<%BANNER%>

Internet Use and its Effect on Sexual Behavior in Traditional College-Age Students

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022054/00001

Material Information

Title: Internet Use and its Effect on Sexual Behavior in Traditional College-Age Students
Physical Description: 1 online resource (195 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Nursing -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Nursing Sciences thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Our purpose was to explore how technology, specifically internet use, gender and ethnicity may affect decision making, and influence sexual decision making in traditional college students. Using a 'paper-survey' designed by using Goodson and colleagues' (2000) survey tool 'Survey Instrument to Assess College Students' Behavior and Attitudes' to document demographic information as well as college student's perceptions and behaviors while using the internet (specifically for sexually related information) was modified into an actual internet survey document. Using mass emails, participants in this study were solicited from two university campuses in Florida. Due to their divergent populations, a small private Historically Black College/University (HBCU) as well as a large Florida public university (PFU) were chosen. Overall, 1202 students participated in the study. Results of this study demonstrate differences in gender, age, race and university of record. These differences appear in developing relationships, online sexual behaviors, email use, and offline sexual behaviors. The results indicate that students who are 23 and older are more likely to value the importance of the internet, and also value the opportunity to engage in developing online partners for different relationships that include online sexual activity when compared to their younger counterparts. Gender differences are also identified as an inverse relationship when combined with age. Females are less likely to use the internet as they age, and the opposite is true for males within this sample population. This information may provide insight into program changes that would target individuals based upon gender. The study also demonstrated racial differences in internet use. It is important to note that this area needs to be replicated specifically because socioeconomic factors were not taken into account, and therefore may have a significant impact upon the validity of the results. Therefore any future reports of racial differences using results of this study should be used with that cautionary note. The evidence of data obtained by this preliminary study of internet use and sexual behaviors of traditional college age students demonstrates the immediate need for future studies that target internet use and sexual behaviors by race, gender, and age. These studies should specifically look at the aspect of heightened sexual behavior as a result of frequency of internet use through the emerging adult years.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Simpson, Sharleen H.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022054:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022054/00001

Material Information

Title: Internet Use and its Effect on Sexual Behavior in Traditional College-Age Students
Physical Description: 1 online resource (195 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Nursing -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Nursing Sciences thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Our purpose was to explore how technology, specifically internet use, gender and ethnicity may affect decision making, and influence sexual decision making in traditional college students. Using a 'paper-survey' designed by using Goodson and colleagues' (2000) survey tool 'Survey Instrument to Assess College Students' Behavior and Attitudes' to document demographic information as well as college student's perceptions and behaviors while using the internet (specifically for sexually related information) was modified into an actual internet survey document. Using mass emails, participants in this study were solicited from two university campuses in Florida. Due to their divergent populations, a small private Historically Black College/University (HBCU) as well as a large Florida public university (PFU) were chosen. Overall, 1202 students participated in the study. Results of this study demonstrate differences in gender, age, race and university of record. These differences appear in developing relationships, online sexual behaviors, email use, and offline sexual behaviors. The results indicate that students who are 23 and older are more likely to value the importance of the internet, and also value the opportunity to engage in developing online partners for different relationships that include online sexual activity when compared to their younger counterparts. Gender differences are also identified as an inverse relationship when combined with age. Females are less likely to use the internet as they age, and the opposite is true for males within this sample population. This information may provide insight into program changes that would target individuals based upon gender. The study also demonstrated racial differences in internet use. It is important to note that this area needs to be replicated specifically because socioeconomic factors were not taken into account, and therefore may have a significant impact upon the validity of the results. Therefore any future reports of racial differences using results of this study should be used with that cautionary note. The evidence of data obtained by this preliminary study of internet use and sexual behaviors of traditional college age students demonstrates the immediate need for future studies that target internet use and sexual behaviors by race, gender, and age. These studies should specifically look at the aspect of heightened sexual behavior as a result of frequency of internet use through the emerging adult years.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Simpson, Sharleen H.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022054:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101107_AAAAAC INGEST_TIME 2010-11-07T06:05:35Z PACKAGE UFE0022054_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 45602 DFID F20101107_AAADHF ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH pritchard_p_Page_092.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
bae490d062ac3629d223404a59663183
SHA-1
cbd57ee21464648f1654d121fc741e11f0dd8206
56449 F20101107_AAADGQ pritchard_p_Page_041.pro
b46dbbd499d4269d4b2d43e18034ff58
05d2efe15bf296a88dea4a3f77b4a402a41998f2
5375 F20101107_AAABXU pritchard_p_Page_140thm.jpg
c8fe9218b9314478db0d710e0790e8c7
10f2894a2832744e681d0e1b29454230dac95923
25271604 F20101107_AAACED pritchard_p_Page_186.tif
ba8d6f88b2297458fdff03f3e51a43fd
f48b13c15f2b4656c041c7e2463244dd325f1506
F20101107_AAACDO pritchard_p_Page_146.tif
97d0f3a25dfead878ca92e5833fc4388
408ef029cd15295c7128e6289fca59beecd144e1
18096 F20101107_AAABYI pritchard_p_Page_143.QC.jpg
9fff87edbf1664f4d9e4cca262450682
57c533b9df35a841cfd11139b2ec5c8652cb192d
51169 F20101107_AAADHG pritchard_p_Page_097.pro
63260892faf316de5453e2bc1bfa071e
95083d104b68efd718989869e6faeaac41d4f03c
54289 F20101107_AAADGR pritchard_p_Page_043.pro
4214df3e1f564b4d903368a017475c01
6e177dc7f0ef45551bb6a1056cb5b1d7c35f1e62
18022 F20101107_AAABXV pritchard_p_Page_137.QC.jpg
336280134b238662fc2ec0f7747c3632
cc091b39f406c99aaedea84addda05aa0a5c4f62
7617 F20101107_AAACEE pritchard_p_Page_091thm.jpg
017184f32ed51a0b9686ffc36e617d99
c419a5164b7fb0e12922b84bee8635d53e2f88b3
740571 F20101107_AAACDP pritchard_p_Page_113.jp2
7f734975ebf7f00d12f3aa130c68a075
d9f9aea761400bcd2490c2e14f19151a10562b61
441765 F20101107_AAABYJ pritchard_p_Page_104.jp2
0113ccea2e873ee3eb1f814d682fa905
40e0c30305c82fb240387ad5b238e9c21211ad33
47911 F20101107_AAADHH pritchard_p_Page_098.pro
53c710906d4a3bbec2eb4a3f0e371542
fe41f652b76c21bf1105e4a9ea381d402ae73984
49803 F20101107_AAADGS pritchard_p_Page_045.pro
0d299a1f08248e8639d074fc1dd668f5
c50da5f09693a89dab603d6eb41961868745586c
52569 F20101107_AAABXW pritchard_p_Page_061.pro
cd7e9126f6cde66c829df5528230eb44
71cc80e7dcec5737260a137e09bd1943d4818b29
2027 F20101107_AAACEF pritchard_p_Page_168.txt
fd069011471393dd1017611e49993029
6e4c1d8d0839597278e5f82f5e5973b93507a205
936346 F20101107_AAACDQ pritchard_p_Page_115.jp2
c1d5e54da0fe50303366f6b8fe5a08e6
bd241b498778084e32f11a48de2f7cd81040a495
22024 F20101107_AAABYK pritchard_p_Page_080.QC.jpg
fa2e7d6017211799ef046f4727de260e
b52170e7960b306e36b69e43f990190b1e5741f3
29737 F20101107_AAADHI pritchard_p_Page_102.pro
f2864f82fc0a5595591c5176985ba60e
49ca0413d859338fd42c4364813beb4b20c8e78e
50171 F20101107_AAADGT pritchard_p_Page_049.pro
b50b3e07a4a4e7181533857bc5728401
a050906084b61788146e66deaa5caef4e83ed4e7
1563 F20101107_AAABXX pritchard_p_Page_123.txt
96e9acb753b3fdc952f6650481887e06
b6b35e65cf6206edcdee251eb7c6bcbe4bd460e8
F20101107_AAACEG pritchard_p_Page_187.tif
a1205552d103fd51117321e01d5c4897
d87974f2804fdc0da95e4108b511a82fe014e571
67602 F20101107_AAABZA pritchard_p_Page_141.jpg
b5e4cf724297125b6efbc5d1551c0653
4f6eb9e67622f0f9bc0d7ffef2d69271f8b1252a
8984 F20101107_AAACDR pritchard_p_Page_041thm.jpg
fdf706f283d2eaab54cb95d9daab70ab
b5ab4f085d8984214b6088a266a6894a7434407e
8709 F20101107_AAABYL pritchard_p_Page_034thm.jpg
9e2fbbedaf6af0e04d34c68a89c0e562
963c8c66f67147fc129aec67d858acb4283674d2
31056 F20101107_AAADHJ pritchard_p_Page_103.pro
c3207a806336b8f333d6d72eb847cdae
13667bd454351f7e49918a6f6567b1560c939342
46411 F20101107_AAADGU pritchard_p_Page_052.pro
bb5586547ad25ef9be7c6c07ede19cd2
0237a5372241e82bdda366ae3133d914c5d3e998
1949 F20101107_AAABXY pritchard_p_Page_149.txt
c49a0eba9c9c4719769cf90b8f9bcda9
64e97820defce9d9daf6f95c79c4c422072fdccf
F20101107_AAACEH pritchard_p_Page_105.tif
e26f1e42c3051aae82e6620873b0803d
8680a634859953eec500a5390a6f17eeb4da6ea1
29736 F20101107_AAABZB pritchard_p_Page_148.pro
f9468788fbd33a13840a53a52213efe1
65b177ff0057f2ed94f48163bf5fb991d94470e5
1051972 F20101107_AAACDS pritchard_p_Page_072.jp2
67d740ba03e23cb03681f6cd9b772836
99ed642ef30cbe93057bba500bd4ab5bb31506ec
36036 F20101107_AAABYM pritchard_p_Page_169.QC.jpg
28bf2c85dc466b745a99c6d5bb3505ff
38623efb789d7811f8c8171988a3c4ea8a3bcd36
50147 F20101107_AAADHK pritchard_p_Page_107.pro
3bf2089b9563670e86f1cc90e872e906
1cbe1eb34d009e3aee956111627548e7291fa7e2
47394 F20101107_AAADGV pritchard_p_Page_054.pro
f09c8f95f0b06fc003fc9fc43e98562c
1b28b798d30dbfe5580c1ae0917ee2806eac0f5d
13347 F20101107_AAABXZ pritchard_p_Page_136.QC.jpg
b3fd3234864c2e2ca32ce2bacf49bb47
80bac96a5d091add6df6905cd92a6b05af32233a
1051970 F20101107_AAACEI pritchard_p_Page_164.jp2
896e923b5a801ccd7db8d61c93cf7bba
c72508ebea9d032f6f245566bd6d3915c392f9dd
105112 F20101107_AAABZC pritchard_p_Page_116.jpg
e86fbf6355c4c53431f1ab0360df7045
643385f0c731fced8789b4409ed617d80be9a93b
79549 F20101107_AAACDT pritchard_p_Page_082.jpg
0dc4ce35d6f6518135654c173089f598
a78b9f2e56767d87414b180761e282f00a10810c
14096 F20101107_AAABYN pritchard_p_Page_106.QC.jpg
1d822e399b5924a9b59cafc9feb96d4a
a51b600c17854ca47a03ba04ff059f9ea8f84e32
39964 F20101107_AAADHL pritchard_p_Page_112.pro
0927ef8564deb931435e4af8528c5924
bdf1dc94279ad6835435e8c7a1e3c4715e910bea
10646 F20101107_AAADGW pritchard_p_Page_056.pro
87844eb06e3fa7294beb79dfd77e372d
f2d7f7718c3e1b88467928d2afe0a47441e8a8ca
12453 F20101107_AAACEJ pritchard_p_Page_095.QC.jpg
c67b87b9340ddb08ba1c040d7d57210d
69849a01679cde0301cd5c00d70a026f70a73a77
88698 F20101107_AAACDU pritchard_p_Page_058.jpg
98ecd89e9e039bdae7b07c19f7b00973
4b0c23e2c77293c3007cd629540f4853126063ff
F20101107_AAABYO pritchard_p_Page_173.tif
2cfbbdc6d036cfe02861370f31f6c5ee
6da513a6e81618c2259825f74d3243267de68605
39272 F20101107_AAADIA pritchard_p_Page_187.pro
1f8e881d6bbf50fd10e465384ca424da
90609c69c8384a537acb9febe30abd8273c573e8
43168 F20101107_AAADHM pritchard_p_Page_113.pro
5dca2bc56b91c6531dcc2bf09d035808
cefe860da4fd4e8bac8e046c4696477147ff8441
F20101107_AAADGX pritchard_p_Page_059.pro
f56fc5a06fb01f4f06b40b844fa825b2
cc9658c18e509289d2e01ae49dfc244311c1f6ee
1051937 F20101107_AAACEK pritchard_p_Page_192.jp2
cf953580f13b2821e89c03903d791b32
39bca17f905a0f8ba3360f05af210ddd14f331b5
1051960 F20101107_AAABZD pritchard_p_Page_154.jp2
f0c0b872fc09e29f935019a0565e4568
3333eb6af4feb54d43c1a40e820d29b13d3424fe
1824 F20101107_AAACDV pritchard_p_Page_175.txt
e57bb5bdc88306178e176e0b3c4665ea
d0f7e3596a24e43c5f8e4c8fae91a0fdb97afebe
7045 F20101107_AAABYP pritchard_p_Page_084thm.jpg
7265cd3f0cbf1b996a81af187e60e8e2
d2fc9338706f715cb58dbc2e16a8112ddb7206bf
67801 F20101107_AAADIB pritchard_p_Page_193.pro
a74ce399514bd2a882998d0bd4e19186
f38025aa268705fc645c23b2ae2adb639460fc14
26706 F20101107_AAADHN pritchard_p_Page_118.pro
0162d0c333b87547f9fd6bb15d83904d
f8ab65f81e6910f6c913608c5f8eefdbe9ffd793
51533 F20101107_AAADGY pritchard_p_Page_063.pro
dc53a77963032d86d90c2bc6193f5ef5
23a61d6574ca70132c79b1c89ba7ec52efd589fa
115246 F20101107_AAACEL pritchard_p_Page_162.jpg
e5e34c5ca259dee2ddc3f1c140cbaa14
b6b2daa18653a06ebc05ae969501c23a5d438686
25039 F20101107_AAABZE pritchard_p_Page_056.jpg
6452208cbc10faf7b6364bbee143ac0d
6227a9e19b6e3c70b2d7de78ff3f9e92263262d8
17785 F20101107_AAACDW pritchard_p_Page_151.QC.jpg
a28f67306b06a0853d39a55b01fb964b
48c3f9ba100a2aeaa8ef21517afc95c65ee52b1c
8506 F20101107_AAABYQ pritchard_p_Page_039thm.jpg
cb5549b1d8d8d8fbc39823644675635d
3d3dfbefd9454b9d297ffd027399c5ae22903a56
12570 F20101107_AAADIC pritchard_p_Page_195.pro
dc8925d1684fcafa0e5048f106e732c7
f3846b773a757ed90f2ca83478177fe93dc55844
15888 F20101107_AAADHO pritchard_p_Page_134.pro
d6460f09c68f2608a099dfc65142707f
b11be850864b3796f56f0f2d5f2e29d46eb69941
54319 F20101107_AAADGZ pritchard_p_Page_064.pro
1c52f2d4e7a14064910b0bb41ee5a204
b7321cac20475b554d587e52a73b0d5eee2c4292
2903 F20101107_AAACEM pritchard_p_Page_127.txt
34e833e6cd4e304c20d15fd9e7defc37
c2967cc73000c9adefac6f1238de07727afcff7f
149178 F20101107_AAABZF pritchard_p_Page_014.jpg
f8772034a9bb54b1098e5be607c02eb8
aa02b8dd61418c2c2e55abc5e849fa2e628bf98c
10361 F20101107_AAACDX pritchard_p_Page_122.QC.jpg
0751ad7523fa0a402535156e1b98e809
1c663981db54cd16b137e4f404fb905b91a577d9
2120 F20101107_AAABYR pritchard_p_Page_034.txt
53c1282d94878363e0d9a0d11f227e73
1ddef654ed02482ae3792c4305ca55214c8ccdda
2028 F20101107_AAACFA pritchard_p_Page_050.txt
8f5e3f35936328f658395d510a19d1f2
ff94176e429c860006c22dd2e582431406b67159
488 F20101107_AAADID pritchard_p_Page_001.txt
8eff2740645cde5d789483406110bdfb
6844634ccaef2dae74ef207a2e30d3052ecbed52
F20101107_AAABZG pritchard_p_Page_059.tif
855073f84c91020a999665dcd66e58f3
8ba409520d6ddd4f5e6ae59a9dc6f0f0ded49b0d
33278 F20101107_AAACDY pritchard_p_Page_049.QC.jpg
01db373933e6f56232d35324bcbf499d
eec4d273d674875d58a42e220592a08806184a93
2307 F20101107_AAABYS pritchard_p_Page_100.txt
ad52db905c403d234c627fd43699908a
b4436935afb21f3b077e33e115a0f081ff0e20db
1051864 F20101107_AAACFB pritchard_p_Page_170.jp2
8f8b765ae49c7308417e12df94b9d298
8be9dcb89c4d24b2c1b02e19678038122b629c2c
3122 F20101107_AAADIE pritchard_p_Page_013.txt
ca8810afda1fe520f183ccd186821fb4
6a5b8e70ec70672fd50590d5656bb71a2728aa5f
29309 F20101107_AAADHP pritchard_p_Page_147.pro
f4926cc1177203efd9a20300c248a21b
7b46f7e5fd1ab249e850bf9e998e387139db201b
5692 F20101107_AAACEN pritchard_p_Page_006thm.jpg
2cff0d8a6aa4eef93daeabd4f08727ac
e590d8a01c9c5ec15ccdbfce8f22c647b110269e
8545 F20101107_AAABZH pritchard_p_Page_020thm.jpg
4b192031da0c68d5a7eea9e015ff56ec
e67440ae173f45d92cf71d03dfa175c0c058f43d
2143 F20101107_AAACDZ pritchard_p_Page_166.txt
06bf7fb5104e5f3974ece32403b94dc4
38bace802abc903f99112a267fdb9482fd380ca2
1051941 F20101107_AAABYT pritchard_p_Page_165.jp2
7753b74582586f508d17ea2e3e78740b
c1ee9efcedf1bbaec591e5be9f8b3906e499e478
17237 F20101107_AAACFC pritchard_p_Page_152.QC.jpg
0d6d8d1a6b1decaa0cdbb98c54ccb0d9
c66e032d565f78d92d8d2db09cdf8461e8d858c0
2049 F20101107_AAADIF pritchard_p_Page_017.txt
26d6b843a52be5738d757c0310245294
40b164baa6b87347d4f8c48263db402e39a20c31
54259 F20101107_AAADHQ pritchard_p_Page_155.pro
664e0b7cef2d0cf20ac02759d7f798d8
29a4851aa0ed72405514dae8177aed5d746668d8
4293 F20101107_AAACEO pritchard_p_Page_181thm.jpg
75a6e18b7425a5b10d979e33f2636762
5558961fd4748f05b5bb8c13068b3d585e6ed606
9918 F20101107_AAABZI pritchard_p_Page_012thm.jpg
66b9835255f8384372dec882a14c7447
a4c3ccc785edf52304ee7fd4ad25b6e07e48cb96
116995 F20101107_AAABYU pritchard_p_Page_190.jpg
d5e120bccf4b06913831f5a5f17412c0
177a7967d0c380b9446fd4f4aa3ca697a18a09e0
51348 F20101107_AAACFD pritchard_p_Page_084.pro
df61abd5acfd389367dd8e7488772de1
73bcf1bee5a4241b23bcfdf137adcd712f06995c
2020 F20101107_AAADIG pritchard_p_Page_020.txt
79d33110d0e925e746c4f5c991cd347f
579747023bdbb22e6b558fda79678e06783bf1a8
52034 F20101107_AAADHR pritchard_p_Page_158.pro
7943135666b76efa05057af20a8b663b
58811bcfc0f4f82a2176d89f066fc4fe40b95d4d
62761 F20101107_AAACEP pritchard_p_Page_109.jpg
caa22ee438de71b9dad4b6d530f236cb
87d5229dd9cce1561ab30e1600ca3b0264feb2c0
F20101107_AAABZJ pritchard_p_Page_102.tif
eddc4cb98620aceb4cfc3100912337a3
03dd4524f2f7740dde69b91381a7ee3e45512f6f
888 F20101107_AAABYV pritchard_p_Page_003.pro
a4a1db9c9a2ef0a97bc1c2935e80a75f
28aaf744a59286f3665b163ecac7321e8a25d507
34624 F20101107_AAACFE pritchard_p_Page_159.QC.jpg
d3bf5c43e8733eac089b48795eebba07
d679c0e1c8e76fd44d9b004536771cac51cfc6a1
2227 F20101107_AAADIH pritchard_p_Page_024.txt
10ea3d7e7c83d1e2cb8898af68c72b6b
1e40a219a154eb2939f2d847713cb477cd58c94c
58068 F20101107_AAADHS pritchard_p_Page_163.pro
efe79f7d381ef39a8aa7a218528b3496
ac2e1187dd4b6c8d301fbc155feee42c7f02881b
1865 F20101107_AAACEQ pritchard_p_Page_055.txt
4af24e38bf5487419f464364792f1b0b
f717db1452424b1cdc951cdf6b5aae871d8589fd
32065 F20101107_AAABZK pritchard_p_Page_110.pro
f27ff413744cde38df1a771dae1df2ae
f50dfcd2ac215e4b94f56a485e9328cdcba43210
79734 F20101107_AAABYW pritchard_p_Page_182.pro
8d5cf2e3ae7547e56fefd2de7483034b
703adefcedacf4fb52560360e344d3fc9e676f63
23982 F20101107_AAACFF pritchard_p_Page_082.QC.jpg
ae0389c58f706b47fdb612d0c18d466b
89e7546963406d3775c937e1804b7332c5733647
2066 F20101107_AAADII pritchard_p_Page_033.txt
6bd2001721d398f59022d3d7be49237a
f8023dfc543c214def183d4535c57f15538cf64a
54257 F20101107_AAADHT pritchard_p_Page_166.pro
04ab21f2af865cbb5eef46676b4c1494
9c398964475ee55eb61eee5d8d1272bdb8169419
9053 F20101107_AAACER pritchard_p_Page_068thm.jpg
a2d56d1e7d583cfa2913a51802247c48
a2d80de03eb7f17f5ce3f3974ebfa9cea2630740
1979 F20101107_AAABZL pritchard_p_Page_021.txt
7c374daf524d00ee01f138853533a6b4
8390ccd4618c5c0370548435be8a035fc2976ceb
35693 F20101107_AAABYX pritchard_p_Page_076.QC.jpg
d5427606fcc8a3f42764f83c4d2ccd1f
b4217e154d7e6f0d68ccd3e96541f1b5b7c4ff5d
8026 F20101107_AAACFG pritchard_p_Page_019thm.jpg
