Women’s Sexual Communication with Their Peers and Its Association with Sexual Wellbeing

Abstract

Communication about sex is an important variable in sexual well-being, but sex remains a taboo topic, particularly for women. This study explores women’s peer sexual communication, and its association with their sexual well-being. A survey (N = 617) showed that women tend to solicit expressive, rather than instrumental, sexual communication from other women. Regression analyses revealed that peer sexual communication is associated with higher sexual self-efficacy, and sexual self-esteem, but also higher risky sexual norms perceptions. Peer sexual communication appears to be a potential vehicle for disseminating sexual information, as long as women have accurate and empowering information to start with.

Full text

1
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
'The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in
https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2018.1491923 .
Abstract
Communication about sex is an important variable in sexual well-being, but sex remains
a taboo topic, particularly for women. This study explores women’s peer sexual communication,
and its association with their sexual well-being. A survey (N = 617) showed that women tend to
solicit expressive, rather than instrumental, sexual communication from other women.
Regression analyses revealed that peer sexual communication is associated with higher sexual
self-efficacy, and sexual self-esteem, but also higher risky sexual norms perceptions. Peer sexual
communication appears to be a potential vehicle for disseminating sexual information, as long as
women have accurate and empowering information to start with.
Key words: adult sexuality, sexual health promotion, sexual communication, women

2
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Introduction
Sexual communication is increasingly being recognized as a requisite of sexual health
and well-being. The positive associations of sex-related communication are well-documented,
whether among sexual partners or between parents and children. Less research has focused on
the role of sexual communication between friends. Friends provide support, resources, and
advice, but we know little about exactly what kind of support and resources we receive from
friends when we talk to them about sex, nor how this relates to our sexual health and well-being.
Lesser still is known about sexual communication between women who are friends.
Women’s sexual communication has differences from men’s, not only because of some
differences in bodies and behaviors, but also because of sexual double-standards and the
gendered scripts women often must adhere to (Fugère, Escoto, Cousins, Riggs, & Haerich, 2008;
Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009; Norona, Thorne, Kerrick, Farwood, & Korobov, 2013; Trinh &
Ward, 2016). Talk about sex is often stigmatized for women (Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009).
Even when women talk to each other about sex they tend to emphasize traditional scripts that sex
is inappropriate (Montemurro, Bartasavich, & Wintermute, 2015). Yet women talk with their
same-gender friends about sex more than men do (Lefkowitz & Espinosa-Hernandez, 2007;
Trinh & Ward, 2016), and they talk more in-depth with other women (Norona et al., 2013; Trinh,
2016). The goal of the current study is to explore women’s sexual communication with their
women friends and its relationship with their sexual health and well-being.
Instrumental and Expressive Communication
Most research on peer sexual communication has measured communication in global
terms and focused on frequency (see Lefkowitz et al., 2004 and Lefkowitz & Espinosa-
Hernandez, 2007, for exceptions). Researchers have argued that the use of global measures of

3
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
sexual communication have resulted in mixed findings (Lefkowitz et al., 2004). One multi-
dimensional construct of sexual communication that has yet to be explored with peers is that of
instrumental and expressive communication. Grounded in social support theory, these constructs
explain how interpersonal communication leads to higher well-being through the exchange of
resources (Shumaker, 1984). The provision of instrumental and expressive support stimulates
positive attitudes and behaviors. Instrumental communication (sometimes called informational)
is outcome-oriented and focused on the sharing of resources, such as information and advice.
Expressive communication (sometimes called affective or relational communication) is focused
on intimacy and the emotional aspects of relationships, such as support and encouragement.
Instrumental and expressive social support have a positive influence on well-being (Cohen,
Underwood, & Gottlieb, 2000; Lakey & Cassady, 1990). In fact, researchers have found that
even the perception of support is influential to a person’s well-being (Haber, Cohen, Lucas, &
Baltes, 2007; Nabi, Prestin, & So, 2013).
Researchers have examined how instrumental and expressive communication function
between sexual partners, finding that both contribute to positive sexual interactions (Cupach &
Metts, 1991). Byers and colleagues (see Byers & Demmons, 1999; Byers & MacNeil, 2009)
have conducted multiple studies showing that communication with one’s partner is linked with
sexual satisfaction through expressive and instrumental pathways. The instrumental pathway
leads to sexual satisfaction by the disclosure of sexual likes and dislikes, which maximizes
pleasurable experiences. The expressive pathway leads to sexual satisfaction by creating
intimacy and closeness, which itself leads to greater sexual satisfaction. However, little is known
about the extent to which women receive instrumental and expressive support during sex-related
communication with their friends. Instrumental and expressive communication is likely very

4
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
different in friendships than it is in romantic relationships, but the underlying functions might be
similar. This study aims to understand how instrumental and expressive support from friends
relates to sexual well-being in adult women.
Research has demonstrated that people generally value both instrumental and expressive
communication with their friends (Bodie & Burleson, 2008; Burleson, Kunkel, Samter, &
Working, 1996; Finn & Powers, 2002). For example, Procopio and Procopio (2007) found that
during a crisis women and men reach out to peers online for both instrumental (information-
seeking) and expressive (cathartic descriptions of experiences) support. There is some evidence
that women tend to report valuing expressive communication more than instrumental
communication (Nathanson, Perse, & Ferguson, 1997), and women are typically perceived as
valuing and being more skilled at expressive support (Holmstrom, 2009; MacGeorge, Feng, &
Butler, 2003), although these differences are likely due in part to gendered perceptions of how
people should communicate. No known research has examined expressive and instrumental
sexual communication between friends. One content analysis of an anonymous “sex secrets”
Facebook page found that the majority of posts were seeking advice and information between
anonymous peers (Yeo & Chu, 2017). Another study found that when friends talk about their
romantic problems to each other they tend to focus mostly on validation and encouragement,
and, to a lesser degree, instrumental support (Morgan & Korobov, 2012). It is clear instrumental
and expressive communication are key social support mechanisms, so it is important to have a
better understanding of how they function in a peer sexual communication context.
Peer Sexual Communication and Sexual Outcomes
Most research on peer sexual communication has focused on the adolescent years, when
young people turn to their peers for information about sex (DiIorio, Kelley, & Hockenberry-

