Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Male youths are more likely to experience peer pressure that encourages them to engage in risky behaviors than female youths, and this pressure can lead to an increased risk of sexting among male youths. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of and factors associated with sexting among Cambodian male youths. The correlational cross-sectional study design was utilized. This study surveyed 647 Cambodian male youths aged 15 to 24 years. The measurement included sending or receiving messages (sexts) that contain sexually explicit messages, images, or videos, and affecting factors to sexting. Around 32.5% of participants sent sexts, and 38.9% received them. Open relationships, pornographic website use, perception of friends’ sexual activity, frequent thoughts about sex, higher sexual sensation-seeking tendencies, positive attitudes toward sex, and sexual experience were associated with increased likelihood of sending and receiving sexts. Based on the findings of this study, by offering suitable education, guidance, and intervention programs, we can effectively mitigate the adverse repercussions of sexting while fostering healthy sexual behaviors among youths.

Keywords

sexting prevalence correlates youths males

Introduction

Youth, the stage between childhood and adulthood marked by physical changes and puberty, is characterized by a combination of seeking pleasurable sensations and engaging in risky behaviors (Casey et al., 2008; Sawyer et al., 2012; United Nations, 2013). With the rapid growth and widespread usage of the internet and smartphones, digital media has become the preferred mode of communication and sharing among youths (Lenhart, 2015). A survey comparing American teenagers in 2012 and 2018 revealed a significant increase in smartphone ownership and daily social media usage (Rideout & Robb, 2018). Pew Research Center reported that more than half of the surveyed teenagers formed new friendships through social media and online games, exchanged daily text messages, and considered online conversations as their primary mode of communication with close friends (Ehrenreich et al., 2021; Rideout & Robb, 2018).

Sexting, a combination of “sex” and “texting” (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017), involves the exchange of explicit images or messages containing nudity or sexually suggestive content through electronic devices. The prevalence of sexting varies depending on the age group and the definition used. In a Canadian survey of youths aged 14-17, 14.4% reported sending sexts, while 27.0% reported receiving them (Kim et al., 2020). A meta-analysis of 39 studies on youth sexting identified average prevalence rates of 14.8% for sending sexts and 27.4% for receiving sexts (Madigan et al., 2018). Notably, most studies indicate that sexting is more commonly reported as passive receipt rather than active transmission (Gregg et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2020; Madigan et al., 2018).

The risk factors for sexting include older age and being a sexual minority youth, who have reported higher rates of sending and receiving sexts than heterosexual youths (Kim et al., 2020; Van Ouytsel et al., 2019; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2014), and experiencing pressure to send sexts (Van Ouytsel et al., 2019). Gregg et al. (2018) reveal that impulsivity, frequency of electronic communication use, peer pressure, and the sexting behaviors of peers are significantly associated with sexting among males. Similar research has reported that using more than four applications increases the risk of sharing sexually explicit messages (Vente et al., 2020), and youths who spend a lot of time communicating online and have high levels of sensation-seeking tendencies are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors online (Baumgartner et al., 2012).

Sexting is strongly associated with negative outcomes among youths, including risky sexual behaviors like multiple sexual partners and contraceptive non-use, as well as mental health problems (Mori et al., 2019; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2014). These issues can potentially lead to cyberbullying, depressive symptoms (Doyle et al., 2021), and instances of dating violence, suicide attempts, and physical abuse (Dake et al., 2012). While the literature does not always specify whether the sender or receiver of sexts is more prone to these negative consequences, it is acknowledged that both parties may be affected. Youth is a developmental stage marked by reduced impulse control and an increased willingness to take risks (Shulman et al., 2015), and research indicates that youth impulsivity is linked to involvement in sexting (Lu et al., 2021). Therefore, it is crucial to understand the prevalence of sexting among youths, identify related risk factors, and develop effective interventions to address this issue.

Various studies have examined the differences in sexting behaviors according to social and cultural factors, such as country of origin (Gassó et al., 2021) and race (Hicks et al., 2021), as well as cross-country comparisons (Morelli et al., 2017). Digital media use is increasing in almost all developing countries. In Cambodia, as of 2019, 139% of the total population were mobile phone subscribers, and the internet penetration rate was 104%, surpassing the population level for both indicators (Telecommunication regulator of Cambodia, 2022). A study of high school students in Cambodia reported that 97.9% of students used mobile phones and 86.3% used the internet (Pahn & Yang, 2019). Although Cambodia has a high proportion of young people aged 14 to 24 years, accounting for 19.2% of the total population of 15.55 million (National Institute of Statistics Cambodia, 2019), apart from some studies on youth sexual behaviors and condom use (National Institute of Statistics Cambodia, 2022; Yi et al., 2014), there has been no research on the prevalence of sexting among Cambodian youths, or the risk factors that contribute to this behavior.

Male youths are more likely to experience peer pressure that encourages them to engage in risky behaviors than female youths (McCoy et al., 2019), and this pressure can lead to an increased risk of sexting among male youths (Gregg et al., 2018). These findings suggest that male youths in Cambodia may require increased attention due to both the significant role of impulsive behavior in sexting and their tendency to view sexting as a normative practice in intimate relationships (Casas et al., 2019). Therefore, this study aimed to investigates the prevalence of and risk factors associated with sexting among male youths in Cambodia, so as to inform the development of culturally appropriate programs to promote safe and healthy sexual behaviors among Cambodian youth.

