Public health

Vol:.(1234567890)

Sexuality & Culture (2021) 25:2092–2109 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09866-1

1 3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Sexual Communication in the Digital Age: Adolescent Sexual Communication with Parents and Friends About Sexting, Pornography, and Starting Relationships Online

Laura Widman1  · Hannah Javidi1  · Anne J. Maheux2  · Reina Evans1  · Jacqueline Nesi3  · Sophia Choukas‑Bradley2

Accepted: 15 April 2021 / Published online: 29 April 2021 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021, corrected publication 2021

Abstract Online sexual behaviors like sexting, viewing pornography online, and using the internet to start relationships are increasingly common among adolescents, yet research has struggled to keep pace. This study fills a gap in the sexual communica- tion literature by examining the extent to which a sample of high school adolescents are discussing digital sexual topics with their parents and best friends compared to more traditional sexual topics (pregnancy, STDs, condoms, and abstinence). Partici- pants were 226 U.S. high school students (M  age = 16.25; 58% girls; 46% White, 25% Latino, 24% Black) who reported their digital sexual behavior and sexual com- munication in the past year. Rates of sexting, viewing pornography, and starting relationships online were high (89% had engaged in at least one of these behaviors; 35% engaged in all three behaviors); yet communication about these topics was gen- erally low: only 7% of youth had discussed all three digital topics with their parents and 19% had discussed all three with their best friends. This is in contrast to nearly 50% of youth who discussed traditional topics with their parents and best friends. Patterns of communication and digital sexual behavior were similar by gender, with the exception of pornography: boys were more likely to view pornography and dis- cuss it with friends than girls. Implications for adolescent development in the digital age are discussed.

Keywords Sexual communication · Adolescent sexual development · Sexting · Pornography · Digital media

* Laura Widman [email protected]

1 Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA 2 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA 3 Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior and Bradley/Hasbro Research Center, Rhode

Island Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

2093

1 3

Sexual Communication in the Digital Age: Adolescent Sexual…

Introduction

The changing digital landscape has resulted in a changing sexual landscape for adolescents. A key developmental task of adolescence is the exploration of sexual and dating relationships, along with broader identity exploration and negotiation of autonomy with parents and peers (Dahl et  al., 2018; Diamond & Savin-Williams, 2009). This sexual exploration is now occurring at a time when over 95% of ado- lescents have access to a cell phone and nearly half of youth report being online “almost constantly” (Smith & Anderson, 2018). Digital media has fundamentally transformed how adolescents interact with online content and with peers by provid- ing affordances—such as “24/7” availability and absence of social cues—to which adolescents must adapt (Nesi et  al., 2018; Subrahmanyam & Smahel, 2011). The accessibility and relative anonymity afforded by digital media have also created a unique environment in which adolescents can explore their emerging sexualities, including consuming sexual media and constructing their own online sexual expe- riences (Greenfield, 1984; Subrahmanyam & Smahel, 2011). As many as three- quarters of youth have been exposed to online pornography, either intentionally or accidentally (Behun & Owens, 2020; Chen et  al., 2013; Peter & Valkenburg, 2016). Additionally, at least a quarter of youth have received a sext (i.e., a sexually explicit photo shared via text or private messaging app), with rates increasing in recent years (Madigan et al., 2018). Further, with the rise of online dating platforms and social media sites, the internet has become fertile ground for flirting, meeting potential partners, and developing relationships (Bryant & Sheldon, 2017; Lykens et al., 2019; Macapagal et al., 2018; Tsai et al., 2018). These digital platforms pro- vide adolescents with new opportunities to explore their sexual interests and desires, express their sexuality, and initiate or expand their sexual relationships.

Sexual exploration in the digital world presents both risks and rewards for ado- lescents and may be part of learning about sex during this developmental period. For example, the negative consequences of youth sexting can include blackmail, bullying, and sexual exploitation (Setty, 2020; Smith et  al., 2014; Van Ouytsel et  al., 2017, 2019), but sexting can also allow adolescents to share sexual inti- macy without the risk of unplanned pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs; Chalfen, 2009). Further, online pornography may be a poor sex educator for youth, in that it can set unrealistic expectations for sexual interactions and normalizes risky sexual behavior (Binnie & Reavey, 2019; Owens et  al., 2012; Sun et al., 2016); yet, pornography can also be a way to experience pleasure while exploring and experimenting with sexuality (Bőthe et  al., 2019; Smith, 2013). Finally, research on the risks or rewards of adolescents’ use of the internet to start new relationships is limited; however, recent work has shown that some adoles- cents are using dating sites aimed at adults over 18 and engaging in unprotected sex with older partners, but that online spaces can also be a place to meet sexual needs, explore identity, and overcome obstacles to meeting partners, particularly for sexual minority youth (Macapagal et al., 2018, 2021).

If adolescents want to learn more about digital aspects of sexuality, or if they want to discuss their own experiences or concerns related to sexting, viewing

2094 L. Widman et al.

1 3

online pornography, or starting relationships online, where do they turn? Adoles- cence is a unique developmental period, when peer influences become extremely important for sense of self and behavioral decision-making, while parenting pro- cesses remain central for adolescents’ health and wellbeing (Brechwald & Prin- stein, 2011; Dahl et al., 2018). Parents and friends are important sources of infor- mation about sex for youth (Bleakley et al., 2018; Flores & Barroso, 2017; Kamke et al., 2020; Secor-Turner et al., 2011). Discussing sexual topics with parents and friends can frame adolescents’ sexual perceptions and also impact their sexual decision making. For example, communication about more “traditional” sexual health topics (e.g., condoms, HIV/STDs, pregnancy, relationships) can serve as a buffer against negative sexual health outcomes. Adolescents who talk more fre- quently about safer sex topics with their parents and friends are more likely to use condoms and contraceptives than teens who do not talk about these issues (Johns et al., 2018; Sutton et al., 2014; Widman et al., 2016; Widman, Choukas-Bradley, et al., 2014). Social learning theory highlights how communication with parents and friends can also serve as a critical model for adolescents’ communication with relationship partners (Bandura, 1986). Of importance, sexual communica- tion with relationship partners is associated with better sexual health outcomes (Johns et al., 2018; Rogers, 2017; Widman, Noar, et al., 2014).