5
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Eaton, 1999). Some research has examined peer sexual communication in adulthood, mostly on
college students. By adulthood, communication with friends tends to become increasingly
influential (DiIorio et al., 1999; Lefkowitz et al., 2004; Lefkowitz & Espinosa-Hernandez, 2007;
Trinh, Ward, Day, Thomas, & Levin, 2014). A study by Trinh and Ward (2016) found that
women tend to convey conflicting messages to their friends, promoting both recreational and
conservative scripts about sex. Another study found that college students express strong attitudes
about gender equality but still frown upon promiscuity among women (Allison & Risman, 2013).
Because of these varied findings, a better understanding of the potentially beneficial and
detrimental outcomes associated with sexual communication between adult women is needed.
One sexual outcome that may have a relationship with peer sexual communication is
sexual self-efficacy. Sexual self-efficacy is an important determinant of protective sexual
behaviors (Albarracín, Johnson, Fishbein, & Muellerleile, 2001). One study found that
communication with friends about condoms has been associated with higher condom use self-
efficacy (Lefkowitz et al., 2004). However, another study showed that peer communication about
dating was associated with lower condom use self-efficacy, while peer communication about
fertility was associated with greater condom use self-efficacy (Lefkowitz & Espinosa-Hernandez,
2007). Studies have also found instrumental and emotional support to be associated with self-
efficacy in non-sexual domains (Leahy-Warren, McCarthy, & Corcoran, 2012).
Sexual self-esteem is another outcome that may be associated with peer sexual
communication between women. Sexual self-esteem, which is moderately correlated with
general self-esteem (Zeanah & Schwarz, 1996), is an individual’s sense of pride in their
sexuality. It has been associated with lower rates of sexual depression (Snell & Papini, 1989),
higher rates of sexual pleasure (Mayers, Heller, & Heller, 2003), and less sexual risk-taking

6
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
(Rosenthal, Moore, & Flynn, 1991; Zeanah & Schwarz, 1996). Studies have shown that positive
peer relationships in adolescence and emerging adulthood are correlated with higher self-esteem
in general (Sánchez-Queija, Oliva, & Parra, 2017).
Some studies suggest that peer sexual communication could also be associated with safer
sex practices. Talking to friends about sex has been associated with more positive safer sex
attitudes and intentions (Lefkowitz et al., 2004; O’Grady, Wilson, & Harman, 2009; Strader,
Beaman, & McSweeney, 1992), which are important antecedents of behaviors. Peer sexual
communication may also lead to knowledge-sharing about sexual health. Young women, in
particular, tend to talk to their friends about reproductive health (Hansen & Skjeldestad, 2003;
Jones, Biddlecom, Hebert, & Mellor, 2011; Young Pistella & Bonati, 1998). A study of online
teen bulletin boards found that sexual health was one of the most commonly discussed topics
(Suzuki & Calzo, 2004).
Another outcome that could be associated with peer sexual communication is norms
about risky sexual behaviors. Friends look to each other to compare and reinforce norms about
sex (Chia & Lee, 2008; Geary et al., 2007; Sennott & Mollborn, 2011; Wallace, Miller, &
Forehand, 2008; Warner, Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2011), such that believing it is
normal among your peers to have condomless sex is associated with being more likely to have
condomless sex, while believing that your peers usually use condoms is associated with using
condoms (Albarracín, Kumkale, & Johnson, 2004; Bon, Hittner, & Lawandales, 2001; Franssens,
Hospers, & Kok, 2009). Studies of adolescents show that young people who talk often to their
peers about sex are more likely to initiate sex earlier (Busse, Fishbein, Bleakley, & Hennessy,
2010), and young women are sometimes pressured by their friends to engage in sexual behavior
(Norris et al., 2015). Peer sexual communication in adulthood is also associated with normative

7
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
views about casual sex and having multiple partners (Katz, Tirone, & van der Kloet, 2012;
Montes, Blanco, & LaBrie, 2016). Because norms about risky sexual behavior are associated
with engaging in riskier behavior it is important to examine how peer communication could be
associated with those norms.
Investigating women’s instrumental and expressive sexual communication with their
peers, and any association this has with their sexual health and well-being, has important
implications for understanding how sexual attitudes and behaviors are spread through social
environments and for developing educational and intervention materials for enhancing sexual
communication and improving sexual well-being among women. The current study will explore
the extent to which women receive expressive and instrumental sexual communication from their
women friends and the relationship this has with their sexual health and well-being. The
following pre-registered research questions will be examined: RQ1: To what extent do women
employ instrumental and expressive communication when talking to their women friends about
sex? RQ2: What is the relationship between instrumental and expressive peer sexual
communication and sexual outcomes among women?
Methods
Participants and Recruitment
Upon approval from the institutional review board, participants were recruited using
Amazon Mechanical Turk. To qualify, they had to identify as women, reside in the United States,
and be over the age of 18. To limit variability within the sample participants also had to be
sexually active and have at least one current sexual partner. Sample size was determined to be
600 based on a total of 125 million adult women in the U.S., with a confidence level set at 95%
and margin of error at ±4. Slightly more (630) were sampled to allow room for data cleaning.

