Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 1

Running head: EXPOSURE TO ONLINE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL

Adolescents’ Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material and Sexual Uncertainty:

Investigating Perceptions of Pornography as Underlying Mechanisms

Jochen Peter Patti M. Valkenburg

The Amsterdam School of Communications Research ASCoR

University of Amsterdam

Kloveniersburgwal 48

1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 20 525 3752/ 2348

Fax: +31 20 525 3681

Email: j.peter@uva.nl; p.m.valkenburg@uva.nl

Paper presented at the 57th annual conference of the International Communication Association

(ICA), San Francisco, CA, May 24-28, 2007.

 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 2

Abstract

Recent research has established a link between teenagers’ exposure to sexually explicit online

material and their uncertainty about sexual beliefs and values. However, research has paid little

attention to the processes that may underlie this association. We hypothesized that the relation

between exposure to sexually explicit online material and sexual uncertainty would be

mediated by how adolescents perceive the social reality depicted in such material. Drawing on

a sample of 1,519 Dutch adolescents aged 13 to 18, we first established with a confirmatory

factor analysis that adolescents perceive sexually explicit online material along three

dimensions: unaffectionate sex, male dominance, and female objectification. We found that

exposure to sexually explicit online material exerted, via perceived male dominance and

perceived female objectification, an indirect positive effect on sexual uncertainty. However,

exposure to sexually explicit online material retained a significant direct positive relation with

sexual uncertainty, indicating that the perceived male dominance and perceived objectification

partially mediated this relation. This pattern applied equally to male and female adolescents.
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 3

Adolescents’ Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material and Sexual Uncertainty:

Investigating Perceptions of Pornography as Underlying Mechanisms

There is small, but consistent evidence that a considerable proportion of adolescents use

sexually explicit online material (Lo & Wei, 2005; Peter & Valkenburg, 2006a). Recently,

researchers have started to study whether the use of sexually explicit online material is related

to a central component of adolescents’ identity development – the development of the sexual

self (i.e., a firm sense of oneself as a sexual person). In line with studies that have generally

documented adolescents’ use of the internet for sexual exploration (Huffaker & Calvert, 2005;

Subrahmanyam, Smahel, & Greenfield, 2006; Suzuki & Calzo, 2004), more specific initial

evidence has emerged that exposure to sexually explicit online material may be linked to

greater sexual uncertainty (Peter & Valkenburg, under review). Sexual uncertainty can be

considered an important characteristic of the developing sexual self (Arnett, 1995; Marcia &

Friedman, 1970; Schenkel & Marcia, 1972; Waterman & Nevid, 1977). It refers to the extent to

which adolescents are unclear about their sexual beliefs and values. This uncertainty may show

in badly integrated, unclearly defined, and temporally unstable sexual beliefs and values.

Related empirical studies as well as theoretical research tentatively support the

plausibility of the link between adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit online material and

sexual uncertainty (e.g., Arnett, 1995; Cantor, Mares, & Hyde, 2003; Steele, 1999). However,

it is unclear how exposure to such material is precisely related to sexual uncertainty. One

possible explanation may focus on the social reality depicted in sexually explicit online

material as a source of adolescents’ sexual uncertainty. The term social reality refers not only

to the sexual activities, but also to the sex-related gender roles and gender relations that are

depicted in sexually explicit online material. A number of scholars have argued that

adolescents may not be able to put the social reality shown in such material into perspective,

given their limited experience with sex and relationships (Huston et al., 1998; Thornburgh &
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 4

Lin, 2002). In addition, the social reality depicted in sexually explicit online material may

provide adolescents with beliefs and values that typically present alternatives to, or deviations

from, the beliefs and values learned in families, schools, and to a lesser extent also in peer

groups (Thornburgh & Lin, 2002). When confronted with such alternatives or opposed sexual

beliefs and values, adolescents may hence become uncertain about their own sexual beliefs and

values.

Several content analyses have dealt with the social reality depicted in sexually explicit

material (Brosius, Weaver, & Staab, 1993; Cowan & Campbell, 1994; Cowan, Lee, Levy, &

Snyder, 1988; Ertel, 1990; Jensen & Dines, 1998; Palys, 1986). But little research has been

devoted to how people in general and adolescents in particular actually perceive the social

reality of sexually explicit material. This is remarkable for two reasons. First and more

generally, the characteristics of media content as established by content analyses may not

necessarily correspond to how people perceive such content (Graber, 1989; Kepplinger, 1989).

Second and more specifically, the claim that adolescents have difficulties putting the social

reality of sexually explicit material into perspective may be plausible, but to substantiate this

claim we need to know how adolescents actually perceive sexually explicit material.

This study, therefore, tries to investigate whether the already established link between

adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit online material may be further elucidated by how

adolescents perceive the social reality of sexually explicit online material. First, we will

identify potential dimensions of adolescents’ perceptions of the social reality depicted in

sexually explicit online material. Second, we will integrate these dimensions into a tentative

model of how adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit online material may be linked, through

perceptions of that material, to sexual uncertainty.

 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 5

Adolescents’ Perceptions of Sexually Explicit Online Material

Our reasoning in this section is based on two assumptions. First, although results from

content analyses may differ from individual perceptions of that content, existing content

analyses of sexually explicit material are useful in identifying the likelihood of dimensions of

how such material may be perceived. Second, we assume that the results of content analyses of

sexually explicit material in videos and magazines are transferable to sexually explicit material

on the internet, given the lack of content analyses on such material on the internet. Our analysis

is limited to explicit material of a heterosexual character, that is, material that shows, in

unconcealed ways, sexual activities between men and women, such as oral, vaginal, and anal

intercourse, often with close-up shots of genitals.

Existing content analyses of sexually explicit material not only differ in their theoretical

background and methodological approach, but also in the content categories investigated

(Brosius et al., 1993; Cowan & Campbell, 1994; Cowan et al., 1988; Ertel, 1990; Jensen &

Dines, 1998; Palys, 1986). To be able to identify content categories that may lend themselves

to the investigation of adolescents’ perceptions of the social reality depicted in sexually explicit

online material, we chose two criteria that a given category had to meet to be included in this

study. First, a particular content category had to be plausibly related to adolescents’ sexual

uncertainty. Second, a particular content category had to occur in more than 50% of the

investigated material of at least two content analyses. Based on these two criteria we identified

three content categories: unaffectionate sex, male dominance, and objectification of women.