Yet, despite an extensive literature on the role of parent and friend communi- cation about traditional sexual topics (Bleakley et  al., 2018; Coakley et  al., 2017; Flores & Barroso, 2017; Widman et al., 2016), we currently do not know the extent to which adolescents are discussing newer, digital sexual topics with their parents and friends. To date, there are only a handful of studies that have examined adoles- cent communication about a single digital sexual topic, such as communication with parents about pornography (Rasmussen et  al., 2015; Rothman et  al., 2017; Wolak et al., 2007; Zurcher, 2017) or communication with friends about sexting (Gewirtz- Meydan et al., 2018). However, we are unaware of any work that has examined the frequency of adolescent communication with parents and friends about sexting, por- nography, and starting relationships online in a way that would allow us to under- stand these communication patterns across topics and among both parents and friends. Further, we are aware of no studies that have explored how communication about sexting, pornography, and meeting partners may be associated with youth’s own engagement in these behaviors.

Thus, to address these gaps in the prior research, we sought to answer three research questions in the current study. First, we explore the question: are adoles- cents discussing pornography, sexting, and starting relationships online with their parents and/or friends? Although past research has shown that parents can guide and influence adolescents’ sexual behavior (Bleakley et  al., 2018; Widman et  al., 2016), parents are often unaware of adolescents’ online behavior, including any online risk behavior (Symons et al., 2017), and therefore may be unable to provide adequate guidance and support. Peers, on the other hand, are likely to be commu- nicating about sexual issues and play a key role in adolescents’ sexual behavior, as adolescents generally consider their peers’ opinions to be most important and influ- ential during this developmental stage (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011; van de Bon- gardt et al., 2015). For example, adolescents’ perceptions of their peers’ engagement

2095

1 3

Sexual Communication in the Digital Age: Adolescent Sexual…

in sexting influence their own attitudes about sexting and intentions to send sexts (Maheux et al., 2020; Walrave et al., 2015). Further, adolescents have been shown to discuss and use pornography within their circle of friends, both of which influ- ence their personal pornography consumption (Weber et al., 2012). Peer norms also influence adolescents’ use of online dating platforms and other internet-based sexual communication (Baumgartner et al., 2011; Schreurs et al., 2020). Thus, we expect adolescents will communicate more frequently with their best friends than their par- ents about digital sexual topics, given the taboo nature of these topics and the fact that these are newer dimensions of sexual expression with which parents may have less experience (Vanwesenbeeck et al., 2018).

The second research question we address is: are there differences in sexual com- munication patterns and digital sexual behaviors by gender? Feminist scholars have argued that sociocultural factors influence the meaning of sex for girls and boys (Tolman et al., 2003) and create a sexual double standard in which boys are more rewarded for engaging in sexual behavior (Tolman, 2013; Tolman et al., 2003). Gen- der differences in sexual behavior are complex, as gender socialization beginning in childhood may encourage girls to engage in intimate dyadic communication and to prioritize relationship partners’ needs (Rose & Rudolph, 2006; Tolman, 2013). While there is clear evidence that boys report more pornography use than girls (Peter & Valkenburg, 2016), patterns of sexting and starting relationships online are less clear by gender. A few studies have found that adolescent girls are more likely to send sexts than boys (Mitchell et al., 2012), possibly because girls report more direct and indirect pressure to send sexts than boys (Lippman & Campbell, 2014; Rice et al., 2012). Other work has found no gender difference for sending sexts but reported that adolescent boys were more likely to receive sexts than girls (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010), or no gender difference for either sending or receiving sexts (Burén & Lunde, 2018; Rice et  al., 2012). Further, while it is generally found that girls engage in more sexual communication with parents and friends than boys do (Gill- more et al., 2011; Widman, Choukas-Bradley, et al., 2014), gender differences in the patterns of sexual communication about newer, digital sexuality topics have not yet been tested and will be explored in this study.

Finally, the last research question we examine is: what is the relationship between communication with parents and best friends and adolescents’ own digital sexual behavior—that is, their own sexting, use of pornography, and starting relationships online? Given the paucity of studies in this area, these analyses were exploratory.

Method

Participants and Procedure

In Spring 2018, participants were recruited from a high school in the southeastern United States to take part in a sexual health intervention (Widman et  al., 2020). Data for the current project come from the baseline assessment prior to intervention delivery. All 10th and 11th graders (n = 754) were invited to participate in the study, and the final sample size was determined by the number of students and parents who

2096 L. Widman et al.

1 3

granted consent. All students were asked to return a parent permission form regard- less of whether their parent gave consent for the study (n = 309 forms returned). Among youth who returned their forms, 237 parents granted consent for the study and 226 youth agreed to participate, leaving a final sample of 226 youth (132 girls; 90 boys; 4 transgender/gender non-binary students). The age range of participants in this study was 15–18 years old, with an average age of 16.25 years (SD = 0.76). Regarding race/ethnicity, 45.6% of participants were White, 24.3% were Black/Afri- can American, 25.2% were Hispanic/Latino, and 4.9% were another race/ethnicity. In the past year, 49.6% of participants received free or reduced-price lunch. Regard- ing sexual orientation, 79.2% of participants identified as heterosexual, 7.5% identi- fied as mostly heterosexual, 5.3% identified as bisexual, 1.3% identified as mostly gay or lesbian, 1.8% identified as gay or lesbian, and 4.9% identified as unsure, ques- tioning, or another sexual orientation. Finally, 68.6% of youth reported they had ever engaged in sexual activity, and 50.2% reported having sexual intercourse.

After parental consent and student assent were obtained, baseline data were col- lected using computerized surveys in a small group classroom setting. Computer- ized assessments have been shown to reduce social desirability biases and increase validity of self-reports when collecting sensitive data about sexual behavior among youth (Dolezal et al., 2011; Turner et al., 1998). Participants were seated with space between seats, assured that their data would remain confidential, and offered privat- izing dividers to encourage honest responding. Participants were compensated $10 for the baseline assessment. The University Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures.

Measures

Participant Characteristics Participants self-reported their gender, age, race/ethnic- ity, sexual orientation, and receipt of free or reduced-price lunch (a proxy for socio- economic status). Participants also responded to two items regarding their sexual activity: one that inquired if participants had ever engaged in any sexual activity, including sexual touching, oral sex, and/or intercourse; and a second that inquired if participants had ever engaged in sexual intercourse.

Sexting Participant sexting behavior was measured with two items: (1) “In the past year, how often have you SENT a sexually explicit message (“sext”)?” and (2) “In the past year, how often have you RECEIVED a sexually explicit message (“sext”)?” Prior studies have used similar wording to address sexting behavior (Beckmeyer et al., 2019; Maheux et al., 2020). Response options were: 0 = Never, 1 = 1–2 times, 2 = A few times, and 3 = Many times.

