خودارائه گری جنسی در سایت های شبکه های اجتماعی: چه کسی و چگونه آن را درک می کند؟

Abstract The aims of this study were to investigate (a) the role of peer factors in adolescents’ sexual self-presentation on social network sites, and (b) how adolescents who present themselves sexually online are evaluated by others. 238 high school students (aged 12–18) evaluated either a sexual or non-sexual online presentation of same-sex and opposite-sex peers. Moreover, they filled in a questionnaire about their own self-presentation behavior. Findings showed that peer norms played a crucial role in whether adolescents posted sexual pictures of themselves online. Moreover, need for popularity was a strong predictor for posting such pictures. Girls who presented themselves in sexual ways were evaluated more negatively by other girls but more positively by boys. Similarly, boys who presented themselves in sexual ways were evaluated more positively by girls but not by boys.

. Introduction The exploration of sexuality and the development of a sexual identity is an important part of adolescents’ lives (Buzwell & Rosenthal, 1996). In this context, the internet has become an important source for sexual information and sexual exploration for young people (Shafer et al., 2013 and Subrahmanyam et al., 2006). On the internet, adolescents do not only consume but may also produce sexual content by presenting themselves in sexual ways (Shafer et al., 2013), notably on social network sites. This online sexual self-presentation includes the posting of sexual pictures on social network sites. These pictures may feature adolescents in sexy or sexually suggestive poses or in sexy or semi-naked clothing (e.g., swim- or underwear) (Van Oosten, Peter, & Boot, 2014). Online sexual self-presentation fulfills important functions for adolescents. By presenting themselves in sexual ways, adolescents may try to conform to prevailing standards of sexual attractiveness (Shafer et al., 2013). Moreover, by receiving feedback from their peers, online sexual self-presentation may help them to reduce uncertainties that are inherent in the process of developing a sexual self (Buzwell & Rosenthal, 1996). Online sexual self-presentation, however, may also be problematic because it may lead to unwanted online sexual solicitations (Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2007) as well as, potentially adverse offline sexual encounters (Bobkowski, Brown, & Neffa, 2012). In order to identify adolescents who might potentially experience these negative consequences, it seems important to know who present themselves sexually online and which factors predict online sexual self-presentation. To date, however, not much is known about the predictors of online sexual self-presentation because most studies merely focused on the prevalence of this behavior, and on gender differences in this behavior (Hinduja and Patchin, 2008, Kapidzic and Herring, 2011, Moreno et al., 2009 and Pujazon-Zazik et al., 2012). As online sexual self-presentation occurs in online platforms that are characterized by interactions with peers, such as social network sites (SNS), a crucial predictor of sexual self-presentation appears to be the influence of peers. In order to be accepted by their peers, adolescents may strive for an online self-presentation in line with prevailing peer norms (Moreno et al., 2010 and Utz et al., 2012). As sexiness is considered important by many adolescents (Shafer et al., 2013), the display of sexual pictures may be a means for adolescents to comply with peer norms and to become popular among their peers. Moreover, adolescents with specific individual difference factors, such as high need for popularity and low resistance to peer influence, may be more eager to present themselves in sexual ways in order to become popular among peers. The first aim of this study, therefore, is to investigate peer norms, as well as need for popularity and resistance to peer influence as predictors of sexual self-presentation. It is not only important to understand how adolescents present themselves online, but also to know whether the way they present themselves online influences how they are viewed by their peers. Recent studies have shown that SNS users take even subtle cues on social network profiles into account when forming an impression of other users’ personality, sociability and popularity (Tong et al., 2008 and Walther and Parks, 2002). However, the majority of these studies has focused only on general online self-presentation but has not assessed how sexual self-presentation informs our impression of others. As a consequence, we do not know how adolescents perceive other peers who present themselves sexually online. The second aim of this study, therefore, is to examine how adolescents evaluate peers who engage in online sexual self-presentation. As evaluations of sexy peers may strongly differ for same sex and opposite sex evaluations ( Vaillancourt & Sharma, 2011), we focus on how adolescents evaluate sexual self-presentations by both same sex and opposite sex peers.

