English (pdf)
Article in xml format
Article references
Automatic translation
Send this article by e-mail
Cited by SciELO 
Cited by Google 
Similars in
SciELO 
Similars in Google 
Permalink
Introduction
Today’s adolescents have grown up with access to digital tools and regularly use information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Michaud & Free, 2017) to share information with family and friends (McLeod, 2014). Indeed, adolescents now connect to social media many times throughout the day, such that their identity and contexts of sociability are constructed through the use of technology (Ahn, 2011; Menjívar, 2010; Ringrose, Gill, Livingstone, & Harvey, 2012). Data from various studies highlight the importance of ICTs for relationships in the present generation of adolescents (Malo-Cerrato, Martín-Perpiñá, & Viñas-Poch, 2018; Michaud & Free, 2017; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008). In the USA, 95% of adolescents between 13 and 17 years old access the internet using their own smartphone (Anderson & Jian, 2018). A survey conducted across 25 European countries found that 59% of children and adolescents aged from 9 to 16 use the internet and 77% of 13-16 year olds have a profile in at least one social network (Livingstone, Ólafsson, & Staksrud, 2013). In Ecuador, the National Institute of Statistics and Census (INEC) found that 85.2% of adolescents and young adults aged between 16 and 24 used the internet in 2017, and 69.3% of this group had a smartphone that enabled them access to the internet and social media (INEC, 2017). Across the population as a whole, internet use was the highest in this age group.
The most popular applications for communication through ICTs include instant messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, and social networks like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat or Twitter. These applications allow adolescents to stay connected with friends and family and to share images and exchange ideas (Moreno & Kolb, 2012; Okeefee, Clarke-Pearson & Council on Communications and Media, 2011; Subrahmayam & Greenfield, 2008). In this regard, Campbell and Park (2014) highlighted the relevant role that ICTs play in the emancipation process by providing adolescents with autonomy and flexibility in their social interaction with peers. However, technology can also have important risks if misused or overused. Indeed, as social networks have become a new space for relationships, new problems have also emerged (Cerniglia et al., 2017; Gámez-Guadix, Orue, & Calvete, 2013; Reid & Weigle, 2014; Tur-Porcar, Doménech & Jiménez, 2019), with negative consequences for social behaviour. Recent studies have reported that adolescents are suffering various types of online abuse, control, or harassment in interpersonal relationships involving technology, notably cyberbullying, cyberstalking, grooming, and cyber dating abuse, all of which may have both health and legal implications (Dreßing, Bailer, Anders, Wagner, & Gallas, 2014; Gámez-Guadix, Borrajo, & Almendros, 2016; Gómez, Harris, Barreiro, Isorna, & Rial, 2017; Morelli, Bianchi, Chirumbolo, & Baiocco, 2018; Sadhir, Stockburge, & Omar 2016). Some of these types of abuse are also linked to offline violence and have been shown to have negative consequences for victims’ mental health (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Pereira & Matos, 2016; Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013).
Another phenomenon that has emerged with the use of technology for interpersonal relationships is sexting. Sexting refers to the exchange of sexually explicit messages, images or videos with others via the internet, smartphones or social networking sites (Bianchi, Morelli, Baiocco, & Chirumbolo, 2019; Klettke, Hallford, & Mellor, 2014), and it may be defined as passive or active. Active sexting refers to the creating, showing, sending, posting or forwarding of sexual content, whereas passive sexting involves receiving, asking for or being asked for sexually explicit material (Barrense-Dias, Berchotold, Surís, & Akre, 2017; Temple & Choi, 2014). Sexting may serve as a way of exploring sexuality and it is related to romantic interaction and flirting (Ringrose et al., 2012; Temple & Choi, 2014). Wolak and Finkelhor (2011) refer to this kind of sexting as ‘experimental’. However, although sexting may be part of the natural and consensual dynamic of adolescent relationships, it may also involve abusive, violent or deviant intentions, in which case it becomes what Wolak and Finkelhor (2011) call an aggravated incident. Consequently, sexting is considered risky behaviour (Drouin, Ros, & Tobin, 2015; Kopecký, 2012), and importantly, it is becoming increasingly common among adolescents the world over (Bianchi, Morelli, Nappa, Baiocco, & Chirumbolo, 2018; Drouin, Coupe, & Temple, 2017).