d33e40de2d390d63a26295507f8ebbb8
abac1f5e39839a627d27f7a50900b978e8647e76
2210 F20101107_AAADIJ pritchard_p_Page_040.txt
ee9e7f892e2cb5a4c4a80a525fc1d3ec
8e3923c7aa644d0ba60dccabbd1571fe6f17b881
56379 F20101107_AAADHU pritchard_p_Page_169.pro
d8b443b36a56bbc9079c191404e685d1
c5a7d8c13881c8d830bd9fc103e8563f4767ea2b
927866 F20101107_AAACES pritchard_p_Page_144.jp2
191601355d8695c8633077eb14b828ac
c5963e80b63ca16c9fe876ee58551eb7ccaa27e7
F20101107_AAABZM pritchard_p_Page_134.tif
a88b11986afa31fea64be6e90225f4e0
0b84c8435dedac817c9e8dc6d047ed6a10670529
9289 F20101107_AAABYY pritchard_p_Page_179thm.jpg
1bfc42a72af65ccfd4c21eefdeee7431
c916eefe3d6041945143a85755b0d444e229d71d
8338 F20101107_AAACFH pritchard_p_Page_031thm.jpg
118ee6bae19560a2a0ce67f03a5b74a8
55120ab19bfe889d881f98cc80f3099b6daee863
2217 F20101107_AAADIK pritchard_p_Page_041.txt
51845ddbcb8ecac3550b1befe1a7acac
0c42a8860301ac68fd4750dd7c0d51e3bf8e1242
60019 F20101107_AAADHV pritchard_p_Page_172.pro
35c6ff3030fca2e514a3443ca1010a66
e2176e7181409632d00e6bce8d287dbd1935a2b2
F20101107_AAACET pritchard_p_Page_095.tif
ab37c4b339e42983fffa87e1e3f0d52f
18650b32f8652d453915d0c32066cb251417701a
1010155 F20101107_AAABZN pritchard_p_Page_117.jp2
3204f3a9727f5741eeb99c475507e0b0
579b4d04809e963c2d29a7c0c3d95d57f564da7a
F20101107_AAABYZ pritchard_p_Page_138.tif
8ef28667092afe2481227e41e5218eea
c3950b0dbeb9708c521d773dc49b3dc988a2df43
F20101107_AAACFI pritchard_p_Page_009.tif
47ce2681eda346bd2ccf9b24e6dd833a
002967e958ecd5f7da24fc329dfffa0bac35364f
1496 F20101107_AAADIL pritchard_p_Page_044.txt
7380a1adb04fb9278e87617df0bb0f10
1d728b76b692f6563dcb26d0552af01c4ec6bfd4
51641 F20101107_AAADHW pritchard_p_Page_174.pro
1d2779b5ec2da0417fcda55617c33b98
2d14388aa78ae7c61e147dab4c0244a4709c0fd8
1908 F20101107_AAACEU pritchard_p_Page_052.txt
88b708406310c15fba830e67a7ad60f0
3a028558c7437f7324731ebfc947a9d658facf41
27183 F20101107_AAABZO pritchard_p_Page_101.pro
f3bc0b68b09a09e8ad4391f1ea9cb2d4
917ef931a21ff1da6c3f57947169ad5b9de29511
30313 F20101107_AAACFJ pritchard_p_Page_139.pro
2b887a432d19ea0e815a47bcbdd67641
4e93f0c4bca85c9595b897dddaef1fb4f00b4e8b
2629 F20101107_AAADJA pritchard_p_Page_087.txt
44691ddd3b9640da751e21e876734be3
53243de9401813e3cc7a59907e7515ad6a99573b
2090 F20101107_AAADIM pritchard_p_Page_047.txt
82acf84b6b68b9268b696859b6e4e38c
da7f2814b9cee2c014ba7565d7f42a4fafcef534
43684 F20101107_AAADHX pritchard_p_Page_175.pro
a8566a37bb483a1a0c7946252ba8a569
0504ca8ebb2d8f1afadd07326b1b0d04bb6b80d9
110603 F20101107_AAACEV pritchard_p_Page_192.jpg
dd644d4d6dae4693cc0842cd7358bab4
a20f7ad687640460986763cc303a9ca880bbdd67
1051982 F20101107_AAABZP pritchard_p_Page_180.jp2
a77fd91eca33da9e84b01fbb34d74fc8
cf3d7f902aa38b32255f4cebb7acd61c961fd90f
572914 F20101107_AAACFK pritchard_p_Page_149.jp2
cac1324205772e897be3fdc73f3dab85
c82f870639eac510ede856d168bd60afd6967422
2666 F20101107_AAADJB pritchard_p_Page_097.txt
6e47b1e6e6fc75e481a8f5a07a3f03a5
fe9fa43bfcab97fee23fcf6b761d796a0c8c9b8c
2024 F20101107_AAADIN pritchard_p_Page_053.txt
40544fe2af4dfa28ca2b83c06931294e
b8f1f423b7a17d74ae994e8fd88a3c31239f64db
49541 F20101107_AAADHY pritchard_p_Page_176.pro
fa5dbcb0d270059f4e7cd3533503fa49
c4e96670c2e4c67c0cf7a6f21c94db1b4f6f2f0e
1051913 F20101107_AAACEW pritchard_p_Page_059.jp2
7473a3800ecc64344e9c39b7a8154b14
515b275bf5b80d18fe1af5b77be64be813284b4f
28105 F20101107_AAABZQ pritchard_p_Page_099.pro
7eee94d8133ee48be6daa8769eb98c09
dd08ab104c0c34dc1280171700ce37d696d7a9a9
56007 F20101107_AAACFL pritchard_p_Page_075.pro
fc4eb3d3384e144419bfa9bbfb155fba
a4a03950385ed7f0a0102eac09d9f226ac47b853
1471 F20101107_AAADJC pritchard_p_Page_099.txt
c480f4c908d65b6343632516b4029ba4
2df4104c89aee22084383743f1523b9c810a4674
2112 F20101107_AAADIO pritchard_p_Page_062.txt
d1e269e358118bfdb24fe8145eaa2c62
4fb5c2042ef17dc6d72ac0e2a1ca8aaba45cfea3
32715 F20101107_AAADHZ pritchard_p_Page_181.pro
74ed52ebcfd713585731105ab14c793b
0b8150612efd28c76bc3ab4d26bf71661ccac65e
47771 F20101107_AAACEX pritchard_p_Page_180.pro
472368a3868c109d8c5bed41d193bdcc
a27ab0ae3db03a85b4f0b8018204cbf92d402ba9
F20101107_AAABZR pritchard_p_Page_028.tif
ead63b8c582239376f979fbb71283fb4
77dad75263a9a4c40277878ac33b453fbde7a2bf
1051926 F20101107_AAACGA pritchard_p_Page_070.jp2
ead735a78f2b8bfb2d6766f91e710aa9
b5404d2a1fb420e3369d9a9a6a541acb1e3566ce
52408 F20101107_AAACFM pritchard_p_Page_156.pro
b1c47dfef0fcbc06fa5d93f8593f10c5
c5191d99f2c73f6360166958278815650c91f0d5
1477 F20101107_AAADJD pritchard_p_Page_102.txt
db433bead9dc4ff701a55d889cd870d4
6653ecfc0378bb3bf6cdc6de6cadea7099e1f71c
2072 F20101107_AAADIP pritchard_p_Page_063.txt
2f96284b67990ffd38837bcb59baaa96
47786bf3794933d2516ef72abe7b116c53b5b5a3
27835 F20101107_AAACEY pritchard_p_Page_183.QC.jpg
4635551e84437decdf1867a542d1e2fb
1c0df2e8766ced6389f75bef509b89cd102a6134
51894 F20101107_AAABZS pritchard_p_Page_027.pro
bfb51d3f1ca0991d8da19bfce043606b
44d9cb0a1dea900391cdac3e682004405ee3fc71
F20101107_AAACGB pritchard_p_Page_147.tif
3919290ce99fd643940f41777f03ede9
32b47cbc066fd689132c0d1a0a558e8199ad0d95
53219 F20101107_AAACFN pritchard_p_Page_047.pro
35081145bd27289250860b5c2a4aa271
00491b4b60f908ee950c02537e2bb9ed2b756a26
1714 F20101107_AAADJE pritchard_p_Page_103.txt
dcc25bc7ac851e5fef6c8f51da405ba0
4748e080f125283059d3a17d1a1bc56ef5a44734
432 F20101107_AAACEZ pritchard_p_Page_056.txt
50752cc04984a9a573fc4c59632e1c5a
ed005c03ec74ffd91bde6bab8a78379c3a0f9a2b
F20101107_AAABZT pritchard_p_Page_145.tif
2f9ef49dfd76a2e7cbce0f4e9234f98e
98c28ae6395e30906656edabe58e34f9e663185c
F20101107_AAACGC pritchard_p_Page_075.tif
b22a435d4fb2969ab9def7b8b8c7e8e8
56b1739f34dad0fbce54adc0b937989e1e2b3603
1470 F20101107_AAADJF pritchard_p_Page_104.txt
c5cafb28ae909389f39f584e8c8e5123
e0e41e51fdee5f552dcb1107bba956bebd27b920
2029 F20101107_AAADIQ pritchard_p_Page_067.txt
5e22435db262284923915ba22ea4edd9
0e13aba67e91fa6e9e571136d8848d506b7ba721
102074 F20101107_AAABZU pritchard_p_Page_021.jpg
b549e970af2928de5d77b1004f2c93ea
2c5a95492628cf8f8ba677747ba31f4965f33186
29456 F20101107_AAACGD pritchard_p_Page_058.QC.jpg
81f2b81ddeff303302ecde4558d3d48a
c62ccc635e8d90b167765fedc6a7089c47da1c54
F20101107_AAACFO pritchard_p_Page_136.tif
9d59c623bdf5caaeb06a531a69edd815
b5a937954b92a2ebca8ee0fbb421110955726303
957 F20101107_AAADJG pritchard_p_Page_106.txt
6be0c379e99d42a7dddffb8eac7c87a5
6fffc66f855880829e22beaa7da60c33761aa3ac
2199 F20101107_AAADIR pritchard_p_Page_071.txt
6e4122aa0726684463df051d697fd9d3
a216b4c6016b0dbae2860f88f099a8fd4e2b88a0
40281 F20101107_AAABZV pritchard_p_Page_015.QC.jpg
065e5e1c6174002beef7b0a81fc15431
f267c773a192a119b543b161099c3e62ebb22215
34647 F20101107_AAACGE pritchard_p_Page_033.QC.jpg
6ce17256b661917f3218c16a4c64402f
d2bbfadd75e9c3fa0181a487299ebf614f17bead
2038 F20101107_AAACFP pritchard_p_Page_059.txt
204b85f750c5f2f571335011b89d024a
3a0680335681231b4630baa45a66f13c825979cb
2442 F20101107_AAADJH pritchard_p_Page_107.txt
e4557cd0fde6ece6708253ab872eb856
334c16060f0bd98411a46d20c35c0c6e004869d3
2241 F20101107_AAADIS pritchard_p_Page_075.txt
4fd63a89801f2135679d9a50e0df7b0a
5314b736168b9ede241695d46fd66c70552ff728
50244 F20101107_AAABZW pritchard_p_Page_050.pro
087808aca4e5ff68b065e8e423684dd8
07f80a7101ca29a561318a06ed5f033fbd4263c0
1823 F20101107_AAACGF pritchard_p_Page_188thm.jpg
4789d7310726f318aa1ac6eac8997f76
2de4fdff2d6da8b7379262d2dd5ba7eacecb0487
111367 F20101107_AAACFQ pritchard_p_Page_073.jpg
f029a1687223fe5f8577fd284efa7c4a
965cc830daba1d7002251499b6ab3b6de2b4ee34
2803 F20101107_AAADJI pritchard_p_Page_108.txt
22e01caafa01638cd0e280bfa21e80dd
9ed80e599974278df5766f7ab6d5edfe6e3d2833
2122 F20101107_AAADIT pritchard_p_Page_076.txt
ddd5e6bc097b92eee7e24a98b77d6d06
55fc46bce9502cc749dd31e929144c3b365992fc
68242 F20101107_AAABZX pritchard_p_Page_077.jpg
a8f7c7742e7939895cea2b1d846eb485
a48534320ee07e69994ab0a29c1c5f37f5b2d240
1368 F20101107_AAACGG pritchard_p_Page_003.QC.jpg
b3d913f65738a39a79f14baedf462434
c8e854eaeb526aa1f256dd3438f89c9297266460
8827 F20101107_AAACFR pritchard_p_Page_040thm.jpg
ad838951b97e9c52b4239e59158b61ad
26e20072ebad1258504489bf865bd64ccb5567eb
1858 F20101107_AAADJJ pritchard_p_Page_110.txt
1a347846e26bb91c34b646b0f8755e5b
c55533657024c40a073b684c5d9ab2e6de4f01ea
1812 F20101107_AAADIU pritchard_p_Page_079.txt
53526acaf25651530f2700916e8cabcd
ebd184b64c508dfacd942071f5a287de079e05f5
41953 F20101107_AAABZY pritchard_p_Page_121.pro
f0c99700a138800350c9b02bf6be283a
88dff005b521d7f2bc80a137f9a379585b912cd5
2114 F20101107_AAACGH pritchard_p_Page_030.txt
4b3506332f22dbf9f6a972cfc5c91e09
697bdb76f47af32c455645e69f92e16684f751b9
27222 F20101107_AAACFS pritchard_p_Page_144.QC.jpg
b7194dd31590198f32f7279faa9b1430
e6706dce7bd4040d4079c461dfb84310b2e91e7a
1769 F20101107_AAADJK pritchard_p_Page_111.txt
7f7fece0724f9e74fe78039d5217dada
84d1e5cf7f926878f6394f7daaf5be168b2c8c60
1583 F20101107_AAADIV pritchard_p_Page_080.txt
84cfad686ce4dd5b3224f5fcaa9742f1
8583b77dc33f3e61a1a113cf446c0064254ef897
53275 F20101107_AAABZZ pritchard_p_Page_062.pro
092db2673ae31e1aa0a3a3835f57813a
aa8183b06c52a0f98cc0454373a5c72052e8081f
2046 F20101107_AAACGI pritchard_p_Page_173.txt
5965b040ee88d602149bb4e768a4e020
71dc6f65cebc29df98ba0a793323a738d53c35b4
1051958 F20101107_AAACFT pritchard_p_Page_017.jp2
bc3cfd7bdbc204e441f118a1ca97b9e2
836d6530a9eb82759fc57955a95d151991e568b1
2188 F20101107_AAADJL pritchard_p_Page_112.txt
eff860ac2943dd6dcd60ffcf4e3dccc5
943b1c9c2ce831cea2f34ce640581eec14d4a4d7
2547 F20101107_AAADIW pritchard_p_Page_081.txt
bdf92b190c7dfbc3ea64ccf4f3cd4d2e
4e4ded33f948975cb5484d8011fffb2fc87bcd3b
36316 F20101107_AAACGJ pritchard_p_Page_119.pro
022a1b9934be093cf4fdccd344db67e8
8fc903f453391a74088174e0a6a2d3e26f0a16f7
F20101107_AAACFU pritchard_p_Page_070.tif
d5f6c8e4892c7ad9dfc397f9bf946f10
d9155025d4d78d488d71e5da6a7ab41b5efaf11b
2157 F20101107_AAADKA pritchard_p_Page_154.txt
3ee59f811021b84b46668f4e2530169b
ec9c8d20b3fbf0afe7fb74f1347b8bfd7019a29a
2786 F20101107_AAADJM pritchard_p_Page_114.txt
26aba19c2931f0b19ca86ac129b87c46
bc1ccef06a10d8bc62d522a642e0b36de062987d
2618 F20101107_AAADIX pritchard_p_Page_082.txt
cb20b3ad5a5171f6dcb3789e6b1af1a9
1127f00fce3069f2d239f06d976ec5c5a50dd00f
3180 F20101107_AAACGK pritchard_p_Page_011.txt
a7daa4c3613a4d6df3fa0c6e3a6374cd
41e919fe14e0b56181fa332d439d88a4ee661782
107039 F20101107_AAACFV pritchard_p_Page_033.jpg
87ca8da8e4bd5514a8f73bc0c1806363
238e7e1e37760289a4110abc3542f74ed2f2274d
2102 F20101107_AAADKB pritchard_p_Page_156.txt
3343aa0b5debbb4c6b71fd20d82e13de
a408c6c3481bbc31565102a1380f0e2f23884bc4
F20101107_AAADJN pritchard_p_Page_118.txt
2c397ec28774402ff4433535521757db
7b557c14b23dfe410714313d73e5ee3d5934bd46
2586 F20101107_AAADIY pritchard_p_Page_085.txt
37a4d322b014ac6a62025b7c449a11ff
55bcb25bd77c0aa6c42524a99a850d4e3cc96977
2377 F20101107_AAACGL pritchard_p_Page_091.txt
43f0bbda2b9c9156691052129bb1cbf9
9776eef7f61219e50aaa911cd1fc0678e96f3370
71198 F20101107_AAACFW pritchard_p_Page_009.pro
a8365397fd0f6b25ab88b58133eaa7f4
b072136edda7c62ad71e3b47d7577c873af1b6df
2110 F20101107_AAADKC pritchard_p_Page_157.txt
a9388528b395a026db7a35c54f4e0575
93404d6a04e01c48939e9352213e4387a1dc290c
2048 F20101107_AAADJO pritchard_p_Page_121.txt
bd57d1f89313000c08743648de529881
0a2c25be727276f23a2ff7c791aeba7a31b7f908
2472 F20101107_AAADIZ pritchard_p_Page_086.txt
432723c7c779f652dc0f5f474f5cad0e
693a1d5f9cb68567701f23e46949c4dc62a527a7
58311 F20101107_AAACHA pritchard_p_Page_178.pro
d99d85e96b6c413429a77ce667f101a2
8c6afa9fa3ec0425ade447b8fec61b9a6d58f758
1051984 F20101107_AAACGM pritchard_p_Page_173.jp2
ccc7441d4c27b4d2fcd97a33aa5eae74
be9984ddcd71bd5dee9ed37f03da1a3772bc58b0
F20101107_AAACFX pritchard_p_Page_032.txt
9993c4de92dc2cf0286413214d1b8a9b
05549bf408fcb7033ac34fbef141bf1fe7b7a319
2113 F20101107_AAADKD pritchard_p_Page_160.txt
3cb97ede944ff8678ce380009ee4b1a3
fcead2d616c51d50c95ab84d5bbf9fdf7a0082c7
1517 F20101107_AAADJP pritchard_p_Page_125.txt
26e0483cba46ef0cd2cfb45699a34eb4
8316190de88a39d39a75b653e70f119094c906b6
58550 F20101107_AAACHB pritchard_p_Page_108.pro
d6e2fb7967b1ea854f01009116356343
74938be7caa6c74c9f61ceb3749be40634b9aa32
51733 F20101107_AAACGN pritchard_p_Page_161.pro
1f173eb1b5914d0129f3876b27519ee8
00e5cbe69624612cfa8cd11eb1eea6bc106b61e9
F20101107_AAACFY pritchard_p_Page_190.tif
a535630b90478dad9cb283399cba8ae2
38ae8857f25d5d56aae2d662a1fcf2de1115bd84
2043 F20101107_AAADKE pritchard_p_Page_161.txt
ffe498e5c15132cd9c98e2e0db3e8bce
c3c6d393545d883653ce239d24bf978ce11e127d
2356 F20101107_AAADJQ pritchard_p_Page_126.txt
7a0f312a5762a14bfa326361506dd9a1
fb86e5aeb8ff43fa9fcc4a37deea027763baa117
2146 F20101107_AAACHC pritchard_p_Page_064.txt
321109e9265baa451ddb2c952a57398c
6fc09a5eb7c0d0d1c1683443a85dd2639b4dfb8a
55056 F20101107_AAACGO pritchard_p_Page_152.jpg
dd39fa04e86c5c4a6d79df5f9797f489
ad64cf42d410fee038f5226e4d0c82022c0980b4
6748 F20101107_AAACFZ pritchard_p_Page_082thm.jpg
4007bb260a98f0dc32ef6a5eecdf3d99
e06821acb91bad17d9addf94ab0e8f767b072351
2289 F20101107_AAADKF pritchard_p_Page_163.txt
a8477c8ca9aed21402d29eae1f3f2053
a462695dd492962ede6c6485927db8a85d040dad
6868 F20101107_AAACHD pritchard_p_Page_114thm.jpg
813cbac102366bf590f4ab14b6a06c50
29984f5f55399ed5a73ef3c6447e21d08aca1d64
2160 F20101107_AAADKG pritchard_p_Page_167.txt
fc8f1d93d1a44e00117f160c06f2bd96
01e9b22ebdc291901a3d02fb87f0773f8cd3689e
1839 F20101107_AAADJR pritchard_p_Page_131.txt
b926a021dca648fb31cb1b7db5c65191
42f8a14fd401b09d3867972c3d0ea7df1b383eda
F20101107_AAACHE pritchard_p_Page_170.tif
cc633a26ff99e65558919fc9424c91d1
4eaf130a090278ec0f1e787125c9961ca6c10b1d
63087 F20101107_AAACGP pritchard_p_Page_008.jpg
5b56264e802dc1cdf810772db29a5adb
275311d93b87ac2b925d10fc468fee82d09ddc74
2272 F20101107_AAADKH pritchard_p_Page_171.txt
5ed0ece1887ee51f0b0659697d775e4c
c6ceeb39d08d7df847a5256bc22dd5c6e01851df
1455 F20101107_AAADJS pritchard_p_Page_132.txt
3631a0fd224645874cc1d6b4873ef543
ab111c3026094ca6a4d9064855edf3956b1e1be5
3025 F20101107_AAACGQ pritchard_p_Page_012.txt
208c74466092d08d5cf61958c17b05c2
9f6537d87dc274bb16fb9a661105fd96aa23d22f
2175 F20101107_AAACHF pritchard_p_Page_043.txt
edcf8f32fb7ebd5ef56d709c55c207e5
17a6e6739ab3c08b803c0c4cdabdff7430d54bcf
2531 F20101107_AAADKI pritchard_p_Page_180.txt
edf62761f0287f07532b33509f56c0e9
a6be70adb68ce92e87da2beece894e026f2159d6
2256 F20101107_AAADJT pritchard_p_Page_133.txt
0f6445e36150c0c89efef8c2c5065830
75560664ff815d5e194c957c44338da9696c5864
950135 F20101107_AAACGR pritchard_p_Page_127.jp2
bf294f0298888905bd82f5684b569059
b1feee75db4277a36366d213dcfa5ddd32d1e428
9299 F20101107_AAACHG pritchard_p_Page_037thm.jpg
89d8e80651c00cc1fcde0976f04cb00d
c9b1be05fd537ddb68379c2a4fd33493740a4265
4436 F20101107_AAADKJ pritchard_p_Page_182.txt
898e2ce4f796288e9e9feb479989007e
e8a2fb2106c968c5754c66c4f1573ca6804f32c7
1799 F20101107_AAADJU pritchard_p_Page_135.txt
b2b1b93d3fba26cd4fdae114e34cb550
033cffa63de2b5a9d69c54c3f2ed16ec53405da0
7242 F20101107_AAACGS pritchard_p_Page_088thm.jpg
971ac556fb2ea77ca265b38837112581
7722679148f73e99e96ed81ce038a33eebc88c35
32903 F20101107_AAACHH pritchard_p_Page_045.QC.jpg
69e16f545d3546cab5f8109a943bbf71
a8df93e26cd8f9f818fa25e94d608c567c29e7e1
4015 F20101107_AAADKK pritchard_p_Page_185.txt
02eae88ada677e7799f134b4476535f1
dbaa7796d08a428ec6e4dbc3c2bddf3991fa6597
1594 F20101107_AAADJV pritchard_p_Page_136.txt
9be347b53a07b5ce89b778dd63595ff8
fa266d5f8d03cffdcdd5e0d3902be72b16481a83
20740 F20101107_AAACGT pritchard_p_Page_123.QC.jpg
ddefb86d0fb2f5c75d48413085460751
72131a993092cba55ce1ccf7358f9be0687cd42b
1051965 F20101107_AAACHI pritchard_p_Page_071.jp2
a4adbae850e567943a89fb484e352e71
34306bb69bd4d2694ff3a14a35d010466d196fa5
1900 F20101107_AAADKL pritchard_p_Page_194.txt
8209341a6c4f4fc6f5d2c7f8ae78c791
12c70fcf4c449b3842e373e260a29b980f0dc918
1512 F20101107_AAADJW pritchard_p_Page_139.txt
9ddc998aa43e9d874152ab4f2f833c6e
e5ca6dc5c3e6a0317c9ac04f75967034c8c28be5
F20101107_AAACGU pritchard_p_Page_051.tif
8190ccb984b81997f1db1ce36b26d6d9
4a72439366e400fe082b217e8722d63e1c89f5a4
24735 F20101107_AAACHJ pritchard_p_Page_087.QC.jpg
baca23ec191fda5b4584dacc8946cfd0
2cb8e3b07d899859a2df16696c96c35e9f7f9f01
37943 F20101107_AAADLA pritchard_p_Page_165.QC.jpg
431593bef171eb1bcb58cda8999fe968
7f059c2996210da4f5c990ee46082a05107a63d7
506 F20101107_AAADKM pritchard_p_Page_195.txt
fe44ff98781f4c7a66ccdf9d6f84d8fa
ace600c602296e9d329e4cf4fda2b9582de3b8f5
2196 F20101107_AAADJX pritchard_p_Page_144.txt
972f4a10c154a92dc999bb8885fc30e2
7c833138a61ef3cf1368f57c37dd27c425afc5a1
F20101107_AAACGV pritchard_p_Page_113.tif
9dfab8c0f3646c807522f61a705eb2a3
2c36b962f85393ce6e384349be34d01a899636e7
37618 F20101107_AAACHK pritchard_p_Page_044.pro
c8c73655b10e4d535dcae6b92458ef0e
3489ce942051a2f8de0957069392076ca9445bb8
25679 F20101107_AAADLB pritchard_p_Page_044.QC.jpg
92f1abb2a9359b94257889a1356dfb26
f47bd05446efb71665b34ee9b59b29690d80d04f
4811 F20101107_AAADKN pritchard_p_Page_124thm.jpg
d0d71d887461354d09113c11b4b72ec3
5893a545c9bc2d13094d33aaff48952bc50ef0c4
1489 F20101107_AAADJY pritchard_p_Page_146.txt
46f10c5da310ab83aebbe9bbe1936cf9
916df3736e05f784d0dd0d21298073c2d7ac8954
7556 F20101107_AAACGW pritchard_p_Page_176thm.jpg
352ab93848be97eda15ae1533f9fb4cf
9296aaece15cab38ada0f119e2f1b9014b568c4c
38514 F20101107_AAACHL pritchard_p_Page_163.QC.jpg
c14cc6fe6b0fb0e1070771b573c6ecee
3f8f40f7a4e6ac63953e434af00c80e2e6ff7d81
7628 F20101107_AAADLC pritchard_p_Page_017thm.jpg
fc95bf8d69b87fa81882644acf490f37
16d8705f2e7315d38af540a86410579062a65fa6
2728 F20101107_AAADKO pritchard_p_Page_122thm.jpg
6b6a02a9c06f24a2a848386f07b1c5a3
0efbac5a4c3302cc23149721f77f4ce5b1aa7fed
1447 F20101107_AAADJZ pritchard_p_Page_147.txt
826eec1553ea3ec68a1a860a2e7524d4
84a4f490e213a24d8a1dee6d3801bb75b0dc7655
F20101107_AAACGX pritchard_p_Page_075.jp2
cfaa061bae3689ee20d062a6d861bc1d
0883afef8084d8f589cd6b52122c9c2fef2622b5
F20101107_AAACIA pritchard_p_Page_045.jp2
4042b1adf40a64bacd7264ca4c0c2a54
4e53239751d239f7ae152ef63c3916316538e1be
30237 F20101107_AAACHM pritchard_p_Page_138.pro
108ad2ab288de1c0f9cef164dcac18e2
d4697eeec2490650d2b82c2b9e89b85c1043e3e2
8840 F20101107_AAADLD pritchard_p_Page_063thm.jpg
ccb3c452772693cd88283c4f8a44dfd8
57fe4138faa6aaaf97a56a2577e7284ea4ed285c
5464 F20101107_AAADKP pritchard_p_Page_137thm.jpg
3ecca0ee37f1d6e0b93bc2b76795565a
4dba059222ab8aa1644fed318c224db767301c14
56902 F20101107_AAACGY pritchard_p_Page_138.jpg
014bcc5683c11c0e22385c47d5e74abc
f6ef29793b08da8e04b0fedfc9c4c389f323933a
F20101107_AAACIB pritchard_p_Page_076.pro
919879431ff5cf7f9711807e8810bb0a
90053ca6043d903c176f1e15eb9f0b310771d663
18848 F20101107_AAACHN pritchard_p_Page_148.QC.jpg
7487d5ecff80661fb322c64775c0d711
ab21eeb581eab6581a37270477d55f26583719c2
36531 F20101107_AAADLE pritchard_p_Page_061.QC.jpg
a6b37d960e849c9ebf714ff0db009937
7f9717572cf416cd55b7db4da1c914122a2452d5
9048 F20101107_AAADKQ pritchard_p_Page_036thm.jpg
99ec3162258ff28373d0d00a74ee7f41
21c7dbf3e1353d7d4b1be0c6bf6f65ecd625f09b