Pornography Use Pornography use was measured with the item: “In the past year, how often have you looked at pornography (“porn”)?” Response options were: 0 = Never, 1 = 1–2 times, 2 = A few times, and 3 = Many times.

Online Flirting/Dating. We assessed frequency of using the internet to flirt or start a new relationship with the following question: “In the past year, how often have you used social media to flirt with people or start a new relationship?”

2097

1 3

Sexual Communication in the Digital Age: Adolescent Sexual…

Response options were: 0 = Never, 1 = 1–2 times, 2 = A few times, and 3 = Many times.

Sexual Communication with Parents and Best Friend We assessed the frequency that adolescents had discussed a number of sexual topics in the past year with their (a) parents or main caregiver and (b) a “best friend”. Specifically, items inquired about communication about the following topics: (1) sexting; (2) pornography; (3) using social media to flirt with people or start new relationships; (4) risk of preg- nancy; (5) HIV/STDs; (6) using condoms; and (7) abstinence/waiting to have sex. Response options were: 0 = Never, 1 = 1–2 times, 2 = A few or many times.

Analysis Plan Analyses were conducted in five steps. First, due to the highly skewed nature of the digital sexual behavior and communication items (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics), items were dichotomized into a score of 0 = never dis- cussed or engaged in that behavior or 1 = discussed or engaged in that behavior one or more times. Next, we conducted a series of descriptive analyses to determine the percentage of youth who had discussed each sexual topic with their parents and best friends as well as the percentage of youth who had engaged in the three digital sexual behaviors: sexting (sending or receiving), viewing pornography, and start- ing relationships online. Third, to determine whether the percentage of youth com- municating about each topic differed across communication partners (i.e., parents versus best friend), we conducted a series of McNemar chi square tests to account for the paired nature of the data and used a Bonferroni correction to maintain a

Table 1 Technology-based sexual behavior and sexual communication about digital and traditional top- ics in the past year

n (%) = number and percentage who have engaged in behavior or any sexual communication on that topic in the past year *Statistically significant difference between groups after applying Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = p < .006) a 24% of youth (n = 54) reported receiving a sext but not sending a sext; 48% of youth (n = 109) reported sending and receiving a sext; no youth reported sending a sext but not receiving a sext

Engaged in Behavior Communicated with: Between group comparisons

Parents Best friend

n (%) n (%) n (%) McNemar χ2

Digital topics Sexting (receiving or sending) 163 (72%)a 40 (18%) 87 (39%) 26.79* Porn 128 (57%) 38 (17%) 83 (38%) 25.14* Online flirt/date 139 (62%) 57 (25%) 134 (59%) 58.34* Across digital topics At least one topic 200 (89%) 82 (36%) 166 (74%) 68.89* All three topics 78 (35%) 16 (7%) 43 (19%) 12.76* Traditional topics Risk of pregnancy – 109 (48%) 128 (57%) 3.72 HIV/STDs – 90 (34%) 99 (44%) 0.72 Using condoms – 109 (48%) 141 (62%) 11.17* Abstinence/waiting – 124 (55%) 125 (55%) 0.00

2098 L. Widman et al.

1 3

family-wise Type I error rate of p < 0.05. Fourth, we examined differences in digital sexual behaviors and communication patterns by gender, using chi square tests and a Bonferroni correction. Finally, we conducted phi correlations to examine the rela- tionships between sexual communication and digital sexual behavior. Supplemen- tal partial correlations were run to control for gender and sexual activity status to ensure the results were not exclusive to youth of one gender or being driven by sexu- ally active youth.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 details the descriptive statistics for digital sexual behavior and communica- tion about each topic. As shown in the table, in the past year, 72% of the youth in our sample sent or received a sext, 57% viewed pornography, and 62% used social media to flirt or start a new relationship. A total of 89% of youth had engaged in at least one of these digital sexual behaviors in the past year and 35% had engaged in all three behaviors.

Research Question 1: Are Adolescents Discussing Pornography, Sexting, and Starting Relationships Online with Their Parents and/ or Friends?

While digital sexual behavior was high, rates of communication about these topics were generally low—and even more so for communication with parents than best friends: only 7% of youth had discussed all three digital topics with their parents and 19% had discussed all three digital topics with their best friends in the past year. As can be seen in Table 1, communication about traditional sexual topics was more frequent. About half of youth had discussed topics such as pregnancy and abstinence with their parents and best friends.

Research Question 2: Are There Differences in Sexual Communication Patterns and Digital Sexual Behaviors by Gender?

Table 2 shows the test of gender differences in patterns of digital sexual behavior and communication about digital and traditional topics. Regarding behavior, the use of pornography was significantly more likely among boys (78%) than girls (41%). There were no gender differences in the percentage of adolescents that sexted or used social media to flirt or meet partners. Further, there were no differ- ences in communication with parents about any of the three digital topics or four traditional topics between boys and girls. Regarding best friend communication, girls were significantly less likely than boys to discuss pornography with friends

2099

1 3

Sexual Communication in the Digital Age: Adolescent Sexual…

Ta bl

e 2

T es

t o f g

en de

r d iff

er en

ce s i

n pa

tte rn

s o f s

ex ua

l b eh

av io

r a nd

se xu

al c

om m

un ic

at io

n

Sa m

pl e

n = 22

2 fo

r a ll

an al

ys es

. F ou

r t ra

ns ge

nd er

/n on

-b in

ar y

stu de

nt s w

er e

re m

ov ed

fr om

th es

e ge

nd er

c om

pa ris

on s

*S ta

tis tic

al ly

si gn

ifi ca

nt d

iff er

en ce

b et

w ee

n gr

ou ps

a fte

r a pp

ly in

g B

on fe

rr on

i c or

re ct

io n

(.0 5/

23 =

p <

.0 02

)

En ga

ge d

in B

eh av

io r

C om

m un

ic at

ed w

ith P

ar en

ts C

om m

un ic

at ed

w ith

B es

t f rie

nd

G irl

s ( n =

13 2)

B oy

s ( n =

90 )

B et

w ee

n G

ro up

C om

- pa

ris on

G irl

s ( n =

13 2)

B oy

s ( n =

90 )

B et

w ee

n G

ro up

C om

- pa

ris on

G irl

s ( n =

13 2)

B oy

s ( n =

90 )

B et

w ee

n gr

ou p

co m

pa ris

on

n (%

) n

(% )

χ2 n

(% )

n (%

) χ2

n (%

) n

(% )

χ2

D ig

ita l t

op ic

s Se

xt in

g (s

en di

ng o

r re

ce iv

in g)

96 (7

3) 64

(7 1)

0. 07

29 (2

2) 11

(1 2)

3. 44

48 (3

6) 39

(4 3)

1. 09

Po rn

og ra

ph y

54 (4

1) 70

(7 8)

29 .5

0* 21

(1 6)

17 (1

9) 0.