8
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Of the 617 participants who completed the survey, the average age was 36 (SD = 10.04)
(see Table 1 for all demographics). Because conservatism is sometimes correlated with sexual
attitudes (Aalsma et al., 2013; Schick, Zucker, & Bay-Cheng, 2008), political ideology was
measured. On a seven-point scale, with one being “very conservative” and seven being “very
liberal” the mean was close to the mid-point at 4.45 (SD = 1.77). Most participants were straight
(86%) and the remainder were gay or bisexual. No participants selected the open-ended “other”
option for gender, race, nor sexual orientation.
Procedures
To minimize selection bias, participants were initially informed that the survey was about
interpersonal communication, but no participants quit the survey upon being asked about sexual
communication. After informed consent procedures participants answered demographic
questions, followed by communication measures and sexual outcome measures. No identifying
information was collected from survey participants. People were screened out (n = 13) for failing
to pay attention or exert sufficient effort, by the inclusion of instructed and bogus items
throughout the survey (DeSimone, Harms, & DeSimone, 2015).
Measures
Where applicable, scale items were worded in ways that would apply to women
regardless of their biological sex and regardless of their sexual partner’s sex or gender. All scales
had a “not applicable” option. Some items borrowed from existing scales were re-worded to
apply to women regardless of sex and gender, and/or to make measures have consistent phrasing.
All questions were related to participants’ sexual communication with women friends to control
for variability and potential selection bias. All recall questions pertained to the last 12 months, to
focus on relatively recent, and more easily recalled experiences with sexual communication.

9
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Pilot testing. A piloting of all scales developed for this study was conducted prior to the
full study. Participants in the pilot study were 200 U.S. women recruited through Amazon
Mechanical Turk. Measures were reduced based on reliability and factor analysis. To improve
content validity, cognitive interviewing was done with three women. Based on these results
additional items were reworded or discarded.
Sexual outcomes. The sexual self-efficacy scale was developed to include self-efficacy
items related to safer sex practices and sexual pleasure. Based on a review of several self-
efficacy scales a 15-item scale was developed. Five items and response options from the Sexual
Health Practices: Self Efficacy scale (Koch, Colaco, & Porter, 2011), three items from the
Contraceptive Self Efficacy Scale (Levinson, 2011), and two items from the Multidimensional
Sexual Self-Concept Scale (Snell, Fisher, & Walters, 1993) were used. An additional five items
were created, such as “asking my partner to change something about our sex life”, and “asking a
partner if they have been tested for an STD”). The term “STD” was used throughout the survey
because it is more widely recognized than “STI.” Participants indicated how confident they are
doing each activity, on a scale from one (“not at all confident”) to five (“extremely confident”).
Reliability was high (α = .92).
Sexual self-esteem was measured based on the Multidimensional Sexual Self-Concept
sub-scale for sexual self-esteem (Snell et al., 1993). Participants were asked how much five
statements described them on a scale from one (“does not describe me at all”) to five (“very
much describes me”), including, for example “I feel a sense of pride from the way I handle my
own sexual needs” and “I feel good about the way I express my sexual desires” (α = .93).
Safer sex was measured with nine items from the Safe Sex Behavior Questionnaire
(DiIorio, 2011). Participants were asked to think about their sexual experiences over the last year

10
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
and indicated how often they did the following, including, for example “I ask potential sexual
partners about their sexual histories.” Participants responded on a scale from one (“never”) to
five (“always”) (α = .87). As with all the scales, “not applicable” was an option for each item.
As a measure of knowledge, participants’ awareness of safer sex options was captured by
asking participants how familiar they were with 12 forms of barrier and hormonal pregnancy-
and/or STI-prevention methods (e.g. the patch, the ring, and latex dams), and four methods of
STI vaccine and testing (e.g. the HPV vaccine and the HIV “quick” blood test). The sixteen
items were included based on a review of widely available contraceptive methods, and a review
of the Sexual Health Services Questionnaire (Butler, Black, Avery, Kelly, J., & Coster, 2011),
which offers an exhaustive list of contraception and STI testing. Participants answered on a scale
from one (“never heard of it”) to four (“very familiar”) (α = .89).
To measure norm perceptions of risky sexual behaviors, participants were asked to think
about the typical woman their age and estimate what percentage of them approve or disapprove
of ten risky sexual behaviors. Risky sexual behaviors are those that put a person at higher risk of
contracting an STI or having an unplanned pregnancy. Ten items were included based on a
review of items from two sexual risk behavior scales (DiIorio, 2011; Turchik & Garske, 2011)
Items included, for example, “Having casual sex without protection” and “having a ‘one-night
stand’.” The scale was from zero to one hundred (α = .86.)
Sexual communication measures. Because no instrumental or expressive sexual
communication scales exist, measures were created based on a review of other instrumental and
expressive communication scales (Eichhorn, 2008; Finn & Powers, 2002; Fitzpatrick & Indvik,
1982; Xu & Burleson, 2001). An initial list of 25 instrumental and 25 expressive sexual
communication items was developed. The list was provided to a convenience sample of 25

11
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
women aged 18-48 who were anonymously asked to indicate whether they had ever had a
conversation with a female friend about any of the topics. They were also invited to add items
not on the list. The instrumental and expressive sexual communication scales were developed
based on those results and based on later pilot testing. Instrumental sexual communication was
measured by asking participants “In the last year, how much have you done the following with a
female friend?” followed by 19 items, ten of which were related to sex in general, and nine of
which were related to safer sex (see Table 3 for the instrumental and expressive sexual
communication scales). Reliability was high (α = .95). While “woman friend” is technically
more accurate than “female friend,” because it uses a gendered term rather than biological term,
“female friend” was used in the survey because it is more colloquial. Expressive sexual
communication was measured by asking, “In the last year, to what extent has a female friend
done the following?” followed by eight items related to support and encouragement, on a scale
from one (“never”) to five (“a great deal”) (see Table 4). Reliability was high (α = .92).
Data Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences Version 21. First, descriptive analyses were carried out to test for normality. A paired t-
tests was conducted to compare differences between instrumental and expressive sexual
communication. Hierarchical regressions were conducted to measure the relationship between
expressive and instrumental sexual communication and sexual outcomes. Before conducting
regressions, demographic variables were first examined by correlation matrices. Age was the
only demographic variable that correlated higher than .20 with any key variable, and thus was
included as step one in all hierarchical regressions. A significance level of 5% was applied to all
statistical tests.