53839 F20101107_AAACGZ pritchard_p_Page_004.pro
1d237d5765db77678a07db39a3528db4
21f7443a190038be8fc70e5baa19a559ac839076
8673 F20101107_AAACIC pritchard_p_Page_047thm.jpg
fdfe0a686d68c010b100385c3178d8b6
76c4ce25345712e6b888c4578f66dd8a1f921ce8
1006670 F20101107_AAACHO pritchard_p_Page_098.jp2
68bf2819a2a164f8d769d303fb9d8ab5
3900edd23abc19f2df0c29c93ed01048f064352d
8592 F20101107_AAADLF pritchard_p_Page_059thm.jpg
1f95189f6764ca34de240dcfdbc06fd8
932a1177326c699fc7057e6867fd08f6bf86e1f5
5228 F20101107_AAADKR pritchard_p_Page_109thm.jpg
cd183bbed0a9dfc6436255f335bee8f8
521180305e4875cbf908a7651f49b7a6cda1d79b
1879 F20101107_AAACID pritchard_p_Page_109.txt
c4f91729a235ec8ba28f62a28e4d49f4
6a7f32e19209d848b513d088480efd24ed34ebd2
106016 F20101107_AAACHP pritchard_p_Page_047.jpg
306166188bdec5b8478f01b8b42e518c
478c25e72bd415d525a94586fbbac63801ddb8de
8562 F20101107_AAADLG pritchard_p_Page_026thm.jpg
787e6c3f7ca2bc5e0582e1061bca813d
aa545f75b66c9e43748e0e59d170856eae1eeb42
22329 F20101107_AAACIE pritchard_p_Page_141.QC.jpg
a12212107f84512f58bc16a1aed0baef
7bf238b22f703fd3947f687de7b1a95b0910b438
14235 F20101107_AAADLH pritchard_p_Page_111.QC.jpg
b95cd5f169b8053a619cf227904139ad
808fa3bfa3a31886da7556aa578e0e5dc5ef70ea
15687 F20101107_AAADKS pritchard_p_Page_079.QC.jpg
0f41f3717e701e60554a54293000ec48
c7cf218095270346e07ecba193c287445dd9f9c5
6611 F20101107_AAACIF pritchard_p_Page_184.txt
9dfe0f7042fc5ed5edbbf6079610707e
f13c37c333489bf19d42cff98c5f21b22f53a737
F20101107_AAACHQ pritchard_p_Page_193.tif
f62afa6ff8a8677b71f24bc3b1fe42fa
562420e3a047346c5d74e198b065ab61ce4aff23
7517 F20101107_AAADLI pritchard_p_Page_108thm.jpg
974e6dbc49704989b130e79faaa62cf4
0ad8b3883abb076acc6923754c916ee54a3a1451
36542 F20101107_AAADKT pritchard_p_Page_040.QC.jpg
7922ccc87f3949daee4d711274bc8346
e28af98e22563960de49a47879884d8f691b1199
304086 F20101107_AAACIG pritchard_p_Page_134.jp2
6e41fe36f0f50cacf8267d2b330d9ee8
5ba42f5a4a6f7820028f76365b3c27c3fee78a4a
37459 F20101107_AAACHR pritchard_p_Page_131.pro
f71ed1a3e87fbdcdc9003fcba2a35cf5
afe7d2ac7cc6e15012e2dfd89a41f67df76a1785
36784 F20101107_AAADLJ pritchard_p_Page_065.QC.jpg
fc35d9e8e74bd145429d5ca2bea55e3c
565f69008075efdd4b59165b7b346388593e3ec4
5831 F20101107_AAADKU pritchard_p_Page_138thm.jpg
0d15dcac68f6b08b2157f5e704c4a2d9
68ff43dd90692ed5a9b9253eddf1a73fc85682ff
F20101107_AAACIH pritchard_p_Page_034.tif
8b17a36a317549b1b9bd6cea989e3e61
90a019e9e5233e06989dc5353f32854ff4e7b6e2
1051979 F20101107_AAACHS pritchard_p_Page_043.jp2
c678dcccd894b85bac4cc0a7c1b14203
7c0df9a0aa34530bf5b1836e0d75b7efce7b5a51
14936 F20101107_AAADLK pritchard_p_Page_186.QC.jpg
5edff6f8559e6e488b4b5fd453ee0304
7c3b0fab2dbd274446615b70c2edc5089542dcd0
8972 F20101107_AAADKV pritchard_p_Page_046thm.jpg
166b7bef5e9bd3af35d5925d6577f92b
bce7f5fba7a1692642894485b2c25282e44012cd
F20101107_AAACII pritchard_p_Page_193.jp2
290575561af70fdcb24f34fd52728b35
e659da85bf4c00d1a0a21896e54183492e7ebdc2
F20101107_AAACHT pritchard_p_Page_142.tif
f6e3e4f04609110f849d43659ed37cc3
efd5fe5754016674f923ac3892e6685eacbf964e
8458 F20101107_AAADLL pritchard_p_Page_055thm.jpg
6142e87be43ca49810e90eaa9428959c
becbfeed705b73d64731afb5fe36421dfa4e299d
9079 F20101107_AAADKW pritchard_p_Page_075thm.jpg
67ee5b16f81b096af975c502df0f571b
9a4dde51930ca0090d4ba739fa35c67d3e627e93
594854 F20101107_AAACIJ pritchard_p_Page_140.jp2
36cf41b159feea39a9fc14b6b35d691e
eb3a501649308f4cc206f87e6cc16da55664495d
F20101107_AAACHU pritchard_p_Page_086.tif
624830bf96e77c237e661624c9ccde83
e2ddbdf7afb5d8db7f7e93dc0fa175bfab26080a
39292 F20101107_AAADMA pritchard_p_Page_068.QC.jpg
e84dc33ee4a146d2ca8bf05835d9c043
e0660dcfb53aafca5b61c13c141d92505051c32f
4808 F20101107_AAADLM pritchard_p_Page_152thm.jpg
b68211960f83b4f3ee77b48a44d7ea1d
950fabc8465f3eac69e2c4fc6ad5a6f1c54aad8f
44014 F20101107_AAADKX pritchard_p_Page_014.QC.jpg
168f1a6a1978e5b90b3fddd9440785bb
840d32b69923c92ee0c67d8b937d4e17462941f8
804 F20101107_AAACIK pritchard_p_Page_134.txt
d42332a980bc2191308d38b5044403e1
476c8377a8ba1b7d2791de79aebd5b50cf434734
37101 F20101107_AAACHV pritchard_p_Page_070.QC.jpg
3ede178bf4b391a922e56f7f52ffc135
8ed4c66c123963bbc3545ca12b9bcba65335d52f
8645 F20101107_AAADMB pritchard_p_Page_192thm.jpg
2cc8e4f6c4b8c01ff724372f8a145caf
b853b5a8bd565e69a5714aae77479e7a42bf1ae2
8714 F20101107_AAADLN pritchard_p_Page_164thm.jpg
283bb451000274b364fcf690e788b7d5
fb10be2fbac52171970dbcfdf2ee5e7b830750fc
8455 F20101107_AAADKY pritchard_p_Page_174thm.jpg
757552d4abc29dcdf8f327fce3392cb0
988746ba00f41184665593073405f65284f652f3
979915 F20101107_AAACIL pritchard_p.pdf
96d206fb8af09c4059fe9dcbc816859e
f3790f66c930dcf205c4ba4f557ff75ec653d5e9
1051986 F20101107_AAACHW pritchard_p_Page_046.jp2
d4380c8a7cd2f5c7b86983264761778a
6969f80d5fa3a9d38c7397509ceb25d9380eaa8e
23204 F20101107_AAADMC pritchard_p_Page_083.QC.jpg
37b951c0d7256fbef3f87cac3203a9a2
ec78d6eabdb73515758186f4a0fa8327dcd3ad8b
32085 F20101107_AAADLO pritchard_p_Page_005.QC.jpg
47e3ab7f34903ce49bdc3b2c28ef37db
c0f06c6e1474d59409ea770e5a662f17124ae29b
4153 F20101107_AAADKZ pritchard_p_Page_104thm.jpg
def0fe1d331b3f9fedf09028eedf979d
dd27b76675d2c493681bd2a5e06c5444e60d1706
2252 F20101107_AAACJA pritchard_p_Page_189.txt
811daff7c5104cdb2d3c22652d3bf416
963dbd3cb5e866c677df30f262521e40bccf7f7a
F20101107_AAACIM pritchard_p_Page_022.jp2
adb28baea92bbf876579c5b7ef29f5f2
4a887c4c4ebd4ee81881fe3967fa827bd27ac111
4247 F20101107_AAACHX pritchard_p_Page_016.QC.jpg
5f4fd547b5b3f7537bc9c6a1028b48ec
1dffdf2e1ea25ffc06068fc8e9055595354198c2
7931 F20101107_AAADMD pritchard_p_Page_098thm.jpg
2eb727d0085815fddc97fb96a783b397
543bae4a5ed7ae273a063a517855ace706f91543
7361 F20101107_AAADLP pritchard_p_Page_121thm.jpg
d85b8421348f680902331245aefb7138
10f17dbf9485156ae4ff9b8d1799ca0a9b44b796
557029 F20101107_AAACJB pritchard_p_Page_151.jp2
b4bad6cf73b3f14da3bbca96664784e4
e0f5295b9dc6dfff97f1b473a6b7604ada34fba0
25471 F20101107_AAACIN pritchard_p_Page_003.jp2
787598c1b84ac1d23895d401c8e4536e
295d8f7da3d09467bf16b7441c903f65c83bec29
583553 F20101107_AAACHY pritchard_p_Page_148.jp2
9ce7d2c64c0ef76643fbf37ae4d1c507
35967180712d043e33ecad1e1df8b544c746a1db
34236 F20101107_AAADME pritchard_p_Page_023.QC.jpg
2a804f7fb4ac373e861b4b1dd14275c2
f0a3ade97a72bb703e6c9eaab4a656a7f4dd5637
7165 F20101107_AAADLQ pritchard_p_Page_083thm.jpg
a4d396deace9b2a8dcba98957a6b6ca2
39a25f642b19de32c7211d68f63f3318b157835e
3017 F20101107_AAACJC pritchard_p_Page_090.txt
a670d7e622fe301727e2ee157ba94ff4
39402dd6a1ebfb90ffc55a5deb0c8331d984cca5
36065 F20101107_AAACIO pritchard_p_Page_060.QC.jpg
809a752788d0e551f41998bf5c080712
dd03fed45710e2219a3855df36e04a3a8c167608
1051964 F20101107_AAACHZ pritchard_p_Page_172.jp2
402bcd0d0a26d2e998df7dde692f7458
c836886116d26d6cae3009eeb56c719e22f2030c
6840 F20101107_AAADMF pritchard_p_Page_087thm.jpg
757a971fe748a3a2491e5c2d09023a3b
6b3403b033eb7720810dce5dba3b11155ad3e971
13753 F20101107_AAADLR pritchard_p_Page_132.QC.jpg
b767b80f1060da6794e393ec41b589f9
24c1e87648784a9a9008462cdfab6787547e1d3c
67929 F20101107_AAACJD pritchard_p_Page_119.jpg
4eae3a9de8ce776c905a445e6eabf69a
a3a4c867ff36097cdecd31001b60cbd0ee608f00
36230 F20101107_AAACIP pritchard_p_Page_007.QC.jpg
24231c1070a0b8d9f7c3e0cd08143790
7803175876add69e7d5517f5e0f9088c6c1e604b
5402 F20101107_AAADMG pritchard_p_Page_143thm.jpg
2e5cd5601b9752c22942b4189479c92e
97af0fa2bea9c0efc19ac84551145c4a716479ac
36269 F20101107_AAADLS pritchard_p_Page_004.QC.jpg
6b1555c155c8379eca539539b8e8803e
0597303a1942cd7ff9faf6b051adb11451cf0feb
591830 F20101107_AAACJE pritchard_p_Page_125.jp2
a0f9531f21115ac37adad5cdbf853f79
d55afb1e92e264c800223ad8764231c2f79a467f
2142 F20101107_AAACIQ pritchard_p_Page_074.txt
48388d877ec9ab36770b5edf27e61c14
c6a3ac713d225d78142d8586482960f910fc8e5c
6981 F20101107_AAADMH pritchard_p_Page_112thm.jpg
9fefd8c282c0ea703492609abf12bfb6
4fbc5bb44401b0903b94b9a35e29cedb2d27d304
F20101107_AAACJF pritchard_p_Page_153.tif
801570df96684a13a55d8bf534dccacd
cfcc1f3dbcc52443dd3961b70d0630a9028341b3
294843 F20101107_AAADMI UFE0022054_00001.xml FULL
c7d694e736d800a1140fba5e7a643904
ef2c2be3fa44356b638385f4baa9ba344bfa712a
8362 F20101107_AAADLT pritchard_p_Page_158thm.jpg
df348eb209afff43dcd7899e8a108789
7b21abe1fbe48017c4b2f154888c4930b62c9bee
45724 F20101107_AAACJG pritchard_p_Page_126.pro
b2b0adfdd02727cbfcb19c2db58a90d4
0e2086f1ba105a345d09b5e22ccad0e237805302
29187 F20101107_AAACIR pritchard_p_Page_090.QC.jpg
14c994200a2b7f2aed8589522c787922
af9d4904ddb259a989bf6bbb2cca79e6490529f8
533 F20101107_AAADMJ pritchard_p_Page_003thm.jpg
45d7efc683de830fa40e8b7b06c6e666
781c51ef34308400232a6b657d06c0660a589fe0
8045 F20101107_AAADLU pritchard_p_Page_005thm.jpg
a6d56c2c241c352ef6a0d9ad1c2253ba
384136ad48fa38eca7ade95918c25412b6af0111
8124 F20101107_AAACJH pritchard_p_Page_154thm.jpg
92aa30e96d6b7b9883d6824a5448cda9
1171bb38e6babbb7e41db9d81ef43a1c97dc6ff3
106187 F20101107_AAACIS pritchard_p_Page_042.jpg
d7d7177971c961452353262785c5a6b9
743486e2674a51ef815a33cb37366fdf8fc877f5
8544 F20101107_AAADMK pritchard_p_Page_004thm.jpg
3e58e47af08ef7ed852590c908b06218
cec4c2762c034c64dd8ce0e2d2a5b96850c84d72
32547 F20101107_AAADLV pritchard_p_Page_019.QC.jpg
10712798cee5e231a96a18165613af9e
aebb36d48e1afce05ea5c362704fab7916b69842
F20101107_AAACJI pritchard_p_Page_037.txt
667a9f1eb4f091bed29a8f8f5401f61b
dfbd76bb8bd2bd3de74fca345b79fbb8cccd12fe
6107 F20101107_AAACIT pritchard_p_Page_110thm.jpg
86c86b5952a5c83c93d761bff3e8574e
4ac6063b0bba3c2fc8c1adde9ed77e3faed3a54e
32572 F20101107_AAADML pritchard_p_Page_009.QC.jpg
c2ad625952bae9eaf41b49387c63909a
defab3e93741a6d243667bbdc22ba9f13f4509f5
1289 F20101107_AAADLW pritchard_p_Page_002.QC.jpg
b086041382955cb1514f551333576335
27bc9cf51cd479b01ea7ea6d521bd279627916f0
9691 F20101107_AAACJJ pritchard_p_Page_134.QC.jpg
738e6ef89094a5ba732a0d80af2a0503
874b9cd77bc14579a367d56cc76141dc49ec8f17
6851 F20101107_AAACIU pritchard_p_Page_115thm.jpg
fa5a7f2b13fe4142f532f166e11ff1bf
3d7153c1df950812c1f5c2972acdd5c230980d9e
37292 F20101107_AAADNA pritchard_p_Page_075.QC.jpg
0099bd86dd71faba0bf349ac6bbf9b6d
9ecb19b982fa4fdb2ab6470628b71af67d574895
8907 F20101107_AAADMM pritchard_p_Page_010thm.jpg
aedec8b73dc8aadaade790fb0ef1011f
40b56ee119750a0ae3d76b75c022d50d38da0c37
21758 F20101107_AAADLX pritchard_p_Page_131.QC.jpg
552362170fb8a505e2ef58b696324ec6
ca33f0096645956e58ea588c650d76be7122abce
127878 F20101107_AAACJK pritchard_p_Page_010.jpg
e05237c25108c0a9be2ad6dac0bb1889
e67c28213ef9b581d60d41b35584bb91cc93f732
46628 F20101107_AAACIV pritchard_p_Page_017.pro
38754cedc32eb375c11889fad409313f
12c8bcaa7703388d25d96c466145a48ed118b3d0
15346 F20101107_AAADNB pritchard_p_Page_078.QC.jpg
44c0a7da08f7b78ca8c16dc8ec97fac9
0ae74ab5500cbf9a702e37fd73057ec2eaa660db
9992 F20101107_AAADMN pritchard_p_Page_014thm.jpg
40f59d0d81ab4c85175d79d976f102dd
59d4e46bcdd4ef1d0effa38fb601c72cdf6e47dc
5242 F20101107_AAADLY pritchard_p_Page_102thm.jpg
65fe28d1312dd7ec1a41472e39927c20
1d3d1aa384aaf003ab003e34c28755e49a4690ec
F20101107_AAACJL pritchard_p_Page_152.tif
d7542a2a3de9857f4690fd32707a78b3
08c8054d999029d4ba2308b45eab76b07806bfd1
100842 F20101107_AAACIW pritchard_p_Page_045.jpg
21602e2937af8425344b62f73045e3cb
94e0991c1febed92dd0d6dfc680291a917e96dc2
29989 F20101107_AAADNC pritchard_p_Page_091.QC.jpg
6bddd02976085d19393d6e6a95622268
44d25d3860887a7582131a78e27d0529264ed7aa
9665 F20101107_AAADMO pritchard_p_Page_015thm.jpg
50d3dbd49ddc30e8018b134c042e4e03
4fb50197c3cd2e252cd28cad28bf09abb9d91136
8756 F20101107_AAADLZ pritchard_p_Page_190thm.jpg
d106d7358f0a7cc859def60b7599403f
024748b17c00b48add06f7a18b10ab26e9914f35
52640 F20101107_AAACJM pritchard_p_Page_060.pro
34e80c5fb7856781e9da083144223880
d574f2f801db54c95782af017ddfd4cdcb6674d5
55455 F20101107_AAACIX pritchard_p_Page_096.jpg
4b093aa5e86f9b322cd1e4dea01cbe4c
f0ff3501fedf185c8d1538fba6a09dee3153c2c7
593586 F20101107_AAACKA pritchard_p_Page_138.jp2
b4d899f1b4f6531b7d873e629eae36bb
60d72b8b68a496892f9fa4ffa766655bb4ee5534
7647 F20101107_AAADND pritchard_p_Page_092thm.jpg
79fad49bd3b95f135f16aea8a29c329a
2ff9f0c720e6ebff8a4da4139262fb19cfc4dce9
8806 F20101107_AAADMP pritchard_p_Page_024thm.jpg
6f00534f8ed9e698bbceac828456a040
22f9e6b82624f56cd58a2a72b30f996cc232ec97
17129 F20101107_AAACJN pritchard_p_Page_124.QC.jpg
e7fdb3a20fb1418c51a784d02812a7db
454d75f3855deb878bf2963c1e53fcf3ebbe7fac
109458 F20101107_AAACIY pritchard_p_Page_026.jpg
05c9c6a389546b48f300adf5c66d2546
6cee0f7245629300d86a04137ecdb155e01a8266
4423 F20101107_AAACKB pritchard_p_Page_002.jpg
3e095cb11fa9510f27300dab51fcaad2
135b6c99fc387c22e8f2db1ba05ea983c8c3cb34
17352 F20101107_AAADNE pritchard_p_Page_102.QC.jpg
10f50acec2c0c48b20337bf6fa091050
f291efe00e363c061a37f937731db14eec4d1c87
37030 F20101107_AAADMQ pritchard_p_Page_025.QC.jpg
2508dca77bf2a7936f985b46843a2e26
a1a2e570ae499b386d2e4bdb6a45a6a95cae73af
8909 F20101107_AAACJO pritchard_p_Page_022thm.jpg
ca0040e4a90d69fa0be82ca72c492e6a
a239dd27b80b61e2e37271e365188b144f8fc6f7
F20101107_AAACIZ pritchard_p_Page_054.tif
81ed61dd5ab206200f4953c6a10c7a65
7dc3970a729ddf9a401426d797533504cc145d95
3614 F20101107_AAACKC pritchard_p_Page_146thm.jpg
b3936d7bee0c5b2ebde3ea4b26684456
377bf59d6227dfe228c08bfd6ce1630d6ac294ba
6541 F20101107_AAADNF pritchard_p_Page_103thm.jpg
3d478c7ae461e21d0f2fb9c2df493530
069ac2e1690022b23b5c2c35cee5ea38b2b91082
36494 F20101107_AAADMR pritchard_p_Page_029.QC.jpg
127d4641a9eb8114d2456c6b2af9aec2
b7842c8a0a0c622ee8da3ebfa48936f1379f5391
53405 F20101107_AAACJP pritchard_p_Page_151.jpg
19a97b5f525ded4dbd32a4a97d22361b
78c928fc9fdae1dd5cbf7ec18a15023238c7bb44
53555 F20101107_AAACKD pritchard_p_Page_093.jpg
1703e1de18f77df9944d1ab2b9f7c41d
0d6fe39cf7adf2cd0c0599388b2c7a7d01bf7d5a
7937 F20101107_AAADNG pritchard_p_Page_117thm.jpg
513f5dd4bcae5c29202dabbcc9b0b6c3
f6c80781892f32941e7a3afa30f84c404d7be5af
36602 F20101107_AAADMS pritchard_p_Page_036.QC.jpg
62b9bfcf4950e4d0e658abd6e69c22de
193dbe2c15560969902b42029fb14951e4599380
1541 F20101107_AAACJQ pritchard_p_Page_096.txt
8db7663b3ab1c8872ffcdf37fe5a4975
c526ee0fbe70a659649f9f7a20a741b6f6bea104
78727 F20101107_AAACKE pritchard_p_Page_013.pro
82f1f5605c42665b488f3b732f9437d4
04eec3dd1187354c7c786c89fde4ca5ec4bfbb9a
21865 F20101107_AAADNH pritchard_p_Page_119.QC.jpg
b08037ee6271fde27403e3c7d4d25785
2ae74cc3f8c259aeaaf83354bd512db304892164
35744 F20101107_AAADMT pritchard_p_Page_046.QC.jpg
cd58e0457345b6e15f67a3458a8c1e9a
9dbc2d8398a303545ef05a0b466508f8dcab6a79
2139 F20101107_AAACJR pritchard_p_Page_155.txt
4df4e72781f594df8e16868254d5907d
00e8d2fdd5dd4302e8b1d3698a923cc32d978096
2051 F20101107_AAACKF pritchard_p_Page_174.txt
ff5477c8660ee3f2d2eb776acc3ec22d
fb0d831b3999f6654c534637f48b55d646664f0d
12943 F20101107_AAADNI pritchard_p_Page_120.QC.jpg
8daa329298d327f24da4d4de40e966a8
af01bf9fe4ee8e7d6b6b14a1bd5ba91087036973
36283 F20101107_AAACKG pritchard_p_Page_167.QC.jpg
ef780a11b8fe575ae8c56e242d73cbec
2be8ebb43a6154e44b4339d8ada9165017c83d67
3698 F20101107_AAADNJ pritchard_p_Page_120thm.jpg
64134a01df908f1c8e135eb3b642c452
c4cd21707aae5239063341f87ad75f2a91d65a2b
35678 F20101107_AAADMU pritchard_p_Page_048.QC.jpg
487c20d2d533e8100062f9edda220e8c
ac86eea3f938f82fc4bc55a4575c0d86f973b702
31995 F20101107_AAACJS pritchard_p_Page_107.QC.jpg
de63fc2717bf4f96e30d00a4b9dda812
8ed6b56cc674ee315ce33410e36383d3bbf6bc77
1051949 F20101107_AAACKH pritchard_p_Page_171.jp2
8e6fbd9c32bc36f03d346e3fd0521af5
5e2449555f06c6036e4953e2ff248b941b81efb9
24953 F20101107_AAADNK pritchard_p_Page_121.QC.jpg
1bb0e968e3cd775cc4c95529f81e3121
f76985de387b16283a1965f0f5bd83ff3f0a3632
8693 F20101107_AAADMV pritchard_p_Page_048thm.jpg
1b38b81257f0ea5e9c5f46cae45c7f2a
4a74744ddd262b940839db51b47ea68f4de4356f
1051971 F20101107_AAACJT pritchard_p_Page_005.jp2
95ca9df19e9c7664dec58faea81502b0
00caf8d9021330348371773bd6d8a436af23ee6e
531823 F20101107_AAACKI pritchard_p_Page_152.jp2
03bc4dc5d3f0fdeda0f9cd2666d276ad
6868c3bc5f9135ccd71508502dec9f3b04981edd
17883 F20101107_AAADNL pritchard_p_Page_125.QC.jpg
4204bcfb9f073bdad382d598efba922b
de7b161f41f7186a530a6bbdff375c8d8cf7f59a
8606 F20101107_AAADMW pritchard_p_Page_050thm.jpg
e1f14779d80841a61aed1e80b8e2aef6
b8a221bb88e86a88bdaf0dabcceeff8cbeb25595
79790 F20101107_AAACJU pritchard_p_Page_105.jpg
4d61b4a57b22256027e40aa52b6baa7d
df514704a55c45871dc13f609074cdd75f3dc601
27915 F20101107_AAACKJ pritchard_p_Page_096.pro
2392501ab342da5bb854af7dd7756f4b
52b5789430d77d76858c00de2b681e6334738ddb
33116 F20101107_AAADOA pritchard_p_Page_173.QC.jpg
dc5d808b0b4ba24283bbd3d1490725ce
9f02f7dcb4375aea83097c0991e8e5c0e5983f77
21412 F20101107_AAADNM pritchard_p_Page_128.QC.jpg
39c20db06a73781545f1187820fab901
5ad2bfb5dfea94c9c248a8f94bbc33a6219b872a
8143 F20101107_AAADMX pritchard_p_Page_056.QC.jpg
b007a76115debef9ab12ea9614f8e04e
24fe14a4e016a6b7113eca0971b4093faca124ae
F20101107_AAACJV pritchard_p_Page_111.tif
10e9744461aecaa766a3bb17c5c016f0
d866ec80622fe6c25bfde88a3e74bf4bf88b8842
1051948 F20101107_AAACKK pritchard_p_Page_032.jp2
7c66a74bcae0754a2feee889bb3996a0
7d3c484e9e93b3bedf93eeb0f020c9e34715b1b9
33579 F20101107_AAADOB pritchard_p_Page_174.QC.jpg
3b7a7ac803a5c853a7b1c22d7149b82c
599f0fa53a91e8f4dab68d7965027eff849fc0a7
6770 F20101107_AAADNN pritchard_p_Page_141thm.jpg
ae97b5b0ed0ae5f3c57d5472a675dba7
50b12588ec67e91e9767dcc1766f1d1829158af3
26272 F20101107_AAADMY pritchard_p_Page_057.QC.jpg
542ecd777b61a8b25d52445ce5634cfa
b349cd844951d3f43dc8f491ee9db44d7940bb20
90500 F20101107_AAACJW pritchard_p_Page_182.jpg
32d62a88970342a7f4c7cb544dd2513d
f6da6a8ef53dc09c83a9e9b642bb87c3d8429b95
2045 F20101107_AAACKL pritchard_p_Page_145.txt
b4e43c33346fce2462e304c55cb3a12d
1b35a3790fad034fe413969f225c19b0938d3cb5
39211 F20101107_AAADOC pritchard_p_Page_179.QC.jpg
66d02aa1c7383fc624d476eae4b44d19
e4fd4c4692f3d3ccd238b4c24572b58f8c3b5a71
7363 F20101107_AAADNO pritchard_p_Page_144thm.jpg
08c0e0af1b960e4cacae75ce4866c00e
3be4f8b2c1d78e9a8695f41018348f99d1c75741
35250 F20101107_AAADMZ pritchard_p_Page_069.QC.jpg
8c19a75e9d9ba03e576d17d412df5a07
27252cdc9779e15a015848b272253ea8a9a8c430
2866 F20101107_AAACJX pritchard_p_Page_084.txt
c466b457e9fd52f83ce25cd2f6787a45
c19f24ebbe47203d109489e9aac94275453c8635
32631 F20101107_AAACLA pritchard_p_Page_054.QC.jpg
7cd9343f4635c0c5654dd9d826d5d6df
03c0e1ae5b545c0bba97c5a6ae63ea75e302d00d
33675 F20101107_AAACKM pritchard_p_Page_032.QC.jpg
c2a81a63019e5a5a9f08bb14b14bd468
30bf1cf5ee9595d9e8519b9f16a09b1244c1b3c3
19939 F20101107_AAADOD pritchard_p_Page_180.QC.jpg
f602184e670cf52d392b5bf40eb4e36c
5d6d56629e90fde7b81e16e26cadc637ba53fff1
12608 F20101107_AAADNP pritchard_p_Page_146.QC.jpg
92879b462814ac6d81fe2d1d5b622200
2babc089b48cb117014d8ac61c1dc1f5d0929014
F20101107_AAACJY pritchard_p_Page_060.tif
019058bbe8ebcdf94a80cd730f5f6b09
6d91d42e03b1f7abcecab6ec816b0dc49fa76aba
99 F20101107_AAACLB pritchard_p_Page_002.txt
c21eeae2f22dc67bfacabc499b9029d4
98c2590e39989b2c3a5e01a134e28cdb260361e4
2148 F20101107_AAACKN pritchard_p_Page_031.txt
1bef23d8546cafdbcb80a3ddb2455838