Unaffectionate sex refers to sexual activities that lack warmth, care, or love. Typically,

the sexual partners are most concerned with the fulfillment of their own sexual pleasures, and

the sexual partner is exchangeable. At least two content analyses have identified unaffectionate

sex as an important characteristic of sexually explicit material. Brosius et al. (1993) have found
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 6

that unaffectionate sex occurred in about 94% of the video films investigated. Ertel (1990) has

reported that unaffectionate sex characterized 82% of the pornographic scenes studied.

Male dominance as a characteristic of sexually explicit material can be defined as one-

sided sexual activity in which the man controls the situation and commands the woman. The

woman has to satisfy the desires of the man who, in turn, does not acknowledge her

gratification. Several content analyses have documented male dominance in sexually explicit

material. For example, Palys (1986) has found that males dominated females in 58% of all

scenes in pornographic movies. A similar percentage (54%) was reported by Cowan et al.

(1988) for scenes in X-rated videotapes. Similarly, Baron and Kimmel (2000) and Ertel (1990)

have found that about three quarters of sexually explicit movies featured male dominance.

Objectification of women, finally, refers to the reduction of women to their sexual

appeal in terms of their outer appearance and a focus on their body parts, most notably their

genitals. It also entails that women are depicted as sexual playthings waiting to satisfy male

sexual desires. Content analyses have shown that, in sexually explicit material, the

objectification of women, for example through full-screen genitalia shots, outnumbers the

objectification of men by 2:1 (Cowan et al., 1988; Ertel, 1990). Scholars often point to

objectification of women in scenes in which the man ejaculates on the body, the face, or in the

mouth of a woman (Cowan & Dunn, 1994; Jensen & Dines, 1998). Brosius et al. (1993) found

that this occurred in 98% of the pornographic movies studied.

We used the three content categories as a starting point to study adolescents’

perceptions of the social reality depicted in porn. To our knowledge, such a user-centered

approach to the content of sexually explicit material rarely exists in research. Therefore, we

had to test first whether the content categories would also be empirically distinguishable

dimensions of how adolescents perceive the social reality depicted in sexually explicit material

(Research Question 1). Assuming that the three themes would constitute empirically
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 7

distinguishable dimensions, we then needed to know which proportion of adolescents would

perceive the dimensions as present or absent in sexually explicit online material (Research

Question 2).

Perceived Social Reality of Sexually Explicit Online Material as Mediator

The main goal of this study is to investigate whether the relation between adolescents’

exposure to sexually explicit online material and sexual uncertainty can be further explained by

how adolescents perceive the social reality of such material. The basic idea is that, generally,

we cannot infer from the manifest content of sexually explicit online material how adolescents

will perceive such material. Content analysts have acknowledged this difference (Graber, 1989;

Kepplinger, 1989). More specifically, adolescents’ perceptions of the social reality of sexually

explicit online material may conceptually fill the void between exposure to such material and

sexual uncertainty. It is theoretically questionable whether there is a direct association between

exposure to sexually explicit online material and sexual uncertainty. Rather, there may be

processes that underlie the relation between exposure to such material and sexual uncertainty.

Evidence of the plausibility of this pattern comes, for example, from recent research on

computer-mediated communication. People’s perceptions of internet applications and online

communication have successfully been employed to identify what lies behind the association

between people’s use of technology and its outcomes (Carlson & Zmud, 1999; Kalyanaraman

& Sundar, 2006; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007).

If, in conclusion, perceptions differ from content and if perceptions can be seen as a

link between exposure to sexually explicit online material and sexual uncertainty, then we can

test whether perceptions mediate the relationship between exposure to such material and sexual

uncertainty. In that case, adolescents’ perceptions of unaffectionate sex, male dominance, and

female objectification would change with their frequency of exposure to sexually explicit
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 8

online material. The change in adolescents’ perceptions of the three themes, in turn, would be

related to their degree of sexual uncertainty. Figure 1 visualizes this model.

*** Figure 1 about here ***

Among other things, priming research has provided robust evidence that more frequent

exposure to a stimulus increases its cognitive accessibility (Higgins, 1996; Srull & Wyer, 1979,

1980). This mechanism has also been demonstrated with respect to the media (for a review, see

Roskos-Ewoldsen, Roskos-Ewoldsen, & Dillman Carpentier, 2002). Shrum, Wyer, and

O’Guinn (1998) have therefore suggested that media may present a “natural prime” (p. 448).

Exposure to the media, or more precisely to mediated content, can render aspects of this

content cognitively accessible. For people who are more frequently exposed to a particular

content, certain aspects of that content would consequently be more easily accessible. The

increased accessibility of certain aspects of mediated content may show in people’s perception

of the extent to which these aspects occur in a given content. This mechanism may also apply

to the association between adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit online material and their

perceptions of that material. Therefore, we expect that the more adolescents are exposed to

sexually explicit online material, the more likely they will be to perceive such material as

depicting unaffectionate sex, male dominance, and female objectification.

It is important to keep in mind that we deal with adolescents’ perceptions of the social

reality of sexually explicit online material; that is, the degree to which adolescents agree or

disagree that a particular social reality is depicted in such material. We do not focus on how

adolescents morally evaluate these aspects, that is, whether they think that unaffectionate sex,

male dominance, and female objectification are something good or bad. In this study, we are

also not interested in how adolescents’ perceptions of the social reality of sexually explicit

online material affect sexual attitudes or judgments. Regarding the link between exposure to

sexually explicit material and evaluations as well as attitudes, it makes sense to assume
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 9

habituation processes as underlying this link (e.g., Zillmann & Bryant, 1988). Based on the

habituation concept, more frequent exposure to sexually explicit material may be related to

more positive evaluations and more positive attitudes toward unaffectionate sex, male

dominance, and female objectification. In our focus on perceptions, however, we are concerned

with an accessibility process. This accessibility process is more fundamental than a habituation

process. Therefore, while a habituation process may become relevant in the formation of

evaluations and attitudes, the more general accessibility process may play a role in the

formation of perceptions. As a result, we hypothesize that more frequent exposure to sexually

explicit online material will lead to stronger perceptions of unaffectionate sex, male

dominance, and female objectification occurring in such material. These hypotheses are

visualized as H1a, H1b, and H1c in Figure 1.

