online network (Hasebrink et al., 2009) classified online risks to children in terms of content risks (which position the child as recipient, generally of mass produced content though increasingly also of user-generated content), contact risks (in which someone contacts the child, requiring him or her to participate in some way, if unwittingly or unwillingly) and conduct risks where the child is an actor, generally as part of a peer to peer or networked interaction), noting further that risks may pose sexual, aggressive, value-based or commercial forms of harm. Based on this analysis, the survey revealed the incidence of risk as shown in the table below. ‘Sexting’ is about as common as exposure to sexual or pornographic content online, and more common than the incidence of cyberbullying – although of all the risks, cyberbullying was the one that most often upset the children who encountered it. 13 A review of the research literature on ‘sexting’
Page 1 and 2: A quAlitAtive study of children, yo
Page 3 and 4: tAble of contents Acknowledgements
Page 5 and 6: AcknowledgeMents We are grateful to
Page 7 and 8: However, the findings did reveal so
Page 9 and 10: introduction Children are positione
Page 11: A review of the reseArch literAture
Page 15 and 16: It is, therefore, important clearly
Page 17 and 18: Some recent titles about the sexual
Page 19 and 20: Methodology This study has been exp
Page 21 and 22: from different cultural, ethnic, re
Page 23 and 24: triangulation The research strategy
Page 25 and 26: children, young people And sexting:
Page 27 and 28: This group discussion hints at the
Page 29 and 30: Sexting scenarios: Boys ‘owning
Page 31 and 32: R: Yeah, as soon as you see them al
Page 33 and 34: ‘Rushing’/being pushed down/
Page 35 and 36: 3. digitally mediated sexualised co
Page 37 and 38: Sexting scenarios: the BBM ‘defau
Page 39 and 40: R: Miss I don’t know if this is r
Page 41 and 42: their private communications. We ca
Page 43 and 44: I: What I want to know is if you gu
Page 45 and 46: 5. living with sexting: silence, re
Page 47 and 48: I: Because you kept it right? But s
Page 49 and 50: R: Erm, the last time? Recently bef
Page 51 and 52: to save face. Jodie (year 8, School
Page 53 and 54: conclusions This study sought to ad
Page 55 and 56: evidence bAsed policy recoMMendAtio
Page 57 and 58: ecommendations for parents Evidence
Page 59 and 60: Evidence based policy recommendatio
Page 61 and 62: Appendix 1 ‘Young people and mobi
Page 63 and 64:
Page 3 Could there be problems for
Page 65 and 66:
Appendix 2 Consent form ‘Young pe
Page 67 and 68:
It is easier to approach someone yo
Page 69 and 70:
Appendix 4: glossAry Adding friends
Page 71 and 72:
eferences Albury, K., Funnell, N. a
Page 73 and 74:
Jackson, S. and Vares, T. (2011)
Page 75:
Vares, T., Gill, R. and Jackson, S.
show all

A qualitative study of children, young people and 'sexting ... - NSPCC

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?