36 27

(2 1)

54 (6

0) 36

.1 1*

O nl

in e

fli rt/

da te

81 (6

4) 56

(6 2)

0. 02

32 (2

4) 24

(2 7)

0. 17

80 (6

1) 53

(5 9)

0. 07

Ac ro

ss d

ig ita

l t op

ic s

A t l

ea st

on e

to pi

c 11

4 (8

6) 82

(9 1)

1. 17

45 (3

4) 36

(4 0)

0. 81

95 (7

2) 68

(7 6)

0. 35

A ll

th re

e to

pi cs

35 (2

7) 42

(4 7)

9. 59

* 13

(1 0)

3 (3

) 3.

40 13

(1 0)

30 (3

3) 18

.9 0*

Tr ad

iti on

al to

pi cs

R is

k of

p re

gn an

cy –

– 63

(4 8)

45 (5

0) .1

1 80

(6 1)

46 (5

1) 1.

97 H

IV /S

TD s

– –

53 (4

0) 35

(3 9)

.0 4

62 (4

7) 35

(3 9)

1. 42

U si

ng c

on do

m s

– –

59 (4

5) 49

(5 4)

2. 04

83 (6

3) 56

(6 2)

0. 01

A bs

tin en

ce /w

ai tin

g –

– 82

(6 2)

41 (4

6) 5.

94 95

(7 2)

29 (3

2) 34

.2 9*

2100 L. Widman et al.

1 3

(21% vs 60%, respectively), and girls were significantly more likely than boys to discuss abstinence with friends (72% vs 32%, respectively).

Research Question 3: What is the Relationship Between Communication with Parents and Best Friends and Adolescents’ Own Digital Sexual Behavior?

Finally, correlations were run to examine the relationship between digital sexual behavior and communication about these topics (see Table 3). Notably, the pat- tern of correlations between communication and behavior was stronger for best friends than parents. In fact, there were no significant associations between ado- lescent communication with their parents about sexting and pornography and their engagement in these behaviors, and there was a small positive correlation between communication with parents about using social media to flirt or start a new relationship and engagement in this behavior (r = 0.15). However, moderate positive correlations were found between best friend communication and engage- ment in each of the three digital sexual behaviors, with youth who communicated with friends being more likely to engage in sexting (r = 0.33), pornography use (r = 0.43), and using social media to flirt or start a new relationship (r = 0.42). The same pattern of correlations held when we controlled for gender and sexual activity status.

Table 3 Phi correlations: Digital sexual behaviors and sexual communication about digital topics with parents and best friends

Sample n = 226 for all analyses. Com = communication. The same pattern of results was found when par- tial correlations were conducted controlling for gender and again when controlling for sexual activity status * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

[1] Behavior: sexting – [2] Behavior: pornography use .31*** – [3] Behavior: online flirt/date .27*** .24*** – [4] Parent com: sexting .04 .06 .06 – [5] Parent com: pornography .04 .08 .06 .57*** – [6] Parent com: online flirt/date .01 .01 .15* .35*** .31*** – [7] Best friend com: sexting .33*** .18** .27*** .21** .18** .15* – [8] Best friend com: pornography .15* .43*** .13* .06 .20** .09 .44*** – [9] Best friend com: online flirt/date .13** .04 .42*** .03 .11 .25*** .29*** .18** –

2101

1 3

Sexual Communication in the Digital Age: Adolescent Sexual…

Discussion

The rise of digital technologies has created unprecedented opportunities for ado- lescents to explore and express their sexuality, but research has struggled to keep pace with this rapidly changing landscape. The current study examined three spe- cific digital sexual behaviors: sexting, pornography use, and online flirting/dat- ing, as well as adolescents’ reported communication about these topics with their parents and best friends. Rates of digital sexual behaviors were notably high in this sample of middle adolescents—with nearly 90% of youth engaging in at least one digital sexual behavior in the past year. Yet, few adolescents reported openly communicating about these topics with their parents and best friends. This study adds to an emerging literature on communication about increasingly prevalent digital sexual topics.

First, findings suggest that sexting was a common digital sexual behavior among the adolescents we sampled, with 72% of youth receiving a sext and 48% of youth sending a sext in the past year alone. These rates are higher than what has been found in many older studies of adolescents (for review, see Peter & Valk- enburg, 2016). This may be due to the broad definition of sexting used in the cur- rent study, yet also may be consistent with findings from a recent meta-analysis that has shown rates of sexting to be increasing over time (Madigan et al., 2018). Given the large discrepancy between the number of youth sending versus receiv- ing a sext, it is possible that some of the sexts that were received were unwanted and/or forwarded to others without permission, a practice that is associated with increased depression, anxiety, and stress (Klettke et  al., 2019). Also consistent with recent work, we found rates of sexting to be similar among boys and girls (Burén & Lunde, 2018).

Despite the common occurrence of this behavior, less than 20% of adolescents reported talking about sexting with their parents and less than 40% reported talk- ing about sexting with their best friends. In comparison, approximately 50% of youth discussed more “traditional” sexual topics, such as pregnancy and absti- nence, with their parents and best friends. Emerging norms around sexting may be complicated among adolescents. While youth may perceive sexting to be com- mon and accepted among their peers (Maheux et  al., 2020), there may still be considerable stigma around sharing and receiving sexts, especially for girls (Lipp- man & Campbell, 2014). These conflicting norms, along with the potential legal ramifications of sexting, may prevent youth from discussing this topic with par- ents and peers. At present, most sex education programs do not cover sexting, and no U.S. states specifically mandate sexting be taught as part of comprehensive sex education curriculum (Guttmacher Institute, 2021). This leaves a critical gap in the information youth are receiving about sexting. Our findings suggest there is a clear opportunity for better sex education programming around this issue.