Research on the sexual socialization and sexual values of adolescents suggests that

unaffectionate sex, male dominance, and objectification of women may conflict with what

adolescents have learned about sex. Several studies have documented that the majority of

adolescents adhere to the sexual standard of permissiveness with affection, which means that

they consider an affectionate, committed relationship an important prerequisite to having sex

(e.g., Kraaykamp, 2002; Reiss, 1960; Sprecher & Hatfield, 1996). Further, both sexologists and

sociologists have pointed out that, at the latest since the 1980’s, “ethics of relationships”

(Weeks, 1995, p. X) or “ethics of negotiation” (Schmidt, 2005, p. 10) increasingly dominate

people’s decisions about what is sexually acceptable. These ethics, in turn, require reciprocity,

mutuality, and consensus in sexual relations and put emphasis on sexual partners as equal

subjects. Finally, at least in many Western countries, sex education since the 1960’s has

followed what Luker (2006) has called an “equality model of sexuality” (p. 244). Such a model

emphasizes mutuality of sexual activities and responsiveness to the partner’s wishes (Sigusch,

2005).
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 10

Both male dominance and objectification of women seem irreconcilable with an

equality model of sexuality and the ethics of negotiation. Unaffectionate sex is incompatible

with the standard of permissiveness with affection. As a result, when adolescents do encounter

depictions of male dominance, female objectification, and unaffectionate sex, they may feel

confused. We therefore hypothesize that stronger perceptions of unaffectionate sex, male

dominance, and female objectification in sexually explicit online material will be associated

with greater sexual uncertainty. This is visualized as H2a, H2b, and H2c in Figure 1.

Taken together, Hypotheses 1a to 1c and Hypotheses 2a to 2c imply an indirect effect

of exposure to sexually explicit material on sexual uncertainty through how adolescents

perceive the social reality of sexually explicit material. An indirect effect can, but does not

have to, indicate mediation. To establish mediation, two additional analyses are required

(Preacher & Hayes, 2004): First, an analysis of the association between sexually explicit

material and sexual uncertainty when the presumed mediating variables are excluded from the

model (i.e., the total effect) and, second, an analysis of the association between sexually

explicit material and sexual uncertainty when the presumed mediating variables are included in

the model (i.e., the direct effect). Generally, a significant total effect has to occur so that we

can meaningfully speak of mediation (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Subsequently, either full or

partial mediation are conceivable. Full mediation occurs if two conditions are met. First, there

is a significant indirect effect, that is, the effect of exposure on uncertainty through one or more

of the perceptions differs from zero. (Computationally, this implies that the product between

the effect of exposure on each perception and the effect of each perception on sexual

uncertainty is probed for significant difference from zero.) Second, the direct effect is

significantly lower than the total effect. In contrast, partial mediation is present if (a) a

significant indirect effect occurs and (b) the direct effect still remains significant.
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 11

Gender as a Moderator

Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c in Figure 1 predict a positive association between

perceptions of sexually explicit online material, regardless of adolescents’ gender. However,

research has generally demonstrated gender differences in sexuality (for meta-analytic

evidence, see Oliver & Hyde, 1993). More specifically, we know that male adolescents

consider affection a less important prerequisite for sex than female adolescents do (e.g.,

Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2005; Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2004; Sprecher &

Hatfield, 1996). In addition, male adolescents hold stronger notions of women as sexual objects

(Ward, 2002; Ward & Friedman, 2006). Finally, research on rape-related attitudes tentatively

suggests that, compared with female adolescents, male adolescents more strongly support

notions of male dominance in sexual encounters (e.g., Anderson, Simpson-Taylor, &

Herrmann, 2004; Feltey, Ainslie, & Geib, 1991; Hutchinson, Tess, Gleckman, Hagans, &

Reese, 1994). Consequently, perceptions of unaffectionate sex, female objectification, and

male dominance in sexually explicit online material may conflict less with male adolescents’

sexual beliefs and values than with female adolescents’ sexual beliefs and values. Thus, the

association between perceptions of the social reality of sexually explicit material and sexual

uncertainty may be stronger for female adolescents and weaker for male adolescents.

Technically, the association between exposure to sexually explicit online material and sexual

uncertainty as mediated by perceptions would be further moderated by gender. We hypothesize

that this moderated mediation pattern will occur for unaffectionate sex, male dominance, and

female objectification. These hypotheses are visualized in Figure 1 as H3a, H3b, and H3c.

Control Variables

Previous related research suggests that several other variables may affect adolescents’

sexual uncertainty and their exposure to sexually explicit online material. Conceptually, these

variables are not of central interest in this study, but they may present rival explanations of our
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 12

hypothesized associations. Therefore, we include them as control variables. Based on prior

research, we have selected the following set of control variables: age (Manning et al., 2005),

ethnicity (Brown et al., 2006), sexual orientation (Huffaker & Calvert, 2005), parental control

(Sieverding, Adler, Witt, & Ellen, 2005), religiosity (Miller et al., 1997), sexual experience

(Billy, Landale, Grady, & Zimmerle, 1988), relationship status (Miller et al., 1997), life

satisfaction (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006a), and exposure to sexual media content in media other

than the internet (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006a).

Method

Sample and Procedure

In May and June 2006, an online survey was conducted among 1,745 Dutch adolescents

aged 13 to 18 (51% male). To validly measure perceptions of the social reality of sexually

explicit online material, it is necessary that adolescents have been in contact with such

material. As a result, we had to exclude 226 adolescents from our analyses who reported that

they had never in their life encountered sexually explicit material on the internet. The findings

in this paper are based on 1,519 adolescents (52% male) who reported that, intentionally or

unintentionally, they have encountered sexually explicit online material.

For the study of sensitive issues, online surveys or, more generally, computer-mediated

surveys have generally proven superior to other modes of interviewing (e.g., Mustanski, 2001).

Sampling and fieldwork were done by Qrius, a Dutch research institute specializing in research

among adolescents. Respondents were recruited from an existing online panel managed by

Qrius. Qrius had sampled respondents in all parts of the Netherlands. Analyses showed that the

gender and age of our respondents did not deviate from official statistics. In terms of ICT, the

Netherlands is one of the most advanced countries in the world. Already in 2003, 90% of

Dutch adolescents had home access to the internet and this figure can be assumed to have

increased since then (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, 2005). As a result, problems typically
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 13

associated with online surveys such as systematically biased samples may be less virulent in

the Netherlands. The Netherlands thus seems to be a country very well suited to detecting

developments that may occur in other countries only in coming years.

