This study posits a framework for conceptualizing the practice of adolescent sexting in order to help explain this behavior and inform decisions about whether and how to address it. Select theoretical propositions about the role of mobile communication in the “social emancipation” of youth were explicated and tested using a national survey of teens in the US. Drawing from this perspective, we hypothesized that sexting would be associated with levels of peer and family mobile connectivity, although in opposite ways, as well as parental control over the technology. As hypothesized, involvement in sexting was positively predicted by connectedness to peers through mobile communication and negatively predicted by connectedness to family. Although sexting was less likely with mobile connectedness to family, heavy-handed parental control over the technology was not a predictor. The discussion offers theoretical and practical implications of these and other findings, along with directions for future research.
BuijzenM. (2009). The effectiveness of parental communication in modifying the relation between food advertising and children’s consumption behavior. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 105–121.
5.
CampbellS. W.KwakN. (2011). Mobile communication and civil society: Linking patterns and places of use to engagement with others in public. Human Communication Research, 37(2), 207–222.
6.
CampbellS. W.LingR. S. (2008). Effects of mobile communication. In BryantJ.OliverM. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 592–606). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7.
CampbellS. W.RussoT. C. (2003). The social construction of mobile telephony: An application of the social influence model to perceptions and uses of mobile phones within personal communication networks. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 317–334.
8.
ChalfenR. (2009). “It’s only a picture”: Sexting, “smutty” snapshots and felony charges. Visual Studied, 24(3), 258–268.
9.
CronbachL. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 414–417.
10.
EriksonE. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.
11.
GillespieA. A. (2008). Adolescents accessing indecent images of children. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 14(2), 111–122.
12.
HarrisonK.LietchtyJ. M. (2012). U.S. preschoolers media exposure and dietary habits: The primacy of television and the limits of parental mediation. Journal of Children and Media, 6(1), 18–36.
13.
HasinoffA. A. (2013). Sexting as media production: Rethinking social media and sexuality. New Media & Society, 15(4), 449–465.
14.
HavighurstR. (1972). Developmental tasks and education. Philadelphia, PA: Mckay.
HjorthL. (2007). Snapshots of almost contact: The rise of camera phone practices and a case study in Seoul, Korea. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 21(2), 227–238.
HosmerD. W.LemeshowS. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.
19.
IshiiK. (2006). Implications of mobility: The uses of personal communication media in everyday life. Journal of Communication, 56(2), 346–365.
20.
ItoM.with HorstH.AntinJ.FinnM.LawA.ManionA.YardiS. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
ItoM.OkabeD. (2005). Technosocial situations: Emergent structuring of mobile e-mail use. In ItoM.OkabeD.MatsudaM. (Eds.), Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life (pp. 257–273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
LasénA.CasadoE. (2012). Mobile telephony and the remediation of couple intimacy. Feminist Media Studies, 12(4), 550–559.
LiX.FeigelmanS.StantonB. (2000). Perceived parental monitoring and health risk behaviors among urban low-income African-American children and adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(1), 43–48.
26.
LiX.StantonB.FeigelmanS. (2000). Impact of perceived parental monitoring on adolescent risk behavior over 4 years. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(1), 49–56.
27.
LingR. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
28.
LingR. (2005). Mobile communications vis-à-vis teen emancipation, peer group integration and deviance. In HarperR.TaylorA.PalenL. (Eds.), The inside text: Social perspectives on SMS in the mobile age (pp. 175–189). London, UK: Klewer.
29.
LingR. (2008). New tech, new ties: How mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
LippmanJ.CampbellS. W. (2012, May). Teenagers and sexting: Perceived norms and sexual double standard. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.
31.
Mattey DilibertoG. M.MatteyE. (2009). Sexting: Just how much of a danger is it and what can school nurses do about it?NASN School Nurse, 24, 262–267.
32.
PeterJ.ValkenburgP. M. (2011). The influence of sexually explicit Internet material on sexual risk behavior: A comparison of adolescents and adults. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 750–765.
SimmonD. (2009, December21). Teen’s death tied to “sexting.”Washington Times, p. 15.
36.
TabachnikB. G.FidellL. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
37.
Vanden AbeeleM.CampbellS. W.EggermontS.RoeK. (in press). Sexting, mobile porn use and peer group dynamics: Boys’ and girls’ self-perceived popularity, need for popularity, and perceived peer pressure. Media Psychology.
38.
WeisskirchR. S. (2011). No crossed wires: Cell phone communication and parent–adolescent relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(7–8), 445–451.