Research has identified three distinct motivations among adolescents who engage in sexting (Bianchi et al., 2019): a sexual purpose (searching for a new sexual experience or maintaining a sexual relationship), body image reinforcement (looking for feedback about one’s appearance in order to improve self-esteem), and instrumental/aggravated reasons (using sexting as an instrumental behaviour to perpetrate interpersonal violence). In this context, sexting has been linked to a high risk of dating violence, online harassment, cyberbullying, and grooming, (Bianchi et al., 2018; Bianchi et al., 2019; Choi, Van Ouytsel, & Temple, 2016; Drouin et al., 2017; Drouin et al., 2015; Rodríguez-Castro, Alonso-Ruido, Lameiras-Fernández & Faílde-Garrido, 2018), as well as to substance abuse and risky sexual behaviours (Cruz & Soriano, 2014; Livingstone & Görzig, 2014; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2014). Importantly, these sexting-related risks can lead to health and emotional problems such as anxiety and suicide risk (Dake, Price, Maziarz, & Ward, 2012; Reid & Weigle, 2014; Ringrose et al., 2012).
Studies in Europe and the USA report a prevalence of active sexting among adolescents ranging between 2.5% and 27.6% (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017), with a mean across studies of 10.2% for sending ‘sexts’ (Klettke et al., 2014). Research has also found that boys are more involved in active sexting than girls (Baumgartner, Sumter, Peter, Valkenburg, & Livingstone, 2014; Chacón-López, Caurcel-Cara & RomeroBarriga,2019;Morelli,Bianchi,Baiocco,Pezzuti,&Chirumbolo, 2016a, 2016b; Strassberg, Cann, & Velarde, 2017). Likewise, the prevalence of active sexting is higher for older adolescents (Gámez-Guadix, De Santisteban, & Resett, 2017; Lippman &Campbell, 2014; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2014) and for those who are in a relationship (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017; Klettke et al., 2014; Kopecký, 2015; Van Ouytsel, Van Gool, Walrave, Ponnet, & Peeters, 2016). In the Latin American context, West et al. (2014) found that 20% of Peruvian adolescents were involved in sexting, both passive and active. In Ecuador, Yépez-Tito, Ferragut, and Blanca (2018) found a prevalence of active sexting among adolescents of between 3.5% and 18.5%, depending on the specific action considered (respond, send or post) and the type of material (text, images). Consistent with the results obtained in Europe and the USA, both these studies reported a higher prevalence of sexting among boys (West et al., 2014; Yépez-Tito et al., 2018), teenagers in late adolescence, and adolescents in a romantic relationship (Yépez-Tito et al., 2018).
Research also supports a relationship between the use of social networking sites and sexting. A study of Hispanic adolescents in the USA by Romo et al. (2017) found that frequent social media use increased the odds of sexting, as well as of sexual activity. Other studies with young adults have found that Snapchat is the most common application for sexting (Utz, Muscanell, & Khalid, 2015; Vaterlaus, Barnett, Roche, & Young, 2016). The way in which adolescents communicate through ICTs is also relevant in the sexting context. For example, sexting has been linked to excessive texting (Campbell & Park, 2014; Rice et al., 2017) and has shown a positive association with peer connectedness and a negative association (although with marginal statistical significance) with family connectedness (Campbell & Park, 2014). Campbell and Park (2014) interpreted the latter results in terms of social emancipation in adolescence, that is to say, they considered sexting as an expression of emancipation which contributes to the development of social identity and sexuality. From this perspective, the role of family becomes attenuated as peer relationships become increasingly important, resulting in more frequent communication with peers than with family through ICTs.
Due to concerns about what adolescents share on line, adults often seek to monitor and supervise their use of technology. A report by the Pew Research Centre in the USA on parental digital monitoring found that 61% of parents supervised the use of technology by checking visited websites, and 60% checked their children’s social media profile (Anderson, 2016). However, the empirical evidence is inconclusive as regards to the impact that parental supervision has on the extent to which adolescents engage in sexting, so more research in this area is warranted. Some studies have found that parental supervision which includes control of mobile phone use is not effective for mitigating adolescent sexting, and that family support is not associated with the sending of sexts to strangers (Burén & Lunde, 2018; Campbell & Park, 2014). Other authors, however, have found that parental monitoring of social media, such as parental possession of passwords, decreases the risk of sexting (Romo et al., 2017), and it has also been suggested that other forms of supervision, like having clear rules about sending or receiving sexual messages, could decrease the probability of sexting (West et al., 2014). Recently, Bianchi et al. (2019) investigated the association between family functioning and sexting in girls and found that, in general, engaging in sexting was negatively associated with family communication.