Method

Design

The study employed a correlational cross-sectional study design, which is used for examining the relationships between variables at a single point in time.

Participants and Data Collection

The sample was recruited from urban and rural areas of Cambodia, with Phnom Penh designated as the urban area and the Battambang and Kampong Cham Provinces as the rural areas. Between breaks and after classes, field teams conducted surveys focusing on students who were located outside the school premises both during school hours and after classes. This approach was selected to prevent any disruption to classroom activities. Prior to participation, written informed consent was obtained from participants by signing a consent form. We obtained parental consent for participants under the age of 18 by making phone calls and confirming it before commencing the survey. They were then given a mobile phone containing the survey questionnaire for self-completion. Given the sensitive nature of the questions, especially those pertaining to sexual behaviors and internet pornography exposure, an online survey platform (SurveyCTO) was used for data collection. The final sample included 647 male youths who received a US$3 incentive and signed an incentive form after survey completion.

Sexting

In this study, sexting refers to the act of sending or receiving messages (sexts) that contain sexually explicit messages, images, or videos, encompassing sexually explicit written text messages (referred to as sexting) as well as arousing nude pictures or videos, often involving partial nudity.

Participants’ Sociodemographic and Sexual Characteristics

The independent variables encompass sociodemographic, health behavior, and sexual characteristics. Sociodemographic variables include age, region, and cohabitation status. Health behaviors encompass drinking, smoking, and the time spent using electronic devices on both weekdays and weekends. In addition, this study documented sexuality-related factors, such as this type of relationship (categorized stable, open, not in a relationship but has occasional sexual partners, not had a sexual partners), experience with pornographic websites (yes, no), friends’ sexual experiences (categorized as “yes” for having friends sexually active, “no” for not having friends sexually active), frequency of thoughts about sex (categorized seldom, neither seldom nor often, often), sexual sensation-seeking tendencies, attitude toward sex, and sexual experience. The assessment of sexual sensation-seeking tendencies was conducted using the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale, which includes eight items (α = .947) (Hoyle et al., 2002). Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Attitudes toward sex were measured using the Brief Sexual Attitude Scale (Hendrick et al., 2006), which encompasses four dimensions: permissiveness, communion, birth control, and instrumentation. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with each item on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Following scoring, sexual sensation-seeking tendencies and attitude toward sex were dichotomized into two groups: “not more than average” and ‘more than average.

Translation of the Questionnaire

A back-translation technique was used to ensure the quality and comprehensiveness of the Khmer version of the questionnaire. A professional translator translated the questionnaire into Khmer, which was then back-translated into English by another translator. The original and translated versions were carefully reviewed, and the Khmer translation was updated as necessary based on the back-translation.

Ethical Considerations

The data collection was conducted after obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board of Jeonbuk National University.

Data Analysis

The collected data were analyzed using SPSS Win 25.0. The specific analysis methods were as follows. (a) Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the frequency and percentage of the participants’ demographic and sexual characteristics. (b) A chi-square test was used to analyze the differences in sending and receiving sexts according to participants’ demographic and sexual characteristics. (c) Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the influencing factors of sending and receiving sexts.

Results

Sexting According to Participants’ Sociodemographic and Sexual Characteristics

In total, 647 participants completed the survey. The following variables demonstrate significant differences, with higher or the highest percentages of sexting, as well as the number of participants in those specific groups, along with the corresponding statistical values. First, the rate of sending sexts is significantly higher among individuals who drink (43.2%, n = 140) (χ² = 34.23, p < .001) and those who smoke (43.2%, n = 32) (χ² = 4.43, p = .035). Second, participants who have received sexts show significant age differences, with the highest proportion in the age group of 20-24 (n = 98, 47.3%) (χ² = 9.94, p = .007). The rate of receiving sexts was significantly higher among those who drink alcohol (n = 169, 52.2%) (χ² = 47.64, p < .001) and those who smoke (n = 41, 55.4%) (χ² = 9.52, p = .002). Participants who use smartphones, tablets, or computers for more than 5 hours per day had the highest rate on both weekdays (n = 31, 55.4%) (χ² = 12.34, p = .015) and weekends (n = 43, 48.9%) (χ² = 11.85, p = .018) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sexting According to Participants’ Sociodemographic Characteristics and Health Behaviors (N = 647).

