Cross-Cultural Differences in Sexting Practices between American and Spanish University Students
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Instruments
2.2.1. Sexting Questionnaire
2.2.2. Sociodemographic Questionnaire
2.3. Procedure
3. Results
3.1. Sample Demographic Characteristic
3.2. Prevalence of Sexting Behaviors
3.3. Descriptive Statistics for Sexting-Related Characteristics
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Agustina, J.R. Analyzing sexting from a criminological perspective. beyond child pornography issues: Sexting as a threshold for victimization. In Cybercrime & Security; Thomson Reuters: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2012; Volume 4, pp. 64–96. [Google Scholar]
- Van Ouytsel, J.; Van Gool, E.; Ponnet, K.; Walrave, M. Brief report: The association between adolescents’ characteristics and engagement in sexting. J. Adolesc. 2014, 37, 1387–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gassó, A.M.; Klettke, B.; Agustina, J.R.; Montiel, I. Sexting, Mental Health, and Victimization Among Adolescents: A Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2019, 16, 2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gámez-Guadix, M.; Almendros, C.; Borrajo, E.; Calvete, E. Prevalence and Association of Sexting and Online Sexual Victimization Among Spanish Adults. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 2015, 12, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gámez-Guadix, M.; De Santisteban, P.; Resett, S. Sexting among Spanish adolescents: Prevalence and personality profiles. Psicothema 2017, 29, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Villacampa, C. Teen sexting: Prevalence, characteristics and legal treatment. Int. J. Law Crime Justice 2017, 49, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klettke, B.; Hallford, D.J.; Mellor, D.J. Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2014, 34, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benotsch, E.G.; Snipes, D.J.; Martin, A.M.; Bull, S.S. Sexting, Substance Use, and Sexual Risk Behavior in Young Adults. J. Adolesc. Heal. 2013, 52, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dir, A.L.; Cyders, M.A.; Coskunpinar, A. From the bar to the bed via mobile phone: A first test of the role of problematic alcohol use, sexting, and impulsivity-related traits in sexual hookups. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 1664–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, L.; Morgan, E. Sexting and sexual relationships among teens and young adults. McNair Sch. Res. J. 2011, 7, 9. [Google Scholar]
- Hudson, H.K. Factors Affecting Sexting Behaviors among Selected Undergraduate Students. Ph.D. Thesis, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, USA, 2011. Available online: https://ehs.siu.edu/phrp/_common/documents/announcements-dissertation/hudson-h.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2020).
- Gordon-Messer, D.; Bauermeister, J.A.; Grodzinski, A.; Zimmerman, M. Sexting Among Young Adults. J. Adolesc. Heal. 2013, 52, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gassó, A.M.; Mueller-Johnson, K.; Montiel, I. Sexting, Online Sexual Victimization, and Psychopathology Correlates by Sex: Depression, Anxiety, and Global Psychopathology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2020, 17, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Sex and Tech: Results from a Survey of Teens and Young Adults. 2008. Available online: http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/pdf/sextech_summary.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).
- Associated Press; MTV. MTV Digital Abuse Survey, Executive Summary. 2011. Available online: http://surveys.ap.org/data/KnowledgeNetworks/AP_Digital_Abuse_Topline_092209.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).