5ae1604812e545c23f170d5f7d2c05920457000a
17318 F20101107_AAADNQ pritchard_p_Page_147.QC.jpg
017369e61f21a7d6dbbbb63b858ba133
6bb7ca5d0e3d3a6e452a7e6cb80cdd135afc83f1
F20101107_AAACJZ pritchard_p_Page_023.tif
994d2dca4feddb60631bb600feeeb39b
e4e913a731811872445793bce7dbde9e5bbc096c
4042 F20101107_AAACLC pritchard_p_Page_006.txt
a00199ec1249bc331516e09de89a394b
3146955dcbe2683cf22820aefa55cca53d5e4d96
F20101107_AAACKO pritchard_p_Page_117.tif
02c2ef88245574cf1bb2a9abb454a31c
e97dbc624c90d400df88b720956812ae5c031d4b
6005 F20101107_AAADNR pritchard_p_Page_148thm.jpg
b2c2162201d606e8f076f9fa5a1926df
98e88f647ed558d579442fccd3f18bc812f4851a
81191 F20101107_AAACLD pritchard_p_Page_187.jpg
55d63caad3cf2e023c9a87ba359cf1e1
1fbd93a3c130f3836ac988e3f8836566ed0ea128
8809 F20101107_AAACKP pritchard_p_Page_074thm.jpg
1aceae2f285d61977870c6dbc40fcc62
3c8bff35269050975ecf18acc22fe084dc451b4d
19553 F20101107_AAADNS pritchard_p_Page_149.QC.jpg
5d17f444798db204aba5c9622eee4d91
03dcf8dffea8d7278f5fe5b459cd36df8fd5b075
91082 F20101107_AAACLE pritchard_p_Page_127.jpg
df511f3bfb06c099bcc18464cd82560c
b58b6706afff71d7e524e09fef20bbaecd8ffc51
1235 F20101107_AAACKQ pritchard_p_Page_016thm.jpg
7fb6660db7f5432b93262f3af7129b4f
148775eafa775b30f9cbc56fa505e05aa2f55e7e
5212 F20101107_AAADNT pritchard_p_Page_149thm.jpg
77062ee27f2e68b9b1e5a4cf9c8d6780
0430df93164c6d2407d61bba00024a3d1504c353
8474 F20101107_AAACLF pritchard_p_Page_043thm.jpg
32854d8a0903a1dcb9e632b885179cbf
e1ead4f786316a6ec1d2e747c72dd4840ed8d282
F20101107_AAACKR pritchard_p_Page_058.tif
c4a882e21f52943ea129e496d808e863
5484e86e14b6f10e7dd0db441b8be6f623d3c91e
5418 F20101107_AAADNU pritchard_p_Page_150thm.jpg
cf8b6ce753ae1ee05a372257cc49c2b1
7d063b817bc4f96615caf5f632dc6b9578452de8
8819 F20101107_AAACLG pritchard_p_Page_038thm.jpg
2502632e6bf33194b1f85db2dbac46a3
49f741eb5dce7b30ec6cb6dc25c5376c5b79f412
28445 F20101107_AAACKS pritchard_p_Page_136.pro
14a6674a7982d18a40bf466633639c42
d6dc459ccdabc3a8b99c0041b10f8364548b82c3
3922 F20101107_AAACLH pritchard_p_Page_111thm.jpg
f8575825b991efe2463e4660f3505b38
cb2d4833ea7d6b009d3c5ab03e405ba31900c0d2
8660 F20101107_AAADNV pritchard_p_Page_159thm.jpg
94e269789c6e777621c940364a3a021b
5a36ab427787a373707d7a74f8695bbc6c3ae25b
54883 F20101107_AAACLI pritchard_p_Page_072.pro
63bfd587d31671ccca05186938654de9
cfea88dfe77dd2fee0af40b5ca5f526e31fe4afd
5780 F20101107_AAACKT pritchard_p_Page_151thm.jpg
224104b4decd78886bd485ffaef76f07
faad29d873b0d76cd3aa1150554b91ffc74c38f0
8600 F20101107_AAADNW pritchard_p_Page_160thm.jpg
d2e5c3eb07de08d926a665e9821b2b5f
2061a058077d4b9449a1a3214a024179d5a6c869
122753 F20101107_AAACLJ pritchard_p_Page_184.pro
6180570d18cffa534e045f2ae17325b1
1a6b01e6e03872148d111960fbc46f8ef9a128ac
80557 F20101107_AAACKU pritchard_p_Page_089.jpg
3e62078e06e31d2eaf4e3fe3506c3a9d
fb959518bfdd2b9e2d351acca4aa2f4041ee6d28
36131 F20101107_AAADNX pritchard_p_Page_166.QC.jpg
dade6e675193c4a796c47b3e27756ed4
d1580a4b6c8262bda9d0b6571c728222ac60e3b2
34234 F20101107_AAACLK pritchard_p_Page_190.QC.jpg
e2957e7bbbec56c6f7c82ef4cefa66ee
048719a75b018f43f283f8bd5d6903818222dabc
43586 F20101107_AAACKV pritchard_p_Page_132.jpg
fd72ea96125f6008d5a60127ad61516f
320b261cb712c30691fb3afc62f3b2e85a1d27f8
32706 F20101107_AAADNY pritchard_p_Page_168.QC.jpg
9af5f9ffc4c9f145cf69bae87fe440fd
05c9c33d1d11248645cbeda475c878647a509b71
38952 F20101107_AAACLL pritchard_p_Page_193.QC.jpg
1f071609e428235d89569515be8e16da
07b8611ab8731063be6a55e75a25c830b3b6743b
365138 F20101107_AAACKW pritchard_p_Page_095.jp2
eb40bd73dbf05f095aa68a8ad354d503
ec10b4dc6b6c50e6d9fcacbd3159ea553bdd3096
8982 F20101107_AAADNZ pritchard_p_Page_171thm.jpg
a9ecc04587823be051938b1856a01af4
dc6541cabaaec9a1fc4e116e1ac33d701dfb1d2e
F20101107_AAACMA pritchard_p_Page_128.tif
cfb88eda04ea64de77b781a05d63565c
ac2f05d8a6ea7bf1ccc878bbe5f1c7c53a231ceb
8513 F20101107_AAACLM pritchard_p_Page_060thm.jpg
04805dc2319c7e3f9a9cb81ed1ccdc8f
e091e669a3fd33db9f2188860be6ca5860ff87a6
859577 F20101107_AAACKX pritchard_p_Page_130.jp2
217f722016fa84c91068966158ac4d55
99a93a45631d5fc715d09ee01ca340147de3a792
90799 F20101107_AAACMB pritchard_p_Page_114.jpg
f1a30a3b20ddef31793a00c0c920a85f
5f47335ceee6ef0f93c403c80a1483a5ad570017
35291 F20101107_AAACLN pritchard_p_Page_064.QC.jpg
755018f4401d5130ed4c604d80b2b57f
ef1f7a281ff7b8a4af76b9e4450f3b114fd01431
3862 F20101107_AAACKY pritchard_p_Page_186thm.jpg
cb067282ee7c8f84093ccd40ba190c9d
fb53cade75a039ef499ba171384da2582012a668
1539 F20101107_AAACLO pritchard_p_Page_140.txt
93142cb59035fadf6ed5f6008e88741c
a68b612f2edbc5b00c05489a9ed32ef0f5adfe9a
2172 F20101107_AAACKZ pritchard_p_Page_113.txt
0c56b4d030552f2344a28478c5febc0e
653b3cdb19f01ede2e55da98ccfc2098d029d60b
734964 F20101107_AAACMC pritchard_p_Page_131.jp2
fffab3a81a39331d05fc5c859987add5
afce4dabd6138d4c713c134931f9771007c7d4c9
F20101107_AAACLP pritchard_p_Page_160.jp2
666123007131ab9d0c4cdb7c0125183c
db8faadb2fc5f3048616096183b9d4e282d61322
79108 F20101107_AAACMD pritchard_p_Page_057.jpg
0a9bf9d5b75962aa5306820348bdc764
dabdf463975f6959ea81e18f7ecf56451feb00d0
33907 F20101107_AAACLQ pritchard_p_Page_020.QC.jpg
b19a2f0c87e76e531bd869228d959d2d
8075f3e12b7df81bf2965a90519adb06fa90aebb
116855 F20101107_AAACME pritchard_p_Page_172.jpg
6cf1e460b59e2dfecd9379f00c6982b5
06205db89e38024f1a247cd8378a9fd87aace9a7
55666 F20101107_AAACLR pritchard_p_Page_024.pro
53d51f4a9106dee13273735d48a9100c
2d99f2f9b2d9e7782d3f7244b002d43f1ae03c07
39045 F20101107_AAACMF pritchard_p_Page_057.pro
8aeef29fcc20345b80ce7743aaeb2024
7d2f204fe1a3ccd05c1104bed2f2cf4770390d0a
2939 F20101107_AAACLS pritchard_p_Page_117.txt
c2308a6e91782ddc302298f54f844553
a84728fa156d42be0d4e5da6f0fe416d5be1d5fa
1051981 F20101107_AAACMG pritchard_p_Page_024.jp2
a8b89f380afe083153f176bfaff4a24d
ebf501d3fe6211044b4f73ab6376cde2f1496762
31346 F20101107_AAACLT pritchard_p_Page_097.QC.jpg
597f8c00c770986750c561a0828e3fa7
1df58f231d8e1b53871c3ada5fd19e1b46bce2af
1534 F20101107_AAACMH pritchard_p_Page_143.txt
1161ae3d5da09622243c5a1f1f256793
404781d2f28e656ff5343f0477f86bdeb68649f1
8433 F20101107_AAACMI pritchard_p_Page_189thm.jpg
8233c2f920bc35574ce1e0bae433a049
99b8ddae0b5d573ae4cc27a11c0eabfcecbef151
65688 F20101107_AAACLU pritchard_p_Page_100.jpg
d54a06ef0450912de5dc76e46694526c
6f4d4699833e74a46a338d8a13f44888d8bdfea2
1044847 F20101107_AAACMJ pritchard_p_Page_194.jp2
20999922af5989c39ec833f349303e19
428cc42613b6954eac670051a2fa5ff7af548073
55021 F20101107_AAACLV pritchard_p_Page_090.pro
7f29f6bf80fd9f67b2248dbd36774b2d
3635de82581472cb63807a3eefa88873a707463e
2087 F20101107_AAACMK pritchard_p_Page_158.txt
cca79847a8a523e0ce3264457004bc47
73b997c13b04022f8f7a17b768d248f28bb32841
1732 F20101107_AAACLW pritchard_p_Page_181.txt
901b7247c292dad7b99ea2a3cca83493
1d03e816ff0a234ea0a3663bc2700862cb10c6eb
48612 F20101107_AAACML pritchard_p_Page_168.pro
4ec6b42de4d5fb82af9c377f20179bab
32521037971ad2be11161078ba58146aebda46a5
26313 F20101107_AAACLX pritchard_p_Page_146.pro
1cc19db2fae4eb69c9203d235cb1cfe7
f758f02d2c0047c8fc504f5865726d66d8729b37
60811 F20101107_AAACNA pritchard_p_Page_177.pro
fd70fb06f6563a24fcb133bb1e9cd251
b2628fd1099d88527db6b7fc2f853b45f6d80dd7
45520 F20101107_AAACMM pritchard_p_Page_111.jpg
6ff90a4c7ee4c9f3f2b8c48e25390fdc
fd5db0d5b1c01688b5f895b61d12369fb0a5df68
53491 F20101107_AAACLY pritchard_p_Page_034.pro
41de6001d398ec1efcb52b30454c77c5
2fd170b242e59231641d9341e8450f73a92ae4c2
30777 F20101107_AAACNB pritchard_p_Page_189.QC.jpg
d768b3f3b6dcd52b44f82b4128d51b50
62356896dd9be9f356482ca77f1c05fdd3351d62
F20101107_AAACMN pritchard_p_Page_011.jp2
8d5ce0e78723c45d7b76eea33f52fd69
4ab1fb137e0965a276cde948fe8d06ff0f3a90e3
105199 F20101107_AAACLZ pritchard_p_Page_060.jpg
02329058b71b5fc807a36bf9e4a4065f
524f89701d2e725c696af08fdab2311b23f89a56
1888 F20101107_AAACNC pritchard_p_Page_005.txt
39f1aef854ee14c890c9a228251df2ca
a3d993bfe2b622aa61decbbd931466f8e1efeaae
1564 F20101107_AAACMO pritchard_p_Page_142.txt
9b5611ab49b1290ed0d002f5a3c7e819
aa37a0243be1fdcbef38a197da3da2d1230d06cb
598211 F20101107_AAACND pritchard_p_Page_143.jp2
35e99b74dd4b0d17a286d9e25045f819
8da6442bd9b128aaf1acc23020160d1c21c9de42
2794 F20101107_AAACMP pritchard_p_Page_014.txt
bf2c50e44f50818bf77fa6c7f3815863
b20de61423ce7e40b57d07a4732c836112fedf64
524411 F20101107_AAACNE pritchard_p_Page_093.jp2
bc033d9a05550d3d013ec53745dca5ee
8db540001e22d225af83cd472fd31ed9ccf0797b
F20101107_AAACMQ pritchard_p_Page_021.tif
3dcbb782764cbf1d7c9926107748724a
b7acbd24da8f53e62e56af47a96cca678aad7430
28539 F20101107_AAACNF pritchard_p_Page_151.pro
caa2d724683176adcb905600dab815ca
0ebd436fe3ee4c38760128980c4ee371d6df9dc5
33573 F20101107_AAACMR pritchard_p_Page_161.QC.jpg
a46dc485d35a8fd77f27a6a30f93e394
ad424c498c8973b47a8e34c144c936719a0d9bb7
30224 F20101107_AAACNG pritchard_p_Page_153.pro
0eead08ea90f0a45a8da3db3313cc14c
92bc074e40438e3cc6a1d2bcfcb49d11cda1de5e
53415 F20101107_AAACMS pritchard_p_Page_030.pro
8f6151d0aa94abee4a7e146bce807178
4701258d2eef6d8aa8ae83878094ab44527273be
56185 F20101107_AAACNH pritchard_p_Page_036.pro
eb7a97d1cec43a9990ce2bc674e9b103
a31ea26e98f882c79b7da04ab142c77e3397ef34
1013961 F20101107_AAACMT pritchard_p_Page_090.jp2
af00681d71eb5c20225348b42cc863bf
3f1afe8850b692b29a09896ff08741360415a88b
45827 F20101107_AAACNI pritchard_p_Page_104.jpg
e26d0779ab83b89542e25cdec33f7621
ac86eb4e9cc5d9b180e4076bc03055ea91628c2a
64535 F20101107_AAACMU pritchard_p_Page_135.jpg
d5376f2558876fba515be0dc2c64cbfd
f2c703a1375a132491e63391f1b478220aa7140c
79950 F20101107_AAACNJ pritchard_p_Page_011.pro
62e1bc74107d6127cbd36adbdbbc48bf
6fbbe89249a52fa8bc4da7a0a8c8790a2b4f4ee8
2422 F20101107_AAACNK pritchard_p_Page_172.txt
3025dcfa68e22afe3009857d98b593e0
c40931a4888176c92e9f81483d4af52579330af6
8463 F20101107_AAACMV pritchard_p_Page_168thm.jpg
b7a212eaaa168e5f9edfe495b5e69629
301320fcb8475baee8f605fbc45702e7996f6c72
36810 F20101107_AAACNL pritchard_p_Page_041.QC.jpg
0135759d2e56a67122f331c50c59435e
e552b596d6bf60b9e6d816738fb5c5599bdd8e37
70955 F20101107_AAACMW pritchard_p_Page_131.jpg
2460416b4357362915933bbc1f812760
50f18c5306c03fc0781877a60233fc2282a4b9db
8877 F20101107_AAACOA pritchard_p_Page_023thm.jpg
9d73859f19de591144bc8f38a8be68a4
cc9dbaaca6c88f168fca12ed791188323f6c81e0
3540 F20101107_AAACNM pritchard_p_Page_095thm.jpg
bc39e526acb16fce0457a7fc93ac1227
7f560b3687119ac0f3da0f36d3fe770a5252428b
F20101107_AAACMX pritchard_p_Page_053.jp2
682be09fa806f2de67ea15b91180dd3f
f40be9c211363c2bf15690f3ab057a6400ae500b
F20101107_AAACOB pritchard_p_Page_016.tif
33922174796f9125aa23cce5321741ee
4a7392a63807515789152a2733304d4082141d35
46461 F20101107_AAACNN pritchard_p_Page_130.pro
68070f4400b5b1ed3fdc54bd544b658a
e2248e22d0239410d8d937c968e190eb881e1dff
105530 F20101107_AAACMY pritchard_p_Page_159.jpg
731b48250d1ab475c059a5756f8294d0
65e5cc2e401e2137d5711d62019bbfe3ade480e1
9126 F20101107_AAACOC pritchard_p_Page_163thm.jpg
c4283ef702fdacd096ffbf16b29292b7
49239b97dc2dac14816c2120e1fc0e4714a7e308
55345 F20101107_AAACNO pritchard_p_Page_070.pro
f1a1e9e0471558984d9a2781a35f4d51
6eda53838fa4ae145d7fef16412cd350f3d7ce46
F20101107_AAACMZ pritchard_p_Page_082.tif
ddf4a9461dfeeb75c1865ae950a0013a
04faaea78a91523eeb29dfade480b13349ff7045
46417 F20101107_AAACOD pritchard_p_Page_078.jpg
57db4fd25c7a0af4a08bfd3dbf1573b5
6d18a7fd8d049283f46f1118fdc9f710e5b6ca17
8795 F20101107_AAACNP pritchard_p_Page_030thm.jpg
2e4acb590ff3bff92f781cdba4d0437a
1770a637fb88e910901d9010b73f8320ea5be414
98183 F20101107_AAACOE pritchard_p_Page_168.jpg
1159ceb12662265519e79d7ef207405d
9943db3c2beedcc52fe6c156ca8efbdacf4ec836
26794 F20101107_AAACNQ pritchard_p_Page_093.pro
9faa18b6d99e6f14908a8f03302b955e
18deb2e566f509428c65e46662ea67292dc4b4ba
F20101107_AAACOF pritchard_p_Page_159.txt
e1990726cef47b4acd42ff9e3b218a99
1fa8c63cd1946d8234d9898ab1c7bba1f4aad341
572577 F20101107_AAACNR pritchard_p_Page_099.jp2
f77b102ac9103b9039534b724c3f32f5
5a15fa5cdde452e523fdb0a63d3ac93161a511c1
F20101107_AAACOG pritchard_p_Page_041.tif
81d18444a321fda8d30ffaf2de2d09b8
42a495828eea62c16b59afad810be6d5f065820e
21710 F20101107_AAACNS pritchard_p_Page_100.QC.jpg
e83211859aac4e7d7f11735e08383684
3b2e518c0794d7873cc9e5e90389d35155201a29
F20101107_AAACOH pritchard_p_Page_076.tif
64e304390f5f7c92d5387102e2fc627d
2a09c5628d79ea17443b428532959bc2f4d9c96e
F20101107_AAACNT pritchard_p_Page_020.jp2
24de4ff69d924cfecd5eed0c22a1e865
6bab69a285dcdb12c94c1ebc26b4c86aa3d2d311
20278 F20101107_AAACOI pritchard_p_Page_110.QC.jpg
d284df2ca3cd8792e58c65cb30a32160
2ae53c15b9252b7765115370adf364594012fba5
94532 F20101107_AAACNU pritchard_p_Page_092.jpg
cf138c763b4b23d8dad607883d8cd8b2
f94f7aff717bd6837c837fe4a92a99a828bf2644
F20101107_AAACOJ pritchard_p_Page_057.tif
ce6fa1121d27f5a4e409c849d21213d0
9dabe41fac3fc6c40bdf7b8ce05eee2991e0283b
F20101107_AAACNV pritchard_p_Page_020.tif
abd8be98b6ff86cd3e2ce9670a762643
11cb9d64208a9b47bf27bc68743f516d5b9128c4
8333 F20101107_AAACOK pritchard_p_Page_173thm.jpg
c07638c753de14ff65ab49184be97b7a
d2c7546975c8203637624d0fe6c8257ed996ea2e
6955 F20101107_AAACOL pritchard_p_Page_130thm.jpg
7f127e406f16255823b479dfe566551d
5557638fe0468424da79146447e959b4720735cc
F20101107_AAACNW pritchard_p_Page_179.tif
c032471c6b53287d3d3c34d68925b4e4
e9c7944977c90e5a81e750e7ad4d1f6623f9b6d9
2198 F20101107_AAACOM pritchard_p_Page_148.txt
89de0c114ea1ad8afd58fd932321b0cf
1180fdbbc775c5dda183663eb3d2e8aa251ca9d6
8590 F20101107_AAACNX pritchard_p_Page_076thm.jpg
6ce0661e1b17fadcd6ec30de1dbd8093
60cbde19359ae8beb325f6ad6849332457693a86
1051967 F20101107_AAACPA pritchard_p_Page_041.jp2
51a2210988f85cb493e9950678469508
ba87f11c8ee17de18fc10c2b39eb29a8e2582c93
1051951 F20101107_AAACON pritchard_p_Page_186.jp2
b9443b698459281fa78330e4cb5e4fac
523ff2ca07a6a66a970720a31a99dc6737675e3c
F20101107_AAACNY pritchard_p_Page_157.jp2
6019ce2c372b9a3c8da395d11e39b43b
248cfe9beb06de2d0c929df688ee55f0b4135725
53980 F20101107_AAACPB pritchard_p_Page_189.pro
3f6f9fe8e26d478eef7bc23dcc08b4b8
247db86bdd54d29c6c1c3fc3b28b16a53da54891
282794 F20101107_AAACOO pritchard_p_Page_195.jp2
108e324a5287ddd7ffa66147548cf148
9cf08547713760540330dbd573327eac42a5e885
F20101107_AAACNZ pritchard_p_Page_065.tif
149397e6bd6c67c47423354b73faf0ab
0555c68e3cfd4d994c53ce75751539a58ba2dbcf
1051924 F20101107_AAACPC pritchard_p_Page_190.jp2
b24b2aa8849f24e62aece2c1109f5439
096efb451f4356d91239a36d55beffea0330de42
262 F20101107_AAACOP pritchard_p_Page_188.txt
5687a0a5665d0b44cffa3c869e2cae6e
7ac30b9cce96112f9476cf7a127d369df2a62fdf
27310 F20101107_AAACPD pritchard_p_Page_104.pro
b86ecb037d0fe2607a7326240afbac9a
69c50cf6c3804312a560d4dbbff9a5e11fd36836
F20101107_AAACOQ pritchard_p_Page_062.tif
a76c3966d65cc53ae2b347328e1d1065
a5051597ef0329261139bd92f4b721cd57da837f
8558 F20101107_AAACPE pritchard_p_Page_001.pro
72ab3e2bc62d28d19e81177bc58b413e
0b7512a640e178ab3ffa04462608c0df8c80f722
105633 F20101107_AAACOR pritchard_p_Page_156.jpg
dbba018ef7c1a9f67d29c85922cb1732
719f3370bfac522c4e44b6117ca15d25b2afccde
F20101107_AAACPF pritchard_p_Page_014.tif
69cbfa4f4c1bf84ac8ca18b7fecb4023
71043b6427e398a66681f051caad1095dbe819bc
F20101107_AAACOS pritchard_p_Page_035.tif
e8acfdc54410d20d9df7d7ba53f397a1
ad395492cbb24fb3c1a94efd13b6c0138bf1f6b6
8199 F20101107_AAACPG pritchard_p_Page_032thm.jpg
05895925f0433b20e2d5d64b9bbfdfcc
aba13dee67473cdbf286f659e81590fd3bec345e
34441 F20101107_AAACOT pritchard_p_Page_039.QC.jpg
9e2c21c80bea6fc4cf84997b6be09850
d634930c05f0012a085ffdbf9395508acd8ca257
60102 F20101107_AAACPH pritchard_p_Page_117.pro
cf2de70fda39a9fbefe96b710a9130eb
3c9998affdea19bfe87c723bcebaf99785408f57
F20101107_AAACOU pritchard_p_Page_039.tif
c9979058132cf237c955c78dfde3a289
cd26ca647208ee047ac8f2ad437a148dba38f316
2216 F20101107_AAACPI pritchard_p_Page_025.txt
79d409d475c07249396fa049d13735fe
586a4f85e44f23e87510daa512d9b8dd427312d1
7893 F20101107_AAACOV pritchard_p_Page_090thm.jpg
c155ff96afb6c3fb707f60832a4757ac
0e3bc7badcf9968819a4c13c8e71c78dffb60ffa
8747 F20101107_AAACPJ pritchard_p_Page_071thm.jpg
9b29714e9ceac7b2cab547e6abe84047
e60efaf00b5fc80b7de3f04c2b70562ae8185260
24409 F20101107_AAACOW pritchard_p_Page_112.QC.jpg
a5fd1f08974e1cd1e0e30c30dbb3910e
526ad612bcef9db0f4d46b1b3c4d17785915f50d
51935 F20101107_AAACPK pritchard_p_Page_038.pro
1acb2f48fa4de64d6bfa9298b36bd9c0
4de7ee4b5c68fb587bab642f22eef2ef7baa36ec
1051925 F20101107_AAACPL pritchard_p_Page_178.jp2
bb7eb019cbf5a5c1e515356858f15adb
667cab719561cdf94e88aca2c0798d20d3203e73
F20101107_AAACOX pritchard_p_Page_099.tif
14cc454ce7d8b02727a8d3a48a1e82aa
e35b4f455c0ff4ced7939742d83d9a4b41f3ca4e
F20101107_AAACQA pritchard_p_Page_004.jp2
7d9bb945ab37b625761a4ad45d78614f
a9fc84dcfe9d7c010fe3c3657c424adbba9f1523
8237 F20101107_AAACPM pritchard_p_Page_009thm.jpg
a28b7648d9fb489e6373e4c4960e6f55
6c46a63a415a471fd0dc6b35712d95233bcf4c41
4188 F20101107_AAACOY pritchard_p_Page_078thm.jpg
079b3bf6af3a4e42b3ca1d07af147c0b
9b3c60797310df0137e60b0f1832debd0e8ac61c
2163 F20101107_AAACQB pritchard_p_Page_151.txt
ab597762e807b82b865d0d3f572380f0
82c3fa3073a31d32be025052ff340e8f62715780
25107 F20101107_AAACPN pritchard_p_Page_105.QC.jpg
bef4ec6e0deb841f6e7ff3090eab832a
e45e6bf8addd690f6ef820d8039374fc55fe7f84
1051917 F20101107_AAACOZ pritchard_p_Page_161.jp2
8d2b63a5a27f3eaf56f5b7272d0532ff
86ff36171c3fb82047d96969fcd306a53535840e
2594 F20101107_AAACQC pritchard_p_Page_098.txt
65de71769f858cda13c29c0f9d6d3a93
5f081e48accbfde201fad7282ff12dcdbc04a116
1051963 F20101107_AAACPO pritchard_p_Page_031.jp2
2e103b12302fab5db5e0e9d727e33252
496ac0a7a1f31e12e995482332f2c6a69a26bc22
116825 F20101107_AAACQD pritchard_p_Page_178.jpg
7e183d271e6af5e11e62af8ef20ebf20
3deff067e755be44e2a4b05cb7505a232400874a
2168 F20101107_AAACPP pritchard_p_Page_001thm.jpg
92464d1fef749cef5d9d1c8632c32f40
161ec5017d51038f10594c6d895918506c62261c
45256 F20101107_AAACQE pritchard_p_Page_105.pro
15df6d7c59fa558697eebd2733594a37
8644ad932dbdcf9b51d0773351c1553be4aab735
57058 F20101107_AAACPQ pritchard_p_Page_114.pro
2a4b12174eac511b8bf40d1e6875b96d
ffd44ecf419a77b4c66e517766cf9111ba9f8132
F20101107_AAACQF pritchard_p_Page_001.tif
d46302ba6c9efa1fe45d89a8407ea1a6
acf5fcf6eeb8468f3fd7c06115ff5146f964a29b
2238 F20101107_AAACPR pritchard_p_Page_073.txt
bf4594caa911138ea2670b7fc6a4e9ea
7bd35cd483d684a0e08913406393567a49fc21d1
860696 F20101107_AAACQG pritchard_p_Page_133.jp2
dcbaede6999bbef34a4d966960fe59c6
7344d81714d0e5a14b7ae5fbae25a9bc2918319f
1051953 F20101107_AAACPS pritchard_p_Page_063.jp2
8a079dcbaf7a506ebc73a4bf4f906e5e
d5409ffc96f98bfa56fe6f0c739763e93b28e4c5
31173 F20101107_AAACQH pritchard_p_Page_134.jpg
0af4d7818c32a1f21181a46740b756f3
205d4469dfea2e0d4c32fac5013adddbf44d7a94
6630 F20101107_AAACPT pritchard_p_Page_089thm.jpg
d714f4c0a0ae2e8e2f85daa7d52ab4b2
7171599708100536069a39b1293efa37ae2a8c73
450062 F20101107_AAACQI pritchard_p_Page_111.jp2
c14857e6d279b104700438d3a80b0b66
087733f43e2c68787997a79025d0ddf1bd28a708
1501 F20101107_AAACPU pritchard_p_Page_101.txt
f951fab9c94bc4304fb9411b9d62d628