Results 6.1. Descriptives The majority of participants in this study reported that they were active users of social network sites (88%). 92% were using these sites at least once a week, with 66% being active on these sites at least once a day. Half of the students reported that they had more than 280 friends in their network, and 23% indicated that they had more than 500 friends. Whereas 34% indicated that they are likely or very likely to post a sexy picture of themselves on their profile site, only 5% were likely or very likely to post a picture in swimwear or underwear, and 8% reported that they were likely or very likely to post a picture in a sexual pose. The correlations between posting of sexy pictures, peer norms, and individual difference factors are displayed in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of correlations between main variables. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Gender – 2. Age −.11 – 3. Need for popularity −.02 −.08 – 4. Resistance to peer influence −.06 −.16⁎ .59⁎⁎⁎ – 5. Post sexy photo −.37⁎⁎⁎ .06 .33⁎⁎⁎ .13 – 6. Post photo swim/underwear −.25⁎⁎ −.01 .37⁎⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎⁎ – 7. Post photo sexual pose −.15⁎ −.06 .33⁎⁎⁎ .15⁎ .53⁎⁎⁎ .65⁎⁎⁎ – 8. Peers: Post sexy photo −.20⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .16⁎ .06 .49⁎⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎⁎ – 9. Peers: Post photo swim/underwear −.16⁎ .11 .22⁎⁎ .14⁎ .20⁎⁎ .57⁎⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎⁎ – 10. Peers: Post photo sexual pose −.03 .08 .24⁎⁎⁎ .10 .27⁎⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎⁎ .51⁎⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎⁎ .50⁎⁎⁎ Note. Gender: 1 = boy, 2 = girl. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001. Table options 6.2. Predictors of posting sexual pictures online To investigate the predictors of posting sexual pictures online and to test H1 to H3, we conducted three multiple linear regressions with peer norms, need for popularity, resistance to peer influence, age, and gender (1 = male, 2 = female) as independent variables and as dependent variables, the three types of posting sexual pictures separately. The first regression indicated that posting pictures in swimwear or underwear is predicted by gender (boys were more likely), b = −.08, SE = .02, β = −.18, p = .002, peer norms, b = .53, SE = .06, β = .47, p < .001, and need for popularity, b = .06, SE = .02, β = .24, p = .001. Adolescents who had more friends who post such pictures online were more likely to do so as well. Moreover, adolescents with stronger need for popularity were more likely to post pictures in swim- or underwear online. Resistance to peer influence, and age had no effect on posting. The overall model explained 37% of the variance in posting these pictures. Similarly, in the second regression we found that posting of sexy pictures was predicted by gender (more boys), b = −.81, SE = .16, β = -.29, p < .001, peer norms, b = .47, SE = .07, β = .39, p < .001, and need for popularity, b = .45, SE = .11, β = .30, p < .001. Age and resistance to peer influence had no additional effect. The model explained 37% of the variance of posting sexy pictures. The final multiple linear regression indicated that posting pictures in a sexual pose was predicted by peer norms, b = .46, SE = .07, β = .42, p < .001, and need for popularity, b = .05, SE = .02, β = .23, p = .003. Resistance to peer influence, gender, and age had no additional effect. This model explained 27% of the variance. Overall, these analyses support H1 and H2, but do not support H3. Although, peer norms and need for popularity predicted the willingness to post sexual pictures online, resistance to peer influence had no influence on the willingness to post sexual pictures online. 6.3. Additional analyses We investigated additional interaction effects between peer norms and need for popularity and resistance to peer influence. It may be argued that those adolescents with higher need for popularity and lower resistance to peer influence are more sensitive to peer norms and are, therefore, more likely to post sexual pictures if they have friends who post these pictures. However, the interaction effects were not significant. This indicates that peer norms are a unique predictor of posting sexual pictures, for adolescents high and low in need for popularity and resistance to peer influence. Similarly, need for popularity predicted the effects even for adolescents who have not many friends posting sexual pictures. 