Characteristics	Categories	N (%)		Sending sexts					Receiving sexts
Characteristics	Categories	N (%)		Yes	(%)	No	(%)	χ² (p)	Yes	(%)	No	(%)	χ² (p)
Total		647	(100)	210	(32.5)	437	(67.5)	—	252	(38.9)	395	(61.1)	—
Age (years)	14–16	214	(33.1)	65	(30.4)	149	(69.6)	1.83(.401)	70	(32.7)	144	(67.3)	9.94(.007)
	17–19	226	(34.9)	81	(35.8)	145	(64.2)		84	(37.2)	142	(62.8)
	20–24	207	(32.0)	64	(30.9)	143	(69.1)		98	(47.3)	109	(52.7)
Region	Urban	261	(40.3)	84	(32.2)	177	(67.8)	0.02(.903)	99	(37.9)	162	(62.1)	0.19(.662)
Region	Rural	386	(59.7)	126	(32.6)	260	(67.4)	0.02(.903)	153	(39.6)	233	(60.4)	0.19(.662)
Living with	Single parent	67	(10.4)	18	(26.9)	49	(73.1)	9.18(.087)^a	25	(37.3)	42	(62.7)	8.58(.115)^a
	Parents	457	(70.6)	152	(33.3)	305	(66.7)		171	(37.4)	286	(62.6)
	Step-parent	7	(1.1)	0	(0.0)	7	(100.0)		2	(28.6)	5	(71.4)
	Relatives	99	(15.3)	33	(33.3)	66	(66.7)		42	(42.4)	57	(57.6)
	Friend	12	(1.9)	3	(25.0)	9	(75.0)		9	(75.0)	3	(25.0)
	Alone	5	(0.8)	4	(80.0)	1	(20.0)		3	(60.0)	2	(40.0)
Drink alcohol	No	323	(49.9)	70	(21.7)	253	(78.3)	34.23(<.001)	83	(25.7)	240	(74.3)	47.64(<.001)
Drink alcohol	Yes	324	(50.1)	140	(43.2)	184	(56.8)	34.23(<.001)	169	(52.2)	155	(47.8)	47.64(<.001)
Smoke	No	573	(88.6)	178	(31.1)	395	(68.9)	4.43(.035)	211	(36.8)	362	(63.2)	9.52(.002)
Smoke	Yes	74	(11.4)	32	(43.2)	42	(56.8)	4.43(.035)	41	(55.4)	33	(44.6)	9.52(.002)
Smartphone, tablet, or computer time (weekdays)	Do not use	126	(19.5)	45	(35.7)	81	(64.3)	2.58(.631)	44	(34.9)	82	(65.1)	12.34(.015)
	<1h	133	(20.5)	44	(33.1)	89	(66.9)		47	(35.3)	86	(64.7)
	1h~<2h	202	(31.2)	58	(28.7)	144	(71.3)		70	(34.7)	132	(65.3)
	2h~<5h	130	(20.1)	42	(32.3)	88	(67.7)		60	(46.2)	70	(53.8)
	≥5h	56	(8.7)	21	(37.5)	35	(62.5)		31	(55.4)	25	(44.6)
Smartphone, tablet, or computer time (weekends)	Do not use	114	(17.6)	36	(31.6)	78	(68.4)	3.38(.496)	36	(31.6)	78	(68.4)	11.85(.018)
	<1h	92	(14.2)	28	(30.4)	64	(69.6)		33	(35.9)	59	(64.1)
	1h~<2h	200	(30.9)	64	(32.0)	136	(68.0)		69	(34.5)	131	(65.5)
	2h~<5h	153	(23.7)	58	(37.9)	95	(62.1)		71	(46.4)	82	(53.6)
	≥5h	88	(13.6)	24	(27.3)	64	(72.7)		43	(48.9)	45	(51.1)

Fisher’s exact test.

The results in Table 2 highlight the significant influence of participants’ sexual characteristics on their sexting behavior. Participants who have sent sexts exhibit significant differences in the type of current relationship, with the highest percentage in open relationships (n = 45, 44.1%) (χ² = 28.61, p < .001), as well as in the experience of using pornographic websites (n = 115, 50.0%) (χ² = 50.09, p < .001), belief that their friends have had sex (n = 110, 47.8%) (χ² = 38.45, p < .001), frequent thoughts about sex, with the highest percentage among those who think about it often (n = 20, 71.4%) (χ² = 38.80, p < .001), having sexual sensation-seeking tendencies above average (n = 109, 38.2%) (χ² = 7.78, p = .005), an attitude toward sex that is above average (n = 120, 37.3%) (χ² = 6.76, p = .009), and having sexual experience (n = 89, 51.1%) (χ² = 37.93, p < .001).

Table 2.

Sexting According to Participants’ Sexual Characteristics (N = 647).

Characteristics	Categories	N (%)		Sending sexts					Receiving sexts
Characteristics	Categories	N (%)		Yes	(%)	No	(%)	χ² (p)	Yes	(%)	No	(%)	χ² (p)
Total		647	100	210	(32.5)	437	(67.5)	—	252	(38.9)	395	(61.1)	—
Current type of relationship^a	Stable relationship	272	(42.0)	106	(39.0)	166	(61.0)	28.61(<.001)	125	(46.0)	147	(54.0)	33.40(<.001)
	Open relationship	102	(15.8)	45	(44.1)	57	(55.9)		55	(53.9)	47	(46.1)
	Not in a relationship but has occasional sexual partners	22	(3.4)	8	(36.4)	14	(63.6)		6	(27.3)	16	(72.7)
	Not had a sexual partner	251	(38.8)	51	(20.3)	200	(79.7)		66	(26.3)	185	(73.7)
Experience of using pornographic websites	No	417	(64.5)	95	(22.8)	322	(77.2)	50.09(<.001)	106	(25.4)	311	(74.6)	90.30(<.001)
Experience of using pornographic websites	Yes	230	(35.5)	115	(50.0)	115	(50.0)	50.09(<.001)	146	(63.5)	84	(36.5)	90.30(<.001)
Friends’ sex experience	No	417	(64.5)	100	(24.0)	317	(76.0)	38.45(<.001)	124	(29.7)	293	(70.3)	41.87(<.001)
Friends’ sex experience	Yes	230	(35.5)	110	(47.8)	120	(52.2)	38.45(<.001)	128	(55.7)	102	(44.3)	41.87(<.001)
Frequency of thinking about sex	Seldom	522	(80.7)	142	(27.2)	380	(72.8)	38.80(<.001)	162	(31.0)	360	(69.0)	72.08(<.001)
	Neither seldom nor often	97	(15.0)	48	(49.5)	49	(50.5)		72	(74.2)	25	(25.8)
	Often	28	(4.3)	20	(71.4)	8	(28.6)		18	(64 .3)	10	(35.7)
Sexual sensation-seeking tendencies	Not more than average	362	(56.0)	101	(27.9)	261	(72.1)	7.78(.005)	105	(29.0)	257	(71.0)	34.17(<.001)
Sexual sensation-seeking tendencies	More than average	285	(44.0)	109	(38.2)	176	(61.8)	7.78(.005)	147	(51.6)	138	(48.4)	34.17(<.001)
Attitude toward sex	Not more than average	325	(50.2)	90	(27.7)	235	(72.3)	6.76(.009)	95	(29.2)	230	(70.8)	25.94(<.001)
Attitude toward sex	More than average	322	(49.8)	120	(37.3)	202	(62.7)	6.76(.009)	157	(48.8)	165	(51.2)	25.94(<.001)
Sexual experience	No	473	(73.1)	121	(25.6)	352	(74.4)	37.93(<.001)	144	(30.4)	329	(69.6)	53.50(<.001)
Sexual experience	Yes	174	(26.9)	89	(51.1)	85	(48.9)	37.93(<.001)	108	(62.1)	66	(37.9)	53.50(<.001)