12
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Results
This study aimed to examine sexual communication between women and how it relates
to women’s sexual outcomes. The first research question asked the extent to which women
employ instrumental and expressive sexual communication when talking to their friends.
Expressive sexual communication was close to the mid-point, and instrumental sexual
communication was lower than the mid-point (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics for key
variables). Women engaged in expressive sexual communication significantly more than
instrumental sexual communication (t(539) = 30.41, p < .001).
To understand the relationship between instrumental and expressive sexual
communication and sexual outcomes among women, hierarchical regressions were conducted
with expressive and instrumental sexual communication as the independent variables (see Tables
5 and 6 for all regression outcomes). Controlling for age, expressive sexual communication
positively predicted sexual self-efficacy, while instrumental sexual communication was not
significantly predictive F(3, 427) = 7.43, p < .001. R2 = .05. A regression with self-esteem as the
outcome revealed that expressive sexual communication was positively associated with higher
self-esteem, but not instrumental sexual communication F(3, 540) = 12.18, p < .001. R2 = .07.
For safer sex, the regression was not significant, meaning neither instrumental nor
expressive sexual communication predicted safer sex behaviors. The regression for awareness of
safer sex options showed a significant model with instrumental, but not expressive sexual
communication associated with more knowledge F(3, 541) = 11.84, p < .001. R2 = .06. For risky
norm perceptions, age and instrumental and expressive sexual communication were significant
predictors F(3, 541) = 28.49, p < .001. R2 = .14. To summarize, expressive sexual
communication was significantly associated with self-efficacy, self-esteem, and risky norm

13
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
perceptions, while instrumental sexual communication was only associated with knowledge and
risky norm perceptions.
Using PROCESS (Hayes, 2012 ) a multiple mediation was conducted for indirect effect
significance using the bootstrap approach with 5000 samples, based on correlations between
variables. For the relationship between expressive sexual communication and sexual self-efficacy
mediation analysis was conducted on risky sexual norms, safer sex knowledge, and sexual self-
esteem. For the relationship between expressive sexual communication and sexual self-esteem,
mediation was conducted on knowledge. For expressive sexual communication and risky sexual
norms, knowledge was tested as a mediator. Knowledge was tested as a mediator for the
relationship between instrumental sexual communication and risky sexual norms, and risky
sexual norms was tested as a mediator for the relationship between instrumental sexual
communication and knowledge. No significant mediations were detected on any analysis.
Discussion
This study examined women’s peer sexual communication and its association with their
sexual health and well-being. Women engaged in more expressive sexual communication than
instrumental sexual communication with their women friends. This is consistent with past
research that people, especially women, tend to engage in expressive communication more than
instrumental communication with their peers. This finding also supports past research which
shows that women are more comfortable talking with their peers about sexuality when it is
constructed in terms of support and emotional bonding (Montemurro et al., 2015).
In examining how sexual communication was associated with sexual health and well-
being, expressive sexual communication was associated with sexual self-efficacy and sexual self-
esteem, although it only explained a small portion of the variance. Self-efficacy is often achieved

14
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
by learning from others, so it is somewhat surprising that instrumental sexual communication,
which tends to focus on information and instruction, was not associated with self-efficacy.
However, this finding suggests that support and encouragement from friends could also be a
potential way to increase sexual self-efficacy, and reap the benefits associated with it. The
relationship between sexual self-esteem and expressive sexual communication is not surprising,
given that expressive communication is about encouragement and other confidence-building
communications. These findings hint that expressive sexual communication may be beneficial,
but because the relationship is correlational, it is unclear whether women with higher sexual self-
efficacy and self-esteem are more likely to access expressive support from friends, or whether
accessing expressive support from friends leads to higher self-efficacy and self-esteem.
Peer sexual communication was not associated with safer sex behaviors. More research
about the exact nature of safer sex communication between friends is needed, but it may be that
because women endorse conservative scripts in their communication with women (Milhausen &
Herold, 1999; Minnis et al., 2012; Trinh, 2016) they fail to encourage safer sex practices among
each other. Doing so would require acknowledging that one is engaging in risky sex, which runs
counter to the sexual script. Indeed other research has shown that talk among women about
condoms or STIs is scarce (Lefkowitz et al., 2004; Patrick, Morgan, Maggs, & Lefkowitz, 2011,
see Rittenour & Booth-Butterfield, 2006, for an exception). Furthermore, safer sex practices are
one of the most challenges behaviors to predict and influence. Studies show that even when
people are knowledgeable about safer sex practices they often fail to engage in those practices
(Davis, Sloan, MacMaster, & Kilbourne, 2007; Ratliff-Crain, Donald, & Dalton, 1999). One
study showed that partner norms are the most predictive factor in safer sex practices (Fishbein,

15
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
von Haeften, & Appleyard, 2001), so it may be that peers do not exert sufficient influence on
safer sex behaviors.
While sexual communication between women was not associated with safer sex, it was
associated with awareness of safer sex methods. Instrumental sexual communication was
significantly related, but expressive sexual communication was not. Instrumental communication
is about sharing facts and information, so this association is likely due to the sharing of
knowledge about birth control methods. This is supported by prior research showing that peers
are a common source of information about contraception (Hansen & Skjeldestad, 2003; Jones et
al., 2011; Young Pistella & Bonati, 1998). Rittenour and Booth-Butterfield (2006) even found
that birth control was the most common sexual topic discussed by same-gender friends. This
finding suggests that peers may be a valuable source in generating awareness of birth control and
safer sex options. However, women do not always share information that is accurate (Ussher et
al., 2017), so accurate and accessible sexual health information for women remains crucial.
Both expressive and instrumental sexual communication were associated with higher
norm perceptions about endorsement of risky sexual behavior. This means that increased sexual
communication between women is associated with over-estimating the extent to which other
women approve of risky sexual behavior, which is supported by social norms research which has
shown that our perception of sexual norms comes in part from our peers. This is a somewhat
troubling association, as norm perceptions tend to guide future behavior, in a misplaced attempt
to fit in with the norm. Research has shown that college students over-estimate risky sexual
behavior among their peers, which is associated with their own risky sexual behaviors (Lewis,
Lee, Patrick, & Fossos, 2007). However, decades of research has shown that norm perceptions
can be “corrected” (see Berkowitz, 2004). One study even used peers to both correct