Potential risks associated with the use of technology by adolescents, such as sexting, should be a public health priority given the possible negative consequences of this behaviour (Milton et al., 2019). However, most research on the use of technologies and social networks has been carried out with young adults (Rauzzino & Correa, 2017; Utz et al., 2015; Vaterlaus et al., 2016) rather than with adolescents, and few studies have analysed the role that parental supervision may have in relation to sexting behaviour (Campbell & Park, 2014, West et al., 2014). In addition, the majority of studies about sexting have been conducted in the USA and Europe (Baumgartner et al., 2014; Campbell & Park, 2014; Gámez-Guadix et al., 2017; Lippman & Campbell, 2014; Morelli et al., 2016a, 2016b; Strassberg et al., 2017; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2014), with scarce research to date in Latin American countries (West et al., 2014, Yépez-Tito et al., 2018). Results in the latter population might, however, be different to those from Europe and the USA, due to economic and sociocultural differences. For example, a UNICEF report (2016) into digital technology use worldwide found that adolescents from Latin America and Caribbean countries expressed the most concern about the danger of the internet: two-thirds believed that young people are in danger of being sexually abused or taken advantage of online, and 67% thought that friends participated in risky behaviour online, compared with a figure of 36% in the USA and UK.
In the specific case of Ecuador, very little is known about sexting in adolescence, the use of technology, and parental supervision. Research with Ecuadorian adolescents is therefore warranted in order to make comparisons with other countries and to establish a knowledge base for this population. Accordingly, the aim of the present study was to analyse sexting in this population in relation to ICT use, the use of social networking sites for peer and family communication, and parental supervision of mobile phone use, taking into account both gender and the stage of adolescence. Therefore, we sought, first, to determine the typical profile of adolescents who engage in sexting based on their ICT use. This involved examining whether the level of engagement in active sexting was associated with differences in access to technological resources, frequency of internet and mobile use, and the use of social networks such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter, especially for messaging and for sharing photographs and video. In accordance with previous research (Campbell & Park, 2014; Rice et al., 2017; Romo et al., 2017), we expected to find that adolescents who engage more in sexting are also more frequent users of the internet, smartphones, and social networking sites. Second, we examined whether the level of engagement in active sexting was associated with differences in the use of a mobile phone for peer and family connectedness. Based on previous research (Campbell & Park, 2014), we expected to find that adolescents who are more involved in sexting also use their mobile phone more for peer engagement, but not for family engagement. Finally, and given the inconclusive results published to date, we sought to add to knowledge about the role of parental supervision, exploring whether the degree of supervision is associated with differences in the level of engagement in active sexting. A strength of the present study is that this variable was assessed by considering both adolescent and parental reports of parental supervision. In addition, we explored the possible moderator effects of gender and stage of adolescence (early, middle, and late) on the observed relationships.
Method
Participants
Five schools in the metropolitan area of Quito (Ecuador) were invited to take part in the study and they all accepted. Although the schools were selected by convenience, participant classes within them were selected randomly. Participants included 613 students (270 females and 343 males) aged between 12 and 18 (M = 14.62, SD = 1.71) and enrolled in either compulsory secondary education or baccalaureate studies. The parents or legal guardians of these students also participated in the study. They were aged between 22 and 66 (M = 42.29; SD = 6.93). The inclusion criteria for adolescents were: (1) aged between 12 and 18, (2) native Spanish speakers, (3) not having a psychological problem recognized by the school, and (4) consent of their parents or legal guardians for participation. More information regarding participants is shown in Table 1.
Instruments
Active sexting. Sexting was assessed with six items referring to active sexting from the Sexting Behaviour Scale (SBS), developed by Chacón-López, Romero, Aragón, and Caurcel (2016) and validated in the Ecuadorian context by Yépez-Tito et al. (2018). Active sexting involves sending, responding to or posting messages with a sexual content, and participants were asked how often they did these things at present. Example items are: How often have you sent images with a sexual content using your mobile phone? How often have you posted images with a sexual content on Facebook, Tuenti or other social networking sites? Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 to 4 (never; rarely; sometimes/several times a month; often/sever al times a week; frequently/daily), and a total score is obtained by summing the scores across all items. Higher scores indicate a higher level of involvement in active sexting. Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was .86.
Technological resources. The extent to which participants had access to technological resources was assessed through the following five questions, each of which had two response options (Yes/No, scored 1/0): Do you have a mobile phone? Do you have a computer at home? Do you have a tablet? Do you have an internet connection at home? Can you access the internet with your mobile phone? The number of available technological resources was then computed. Higher scores indicate that the respondent has more technological resources.
Frequency of internet and mobile phone use. The frequency of internet and mobile phone use was assessed through two items: How often do you use the internet each day? How often do you use your mobile phone each day? Each question had seven response options scored from 0 to 6 (never; 1-5 minutes; 6-15 minutes; 16-30 minutes; 36-59 minutes; 1-2 hours; more than 2 hours).