Prior to the implementation of the survey, institutional approval, parental consent for

minors’ participation, and adolescents’ informed consent were obtained. Adolescents were

notified that the study would be about sexuality and the internet and that they could stop the

survey at any time they wished. We took the following measures to improve the

confidentiality, privacy, and anonymity of the answering process (Mustanski, 2001). On the

introduction screen of the online questionnaire, we emphasized that the answers would be

analyzed only by us, the principal investigators. Moreover, respondents were asked to make

sure that they completed the questionnaire in privacy. Finally, we assured the respondents that

their answers remained anonymous. That is, we explained explicitly that there was no

possibility for the principal investigators to identify who had filled in the questionnaire and that

Qrius could also not see what the respondents had answered. Qrius did not link respondents’

answers in our questionnaire to their names and contact information and provided us only with

the answers to our questionnaire. This procedure has proven successful in various other studies

on sensitive issues and ensures the protection of respondents’ anonymity (Peter & Valkenburg,

2006a). Completing the questionnaire took on average between 15 and 20 minutes.

Measures

Exposure to sexually explicit online material. We largely followed an

operationalization used by Peter and Valkenburg (2006), which has been shown to be valid and

reliable. Respondents were asked to indicate how often, in the six months prior to the

interview, they had intentionally looked at (a) pictures with clearly exposed genitals; (b)

movies with clearly exposed genitals; (c) pictures in which people are having sex; (d) movies

in which people are having sex. Adolescents were informed that the question was about
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 14

sexually explicit, pornographic content. Moreover, adolescents were told that looking at such

content did not imply being online, but could also refer to sexually explicit material

downloaded from the internet. The response categories were 1 (never), 2 (less than once a

month), 3 (1-3 times a month), 3 (once a week), 5 (several times a week), 6 (every day), and 7

(several times a day). The items formed a uni-dimensional scale (explained variance 77%),

with a Cronbach’s alpha of .95 (M = 2.09, SD = 1.38).

Sexual uncertainty. Respondents were asked to what extent they concurred with the

following items, which all started with “As far as sex is concerned…”: (1) “…my beliefs often

change;” (2) “…I am not sure about what I like and what I dislike;” (3) “…I wonder what I

really want;” (4) “…my opinions vary;” (5) “…I think one day like this and another day like

that;” and (6) “…it is difficult for me to form a clear opinion.” Response categories ranged

from 1 (disagree entirely) to 5 (agree entirely). In the online questionnaire, the items were

randomized. The items loaded on one factor (explained variance 71%), with a Cronbach’s

alpha of .92 (M = 2.41, SD = .85).

Perceptions of the social reality depicted in sexually explicit online material. All items

that measured the three perceptions of unaffectionate sex, male dominance, and female

objectification started with “In internet pornography…” The three items we used to tap

unaffectionate sex were: (1) “… emotions are unimportant;” (2) “…nobody is interested in

his/her partner;” and (3) “…everybody only cares about him/herself.” The four items we used

to measure male dominance were: (1) “…men decide what happens;” (2) “…the sexual

pleasure of men is more important than the sexual pleasure of women;” (3) “…women are only

present to satisfy men;” and (4) “…women have to do what men want.” The three items that

tapped the objectification of women were: (1) “…women are often treated as playthings;” (2)

“…women are often passive;” and (3) “…everything is centered on the female genitals.”

Response categories ranged from 1 (disagree entirely) to 5 (agree entirely).

 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 15

Age and gender. The measurement of age (M = 15.6, SD = 1.69) and gender was

straightforward. Males were coded with 0 (51%), females with 1 (49%).

Ethnicity. As with other Netherlands-based research (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006a), we

operationalized respondents’ ethnicity as a dichotomy where 0 meant Non-Dutch, and 1 meant

Dutch. 10% of the sample were not Dutch, and 90% were Dutch.

Sexual orientation. We asked respondents whether they felt attracted to males or

females. Drawing on Kinsey et al.’s (1948) conceptualization of an individual’s sexual

orientation as a continuous rather than a categorical variable, we used a five-point scale to

measure respondents’ degree of attraction to the same or opposite sex. The response categories

were 1 (males only), 2 (mainly males, but also females), 3 (both males and females) 4 (mainly

females, but also males) and 5 (females only). The values were recoded separately for male and

female adolescents. Subsequently, for both genders, higher values indicated a tendency toward

a heterosexual orientation; lower values represented a tendency toward a gay or lesbian sexual

orientation. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents felt exclusively attracted to the opposite

sex, 1.7% felt exclusively attracted to the same sex, and the remaining 9.3% reported varying

degrees of attraction to both sexes.

Sexual experience. We used seven items to measure adolescents’ sexual experience:

French kissing, touching of the partner under his/her clothing, masturbation of the partner,

cunnilingus, fellatio, vaginal sex, and anal sex. We explained sexual terms wherever necessary.

Adolescents could answer with no (coded 1) or yes (coded 2). The seven items loaded on one

factor in a factor analysis (explained variance 57%). Subsequently, they were added up and the

sum was divided by seven. The resulting alpha was .88 (M = 1.40, SD = .33).

Parental control. Similar to other studies (e.g., Sieverding et al., 2005), parental control

was operationalized with the items “My parents know where I am in my spare time,” “My

parents know what I am doing at night,” and “My parents know my friends.” The anchors of
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 16

the response scale were 1 (does not apply at all) to 5 (applies completely). The three items

formed a one-dimensional scale (explained variance 62%), with an alpha of .69 (M = 3.75, SD

= .65).

Religiosity. Whether adolescents are religious was measured with the item “I am

religious.” Response categories ranged from 1 (does not apply at all) to 5 (applies completely)

(M = 2.39, SD = 1.32).

Relationship status. Adolescents’ relationship status was measured with the question

“Are you currently in a romantic relationship?” Adolescents who were single were coded 0

(71%); adolescents who were in a relationship were coded 1 (29%).

Life satisfaction. We measured life satisfaction with the five-item satisfaction with life

scale developed by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985). Examples of items of this

scale are “I am satisfied with my life,” and “In most ways my life is close to my ideal.”

Response categories ranged from 1 (disagree entirely) to 5 (agree entirely). The items loaded

on one factor (explained variance 66%). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .86 (M = 3.29, SD

= .80).

Exposure to sexual content other than on the internet. This measure was

operationalized with adolescents’ frequency of exposure to R-rated television programs (e.g.,

“Late night magazine”), sexually semi-explicit magazines (e.g., “Playboy”), sexually explicit

magazines (e.g., “Chick”), and sexually explicit videos or DVD’s. Response categories ranged

from 1 (never) to 6 (every day). The factor structure was one-dimensional (explained variance

66%). Cronbach’s alpha was .80 (M = 1.50, SD = .79).