a4a5d7e36028ba16a9a7ec38c4743df225015fee
98028 F20101107_AAACQJ pritchard_p_Page_117.jpg
3bc789421158f8d4f157f565cba64f36
a1fd547976941c4b0156e69b74f325c180d87844
3692 F20101107_AAACPV pritchard_p_Page_003.jpg
e7cb49a7897b71d08d4a657b027ff608
ca584b79d7692c16bae71f0b581cad14e8a40182
F20101107_AAACQK pritchard_p_Page_175.jp2
f7ea9d2cd9128e137edadc607a4883e5
0962168552ad497e536ba9553d7d95e2f111b5c8
25345 F20101107_AAACPW pritchard_p_Page_114.QC.jpg
b0e1891ba245db77f7aa8b9ecad7703b
499858b5c5a8b8d6950893e46d19dcbab15b73af
F20101107_AAACQL pritchard_p_Page_155.tif
04f40850f0e7e6c082c36426781508e8
1290e9f614a67091f3a7267d15e5e20c21729ed5
58061 F20101107_AAACPX pritchard_p_Page_127.pro
ac0f147e7eba3ef67da228ddcce0e7ec
bf891fb6660c795fcea4c83da7161eaa17d652b1
35990 F20101107_AAACQM pritchard_p_Page_043.QC.jpg
19ce470a830ee19726758128f18c3fa5
e16d94a0100ebf6be38c18ebe402fe3108ef1291
8522 F20101107_AAACRA pritchard_p_Page_042thm.jpg
7db7e927ea2ef453e94a6ed706053826
6d62e6a1238687cb022a5d978387bdf7d2950a24
111438 F20101107_AAACQN pritchard_p_Page_046.jpg
e0a551b1297ce2ff8bb86cc572112389
019ba1590115576c6843a12948001f218a0f5749
5191 F20101107_AAACPY pritchard_p_Page_079thm.jpg
efad532edf48d6895b77e05ff1cc4d73
e4ebd2f65004663583493ede88e9481d3227b714
F20101107_AAACRB pritchard_p_Page_018.tif
78a374612c4ee8893677b0cf713cd302
b84dcb8f3830b00139d96312a7eaf881aa4901ff
F20101107_AAABNM pritchard_p_Page_069.txt
e650a830a30f97b9809ee31998bce361
7d6ae703a4b01accb3ae4e2b49475af8d894aca8
58639 F20101107_AAACQO pritchard_p_Page_149.jpg
c01030c68264e3cf002928f6976f367b
7c2509ab4cca48571059fbb75c896669ed0d81f3
57508 F20101107_AAACPZ pritchard_p_Page_125.jpg
087ec14df7c2843dc00bd914ee060dac
9322b1c2f474b84e8b267d3e1f3ebc723617a363
654370 F20101107_AAABOA pritchard_p_Page_109.jp2
a8479558a0fa6c7fe190f6f8a6dd7776
8022d1993d2544e04289803a6c4d75ad2380b93f
34132 F20101107_AAACRC pritchard_p_Page_027.QC.jpg
254bbc24bad475947defd19bc799dfad
93e5d570f1c89f74d18ce10c6773b31401c15589
17714 F20101107_AAABNN pritchard_p_Page_153.QC.jpg
31e1d09b83c6ada54c72ae41c737fce3
5b11d4c96bafd5c1a5ce5a3751621672254d7a34
34999 F20101107_AAACQP pritchard_p_Page_067.QC.jpg
4385dd5c836c3ab04ebf016c2e568afd
0b26dba614607a4fb72265721ff481cef18083b8
29337 F20101107_AAABOB pritchard_p_Page_080.pro
3518345e89c883f7b7dcdae7f3b76027
9c64361c9c152870dcba9c8b80384ce06b331018
F20101107_AAACRD pritchard_p_Page_053.tif
4155827775d2e6b6ea1decf5db7e16e4
c997f272212404de1c8c2fd906bf34f3b8d260ad
F20101107_AAABNO pritchard_p_Page_181.jp2
4beb6f442a3d8f4e2d8638f203f89258
a6392a798363e4f8cbfa4054d9f4bb2289870e46
F20101107_AAACQQ pritchard_p_Page_017.tif
b1165f86738ee649c87e532ea81e6597
16aaa70685d820b838bdb69ef2e8b8bc0c8cccc4
4647 F20101107_AAABOC pritchard_p_Page_096thm.jpg
39446429fe52f97fcfaecd98230ce313
44931199ffb6a987d3ba5f143e319e755338818e
32612 F20101107_AAACRE pritchard_p_Page_021.QC.jpg
0d800f54f3b8aaba279f041b7358c9f7
cb6372fc910eb12e13adcafb44ee2e2099445603
111246 F20101107_AAABNP pritchard_p_Page_072.jpg
eaa5c77d1ad48abdbe2d600907089499
b99567395d23f5be63c1b53bf78e440701814999
2286 F20101107_AAACQR pritchard_p_Page_178.txt
d88f64808fbaac7fc4d1759e6288db2e
94158dc70e7ca18313a67a8f2d64cba761cb03e9
9459 F20101107_AAABOD pritchard_p_Page_193thm.jpg
149015e66ec79609261fc6fbd15ca387
b21d2c87e2c77f56c7ee51a547510aad3f7098cd
188126 F20101107_AAACRF pritchard_p_Page_016.jp2
68ae380878c1162000563a0383932bb0
035471d0534680e16719ef448c1dbc2c81878f6d
F20101107_AAABNQ pritchard_p_Page_025.jp2
ba6b2d648f0cd2096677912f38e4fd86
c0ab72aa6802067db4dfe69816108bcd6524f1b7
1051934 F20101107_AAACQS pritchard_p_Page_116.jp2
4ab34df73e8a443f044ce2f34f0a00a5
22012342186cc63c2c1762b8dbe10686711909f4
37246 F20101107_AAABOE pritchard_p_Page_037.QC.jpg
c25a6f7a64a67bf702dbb7aaba1e9868
0649619a7c5f644b4d2037bebfbc8898449b2328
4268 F20101107_AAACRG pritchard_p_Page_093thm.jpg
74bc2f28e0dc1601dd34c61837cbfa6b
62fc09cf4ef5e5482fd733301219c0c029c8f2fc
35169 F20101107_AAABNR pritchard_p_Page_172.QC.jpg
8d85f7c9ddca64db47b355cd9da15991
ca8710611a6b0908ec27c6d732513667187d4f68
110904 F20101107_AAACQT pritchard_p_Page_066.jpg
275502a94e712f592141679a6377911b
71246ced1af84df789fa33545843e07d1674a6b2
F20101107_AAABOF pritchard_p_Page_149.tif
ef4a60c60d25789812f4f9bea1981dc1
89c31b91716bac67b2694bc969680aaa2e46c5c4
F20101107_AAACRH pritchard_p_Page_090.tif
f601c1dd6a195782c9e86dfabac33a84
9cc2b87771b9d9f2c0d9eb73488f8c509f5ba273
2551 F20101107_AAABNS pritchard_p_Page_134thm.jpg
682a821976f1775c77a0f1d89af448a5
53b6aef7786602147c2ebde55f23f01a2b3c26ad
2974 F20101107_AAACQU pritchard_p_Page_179.txt
4166db0566b96bb38ee5d86a141bc6a0
3c17ba5cdd0cf0ccaa7a62012c882186f3aad033
F20101107_AAABOG pritchard_p_Page_036.jp2
d4448c1e7490ece697b5cedb12611ac8
d3740c9f1a32fe3032865a1e7a992759b5a42543
3790 F20101107_AAACRI pritchard_p_Page_142thm.jpg
cde18c9c12f24d9ec975d3bb803e14f4
632c19c67b65d8072ac8b9c14be86a4a28e2f284
36969 F20101107_AAABNT pritchard_p_Page_171.QC.jpg
0b293fcc948ff09b9d602069570a16fb
1c39eeb9f531207a19278cdc3541cfbe121eb773
F20101107_AAACQV pritchard_p_Page_047.tif
a5f6111f771baffed757d47ec99b0eac
306ddb40d5e84309098395721022d75aadc9cb41
108444 F20101107_AAABOH pritchard_p_Page_069.jpg
e1eed8313fc74e6745bbbb31d2e1dce5
215377f5a1a06093a98eb438f45a38ba6650fb59
140365 F20101107_AAACRJ pritchard_p_Page_015.jpg
f0b5aa6bf124ff09d55e8589ddc91642
496a86d0bce00895e871b6ca98a82c8c83c8f3ce
35850 F20101107_AAABNU pritchard_p_Page_051.QC.jpg
24505f2e11bbffac61f852d969c3cc2d
be8540f21a5c4118eb511acd7de7797ca263daca
57809 F20101107_AAACQW pritchard_p_Page_068.pro
6c3602a625a0bfe1e263b695e48a2ee7
e098ce17084ad9547e2b1b1804fd458168205a1a
8746 F20101107_AAABOI pritchard_p_Page_191thm.jpg
1068d01c214a8a8d7212c0cfe123d6ed
518359660e3f74e88ac0f7b55e3abcf744a13285
21776 F20101107_AAACRK pritchard_p_Page_103.QC.jpg
1df5533a8619ed017e8f07a4f563a76c
905aea1cdad36b5332bee2f48043c6c06b0c7093
165839 F20101107_AAABNV pritchard_p_Page_007.jpg
72b43185a3590fadfc51790e6a73e285
6d545986fa041261a901f17114aa9ef01b20ddcd
111699 F20101107_AAACQX pritchard_p_Page_170.jpg
342068e3a873720413ea5230d113ee3d
8fc221389f095ea3769cb3718a771dcb38a4ddb2
6528 F20101107_AAABOJ pritchard_p_Page_100thm.jpg
052822cf225e5922d13811c62db66476
d36cf8cf8e8f66fd729465909bd30c119f6095e8
38305 F20101107_AAACRL pritchard_p_Page_073.QC.jpg
989d0e71b3677b8ed82325f7d10a35bb
ace0a2eb20cc5d1d23197bb10a08ea354b839afb
F20101107_AAACSA pritchard_p_Page_069thm.jpg
d7d2d0eb579703078376527640d99792
27274cd62ff6656be006e3a742ce05e090623cdf
53012 F20101107_AAABNW pritchard_p_Page_023.pro
35c5b875cd65a924b2e281d59f748902
510d59a7a8df414f39a9f9104774e06331ad72a2
2187 F20101107_AAACQY pritchard_p_Page_022.txt
b70d437846b3811e140323777ab9bb10
304460e86094a1a894d7d34877e32da1e4bf8208
39100 F20101107_AAABOK pritchard_p_Page_095.jpg
31b56e64170bc916a300765973553ae4
e2b97b8f5b34d62caed01b229045f4b0792af64c
F20101107_AAACRM pritchard_p_Page_019.tif
a12413d371c209be3c8d98a14a3c51f8
5a122291002756b3c48ba21933a1eaff32c41057
24288 F20101107_AAACSB pritchard_p_Page_084.QC.jpg
fb5b3ba65c453af8ea338d48a9c4ac52
ff443271057f659bbea245ebf2cdb97f90bfd419
35342 F20101107_AAABOL pritchard_p_Page_160.QC.jpg
626f61e37cbab635fcf9fe712bea63b1
a0f66b9b765d862931c61ff3452515a46fd59ec6
457462 F20101107_AAACRN pritchard_p_Page_078.jp2
4fb898060690f333cb265c789a6d017f
16aaec6a7704c28c9e62852005fae1156f02c412
F20101107_AAACSC pritchard_p_Page_092.tif
9c56d041f0fae0379a6b597e10a1f7a9
bfa44a9067a08689ea67ab34f29d6f49e08f6a79
24351 F20101107_AAABNX pritchard_p_Page_085.QC.jpg
5dff4fe68fe5a0192d3be71b1a5b1460
398ba3119d5c9f6c7d9242eb8eb09751e7754760
1763 F20101107_AAACQZ pritchard_p_Page_058.txt
83e5c4651cbe68ba9dc16a964257f447
f4cd10735e072a3f6685ade33bb01450b158637e
27035 F20101107_AAABPA pritchard_p_Page_182.QC.jpg
ef41e9d45a6cec08763be5d159f4079e
f1f87cf5317f975224d25fb9cce1b890d84a2e12
40377 F20101107_AAABOM pritchard_p_Page_011.QC.jpg
d4933c7f0a03249ce48abfccc0aed3d5
c8343b12c6d056cee19611825e3f5b42b0a6eb03
1051983 F20101107_AAACRO pritchard_p_Page_069.jp2
d0e9bfee8e59d820b6a171d946d24a84
a119fe43609cfb828f4c24fb61341060effc1905
F20101107_AAACSD pritchard_p_Page_175.tif
82e29593946e4a2af3c442a5f88d7b79
d5bc6d3561e7abe1dff5c91c308929d261e3e133
20337 F20101107_AAABNY pritchard_p_Page_113.QC.jpg
682c98b3525e91bcbdba2ce0fdc7b862
44428e8740ef65fcdf024ad1bb0c5516a46c760c
56344 F20101107_AAABPB pritchard_p_Page_165.pro
e8c0296944d8fd34f5489e3cffbe0aef
6b80e945c9888d14a7bb69907be7f2e64e688aca
4946 F20101107_AAABON pritchard_p_Page_139thm.jpg
9f0323fce55a2259993bc99876cff2db
cca96cb66c01b9850d4b811cc8fd48d520892d1e
F20101107_AAACRP pritchard_p_Page_078.tif
b7f3ca5386e7c619ccd7b790e5430775
dc110c043bdb96088513de243f0ec306c051e4d3
F20101107_AAACSE pritchard_p_Page_032.tif
4c4a0bf4e77e50d56df9326b08003ef4
c42635ca7c092412bcda4ae16461a60255e12f26
43441 F20101107_AAABNZ pritchard_p_Page_058.pro
116da2853a4c632e7e0e024b70e36025
8b0edf5b9e0be3af8ea858cd8a4e705617233265
633185 F20101107_AAABPC pritchard_p_Page_094.jp2
2e7775ea11bffcaad70712eb066324a3
724cf51669724f5e9f12c3efacf6092e16bd1ec6
35307 F20101107_AAABOO pritchard_p_Page_074.QC.jpg
ebedeaf79ea147a1f4141b2a0966877d
539f07a48a6818e55e7904e7f4c1dd3d8f6d4445
F20101107_AAACRQ pritchard_p_Page_176.tif
4fc30809d9e8e74793c57180e68150db
b1561dd68d6856abdeb93efa2d38619d2a5cc884
63967 F20101107_AAACSF pritchard_p_Page_145.jpg
41b756d1e5ed3957ad8f63527bf00765
191a5bf8009c2a69687e136e0588984224739b01
F20101107_AAABPD pritchard_p_Page_052.tif
f06c2667d618733d24881774118bdb7b
dacc1a8cc34b8b70e08624c4470e59c6989b20ad
110599 F20101107_AAABOP pritchard_p_Page_071.jpg
0ac4d901e3fd2cfe77dae428d7cebe11
8b7425c98ea95f074d31c674acd17218f0f1cc9b
35835 F20101107_AAACRR pritchard_p_Page_164.QC.jpg
eed9e09cf9ca5e0d985d5367ecc0c179
ff1a145ca144968662d9f37a420b4a3a06833f15
17814 F20101107_AAACSG pritchard_p_Page_096.QC.jpg
b159583ad28d50e5cabd46ed293ec115
43dc482763d106b10dbbc86e854271ae02a77500
6453 F20101107_AAACRS pritchard_p_Page_145thm.jpg
6df1b3cfc318bcc42f9cdd4ab7d5c65c
5121d0a52b2ac1fd623583340acf4cd710df1a9f
14842 F20101107_AAABPE pritchard_p_Page_104.QC.jpg
d4f5ebab2ccada04ddf6f05f326cd982
dfaa7ad3467da3c589f3854b115294ee8f7628fb
26867 F20101107_AAABOQ pritchard_p_Page_120.pro
c053102ca28cdd2b54aa3eb500ff99f3
4636c189953903d70a6dcff31f06444246137af2
35199 F20101107_AAACSH pritchard_p_Page_158.QC.jpg
d77dbdb75e1f6fd93bde713028663714
f923fd660f021d1cb8c44716b27b23bf72f0ee9d
138725 F20101107_AAACRT pritchard_p_Page_193.jpg
e6e8ae303bb75cce4b6a24e39458dd6b
719b7d8aa94010d63e0d1e8b17daed11ee75bb58
51212 F20101107_AAABPF pritchard_p_Page_053.pro
a34184c0bb4964c6b73cd83ed0f68ab9
7f322a962557cb694df04ad5e3c2639181cf7fdf
36515 F20101107_AAABOR pritchard_p_Page_177.QC.jpg
230b11e41157ba6c8aa8bc1451e6414b
0a8601a04fcb6d08e58b2ade56e71280fed62665
101883 F20101107_AAACSI pritchard_p_Page_049.jpg
8b8fbeda5467019097e10e6f1a880e79
060de8ad55d25a2ecacfef18b14dc3f8f7579a49
F20101107_AAACRU pritchard_p_Page_051.jp2
0a942d7390a9d6e4f19fb97cf6aa8dc8
aa8e8d0d01cd1df2b093f4cb572316fd7ac9013a
F20101107_AAABPG pritchard_p_Page_169.tif
1d5fe59f7c20090fbeaf4328bb13493d
a43631ac9d16ef1898de5592ede664f5b32dfc89
F20101107_AAABOS pritchard_p_Page_046.txt
ab3b30f037f4ead8249237a85b6b7f7f
4680039719d9da2eeeab2f124ac886df5a99107e
113083 F20101107_AAACSJ pritchard_p_Page_165.jpg
74a791ff2f718b9c87942ccaf25c129b
c364a66cac0a764afc8a0730f15df8633f2e0001
6544 F20101107_AAACRV pritchard_p_Page_119thm.jpg
a097d659895b6784e5b346a6fd7a401e
a264d72a6bc1395a652522b759dd93000af9bba1
F20101107_AAABPH pritchard_p_Page_183.tif
4cb3bde1130a1df92a2e1d0585b5b42a
2e02927a73ad59dc0330f9c8ac9b3e79c353086c
8864 F20101107_AAABOT pritchard_p_Page_064thm.jpg
0950e0f2f2a7deb0bfdb7ff8865958d6
f28ccd7b3e7cbac5f34682680e155cf29c947641
F20101107_AAACSK pritchard_p_Page_129.tif
530793c6285f22ce2c04499ae2e55830
4fd06f832de28b6683d0b3dbb5db96fc4280e326
2206 F20101107_AAACRW pritchard_p_Page_035.txt
bed2b3576597537384d085830891fbd6
2e73733fbd122e3f38c82639805f8fac1a9be5bb
30282 F20101107_AAABPI pritchard_p_Page_150.pro
b24f87870af3730c8e655e8f09521c0c
65299cb7c41e253b8fc1870914f0b92910832ed0
6682 F20101107_AAABOU pritchard_p_Page_131thm.jpg
e1b3ab8e9b72243559d20fd5c4c1f3d8
fe31feb023300166fa722f1668ce9883a2d7b8b5
6494 F20101107_AAACSL pritchard_p_Page_127thm.jpg
f34fb95f4303181161a9d75ba02b9f99
d794bbf2a2d3cfaa19cbaea6f174c24686fd7fb6
95586 F20101107_AAACRX pritchard_p_Page_194.jpg
7cf4efaaa29bf5e6bf5bfc2f9e49b0ce
22f9707161381fe892e714f20d33515cac4e1ddf
F20101107_AAABPJ pritchard_p_Page_124.tif
9d47ce68efbec92373609f03ebeba474
0e63a441afeedbab90feb81d114a4f4a83facb9f
1500 F20101107_AAABOV pritchard_p_Page_120.txt
485ee941f4bf8331230b918c0a135d30
8333d59574400e0cafd23aefc23e460859b04263
28069 F20101107_AAACTA pritchard_p_Page_142.pro
c48d7e5f55ef6a5a1898bd1f8bd8ed9b
11e27823e649f23059527ec599849cb7f328bf40
29237 F20101107_AAACSM pritchard_p_Page_117.QC.jpg
91e4bfaa81e5d559b3545d9059fa173d
309f8a2e34a0d48a98e9b66574c69b52a17054b4
8649 F20101107_AAACRY pritchard_p_Page_166thm.jpg
b1ee2ba232604aaa8e5fdfa5bca37c2c
4a8eea8e1e1289ae48a9b46befb5e272bb7612fb
F20101107_AAABPK pritchard_p_Page_100.tif
2380f1507cf89b39a997071f312835db
bb51610ed5739b977d8fdd627cd20b37f996d6d7
56486 F20101107_AAABOW pritchard_p_Page_037.pro
ec2a683fb0fe900117a36beee5db611d
bec85f296066621646bae6ba84a0d929c9923157
27672 F20101107_AAACTB pritchard_p_Page_195.jpg
dc2c16c2f844180968b9071758a49f34
c08eddae4438d6ad5fbfeba4615d689f64e456a6
743998 F20101107_AAACSN pritchard_p_Page_086.jp2
a6bcd4939a19de187b31e0f1782a52d8
a6825ae9e8ab5b3a5c45f1bed94c157ed98867cb
1756 F20101107_AAACRZ pritchard_p_Page_152.txt
6e9dc51a10b23121bde420995c1317a3
1b76cd16653db19c28266dd040c45831b8836fc5
34631 F20101107_AAABPL pritchard_p_Page_178.QC.jpg
120146efdd326923f418e88ac146d1c6
b20bc859c7051eb7e9b5059a6aedf58817e9cfd7
838575 F20101107_AAABOX pritchard_p_Page_044.jp2
51fae5d6c059c0bc6d36095d694ba86f
edd10913876ace6db2fa1d754140b86cdbbb0464
32599 F20101107_AAACTC pritchard_p_Page_175.QC.jpg
a2a5fa0a9794d936e41d15795e1c07cb
8cef6485d5bede4896d6b66bc5433d06d04d3c86
1051974 F20101107_AAACSO pritchard_p_Page_049.jp2
69b656223f02f1815ef39a16bbc73b50
7d2ba1a37b666c541a82d3518018656375051501
F20101107_AAABQA pritchard_p_Page_153thm.jpg
faf28762528d74926d4427556a81abba
75b7d5538e41f1c2c1f81d24e950af3a86edd31c
2037 F20101107_AAABPM pritchard_p_Page_186.txt
6fa97152f221dc4823062f1059ffcdd9
2964191510b616e396a3d7c67caa150afa6ddc9e
110141 F20101107_AAACTD pritchard_p_Page_155.jpg
37a70b5ea429fde618c5067da721802e
5d5417094abda8051f6b902d94791dbc13b30255
F20101107_AAACSP pritchard_p_Page_064.jp2
a305cb5ff6919ba9b20e04a794852e94
7a5ddbdbbdb6e6de37a2b42283ac5f5784707e03
1051916 F20101107_AAABQB pritchard_p_Page_040.jp2
8ea2c4fbf38683da9bce4aed191da812
644b4d2657ae5a9069ee9e57921cd7e3ee4ec63d
52928 F20101107_AAABPN pritchard_p_Page_042.pro
df57273401769ba2b19cbc21a2808b8c
624e10a907fb7d5f1d0f5f00918d6d0b101994c5
F20101107_AAABOY pritchard_p_Page_189.tif
df29fa5775777190b5222219c1a5189f
8bc73d6503a044a6a617b73a476e8aef487df9e3
2150 F20101107_AAACTE pritchard_p_Page_048.txt
45f572596336c0a1c818f21933c10dde
60aef238a806008d157fa75c9d2662f330ad2a76
1837 F20101107_AAACSQ pritchard_p_Page_119.txt
ea3e684b82fca2f484879cd8dee66f00
f3e4df501744a079700ac1b59127ce5a1745313d
3798 F20101107_AAABQC pritchard_p_Page_132thm.jpg
90113be59219de7d1ea99d7c7e2a0c86
b989d5fb530d99127d13e820add5972ddbc1893b
1051936 F20101107_AAABPO pritchard_p_Page_168.jp2
89684ec9f0f093d06bfdd61d128a6e57
6b07fa1d7a59e0c77d4a85094d33bd482cffa64d
3960 F20101107_AAABOZ pritchard_p_Page_106thm.jpg
b78136b63d71ddd0737aa1e109caa8d2
05b6b88de67e98675188c5548088e4333ce0e09e
F20101107_AAACTF pritchard_p_Page_039.jp2
38cd778371e28272b517fa4f2f6c029d
6cb8cc4f205774cced8f6c76c4daba85fd8beb0b
7302 F20101107_AAACSR pritchard_p_Page_105thm.jpg
889844160d3458857d7e9496b78cc499
0c9ddf90f80d4fc9b7628e3cbc5539aedacf08e3
F20101107_AAABQD pritchard_p_Page_096.tif
3001dc5175ddc8d809adbb6b429264ca
eebd0612e1b5172c8688aab562db8d4b6a8b4e0e
F20101107_AAABPP pritchard_p_Page_156thm.jpg
44cff45a3fc0655c8c035bdf22d78ece
1297f7b040c036c66adbc5845245d9d740bc0dd1
35464 F20101107_AAACTG pritchard_p_Page_149.pro
86e9f584c46327621ada4673c8cb6141
a1c629b220f7dc58b99d7842f24c8b4c15dc04b7
7845 F20101107_AAACSS pritchard_p_Page_018thm.jpg
5ab59ad71cc8092da69451898d0afbe8
95463ab16a94082fa63135a41224bde32ae5d096
35655 F20101107_AAABQE pritchard_p_Page_022.QC.jpg
b6ff740c09f9d287ee23246e9ab53d96
f03051cb76fe099e58db490c636d36d8b0259bb2
1419 F20101107_AAABPQ pritchard_p_Page_093.txt
048594ca9a4eba7ceecb65b5b18c2535
4ab2be43d72cbd98d31c4a995026f3a3b64e1cb4
20724 F20101107_AAACTH pritchard_p_Page_094.QC.jpg
8c278f063dd3a7d0168ae9ce2bdc978c
bec4a8dc2b96f03c343fd080979c77e371e4cf46
2457 F20101107_AAACST pritchard_p_Page_191.txt
5565e1add8c3c65e576dd0ae3ab915c5
2f7ffbf0feb8d00ea8e498f27963a6114254ff4e
6066 F20101107_AAABQF pritchard_p_Page_188.QC.jpg
1c163b73caf7d25685b149fed41b1e50
5df3c645e2daba88b61ace9350303dcc0ee734b7
122718 F20101107_AAABPR pritchard_p_Page_177.jpg
e30fbe09c16bd354baca09bf788e3559
2d08f4c73c44ff5c1d1454481e335f67399ed7ba
107536 F20101107_AAACTI pritchard_p_Page_157.jpg
9eea55cfe551c3af3ec95141919391ed
7f88b91e231fbe78ba594a90540c3e1aae8963a7
3637 F20101107_AAACSU pritchard_p_Page_101thm.jpg
961962734d097356158881ef47ce15d1
30b42ce06bb9555736c5de7b8afb205b92a9ae07
2141 F20101107_AAABQG pritchard_p_Page_060.txt
04ef81e1b1fd23ef9446e5505cc767c7
799885daede0209670ecb6e078f5a42caed5c0e7
8168 F20101107_AAABPS pritchard_p_Page_049thm.jpg
a2736465fd89ba2401f774f54a3e3aca
e8c79ff85980de9bc75bc03906c74b9a1d326f58
8447 F20101107_AAACTJ pritchard_p_Page_178thm.jpg
4f36656ca8a7a6658daa3ca21b7dab92
fd8e1c1ae81c367d36035c01011bae978a8d0425
1555 F20101107_AAACSV pritchard_p_Page_094.txt
762212e8b06ff483f1e1fb16ed1754dc
675e452e743c16ddb21b7389c1634a12112392a9
F20101107_AAABQH pritchard_p_Page_150.tif
cc881504e9a70885dc1268f24d72df6c
92f05c8cbd1dacbb209468e0be591c63da25e7d0
3860 F20101107_AAABPT pritchard_p_Page_129thm.jpg
95f3eb8071c6b4de134c1b07fbc27d71
76d2e231c6b729ded4e64c937fd65ecc2aeb642a
34587 F20101107_AAACTK pritchard_p_Page_063.QC.jpg
9ed6733090b96ccc78fc4fe3cdb176ea
2e2b38fbc065d70b73ba955074cd892a2002f3a2
2026 F20101107_AAACSW pritchard_p_Page_141.txt
bd841aca6679ab615176dd56aaba5e1d
eefa80becf75544e804a197ab0ef92415c6b0dd1
110458 F20101107_AAABQI pritchard_p_Page_164.jpg
3dc9d7927f5ccc0d6ae3a01eeeba7162
9f3a6dae6541b8bc9fcc9e5b3d73c4e2e9b72a12
19426 F20101107_AAABPU pritchard_p_Page_109.QC.jpg
7d98a752b7207695b60fa8b3cf3fbc8d
7a8f24718d2573141fa39349eaad60739acb64b8
1609 F20101107_AAACTL pritchard_p_Page_008.txt
3f6491a98395ee2214943c2343349a1e
587b8aa71c6ae3ac8d560a58a5ac94c74930926f
37424 F20101107_AAACSX pritchard_p_Page_066.QC.jpg
54c39bf017384476a898a17b796e4803
1208431b6431918c777875b0a8d8866c5b2f0592
112308 F20101107_AAABQJ pritchard_p_Page_036.jpg
bd8bbc8ded1a21a22bb6b551286f9e7c
c3d7327a8b2793804b447c623b43420e5416418f