Mobile phone use for peer engagement. This was explored through six items related to the frequency of using a mobile phone for talking, sending/receiving text messages and sending/receiving photos or videos with friends and/ or boy/girlfriends. Example items are: How often do you message your friends or receive messages from them on your mobile phone? With your friends, how often do you send or receive photos or videos on your mobile phone? The response options ranged from never (0) to several times a day (6). High scores indicate high use of a mobile phone for peer engagement. A total score ranging from 0 to 6 was obtained by calculating the mean score across all items. Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was .82.
Mobile phone use for family engagement. The same six items were used to explore use of a mobile phone for family engagement, but this time asking about parents or other relatives instead of friends and/or boy/girlfriends. Example items are: How often do you message your parents or receive messages from them on your mobile phone? With your parents, how often do you send or receive photos or videos on your mobile phone? The response options ranged from never (0) to several times a day (6), and as before, a total score ranging from 0 to 6 was obtained by calculating the mean score across all items. High scores indicate high use of a mobile phone for family engagement. Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was .89.
Frequency of social network use in general. The frequency of use of Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter was assessed by asking participants how often they used each of these social networks. For example: How often do you use Facebook? There were seven response options ranging from never (0) to several times a day (6). High scores indicate high use of the respective social networks.
Frequency of social network use for specific purposes. This was explored through three items: How often do you use the aforementioned applications for sending or receiving messages? How often do you use the aforementioned applications for sending or receiving photographs? How often do you use the aforementioned applications for sending or receiving videos? The response options were the same as for the previous variable, ranging from never (0) to several times a day (6). A separate score was calculated for the frequency of social network use for messaging, for sharing photographs, and for sharing videos. High scores indicate high use of the respective networks for each specific purpose.
Parental supervision according to the adolescent. We used the battery of six items developed by Campbell and Park (2014) to assess the extent to which adolescents believed their mobile phone use was supervised, with two response options: No (0) and Yes (1). Adolescents were asked to consider the following list of different kinds of supervision: Limiting the times of day for using a mobile phone, using the mobile to monitor location, limiting the number of minutes for talking, limiting the number of messages sent, taking away the phone as punishment, and looking at the contents on the mobile phone. An example item is: My parents limit the time of day when I can use the mobile phone. Responses were summed to obtain a total score. High scores indicate that the adolescent perceives a high degree of control over his or her mobile phone use. Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was .66.
Parental supervision according to parents. Parents were asked to consider the same six kinds of supervision and to indicate whether or not they resorted to each one. Responses were summed to obtain a total score. High scores indicate that they believe they exert a high degree of control over their child’s mobile phone use. Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was .66.
Procedure
All procedures were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The Ministry of Education in Ecuador and the principal of each school supervised and approved the procedures and ethical aspects of this research. The Experimentation Ethics Committee of the University of Malaga also approved the study. Prior to any data collection, parents/legal guardians signed informed consent forms, which included a statement of the study’s purpose and confidentiality procedures.
Parents completed a paper copy of the parental supervision questionnaire at home. Adolescents completed a paper copy of a questionnaire comprising all the above-mentioned measures during a single one-hour session held during normal class time at school, and in the presence of their teacher and a psychologist. Participation was voluntary and participants did not receive incentives.
Data analysis
As a preliminary analysis we computed descriptive statistics for each variable, as well as correlations between them, for the total sample.
In order to examine differences in the degree of involvement in sexting in relation to ICT use, the use of social networks for peer and family communication, and parental supervision of mobile phone use, we divided the sample into three groups based on the quartiles derived from scores on active sexting (mean and standard deviation in parentheses): no engagement in sexting (below first quartile, N = 277, M = 0, SD = 0), moderate engagement (between second and third quartile, N = 218, M = 1.98, SD = 1.05), and high engagement in sexting (above third quartile, N = 118, M = 8.17, SD = 3.25). We also divided the sample into three age groups based on standard World Health Organization (2014) categories: early (12-13 years old), middle (14-16 years old), and late (17-18 years old) adolescence.
A chi-squared test was used to determine whether there were differences regarding gender and stage of adolescence in the sexting groups. We then performed a multivariate 3 x 2 x 3 analysis of variance (MANOVA) with sexting group (no, moderate, and high engagement), gender, and stage of adolescence (early, middle, and late) as grouping factors, and the following dependent variables, based on the aforementioned study objectives: (a) technological resources, frequency of internet and mobile phone use, frequency of social network use in general (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter), and frequency of social network use for sending/receiving messages, photographs, and videos; (b) frequency of mobile phone use for peer engagement and family engagement; and (c) parental supervision as reported by the adolescent and by parents. Scores on all variables were on the same scale with minimum and maximum values equal to 0 and 6, respectively.