Data Analysis

We conducted a first-order confirmatory factor analysis to test whether unaffectionate

sex, male dominance, and female objectification as previously established content categories of

sexually explicit online material are empirically distinguishable dimensions of adolescents’

 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 17

perceptions of the social reality depicted in such material. In contrast to exploratory

confirmatory analyses, a confirmatory factor analysis requires that the expected structure of the

perceptual dimensions be specified a priori in a measurement model. Subsequently, the data are

tested for the extent to which they fit the measurement model.

As Figure 1 shows, hypotheses 1a to 1c and 2a to 2c predicted that the relation between

exposure to sexually explicit online material and sexual uncertainty would be mediated by how

adolescents perceive the social reality of such material. More specifically, Figure 1 shows a

model of multiple mediation – we hypothesized three variables to mediate the relation between

exposure and sexual uncertainty. To test this pattern, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal-steps

approach is often employed. However, the approach has serious statistical weaknesses.

Researchers are progressively requesting that the significance of hypothesized indirect effects

be formally tested as part of a mediation analysis (for a review, see Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

The causal-steps approach does not present such a formal test of indirect effects. Moreover, the

approach lacks statistical power and is susceptible to both Type I and Type II errors, which

may lead to an incorrect diagnosis of the presence or absence of mediation. In addition, the

Sobel test, which many scholars use to formally test indirect effects, is based on the unrealistic

assumption that the sampling distribution of the hypothesized indirect effect is normal (for a

detailed discussion of these issues, see Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

To analyze indirect effects adequately, Preacher and Hayes (2006) have recently

developed a macro that calculates all the parameters necessary to study multiple mediation and,

additionally, tests the significance of the indirect effects on the basis of bootstrapping.

Bootstrapping is a non-parametric approach that estimates effect sizes without making

assumptions about the distribution type of the variables or the sampling distribution of the

statistic. This approach thus offers the most appropriate formal test of indirect effects as part of

a mediation analysis in general and for our data in particular, given the typically skewed
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 18

distributions in sex-related research. Because some of our measures may be strongly correlated,

we also checked whether there was evidence of multicollinearity between the variables. This

was not the case. All variance inflation factors were clearly below the critical value of five.

Hypotheses 3a to 3c predicted that gender would moderate the mediation pattern

outlined above. To date, researchers still disagree how to analyze moderated mediation in

structural equation modeling. Usually, scholars test moderated mediation in structural equation

modeling by leaving the latent constructs in their manifest form. Thus, the crucial advantage of

structural equation modeling – the correction for measurement errors – is eliminated.

Additionally, given the tedious business of including a huge set of control variables in

structural equation models, we decided to use another macro developed by Preacher, Rucker,

and Hayes (in press) to test the predicted moderated mediation pattern. Apart from the

possibility to include as many control variables as necessary, the macro provides the researcher

with all the statistical procedures and parameters necessary for an adequate test of interaction

effects, that is, a formal test of the particular values of the interaction effect based on post-hoc

probing procedures and bootstrapping.

Results

The first research question asked whether the categories established by content analyses

would also be empirically distinguishable dimensions of adolescents’ perceptions of sexually

explicit material. Figure 2 shows the model. We used two indices to evaluate the fit of our

model, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index

(CFI). Particularly in the case of large samples, these indices are considered informative

criteria in structural equation modeling. A good model fit is expressed in an RMSEA value of

less than .06 and a CFI value greater than .95 (Byrne, 2001). According to these two measures,

the fit of the measurement model was very good, CFI = .993, RMSEA = .040 (90% confidence

interval: .032; .049). The chi square index for our model was significant, χ2(32, N = 1519) =
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 19

111.36, p < .001, suggesting a poor model fit. However, it is a widely recognized problem with

this index that the model fit is seriously underestimated in analyses with larger samples (see

Byrne, 2001, for a review of methodological references). Therefore, we concluded that

adolescents’ perceptions of the social reality depicted in sexually explicit online material

represent the dimensions of unaffectionate sex, male dominance, and female objectification.

We subsequently formed additive scales for unaffectionate sex (M = 3.19, SD = 1.09, α = .89);

male dominance (M = 2.83, SD = 1.08, α = .94); and female objectification (M = 2.96, SD =

.95, α = .78).

*** Figure 2 about here ***

Research question 2 centered on the proportion of adolescents who perceive sexually

explicit online material to depict unresponsive sex, male dominance, and female

objectification. For this particular analysis, we recoded the metric scales of the three

perceptions (with values from 1 to 5) into categories. Values lower than 3 indicated that

adolescents did not perceive the particular dimension to occur in sexually explicit online

material; values greater than 3 indicated the opposite. A value of 3 indicated that adolescents

both agreed and disagreed with the presence of a particular dimension in sexually explicit

online material. Forty-nine percent of the male adolescents and 58% of the female adolescents

perceived sexually explicit online material to show unaffectionate sex, as opposed to 33% of

the male adolescents and 26% of the female adolescents who perceived this not to be case.

Eighteen percent of the male adolescents and 16% of the female adolescents were undecided in

their perceptions.

Thirty-seven percent of male adolescents and 40% of female adolescents agreed that

sexually explicit online material depicts male dominance. Forty-seven percent of the male

teenagers and 44% of the female teenagers disagreed that sexually explicit online material

shows male dominance. The remaining 16% of both male and female adolescents remained
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 20

undecided. Finally, female objectification in sexually explicit online material was perceived by

43% of the male adolescents and 44% of the female adolescents. Thirty-six percent of the male

adolescents and 37% of the female adolescents did not perceive female objectification in such

material. Twenty-one percent of the male adolescents and 19% of the female adolescents were

undecided. In conclusion, adolescents’ perceptions of unaffectionate sex, male dominance, and

female objectification differed considerably. The differences were greater within than between

genders.

Hypothesis 1a, 1b, and 1c predicted that adolescents with greater exposure to sexually

explicit online material would be more likely to perceive such material to depict unaffectionate

sex (abbreviated as US in Table 1), male dominance (abbreviated as MD), and female

objectification (abbreviated as FO). Rows SEOM → US; SEOM → MD; and SEOM → FO in

Table 1 show, in compressed form, the results of all the various multiple regressions necessary

to test the three hypotheses. All three hypotheses were supported. For the relations between

exposure to sexually explicit online material and all three perceptions, a significant positive

association occurred.