57671 F20101107_AAABPV pritchard_p_Page_143.jpg
9e80a1c7032ac3b2ece311f49739e230
c2c16a707e53723f8487cce24301e281fb2e0b28
17983 F20101107_AAACUA pritchard_p_Page_099.QC.jpg
2b122e55e207d18862f3f4db369c405b
fe86ea8f699dfb9319549ebc31db9945a3407f6f
114633 F20101107_AAACTM pritchard_p_Page_037.jpg
2a75bd88850c8c60ea4f34c776fa87b1
4ffc1f936b616f833fa22c4d8c0556ec772ae29a
F20101107_AAACSY pritchard_p_Page_069.tif
7ba684178cfa587dd05aac113793b189
b649e96df9cb0be820f0b8a62c310effda9c180d
47784 F20101107_AAABQK pritchard_p_Page_118.jpg
ec5db1e3e7114a89a38c4c256bb855f4
712691d781e2f63c410743b59b8bd0cf2e91698d
2153 F20101107_AAABPW pritchard_p_Page_065.txt
592ff09c96f9cae42c7c5315bdebf066
0dc74201a069bf4862038d2bfba473d597ca099d
6669 F20101107_AAACUB pritchard_p_Page_086thm.jpg
b052df33f2878ca60088838721147978
9324fcd16b9a28518536e31cfe7c304a44af1a64
79394 F20101107_AAACTN pritchard_p_Page_121.jpg
38a6234476252834bf26c8cf47869ebc
114b44f20481fbfcf74256cdba0b9ee56f96bc29
107999 F20101107_AAACSZ pritchard_p_Page_061.jpg
16816a66608ed1ed9b300c74d009eb12
01d6500f606ec78fee0a34a2dde9860190e784f1
54251 F20101107_AAABQL pritchard_p_Page_167.pro
5c722dd927f734922280665e0716da68
c93139353822611be6733f660dab588a033bb379
F20101107_AAABPX pritchard_p_Page_139.tif
142df85d2eaec9088f6795fd07d5051d
d9a47d6fe0a0e204092713a24b7a170cf03f7127
6178 F20101107_AAACUC pritchard_p_Page_188.pro
fd4ed51b7b5ea1aa51989162d48315f8
462abf7af05a4d0628c1f4138c8afe8181eede12
6272 F20101107_AAACTO pritchard_p_Page_044thm.jpg
5f80101b784b3cd4f2381de8a1c8c63a
a1baf40facefa209122c59573262e44d0db58eeb
F20101107_AAABQM pritchard_p_Page_112.tif
74ddd49d1a65445f798ff4e7319eaa3e
0b4859bbe955bf4710d418df71097b2f34e1b9a6
31315 F20101107_AAABPY pritchard_p_Page_122.jpg
0e526c1a579a15ddca0290ce9e92073f
206bb21ec6fbfea73427b39763468742b6b923ea
6869 F20101107_AAABRA pritchard_p_Page_128thm.jpg
7368dc66c81db8e0b9ee0483d2269486
4cf35accc32fb3c5ddb3428b1b8f31936a736255
F20101107_AAACUD pritchard_p_Page_004.tif
e613bb0b2a729721a5cf2c3e064165b9
aa0fc9ee275cc8e017dda88be34d917d049b8da4
6522 F20101107_AAACTP pritchard_p_Page_187thm.jpg
e986e139af38a64175c0e3ca175e9b9d
88222fe75786164b3e9e785281add38c501b2ca4
109771 F20101107_AAABRB pritchard_p_Page_004.jpg
8d6a359bbdf9e559460f462c1f198a15
2f1cedc63e200a67068d5c17a8cfd1795c6bd2ac
F20101107_AAABQN pritchard_p_Page_160.tif
bbed939c3e1eebedfb23f1bbc03ada9a
82a3f60d51901ee53a9a18f15179aa4b09861bdb
F20101107_AAACUE pritchard_p_Page_031.tif
d9e5745e79edabc3491ec3d2193a1bab
3149aa5cfcc8ada6ef5b6153030b9efa1a44d190
299308 F20101107_AAACTQ pritchard_p_Page_122.jp2
735894bc6ef05ab4359326d8dd47d440
0ef22da582e76ea8b1090a1d375b5077503d71f5
43403 F20101107_AAABPZ pritchard_p_Page_013.QC.jpg
0a90c0efed2d27dbf4969acdcf78e5ea
231e8e5ea82ac5102f693aeac315535d0f1dba03
1051944 F20101107_AAABRC pritchard_p_Page_167.jp2
5214dafe920c73e644ed06719951e708
4d508b80979e791289d9eae11f36a76c91aed9a3
561101 F20101107_AAABQO pritchard_p_Page_147.jp2
62a605ea693fc87e344c7afeb81363ba
d3a5f390bf50c3afaebe846540c7a0c9dc8477a1
227437 F20101107_AAADAA UFE0022054_00001.mets
184186fbf569986ea9806fa21c2afdb6
00017969883506b32415cc6dd84de1aa6c8e225c
34287 F20101107_AAACUF pritchard_p_Page_059.QC.jpg
51d687467f238f9d414c28014e3c3cea
f1d484bcfbf4a5f5ae39714f25bd98cea05c439e
7839 F20101107_AAACTR pritchard_p_Page_052thm.jpg
755255186283e0383471893afc5d8b97
c4729797e17f0de9c66d838db2ea88981c35df3f
24149 F20101107_AAABRD pritchard_p_Page_089.QC.jpg
5627a99d9a1e74f74bcfce0ccf04e873
ab686bc92864474533105732f04dde88362aa25b
32542 F20101107_AAABQP pritchard_p_Page_123.pro
34cc76d89583a9e95433a287d23ff155
3b08755d50df423aefa03112422b0c807c7927cb
36128 F20101107_AAACUG pritchard_p_Page_072.QC.jpg
0bd0d2d1b2a1faf25e14f0100ff3ddfd
7738e8f0e85d97b42d1570c88c281a487fad27b1
34930 F20101107_AAACTS pritchard_p_Page_042.QC.jpg
1367309f47c7a5ba06b3a29c7f489019
4bc85199c1916756c73fe5e2e326bc29ebf11461
9059 F20101107_AAABRE pritchard_p_Page_072thm.jpg
137fce119cda9155b039b623e859ff1e
b82d435c79780a57ad477fa7de85528a83d67f0a
32929 F20101107_AAABQQ pritchard_p_Page_192.QC.jpg
1a496ffcccaf3ea5f078193ba2fc9c85
876aa127c61b6408401c551938ac39c32a80fcf5
2438 F20101107_AAACUH pritchard_p_Page_105.txt
d2f97614a8b63a0ccb6fde6854bda39a
642348ba04120b497e04d45eaa7988f40bb55894
23248 F20101107_AAACTT pritchard_p_Page_006.QC.jpg
f848c5bc7dfc3303d4616006a21da8b6
91894ee59c66fbea8c34cdae435af1c647e99902
17580 F20101107_AAABRF pritchard_p_Page_188.jpg
6b269c79278ff1bdf40f0cdc8e085200
5f5c5ba92ae5dc78a188874d86d280932188d0f5
228 F20101107_AAABQR pritchard_p_Page_016.txt
b8d2953e8b9f34a73cd2b7d6eaaf8520
67930600dd6e23484361b8429a41c250627070c3
112968 F20101107_AAADAD pritchard_p_Page_009.jpg
96dad88ca608f4aa83bcef59132a4c2b
f5480a70da50cb91cc79df59088e30b28aa96293
2075 F20101107_AAACUI pritchard_p_Page_045.txt
17f857f22f078738c589f80ac8fd7e89
99effc16efc7cfe6ff1a2f5e88d29b30bc9bfd86
44352 F20101107_AAACTU pritchard_p_Page_144.pro
a7b42f570af4fc281957da9ccdec4a8a
2e1842a3d4307cfed965fd844c0257a819b7f3a1
27075 F20101107_AAABRG pritchard_p_Page_132.pro
738c388a5adbc6b85c68fa909ec402b3
62cac226d0ee450102d886a1f9f05ac4559a2bc9
7883 F20101107_AAABQS pritchard_p_Page_107thm.jpg
b8865b1ce1a469b2f6baf7e9bdbdb9f1
37558bca25ea18535d608c532dfc916b1c013721
153406 F20101107_AAADAE pritchard_p_Page_013.jpg
a4f32e0fafd9039fa0b3aae4ea6a8af1
6039064badccde1005ebfeee8029dd55574ccea7
801080 F20101107_AAACUJ pritchard_p_Page_112.jp2
3c20eecb207e50de2d395d154c5f525e
9dd0f9a708b78b1e8e0b8a4926b15bdade1f6960
54726 F20101107_AAACTV pritchard_p_Page_147.jpg
8a15c11df0acb0f27242accc0c05f73e
0c098fd6ec7c280a138559c70c41d485a843d355
8953 F20101107_AAABRH pritchard_p_Page_155thm.jpg
bc26a0ffdf8fbfad4f47092fa5ded3c5
f7308a37a8df6ab85c9b3089e9e0a72cd6b10916
1051950 F20101107_AAABQT pritchard_p_Page_047.jp2
0502299588dcc5e467e15d6602efe9f1
8aaf1be704236461f824edbfe4ce89616a6beb42
13304 F20101107_AAADAF pritchard_p_Page_016.jpg
2e58c384e3f4a609f7f1b0288ae9905c
2799acb689625758c7e6d9772e361e2b1bb9b698
1051954 F20101107_AAACUK pritchard_p_Page_068.jp2
ca40aa8724b4481beec3228bf274dc44
9d3e8f01d89a79c7a41ea10e1cdcf3b7d946de63
1043688 F20101107_AAACTW pritchard_p_Page_052.jp2
99ebda36d9b8f24e98aa689286ffe908
d6415a6477c431151c993ddf8cc179b8b985e929
F20101107_AAABRI pritchard_p_Page_084.tif
58b6275a30eb5ec2b860f41c876f8cd4
4762cf288aec7169069421d0a44c76fa499ff9dd
2036 F20101107_AAABQU pritchard_p_Page_019.txt
2763e302710569e6312570daae95f72d
1aa8366c1cdf452536377b4dba0a2003a9c597e1
92273 F20101107_AAADAG pritchard_p_Page_018.jpg
ce16abe14e55bb13c089e0e36d0edac5
5af6142b6b047bddaea321067cc6cf1efdf3dc74
106820 F20101107_AAACUL pritchard_p_Page_175.jpg
b45f9067e760da1e3358a6ccf68e0527
467b00cecb03c47e760937ad01ec63e6442b8be7
1936 F20101107_AAACTX pritchard_p_Page_176.txt
f3867b6920a77b98b4a7ed19ac4209e6
2ab97022300cdb3015ad4a461bc376fff1f5ff97
39042 F20101107_AAABRJ pritchard_p_Page_088.pro
02c5895228800c9d22e644df8d8a430d
5404c0b418a1608bdd2e792c64c06edc5aa3b513
76857 F20101107_AAABQV pritchard_p_Page_015.pro
a42bb17c0887277e52fb71449b40e11a
1cd1640ca5e02bfd287f4752de3ddafad714e418
104646 F20101107_AAADAH pritchard_p_Page_020.jpg
e91e066cf311bda0344f2e0c9a8842fc
8c9bd9cd910f841aeb3a807c2e4020daf6892d9c
9257 F20101107_AAACVA pritchard_p_Page_195.QC.jpg
ba8f252c4049e066a457e6121adfee9a
c9a53c1a2386101b1d7b8bc1ff3d2c39bb12a763
F20101107_AAACUM pritchard_p_Page_156.tif
8b039ec4e2eb679574bb00179ab01fd9
8b7daf51fecb0ce1feb9c46a33a6e3d70021a39f
56858 F20101107_AAACTY pritchard_p_Page_162.pro
cbd7311dad3b57938542bbd7457aa897
c59f91b311d2da92e50feb630c8c6cbb242f5b53
6724 F20101107_AAABRK pritchard_p_Page_184thm.jpg
d94b25d97203e33b302daeefb4a5ad29
1c1ed96e4b8a413c9fe8ad84d464e300d647195e
43081 F20101107_AAABQW pritchard_p_Page_142.jpg
97cf533d2c3b302bd092195f4835b395
565dc54def747530a1bc06ca232a28738f48e311
1950 F20101107_AAACVB pritchard_p_Page_054.txt
96e3d7e65affe0ae9278a5ffff35612c
3da34714a3e3c94ca8d886b55d7bfd14c15877ee
F20101107_AAACUN pritchard_p_Page_029.tif
139d9f61193e107103bc6d49d77c0bcb
feb7b9ddb967d919c7ffa813836ec48cc0bc0619
F20101107_AAACTZ pritchard_p_Page_185.tif
023b1cdcd1d9c6336d980a319441427f
9a2a1add5414d9b7f9db1a0d71635629c986c719
F20101107_AAABRL pritchard_p_Page_163.tif
c4ae41dee762f3511c57d8715337db42
793e5073b8d3be90054961f223443780ba454a7b
552 F20101107_AAABQX pritchard_p_Page_002thm.jpg
be8df6385545e240a1ad023cfd196778
2b057cb0f84bdc45517fee454b4acf4e191183be
106008 F20101107_AAADAI pritchard_p_Page_023.jpg
f4c3ec1786062342a074e627410eca51
1681ff5acd44c35cfa67d7380853055ae649e8a5
F20101107_AAACVC pritchard_p_Page_085.tif
fb6c7c5c57e6e320d04347e88c035375
c811bbf07d699d30f21dc2738bb0e3dd994d37ee
9197 F20101107_AAACUO pritchard_p_Page_162thm.jpg
fd8f642a90f474aaf0256de4346fae55
f21fb64f33a403cd1ff81f2608e4740d30418db2
F20101107_AAABSA pritchard_p_Page_039.txt
f8414ba2dd88a53fd7c46d4dc6c113cf
56e5302a3a7f14ea100f230d52986036cb9fc699
53231 F20101107_AAABRM pritchard_p_Page_048.pro
372a9998fa2d274c0770b39744e5079f
00a6d5aca692e45a122ba3f10e54b2963b24f4a4
27010 F20101107_AAABQY pritchard_p_Page_127.QC.jpg
d8f1861cab299c06bfc5dad81d3625c3
9ab844197cff6b6c841481672f10498265b8075d
110286 F20101107_AAADAJ pritchard_p_Page_024.jpg
cbfe173b46081a4a938d6535e502ab15
e723b98d06a18bfdbf98d55807d9830724ef895f
3943 F20101107_AAACVD pritchard_p_Page_118thm.jpg
277a430d5c8d4cfe1acbf3a6b1382e07
837540c1d00ca91411900e34d02c2d063f1dff07
F20101107_AAACUP pritchard_p_Page_182.tif
be8959e44aa9360987c0ca0f63df5d23
ed2c2193276c798f95ddecf7bc3c309453b43cf7
F20101107_AAABSB pritchard_p_Page_089.tif
34a22d49bb02e33d7df5ca240e8c5a2f
3f02e19cb6edfe71671cba5e2355776c7f09a53a
F20101107_AAABRN pritchard_p_Page_163.jp2
eb0e7cab6fbffc84c5f3cd3c58ea52bd
f0cd0906defaeedc51d8fdfc2516273127500362
63160 F20101107_AAABQZ pritchard_p_Page_110.jpg
3f104a57635f32e0eaf2259933a6f5f6
b854d8ac0d819e314da14005eb5ad7d245b7a2c0
114432 F20101107_AAADAK pritchard_p_Page_025.jpg
6ffffaac2c8d8c080f1e7e94e56e81f5
24b88134816c285cfa676408285480a4edf1969b
2107 F20101107_AAACVE pritchard_p_Page_061.txt
e609336e906192265e62811edaafb758
9f440ed7f202b668c2d6a55f4bc58219b95f86e0
F20101107_AAACUQ pritchard_p_Page_050.tif
d3ff92b7624274116e64f96c722b9ab6
c79ef12f2f7371dcc6398e7d7e376ae4b1dae770
49857 F20101107_AAABSC pritchard_p_Page_116.pro
5ae7c48d38ccb292ad1c871827b9c61f
b2e10cb8acb3f7ef398228cdd4e0bfbd345f9023
25524 F20101107_AAABRO pritchard_p_Page_115.QC.jpg
84ea0d4f898408bf82411c8a3a7e87b1
c26d676a566716863674af9d933797c87fc02fde
71415 F20101107_AAADBA pritchard_p_Page_081.jpg
00a3d4ffc95c216da1ba5e89fe2769f6
b91aedcdb4c98d66ed0f4a88b4d2963a63d5cf0a
104766 F20101107_AAADAL pritchard_p_Page_027.jpg
b236dcf727c49a6e663b69cf0e27c7b3
859f80893e22c4c2d5968689f73ad90eaff72855
414605 F20101107_AAACVF pritchard_p_Page_142.jp2
faf0c99c1437df4fbbaee0e15bc0b30b
89d9bf12a743c445d12dca540812b7497dde9aa3
2018 F20101107_AAACUR pritchard_p_Page_049.txt
007bb5964438eb117f92a2ba9f66e2f5
6159d5eb8d1274cab6c20ff062ba295e20feab72
2052 F20101107_AAABSD pritchard_p_Page_092.txt
fa510955c01dbf125747437b36192ae2
508eb3bb845e51a60deb440d8d29e5e97bdffa15
978195 F20101107_AAABRP pritchard_p_Page_092.jp2
1e53756f0bdfe4a70aacb1fbf3cef294
5c3facc19151ee90f12c8cb9fa47b3a8afb38982
81342 F20101107_AAADBB pritchard_p_Page_084.jpg
f9363eb2f8d4e84a5cdb544c984b2ad9
cedd6fd384c63e9ec7da9b7bbd2cf7d2b0cf2fda
107625 F20101107_AAADAM pritchard_p_Page_028.jpg
b19e1d067df5fbd74e514f50d7e22bdd
97699960d184a1970733ebde926d0c8a20dbd732
113234 F20101107_AAACVG pritchard_p_Page_041.jpg
83c848ccc2fd4ce85eb99d8af86368b9
693730c71ff2baf670009adce1de43ab898b7585
F20101107_AAACUS pritchard_p_Page_029.txt
09b82f00b85f02aa59810d7c9bb7d141
7a06448eae647668a4fef73ebb5d0c023016275a
F20101107_AAABSE pritchard_p_Page_181.tif
a68c02d73a3af9d480fa68a6cc02c310
48bebff930e1a1dbfe0d64f05783feddf6f7a516
144197 F20101107_AAABRQ pritchard_p_Page_012.jpg
ff05feba658ee0100ea93f46e9d761e0
7ef2cacdb898c62e162aaeb5c201490656fd0b54
82833 F20101107_AAADBC pritchard_p_Page_085.jpg
92f93b4d191f913daff0988592277895
cb4008a18f36149d1d334f53d924dce1cd715b4f
105517 F20101107_AAADAN pritchard_p_Page_032.jpg
300676e09b6e52bb469f0bb641ae4da4
b45a5e39dea516b810ac8ca6d9774209e5a27575
8216 F20101107_AAACVH pritchard_p_Page_053thm.jpg
ca914ed40a98657bc88b671ad249af55
8d39a90e04f55bc915a14427fd56735e4412d3c0
67025 F20101107_AAACUT pritchard_p_Page_080.jpg
a02e22f943c165102abbae8693695fae
0f7e829052e6442e0d86c2d728cda5071b6c9245
103369 F20101107_AAABSF pritchard_p_Page_189.jpg
24a26780feb6786468bf87588bdc63d9
00c9e3407603d8896b3194e5eeae5c6c789908dd
6785 F20101107_AAABRR pritchard_p_Page_057thm.jpg
66aa2723f4dbb0832d88b841ebad4db5
9ac102cfc8bf28e00aa0226480fee94a567620e4
63505 F20101107_AAADBD pritchard_p_Page_094.jpg
e1afc5e5473d42d934ce6507f3483725
44bd261006818bf6e10746027cccc96aabd53b73
105823 F20101107_AAADAO pritchard_p_Page_038.jpg
7eb67acec6dabb80693a79095e1a5c66
2a968e73334c118e9d9f79106d0e7b332665fc24
4822 F20101107_AAACVI pritchard_p_Page_007.txt
f2da63344b58d773ea12921e20c7515d
d4f4d2987a10b745d868c64d649cd2fbbfb01218
7367 F20101107_AAACUU pritchard_p_Page_133thm.jpg
c41f74331a2c398b7bb0906e7cf0d6bf
25578fb34dc39d150c3418e2cbf77264f56792fa
F20101107_AAABSG pritchard_p_Page_063.tif
ecbb964423ca0bea5db7f04a62d97b24
99f438b2ea5e29d0f977899bdd80bd3214bbb9e9
49663 F20101107_AAABRS pritchard_p_Page_181.jpg
6a6baec35688df74193f0d1892c7c441
ce3ab396a78749a3c64b0fecae08d218877aa137
104404 F20101107_AAADBE pritchard_p_Page_097.jpg
d97a8729c06d78aa5c7cd99ef1b97051
67d9ae9f165447d3b9e6033c69b2cf8720cbff6c
76526 F20101107_AAADAP pritchard_p_Page_044.jpg
5a853e1aef0da832fa7790284f7987af
6b44fa61c329bff5b74e967c0f5ec1d482d4f59f
8271 F20101107_AAACVJ pritchard_p_Page_021thm.jpg
15ef75f09d2a1d6f9d71f93bf5007100
2cf8b0e9a9ae2935fde7c7c3b6e16fa160762086
26599 F20101107_AAACUV pritchard_p_Page_187.QC.jpg
418837b582ae9399f7817e0647c53d84
be26b81c25ea1f8e8bcde8c84ef7ab8127361684
45416 F20101107_AAABSH pritchard_p_Page_085.pro
5c46842e62bde0eaae5a58bbd32ce986
1fe6cf1f1f3309b7eb14af6da1555fcaec99f520
63973 F20101107_AAABRT pritchard_p_Page_128.jpg
32823b38c1736d9134ac536905db2b1f
bbcee9c216396bf8f6f0b136acb48d134f094d21
56787 F20101107_AAADBF pritchard_p_Page_099.jpg
22bcc2b88bf67b9c763540ae9fba2591
dbad8fc73c4fc2c92ed3a7f0d8858dad9fc18555
107782 F20101107_AAADAQ pritchard_p_Page_051.jpg
30376f442cd10507fa16b04075d96382
c88d664c92e75011cb8fb34e7bd4aaaa3a784a5f
1051957 F20101107_AAACVK pritchard_p_Page_066.jp2
ec35df04dda90b29df3ea3e1b797e21d
d23ee276cdae9de1d8ae91197c97b1359bfcab13
2192 F20101107_AAACUW pritchard_p_Page_170.txt
ab14de67923bc83fea3b79c0d3092ea1
9e345d32028d3ee0eaa0627ade6276236f760a98
83409 F20101107_AAABSI pritchard_p_Page_130.jpg
90c345bc57dae939bceb04ffb594b56c
d18eed31acca1a07be9e29623048ad226ffdde6b
6524 F20101107_AAABRU pritchard_p_Page_080thm.jpg
1d3fb2b54f9fc3af683593d11dbeee86
63d6d42f267028d68125bc6383802359e7c2310d
40197 F20101107_AAADBG pritchard_p_Page_101.jpg
f4756d5f1f7acb70d0ed43acf99bd52c
722d26fb5f0c2698f4c445cb44396c18e83b08dd
95272 F20101107_AAADAR pritchard_p_Page_052.jpg
a649e3c019cd77000962f5e941e93838
e7b6462f4cb35dde526be7512de8cc145ccb397d
7134 F20101107_AAACVL pritchard_p_Page_182thm.jpg
47e47246da2848e2e34dd52093f629fb
2abf4e41d161212bdf3faf7eedb1db0c424e602c
2173 F20101107_AAACUX pritchard_p_Page_072.txt
70b0240b7d1700163a9660d41af8ad7c
f68002b9af34973dfa072240c795dc4f9d374d69
51653 F20101107_AAABSJ pritchard_p_Page_039.pro
56bdfe1cb58d9a4e239d03e41204e8c8
a32848e45f6adf5d455164d4c6a78170d99ab201
68699 F20101107_AAABRV pritchard_p_Page_180.jpg
f207551d765a147505e1e11e558d789b
835481bfca0e8b9e36ba2a6d02ee4433f73ecfe0
98103 F20101107_AAADBH pritchard_p_Page_108.jpg
c825bd36c05deefb5c2663e81736a72b
b2894da1650cc8bd6005a1bb0ff0dceb002ea2a3
103069 F20101107_AAADAS pritchard_p_Page_053.jpg
200d98a0f2cb1eb7684a423173ccc979
cb5aee18e7393c05b9f161e8cbeed70428e4af53
889 F20101107_AAACWA pritchard_p_Page_122.txt
9b6ef064112d1dc030cf2778508c53cb
0f70daf1a8649f8cfdeda19da498890584304eb4
2077 F20101107_AAACVM pritchard_p_Page_038.txt
f1c9e551f62ecbc589c883c11f0db628
2e6ceda59020988fe07b8d8cfb7fc34a6db806bb
30213 F20101107_AAACUY pritchard_p_Page_017.QC.jpg
e2ac7ad77df176d7eb6ce728dc181a70
d1067fd71e34e62592f1e53f7cf9ae75852967c3
F20101107_AAABSK pritchard_p_Page_033.tif
b8b062ca3a422546c5f9274c69b5c404
5ebdd6e0df8e3cb1d2208a95c807fb2cda03bbc9
F20101107_AAABRW pritchard_p_Page_158.jp2
a42f98bf1e0ab59bc1bd15869d65f5f2
949bd8f787e7cc5577c80654c417921f9caf1fdc
77023 F20101107_AAADBI pritchard_p_Page_112.jpg
e087421bc00b6b050327500794a84ee8
bed37b6077edf9386668473bf7974154a02c2497
97294 F20101107_AAADAT pritchard_p_Page_054.jpg
061497b1a7f0df119f06eeae7fb9986f
768e6413e90b31644fda1a74024b32b83af3c84e
8876 F20101107_AAACWB pritchard_p_Page_029thm.jpg
f6b900a04067c8f2fed07996ab2b8b6f
8f012745444f2d2133789d15777d61277cfcde70
88 F20101107_AAACVN pritchard_p_Page_003.txt
d83005964397df2302612718e0604e3e
6f75296d93e52e5673ba26a604a7eb8cfe889d7e
17782 F20101107_AAACUZ pritchard_p_Page_140.QC.jpg
944e2c3e759488f683fac9289b819150
69802e7260b909276d510427f59615d1a21e79a7
44600 F20101107_AAABSL pritchard_p_Page_133.pro
1bf5da4d466b2ca022e0a01a0a5b88ec
2ff352a20dc33d81b5cbb71f199888e2ff199754
50844 F20101107_AAABRX pritchard_p_Page_020.pro
4f2409f350a9f902744242ded40e856b
154f28268790d3af1e8912d16b218b47567e6a96
104819 F20101107_AAADAU pritchard_p_Page_063.jpg
1614436ba168dfad76c3533f4a556289
fdcb1d0dbe5ef0ce5ccac89a51bba0380d25e6f6
33295 F20101107_AAACWC pritchard_p_Page_152.pro
7a7c4414fcc741f6556ac1f77d6c48f1
f2dcf1197b157e22d7d054b3d49cb80f3ff91d3f
9006 F20101107_AAACVO pritchard_p_Page_051thm.jpg
da447bd27e699612c8a19fb3eed85a11
3507ae1ef8ca0fae772f26a47f365df3459d1d47
35861 F20101107_AAABSM pritchard_p_Page_170.QC.jpg
39dc3f68168740665d24d8950d0833de
e4abbe065dc81690ea27cb3b2e717cf7434e3574
1051969 F20101107_AAABRY pritchard_p_Page_013.jp2
f236236194884b137a796a2bc703e16e
388a8d978cb8beac68d92b0a397710701a1c2385
2268 F20101107_AAABTA pritchard_p_Page_083.txt
b82a7edde7767f679961486c9d3a748f
a55d749e91a156a8ad15ad50546ea859c4cec337
89106 F20101107_AAADBJ pritchard_p_Page_115.jpg
101754e65e597959d743a3bbb6b05a39
e7126c6bea443ba1e0c777c0603210625eae43d8
117422 F20101107_AAADAV pritchard_p_Page_068.jpg
255187398c616ce763111f37c3f98907
29a34b4ec66bbe88f81e8e9b1682ffcfb54bdbfd
F20101107_AAACWD pritchard_p_Page_115.tif
12295829c10af235a175ef7fc2b3cd89
9b3812188660eb01bedf6a5428e3e4ab3cf59815
F20101107_AAACVP pritchard_p_Page_087.tif
194f4a4861bf60bab1dd679cd2054d59
6a412b9ddfa5eee3c71ccacd581ef195dee1a379
F20101107_AAABSN pritchard_p_Page_044.tif
039739b206bd2f409e296bdae45155aa
b48e93d0054331a897ce00b2362e0d63c25154bd
29367 F20101107_AAABRZ pritchard_p_Page_078.pro
f18bf7722b0f72eca4eea6ae0464c2bb
0fced4290cc77232527bb4780f19f3aa509bd02f
1505 F20101107_AAABTB pritchard_p_Page_153.txt
b4578450f0c8941395cbe12096f2b4ea
ac38c62ab175babc560a7b940ba7e615b08690ac
54848 F20101107_AAADBK pritchard_p_Page_124.jpg