In order to interpret the significant effects from the MANOVA, a series of univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed for each dependent variable. Differences by gender were examined using t tests for independent samples. In these analyses we followed the guidelines proposed by Blanca, Alarcón, Arnau, Bono, and Bendayan (2018) regarding heterogeneity of variance and control of Type I error, taking into account the variance ratio, the pairing of variance with group size, and the coefficient of sample size variation. Eta squared and Cohen’s d was used as an indicator of association and effect size. Finally, when the analysis involved more than two groups, and in order to determine which group(s) differed significantly from the other(s), we performed multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 23.
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. Percentages of adolescents by sexting group (no, moderate, and high engagement), gender, and stage of adolescence are reported in Table 4. The chi-squared test was statistically significant for both gender, χ2(2) = 35.68, p < 0.001, and stage of adolescence, χ2 (4) = 37.63, p < 0.001. Only 9.6% of girls were classified as showing high engagement in sexting, compared with 26.8% of boys. The percentage of adolescents in the high-engagement group also increased as adolescents got older.
Table 2 Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for access to technological resources, frequency of internet, mobile phone, and social network use, and parental supervision of mobile phone use according to adolescents and parents.
Note. For all variables, minimum and maximum values were 0 and 6, respectively. NW: social network
Table 3 Pearson correlations among variables related to technological resources, frequency of internet, mobile phone, and social network use, and parental supervision of mobile phone use according to adolescents and parents.
Note. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, N = 613.
The results from the MANOVA for Sexting group x Gender x Stage of adolescence are shown in Table 5. Residuals from the models indicated that the underlying assumptions were fulfilled. The analysis showed statistical significance for the three main effects, as well as for the interaction Gender x Stage of adolescence. In order to interpret these significant effects, we performed ANOVAs according to sexting group and stage of adolescence, and t tests for independent samples according to gender. Regarding the Gender x Stage of adolescence interaction, we compared the mean scores of girls and boys at each stage of adolescence for all significant variables, using the Bonferroni adjustment. According to Blanca et al. (2018), in an unbalanced design, ANOVA controls Type I error when the variance ratio is less than 2 and there is positive pairing between variance and group size. Only two variables, corresponding to sexting groups, had variance ratios higher than 2 (specifically, values of 2.26 and 2.78). Importantly, however, Blanca et al. (2018) also found that for a variance ratio of 3, ANOVA was robust with positive pairing and a coefficient of sample size variation less than 0.50. In our data for the sexting group, this coefficient was equal to 0.39. Based on these results, we considered it appropriate to proceed with the interpretation of the results of the statistical analysis. Tables 6, 7 and 8 show, respectively, the results related to sexting groups, gender, and stage of adolescence, while Table 9 shows the statistically significant variables for the Gender x Stage of adolescence interaction. The absence of interaction between sexting group, age, and gender indicated that these variables did not moderate the differences observed between sexting groups. All values of eta-squared and Cohen’s d for significant variables corresponded to low or moderate association or effect sizes.
Table 5 Results from the multivariate analysis of variance: Sexting group (no, moderate, and high engagement) x Gender x Stage of adolescence (early, middle, and late): F statistics, degrees of freedom, p-value, and eta squared.
Table 6 Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for the dependent variables according to the three sexting groups, F-statistics from the ANOVA, and eta squared.
Note. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, N = 613, n no engagement = 277, n moderate engagement = 218, n high engagement = 118. SNW: social network
a No engagement = moderate < high (1 vs. 3, 2 vs 3)
b No engagement < moderate = high (1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3)
c No engagement < moderate < late (1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, and 2 vs. 3)
d No engagement < high (1 vs. 3)
e No engagement = moderate = high (no differences)
Table 7 Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for the dependent variables according to gender, t-statistics, and Cohen’s d.
Note. ** p < .01, * p < .05, N = 613, n females = 270, n males = 343. SNW: social network.
Table 8 Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for the dependent variables according to stage of adolescence, F-statistics from the ANOVA, and eta squared.
Note. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, N = 613, n early = 186, n middle = 317, n late = 110. SNW: social network.
a Early < middle (1 vs. 2)
b Early < late (1 vs. 3)
c Early < middle = late (1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3)
d Early = middle < late (1 vs. 3, 2 vs 3)
e Early < middle < late (1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, and 2 vs. 3)
f Early > middle > late (1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, and 2 vs. 3)
g Early = middle = late (no differences)
Table 9 Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for the significant dependent variables regarding the Gender x Stage of adolescence interaction, F-statistics from the ANOVA, and eta squared.
Note. ** p < 0.01, N = 613.
a Differences by gender, female < male.
b No differences by gender.