Current type of relationship: stable relationship (dating for more than three months), open relationship (dating with the option of having other sexual partners), not in a relationship but has occasional sexual partners (within the last three months), not having a sexual partner (within the last three months).

Participants who have received sexts also display significant differences in the type of current relationship, with the highest percentage in open relationships (n = 55, 53.9%) (χ² = 33.40, p < .001), as well as in the experience of using pornographic websites (n = 146, 63.5%) (χ² = 90.30, p < .001), belief that their friends have had sex (n = 128, 55.7%) (χ² = 41.87, p < .001), frequency of thoughts about sex, primarily among those who neither think about it seldom nor often (n = 72, 74.2%) (χ² = 72.08, p < .001), having sexual sensation-seeking tendencies above average (n = 147, 51.6%) (χ² = 34.17, p < .001), an attitude toward sex that is above average (n = 157, 48.8%) (χ² = 25.94, p < .001), and having sexual experience (n = 108, 62.1%) (χ² = 53.50, p < .001).

Logistic Regression Analysis of Participants’ Sexting Behaviors

The analysis reveals that the following factors increase the risk of sending sexts: being younger than 20 to 24 years (17–19: odds ratio [OR] = 2.57, p = .001 vs. 14–16: OR = 3.93, p<.001); drinking alcohol (OR = 1.84, p = .018); spending more time on smartphones, tablets, or computers on weekends (1h~<2h: OR = 2.68, p = .036 vs. 2h~<5h: OR = 3.27, p = .007); being in an open relationship (OR = 1.84, p = .013); experience of using pornographic websites (OR = 2.17, p = .004); thinking that friends have already had sex (OR = 1.93, p =.011); and frequency of thinking about sex is neither seldom nor often (OR = 1.75, p = .049 vs. often: OR = 6.29, p = .001). The factors that increase the risk of receiving sexts include of living with a friend (OR = 5.83, p = .039), being in an open relationship (OR = 1.65, p = .034), experience of using pornographic websites (OR = 2.77, p < .001), frequency of thinking about sex is neither infrequent nor frequent (OR = 3.18, p < .001), and above-average sexual sensation-seeking tendencies (OR = 1.74, p = .020) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Analysis According to Participants’ Sexting Behavior (N = 647).