16
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
misperceived sexual norms and encourage preventive behavior (O’Grady, Wilson, & Harman,
2009). So, while peers may sometimes normalize risky sexual behavior, they can also be a source
for correcting this misinformation. This finding is also somewhat surprising because women tend
to sanction risky sexual behavior when talking to other women about sex (Menegatos, Lederman,
& Hess, 2010; Rittenour & Booth-Butterfield, 2006). One possibility is that communication
about others leads to these normative beliefs. While this study did not measure communication
about others, it may be that in women’s communication with each other they discuss other
women’s sexual behaviors, and in doing so generate norms that risky sexual behavior is more
acceptable. Past research has shown that women and men alike frequently engage in gossip about
same-gender and same-age others (McAndrew, Bell, & Garcia, 2007), and women tend to talk
about sexual reputation (Massar, Buunk, & Rempt, 2012). One study found that 84% of college
students discuss other people’s casual sex and hookups, and this was associated with higher norm
perceptions of risky sexual behavior (Holman & Sillars, 2012). More research is needed on how
peers communicate about the sex lives of others and how this perpetuates sexual norm
misperceptions.
Together these findings show that peer sexual communication has some beneficial and
concerning associations. These findings are not surprising given the conflicting discourse around
women’s sexuality. Talking with friends about sex is related to having more sexual self-efficacy,
self-esteem, and awareness of birth control safer sex options, but is not associated with safer sex
practices. It is also associated with potentially harmful norm perceptions about risky sexual
activity. While the latter may be problematic, this is not an indictment of open sexual
communication between peers. Silence begets shame and misinformation. Sexual
communication with peers is negatively associated with social stigma about sex (Ragsdale et al.,

17
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
2014). Encouraging empowering and informed communication about sex and other taboo topics
is a worthwhile effort and may lead to higher self-efficacy, self-esteem, and knowledge. Studies
have shown peer sex education to be an effective way to improve sexual well-being (Ochieng,
2003; Pearlman, Camberg, Wallace, Symons, & Finison, 2002). Training people to be peer
educators has been effective at increasing STI prevention (Caron, Godin, Otis, & Lambert, 2004;
Layzer, Rosapep, & Barr, 2014), and unplanned pregnancy prevention (Roberts-Dobie,
Rasmusson, & Losch, 2018). Participants who received peer-lead training about effective
communication strategies, such as disclosing HIV status to friends, reported better social support
and lower rates of depression (Brashers, Basinger, Rintamaki, Caughlin, & Para, 2017). Even
encouraging women to share sexual health information via social media may be an effective way
to increase sexual health knowledge (Zhang, Tsark, Campo, & Teti, 2015). The current study
adds to mounting evidence that peer sex education is a promising avenue for promoting sexual
health and wellness. Women may also benefit from exposure to sexual scripts that promote
sexual agency and assertiveness (Moyer-Gusé, Chung, & Jain, 2011). Studies have shown that
even brief exposure to positive messages about women’s sexuality can affect women’s attitudes
(Kim & Ward, 2012). School-based sexuality education may be another source for promoting
empowering scripts about women’s sexuality (Grose, Grabe, & Kohfeldt, 2014). As women
adopt sexual scripts that promote their sexual agency they may proliferate these ideas in
communication with other women.
It is important to note that associations between peer sexual communication and sexual
outcomes in the present study were small. Peer communication’s influence is not monolithic.
Upbringing, media exposure, and school-based and personal sexuality education also exert
impact on one’s sexual well-being. While peer sexual communication is still a viable source for

18
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
disseminating beneficial information, it must be in conjunction with sources that may exert
considerably more influence. Interestingly, no mediation effects were found in this study. This
suggests that sexual communication with peers may directly lead to sexual health outcomes, but
experimental research would need to confirm this. More research is needed to determine if other
variables could mediate these relationships, such as satisfaction with friendship (see Afifi, Afifi,
Merrill, Denes, & Davis, 2013), perception of risk/benefit to sexual disclosure communication
(see Denes, 2018), and computer-mediated versus face-to-face communication (Nabi et al.,
2013). Future research would also benefit from a deeper exploration of the role of culture in
sexual communication and social support between friends (Crockett et al., 2007; Feng & Wilson,
2012). Continuing to explore how women talk to other women about sex, and the beneficial and
problematic associations of this communication is crucial to developing educational materials
and interventions aimed at improving women’s sexual health and well-being. Researchers must
continue to explore the important role that sex-related communication with friends plays in
sexual attitudes and behaviors throughout the life course.
Limitations
This study provides important insights into how women talk to other women about sex,
and how this relates to their sexual health and well-being. However, the results were correlational
in nature. More experimental research is needed in this area to understand whether peer sexual
communication leads to higher self-efficacy, self-esteem, and norm perceptions, or whether
people who already score higher on those outcomes are more likely to talk about sex. This study
only examined communication between women. While this allowed for considerable control
over what is a highly gendered area of communication, what is gained in precision is lost in
generality. Men’s sexual communication with friends can be difficult (Noland, 2008) and our

19
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
understanding of the extent to which men engage in expressive and instrumental communication
is still lacking, as is our understanding of how that communication is associated with their sexual
health outcomes. Future research must continue to untangle the complicated nature of peer
sexual communication.
Works Cited
Aalsma, M. C., Woodrome, S. E., Downs, S. M., Hensel, D. J., Zimet, G. D., Orr, D. P., &
Fortenberry, J. D. (2013). Developmental trajectories of religiosity, sexual conservatism
and sexual behavior among female adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1193–
1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.08.005
Afifi, T., Afifi, W., Merrill, A. F., Denes, A., & Davis, S. (2013). “You need to stop talking about
this!”: Verbal rumination and the costs of social support. Human Communication
Research, 39(4), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12012
Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned
action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 127(1), 142–161.
Albarracín, D., Kumkale, G. T., & Johnson, B. T. (2004). Influences of social power and
normative support on condom use decisions: A research synthesis. AIDS Care, 16(6),
700–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540120412331269558
Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for “Hooking Up”: How far have we
come toward gender equality? Social Science Research, 42(5), 1191–1206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006

