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 study among Dutch adolescents (N = 1079; 53.1% boys; 93.5% with an exclusively heterosexual orientation; Myears = ; 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.
Notes
The data regarding the about three-wave committee data have also used in six almost every other files of the writers to examine brand new antecedents regarding SEIM use and you may relationship away from SEIM fool around with with other intimate outcomes. These types of paperwork is obtainable by the giving an e-mail with the corresponding blogger.
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, https://datingranking.net/nl/dating-for-seniors-overzicht/ 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).
New architectural picture activities reported for the Figs. dos and you can step 3 have been along with checked which have an example you to integrated the participants which have forgotten studies (N = dos,137). Automated imputation try presented to change forgotten thinking in the SPSS (adaptation 23). Good pooled dataset of your indicate rates of your own lost data is computed throughout the five imputed datasets (i.e., multiple imputation, Acock, 2007).
Get single blog post
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.