Characteristics	Categories	Sending sexts			Receiving sexts
Characteristics	Categories	OR	[95% CI]	p	OR	[95% CI]	p
Age (years)	20–24	1			1
	17–19	2.573	[1.488, 4.449]	.001	1.168	[0.698, 1.952]	.555
	14–16	3.925	[2.100, 7.337]	<.001	1.708	[0.963, 3.031]	.067
Region	Urban	1			1
Region	Rural	1.077	[0.720, 1.612]	.717	1.395	[0.935, 2.080]	.103
Living with	Single parent	1			1
	Parents	1.238	[0.647, 2.366]	.519	0.972	[0.528, 1.791]	.928
	Step-parent	0.000	[0.000]	.999	0.837	[0.119, 5.906]	.858
	Relatives	1.025	[0.463, 2.269]	.952	0.844	[0.395, 1.807]	.663
	Friend	0.837	[0.172, 4.070]	.825	5.829	[1.096, 30.985]	.039
	Alone	7.542	[0.697, 81.579]	.096	0.881	[0.119, 6.546]	.902
Drink alcohol	No	1			1
Drink alcohol	Yes	1.838	[1.110, 3.046]	.018	1.556	[0.959, 2.523]	.073
Smoke	No	1			1
Smoke	Yes	0.860	[0.473, 1.564]	.622	1.018	[0.557, 1.861]	.953
Smartphone, tablet, or computer time (weekdays)	≥5h	1			1
	Do not use	1.713	[0.568, 5.168]	.339	1.198	[0.421, 3.409]	.735
	<1h	0.582	[0.210, 1.614]	.298	0.545	[0.209, 1.419]	.213
	1h~<2h	0.545	[0.215, 1.382]	.201	0.645	[0.272, 1.529]	.319
	2h~<5h	0.729	[0.302, 1.758]	.482	0.909	[0.408, 2.027]	.816
Smartphone, tablet, or computer time (weekends)	≥5h	1			1
	Do not use	1.991	[0.646, 6.136]	.230	0.960	[0.349, 2.640]	.937
	<1h	2.731	[0.982, 7.595]	.054	1.492	[0.608, 3.661]	.382
	1h~<2h	2.678	[1.065, 6.736]	.036	0.887	[0.400, 1.965]	.767
	2h~<5h	3.273	[1.381, 7.759]	.007	1.091	[0.522, 2.279]	.817
Current type of relationship^a	Stable relationship	1			1
	Open relationship	1.844	[1.139, 2.985]	.013	1.645	[1.039, 2.605]	.034
	Not in a relationship but has occasional sexual partners	1.714	[0.822, 3.571]	.150	1.223	[0.590, 2.534]	.588
	Not had a sexual partner	2.027	[0.708, 5.798]	.188	0.898	[0.307, 2.630]	.844
Experience of using pornographic websites	No	1			1
Experience of using pornographic websites	Yes	2.170	[1.278, 3.685]	.004	2.768	[1.683, 4.551]	<.001
Friends’ sex experience	No	1			1
Friends’ sex experience	Yes	1.929	[1.162, 3.200]	.011	1.515	[0.925, 2.480]	.099
Frequency of thinking about sex	Seldom	1			1
	Neither seldom nor often	1.750	[1.001, 3.059]	.049	3.176	[1.780, 5.668]	<.001
	Often	6.285	[2.218, 17.808]	.001	1.667	[0.652, 4.265]	.286
Sexual sensation-seeking tendencies	Not more than average	1			1
Sexual sensation-seeking tendencies	More than average	1.131	[0.691, 1.850]	.624	1.740	[1.093, 2.769]	.020
Attitude toward sex	Not more than average	1			1
Attitude toward sex	More than average	0.626	[0.371, 1.057]	.080	0.721	[0.440, 1.180]	.193
Sexual experience	No	1			1
Sexual experience	Yes	1.480	[0.749, 2.923]	.259	1.134	[0.576, 2.230]	.716
Nagelkerke R²		0.268			0.287

Note. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio.

Current type of relationship: stable relationship (dating for more than 3 months), open relationship (dating with the option of having other sexual partners), not in a relationship but has occasional sexual partners (within the last 3 months), has not had a sexual partner (within the last 3 months).

Discussion

This study investigated the prevalence of and factors associated with sending and receiving sexts among Cambodian male youths. The study results showed that of the 647 participants, 32.5% and 38.9% sent and received sexts, respectively.

This result contrasts with Mori et al.’s (2022) meta-analysis, which reports lower rates of 19.3% (sending sexts) and 34.8% (receiving sexts). The observed difference can be attributed to the significantly higher age of the participants in this study (mean age 18.4 years) in comparison to the participants in Mori et al.’s study (mean age 14.9 years). Studies that have identified gender as a risk factor have reported that male youths are more than twice as likely to send sexts (Boer et al., 2021), whereas female youths have a higher rate of receiving sexts than male youths (Hunter et al., 2021). As a result, there may be differences between this study’s occurrence rate, which focused on male youths, and those of other studies in the Mori et al.’s (2022) meta-analysis that have examined both sexes.

This study revealed that alcohol consumption was a risk factor for sending sexts. Studies have reported that youth drinking is highly correlated with the occurrence of sexting (Mori et al., 2019). For instance, in male youths aged 15 to 16 years, the rate of sending sexts was 1.7 times higher if they had consumed alcohol, and 4.4 times higher in male adolescents aged 11 to 14 years (Ševčíková, 2016). Alcohol consumption has a particularly strong impact on the sending of sexts among younger youths. Alcohol also acts as a regulating factor for both sexting and online pornography consumption (Morelli et al., 2017), which strongly suggests that alcohol consumption leads to increased sexting and pornography consumption. Specifically, alcohol consumption has a strong correlation with sexting among male youths, and the higher the level of alcohol consumption, the higher the frequency of sexting (Morelli et al., 2017). Alcohol use during youth is associated with impaired cognitive function and increased impulsiveness (Lees et al., 2020), which may trigger sexting. Some studies have supported this claim, suggesting that the youth brain requires more stimulating sensations. For example, a longitudinal study of brain development in youths, based on repeated measurements of brain magnetic resonance imaging scans over an 8- to 10-year period, revealed a clear developmental trajectory of cortical maturation in the brain, including changes in white matter density over time. The lower-order sensory and motor areas matured first followed by higher-order cognitive areas related to language development, attention, and cognition; these changes stabilize in adulthood (Gogtay et al., 2004).

The time spent using digital devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and computers, during the weekend was a risk factor for sending sexts, while the time spent using digital devices during weekdays was not significant. This is likely related to the static correlation between age and sexting, which decreases both parental protective factors as the participants’ age increases (Hunter et al., 2021; Yépez-Tito et al., 2020) and school connectivity (Hunter et al., 2021). Previous studies have reported that the frequency of communicating through digital devices can predict sexting (Gregg et al., 2018; Yépez-Tito et al., 2020); however, in this study involving Cambodian male youths, sending sexts was found to be significant only among those who spent 1h~<2h as well as those who spent 2h~<5h using digital devices on weekends. Although Cambodia’s internet and mobile phone penetration rate exceeds the total population, economic participation in Cambodia starts at a young age, with male youths aged 15 to 24 years accounting for 21.6% of the total workforce (National Institute of Statistics Cambodia, 2021). This suggests that the time spent on digital devices on weekends may indirectly impact sexting compared to weekdays, when work is prioritized.