With regard to the use of pornography, gender differences were particularly notable: 78% of boys compared to 41% of girls had viewed pornography in the past year. These findings are in line with past studies that have found clear gen- der differences in pornography use and acceptance, with boys and men having

2102 L. Widman et al.

1 3

more exposure and more positive attitudes toward pornography use than girls and women (Carroll et al., 2017; Peter & Valkenburg, 2016; Willoughby et al., 2018). This study adds to prior work on pornography by documenting rates of commu- nication about this behavior, finding few youth are discussing pornography with their parents (less than 20% of boys and girls). Insofar as viewing pornography represents a common means of exploring adolescents’ emerging sexualities, these conversations with parents are essential. For example, mainstream pornography frequently depicts men objectifying and perpetrating aggression against women, as well as other potentially problematic ideas about gender and consent (Fritz & Paul, 2017; Klaassen & Peter, 2015; Willis et  al., 2020). Without communica- tion with adults, adolescents may internalize these sexual scripts as representing normative human sexuality experiences (Mendoza, 2009; Rothman et al., 2015).

Findings also suggest large gender differences in rates of communication between best friends, with boys being far more likely to talk with their friends about pornog- raphy than girls (60% vs. 21%, respectively). Because so many adolescents, particu- larly boys, are viewing pornography and talking about it with their friends, it may be especially helpful for sex educators to address the impact of unhealthy, inaccurate, and harmful media messages as part of school sex education curricula. In this con- text, sex educators may be well positioned to teach the media literacy skills—criti- cal media analysis, media deconstruction, media skepticism, etc.—that adolescents likely need to have more productive conversations and less harmful experiences uti- lizing pornography. Importantly, there are already effective sex education programs for adolescents that teach media and pornography literacy skills. These programs may be excellent resources for sex educators seeking to incorporate more media lit- eracy training into their teaching (Rothman et al., 2020; Scull et al., 2014). Nota- bly, while the majority of boys (60%) reported discussing pornography with their best friends, the content and tone of these conversations was not assessed. Future research will be needed to examine when peer communication about pornography is beneficial for teens, and when it serves to perpetuate negative messages and gender stereotypes, so as to better inform media literacy education.

A similar pattern of findings was noted for using social media to flirt or start a new relationship. Nearly 60% of the youth we sampled engaged in this behav- ior, but only a quarter of youth had discussed this topic with their parents. While research on adults’ use of online platforms to meet romantic and sexual partners is now extensive (Anzani et al., 2018; Griffin et al., 2018; Smith & Duggan, 2013; Tomaszewska & Schuster, 2020), research on the use of online dating platforms among adolescents is extremely sparse (Lykens et  al., 2019; Macapagal et  al., 2018, 2021). Research is needed regarding the benefits and risks of adolescents starting new relationships online. For example, adolescents may use online plat- forms to flirt and seek relationships with older partners, and research is needed that evaluates the extent to which parent communication can mitigate these risks. For example, research on traditional sexual health topics suggests that monitor- ing and open communication may be productive avenues for encouraging safer behavior (Dittus et al., 2015; Widman et al., 2016). Thus, parents may be wise to set limits around online dating for their adolescents, monitor their online activi- ties, and communicate with them about how they can safely use online platforms

2103

1 3

Sexual Communication in the Digital Age: Adolescent Sexual…

to flirt and seek relationships. These conversations can occur with the aware- ness that flirting or starting new relationships online may also provide a posi- tive avenue for sexual exploration, identity development, and overcoming barriers to meeting partners, especially for sexual and gender minority youth (Macapagal et al., 2018).

Taken together, results suggest that it is quite common for youth to engage in digital sexual behavior but rather uncommon for them to talk about these topics— especially with their parents. Only one third of youth had discussed at least one digital sexual topic with their parents, and a very small minority of youth (7%) had discussed all three topics with their parents. This suggests parents may be missing important opportunities to talk with their children about sexuality in digital spaces. Many parents avoid conversations about sex because they think their teenagers are “not ready” (e.g., Pareiera, 2016), yet in this sample, adolescents’ engagement in these behaviors was high relative to low rates of talking about them. Parents’ avoid- ance or reluctance to discuss these topics may reflect misunderstanding that their teens are already engaging in these behaviors. Additionally, parents may feel unpre- pared to have these conversations given that these new forms of sexual expression were not available when they were young. However, adolescents’ knowledge and literacy regarding these digital technologies can lead to improved outcomes if they engage in these behaviors (Vandenbosch & van Oosten, 2017), and parents could be instrumental in contributing to literacy surrounding digital sexual behaviors. While there are a number of promising interventions for parents that work to improve par- ent–child communication about sex (for reviews, see Akers et  al., 2011; Widman et al., 2019; Wight & Fullerton, 2013), parents may benefit from future interventions that provide specific information about digital sexual topics and model how to dis- cuss these topics with their children.

A final purpose of this study was to examine whether communication with parents and best friends was associated with adolescents’ digital sexual behavior—that is, their own sexting, use of pornography, and using the internet to flirt or start new relation- ships. This is the first study, to our knowledge, that has tested this research question. We found no significant associations between communication with parents about sexting or pornography and adolescents’ engagement in these behaviors, but moderate positive associations between communication with best friends and engagement in each of the three digital sexual behaviors we assessed. These results may come as good news to parents who worry that discussing sexual topics with their children will cause them to experiment with that behavior; to the contrary, most evidence, including the find- ings in this study, suggest that sexual communication between parents and adolescents either has no direct influence on sexual behavior or has a protective influence (Coakley et al., 2017; Flores & Barroso, 2017; Rasmussen et al., 2015; Widman et al., 2016). However, our findings suggest that adolescents who discussed digital sexual topics with peers were more likely to engage in these behaviors. This is consistent with prior work showing that the influence of peers is more likely to promote sexual experimentation (Maheux et al., 2020; Walrave et al., 2015) and may serve to normalize digital sexual behaviors (Gewirtz-Meydan et  al., 2018; Walrave et  al., 2015). However, given the cross-sectional design of this study, the possibility also remains that adolescents who

2104 L. Widman et al.

1 3

were already engaging in higher levels of digital sexual behaviors were simply more likely to discuss these topics with peers.