20
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The social norms approach: Theory, research and annotated
bibliography (pp. 1–47). Retrieved from
http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/social_norms.pdf
Bodie, G. D., & Burleson, B. R. (2008). Explaining variations in the effects of supportive
messages: A dual-process framework. In C. Beck (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (pp.
354–398). New York: Routledge.
Bon, R. S., Hittner, J. B., & Lawandales, J. L. (2001). Normative perceptions in relation to
substance use and HIV-risky sexual behaviors of college students. The Journal of
Psychology, 135(2), 165–178.
Brashers, D. E., Basinger, E. D., Rintamaki, L. S., Caughlin, J. P., & Para, M. (2017). Taking
control: The efficacy and durability of a peer-led uncertainty management intervention
for people recently diagnosed with HIV. Health Communication, 32, 11–21.
Burleson, B. R., Kunkel, A. W., Samter, W., & Working, K. J. (1996). Men’s and women’s
evaluations of communication skills in personal relationships: When sex differences
make a difference and when they don’t. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
13(2), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407596132003
Busse, P., Fishbein, M., Bleakley, A., & Hennessy, M. (2010). The role of communication with
friends in sexual initiation. Communication Research, 37, 239–249.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209356393
Butler, S. M., Black, D. R., Avery, G. H., Kelly, J., & Coster, D. C. (2011). Sexual Health
Services Questionnaire. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.),
Handbook of Sexuality Related Measures (3rd ed., pp. 335–340). New York, NY:
Routledge.

21
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Byers, E. S., & Demmons, S. (1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating
relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 180–189.
Byers, E. S., & MacNeil, S. (2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of
long-term heterosexual couples. The Journal of Sex Research, 46(1).
Caron, F., Godin, G., Otis, J., & Lambert, L. D. (2004). Evaluation of a theoretically based
AIDS/STD peer education program on postponing sexual intercourse and on condom use
among adolescents attending high school. Health Education Research, 19(2), 185–197.
https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg017
Chia, S. C., & Lee, W. (2008). Pluralistic ignorance about sex: the direct and the indirect effects
of media consumption on college students’ misperception of sex-related peer norms.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(1), 52–73.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn005
Cohen, S., Underwood, L. G., & Gottlieb, B. H. (2000). Social Support Measurement and
Intervention : A Guide for Health and Social Scientists. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Crockett, L. J., Iturbide, M. I., Torres Stone, R. A., McGinley, M., Raffaelli, M., & Carlo, G.
(2007). Acculturative stress, social support, and coping: Relations to psychological
adjustment among Mexican American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 13(4), 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.4.347
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1991). Sexuality and communication in close relationships. In K.
McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 93–110). Hillsdale,
N.J.: Erlbaum.

22
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Davis, C., Sloan, M., MacMaster, S., & Kilbourne, B. (2007). HIV/AIDS knowledge and sexual
activity: An examination of racial differences in a college sample. Health & Social Work;
Oxford, 32(3), 211–218.
Denes, A. (2018). Toward a post-sex disclosures model: Exploring the associations among
orgasm, self-disclosure, and relationship satisfaction. Communication Research, 45(3),
297–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215619216
DeSimone, J. A., Harms, P. D., & DeSimone, A. J. (2015). Best practice recommendations for
data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 171–181.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1962
DiIorio, C. K. (2011). Safe sex behavior questionnaire. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L.
Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality Related Measures (3rd ed., pp. 594–
596). New York, NY: Routledge.
DiIorio, C., Kelley, M., & Hockenberry-Eaton, M. (1999). Communication about sexual issues:
Mothers, fathers, and friends. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24(3), 181–189.
Eichhorn, K. C. (2008). Soliciting and providing social support over the internet: An
investigation of online eating disorder support groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 14(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01431.x
Feng, H., & Wilson, S. R. (2012). Cultural variations in the reasons people provide avoidance
support. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(1), 64–87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2011.637639
Finn, A., & Powers, W. G. (2002). The value of instrumental and affective communication skills
in different relational stages. Communication Quarterly, 50(2), 192–203.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370209385656

23
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Fishbein, M., von Haeften, I., & Appleyard, J. (2001). The role of theory in developing effective
interventions: Implications from Project SAFER. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 6(2),
223–238.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Indvik, J. (1982). The instrumental and expressive domains of marital
communication. Human Communication Research, 8(3), 195–213.
Franssens, D., Hospers, H. J., & Kok, G. (2009). Social-cognitive determinants of condom use in
a cohort of young gay and bisexual men. AIDS Care, 21(11), 1471–1479.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540120902883127
Fugère, M. A., Escoto, C., Cousins, A. J., Riggs, M. L., & Haerich, P. (2008). Sexual attitudes
and double standards: A literature review focusing on participant gender and ethnic
background. Sexuality & Culture; New York, 12(3), 169–182.
http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.1007/s12119-008-9029-7
Geary, C. W., Burke, H. M., Castelnau, L., Neupane, S., Sall, Y. B., Wong, E., & Tucker, H. T.
(2007). MTV’s “Staying Alive” global campaign promoted interpersonal communication
about HIV and positive beliefs about HIV prevention. AIDS Education and Prevention,
19(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2007.19.1.51
Grose, R. G., Grabe, S., & Kohfeldt, D. (2014). Sexual education, gender ideology, and youth
sexual empowerment. Journal of Sex Research, 51(7), 742–753.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.809511
Haber, M. G., Cohen, J. L., Lucas, T., & Baltes, B. B. (2007). The relationship between self-
reported received and perceived social support: A meta-analytic review. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 133–144.

