TABLE 3.
Logistic Regressions of Sexting Behaviors: Cell Phone Using LAUSD High School Students Los Angeles, CA, 2011
| Personal Sexting n = 1578 | Sexually Active n = 1536 | Unprotected Sex at Last Intercourse n = 616 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |||||||||
| Age | 1.17 | 1.02 | 1.33 | ** | 1.65 | 1.49 | 1.82 | *** | 1.18 | 1.02 | 1.36 | ** | ||
| Male | 1.28 | 0.94 | 1.74 | 1.74 | 1.39 | 2.19 | *** | 0.54 | 0.38 | 0.76 | ** | |||
| Race/Ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino = 0) | ||||||||||||||
| Black/African American | 2.75 | 1.86 | 4.06 | *** | 1.11 | 0.76 | 1.63 | 1.08 | 0.66 | 1.78 | ||||
| White | 1.44 | 0.86 | 2.39 | 0.91 | 0.61 | 1.36 | 1.20 | 0.67 | 2.16 | |||||
| Other race/ethnicity | 1.55 | 0.89 | 2.71 | 0.58 | 0.37 | 0.90 | ** | 1.02 | 0.50 | 2.06 | ||||
| Sexuality (LGBTQ = 1) | 2.74 | 1.86 | 4.04 | *** | 1.52 | 1.07 | 2.15 | ** | 1.84 | 1.17 | 2.89 | *** | ||
| Know someone who sexts (Yes = 1) | 16.87 | 9.62 | 29.59 | *** | ||||||||||
| Personal sexting (Yes = 1) | 7.17 | 5.01 | 10.25 | *** | 1.41 | 0.97 | 2.04 | * | ||||||
| −2 Log | 1356.30 | 2084.08 | 833.43 | |||||||||||
| Pseudo R-Square | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.05 | |||||||||||
*
*P < .10.
**
**P < .05.
***
***P < .01.