Hypothesis 2a, 2b, and 2c stated that stronger perceptions of unaffectionate sex, male

dominance, and female objectification in sexually explicit online material would be associated

with greater sexual uncertainty. As Table 1 shows in the rows titled MD → SU and FO → SU,

we found support for the expected association regarding male dominance and female

objectification. In contrast to our expectations, perceptions of unaffectionate sex were

unrelated to sexual uncertainty (see row US → SU). Thus, hypotheses 2b and 2c were

supported, and hypothesis 2a was not supported.

The hypothesized indirect effects of exposure on sexual uncertainty via perceptions

were formally tested with a bootstrapping procedure. On the basis of 1,000 bootstrap samples,

a 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence interval (95% bca CI) was computed for the
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 21

point estimate of each indirect effect (which is the product of the two effects that constitute the

indirect effect). If this interval does not include zero, the indirect effect differs significantly

from zero. As becomes clear from the rows SEOM → MD → SU and SEOM → FO → SU in the

lower part of Table 1, the indirect effect from exposure on sexual uncertainty via male

dominance and the effect of exposure on sexual uncertainty via female objectification differed

significantly from zero.

We outlined above that a significant indirect effect does not necessarily indicate

mediation. Mediation requires, in the first instance, that a significant total effect between

exposure to sexually explicit online material and sexual uncertainty be present. This was the

case, as Table 1 indicates in the row entitled “Total effect.” However, the condition for full

mediation was not met. The direct effect of exposure on sexual uncertainty remained

significant (see row “Direct effect” in Table 1). This implies that the effect of exposure to

sexually explicit online material on sexual uncertainty was partially mediated by adolescents’

perceptions of such material as depicting male dominance and female objectification.

Hypothesis H3a, H3b, and H3c predicted that adolescents’ gender would moderate the

indirect effect of exposure to sexually explicit online material on sexual uncertainty via the

various perceptions. Table 1 shows in the columns titled H3a, H3b, and H3c the analyses for

unresponsive sex, male dominance, and female objectification as mediator. The row “Mediator

X Gender” in the upper part of Table 1 demonstrates that no significant interaction effects with

gender emerged for any of the three mediators. The bootstrapping results in the lower part of

Table 1 confirmed this finding. When the point estimate of each indirect effect was

investigated separately for the two values of gender (i.e., male and female), all bias-corrected

and accelerated 95% confidence intervals included zero. This indicates that the mediated effect

of exposure to sexually explicit online material on sexual uncertainty was not further
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 22

moderated by gender. In short, there was no evidence of moderated mediation. Hypotheses 3a,

3b, and 3c were not supported.

Discussion

This study has focused on adolescents’ perceptions of the social reality of sexually

explicit online material and has initially described the processes that underlie the link between

adolescents’ exposure to such material and their uncertainty about sexual beliefs and values.

We established that unaffectionate sex, male dominance, and female objectification are

empirically distinguishable dimensions of how adolescents perceive the social reality of

sexually explicit online material. Perceived male dominance and female objectification

partially mediated the association between exposure to sexually explicit online material and

sexual uncertainty. The more frequently adolescents used sexually explicit online material, the

more likely they were to perceive such material to depict male dominance and female

objectification. These two perceptions, in turn, were associated with greater sexual uncertainty.

This pattern applied equally to male and female adolescents.

In contrast to many studies on the ramifications of sexually explicit material, we did not

take for granted that all adolescents perceive sexually explicit material in the same way.

Rather, we turned into a variable what previous research has implicitly treated as a constant –

how adolescents “see” sexually explicit material. We found considerable variation in whether

adolescents perceived sexually explicit online material as depicting unaffectionate sex, male

dominance, and female objectification. This attests to the necessity of a stronger user-centered

approach. Evidence is accumulating that adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit online is

related to a number of sexual attitudes (Lo & Wei, 2005; Peter & Valkenburg, 2006b; Peter &

Valkenburg, under review). However, to disentangle the underlying mechanisms of this

association, we need to focus more strongly on how the users perceive and experience such
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 23

material. The users’ cognitions and affects concerning sexually explicit online material may

hold the key to understanding the implications of exposure to such material.

Adolescents’ perceptions of male dominance and female objectification partially

mediated the relation between exposure to sexually explicit online material and sexual

uncertainty, whereas perceived unaffectionate sex did not. This finding resonates with two

different strands of research. First, in a study about which themes in sexually explicit material

are considered most degrading for women, Cowan and Dunn (1994) found that male

dominance and female objectification were considered much more humiliating for women than

unaffectionate sex. When adolescents perceive sexually explicit online material to depict male

dominance and female objectification, it may, through its degrading character, more strongly

conflict with values such as consensus, mutuality, and reciprocity that characterize the gender

equality model of sex education and the ethics of negotiation sketched above (Luker, 2006;

Schmidt, 2005; Weeks, 1995). As a result, adolescents may become more uncertain about their

learned sexual beliefs and values.

The second strand of research with which our findings dovetail has emphasized the

changing character of adolescent sexual relations. Scholars have pointed to the fact that many

adolescents no longer consider affection or a stable, committed relationship a necessary

prerequisite to have sex (e.g., Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2006; Manning et al., 2005).

The majority of adolescents do endorse the permissiveness-with-affection standard

(Kraaykamp, 2002; Sprecher & Hatfield, 1996), but sex with casual partners and friends as

well as one-night stands have also become frequent forms of adolescent sexual exploration.

Therefore, it seems plausible that the perception of unaffectionate sex in sexually explicit

material does not conflict with their sexual values and, eventually, remains unassociated with

sexual uncertainty.
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 24

In contrast to our expectations, there were no gender differences in the indirect effect

that exposure to sexually explicit online material exerted, through the various perceptions, on

sexual uncertainty. At least three explanations seem possible. First, gender does not have a

moderating, but an initiating function in adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit online

material. Based on related research, it was possible to conceptualize gender as a moderator of

the relation between perceptions of sexually explicit online material and sexual uncertainty.

However, the strong gender differences in exposure to sexually explicit online material (Lo &

Wei, 2005; Peter & Valkenburg, 2006a) suggest that gender may also be conceived of as an

antecedent of relations between exposure to sexually explicit material and sexual attitudes.