24
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Hamilton, L., & Armstrong, E. A. (2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds
and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23(5), 589–616.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243209345829
Hansen, T., & Skjeldestad, F. E. (2003). Communication about contraception and knowledge of
oral contraceptives amongst Norwegian high school students. Journal of Adolescence,
26(4), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1971(03)00031-9
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/
public/process2012.pdf
Holman, A., & Sillars, A. (2012). Talk about “hooking up”: The influence of college student
social networks on nonrelationship sex. Health Communication, 27, 205–216.
Holmstrom, A. J. (2009). Sex and Gender Similarities and Differences in Communication Values
in Same-Sex and Cross-Sex Friendships. Communication Quarterly, 57(2), 224–238.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370902889455
Jones, R. K., Biddlecom, A. E., Hebert, L., & Mellor, R. (2011). Teens reflect on their sources of
contraceptive information. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26(4), 423–446.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558411400908
Katz, J., Tirone, J., & van der Kloet, E. (2012). Moving in and hooking up: Women’s and men’s
casual sexual experiences during the first two months of college. Electronic Journal of
Human Sexuality, 15(March). Retrieved from
http://www.ejhs.org/volume15/Hookingup.html

25
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Kim, J. L., & Ward, L. M. (2012). Striving for pleasure without fear: Short-term effects of
reading a women’s magazine on women’s sexual attitudes. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 36(3), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312442856
Koch, P. B., Colaco, C., & Porter, A. (2011). Sexual health practices self-efficacy scale. In T. D.
Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality Related
Measures (3rd ed., pp. 186–188). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lakey, B., & Cassady, P. B. (1990). Cognitive processes in perceived social support. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.59.2.337
Layzer, C., Rosapep, L., & Barr, S. (2014). A peer education program: Delivering highly reliable
sexual health promotion messages in schools. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(3,
Supplement), S70–S77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.12.023
Leahy-Warren, P., McCarthy, G., & Corcoran, P. (2012). First-time mothers: Social support,
maternal parental self-efficacy and postnatal depression. Journal of Clinical Nursing,
21(3–4), 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03701.x
Lefkowitz, E. S., Boone, T. L., & Shearer, C. L. (2004). Communication with best friends about
sex-related topics during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(4),
339–351. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000032642.27242.c1
Lefkowitz, E. S., & Espinosa-Hernandez, G. (2007). Sex-related communication with mothers
and close friends during the transition to university. The Journal of Sex Research, 44(1),
17–27.

26
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Levinson, R. A. (2011). Contraceptive self-efficacy scale. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L.
Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality Related Measures (3rd ed., pp. 186–
188). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lewis, M. A., Lee, C. M., Patrick, M. E., & Fossos, N. (2007). Gender-specific normative
misperceptions of risky sexual behavior and alcohol-related risky sexual behavior. Sex
Roles; 57(1–2), 81–90. http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9218-0
MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Butler, G. L. (2003). Gender differences in the communication
values of mature adults. Communication Research Reports, 20(3), 191–199.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090309388817
Massar, K., Buunk, A. P., & Rempt, S. (2012). Age differences in women’s tendency to gossip
are mediated by their mate value. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(1), 106–
109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.09.013
Mayers, K. S., Heller, D. K., & Heller, J. A. (2003). Damaged sexual self-esteem: A kind of
disability. Sexuality and Disability, 21(4), 269–282.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SEDI.0000010069.08844.04
McAndrew, F. T., Bell, E. K., & Garcia, C. M. (2007). Who do we tell and whom do we tell on?
Gossip as a strategy for status enhancement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(7),
1562–1577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00227.x
Menegatos, L., Lederman, L. C., & Hess, A. (2010). Friends don’t let Jane hook up drunk: A
qualitative analysis of participation in a simulation of college drinking-related decisions.
Communication Education, 59(3), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634521003628909
Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist?
Perceptions of university women. The Journal of Sex Research, 36(4), 361–368.

27
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Minnis, A., Marchi, K., Ralph, L., Biggs, M., Combellick, S., Arons, A., … Braveman, P. (2012).
Limited Socioeconomic Opportunities and Latina Teen Childbearing: A Qualitative Study
of Family and Structural Factors Affecting Future Expectations. Journal of Immigrant
and Minority Health, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-012-9653-z
Montemurro, B., Bartasavich, J., & Wintermute, L. (2015). Let’s (not) talk about sex: The gender
of sexual discourse. Sexuality & Culture; New York, 19(1), 139–156.
http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.1007/s12119-014-9250-5
Montes, K. S., Blanco, L., & LaBrie, J. W. (2016). The relationship between perceived hookup
attitudes and negative hookup consequences: Do perceived attitudes of close friends
matter? The Journal of Sex Research, 54, 1128–1140.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1258535
Morgan, E. M., & Korobov, N. (2012). Interpersonal identity formation in conversations with
close friends about dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1471–1483.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.09.005
Moyer-Gusé, E., Chung, A. H., & Jain, P. (2011). Identification with characters and discussion of
taboo topics after exposure to an entertainment narrative about sexual health. Journal of
Communication, 61(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01551.x
Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring
social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being.
CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 16(10), 721–727.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0521

28
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Nathanson, A. I., Perse, E. M., & Ferguson, D. A. (1997). Gender differences in television use:
An exploration of the instrumental‐expressive dichotomy. Communication Research
Reports, 14(2), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099709388659
Noland, C. (2008). “Macho men don’t communicate”: The role of communication in hiv
prevention. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16(1), 18–31.
https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1601.18
Norona, J. C., Thorne, A., Kerrick, M. R., Farwood, H. B., & Korobov, N. (2013). Patterns of
intimacy and distancing as young women (and men) friends exchange stories of romantic
relationships. Sex Roles, 68(7–8), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0262-7
Norris, A. E., Pettigrew, J., Miller-Day, M., Hecht, M. L., Hutchison, J., & Campoe, K. (2015).
Resisting pressure from peers to engage in sexual behavior: What communication
strategies do early adolescent Latino girls use? Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(4), 562–
580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614544962
Ochieng, B. M. N. (2003). Adolescent health promotion: The value of being a peer leader in a
health education/ promotion peer education programme. Health Education Journal,
62(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/001789690306200107
O’Grady, M. A., Wilson, K., & Harman, J. J. (2009). Preliminary findings from a brief, peer-led
safer sex intervention for college students living in residence halls. The Journal of
Primary Prevention, 30(6), 716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-009-0195-7
Patrick, M. E., Morgan, N., Maggs, J. L., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2011). “‘I got your back’”:
Friends’ understandings regarding college student spring break behavior. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence; New York, 40(1), 108–120.

