Despite increasing interest in the implications of adolescents’ use of sexually explicit Internet material (SEIM), we still know little about the relationship between SEIM use and adolescents’ casual sexual activities. Based on a three-wave online panel survey adam4adam study among Dutch adolescents (N = 1079; 53.1% boys; 93.5% with an exclusively heterosexual orientation; Mdecades = ; SD = 1.39), we found that watching SEIM predicted engagement in casual sex over time. In turn, casual sexual activities partially predicted adolescents’ use of SEIM. A two-step mediation model was tested to explain the relationship between watching SEIM and casual sex. It was partially confirmed. First, watching SEIM predicted adolescents’ perceptions of SEIM as a relevant information source from Wave 2 to Wave 3, but not from Wave 1 to Wave 2. Next, such perceived utility of SEIM was positively related to stronger instrumental attitudes toward sex and thus their views about sex as a core instrument for sexual gratification. Lastly, adolescents’ instrumental attitudes toward sex predicted adolescents’ engagement in casual sex activities consistently across waves. Partial support emerged for a reciprocal relationship between watching SEIM and perceived utility. We did not find a reverse relationship between casual sex activities and instrumental attitudes toward sex. No significant gender differences emerged.
Cards
The knowledge regarding the about three-wave committee studies are also found in half dozen most other documents of the experts to examine the latest antecedents from SEIM fool around with and you may relationships away from SEIM use together with other intimate consequences. Such documentation is present of the sending an e-post on the corresponding writer.
An additional MANOVA analysis (N = 1,467), using Pillai’s trace, was performed to document the differences between the respondents who answered “I don’t know” on at least one of the questions regarding the perceived utility of SEIM at Wave 1 and also participated in Waves 2 and 3 (N = 388) and those respondents who answered all the questions at Wave 1 and also participated in Waves 2 and 3 (N = 1079, the analytical sample of the study). The analysis included age, gender, heterosexual orientation, watching SEIM, instrumental attitudes toward sexual activities, and experience with casual sexual activities, V = .12, F(6, 1460) = , p < .001, ?p? = .12. Significant differences were found for all variables except heterosexual orientation, p = .99. Descriptive statistics showed that respondents with missing data on one of the perceived utility questions were younger, more likely to be girls, and scored lower on watching SEIM, instrumental attitudes toward sex and casual sex activities, all p < .001. These findings are in line with prior literature reporting on the characteristics of adolescents who consume SEIM (e.g., Peter Valkenburg, 2006).
The brand new structural equation patterns advertised when you look at the Figs. dos and you will 3 was in fact including checked-out which have a sample that integrated the participants which have shed research (Letter = 2,137). Automated imputation is conducted to change shed viewpoints in SPSS (variation 23). Good pooled dataset of imply rates of one’s forgotten research is actually computed on five imputed datasets (i.e., numerous imputation, Acock, 2007).
Get single article
The results for the model that tested the reciprocal relationships between watching SEIM and casual sex were similar to the results reported in the manuscript for the sample that excluded participants with missing values (N = 1079, Fig. 2). The model, ??(202) = , p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .07 (90% CI: .071/.076), ??/df = , showed that all paths were similar to the model reported in Fig. 2.
The results for the model that tested the two-step mediation model showed a good fit, ??(833) = , p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .04 (90% CI: .043/.046), ??/df = 5.18. The results for the paths were similar to the results reported in Fig. 3, except for three paths. Exposure to SEIM at Wave 1 positively predicted perceived utility of SEIM at Wave 2, ? = .07, B = .07, SE = 0.26, p < .01 (bc 95% bt CI: .021/.130). This relationship was not significant in the model shown in Fig. 3. The path from instrumental attitudes toward sex at Wave 1 marginally significantly predicted casual sex at Wave 2 according to the bootstrapped confidence intervals, ? = .05, B = .01, SE = 0.00, p < .05 (bc 95% bt CI: ? .001/.013). This path was significant in the model in Fig. 3. In addition, the paths from engagement into casual sex at Wave 1/Wave 2 to instrumental attitudes toward sex at Wave 2/Wave 3 were significant, respectively, ? = .09, B = .67, SE = 0.17, p < .001 (bc 95% bt CI: .268/1.105), ? = .07, B = .46, SE = 0.15, p < .005 (bc 95% bt CI: .136/.815). Theses paths were not significant in the model in Fig. 3. This shows that systematic drop-out due to unfamiliarity with SEIM (see footnote 2) may influence the results. Because imputation methods have been debated (Allison, 2003), we chose to report the results without imputation in the results section.