e06908fd20005f862b20f94a057e2234
21bbaafb21aa35a131fc62c00a27b7e6713a91db
110694 F20101107_AAADAW pritchard_p_Page_070.jpg
dca0b4f785018682f5999204592a241a
c7b306f04d4db88057bb0afc792a9e417d769eed
8174 F20101107_AAACWE pritchard_p_Page_175thm.jpg
4ab264b082d7816a1fe9706d33eff227
d9611c0579859b02aa2765e6a8c88ba044fdc53d
34563 F20101107_AAACVQ pritchard_p_Page_124.pro
7e3fd7d5d69ac87530bc927457f50dbb
752b53d8c6143c8a76e370947d6c7423755b9622
F20101107_AAABSO pritchard_p_Page_005.tif
59c71b83b7db451fee84b30118bedbac
6ec7f935dfefdc7b477da3a72804a2f9e87022db
55718 F20101107_AAABTC pritchard_p_Page_150.jpg
503fa8a6b7b9c26c87712e4e23b7213d
a05c0085507000317fb8c5289f1494d56bfeb96c
51446 F20101107_AAADCA pritchard_p_Page_186.jpg
5757978b8f8df5a7a4026dbf3d7fa9dd
f09cb14f57b9a2ea30dfa033c0fafd285cd6b95e
75043 F20101107_AAADBL pritchard_p_Page_126.jpg
a965026f64ef3d24ef4ec2056165bbad
df1673f1b035bfb8500cb4c81e1647ff99172ce5
107577 F20101107_AAADAX pritchard_p_Page_074.jpg
9a9fc4ad20dd9dfd1d43cff8799b69db
a72442cf844b343b9a1fbb15a23e85def1a35ed4
49426 F20101107_AAACWF pritchard_p_Page_019.pro
6b6832067794bf20e36344037f00b45e
db2abfe61c86b8ad4b0e3aa5fd5003b405cbea62
420225 F20101107_AAACVR pritchard_p_Page_132.jp2
87da7d9486bfbb1ba4959e9101a53925
1bea6b4c6cd058d4881b5c35745f273a44c1e247
30119 F20101107_AAABSP pritchard_p_Page_137.pro
d223f829ab71f80b43c1019f1d016934
a3d60d4407bd1e62ceeb8d088dfff49bd4cdb6d9
2768 F20101107_AAABTD pritchard_p_Page_193.txt
2954e9fbd687782914dc8dfae8c19f17
a045287ec8209f51289566c4ff88625fc5119147
122049 F20101107_AAADCB pritchard_p_Page_191.jpg
b3c66ed333b4e8498d705e12f9d3724e
9c193870c528a7552f775c4597917347639aaa8e
43787 F20101107_AAADBM pritchard_p_Page_129.jpg
1cacaccb1c28f029f25f8479413aac8f
02df6ca07aca9423f8713a12d617615b56ae27a0
112167 F20101107_AAADAY pritchard_p_Page_075.jpg
c3801ffb7fa3ea4e1c68cb503a9a3be8
8b5e6dba56968ec45354872eede2c4eb1277c928
886 F20101107_AAACWG pritchard_p_Page_129.txt
6881c09975bb242fc07937acce99ae00
21d8c78c07911d07466c0d203857c65d24cf250b
8711 F20101107_AAACVS pritchard_p_Page_067thm.jpg
f849373d8a245bb6ac2a0408c6b543fc
c5350d2cbe647c442a9b843166de02d41c3a465d
35610 F20101107_AAABSQ pritchard_p_Page_155.QC.jpg
5a0109ffc1799d3eaddc904147457e21
82016cc2cd326598ae366ca472aec286d47279a2
32928 F20101107_AAABTE pritchard_p_Page_145.pro
b938cb46fdc87a3359f07d83cc14f5ec
a026aa6de80ae324d90c260bdcb647d55810fa44
31388 F20101107_AAADCC pritchard_p_Page_002.jp2
1a5910030da8e071f6e6e62e298eebd2
c5f08fcb143dfeb0cca98ec39730ce35b6c7b2be
82129 F20101107_AAADBN pritchard_p_Page_133.jpg
6ce8d60f36167cd8d5fae51a9af34922
50fb65c759189502b6fcb7d2768e1496c132daf3
48525 F20101107_AAADAZ pritchard_p_Page_079.jpg
0dd00b0e8ee3320e03a63552edaa11b7
0aef50e474a0e2465beeeea475e44380b93fa6a8
105802 F20101107_AAACWH pritchard_p_Page_039.jpg
35a88bcb47513b092581bd557b6b0cf1
11384ebe5e6b9dec9803036235302ffda82958eb
F20101107_AAACVT pritchard_p_Page_079.tif
c5630f95cee8f1d25421142659301a4f
0f42a52b8d37e9a4cf157b484569ae45f0b889d7
36717 F20101107_AAABSR pritchard_p_Page_010.QC.jpg
5cbcdecc206e18e671c52e17600fd8eb
293002bfa24332bb2c1368ee6cfc4bf0ebbfd939
F20101107_AAABTF pritchard_p_Page_065.jp2
0d3edd857e9a840f3e6ab31d40d03f6b
654206ece6a86fff940d93096122d1928bce51ea
1051978 F20101107_AAADCD pritchard_p_Page_007.jp2
0863b460e6dd1236753fcc9d0c6e2c84
a2aa60f955c3a80ef68d1a14bbb7060bef16984f
41846 F20101107_AAADBO pritchard_p_Page_136.jpg
42a7e7176caa7e8f25b84e6d18479921
42fba0da6d6e73e81ff061eca3dffa5e0da98bfd
53314 F20101107_AAACWI pritchard_p_Page_069.pro
4713b9af22ae1b22d7675e8dc2075867
1082067aec78dfe77cab1b900bfc842522a66b87
F20101107_AAACVU pritchard_p_Page_083.tif
2570b5a9584d9f826c52ef1eb6f663ef
765cdce2803dd43d71f253e969a472e696798525
8944 F20101107_AAABSS pritchard_p_Page_073thm.jpg
efbba7489424042ec8516fae4f0e59fd
83b09cb96755cc49ce37a8d020a5c6c04fa19cdf
51279 F20101107_AAABTG pritchard_p_Page_067.pro
09c8fb0cb99793c8331faaa46cd3db49
f8e1cc03a242b7fe1193927bca62740e4662be4b
F20101107_AAADCE pritchard_p_Page_008.jp2
f9132f2a075fb7a7117474b61444b5a4
0ad35493831b87883bb3efd3f99990bade4f086e
56297 F20101107_AAADBP pritchard_p_Page_139.jpg
6afe70bf95abe346dc192a7686223d20
0f0325f77e1dcd68a8dc7554595442edce824d91
486795 F20101107_AAACWJ pritchard_p_Page_079.jp2
9e849a74b61fad6d7122b1ab7586576d
44157be99234c23ae42dfaa3f286b74fad840b4a
9353 F20101107_AAACVV pritchard_p_Page_070thm.jpg
4f67a7d5e7a6efa0b5bdf7f9e97f2c65
84680fd05467e704bf78fc06a8abd8b96de1c3bb
35354 F20101107_AAABST pritchard_p_Page_034.QC.jpg
2fcf097befc57079d54ba5bb67c996ca
7f0c721253bf8d18435a5fd9a4aafd3e6719d774
F20101107_AAABTH pritchard_p_Page_066.tif
17ca4cfec31c6c1eda6effcdf374237d
d5441ca87770dc6e0433ef9dd350601a66088f78
1051980 F20101107_AAADCF pritchard_p_Page_009.jp2
b1b9bc49a601e6c7de0730d415b1b696
e1d27c65c6edcfe0c9786be2adc930367853ee52
57168 F20101107_AAADBQ pritchard_p_Page_140.jpg
def315b146fea817679d051c2c9bb7c3
f16ebdb834ccde63ffa1d3cf6add4bce13a3627f
F20101107_AAACWK pritchard_p_Page_188.tif
a2cdf13d3b070b5abb91421c18818400
644db815ad899595a592799440270b2cc4798dce
33125 F20101107_AAACVW pritchard_p_Page_128.pro
73413c878c59f2abdce52fe80c5118fa
3ffc8bf39288ddfc071451c0bb08806424a0982c
6299 F20101107_AAABSU pritchard_p_Page_185thm.jpg
04a14a14e05520f80d27d812e1f5bea2
a1ca6dbbdd2a6aa59d421761190b354fd6195e87
8278 F20101107_AAABTI pritchard_p_Page_054thm.jpg
e5eb6bb95ed40f99bf2059d21d16935a
3b49c7f3c962e86ba37f95be993485857f184abf
1051975 F20101107_AAADCG pritchard_p_Page_010.jp2
33e1d41d705e80a909d0317ae98e1d67
43f457e694b7eaf967ceebde07b6858ff78632ec
56607 F20101107_AAADBR pritchard_p_Page_148.jpg
8fd86b51473ad03096258266de884b1a
5221ca9e63ffb2e8319628b2a9f0c8db1df2ed9a
246560 F20101107_AAACWL pritchard_p_Page_056.jp2
f09678e7d6ac0d289ccff875de1078ba
4d2db5afdff18e27671770dadcb65a3141e7e8ff
8921 F20101107_AAACVX pritchard_p_Page_157thm.jpg
87a3553e54c6ede645b15b63f831d58a
fd9d0452fbfbf0fd47e0d451cedfa36b6f118c6b
23770 F20101107_AAABSV pritchard_p_Page_185.QC.jpg
4c9f979935375021f4d4529d52700307
374dc36211405876e00a1524749093f9ddf80932
105120 F20101107_AAABTJ pritchard_p_Page_107.jpg
94b8fd2658c7b3e388844fec907f730e
f2c25bb3ace8a86844380d9162f58f159e551c3d
1051985 F20101107_AAADCH pritchard_p_Page_012.jp2
f01dcaead858f6c84378ef2539304492
6e4ba674b9b5144b23926e8f98e740b06392dadc
106913 F20101107_AAADBS pritchard_p_Page_158.jpg
e696d627b4daab2745f787330bb5984a
9f5dbb2e71a07ac4e70bc23f42e56575a57453f7
30954 F20101107_AAACXA pritchard_p_Page_018.QC.jpg
4f9f6365266b7444574b7b08a1475db5
bfc12ae74e9ef748d6ba3954264af157f8e3e2f4
13530 F20101107_AAACWM pritchard_p_Page_142.QC.jpg
77b86f4785344b608f06279fb5cd29ed
80c57d25c26aafc55c52e37ebee7f27b747d652d
77410 F20101107_AAACVY pritchard_p_Page_179.pro
d0c5c8e6765c6af3f773710151ad9d47
bad3b1282ec5e8d5a1352802dba3d590f303890b
2352 F20101107_AAABSW pritchard_p_Page_195thm.jpg
4c9a082b49e401094f8d26e46829b1d2
621edf73b794a6036f40474d86097da77005aea4
1723 F20101107_AAABTK pritchard_p_Page_057.txt
ebb38584c7a8beb91ced30b46a102144
9730cfb98d456bb5f022213468c6c2531e059d72
F20101107_AAADCI pritchard_p_Page_014.jp2
1f60b4f3b3a20188c12fd355fda9e3a2
7b33d28acffb01868995b52b2ad222a8e016318c
104364 F20101107_AAADBT pritchard_p_Page_161.jpg
fc511d2e41e04f5f3c2a51c8553fc108
67fd172e01da6fe7834b23093e42f1b2885c7e84
F20101107_AAACXB pritchard_p_Page_195.tif
58b40b72905544f6ecc08753e7a6beb4
b484d926039b590835256f6764bdedd6574f06a8
1672 F20101107_AAACWN pritchard_p_Page_187.txt
3655119ba70718f7c6e7f47f53ddc54c
dcdb9b3824a6e5630513cd503e2ee74a3fe81a66
55081 F20101107_AAACVZ pritchard_p_Page_040.pro
e8d5143c8b890aff68a9b96805ba281e
8eb16e4f567a66963d74db7cbdda4ef2f003d4f0
2393 F20101107_AAABSX pritchard_p_Page_077.txt
b4d9683b3d1c7a529164fccf5c389818
dd02766be0fb9f0e604f7c3fd5789396e61d4895
108379 F20101107_AAABTL pritchard_p_Page_167.jpg
11624f71390bce3db1b4d2d691a30fe7
d9f4e06d461a1bdd184698e393e493283ac87d35
F20101107_AAADCJ pritchard_p_Page_019.jp2
40d2b877ca8c43cef676c8e4732d15dc
dab7daf59cf0dc669e74751e82a8d605b3b05e51
112451 F20101107_AAADBU pritchard_p_Page_171.jpg
e4e7eb4689848298af206447be62b31e
faed88a3dc278015306039949221fa5bb7b2cf50
55803 F20101107_AAACXC pritchard_p_Page_153.jpg
fea75ba66dea9b4c669c91ed470531bd
d685e194102fce1d1f28cfaaf7cc0a9b8309a4cc
89993 F20101107_AAACWO pritchard_p_Page_144.jpg
35e59db8dcfcb325f276173b01037045
cb51ee4ac0b8060fafc5934b9fd2dc73501801e4
53826 F20101107_AAABSY pritchard_p_Page_051.pro
eacae25f7bc677f2d47f03404c5f6d4b
2ec0a786e9128e2818d2c81748b5e4cad9dce236
1495 F20101107_AAABUA pritchard_p_Page_137.txt
69067f264ef2cd35d261b89b03455238
b8ca1d4e5559e3f065b26061763914182fd75149
2808 F20101107_AAABTM pritchard_p_Page_115.txt
6206487fc5f5c4839b7418cdc99f771b
8913a4168e71bad6b0523a79de6bf46a7eda5494
102817 F20101107_AAADBV pritchard_p_Page_174.jpg
656572aa285d2d8187d359684721acf9
6dd46bf1910acb403b98e0de176cb4c93fb7fb4f
2735 F20101107_AAACXD pritchard_p_Page_010.txt
4f1370b31a153870922ccb23f8436762
a10782c01cfe4613575b063133e49e2c83c49d22
37583 F20101107_AAACWP pritchard_p_Page_035.QC.jpg
7a3736e003f88694d5e3ee6876b7d31e
68a2b03f2b62f87ac5c3617e4cd0002b248b6583
128519 F20101107_AAABSZ pritchard_p_Page_183.pro
49c9c07a8b60d2ad65daacb03e21f645
d85770b715e290e86bb31f12f97ced498d0c569b
F20101107_AAABUB pritchard_p_Page_194.tif
93f1a9b39a41de888405e0f204dd6728
997676b8769a3679a8d6d6618288083eb818cdcc
53344 F20101107_AAABTN pritchard_p_Page_164.pro
6803a2217c162f6faa8bf56f68ed813e
16d1baf7622e86584035eb5b58744736c8d5ef1e
F20101107_AAADCK pritchard_p_Page_021.jp2
6d990f4682219ebc03c9fb26cc60d3c6
cd8390d15f9683c4756b1eb6d78ef88c75016d31
102372 F20101107_AAADBW pritchard_p_Page_176.jpg
ca2b69f016d0270cce5c05a645c61ec9
226422a2e1dc2b6a6560101c0b6f582330176637
50813 F20101107_AAACXE pritchard_p_Page_173.pro
30d05d16796260716f22b2c802986879
1f4a73096d1412e39b05ccc3de76fe01ef4ece9f
53488 F20101107_AAACWQ pritchard_p_Page_157.pro
089f254ac89cfd39e75168478c0e4963
cb05e4ab3ae4bc866ba50b0543f002ccd5bd3ecf
1782 F20101107_AAABUC pritchard_p_Page_138.txt
77ca763213f797c3ade548db29155156
6fded4ddd3a9902a4a9eecc32b66b961d2174172
41929 F20101107_AAABTO pritchard_p_Page_012.QC.jpg
45a4cc7ef67da798b61de1a9c2cdf684
6f51df4cab7121fb9b9db76a7da03a5c5326f879
1051927 F20101107_AAADDA pritchard_p_Page_091.jp2
be8aaa75af69b48480f131e2cce51253
e7442083c341b05986bf4d7da0e62c4a9daec209
1051918 F20101107_AAADCL pritchard_p_Page_026.jp2
d29d80b122cbe4f39b694df2c70050da
b407c8897500f1c90d648c2de718216cb22fd4ba
102453 F20101107_AAADBX pritchard_p_Page_183.jpg
10451b043e35002a7abf47d045d87dd6
bb23d71ef408588381900facd10b9ef41ba86058
107929 F20101107_AAACXF pritchard_p_Page_048.jpg
7181b07bac8a03c994cd92f80e3ca132
0f835aabe0b7bfed631d5e72293c4abce0fb943c
30091 F20101107_AAACWR pritchard_p_Page_098.QC.jpg
e8a4729408399c4d20f265392f0bca7d
455edb7211dfd39e21acd6e48108da2ba03b48d4
2334 F20101107_AAABUD pritchard_p_Page_130.txt
236ca10e80d2c02954203edc8b96b457
adfcfdff7ac4c5d0167c37783a2d26146295de23
832355 F20101107_AAABTP pritchard_p_Page_087.jp2
a928a3fe7fdcae7d376dd9b49f757807
4d1ef6639f76e8d45d36f5b1d0ec77c7a570d752
663748 F20101107_AAADDB pritchard_p_Page_100.jp2
050cf2ed60234e96ce4fe7d274d2c8ee
fbc85c89e87976b4305d2ca350e30ad30267278e
F20101107_AAADCM pritchard_p_Page_029.jp2
f58b864ed016b79e6deafe2dbdae64c4
e6848a3656aad713b0c4b057945b65a278a96a5e
98544 F20101107_AAADBY pritchard_p_Page_184.jpg
f3e2edbb0b93ba08eb6d23b8ef20609d
24eb204cfba050ccd81d6a13c202cee43c49c1ed
F20101107_AAACXG pritchard_p_Page_034.jp2
ce16bdeabd2570483b8446dddbb5293a
aa5c35dc6a85e5dd1bf0c60bb4be555e45df1986
35352 F20101107_AAACWS pritchard_p_Page_047.QC.jpg
eefc9a9c92f6a515a36114958aed3071
ca532bf1bd5b974a23ad8d1ed266b2dabe92aa1f
8906 F20101107_AAABUE pritchard_p_Page_035thm.jpg
becedcdd318e7c1389cd6bbabc96bc3b
97112295cdc9796b76f94da1d548ea970b74d96a
2823 F20101107_AAABTQ pritchard_p_Page_009.txt
2478badaf71b0fad38088991ae587d67
ce43eac76ecfcc09e1e092da62438519e160d9b2
380148 F20101107_AAADDC pritchard_p_Page_101.jp2
47edcb6074466e2ce5b662bef838fe5d
52f93f17a36a54d186cb40d353687fb56cb31dc5
F20101107_AAADCN pritchard_p_Page_035.jp2
867c64bb1448e20ffcbf9ffa22252372
2a61260c5fb0dfcbd5e78714ad4ffe5bc79c1ac9
84938 F20101107_AAADBZ pritchard_p_Page_185.jpg
d106aa940e5b8529c8fe3182909a096b
0e1d7ffbf687abbc848685ef76b2c78a54e2c9c9
2222 F20101107_AAACXH pritchard_p_Page_056thm.jpg
847e2c7d203588cddbf6aa750fc1a9b7
31c77f702805bc75f6dd65ce042f294f4a994de7
F20101107_AAACWT pritchard_p_Page_012.tif
d56ae266fb141f5854fc8b85a98fe633
a8e08f24d64562eed03668d612eb428ebfa4e3fc
54829 F20101107_AAABUF pritchard_p_Page_071.pro
0c83468e4ac59153a02e310d476b53c7
b32891c3911774fecb1af474cfc08c61c9980442
F20101107_AAABTR pritchard_p_Page_116.tif
b4280588dfd3acd28ab7acb8cb00b911
f87b8cd6ff04e75c0d82430052b6851ea3998a47
39109 F20101107_AAACAA pritchard_p_Page_146.jpg
9ad4f6df2fa4129a2081636d7a68d0b9
3cfec6ebb1ac3dfddabb7296edd49947ba3c413a
564359 F20101107_AAADDD pritchard_p_Page_102.jp2
18451287089c27c71b4631052c53bedd
1f0a8b50768242c8e1f781d3b5cc74fc1268faec
F20101107_AAADCO pritchard_p_Page_037.jp2
8906f86aaf30a0f1e2d6309a91428804
a39a11eda318b26b4e7a143ac42dc4cc97dae49d
F20101107_AAACXI pritchard_p_Page_127.tif
e98ea6dc2b72f356d3ceb52f1d56c5cc
c7f09c495415550bc8f1af9e92f7a9cfdf109e5c
30784 F20101107_AAACWU pritchard_p_Page_125.pro
e4c6c8ab5f991ef30b23fb93e4eda56d
5340b540094f3efcfd2c8793fcaba3cfc0ac9e51
102478 F20101107_AAABUG pritchard_p_Page_050.jpg
597a8681634aa3c18fee4ee0e27f3592
3046b46adcb18950a446d681a2222d14a5290f45
55130 F20101107_AAABTS pritchard_p_Page_102.jpg
9356f4d9aca585f5ec6eb4beb1e9b5a7
b72f9c01fcbf76b9610fe04cffe33efea12b50fe
F20101107_AAACAB pritchard_p_Page_015.jp2
5a55673c7b38c5f1e7fc1a9d0c0afd75
b8a2c5d45d1821ff621245fa70b2a5350e20a310
466146 F20101107_AAADDE pritchard_p_Page_106.jp2
c982a47574877f27ae3ac2268594f275
0f3079a2d83b51777af82d27e1902639481ad961
1051968 F20101107_AAADCP pritchard_p_Page_038.jp2
51bbabbdef9910e7d7b02aeb31d11e27
2dd56b208d62aa54cf8d7d880ae7491b4c23bba0
34074 F20101107_AAACXJ pritchard_p_Page_053.QC.jpg
15182bdc901917c5a7f12815c81f6e27
fb75d2d07584114c3308f83a8919278908513101
F20101107_AAACWV pritchard_p_Page_158.tif
149c6bbd10eb3fb1313ef7094a8a45d7
e1e487a3bc2b5a1bc56ab23b033d8de9708629b0
F20101107_AAABUH pritchard_p_Page_171.tif
b5e8ea516a1c2abd1046e848a074da87
2f2b66e3f0790484ffae32dd2a69fe5a5616a6cd
6588 F20101107_AAABTT pritchard_p_Page_094thm.jpg
a0df6c5908aef53c5459033b0cdf071c
dcf282ec0d0a6861ad86a396058355d5ed327680
2164 F20101107_AAACAC pritchard_p_Page_051.txt
05e9605aa09e972449333791ef07f1ad
fcdc5456644feaf1336dc79c69fd929cfdf6b7dc
1007342 F20101107_AAADDF pritchard_p_Page_108.jp2
a3ad23c3649a9f792bc4c1b8e57c0623
9d26a6c509269ec0c6056f376c616200254cd1ea
F20101107_AAADCQ pritchard_p_Page_042.jp2
ace6b2cb43a36a784e709c0e964d1bd1
31a36dc48e57490c4996cce20042914c5c93a093
F20101107_AAACXK pritchard_p_Page_024.tif
89f5f52d8029a64c8b54e5dd303a69b8
db60615c325ab9d589973bc9c7d0c3b12d73ba2b
1307 F20101107_AAACWW pritchard_p_Page_095.txt
2fa7d1467bcb362a91820160cde25f13
1749c1aeefda4cd2114ff209d198179016bb7b4e
29807 F20101107_AAABUI pritchard_p_Page_052.QC.jpg
b0dc72352df4dca24e471b3bc016ae0b
ffa0f066d3d7189ef7c09a2bde51af211b767ccc
98696 F20101107_AAABTU pritchard_p_Page_090.jpg
e3b51459ff273b4045f097c0a6fd5c40
20bd3453fd22edb19cc0502c1d628aa9d5aae7f9
1051933 F20101107_AAACAD pritchard_p_Page_076.jp2
914cbd16474a186d396e23762693246a
53a4942e27af350e1cf4153eff05d9b73b7e4ade
636698 F20101107_AAADDG pritchard_p_Page_110.jp2
dd742b1a4cd11079deaa0c53ed334d61
dc4f098b5f085062b860dae3b79644a048993836
1051973 F20101107_AAADCR pritchard_p_Page_048.jp2
12b50e244119249531d63d75f9291c4b
60295e0d05c19ba1ce0344595a4ac4a0e27fa55f
35863 F20101107_AAACYA pritchard_p_Page_141.pro
3a22badd5372fb26ec6b0836dc1f863b
74e07dcb8cb433cdff5fed7ceed3ebbc50127cf2
50121 F20101107_AAACXL pritchard_p_Page_087.pro
bf98ecf80f6d559ba2221d61b9bbb3d1
9af45e1bf8130c8a0987f5b0efb754ac7166d240
19129 F20101107_AAACWX pritchard_p_Page_138.QC.jpg
0a0c73eea0146b65f3be12d99eef781f
e332e403d015d8728ca501b509f2d9d2ff5e11db
33734 F20101107_AAABUJ pritchard_p_Page_079.pro
27f2e2b8abca2fa3a64d4c32921eb73a
3f5d7958a47e384cefb78dc1f8824b13289d92c8
55524 F20101107_AAABTV pritchard_p_Page_022.pro
0c516e23f6890a6a792668ba9fe84ac7
30a8d78da8c6d05b9122a6100ed705dec7cb464c
96849 F20101107_AAACAE pritchard_p_Page_055.jpg
a1ca5a2c45425f4ba5580fcf604e021d
21ff405cd5e6d99343cec14295aa55409782d1f3
951200 F20101107_AAADDH pritchard_p_Page_114.jp2
860d5b0d5eeb70d3d88631c63ee72c23
6380ed7d88bfe865a7d33581f29deb4e4739214f
F20101107_AAADCS pritchard_p_Page_054.jp2
a02f63912f247e2fce5a3d4409ffe059
75d6088168144bcb1b1ade1da6683791d9301e42
108236 F20101107_AAACXM pritchard_p_Page_166.jpg
11b58cbfe7432bb87aee269b29643cd1
3e12e5b8dd3a47bdda9b29c2fec6972ce50129e7
8405 F20101107_AAACWY pritchard_p_Page_027thm.jpg
7f95087c96435710a13d04f3a749c6c1
09c71115f484043344d0c583b2ee712b4a0156b6
F20101107_AAABUK pritchard_p_Page_191.QC.jpg
75d60ba40e361738553736bc39660a5e
04712e76aac08cbef4a578922ad2aa05db9eaa76
7228 F20101107_AAABTW pritchard_p_Page_081thm.jpg
a70392f9e8be376c0664207e58d0f5b1
da9e7c07873cacc2ceb8be9db76bae32e76fa957
20644 F20101107_AAACAF pritchard_p_Page_145.QC.jpg
099e47c9cf7a9a3243644ba71e3687f0
f623c3425de6050bb0d9443fc8f56ce909d0d22d
694316 F20101107_AAADDI pritchard_p_Page_119.jp2
20eb500dccc784d27e33c472777fc2cf
c8ed8d301546b7493d027ff27706e7227a158deb
F20101107_AAADCT pritchard_p_Page_055.jp2
1eeb1c9e617cc958aedde2dcbbdd33a7
9ddcfcadb8d542501fdff278c8d649f0828def49
F20101107_AAACYB pritchard_p_Page_140.tif
b14d757216b72fcfd2ab7aa64fb904bb
df3dd0672bce0dae5a86c90921f5a949a78ed936
81441 F20101107_AAACXN pritchard_p_Page_087.jpg
2d086cd91be11cb2635fd4da0c170fa3
0e5ffc004a6645029a9639992aa0d6ec25418d26
106538 F20101107_AAACWZ pritchard_p_Page_067.jpg
a1ba5e3bccda5fd9f8228b676fa5ee51
f69bae2b2a5bdb4e71bfd4f812ef48c876721b29
70384 F20101107_AAABUL pritchard_p_Page_113.jpg
9e3a29dff39b7f68ca7d7b28ffdce7d4
e1b122c2661899f9435aa06b0bef90dfb685b9bd
56452 F20101107_AAABTX pritchard_p_Page_025.pro
8485170ae596b99a2c31d9003330f9e0
21885e9a7f8bf9300b003b467356b8b16cbf7e97
F20101107_AAACAG pritchard_p_Page_141.tif
35c9fdb1e191694419a404ae1e486a1a
e0460270a5957c3d6cfe34ebb5d07326ed77e108
382211 F20101107_AAADDJ pritchard_p_Page_120.jp2
ad00814971e8f3dd815a2943ca492c37
b309ec7795d2fce5262f10db4a5f76ce65123d49
F20101107_AAADCU pritchard_p_Page_060.jp2
2de6063e4e16fa97b9e43bcc1e63443a
579f0b9fbad90431fb8de4bb4b213b0de896fefe
112829 F20101107_AAACYC pritchard_p_Page_035.jpg
efb1583ac3e208087f38af45a5d58e47
3c578bafa43aea2a17cec6c3a68971606d5baedc
112101 F20101107_AAACXO pritchard_p_Page_022.jpg
c4cecadf371f892ab1e24539ae55e4be
fe1f1fac415cb5d14683b40d61a78ff1ae801136
F20101107_AAABVA pritchard_p_Page_068.tif
384f8ffc5a676a0b9860e4046fd0b45c
f23adf7074a0c471d4ac7bc845854cdd51b19fbc
54961 F20101107_AAABUM pritchard_p_Page_066.pro
1d18b10d0a0d39fc776db3ff25621c32