The sending of sexts was influenced by friends’ sexual experiences. Peer pressure or justification through sympathy or learning from peers may predict the sending of sexts among male youths who believe that their friends have already had sexual experiences (Gregg et al., 2018; McCoy et al., 2019). However, this was not significant for predicting the receipt of sexts in this study.

The receipt of sexts was influenced by factors such as living with friends and having above-average levels of sexual sensation-seeking tendencies. In youths, relationships with friends and romantic partners become increasingly significant, and their behavior is largely influenced by the norms within their peer group. Sexting is more prevalent among peers they trust; youths often share their sexual activities to maintain intimacy with a partner or to showcase their sexual experiences to peers in an effort to gain popularity (Walrave et al., 2014). Meanwhile, male youths tend to be more susceptible to peer pressure and deviant peer influence compared to female youths (McCoy et al., 2019). In this context, the incidence of sexting can be predicted by peer pressure and social learning from peers (Gregg et al., 2018).

In this study, the likelihood of receiving sexts was higher when living with friends compared to living with parents or relatives, although sending sexts among youths was not significantly associated with living with friends. Research by Milton et al. (2019) and Van Ouytsel et al. (2021) has also shown that youths who do not live with their parents or guardians are more likely to receive sexts. This could be attributed to the fact that youths living with parents benefit from parental supervision and protection, which acts as a mitigating factor against receiving sexts (Hunter et al., 2021; Valido et al., 2020). However, it is important to interpret these findings with caution, and further research is needed to understand the relationship between sexting and cohabitation, as well as the mechanisms through which cohabitants influence sexting behavior among youth.

Sexual sensation-seeking tendency has been measured differently in the prior studies but can generally be considered a risk factor for problematic behavior, as it is associated with a liking for interesting and risky activities or seeking new stimulations (Hoyle et al., 2002). In this study, sensation-seeking tendency was revealed as a significant factor for receiving sexts, which is consistent with the result of Baumgartner et al. (2014) and Livingstone and Görzig (2014). This may be related to the characteristics of youths who have difficulty controlling their impulsiveness and who easily accept highly stimulating behaviors (Shulman et al., 2015).

The risk factors that influenced both the sending and receiving of sexts were being in an open relationship with a current partner, experience using pornographic websites, and thinking about sex either often or neither often nor seldom (or both), which were all significant predictors of both the sending and receiving of sexts. Drouin et al. (2017) report that being in open relationships and romantic relationships are predictors of sexting for male and female youths, respectively. They also reveal that male youths in open relationships sext more frequently to seek alternative sexual outlets or seduce partners. Bragard and Fisher (2022) find that female youths in open relationships experience more negative outcomes from sexting, and there is a significant correlation between sexting partners and sexual activity. Hunter et al. (2021) defines stable relationships as dating relationships lasting for more than three months and reveal a high correlation between romantic relationships and sexting requests or pressure from partners. Male youths engage in more sexting behaviors in open relationships, where they have multiple sexual partners, which is consistent with this study’s finding that being in an open relationship was the highest predictor of receiving sexts.

Previous research has reported that sexual characteristics, such as online pornography use (Giordano et al., 2022; Morelli et al., 2017) and sexual experience (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017), are strongly associated with sexting. Although there has been no direct research on sexting among Cambodian youths, previous studies have reported that Cambodian youths who take pictures on their mobile phones or exchange text messages with the opposite sex are more likely to engage in sexual intercourse (Pahn & Yang, 2019). Youths experience increased levels of sexual hormones, sexual curiosity, and sexual experience (DeLamater & Friedrich, 2002). Cambodian male youths exhibit similar sexual characteristics and sexting results. This study identified sexual obsessions, including excessive thoughts about sex (Clancy et al., 2021; Howard et al., 2021), and online pornography consumption (Boer et al., 2021; Clancy et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2020; Marengo et al., 2019), as predictors of sexting. However, excessive thoughts about sex were evaluated as part of sexual desire (Marengo et al., 2019) or sexual obsession (Howard et al., 2021) factors rather than as a single item, and was identified as a predictor of sexting. Sexting is associated with a strong interest in sex, recent experience of sharing sexts, and excessive sexual experiences (Boer et al., 2021), indicating that youth sexual characteristics have a significant impact on sexting. In this context, this study identified online pornography consumption and excessive thoughts about sex as factors that triggered sexting, even after controlling for other factors.

“In results, it was observed that participants’ sexting behavior did not significantly differ between urban and rural areas. This lack of difference can be attributed to the similar levels of access to services such as scratch cards for mobile phones and the internet in both urban and rural settings, indicating that access conditions played a role in the absence of disparities. In terms of living arrangement, youths living alone had the highest frequency of sexting, while those living with step-parents had the lowest frequency, but there was no significant difference.

Given the sensitive nature of the topic, this study used an online survey platform to ensure confidentiality and minimize social desirability bias. However, this study was limited by both the lack of a representative sample and the inability to establish causality due to its cross-sectional design. The future research should consider using a longitudinal design to better understand the development of sexting behaviors among Cambodian youths.