Use of information and communication technologies
Statistically significant differences were observed for all variables, except frequency of Twitter use. Compared with non-practitioners of sexting, moderate and high practitioners reported more frequent use of the internet and their mobile phones in general, of Facebook and Instagram, and of social networks for messaging. High practitioners of sexting, compared with moderate and non-practitioners, reported more technological resources and a greater use of WhatsApp, and they also used Snapchat significantly more often than non-practitioners did. Finally, the use of social networks for sharing photos and videos increased in line with the level of engagement in sexting.
Regarding gender, there were statistically significant differences in the frequency of use of Instagram and Snapchat, with girls scoring higher than boys. In relation to the stage of adolescence, there were statistically significant differences for nine variables. Middle and late adolescents, compared with early adolescents, reported more frequent use of the internet, their mobile phone, Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. Late adolescents, compared with early adolescents, were more frequent users of social networks for messaging and sharing videos. The frequency of social network use for sharing photographs increased in line with the stage of adolescence. However, the Gender x Stage of adolescence interaction and multiple comparisons via the Bonferroni adjustment showed that in late adolescence, boys were more frequent users of social networks for sharing photographs and videos.
Family and peer connectedness
The use of a mobile phone for peer engagement differed significantly according to the sexting group, with mobile use increasing in line with the level of engagement in sexting. There was no significant association between the sexting group and the use of mobile phones for family engagement.
Regarding gender and age, statistically significant differences were observed in relation to the use of a mobile phone for peer engagement. Girls, compared with boys, and middle and late adolescents, compared with early adolescents, reported using their mobile more frequently for peer engagement. The frequency of mobile phone use for family engagement did not differ according to gender or age.
Parental supervision of mobile phone use
There were no significant differences across the three sexting groups or regarding gender in relation to parental supervision of mobile phone use, whether it be accord ing to adolescents or parents. However, late adolescents, compared with their middle and early peers, perceived less parental supervision, and parents reported decreasing supervision as the stage of adolescence increased.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to analyse the frequency of active sexting by Ecuadorian adolescents in relation to ICT use, the use of social networking sites for peer and family communication, and the role of parental supervision, while exploring differences by gender and the stage of adolescence (early, middle, and late). To this end we first examined whether the level of engagement in active sexting was associated with differences in access to technological resources, frequency of internet and mobile phone use, and the use of social networks such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter, especially for messaging and for sharing photographs and videos. We then looked at whether the level of engagement in active sexting was associated with differences in the use of a mobile phone for peer and family connectedness. Finally, we sought to add to current knowledge regarding the role of parental supervision by exploring whether the degree of supervision as reported by both adolescents and their parents) was associated with differences in the level of engagement in active sexting.
Preliminary analyses showed that 35.6% and 19.2% of adolescents had engaged moderately or highly in sexting, respectively. In line with previous studies showing that boys are more involved in active sexting (Baumgartner et al., 2014; Morelli et al., 2016a, 2016b; Strassberg et al., 2017; West et al., 2014; Yépez-Tito et al., 2018), only 9.6% of girls reported high engagement in sexting, compared with 26.8% of boys. This may be related to differences in the way boys and girls express sexuality and to cultural stereotypes of masculinity and femininity (West et al., 2014; Yépez-Tito et al., 2018). Our analysis also showed that the percentage of adolescents in the high sexting group increased with age (from 6.5% in early adolescence to 31.8% in the late stage). This result is also consistent with previous research and it may reflect the greater involvement in romantic relationships and greater interest in sex in late adolescence (BarrenseDias et al., 2017; Döring, 2014; Gámez-Guadix et al., 2017; Kopecký, 2015; Lippman & Campbell, 2014; Livingstone & Görzig, 2014; Yépez-Tito et al., 2018).
Use of information and communication technologies
Regarding differences in the frequency of active sexting with respect to ICT use, our results indicated that adolescents in the high engagement group also have more technological resources and use WhatsApp more frequently than do their peers in both the moderate and no-engagement groups; they are also more frequent users of Snapchat compared with adolescents who do not engage in sexting. We also found that, in comparison with adolescents in the no-engagement group, those who do report active sexting (both moderate and high) are more frequent users of the internet, their mobile phone, Facebook, Instagram, and social networking sites for messaging. The frequency of use of social networking sites for sharing photographs and videos also increased in line with the level of involvement in sexting. Overall, heavy practitioners of sexting tend to have more technological resources, which one would expect given that this also implies more opportunities for communication and interaction. Moreover, and also as expected, the typical profile of a sexting practitioner was an adolescent who makes more frequent use of the internet, a mobile phone, and social networking sites, and who specifically uses them more often for messaging and for sharing photographs and videos. These results expand on knowledge about the relationship between the use of ICT and sexting among ecuadorian adolescents and they are consistent with previous research showing that frequent social media use increases the likelihood of involvement in sexting (Romo et al., 2017), a behaviour that is also associated with excessive texting (Campbell & Park, 2014; Rice et al., 2017).