A second explanation of the lacking moderating function of gender may be that gender

– as operationalized in this study – does not adequately capture the social character of the

concept. Gender as a social construction is more than the dichotomy male-female and

researchers should try to provide more precise operational definitions of the concept. A third

explanation, finally, refers to alternative moderators of the association between the perceived

social reality of sexually explicit online material and sexual uncertainty. We assumed that,

more strongly for female than for male adolescents, unaffectionate sex, male dominance, and

female objectification would conflict with the beliefs and values learned through sexual

socialization. However, these beliefs and values may not vary so much by adolescents’ gender,

but by the specific sexual beliefs and values that adolescents acquire in their families or peer

groups. As a result, future research may focus on the sexual beliefs and values that adolescents

encounter in their families and peer groups, and include these beliefs and values in the models.

This study has tried to further extend an emerging research field. As it is typical for this

kind of study, there are causality issues. The cross-sectional design of our study is not able to

compellingly demonstrate that exposure to sexually explicit online material causes sexual

uncertainty. It is also possible that adolescents who are sexually uncertain more often turn to
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 25

sexually explicit online material. That said, we do not think that it is plausible to assume that,

depending on their sexual uncertainty, adolescents develop perceptions of sexually explicit

online material and, accordingly, turn to sexually explicit online material. Thus, for the core

part of this paper – the indirect effects of exposure on sexual uncertainty via perceptions – we

are confident that the specified causal direction is tenable. Further, although we generally

support the call for longitudinal designs to improve the internal validity of our studies, we

believe that, in this new field of research, it is currently still justified to establish the validity

and viability of models first in cross-sectional designs before they are tested in more labor-

intensive and more expensive longitudinal designs.

In line with recent studies on the implications of the internet for adolescents’

development (Huffaker & Calvert, 2005; Subrahmanyam et al., 2006; Suzuki & Calzo, 2004),

this study has focused on an important characteristic of the development of the sexual self, the

uncertainty that surrounds the formation of sexual beliefs and values. We were able to initially

show that sexually explicit material in general and adolescents’ perceptions of the content of

such material in particular play a role in how certain adolescents feel about their sexual beliefs

and values. These findings lead to new questions, most notably on the moderating role of

adolescents’ social context as outlined above. To answer these questions requires

interdisciplinary approaches. However, given the theoretical and practical relevance of the

issues involved, it should be worth the effort.

 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 26

References

Anderson, V. N., Simpson-Taylor, D., & Herrmann, D. J. (2004). Gender, age, and rape-

supportive rules. Sex Roles, 50, 77-90.

Arnett, J. J. (1995). Adolescents' uses of media for self-socialization. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 24, 519-533.

Baron, R., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Barron, M., & Kimmel, M. (2000). Sexual violence in three pornographic media: Toward a

sociological explanation. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 161-168.

Billy, J. O. G., Landale, N. S., Grady, W. R., & Zimmerle, D. M. (1988). Effects of sexual

activity on adolescent social and psychological development. Social Psychology Quarterly,

51, 190-212.

Brosius, H.-B., Weaver, J. B., & Staab, J. F. (1993). Exploring the social and sexual reality of

contemporary pornography. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 161-170.

Brown, J. D., L'Engle, K. L., Pardun, C. J., Guo, G., Kenneavy, K., & Jackson, C. (2006). Sexy

media matter: Exposure to sexual content in music, movies, television, and magazines

predicts black and white adolescents' sexual behavior. Pediatrics, 117, 1018-1027.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,

and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cantor, J., Mares, M. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2003). Autobiographical memories of exposure to

sexual media content. Media Psychology, 5, 1-31.

Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of

media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153-170.

 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 27

Cowan, G., & Campbell, R. R. (1994). Racism and sexism in interracial pornography: A

content-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 323-338.

Cowan, G., & Dunn, K. F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the

degradation of women? Journal of Sex Research, 31, 11-21.

Cowan, G., Lee, C., Levy, D., & Snyder, D. (1988). Dominance and inequality in X-rated

videocassettes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 299-311.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Ertel, H. (1990). Erotika und Pornographie: Repräsentative Befragung und

psychophysiologische Langzeitstudie zu Konsum und Wirkung. Munich, Germany: PVU.

Feltey, K. M., Ainslie, J. J., & Geib, A. (1991). Sexual coercion attitudes among high-school

students: The influence of gender and rape education. Youth & Society, 23, 229-250.

Graber, D. A. (1989). Content and meaning. What's it all about? American Behavioral

Scientist, 33, 144-152.

Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T.

K. A. W. Higgins (Ed.), Social psychology. Handbook of basic principles. (pp. 133-168).

New York: The Guilford Press.

Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs,

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (Vol. 10).

Huston, A. C., Wartella, E. A., & Donnerstein, E. (1998). Measuring the effects of sexual

content in the media: A report to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser

Family Foundation.

Hutchinson, R. L., Tess, D. E., Gleckman, A. D., Hagans, C. L., & Reese, L. R. E. (1994).

Students perceptions of male sexually aggressive behavior as a function of educational

level and gender. Sex Roles, 30, 407-422.

 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 28

Jensen, R., & Dines, G. (1998). The content of mass-marketed pornography. In G. Dines, R.

Jensen & A. Russo (Eds.), Pornography. The production and consumption of inequality

(pp. 65-100). New York: Routledge.

Kalyanaraman, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2006). The psychological appeal of personalized content in

web portals: Does customization affect attitudes and behavior? Journal of Communication,

56, 110-132.

Kepplinger, H. M. (1989). Content analysis and reception analysis. American Behavioral

Scientist, 33, 175-182.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male.

Philadelphia: Saunders.

Kraaykamp, G. (2002). Trends and countertrends in sexual permissiveness: Three decades of

attitude change in the Netherlands 1965-1995. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64,

225-239.

Lo, V.-h., & Wei, R. (2005). Exposure to internet pornography and Taiwanese adolescents'

sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 221-237.

Luker, K. (2006). When sex goes to school. Warring views on sex - and sex education - since

the sixties. New York: Norton.

Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2006). Hooking up: The relationship

contexts of "nonrelationship" sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 459-483.

Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2005). Adolescents' involvement in

non-romantic sexual activity. Social Science Research, 34, 384-407.

Marcia, J. E., & Friedman, M. L. (1970). Ego identity status in college women. Journal of

Personality, 38, 249-263.

 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 29

Miller, B. C., Norton, M. C., Curtis, T., Hill, E. J., Schvaneveldt, P., & Young, M. H. (1997).