Conclusion

This study provides important insights into the factors that contribute to sexting behavior, which can inform the development of prevention and intervention efforts tailored to the cultural and social contexts of Cambodia. Sexting is associated with negative outcomes, such as risky sexual behaviors, especially in youths with vulnerable sexual awareness or high sexual interest. Therefore, based on the significant factors that discovered in this study, educators, parents, and health care professionals should be aware of these factors and provide appropriate education, guidance, and intervention programs to prevent the negative consequences of sexting and promote healthy sexual behaviors among Cambodian youths.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I extend my sincerest gratitude to all the participants who earnestly participated in responding to the survey.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A5A2A03047080).

Institutional Review Board Approval

The data were collected after obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 2022-05-043-001) of Jeonbuk National University.

Informed Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the participants prior to their participation.

ORCID iDs

Seonhwa Kim

Youngran Yang

Data Availability

Raw data (qualitative interview data) are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

Barrense-Dias

Berchtold

Surís

J.-C.

Akre

(2017). Sexting and the definition issue. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(5), 544–554.

Baumgartner

S. E.

Sumter

S. R.

Peter

Valkenburg

P. M.

(2012). Identifying teens at risk: Developmental pathways of online and offline sexual risk behavior. Pediatrics, 130(6), e1489–e1496.

Baumgartner

S. E.

Sumter

S. R.

Peter

Valkenburg

P. M.

Livingstone

(2014). Does country context matter? Investigating the predictors of teen sexting across Europe. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 157–164.

Boer

Erdem

Ö.

de Graaf

Götz

(2021). Prevalence and correlates of sext-sharing among a representative sample of youth in the Netherlands. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 655796. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655796

Bragard

Fisher

C. B.

(2022). Associations between sexting motivations and consequences among adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescence, 94(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12000

Casas

J. A.

Ojeda

Elipe

Del Rey

(2019). Exploring which factors contribute to teens’ participation in sexting. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 60–69.

Casey

B. J.

Getz

Galvan

(2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003

Clancy

E. M.

Howard

Chong

Klettke

(2021). Dream it, do it? Associations between pornography use, risky sexual behaviour, sexual preoccupation and sexting behaviours among young Australian adults. Sexes, 2(4), 433–444.

Dake

J. A.

Price

J. H.

Maziarz

Ward

(2012). Prevalence and correlates of sexting behavior in adolescents. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 7(1), 1–15.

10.

DeLamater

Friedrich

W. N.

(2002). Human sexual development. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552113

11.

Doyle

Douglas

O'Reilly

. (2021). The outcomes of sexting for children and adolescents: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Adolescence, 92, 86–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.08.009

12.

Drouin

Coupe

Temple

J. R.

(2017). Is sexting good for your relationship? It depends . . .. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 749–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.018

13.

Ehrenreich

S. E.

George

M. J.

Burnell

Underwood

M. K.

(2021). Importance of digital communication in adolescents’ development: Theoretical and empirical advancements in the last decade. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 928–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12643

14.

Gassó

A. M.

Agustina

J. R.

Goméz-Durán

(2021). Cross-cultural differences in sexting practices between American and Spanish university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 2058. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042058

15.

Giordano

A. L.

Schmit

M. K.

Clement

Potts

E. E.

Graham

A. R.

(2022). Pornography use and sexting trends among American adolescents: Data to inform school counseling programming and practice. Professional School Counseling, 26(1), 2156759X221137287.

16.

Gogtay

Giedd

J. N.

Lusk

Hayashi

K. M.

Greenstein

Vaituzis

A. C.

Nugent

T. F.

Herman

D. H.

Clasen

L. S.

Toga

A. W.

Rapoport

J. L.

Thompson

P. M.

(2004). Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(21), 8174–8179. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0402680101

17.

Gregg

Somers

C. L.

Pernice

F. M.

Hillman

S. B.

Kernsmith

(2018). Sexting rates and predictors from an urban Midwest high school. Journal of School Health, 88(6), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12628

18.

Hendrick

S. S.

Reich

D. A.

(2006). The brief sexual attitudes scale. Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 76–86.

19.

Hicks

M. R.

Kernsmith

Smith-Darden

(2021). Does sexting predict sexual behaviors among adolescents? Gender and race effects. Journal of Adolescence, 93, 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.10.010

20.

Howard

Klettke

Clancy

Fuelscher

Fuller-Tyszkiewicz

(2021). Body image self-consciousness and sexting among heterosexual and non-exclusively heterosexual individuals. New Media & Society, 23(5), 1217–1235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820909469

21.

Hoyle

R. H.

Stephenson

M. T.

Palmgreen

Lorch

E. P.

Donohew

R. L.

(2002). Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(3), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00032-0

22.

Hunter

S. C.

Russell

Pagani

Munro

Pimenta

S. M.

Marín-López

Hong

J. S.

Knifton

(2021). A Social-ecological approach to understanding adolescent sexting behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(6), 2347–2357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01988-9

23.

Kim

Martin-Storey

Drossos

Barbosa

Georgiades

(2020). Prevalence and correlates of sexting behaviors in a provincially representative sample of adolescents. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 65(6), 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743719895205

24.

Lees

Meredith

L. R.

Kirkland

A. E.

Bryant

B. E.

Squeglia

L. M.

(2020). Effect of alcohol use on the adolescent brain and behavior. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 192, 172906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2020.172906

25.

Lenhart

(2015). Teens, technology and friendships. Pew Research Center.

26.

Livingstone

Görzig

(2014). When adolescents receive sexual messages on the internet: Explaining experiences of risk and harm. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.021

27.

Baumler

Temple

J. R.

(2021). Multiple forms of sexting and associations with psychosocial health in early adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2760.

28.