Limitations and Future Directions

While this study addresses a novel topic with critical relevance to adolescents’ sexual health, several study limitations must be considered in interpreting results. First, this study was conducted in an area in the southeastern U.S. and rates of digital sexual expression and sexual communication about these topics may not generalize across other areas of the country or outside the U.S. Our results regarding the frequency of digital sexual communication and expression should be considered preliminary until they can be replicated in larger samples of youth. Second, most of the results are based on single-item, self-report assessments. While we took a number of steps to increase honest reporting, such as using computerized assessments and reminding participants about confidentiality, future work would benefit from expanding the assessment of digi- tal sexual behaviors and communication to multi-item assessments and triangulating data with the reports of parents and friends. Prior work has shown that parents report more frequent sexual communication with their children than children report (Jaccard et al., 1998). Thus, it would be valuable to collect dyadic data around digital sexual top- ics to directly compare parent and adolescent reports. Additionally, the item designed to capture online flirting and dating was broad and could have been interpreted in many ways to capture a range of experiences, such as the use of social media to flirt with cur- rent relationship partners as well as the use of dating or hookup apps to start new rela- tionships. Similarly, our assessment of pornography was broad and did not specify that pornography had to be viewed online. The internet has transformed pornography use and adolescents are now much more likely to consume pornography online as opposed to through traditional means (Hornor, 2020; Owens et al., 2012). There is not currently a standardized assessment tool to capture these newer forms of digital sexual behavior among adolescents, and developing such a tool will be critical for future research. Such an assessment could capture the frequency of sexual communication as well as the con- text and tone of these conversations.

Another limitation worth noting is that consent rates for this study were lower than in our previous school-based work (Widman et al., 2014, 2018), in part due to delays receiving school approval that restricted our recruitment time. Finally, this was a single- timepoint study which prevents the ability to assess the temporal order of communica- tion and digital sexual behavior or to examine how communication about digital sexual topics might change across time and relationships. Future longitudinal research will be highly valuable to disentangle the directional effects of digital sexual behavior and communication about these topics.

2105

1 3

Sexual Communication in the Digital Age: Adolescent Sexual…

Conclusions

The current study provides evidence that many adolescents are engaging in digital sexual behaviors. However, they are rarely discussing these newer forms of sexual expression with their parents and are discussing them only somewhat more fre- quently with their best friends. Adolescents are curious about sexuality and may have questions about these newer forms of digital sexual expression (Springate & Omar, 2013). So where, then, are adolescents getting information about sexting, pornography, and online dating? Perhaps from the same place where adolescents turn to answer other health-related questions—the internet (Wartella et al., 2016). While adolescents can find a vast quantity of useful sexual health information that is readily available online, so too may they encounter problematic sexual content and misinformation. Parents are needed to help adolescents navigate this com- plex digital terrain. As online and mobile platforms are increasingly integrated into adolescents’ social, romantic, and sexual experiences, communication about these topics is essential to promote youths’ healthy sexual development in the digital age.

Authors’ Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Laura Widman and Sophia Choukas-Bradley. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Laura Widman and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding Jacqueline Nesi is supported in part by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; K23MH122669). Anne Maheux was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. 1940700. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommenda- tions expressed in this material are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily repre- sent the views of NIMH or NSF.

Availability of Data and Materials Data available from the first author with approval from the Institutional Review Board.

Declaration

Conflict of interest No conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethics Approval IRB approval was granted by the North Carolina State University IRB.

Consent to Participate All participants and legal guardians signed informed consent to participate in this study.

Consent for Publication The publisher has permission to publish this work.

2106 L. Widman et al.

1 3

References

Akers, A. Y., Holland, C. L., & Bost, J. (2011). Interventions to improve parental communication about sex: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 127, 494–510.

Anzani, A., Di Sarno, M., & Prunas, A. (2018). Using smartphone apps to find sexual partners: A review of the literature. Sexologies, 27, e61–e65.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baumgartner, S. E., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). The influence of descriptive and injunctive peer norms on adolescents’ risky sexual online behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 753–758.

Beckmeyer, J., Herbenick, D., Fu, T. C., Dodge, B., Reece, M., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2019). Sexting: Results from the 2015 national survey of sexual health and behavior. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 45, 767–780.

Behun, R. J., & Owens, E. W. (2020). Youth and internet pornography: The impact and influence on adolescent development. Routledge.

Binnie, J., & Reavey, P. (2019). Development and implications of pornography use: A narrative review. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 35, 178–194.

Bleakley, A., Khurana, A., Hennessy, M., & Ellithorpe, M. (2018). How patterns of learning about sexual information among adolescents are related to sexual behaviors. Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health, 50, 15–23.

Bőthe, B., Vaillancourt-Morel, M. P., Bergeron, S., & Demetrovics, Z. (2019). Problematic and non- problematic pornography use among LGBTQ adolescents: A systematic literature review. Cur- rent Addiction Reports, 6, 478–494.

Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in under- standing peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 166–179.

Bryant, K., & Sheldon, P. (2017). Cyber dating in the age of mobile apps: Understanding motives, attitudes, and characteristics of users. American Communication Journal, 19, 1–15.

Burén, J., & Lunde, C. (2018). Sexting among adolescents: A nuanced and gendered online challenge for young people. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 210–217.

Carroll, J. S., Busby, D. M., Willoughby, B. J., & Brown, C. C. (2017). The porn gap: Differences in men’s and women’s pornography patterns in couple relationships. Journal of Couple & Relation- ship Therapy, 16, 146–163.

Chalfen, R. (2009). “It’s only a picture”: Sexting, “smutty” snapshots and felony charges. Visual Stud- ies, 24, 258–268.

Chen, A. S., Leung, M., Chen, C. H., & Yang, S. C. (2013). Exposure to internet pornography among Taiwanese adolescents. Social Behavior & Personality, 41, 157–164.

Coakley, T. M., Randolph, S., Shears, J., Beamon, E. R., Collins, P., & Sides, T. (2017). Parent– youth communication to reduce at-risk sexual behavior: A systematic literature review. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 27, 609–624.

Dahl, R. E., Allen, N., Wilbrecht, L., & Suleiman, A. B. (2018). Importance of investing in adoles- cence from a developmental science perspective. Nature, 554, 441–450.

Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2009). Adolescent sexuality. In R. M. Lerner & L. Stein- berg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology. (pp. 479–523). Hoboken: Wiley.

Dittus, P. J., Michael, S. L., Becasen, J. S., Gloppen, K. M., McCarthy, K., & Guilamo-Ramos, V. (2015). Parental monitoring and its associations with adolescent sexual risk behavior: A meta- analysis. Pediatrics, 136, e1587–e1599.

Dolezal, C., Marhefka, S. L., Santamaria, E. K., Leu, C. S., Brackis-Cott, E., & Mellins, C. (2011). A comparison of audio computer-assisted self-interviews to face-to-face interviews of sexual behavior among perinatally HIV-exposed youth. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 401–410.

Flores, D., & Barroso, J. (2017). 21st century parent–child sex communication in the united states: A process review. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 532–548.