- Kopecký, K. Sexting among Czech preadolescents and adolescents. New Educ. Rev. 2011, 28, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
- Dir, A.L.; Cyders, M.A. Risks, Risk Factors, and Outcomes Associated with Phone and Internet Sexting Among University Students in the United States. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2015, 44, 1675–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Drouin, M.; Vogel, K.N.; Surbey, A.; Stills, J.R. Let’s talk about sexting, baby: Computer-mediated sexual behaviors among young adults. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, A25–A30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Worthen, M.G.F.; Lingiardi, V.; Caristo, C. The Roles of Politics, Feminism, and Religion in Attitudes Toward LGBT Individuals: A Cross-Cultural Study of College Students in the USA, Italy, and Spain. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 2017, 14, 241–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smahel, D.; Machackova, H.; Mascheroni, G.; Dedkova, L.; Staksrud, E.; Ólafsson, K.; Livingstone, S.; Hasebrink, U. EU Kids Online 2020: Survey Results from 19 Countries. EU Kids Online 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morelli, M.; Chirumbolo, A.; Bianchi, D.; Baiocco, R.; Cattelino, E.; Laghi, F.; Sorokowski, P.; Misiak, M.; Dziekan, M.; Hudson, H.; et al. The role of HEXACO personality traits in different kinds of sexting:A cross-cultural study in 10 countries. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 113, 106502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil-Llario, M.D.; Morell-Mengual, V.; Jiménez-Martínez, M.C.; Iglesias-Campos, P.; Gil-Julia, B.; Ballester-Arnal, R. Culture as an influence on sexting attitudes and behaviors: A differential analysis comparing adolescents from Spain and Colombia. Int. J. Intercult. Relations 2020, 79, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oksanen, A.; Miller, B.L.; Savolainen, I.; Sirola, A.; Demant, J.; Kaakinen, M.; Zych, I. Social Media and Access to Drugs Online: A Nationwide Study in the United States and Spain among Adolescents and Young Adults. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Leg. Context 2020, 13, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, K.J.; Sabina, C.; Finkelhor, D.; Wells, M. Index of Problematic Online Experiences: Item Characteristics and Correlation with Negative Symptomatology. CyberPsychol. Behav. 2009, 12, 707–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- González, E.; Orgaz, B. Problematic online experiences among Spanish college students: Associations with Internet use characteristics and clinical symptoms. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 31, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrense-Dias, Y.; Berchtold, A.; Surís, J.-C.; Akre, C. Sexting and the definition issue. J. Adolesc. Health 2017, 61, 544–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Montiel, I.; Carbonell, E. Cuestionario de Victimización Juvenil Mediante Internet y/o Teléfono Móvil [Juvenile Online Victimization Questionnaire, JOV-Q]. Spain Patent 09/2011/1982, 22 February 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Baumgartner, S.E.; Sumter, S.R.; Peter, J.; Valkenburg, P.M.; Livingstone, S. Does country context matter? Investigating the predictors of teen sexting across Europe. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 34, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klettke, B.; Mellor, D.; Silva-Myles, L.; Clancy, E.; Sharma, M.K. Sexting and mental health: A study of Indian and Australian young adults. Cyberpsychology J. Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace 2018, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agustina, J.R.; Gómez-Durán, E.L. Sexting: Research Criteria of a Globalized Social Phenomenon. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2012, 41, 1325–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widmer, E.D.; Treas, J.; Newcomb, R. Attitudes toward nonmarital sex in 24 countries. J. Sex Res. 1998, 35, 349–358. [Google Scholar]
