Mare Ainsaar & Gisela P riebe University of Tartu Lund University 200 7

1. Young people’s perception of harmfulness in answering to questions about sexuality and sexual abuse Mare Ainsaar & Gisela Priebe University of Tartu Lund University 2007 QMSS Conference Prague 2007-06-21

2. mare & gisela WHY to study? • Sexual abuse as important topic • Sensitive questions • Ethical issues

3. Research question • Risk faxtors for harm perception? • How are they interrelated?

4. mare ja gisela Method • Estonia + Sweden • 17- 18 year old • 1334 Estonia (44.5% males) • 3401 Sweden (45.9% males) • Correlations + structured equation model (LEM)

5. Groups • Victims (penetrating abuse) / non victims, non abusers. • Estonia, 80 (6.0%) • Sweden, 295 (8.7%) • Recall of harmful memories • Sexually inexperienced (no kissed, petted, had oral sex, anal sex or intercourse a girl or a boy)/ more experienced. • Estonia, 135 (10.1%) • Sweden, 257 (7.5%) • Shock • Background indicators (gender, country, mental health, gender and sexuality stereotypes) • 2 models

6. Perceived harmfulness = group of harmed • The questions were unpleasant to answer • One should not ask people such questions • The questions can have unfortunate impacts • I think the questions were too private • Harmed – 10% of having the highest scores of “harm index” in a joint sample • the line between two groups run above 12 points in summing “harm” indicator. The maximum value of harm could have been 20. “disturbance-line” 0 20

7. Hypothesis • Victims perceive survey more negative. • Victims with poor mental health perceive the survey more negative than other victims because of higher overall vulnerability. • With no experiences of voluntary sexual activities perceive the survey more negative • Country differences • Culture differences (immigrants)

8. Results • 8.4% of Swedish and 16.6% Estonian respondents belonged to the group of high harm • Correlation analyses: More harmful for • boys • immigrants • respondents with more stereotypical gender attitudes • sexually less experienced • with higher depression scores • in Sweden also for victims but this relationship did not reveal in Estonia

9. Modelling • Different models • Coparison of models • Selection of the best model

10. Models for victims and harm - LEM victim mental health perceivedharm (1) gender Immigrant victim perceivedharm mental health gender Immigrant (2) country stereotype

11. Model for non- experience and harm Immigrant Stereotype Harm Inexperienced Gender Mental health

12. Results • Survey was generally evaluated positively • Victims and less experienced perceived the survey more negative/harmful than non-victims, but • There are different models • More at the risk victims case: Mentally disturbed, experience as victim + more stereotypical views on gender • Inexperience influences directly • Mental health, stereotypes • Country differences only for victims • Similar results for correlation analyses

13. Further work using latent variables - AMOS(in cooperation with Martin Bäckström, Lund University) qu31_a qu31_b qu31_c qu31_d qu31_e qu31_f .64 .76 .68 .69 .51 .73 qu75_b .46 mental health qu36_d .53 .18 .12 .72 qu75_d harm victim .59 .00 .50 qu36_e qu75_h -.09 .55 -.06 .13 .73 .28 .14 -.13 qu75_k -.21 qu36_f gender stereotypes .54 -.19 qu30_f .53 immigrant country .53 .71 .76 .47 .65 qu30_a qu30_b qu30_c qu30_d qu30_e

14. More results • Gender stereotype (culture) may be moreimportant predictor for perception of harmfulness than mental status • Be aware of culture! (stereotypes) • Be aware of state of mental health!

15. Thank you! • QMSS