Fritz, N., & Paul, B. (2017). From orgasms to spanking: A content analysis of the agentic and objec- tifying sexual scripts in feminist, for women, and mainstream pornography. Sex Roles, 77, 639–652.

Gewirtz-Meydan, A., Mitchell, K. J., & Rothman, E. F. (2018). What do kids think about sexting? Com- puters in Human Behavior, 86, 256–265.

2107

1 3

Sexual Communication in the Digital Age: Adolescent Sexual…

Gillmore, M. R., Chen, A. C. C., Haas, S. A., Kopak, A. M., & Robillard, A. G. (2011). Do family and parenting factors in adolescence influence condom use in early adulthood in a multiethnic sample of young adults? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1503–1518.

Greenfield, P. M. (1984). Mind and media: The effects of television, video games, and computers. Har- vard University Press.

Griffin, M., Canevello, A., & Mcanulty, R. D. (2018). Motives and concerns associated with geosocial networking app usage: An exploratory study among heterosexual college students in the United States. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21, 268–275.

Guttmacher Institute. (2021). Sex and HIV education. Retrieved from https:// www. guttm acher. org/ state- policy/ explo re/ sex- and- hiv- educa tion.

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Sexting: A brief guide for educators and parents. In C. R. Center (Ed.), (pp. 1–4).

Hornor, G. (2020). Child and adolescent pornography exposure. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 34, 191–199.

Jaccard, J., Dittus, P. J., & Gordon, V. V. (1998). Parent-adolescent congruency in reports of adolescent sexual behavior and in communications about sexual behavior. Child Development, 69, 247–261.

Johns, M. M., Liddon, N., Jayne, P. E., Beltran, O., Steiner, R. J., & Morris, E. (2018). Systematic map- ping of relationship-level protective factors and sexual health outcomes among sexual minority youth: The role of peers, parents, partners, and providers. LGBT Health, 5, 6–32.

Kamke, K., Widman, L., & Haskett, M. E. (2020). Safer sex communication and sexual health behaviors among a representative statewide sample of homeless adolescents. Journal of Sex Research, 57, 137–144.

Klaassen, M. J. E., & Peter, J. (2015). Gender (in)equality in internet pornography: A content analysis of popular pornographic internet videos. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 721–735.

Klettke, B., Hallford, D. J., Clancy, E., Mellor, D. J., & Toumbourou, J. W. (2019). Sexting and Psycho- logical Distress: The role of unwanted and Coerced Sexts. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22, 237–242.

Lippman, J. R., & Campbell, S. W. (2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t...If you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the united states. Journal of Children & Media, 8, 371–386.

Lykens, J., Pilloton, M., Silva, C., Schlamm, E., Wilburn, K., & Pence, E. (2019). Google for sexual rela- tionships: Mixed-methods study on digital flirting and online dating among adolescent youth and young adults. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 2, e10695.

Macapagal, K., Kraus, A., Moskowitz, D. A., & Birnholtz, J. (2018). Geosocial networking applica- tion use, characteristics of app-met sexual partners, and sexual behavior among sexual and gender minority adolescents assigned male at birth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62, 708–715.

Macapagal, K., Moran, K., Newcomb, M. E., Moskowitz, D. A., Owens, C. & Mustanski, B. (2021). Patterns of online and offline partnering, partnership characteristics, and condomless sex among adolescent sexual minority males in the USA. AIDS and Behavior. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10461- 020- 03133-4.

Madigan, S., Ly, A., Rash, C., Van Ouytsel, J. & Temple, J. R. (2018). Prevalence of multiple forms of sex- ting behavior among youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 172, 327–335.

Maheux, A. J., Evans, R., Widman, L., Nesi, J., Prinstein, M. J., & Choukas-Bradley, S. (2020). Popular peer norms and adolescent sexting behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 78, 62–66.

Mendoza, K. (2009). Surveying parental mediation: Connections, challenges and questions for media lit- eracy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1, 28–41.

Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., Jones, L. M., & Wolak, J. (2012). Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A national study. Pediatrics, 129, 13–20.

Nesi, J., Choukas-Bradley, S., & Prinstein, M. J. (2018). Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 1—a theoretical framework and application to dyadic peer relation- ships. Clinical child and family psychology review, 21, 267–294.

Owens, E. W., Behun, R. J., Manning, J. C., & Reid, R. (2012). The impact of internet pornography on adolescents: A review of the research. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 19, 99–122.

Pariera, K. L. (2016). Barriers and prompts to parent-child sexual communication. Journal of Family Communication, 16, 277–283.

Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). Adolescents and pornography: A review of 20 years of research. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 509–531.

Rasmussen, E. E., Ortiz, R. R., & White, S. R. (2015). Emerging adults’ responses to active mediation of pornography during adolescence. Journal of Children & Media, 9, 160–176.

2108 L. Widman et al.

1 3

Rice, E., Rhoades, H., Winetrobe, H., Sanchez, M., Montoya, J., Plant, A., & Kordic, T. (2012). Sexu- ally explicit cell phone messaging associated with sexual risk among adolescents. Pediatrics, 30, 667–673.

Rogers, A. A. (2017). Parent–adolescent sexual communication and adolescents’ sexual behaviors: A conceptual model and systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 2, 293–313.

Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Poten- tial trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bul- letin, 132, 98–131.

Rothman, E. F., Daley, N., & Alder, J. (2020). A pornography literacy program for adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 110, 154–156.

Rothman, E. F., Kaczmarsky, C., Burke, N., Jansen, E., & Baughman, A. (2015). “Without porn … I wouldn’t know half the things I know now”: A qualitative study of pornography use among a sam- ple of urban, low-income, black and Hispanic youth. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 736–746.

Rothman, E. F., Paruk, J., Espensen, A., Temple, J. R., & Adams, K. (2017). A qualitative study of what us parents say and do when their young children see pornography. Academic Pediatrics, 17, 844–849.

Schreurs, L., Sumter, S. R. & Vandenbosch, L. (2020). A prototype willingness approach to the relation between geo-social dating apps and willingness to sext with dating app matches. Archives of Sexual Behavior (in press).

Scull, T. M., Malik, C. V., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (2014). A media literacy education approach to teaching ado- lescents comprehensive sexual health education. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6, 1–14.

Secor-Turner, M., Sieving, R. E., Eisenberg, M. E., & Skay, C. (2011). Associations between sexually experienced adolescents’ sources of information about sex and sexual risk outcomes. Sex Education, 11, 489–500.