6.4. Evaluation of girls’ sexual self-presentation As posited by H4, we expected that female adolescents would evaluate a female peer who presents herself in a sexual way more negatively than a female peer who does not present herself in a sexual way. In contrast, we expected that male adolescents would evaluate a female peer in a sexual self-presentation more positively than a girl who presents herself in a non-sexual way (H7). To investigate this, we conducted a two-way ANOVA with gender and self-presentation (sexual vs. non-sexual) as independent variables and the evaluation score as dependent variable. The ANOVA yielded a significant main effect for gender, F(1, 234) = 23.80, p < .001, η2 = .09, indicating that, overall, boys perceived the girl as more positive (M = 4.05, SD = 1.03) than girls (M = 3.43, SD = 1.00). However, this main effect was qualified by a significant interaction effect between gender and sexual self-presentation, F(1, 234) = 16.50, p < .001, η2 = .07. The non-sexual girl was perceived similarly by girls and boys (girls: M = 3.73, SD = 0.89; boys: M = 3.84, SD = 1.09). The sexual girl, however, was evaluated more negatively by girls (M = 3.12, SD = 1.02) and more positively by boys (M = 4.27, SD = 0.94) in comparison to the non-sexual girl (see Fig. 1). Additional t-tests showed that girls evaluated the girl who presented herself in a sexual way significantly more negatively than the non-sexual girl, t(110) = −3.40, p = .001. This finding supports H4. In contrast, boys evaluated the sexual girl significantly more positively than the non-sexual girl, t(124) = 2.37, p = .02. This finding is in line with H7. Evaluation of the girl with a non-sexual versus sexual self-presentation. Higher ... Fig. 1. Evaluation of the girl with a non-sexual versus sexual self-presentation. Higher values indicate more positive evaluations. Figure options 6.5. Evaluation of boys’ sexual self-presentation H5 posited that male adolescents would evaluate other male adolescents who present themselves in a sexual way similar to male adolescents who present themselves in a non-sexual way. In contrast, in line with H6, we predicted that female adolescents would evaluate a male peer who presents himself in a non-sexual way more positively than a male peer who presents himself in a sexual way. To test these assumptions, we conducted a two-way ANOVA with gender and self-presentation (sexual vs. non-sexual) as independent variables and the evaluation score as dependent variable. There was no significant main effect for gender or self-presentation, but a significant interaction effect between gender and sexual self-presentation, F(1, 234) = 6.48, p = .01, η2 = .03. As Fig. 2 shows, girls evaluated the sexual boy more positively (M = 3.37, SD = 0.86) than the non-sexual boy (M = 3.02, SD = 0.99). An additional t-test showed that this difference was significant, t(110) = −2.01, p = .048. In contrast, boys evaluated the sexual boy somewhat more negatively (M = 3.07, SD = 1.14) than the non-sexual boy (M = 3.38, SD = 0.95). This difference was, however, not significant, t(124) = 1.63, p = .11. Because the t-test is not eligible to test equivalences between means, we conducted an additional equivalence test ( Weber & Popova, 2012). Equivalence testing examines whether an effect is significantly smaller than a predetermined effect. Because we cannot make any predictions about the size of the effect due to a lack in previous studies, we conducted an exploratory equivalence test. The results show that only when expecting a large effect size, we can assume an equivalence between means (Cohen’s d = .5, p < .001). However, for small to moderate effect sizes, the test is not significant (Cohen’s d = .1 to .3, p = .77 and p = .13, respectively). Overall, the findings of these tests only tentatively supported H5. More research is needed to test this hypothesis in larger samples. In contrast to our expectations, female adolescents evaluated the boy who presented himself in a sexual way more positively than the non-sexual male. This finding does not support H6. Evaluation of the boy with a non-sexual versus sexual self-presentation. Higher ... Fig. 2. Evaluation of the boy with a non-sexual versus sexual self-presentation. Higher values indicate more positive evaluations.