- Ayuso, L.; y García, L. Los Españoles y la Sexualidad en el Siglo XXI (No.281); Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas: Madrid, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- De La Merced, H.P. ¿Sexualidad ortodoxa o heterodoxa? La sexualidad en España en el siglo xxI. Tendencias Sociales. Revista de Sociología 2020, 5, 102–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marganski, A. Sexting in Poland and the United States: A Comparative Study of Personal and Social-Situational Factors. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 2017, 11, 183–201. [Google Scholar]
- Ahrold, T.K.; Meston, C.M. Ethnic Differences in Sexual Attitudes of U.S. College Students: Gender, Acculturation, and Religiosity Factors. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2008, 39, 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orgilés, M.; Carratalá, E.; Espada, J.P. Perceived quality of the parental relationship and divorce effects on sexual behaviour in Spanish adolescents. Psychol. Heal. Med. 2014, 20, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, L.E.; Felson, M. Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1979, 44, 588–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drouin, M.; Ross, J.; Tobin, E. Sexting: A new, digital vehicle for intimate partner aggression? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 50, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kernsmith, P.D.; Victor, B.G.; Smith-Darden, J.P. Online, offline, and over the line: Coercive sexting among adolescent dating partners. Youth Soc. 2018, 50, 891–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumeister, R.F. Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 126, 347–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
% (N= 1799) | Mean (SD) | Spain % (N = 1386) | USA % (N = 413) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sex | |||||
Male | 26.00 | 26.40 | 24.50 | ||
Female | 74.00 | 73.60 | 75.50 | ||
Age | 21.26 (4.61) | 21.43 (4.86) | 20.70 (3.64) | ||
Marital Status | |||||
Single | 55.00 | 54.60 | 56.20 | ||
In relationship | 41.70 | 42.00 | 40.90 | ||
Married | 1.50 | 1.20 | 2.40 | ||
Common law partner | 1.10 | 1.30 | 0.20 | ||
Divorced/separated | 0.70 | 0.90 | 0.20 | ||
Parental Marital Status | |||||
Married | 68.80 | 71.30 | 60.00 | ||
Divorced/separated | 24.30 | 22.50 | 30.50 | ||
Widow | 3.90 | 4.40 | 2.10 | ||
Other | 3.10 | 1.80 | 7.40 | ||
Academic Situation | |||||
Undergraduate | 93.10 | 92.40 | 95.40 | ||
Master’s degree | 3.30 | 4.00 | 1.20 | ||
Erasmus | 1.20 | 1.50 | 0.50 | ||
International student | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Other | 2.40 | 2.20 | 2.90 | ||
Living Situation | |||||
With parents | 50.2 | 62.40 | 10.40 | ||
Student apartment | 24.8 | 22.40 | 32.70 | ||
Off Campus student residence | 4.10 | 4.60 | 2.40 | ||
On Campus student residence | 9.50 | 0.70 | 38.30 | ||
Alone | 5.10 | 3.80 | 9.40 | ||
With partner | 6.30 | 6.20 | 6.80 | ||
Employment Status | |||||
Unemployed | 63.20 | 67.40 | 49.40 | ||
Employed full time | 5.30 | 5.10 | 6.10 | ||
Employed partial time | 31.40 | 27.40 | 44.60 | ||
Own smartphone | 98.30 | 98.0 | 99.30 | ||
Age of first phone | 13.62 (3.28) | 13.86 (3.42) | 12.83 (2.63) | ||
Age of first internet access | 11.69 (3.69) | 12.01 (3.83) | 10.67 (2.95) | ||
Internet Access | |||||
Mobile phone | 88.8 | 89.80 | 85.70 | ||
Laptop | 22.9 | 27.80 | 6.50 | ||
Desktop PC | 5.70 | 6.00 | 4.60 | ||
Tablet | 32.9 | 30.90 | 39.50 | ||
PlayStation | 5.3 | 5.70 | 4.10 | ||
Frequency Internet Access | |||||
Once a week | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.50 | ||
2–3 times a week | 0.60 | 0.40 | 1.20 | ||
Everyday | 33.50 | 33.0 | 35.10 | ||
2–3h per day | 17.60 | 16.7 | 20.60 | ||
More than 3h per day | 46.70 | 48.0 | 42.60 | ||
Social Media Use | |||||
Yes | 97.00 | 97.80 | 94.20 | ||
No | 2.60 | 1.60 | 5.80 | ||
Frequency of Social Media Use | |||||
87.00 | 86.90 | 87.4 | |||
69.60 | 69.30 | 70.7 | |||
78.70 | 98.10 | 13.60 | |||
51.30 | 47.70 | 63.40 | |||
YouTube | 94.40 | 94.60 | 93.7 |
Spain | USA | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Prev % | N | Prev % | Sig. Test, OR | |
Primary sexting | 1386 | 35.8 | 413 | 55.0 | χ2 (1, n = 1799) = 48.68, p = 0.000, OR = 2.19, 95% CI [1.75, 2.74] |
Secondary sexting | 1386 | 57.6 | 413 | 40.9 | χ2 (1, n = 1799) = 35.68, p = 0.000, OR Spain = 1.96, 95% CI [1.57, 2.45] |