29
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Pearlman, D. N., Camberg, L., Wallace, L. J., Symons, P., & Finison, L. (2002). Tapping youth as
agents for change: evaluation of a peer leadership HIV/AIDS intervention. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 31(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00379-8
Procopio, C. H., & Procopio, S. T. (2007). Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans?
Internet communication, geographic community, and social capital in crisis. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 35(1), 67–87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880601065722
Ragsdale, K., Bersamin, M. M., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Kerrick, M. R., & Grube, J.
W. (2014). Development of sexual expectancies among adolescents: Contributions by
parents, peers and the media. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 551–560.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.753025
Ratliff-Crain, J., Donald, K. M., & Dalton, J. (1999). Knowledge, beliefs, peer norms, and past
behaviors as correlates of risky sexual behaviors among college students. Psychology &
Health, 14(4), 625.
Rittenour, C. E., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2006). College Students’ Sexual Health: Investigating
the Role of Peer Communication. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 7(1),
57–65.
Roberts-Dobie, S., Rasmusson, A., & Losch, M. E. (2018). The Speak Up! Salon project: Using
hair stylists as lay health educators about unintended pregnancy. Health Promotion
Practice, 19(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839917690334
Rosenthal, D., Moore, S., & Flynn, I. (1991). Adolescent self-efficacy, self-esteem and sexual
risk-taking. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 1(2), 77–88.

30
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Sánchez-Queija, I., Oliva, A., & Parra, Á. (2017). Stability, change, and determinants of self-
esteem during adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 34(8), 1277–1294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516674831
Schick, V. R., Zucker, A. N., & Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2008). Safer, better sex through feminism: The
role of feminist ideology in women’s sexual well-being. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
32(3), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00431.x
Sennott, C., & Mollborn, S. (2011). College-bound teens’ decisions about the transition to sex:
Negotiating competing norms. Advances in Life Course Research, 16(2), 83–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2011.05.001
Shumaker, S. A. (1984). Toward a theory of social support: closing conceptual gaps. Journal of
Social Issues, (40), 11–36.
Snell, W. E., Fisher, T. D., & Walters, A. S. (1993). The multidimensional sexuality
questionnaire: An objective self-report measure of psychological tendencies associated
with human sexuality. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 6(1), 27–55.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107906329300600102
Snell, W. E., & Papini, D. R. (1989). The sexuality scale: An instrument to measure sexual‐
esteem, sexual‐depression, and sexual‐preoccupation. Journal of Sex Research, 26(2),
256–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498909551510
Strader, M., Beaman, M. L., & McSweeney, M. (1992). Effects of communication with
important social referents on beliefs and intentions to use condoms. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 17(6), 699–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01967.x

31
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
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(6), 685–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.09.002
Trinh, S. L. (2016). “Enjoy your sexuality, but do it in secret”: Exploring undergraduate women’s
reports of friends’ sexual communications. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 96–
107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315596914
Trinh, S. L., & Ward, L. M. (2016). The nature and impact of gendered patterns of peer sexual
communications among heterosexual emerging adults. The Journal of Sex Research,
53(3), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1015715
Trinh, S. L., Ward, L. M., Day, K., Thomas, K., & Levin, D. (2014). Contributions of Divergent
Peer and Parent Sexual Messages to Asian American College Students’ Sexual Behaviors.
Journal of Sex Research, 51(2), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.721099
Turchik, J. A., & Garske, J. P. (2011). Sexual risk survey. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L.
Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality Related Measures (3rd ed., pp. 600–
602). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ussher, J. M., Perz, J., Metusela, C., Hawkey, A. J., Morrow, M., Narchal, R., & Estoesta, J.
(2017). Negotiating discourses of shame, secrecy, and silence: Migrant and refugee
women’s experiences of sexual embodiment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(7), 1901–
1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0898-9
Wallace, S. A., Miller, K. S., & Forehand, R. (2008). Perceived peer norms and sexual intentions
among African American preadolescents. AIDS Education and Prevention, 20(4), 360–
369.

32
Running head: WOMEN’S SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH PEERS
Warner, T. D., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2011). Everybody’s doin’ it
(right?): Neighborhood norms and sexual activity in adolescence. Social Science
Research, 40(6), 1676–1690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.06.009
Xu, Y., & Burleson, B. R. (2001). Effects of sex, culture, and support type on perceptions of
spousal social support: An assessment of the “support gap” hypothesis in early marriage.
Human Communication Research, 27, 535–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2958.2001.tb00792.x
Yeo, T. E. D., & Chu, T. H. (2017). Sharing “sex secrets” on Facebook: A content analysis of
youth peer communication and advice exchange on social media about sexual health and
intimate relations. Journal of Health Communication, 22(9), 753–762.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2017.1347217
Young Pistella, C. L., & Bonati, F. A. (1998). Communication about sexual behavior among
adolescent women, their family, and peers. Families in Society, 79(2), 206–211.
Zeanah, P. D., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996). Reliability and validity of the sexual self-esteem
inventory for women. Assessment, 3(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107319119600300101
Zhang, N., Tsark, J., Campo, S., & Teti, M. (2015). Facebook for health promotion: Female
college students’ perspectives on sharing HPV vaccine information through Facebook.
Hawai’i Journal of Medicine & Public Health, 74(4), 136–140.