Cited by 323Gender, Feminism, and MediaSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t… if you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the United States

Open access
Lippman, Julia R., Campbell, Scott W.·2014·Journal of Children and Media

Abstract

This study examines the relational, normative, gender, and age dynamics of adolescent sexting in the USA using open-ended questionnaires. Girls in the study were no more likely than boys to sext; however, they were more likely to experience pressure to do so, particularly from boys. Girls were commonly judged harshly whether they sexted (e.g., “slut”) or not (e.g., “prude”), whereas boys were virtually immune from criticism regardless. Older adolescents described sexting as occurring primarily within the context of flirting, romance, or sex, whereas younger adolescents reported what might be described as “pre-sexting” behaviors, involving the joking exchange of sexually suggestive (but non-nude) photos with platonic friends. Although some adolescents expressed a fear that sexting might lead to reputational damage, the normative climate and desire for approval motivated some to sext regardless. Implications and avenues for future research are offered in the discussion.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17482798.2014.923009

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  2. MTV-Associated Press. (2009). Digital abuse. Retrieved from http://www.athinline.org/about# research National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. (2008). Sex and tech: Results from a survey of teens and young adults. Retrieved from http://www.thenationalcampaign. org/sextech/PDF/SexTech_Summary.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lippman, J. R., & Campbell, S. W.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Journal of Children and Media
Published
2014-06-06
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
371-386
ISSN
  • 1748-2798 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-2801
OpenAlex
W1980169091
Cited by
323
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 2
FWCI
39.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Children and Media (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
adolescent sexting, gender differences, girls, peer pressure, sexual norms, slut-shaming, reputational damage, flirting, romantic relationships, age differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review