Being a victim of nonconsensual dissemination | 1386 | 3.1 | 413 | 15.0 | χ2 (1, n = 1799) = 82.12, p = 0.000, OR = 5.52, 95% CI [3.68, 8.28] |
Men (N = 460) | |||||
Spanish | USA | ||||
N | Prev % | N | Prev % | Significance Test, OR | |
Primary sexting | 359 | 35.1 | 101 | 51.5 | χ2 (1, n = 460) = 8.92, p = 0.003, OR= 1.96, 95% CI [1.26, 3.07] |
Secondary sexting | 359 | 63.0 | 101 | 44.6 | χ2 2(1, n = 460) = 22.30, p = 0.000, Orspain = 2.94, 95% CI [1.86 4.65] |
Being a victim of nonconsensual dissemination | 359 | 3.1 | 101 | 3.0 | χ2 (1, n = 460) = 0.002, p = 0.961, OR = 0.97, 95% CI [.27, 3.54] |
Women (N = 1311) | |||||
Spanish | USA | ||||
N | Prev % | N | Prev % | Sig. Test, OR | |
Creating and sending nude or sexual imagery of oneself | 999 | 36.2 | 312 | 56.1 | χ2 (1, n = 1311) = 38.75, p = 0.000, OR = 2.25, 95% CI [1.74, 2.91] |
Receiving sexts | 998 | 56.7 | 312 | 42.3 | χ2 (1, n = 1310) = 19.82, p = 0.000, Or Spain = 1.79, 95% CI [1.38, 2.31] |
Being a victim of nonconsensual dissemination | 999 | 3.2 | 312 | 18.9 | χ2 (1, n = 1311) = 90.81, p = 0.000, OR = 7.05 95% CI [4.48, 11.07] |
Total Sample % (N = 1799) | Spain % (N = 1386) | USA % (N = 413) | Significance Test | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary sexting | ||||
Age of first contact | 17.43 (3.96) | 17.89 (3.81) | 16.45 (4.11) | T (758) = 4.72, p = 0.000, d = 0.37, 95% CI [.22, 0.52] |
Perceived risk | ||||
Low risk | 13.10 | 10.50 | 21.50 | χ2 (1, n = 1799) = 34.00, p = 0.000, OR = 2.33, 95% CI [1.75, 3.12] |
Moderate risk | 16.00 | 14.20 | 22.00 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 14.47, p = 0.000, OR = 1.71, 95% CI [1.29, 2.25] |
High risk | 18.30 | 19.30 | 15.30 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 3.42, p = 0.065, OR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.56, 1.02] |
Receiver | ||||
Friend | 3.70 | 3.20 | 5.30 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 3.84, p = 0.050, OR = 1.68, 95% CI [0.99, 2.83] |
Partner | 25.10 | 21.80 | 36.30 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 35.71, p = 0.000, OR = 2.05, 95% CI [1.61, 2.60] |
Ex-partner | 7.60 | 6.60 | 10.70 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 7.34, p = 0.007, OR = 1.68, 95% CI [1.15, 2.45] |
Stranger | 0.50 | 0.30 | 0.70 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 1.57, p = 0.210, OR = 2.53, 95% CI [0.56, 11.34] |
Intensity of sexual content | ||||
Subtle | 10.50 | 10.60 | 10.20 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 0.065, p = 0.800, OR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.66, 1.37] |
Mildly sexual | 14.80 | 13.60 | 18.60 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 6.33, p = 0.012, OR = 1.45, 95% CI [1.09, 1.94] |
Clearly sexual | 16.30 | 12.70 | 28.60 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 58.63, p = 0.000, OR = 2.75, 95% CI [2.11, 3.59] |
Motive | ||||
Flirting | 27.40 | 20.70 | 49.20 | χ2(1, n = 1769) = 128.75, p = 0.000, OR = 3.70, 95% CI [2.93, 4.67] |
Joke | 10.10 | 12.20 | 2.90 | χ2(1, n = 1769) = 30.49, p = 0.000, OR Spain = 4.66, 95% CI [2.57, 8.47] |
Bothering | 0 | - | ||
Coercion or threats | 1.90 | 1.30 | 3.90 | χ2(1, 1769) = 11.87, p = 0.001, OR = 3.17, 95% CI [1.59, 6.34] |
Secondary sexting | ||||
Age of first contact | 16.87 (3.81) | 17.20 (3.08) | 15.51 (5.75) | T (191.20) = 3.69, p = 0.000, d = 0.45, 95% CI [0.27, 0.62] |
Upsetness | ||||
Barely upset | 18.70 | 20.10 | 14.30 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 6.96, p = 0.008, OR Spain = 1.51, 95% CI [1.11, 2.04] |
Moderately upset | 17.70 | 18.50 | 14.80 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 3.11, p = 0.078, OR= 0.76, 95% CI [0.56, 1.03] |
Very upset | 13.70 | 14.90 | 9.70 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 7.23, p = 0.007, OR Spain = 1.63, 95% CI [1.14, 2.33] |
Sender | ||||
Friend | 21.10 | 22.70 | 16.00 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 8.51, p = 0.004, OR Spain = 1.54, 95% CI [1.15, 2.06] |
Partner | 2.80 | 3.30 | 1.20 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 5.13, p = 0.023, OR Spain = 2.80, 95% CI [1.11, 7.10] |
Ex-partner | 2.60 | 2.20 | 3.60 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 2.49, p = 0.115, OR= 1.65, 95% CI [0.88, 3.08] |