Setty, E. (2020). Risk and harm in youth sexting: Young people’s perspectives. Routledge. Smith, A. & Anderson, M. (2018). Social media use in 2018. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science &

Tech. Retrieved from https:// www. pewre search. org/ inter net/ 2018/ 03/ 01/ social- media- use- in- 2018/. Smith, A. & Duggan, M. (2013). Online dating and relationships. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science

& Tech. Retrieved from https:// www. pewre search. org/ inter net/ 2013/ 10/ 21/ online- dating- relat ionsh ips/.

Smith, M. (2013). Youth viewing sexually explicit material online: Addressing the elephant on the screen. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 10, 62–75.

Smith, P. K., Thompson, F., & Davidson, J. (2014). Cyber safety for adolescent girls: Bullying, harass- ment, sexting, pornography, and solicitation. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 26, 360–365.

Springate, J., & Omar, H. A. (2013). The impact of the internet on the sexual health of adolescents: A brief review. International Journal of Child & Adolescent Health, 6, 469–471.

Subrahmanyam, K. & Smahel, D. (2011). Digital youth: The role of media in development. Choice Reviews Online, 48.

Sun, C., Bridges, A., Johnson, J. A., & Ezzell, M. B. (2016). Pornography and the male sexual script: An analysis of consumption and sexual relations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 983–994.

Sutton, M. Y., Lasswell, S. M., Lanier, Y., & Miller, K. S. (2014). Impact of parent-child communication interventions on sex behaviors and cognitive outcomes for Black/African-American and Hispanic/ Latino youth: A systematic review, 1988–2012. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54, 369–384.

Symons, K., Ponnet, K., Emmery, K., Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2017). Parental knowledge of adoles- cents’ online content and contact risks. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 46, 401–416.

Tolman, D. L. (2013). It’s bad for us too: How the sexualization of girls impacts the sexuality of boys, men, and women. In E. L. Zurbriggen & T. Roberts (Eds.), The sexualization of girls and girlhood: Causes, consequences, and resistance. (pp. 84–106). Oxford University Press.

Tolman, D. L., Striepe, M. I., & Harmon, T. (2003). Gender matters: Constructing a model of adolescent sexual health. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 4–12.

Tomaszewska, P., & Schuster, I. (2020). Comparing sexuality-related cognitions, sexual behavior, and acceptance of sexual coercion in dating app users and non-users. Sexuality Research & Social Pol- icy, 17, 188–198.

Tsai, J. Y., Sussman, S., Pickering, T. A., & Rohrbach, L. A. (2018). Is online partner-seeking associ- ated with increased risk of condomless sex and sexually transmitted infections among individuals who engage in heterosexual sex? A systematic narrative review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 533–555.

2109

1 3

Sexual Communication in the Digital Age: Adolescent Sexual…

Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., & Sonenstein, F. L. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology. Sci- ence, 280, 867–873.

Van De Bongardt, D., Reitz, E., Sandfort, T. G. M., & Deković, M. (2015). A meta-analysis of the rela- tions between three types of peer norms and adolescent sexual behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 203–234.

Van Ouytsel, J., Lu, Y., Ponnet, K., Walrave, M., & Temple, J. R. (2019). Longitudinal associations between sexting, cyberbullying, and bullying among adolescents: Cross-lagged panel analysis. Jour- nal of Adolescence, 73, 36–41.

Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Peeters, E. (2017). Sexting: Adolescents’ per- ceptions of the applications used for, motives for, and consequences of sexting. Journal of Youth Studies, 20, 446–470.

Vandenbosch, L., & Van Oosten, J. M. (2017). The relationship between online pornography and the sexual objectification of women: The attenuating role of porn literacy education. Journal of Com- munication, 67, 1015–1036.

Vanwesenbeeck, I., Ponnet, K., Walrave, M. & Ouystel, J. V. (2018). Parents’ role in adolescents’ sexting behaviour. In M. Walrave, J. Van Ouytsel, K. Ponnet & J. R. Temple (Eds.) Sexting. (pp. 63–80).

Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Heirman, W., & Verbeek, A. (2015). Whether or not to engage in sexting: Explaining adolescent sexting behaviour by applying the prototype willing- ness model. Telematics and Informatics, 32, 796–808.

Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Montague, H., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., & Lauricella, A. R. (2016). Teens, health and technology: A national survey. Media and Communication, 4, 13–23.

Weber, M., Quiring, O., & Daschmann, G. (2012). Peers, parents and pornography: Exploring adoles- cents’ exposure to sexually explicit material and its developmental correlates. Sexuality & Culture, 16, 408–427.

Widman, L., Choukas-Bradley, S., Helms, S. W., Golin, C. E., & Prinstein, M. P. (2014). Sexual com- munication between early adolescents and their dating partners, parents, and best friends. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 731–741.

Widman, L., Choukas-Bradley, S., Noar, S. M., Nesi, J., & Garrett, K. (2016). Parent-adolescent sexual communication and adolescent safer sex behavior: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 170, 52–61.

Widman, L., Evans, R., Javidi, H., & Choukas-Bradley, S. (2019). Assessment of parent-based interven- tions for adolescent sexual health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 173, 866–877.

Widman, L., Golin, C. E., Kamke, K., Burnette, J. L., & Prinstein, M. J. (2018). Sexual assertiveness skills and sexual decision-making in adolescent girls: Randomized controlled trial of an online pro- gram. American Journal of Public Health, 108, 96–102.

Widman, L., Kamke, K., Evans, R., Stewart, J. L., Choukas-Bradley, S., Golin, C. E. (2020). Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of an online sexual health program for adolescents. Journal of Sex Research, 57, 145–154.

Widman, L., Noar, S. M., Choukas-Bradley, S., & Francis, D. B. (2014). Adolescent sexual health com- munication and condom use: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 33, 1113–1124.

Wight, D., & Fullerton, D. (2013). A review of interventions with parents to promote the sexual health of their children. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 4–27.

Willis, M., Canan, S. N., Jozkowski, K. N., & Bridges, A. (2020). Sexual consent communication in best- selling pornography films: A content analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 57, 52–63.

Willoughby, B. J., Young-Petersen, B., & Leonhardt, N. D. (2018). Exploring trajectories of pornography use through adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Sex Research, 55, 297–309.

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Unwanted and wanted exposure to online pornography in a national sample of youth internet users. Pediatrics, 119, 247–257.

Zurcher, J. D. (2017). Exploring descriptive norms of parent-child communication about pornography among parents of middle-schoolers in the U.S. Journal of Children & Media, 11, 381–398.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.