The differences in ICT use across the three sexting groups were not moderated by gender or the stage of adolescence. However, the main effects of these variables and the interaction between the two were significant. Our analysis indicated that girls used Instagram and Snapchat more often than boys did, which is consistent with previous studies showing that girls spent more time than boys on social media (Twenge & Martin, 2020). Regarding age, late and middle adolescents made greater use of the internet, mobile phones, Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram, and they used these social networks more for sharing photographs, in comparison with their peers in the early adolescence group. Compared with the latter group, late adolescents also used social networks more for messaging and for sharing videos, and boys at this stage were more frequent users than girls of social networks for sharing photographs and videos. The fact that it is older adolescents who spend more time on the internet and using social networks is consistent with the fact that the internet plays an important role in adolescent development, contributing to identity formation and promoting personal autonomy (Borca, Bina, Keller, Gilbert, & Begotti, 2015).
Family and peer connectedness
Regarding differences in the frequency of active sexting in relation to the use of a mobile phone for peer and family connectedness, our results showed, as expected, that the more adolescents are involved in sexting, the more they use their mobile phone for peer engagement. However, there were no differences across the three sexting groups in relation to the use of a mobile phone for family engagement. These results are consistent with the findings of Campbell and Park (2014) in a sample of US adolescents aged 12-17 years old, and as proposed by these authors, they may be interpreted in terms of social emancipation. From this perspective, sexting is considered to be an expression of emancipation which contributes to the development of social identity and sexuality, increasing the importance of peer relationships and attenuating the role of family.
Differences in connectedness to peers and family across sexting groups were not moderated by gender or the stage of adolescence. However, we found that girls used their mobile phones more for peer engagement than boys did, which is in line with previous studies showing that girls use ICTs mainly for interpersonal communication (Lenhart et al., 2015; Volman, Van-Eck, Heemskerk, & Kuiper, 2005). Social relationships with peers is of greater importance for girls (Flook, 2011; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010), and ICTs allow them to interact with larger numbers of people and to remain in frequent contact with friends (Livingstone, 2008; Reich, Subrahmanyam, & Espinoza, 2012). Research has also found that girls tend to engage in more social conversation and self-disclosure, are more sensitive to the status of their peer relationships and friendships, and are more likely to seek support, express their emotions, and receive higher levels of many emotional provisions in their friendships (Rose & Rudolph, 2006).
The frequency of mobile phone use for peer engagement was also greater in late and middle adolescence than in the early stage. However, no gender or age differences were found regarding mobile phone use for family engagement. These results support the view that peer groups become increasingly important as children reach adolescence, and they are likewise consistent with the aforementioned emancipation hypothesis (Campbell & Park, 2014). The need for independence and autonomy increases in line with the stage of adolescence, leading adolescents to be more connected to peers and to make more frequent use of ICTs for the purposes of communication and for forming close relationships with one another (Borca et al., 2015). It should also be noted that the use of ICTs can be a source of conflict with parents, and hence adolescents may decrease their online relationship with parents as they get older (Borca et al., 2015).
Parental supervision of mobile phone use
With respect to the relationship between sexting and parental supervision of mobile phone use, we found that parental supervision, both that perceived by adolescents and that reported by the parents themselves, was not associated with differences in the level of engagement in sexting. This suggests that parental supervision, as assessed here, may not have a major influence on sexting behaviour in this population. The supervision rules considered in this study were related to restrictions and limitations of mobile phone use (time for using it, talking, number of messages), monitoring of location and content, and withdrawal of the mobile phone as punishment. These results are consistent with some previous research which found that explicit restriction, including control of mobile phones, is not an effective strategy for mitigating adolescent sexting (Campbell & Park, 2014), indicating that adolescents exercise their autonomy in peer communication regardless of parental control. Accordingly, our results suggest that when it comes to educating adolescents about the safe use of the internet and social networks, the imposition of sanctions or rigid rules is unlikely to be effective. Rather, and as argued by other authors, flexible rules, good relationships between adolescents and parents, and adequate family communication focused on sexuality and family competence may be better at discouraging adolescents from sexting and the misuse or overuse of technology, thus reducing their exposure to online risk behaviours (Baumgartner, Sumter, Peter & Valkenburg, 2012; Bianchi et al., 2019; Padilla-Walker & Coyne, 2011; Tomić, Burić & Štulhofer, 2017; Trumello, Babore, Candelori,Morelli & Bianchi, 2018; Tur-Porcar, Doménech & Jiménez, 2019), Xiuqin et al., 2010; West et al., 2014).