Stranger | 12.30 | 13.30 | 9.00 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 5.67, p = 0.017, OR Spain = 1.57, 95% CI [1.08, 2.27] |
Intensity of sexual content | ||||
Subtle | 5.70 | 6.30 | 3.60 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 4.16, p = 0.041, OR Spain = 1.74, 95% CI [1.00, 3.04] |
Mildly sexual | 14.10 | 15.70 | 9.00 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 11.77, p = 0.001, OR Spain = 1.89, 95% CI [1.31, 2.72] |
Clearly sexual | 29.80 | 31.00 | 25.90 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 3.98, p = 0.046, OR Spain = 1.29, 95% CI [1.00, 1.65] |
Motive | ||||
Flirting | 19.90 | 21.00 | 16.20 | χ2(1, n = 1772) = 4.62, p = 0.032, OR Spain = 1.38, 95% CI [1.03, 1.84] |
Joke | 21.20 | 24.90 | 9.00 | χ2(1, n = 1772) = 48.07, p =0.000, OR Spain = 3.36, 95% CI [2.35, 4.82] |
Bothering | 4.10 | 4.00 | 7.70 | χ2(1, n = 1772) = 17.95, p = 0.000, OR= 2.83, 95% CI [1.76, 4.55] |
Coercion | 1.30 | .40 | 4.40 | χ2(1, n = 1772) = 39.37, p = 0.000, OR = 12.34, 95% CI [4.55, 33.45] |
Being victim of nonconsensual dissemination | ||||
Age of first contact | 13.94 (8.23) | 17.09 (4.79) | 12.40 (9.09) | T (128.22) = 3.87, p = 0.000, d = 0.59, 95% CI [0.22, 0.96] |
Upsetness | ||||
Barely upset | 1.90 | 2.00 | 1.50 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 0.552, p = 0.457, OR = 0.72, 95% CI [0.29, 1.74] |
Moderately upset | 1.00 | 0.02 | 3.60 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 37.47, p = 0.000, OR = 10.43, 95% CI [3.77, 28.86] |
Very upset | 4.40 | 2.30 | 11.60 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 64.95, p = 0.000, OR= 5.56, 95% CI [3.51, 8.83] |
Sender | ||||
Friend | 1.90 | 1.20 | 4.10 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 14.33, p = 0.000, OR = 3.46, 95% CI [1.75, 6.83] |
Partner | 0.60 | 0.40 | 1.50 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 6.24, p = 0.012, OR= 4.07, 95% CI [1.24, 13.41] |
Ex-partner | 2.30 | 0.60 | 8.20 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 81.78, p = 0.000, OR = 15.45, 95% CI [7.09, 33.66] |
Stranger | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.50 | χ2(1, n = 1799) 0.366, p = 0.545, OR = 1.68, 95% CI [0.31, 9.21] |
Intensity of sexual content | ||||
Subtle | 1.70 | 1.70 | 1.70 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 0.003, p = 0.960, OR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.42, 2.29] |
Mildly sexual | 2.60 | 1.00 | 8.00 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 60.93, p = 0.000, OR = 8.51, 95% CI [4.51, 16.07] |
Clearly sexual | 2.20 | 1.10 | 6.10 | χ2(1, n = 1799) = 36.17, p = 0.000, OR = 5.89, 95% CI [3.08, 11.28] |
Motive | ||||
Flirting | .50 | 0.40 | 1.00 | χ2(1, n = 1797) = 2.35, p = 0.125, OR = 2.70, 95% CI [0.72, 10.09] |
Joke | 1.80 | 0.70 | 5.30 | χ2(1, n = 1797) = 38.55, p = 0.000, OR= 7.73, 95% CI [3.63, 16.46] |
Bothering | 1.60 | 0.90 | 3.90 | χ2(1, n = 1797) = 18.75, p = 0.000, OR = 4.61, 95% CI [2.16, 9.82] |
Coercion | 1.60 | 0.60 | 4.80 | χ2(1, n = 1797) = 37.71, p = 0.000, OR = 8.75, 95% CI [3.83, 20.03] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gassó, A.M.; Agustina, J.R.; Goméz-Durán, E. Cross-Cultural Differences in Sexting Practices between American and Spanish University Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2058. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042058
Gassó AM, Agustina JR, Goméz-Durán E. Cross-Cultural Differences in Sexting Practices between American and Spanish University Students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(4):2058. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042058
Chicago/Turabian StyleGassó, Aina M., José R. Agustina, and Esperanza Goméz-Durán. 2021. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Sexting Practices between American and Spanish University Students" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 4: 2058. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042058
APA StyleGassó, A. M., Agustina, J. R., & Goméz-Durán, E. (2021). Cross-Cultural Differences in Sexting Practices between American and Spanish University Students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 2058. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042058