Madigan

Rash

C. L.

Van Ouytsel

Temple

J. R.

(2018). Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behavior among youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5314

29.

Marengo

Settanni

Longobardi

(2019). The associations between sex drive, sexual self-concept, sexual orientation, and exposure to online victimization in Italian adolescents: Investigating the mediating role of verbal and visual sexting behaviors. Children and Youth Services Review, 102, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.04.023

30.

McCoy

S. S.

Dimler

L. M.

Samuels

D. V.

Natsuaki

M. N.

(2019). Adolescent susceptibility to deviant peer pressure: Does gender matter? Adolescent Research Review, 4, 59–71.

31.

Milton

A. C.

Gill

B. A.

Davenport

T. A.

Dowling

Burns

J. M.

Hickie

I. B.

(2019). Sexting, web-based risks, and safety in two representative national samples of young Australians: Prevalence, perspectives, and predictors. Mental Health, 6(6), e13338.

32.

Morelli

Bianchi

Baiocco

Pezzuti

Chirumbolo

(2017). Sexting behaviors and cyber pornography addiction among adolescents: The moderating role of alcohol consumption. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-016-0234-0

33.

Mori

Park

Temple

J. R.

Madigan

(2022). Are youth sexting rates still on the rise? A meta-analytic update. Journal of Adolescent Health, 70(4), 531–539.

34.

Mori

Temple

J. R.

Browne

Madigan

(2019). Association of sexting with sexual behaviors and mental health among adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(8), 770–779. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1658

35.

National Institute of Statistics Cambodia. (2019). Genebtral population census Cambodia 2019. https://www.nis.gov.kh/index.php/km/15-gpc/79-press-release-of-the-2019-cambodia-general-population-census/

36.

National Institute of Statistics Cambodia. (2021). Report of Cambodia socio-economic survey 2021. https://www.nis.gov.kh/index.php/en/national-statistical-systems/official-statistics-of-cambodia/14-cses/118-cambodia-socia-ecomonic-survey-2019-21

37.

National Institute of Statistics Cambodia. (2022). The 2021–22 Cambodia demographic and health survey (2021–22 CDHS). http://www.nis.gov.kh/nis/CDHS/2021-22/Cambodia_DHS2021-2022_Final_Report_EN.pdf

38.

Pahn

Yang

(2019). Impact of short message service (sms) and social media on sexual intercourse of high school students in Cambodia. Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing, 30(2), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2019.30.2.150

39.

Rideout

Robb

M. B.

(2018). Social media, social life: Teens reveal their experiences. Common Sense Media.

40.

Sawyer

S. M.

Afifi

R. A.

Bearinger

L. H.

Blakemore

S.-J.

Dick

Ezeh

A. C.

Patton

G. C.

(2012). Adolescence: A foundation for future health. The Lancet, 379(9826), 1630–1640.

41.

Ševčíková

(2016). Girls’ and boys’ experience with teen sexting in early and late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 51, 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.06.007

42.

Shulman

E. P.

Harden

K. P.

Chein

J. M.

Steinberg

(2015). Sex differences in the developmental trajectories of impulse control and sensation-seeking from early adolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1–17.

43.

Telecommunication Regulator of Cambodia. (2022). Mobile phone subscriptions. https://trc.gov.kh/en/mobile-phone-subscriptions/

44.

United Nations. (2013). Definition of youth https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/youth/fact-sheets/youth-definition.pdf

45.

Valido

Espelage

D. L.

Hong

J. S.

Rivas-Koehl

Robinson

L. E.

(2020). Social-ecological examination of non-consensual sexting perpetration among U.S. adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24), 9477. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249477

46.

Van Ouytsel

Walrave

De Marez

Vanhaelewyn

Ponnet

. (2021). Sexting, pressured sexting and image-based sexual abuse among a weighted-sample of heterosexual and LGB-youth. Computers in Human Behavior, 117, 106630.

47.

Van Ouytsel

Walrave

Ponnet

. (2019). An exploratory study of sexting behaviors among heterosexual and sexual minority early adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(5), 621–626

48.

Vente

Daley

Killmeyer

Grubb

L. K.

(2020). Association of social media use and high risk behaviors in adolescents: Cross sectional study. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, 31, e18043. https://doi.org/10.2196/18043

49.

Walrave

Heirman

Hallam

(2014). Under pressure to sext? Applying the theory of planned behaviour to adolescent sexting. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(1), 86–98.

50.

Ybarra

M. L.

Mitchell

K. J.

(2014). “Sexting” and its relation to sexual activity and sexual risk behavior in a national survey of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(6), 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.07.012

51.

Yépez-Tito

Ferragut

Blanca

M. J.

(2020). Sexting in adolescence: The use of technology and parental supervision. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 52, 115–130.

52.

Tuot

Yung

Kim

Chhea

Saphonn

(2014). Factors associated with risky sexual behavior among unmarried most-at-risk young people in Cambodia. American Journal of Public Health, 2(5), 211–220.

Estimating the Prevalence and Identifying the Correlates of Sexting Behaviors Among Cambodian Male Adolescents

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Design

Participants and Data Collection

Sexting

Participants’ Sociodemographic and Sexual Characteristics

Translation of the Questionnaire

Ethical Considerations

Data Analysis

Results

Sexting According to Participants’ Sociodemographic and Sexual Characteristics

Logistic Regression Analysis of Participants’ Sexting Behaviors

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Institutional Review Board Approval

Informed Consent

ORCID iDs

Data Availability

References