Our analysis also showed that the relationship between sexting and parental supervision was not moderated by either gender or the stage of adolescence. However, we did find that late adolescents, compared with their early peers, perceived less parental supervision, and parents reported decreasing supervision as the stage of adolescence increased. These results suggest that parents use more control strategies during the 11-13-year age range, probably because they feel that their children are not yet able to regulate their own behaviour and to make their own decisions regarding social media use (Padilla-Walker, 2006).
Conclusions and Implications
The results of this study indicate that the typical profile of an adolescent who engages in sexting is one who makes greater use of their mobile phone, mainly for peer engagement, as well as of the internet and social networks such as Facebook or Instagram, which are used more frequently for messaging and for sharing photos and videos. Parental control, at least in the form assessed here, does not appear to be a key factor in relation to the practice of sexting. The typical profile did not differ across gender or stage of adolescence, although boys and older adolescents were more involved in sexting. Girls, however, were more likely than boys to use their mobile phone for peer engagement, and they were also more frequent users of some social networks such as Instagram and Snapchat. Regarding age, late and middle adolescents made greater use of the internet and their mobile phone, mainly for peer engagement, and they were also more frequent users of Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram, especially for sharing photographs. A greater use of social networks for messaging and for sharing videos was also observed among late adolescents, particularly boys. Late adolescents perceived less parental control over their mobile phone use, which was consistent with parental reports of decreasing supervision as the stage of adolescence increased.
These results extend knowledge about the profile of sexting practitioners in relation to ICT use, peer and family connectedness, and parental supervision. The fact that the study was conducted in Ecuador is also important, as research into sexting by adolescents is scarce in the Latin American context. Overall, the results for this population are consistent with those obtained in Europe and the USA, suggesting that sexting among adolescents follows a similar pattern across different cultures, although this would need to be confirmed with intercultural studies.
The results have certain educational implications. Importantly, around half the adolescents had experienced the exchange of sexually explicit material through electronic means, an experience that increases with age and which is related to a greater use of technology for peer engagement. However, direct parental control, such as monitoring or taking away a mobile device, does not appear to be a useful strategy for preventing sexting. The amount of time that adolescents spend using ICTs, during which they are exposed to all social media inputs, is also an aspect that needs to be considered. It is also important to recognize that sexual experimentation in adolescence now takes place online, and the associated risks need to be addressed both at school and within the family (Kopecký, 2016; Rice et al., 2017; Ringrose et al., 2012). During the early stage of adolescence, parents should focus more on helping their children to make a healthy and safe use of the internet and social networks, rather than impose restrictive rules. This means that parents themselves must have sufficient awareness of the digital world in order to offer appropriate guidance to their children (Boyd, 2014; Kopecký, 2016; Okeeffe et al., 2011; Ringrose et al., 2012; Romo et al., 2017). Schools and educators, for their part, should implement school-based programs about the appropriate use of social networks, including strategies for preventing the risks associated with ICTs, and these initiatives should be targeted at both adolescents and parents. Sabbah-Mani (2015) suggests that such programs could be incorporated into an established sex education curriculum in order to educate and inform adolescents about the legal and non-legal consequences of sexting, as well as about ways of practicing safe-sexting. However, as Döring (2014) recommends, these programs need to be designed in realistic terms and reflect what is normative as opposed to risky and deviant in adolescent sexualities.
Finally, this study has certain limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, the adolescents were all from the city of Quito and it would therefore be interesting in future studies to recruit samples from other geographical areas of Ecuador. Secondly, the cross-sectional nature of the study means that we cannot infer causal relationships between sexting and the use of technology. It should also be noted that sexting was examined here as a normative behaviour among adolescents, as part of the natural dynamic of their social relationships, and hence the risk and consequences of this behaviour were not addressed. Further studies are therefore necessary to better understand the potential benefits of sexting for romantic relationships, as well as its associated risks. In this respect, it would be interesting to investigate the displacement versus the stimulation hypothesis regarding the effect of online communication (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). On the one hand, it is possible that adolescents who engage in sexting are, due to the fact that they are more connected and make greater use of social media, more at risk of developing other problems related to the misuse of technology; for example, problematic mobile phone use or internet addiction. They are also more likely to be exposed to negative social behaviours and different forms of technology-mediated violence. Alternatively, the greater connectivity and opportunities for communication afforded by social media may have a positive effect in terms of the time spent with friends, potentially enhancing the quality of adolescent relationships.
Further research is needed to determine how this greater connectivity affects relationships between adolescents and their parents, and also, as Bianchi et al. (2019) point out, to examine the role of family functioning and communication in relation to sexting by both girls and boys. 1