The timing of sexual intercourse among adolescents: Family, peer and other antecedents.

Youth & Society, 29, 54-83.

Mustanski, B. S. (2001). Getting wired: Exploiting the Internet for the collection of sexually

valid data. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 292-301.

Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.

Palys, T. S. (1986). Testing the common wisdom: The social content of video pornography.

Canadian Psychology, 27, 22-35.

Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006a). Adolescents' exposure to sexually explicit material on

the Internet. Communication Research, 33, 178-204.

Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006b). Adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit online

material and recreational attitudes towards sex. Journal of Communication, 56, 639-660.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect

effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods Instruments &

Computers, 36, 717-731.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2006). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and

comparing indirect effects in single and multiple mediator models. Under review.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (in press). Addressing moderated mediation

hypotheses: Theory, methods, and applications. Multivariate Behavioral Research.

Reiss, I. L. (1960). Premarital sexual standards in America. New York: Free Press.

Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Dillman Carpentier, F. R. (2002). Media

priming: A synthesis. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects. Advances in theory

and research (2nd ed., pp. 97-120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 30

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (2004). Sex. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of

adolescent psychology (pp. 189-231). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Schenkel, S., & Marcia, J. E. (1972). Attitudes toward premarital intercourse in determining

ego identity status in college women. Journal of Personality, 3, 472-482.

Schmidt, G. (2005). Das neue Der, Die, Das. Über die Modernisierung des Sexuellen. Giessen,

Germany: Psychosozial-Verlag.

Shrum, L. J., Wyer, R. S., Jr., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1998). The effects of television consumption

on social perceptions: The use of priming procedures to investigate psychological

processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 447-458.

Sieverding, J. A., Adler, N., Witt, S., & Ellen, J. (2005). The influence of parental monitoring

on adolescent sexual initiation. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159, 724-

729.

Sigusch, V. (2005). Neosexualitäten. Über den kulturellen Wandel von Liebe und Perversion.

Frankfurt, Germany: Campus.

Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. (2005). Surfende senioren [Surfing seniors]. Retrieved April

21, 2005, from http://www.scp.nl/nieuws/persberichten/9039523266.html.

Sprecher, S., & Hatfield, E. (1996). Premarital sexual standards among US college students:

Comparison with Russian and Japanese students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 261-

288.

Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of

information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 37, 1660-1672.

Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1980). Category accessibility and social perception: Some

implications for the study of person memory and interpersonal judgments. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 841-856.

 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 31

Steele, J. R. (1999). Teenage sexuality and media practice: Factoring in the influences of

family, friends, and school. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 331-341.

Subrahmanyam, K., Smahel, D., & Greenfield, P. M. (2006). Connecting developmental

constructions to the Internet: Identity presentation and sexual exploration in online teen

chat rooms. Developmental Psychology, 42, 395-406.

Suzuki, L. K., & Calzo, J. P. (2004). The search for peer advice in cyberspace: An examination

of online teen bulletin boards about health and sexuality. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 25, 685-698.

Thornburgh, D., & Lin, H. S. (2002). Youth, pornography, and the Internet. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents' online communication

and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43, 267-277.

Ward, L. M. (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults' attitudes and

assumptions about sexual relationships? Correlational and experimental confirmation.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 1-15.

Ward, L. M., & Friedman, K. (2006). Using TV as a guide: Associations between television

viewing and adolescents' sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 16, 133-156.

Waterman, C. K., & Nevid, J. S. (1977). Sex differences in the resolution of the identity crisis.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, 337-342.

Weeks, J. (1995). Invented moralities. Sexual values in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge:

Polity Press.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1988). Effects of prolonged consumption of pornography on family

values. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 518-544.

 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 32

Figure 1

Model of Perceptions of Sexually Explicit Online Material as Mediators and Gender as

Moderator

Unaffectionate Gender
sex
H3a

H2a
H1a

Exposure to Male Sexual

sexually explicit H1b H2b
dominance uncertainty
online material

H1c H2c
H3b

H3c
Female
objectification Gender
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 33

Figure 2

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Adolescents’ Perceptions of Sexually Explicit Online

Material

.63 e1
No emotions
.80
Unaffectionate
.77 e2
sex .88 No interest part

.91
Care him/herself .88 e3

.75

Men decide .80 e4

.90

.86
Male pleasure .74 e5
.59 Male
dominance
.89 Women satisfy .79 e6

.91
Women do what... .82 e7

.63

.72 e8
Woman plaything
.85

Female .68
Women passive .46 e9

objectification
.68 Female genitals .46 e10

Note. The full wording of the items can be found in the methods section.
 Exposure to Sexually Explicit Online Material 34

Table 1

Mediated and Moderated Effects in the Relation Between Exposure and Sexual Uncertainty

Hypotheses tested: H1a, H1b, H1c H3a H3b H3c

H2a, H2b, H2c Mediator = US Mediator = MD Mediator = FO
N = 1,519 B SE(B) B SE(B) B SE(B) B SE(B)

Total effect:
SEOM → SU .099c .020

Direct effect:
c
SEOM → SU .085 .020

Indirect effects:
SEOM → US .055a .026
SEOM → MD .060a .026
SEOM → FO .087c .023

Indirect effects:
US → SU .001 .025
MD → SU .119c .028
FO → SU .075
a .029
R square c
.090

Interaction effect:
Mediator -.012 .063 .110 .065 .119 .074
Gender .110 .132 .119 .120 .220 .139
Mediator X Gender .009 .039 .006 .006 -.029 -.029

Indirect effect:
Point estimate (95%
bca CI)
SEOM → US → SU .000 (-.003; .004)
SEOM → MD → SU .007 (.005; .026)
SEOM → FO → SU .007 (.001; .015)

Interaction effect:
Point estimate Male .000 -.001 .005
(95% bca CI) (-.001; 002) (-.001; .003) (.000; .012)
Point estimate Female .000 -.001 .004
(95% bca CI) (-.002; .001) (-.007; .003) (-.001; .011)

Note. US = Unaffectionate sex; MD = Male dominance; FO = Female objectification; SEOM =

Exposure to sexually explicit online material; Bca CI = bias-corrected accelerated confidence
interval. a p < .05, b p < .01, c p < .001 (two-tailed).
All models were controlled for gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, parental control,
religiosity, relationship status, sexual experience, life satisfaction, and exposure to sexual
content in media other than the internet