fd861a3dc34d32f225233e2acc4f5981bb147b76
112066 F20101107_AAABTY pritchard_p_Page_169.jpg
fb844eeb664da2359de0cae729e4ae5a
9e0329908b7492e03d43e410b54f3922c221355c
29880 F20101107_AAACAH pritchard_p_Page_176.QC.jpg
15b9301996118dccb132b5d7dc0c3c04
0cf84b3b301e6c41590d32aa7aa8d395d47bac03
827050 F20101107_AAADDK pritchard_p_Page_121.jp2
6603a56609de6167a55b56030e6542e4
aeef3906525a11d6c3474941b0dd7bdcdffb64aa
1051940 F20101107_AAADCV pritchard_p_Page_067.jp2
f6cdb1d2fb3c14653777444bf63944ad
324a5f21810f8fc9c5ce58e880a43282b3f6be4f
24639 F20101107_AAACYD pritchard_p_Page_095.pro
f14c6bc98391d4e78193f2b1c0e88dc6
42ddae8c5a99095cf8f741aa2d2b4b3c8e600b61
14736 F20101107_AAACXP pritchard_p_Page_181.QC.jpg
0530a73b3ed33145ee54d0dad454bd1e
c0df64ab0d1bbb747d5097b58aed0d68dde7628a
27176 F20101107_AAABVB pritchard_p_Page_184.QC.jpg
30cb63375af1a912b3b7dcf6f5767ce7
e83d23a73692b3122a1000cb09390c8465b49975
8489 F20101107_AAABUN pritchard_p_Page_007thm.jpg
22489b653b6db32a8e3837f814048981
52f494767b56dc3d4ed12011a3b482404dbe28a8
F20101107_AAABTZ pritchard_p_Page_155.jp2
184ba17eb853f906012e603e7df9ad7c
6fb064033859b934b76dc8972c1f02b1430dfbe5
109945 F20101107_AAACAI pritchard_p_Page_065.jpg
4b5bfc5d0535a53780a54b6c40261cd6
4e5dd0c7dfe1c58bd426122dc7faaea3c13c2c59
684399 F20101107_AAADCW pritchard_p_Page_077.jp2
e415af8e29e9fd3c5866f491a7020e98
4e15dc4372d6bab970f2ef306db586e2c43400f1
F20101107_AAACYE pritchard_p_Page_177.tif
18c4cdf1e27df111e47bcc40c4a28d0b
5ab1ed964d858dea82884db82e05d2f53e6e57d3
786054 F20101107_AAACXQ pritchard_p_Page_126.jp2
8999e951726515b8a1c30897d7c3acc7
93cd18beda99cba5a6c024b5d94d1068e944ffd6
53143 F20101107_AAABVC pritchard_p_Page_160.pro
994b96b15c8ebd4dc3342ce364cfb8dd
fb71e39edddebffce574cf8c7f2b7057e967fd34
32024 F20101107_AAABUO pritchard_p_Page_194.QC.jpg
b1e6d1fc7f3dbd4cdb86ab713ef0498f
cf16838f07a96173e7c4ed8c1b70ef07fbc67e41
F20101107_AAADEA pritchard_p_Page_189.jp2
00a1a757b6b7c49a9b2d71dff92c3128
5f0909598ee93ad7a7ebd9a93af1060f706301dc
430930 F20101107_AAADDL pritchard_p_Page_129.jp2
aa7124171864b88ed955b45957969694
bf80fea5528d27e78b80b88e111043fbdcb37095
731373 F20101107_AAADCX pritchard_p_Page_081.jp2
26f73669d50fad93275fce11dd00423b
78198dd3c33277edaa3203b5c52c7edbd0fcc372
32146 F20101107_AAACYF pritchard_p_Page_154.QC.jpg
f3cd6b94a427d8cd3ea91b37203c21ac
f69d1878edb36d307696cfde365b9d1915d3490e
2321 F20101107_AAACXR pritchard_p_Page_089.txt
cfdae3f596e3a96de785fe8d43310f9d
e4067432fdf1acbe14343a6d63707ba6ebb24606
8891 F20101107_AAABVD pritchard_p_Page_062thm.jpg
975bb4554940faeed6ee4666ef994a8f
a1cccb1e66f0cb1ae1be0f9b85f6c7e863c6a9b1
F20101107_AAABUP pritchard_p_Page_025.tif
3ed21347a2f91dd5ff396f82c3bc3fe1
7fff2e2153bb09b99a3e520e3f17fd0405b8ff68
32290 F20101107_AAACAJ pritchard_p_Page_055.QC.jpg
ce5430391b395fd77b83cf71e71c07fd
79e48e71bdd900db34563a37b6ebdf166e5fc847
F20101107_AAADEB pritchard_p_Page_002.tif
2654d0601b669bd3b5592790c005f804
226a61b85d4f6d5e3820483a8f0ecbe333cf6909
556656 F20101107_AAADDM pritchard_p_Page_139.jp2
ac8bbcf7e22408c46bbd6bb798aad22e
fbd0418064a721add7b824191f44d34c9ff2d671
806115 F20101107_AAADCY pritchard_p_Page_082.jp2
9826dc377426b1c319a1f1a8a2b747c3
3deb5294e7e1eabb432becc291291ceac42c3ed1
F20101107_AAACYG pritchard_p_Page_164.tif
d468cbc27930e0431db4685858efa0cd
9b8743248035250df75d6ee82c661390a6c11c5c
39242 F20101107_AAACXS pritchard_p_Page_186.pro
9e78ea386c7fd83bc3e2b84dee3132d3
649b86a9246c34ddc2cca6e8866f8453c0812ca1
F20101107_AAABVE pritchard_p_Page_125.tif
4afec9647003183f8d57337a598a435a
8817185be1c2147ef4d6a5bf93fdc7e54dd6ccba
35745 F20101107_AAABUQ pritchard_p_Page_028.QC.jpg
4f4511c9c144f6984a5787c0e9e2b1aa
fe5ecf92f21e414827f6a8550ac2f4a5bc081505
47282 F20101107_AAACAK pritchard_p_Page_005.pro
54e5d7c893d7703b1f2912c066557fca
b85a7c093128f87db34669730fa7f2369028c7ee
F20101107_AAADEC pritchard_p_Page_003.tif
6376e9303db5d52474c6adc91d230d3c
551110a121cbe9c653cb1a2c332da411ff428b88
651881 F20101107_AAADDN pritchard_p_Page_145.jp2
e7238b5e69ce862b1e6fe50817e4ce59
7212a1c470574ebeab429912792df13f28cac236
823056 F20101107_AAADCZ pritchard_p_Page_084.jp2
355ee502166a89c17bcca9ba6e2a7c2d
0da881472cc4236b82f0db4e7f9fc32594fe98db
F20101107_AAACYH pritchard_p_Page_160.jpg
f0aa6c6c03ff7e68426eebdf5fb472ed
35683cdfd5728d0a4448dd3e4b65740ebe09b16c
56736 F20101107_AAACXT pritchard_p_Page_171.pro
6e96f784823bf10da179c259b47b5047
0aa6aa60cf7a1a2ee9579ebcc8e9b141ecfcc9a0
35658 F20101107_AAABVF pritchard_p_Page_030.QC.jpg
36120255a99e2fdd8d3d2ac0081544fe
2a11f12b621bafb7aad32f030cb73b962c19506c
69728 F20101107_AAABUR pritchard_p_Page_083.jpg
8910db839cd1728c8d2a5f87b073ff6e
83cbc034c49ee654b1bbcee73c59393ea9a2ff27
26198 F20101107_AAACBA pritchard_p_Page_130.QC.jpg
ffb35921dc7be18ddd590ff6e09a1f8b
d987b7f12911be144c6d7b8a823e78808a6aaf4c
107309 F20101107_AAACAL pritchard_p_Page_031.jpg
938b07b30f01378a2facc0ef1e34fff2
83920f5dde73710c402ac7d69ab206577a78a716
F20101107_AAADED pritchard_p_Page_006.tif
67030cbc066927d883e0b447d5e1e521
dab6ee47cfcefbc42edc88494dac7cbb9d35d22e
368398 F20101107_AAADDO pritchard_p_Page_146.jp2
86f1a97099608eed85d894c387948b4a
d050230a869d21ac9490649c17e21bf8aee73024
F20101107_AAACYI pritchard_p_Page_185.jp2
543e400777650347f25328137a1b0746
e85ee7924b9101e91f2c0d49a3d418181a098792
F20101107_AAACXU pritchard_p_Page_106.tif
51ea079c78d8f3207f7fc45a1c7938df
075746fc582b9e977ee995c17d3ee342a7edfc8c
3742 F20101107_AAABVG pritchard_p_Page_136thm.jpg
da4ede9cc12fbb001f335ca223e486e8
004b4a162887c251051cb14a959b8be6c8e431f5
F20101107_AAABUS pritchard_p_Page_119.tif
ab74f90969222990965194c19e0f856c
45c0fd0aefb9aeb836fb67ee2a5752f8b99ceec1
37792 F20101107_AAACBB pritchard_p_Page_135.pro
9687d5a88254b17295483c97462c5187
b91ed039c76e90334aa96af00f2b9f7a593c14df
F20101107_AAACAM pritchard_p_Page_174.jp2
eaa0d3d344e938bc505ae2a08f76aa68
1ad689159fcb1f5a8d8f8e37c672ab6b8e1616c7
F20101107_AAADEE pritchard_p_Page_008.tif
5272e189930a0bb5051ea9c0c188be85
acbae0c888445539ce69aeb1aac60dc24832b6df
573860 F20101107_AAADDP pritchard_p_Page_150.jp2
faf962029f5fbe57ae48509d43af0ac2
17dd0e76f016e04198a61df544f8d48386e79c72
8482 F20101107_AAACYJ pritchard_p_Page_161thm.jpg
63ad82b637a2318122f509bfd2f69fad
4c075fe591b9025907ab24d994ab997f6104ae26
55622 F20101107_AAACXV pritchard_p_Page_170.pro
fc2a46706ad6bec933802e4e35c37a27
062d1959b7a21cf582e750a15981e7dc5fbfe3e9
F20101107_AAABVH pritchard_p_Page_118.tif
1eba5cf23ca9df5bc4f2b7daaa65aaf0
83ab51520316a543aa230b02e28bcf1cdb12f7f2
8715 F20101107_AAABUT pritchard_p_Page_170thm.jpg
38bb18b3a5df4668a905521536a7f7a4
476760f6b9d7d26761a5fd3e6d6e43e6e3600ab4
46919 F20101107_AAACBC pritchard_p_Page_194.pro
4a1430cc66e72a3b644a41edb4fa6eba
eb3aed8cfd51a51432b0c440742a61d1cc949ebb
34958 F20101107_AAACAN pritchard_p_Page_156.QC.jpg
b4cd6b2fc3b5ede4b1700135c42f982b
baf5599a062ccd2992e91b7e8c50634dcda7b42c
F20101107_AAADEF pritchard_p_Page_011.tif
6c9f051c9db0a1b84e332ab071f4b56d
2c0d6a0fcaef3fc9535eea2f72f1c95d3cd8d3e5
577605 F20101107_AAADDQ pritchard_p_Page_153.jp2
ccc63d7e6e8b2e42595c84027eaf0191
53ac73366b2a7e209ec7065f2b6deacb8ed73883
12889 F20101107_AAACYK pritchard_p_Page_101.QC.jpg
c2c356050deb6c30134ef55ed39f31ef
9cdcfdbd00c5f01896001dfb50d7be3bf0a6d170
109016 F20101107_AAACXW pritchard_p_Page_029.jpg
fa34d222b442c2b7892d7e607672f1fd
8868ea4e3e74d625167e50877dae1dfce993f439
532444 F20101107_AAABVI pritchard_p_Page_124.jp2
92d3e8b7f4010b62c18638b8ea51079a
91e683ca088438c13c21088e59da559f8ffac779
40271 F20101107_AAABUU pritchard_p_Page_008.pro
0da053b5a3b06b6e0ce435d0eeaaa1a7
71f798d505e1e2f981054483b25093e50e1282c9
405821 F20101107_AAACBD pritchard_p_Page_136.jp2
f08205af1a13c7c6e8fac9fd2aba2b5a
1e8bc272bc6af48987d4e3a9e55681b849455ad6
102041 F20101107_AAACAO pritchard_p_Page_173.jpg
15e345d28251aa0ee8cced1016e1e2e5
7c2dada3b433b3b13da1651af2a58ae3a3640173
F20101107_AAADEG pritchard_p_Page_013.tif
180cb7ae293200547f5d3d96ed6342af
9d6e94fc09a6fe0f3051af2d298c69d124133b16
F20101107_AAADDR pritchard_p_Page_156.jp2
2d18b777ef8e3c94daa0fc0c90d8f548
f0c7d66fabaec6200f54b48ee07fac52e980b69f
F20101107_AAACZA pritchard_p_Page_144.tif
14c87f83910bab623cc04ee2bd47bcdd
7bf8812eb3982094c77def2018e55dbcac66c811
98248 F20101107_AAACYL pritchard_p_Page_006.pro
aea3bc1dd6b55477d73d1c96f066bfd3
997f1fa87e7abc7bf2f073f6b688fa2705bf2b69
F20101107_AAACXX pritchard_p_Page_191.jp2
22afd7985ae34e23d3ebc462719f4cc8
fbe157a35bb73aa93257edf5b898eee4d5194770
5503 F20101107_AAABVJ pritchard_p_Page_113thm.jpg
2aa6d1ac030ed032c6ee1a1aa72ae21b
451a30269e8d0ab076c62481e23f395d7d4f5492
1572 F20101107_AAABUV pritchard_p_Page_150.txt
bec450b5d6e775e886ebbc03cbeadd77
14c6a39e023085f53c16d7ce6c18b4f32a1ce672
107964 F20101107_AAACBE pritchard_p_Page_006.jpg
a1358f3eb113dc29bcfb6f58121b4685
81ae7c0e57884e2c21aa3c465cab9d96cc98eac4
40734 F20101107_AAACAP pritchard_p_Page_081.pro
c8842e46565903baff3ee014600b4ae5
4d2b1411529e0fe5382f52a81675fbc8a7d5e042
F20101107_AAADEH pritchard_p_Page_015.tif
a412537829e7f47d4c3950004638a3dc
b1b38d5f1b88e21716b843463d9629455c1336b1
F20101107_AAADDS pritchard_p_Page_159.jp2
9491d2d783ab0a8efaf174cf208b3673
e8fc6921c3f425ef881b9573b33eb0d42635a79b
2295 F20101107_AAACZB pritchard_p_Page_192.txt
b657654c2252d68adc5fbf0254efd68f
c30c7f3fd7bcbc032ff291940fd39ae9785063b8
F20101107_AAACYM pritchard_p_Page_030.tif
f234c39ec123d487d19cbdc42c3cd516
a1dc32c39d28f72404b9e1a2f9b79e45795827d5
3038 F20101107_AAACXY pritchard_p_Page_015.txt
21947bf61c1509d9f50222784ca55ffe
7969d16f738ce7edb5ef15accc5d7ccbf34a7553
97455 F20101107_AAABUW pritchard_p_Page_005.jpg
ea3a2663fa2527d6c441a6cc50dd4015
2942afd4c59b5f194056bf6aae3992feebd9a3e7
34966 F20101107_AAACBF pritchard_p_Page_157.QC.jpg
f9854f86e93eb511b36c0eeeef5ae43f
a86bd1fe3f42084cfaabfc0f95c69b7692fc2f3c
13836 F20101107_AAACAQ pritchard_p_Page_129.QC.jpg
5d66b12e50ef57b525a0c4fa46576f35
2fd995e05c117484ac262d7608eb5699c72b3d3b
5998 F20101107_AAABVK pritchard_p_Page_180thm.jpg
b4fa59deccab1dc2db92fbd1342f65cb
14bc9f62dcc6d40813cbfa124b209ba82a103ce8
F20101107_AAADEI pritchard_p_Page_026.tif
787403905b275a8267d96cd792cd1b4d
efb9bf04e3412189573dfbd4a377405ecd126c35
F20101107_AAADDT pritchard_p_Page_166.jp2
0db1f5e1aab45c3649313f9356dfb36f
364af3594d47587cbfc680bc445d80729e91ebfe
38292 F20101107_AAACYN pritchard_p_Page_162.QC.jpg
deb1bb46664f7533cb29f78336e26b8e
f03ace9ab433bee5be9b35e30734a1aa47108198
56696 F20101107_AAACXZ pritchard_p_Page_137.jpg
173c165aa19233babab9da094e1b8fc9
aab4e849de2859a38f0179c769f8e94c215a5c72
F20101107_AAABUX pritchard_p_Page_033.jp2
e74f1af50ff4384035653ef3245c56cc
3948596ff6ea0165857d7760c1f44449936ea173
F20101107_AAACBG pritchard_p_Page_022.tif
96af49ccf9e36ee60bfcc0873bc5cc1f
e474fe968dc3ce4fe85f9a1b089309b27751b630
21409 F20101107_AAACAR pritchard_p_Page_106.pro
5cf54b9f2fbd308b822ade940620006c
d770021b3a2da8d4596e9d26ea6b894b73227d63
F20101107_AAABVL pritchard_p_Page_162.jp2
3c0c2c7b9b24130bbd81362e5de43f03
143723a453a85ab1a48d5ca103e1d9c2170b390d
F20101107_AAADEJ pritchard_p_Page_037.tif
4955173d60cdaf95ed99e4ed83b5743c
8de5b6d6bb0e1eaa97b3b1a0c2ae7f18dfec5455
1051919 F20101107_AAADDU pritchard_p_Page_169.jp2
16c435131a991b4fd2ecd67cb3785e03
287971448e64b0ccd04210a08972c3e009a73fea
F20101107_AAACZC pritchard_p_Page_125thm.jpg
cc4e726b9736b2007c03b1ba41dabf7f
4437ca335583029ac6750c8ebca91170cfa39f15
F20101107_AAACYO pritchard_p_Page_004.txt
ba40bac3774e651e18578078de011add
0a2b515d8eaccf603cdfe7b7d8759836e642f29b
10050 F20101107_AAABUY pritchard_p_Page_013thm.jpg
7864709aff9476157e6dba4e53a3a493
363397c6dec9f237dbb951b647717266483c3b9b
1848 F20101107_AAACBH pritchard_p_Page_124.txt
1a9cd07c043dbfeb6aac01785c70473d
a72bb25a1d72cc18a412f6b0c25ee8c72d5df220
F20101107_AAABWA pritchard_p_Page_006.jp2
fb64ff1941c13c1a40bf2e6b104f2e21
d9d9a072feb9baa9d550e1ef8bc608a24dd2a67f
4466 F20101107_AAACAS pritchard_p_Page_099thm.jpg
3641780b3eac4a9be31099f879d9ba3d
a365f5697d6305c94aa377cbb2e65300d0f28e71
9907 F20101107_AAABVM pritchard_p_Page_011thm.jpg
c04e6aed184ce6f4835d504c3ea579f2
32e319cbe7da56fdbf246e57e058be3716f79436
F20101107_AAADEK pritchard_p_Page_038.tif
88ed075c25d63fa1ff1a210e8b381989
27a7fab7d80f84f95df024d1957ddfccf4aa08e7
F20101107_AAADDV pritchard_p_Page_177.jp2
79b6813813138d6548ab3d1ffc67d0f5
7872f5b6794dfdbd97843910224b319548f93fc2
1051966 F20101107_AAACZD pritchard_p_Page_176.jp2
865b699fd2506c8c30b4f12475327bc4
743006fec5847223423221bf03709017afbb233b
7119 F20101107_AAACYP pritchard_p_Page_183.txt
7591541ee84954edaa90669184938895
03a3a0f7ffac5d975cf76342dea2ecf184287193
30656 F20101107_AAABUZ pritchard_p_Page_143.pro
5bac427bdb526c80634aeb559ec1a371
74b827e6345f454b5d1a04ab3e2597e855ffcd99
8866 F20101107_AAACBI pritchard_p_Page_066thm.jpg
8daffa9253d427cd8d71374aa7af18c5
78bd16cb214df92efdba245c9d4ea9223c60206d
8249 F20101107_AAABWB pritchard_p_Page_172thm.jpg
badadd7d28e8d03562102385b8eecf44
4667e69d2cd0ed392705b578f2eb1337420eec38
17180 F20101107_AAACAT pritchard_p_Page_093.QC.jpg
d6ac445ce0f9f5fb0913b9a048ba750a
4ee9a4480ad0a609012036188bac12b87ced109d
6573 F20101107_AAABVN pritchard_p_Page_123thm.jpg
b46f5d3293978de37459e0e2c21bc6d1
8e7849d1cc5d48f8fdb3e09f17bc0df39d146390
F20101107_AAADEL pritchard_p_Page_040.tif
b8bbb16666b99035c985e99e63c6a76c
0e8d6f8b3ad44edab7317dd12fca33ee65d23de3
F20101107_AAADDW pritchard_p_Page_179.jp2
f7bad3b447af58755d273755d6d322f9
fa96b44b8c9fea108df8e085775bd08773f8ed78
69507 F20101107_AAACZE pritchard_p_Page_088.jpg
dfd37af97372bed5e53c9a4e5516977e
08bf59a8513793ff663392d63159092559e7a384
2124 F20101107_AAACYQ pritchard_p_Page_164.txt
e7f727e69755abb224192123b624dcac
f3baec8e0afab5ec7b88ef1c31467f243731631c
2467 F20101107_AAACBJ pritchard_p_Page_116.txt
0e3701ceb9c8296c77473002d5fa7a70
e6432aa5439892fcd23f3cbff4f9800efcbbb5a7
101080 F20101107_AAABWC pritchard_p_Page_019.jpg
a44ae746fe38a71e485e16a2c2d18d82
6c6666574157f94ab83ec48fd1f4d748c6212c6c
15676 F20101107_AAACAU pritchard_p_Page_008.QC.jpg
6a1a7adc6fda96401fb8074d9aff4ff2
7aed0306d2230dd2370df5985c0d3d0e1e5d5c04
46378 F20101107_AAABVO pritchard_p_Page_089.pro
78e376abca8ca94c3e58c8874abeb404
5fc2a2d4d6221f1e722911418c63afd5bcfc88f1
F20101107_AAADFA pritchard_p_Page_093.tif
08b9cbd7c888d8593f57712712b4a2c0
58a94719527169b05a8f4488bca10b78c88799a3
1051947 F20101107_AAADDX pritchard_p_Page_184.jp2
e6aa3ebc317c4e57627c1cafd95278b0
812e90d0e448091d98180a5b1ec34b1a1300485c
F20101107_AAACZF pritchard_p_Page_007.tif
1295bba8b185fefc6cd66fa837c48e76
401d4a5157a5c2a665d6c8afaeae5e0551f64ab4
1051914 F20101107_AAACYR pritchard_p_Page_050.jp2
2f5cf621cda08c658979c81f48a0a540
e7c1a41bb312ae413d73fb07c952b2202189af0f
F20101107_AAABWD pritchard_p_Page_143.tif
82264869fc5221792403e164a6b045a8
cf20822b8338fdadb6195395d28bff76cd686606
F20101107_AAACAV pritchard_p_Page_036.txt
1bfdfa9832422e12f9257d678c3611de
317debe8d4504e7fe33060417de32d5b3d683663
F20101107_AAABVP pritchard_p_Page_165.tif
48b42d569fb3ce1a8c0bc8c01be137ec
6b22b68e4a0fcf080537adb58024cf576b789d34
F20101107_AAADFB pritchard_p_Page_094.tif
6487a837c3ceedbcedb0eb560e7fe90e
573f4803d2b63e47c4839c92d6f5861ba520623e
F20101107_AAADEM pritchard_p_Page_043.tif
a7118bffcfc0e3bfaf5c5e825cff31f1
f2ed09171aff7995d0635925a88ad4df99184bc8
883871 F20101107_AAADDY pritchard_p_Page_187.jp2
e8634e229939d7c67beb2dd227cba58a
f9d52c01b7d50b6f793561af562c1b78a4c64a25
34082 F20101107_AAACZG pritchard_p_Page_050.QC.jpg
0a5c071896fead2ed5c4b6545b61fd2c
6dd312a9db57502c05dcb75722a2d3be5160c6bf
2243 F20101107_AAACYS pritchard_p_Page_088.txt
c5f0893396acbfcf301a88ee71ac22be
705672b4bc1e253c0fd0a4ab3243cc72eb0a812b
2429 F20101107_AAACBK pritchard_p_Page_177.txt
f0e97478ed0c773e019e7ac2e164388b
622b61307e4d14e50cc9462402ba6362829092bb
1051962 F20101107_AAABWE pritchard_p_Page_182.jp2
3b37473cf290af9ecd4a170f87316625
de7b6c90312afa4d7cb6a39cb8d39d9aeaaf6119
F20101107_AAACAW pritchard_p_Page_030.jp2
1696764f6978beb4b8f80292f975fd9c
0efc02e8a536d986255e604b9772eb3c72b183e3
1849 F20101107_AAABVQ pritchard_p_Page_018.txt
dc1ec7471db8e50414df46bc1685bfbe
fbec51bfe3414ede089776b613a8dc395155c806
F20101107_AAADFC pritchard_p_Page_098.tif
b7e6c942d75a57e8080472b4d65ffcc6
208dbbe6557fa958a443958bd7039170f0fee1f7
F20101107_AAADEN pritchard_p_Page_045.tif
c88cb31e1c79e467164fe08d3bdc92f5
e77ee71bf802cef8b8254a8f231182656814c0a9
210959 F20101107_AAADDZ pritchard_p_Page_188.jp2
0e8a773509d4237c5be1cd9f4d62b87a
ccff5b1e5aecfb83cbd6e418a5c41fc27617733e
22414 F20101107_AAACZH pritchard_p_Page_077.QC.jpg
f558162c8494d6cda336f9049d1d84a9
1d7cfa25c6d222442e3ad94fcaeace0fc7b998d5
109766 F20101107_AAACYT pritchard_p_Page_064.jpg
0d1432295351ad7b7a01578d8fd1cf76
3ab8d96200f2bd6090e5f3890546a1f8a67c7f8e
6657 F20101107_AAACCA pritchard_p_Page_135thm.jpg
abf2fefe4d0c429a7188cc561b1e5d30
3d90fd74927ea4a15e4f64d21fd489352e0382ae
30637 F20101107_AAACBL pritchard_p_Page_140.pro
4fa6bd8c514fd660344052eaf05151ce
fc15ac4f298f6170f9fd89e1ecd54bdd581510bf
23664 F20101107_AAABWF pritchard_p_Page_086.QC.jpg
84cea78d75ea9ca90921c8fccde4eed3
10a08219e52463f48241f925e5b431fb14b64f10
255985 F20101107_AAACAX pritchard_p_Page_001.jp2
7481fac7a4b86aeeaea1e9c2948db923
229235b3b6cfcbc7665db90f4b3e5fc254d8c398
32195 F20101107_AAABVR pritchard_p_Page_094.pro
34234e834b537ab4adf5e2fb7802f631
ca7582c6c198d7444775ba46598537750c065600
F20101107_AAADFD pritchard_p_Page_101.tif
e00c4a2b0660c911cb7c3c4205373948
fc00303a543df11681b17f8fdcc19fde85d475ca
F20101107_AAADEO pritchard_p_Page_049.tif
a20913c9cb32f04789c810c470fea4dc
b2d2593255fb689543b18c1ea480313a2e1db423
100931 F20101107_AAACZI pritchard_p_Page_154.jpg
119154a28fabd5fa67e9942d9de4132d
15d92a931e02d48ed1413936e59865dddffb07be
23540 F20101107_AAACYU pritchard_p_Page_088.QC.jpg
845e377349f65643d16ddcd2df2d90f0
e607c57ec96d9e2e95ba85557e3123be016cd460
35083 F20101107_AAACCB pritchard_p_Page_062.QC.jpg
b6cd8203ef1a7761724814b8a82e67a0
b90c89f41510496bdb213a6772e6a70984f7cbd4
2230 F20101107_AAACBM pritchard_p_Page_165.txt
919e7244646a16ace0b84b4ea42220a6
9de356404e885f403f7b78b1d49f8da6538785d5
705453 F20101107_AAABWG pritchard_p_Page_083.jp2
ffed1c1bce90ce651ed1f353836b42b4
2c3119e1d5d6049d67f0a2257de7d77d3fb70c14
39662 F20101107_AAACAY pritchard_p_Page_083.pro
a945c419267143621ee0802133714e7f
d45ca333a5b913558c3ad2b5e6fd40e92888a430
715561 F20101107_AAABVS pritchard_p_Page_088.jp2
fbfb251e6533c925deb5da340a8e4d17
8c7a633e1a8c2a91fed9e46a2615f801581b5b3d
1053954 F20101107_AAADFE pritchard_p_Page_103.tif
eac899cf6df0231f2dfdfa86cea4d5db
b03b05d70e8fb682b20b5fc5012e28cccc962a59
F20101107_AAADEP pritchard_p_Page_056.tif
ffd2fa9f9284a61325e580a29b301e23
d885a28f6efcd27d7ada18f1b5909cb5e1bd3e91
F20101107_AAACZJ pritchard_p_Page_121.tif
e186debe653be65cff5b6c52d73f6c2e
a2d9872b79c245add73d1dda5bc58392cb0fd5c3
F20101107_AAACYV pritchard_p_Page_062.jp2
25b63c06585e65eeb54685d620ea2405
c391efa7c9b83ae5fd86b131677444ba163d93e8
5119 F20101107_AAACCC pritchard_p_Page_147thm.jpg
807f1dc25efab5d52fd825bd5e5101aa
e5a4f8dc3cde6e4fc35047c0c820229e60e6b5e7
7454 F20101107_AAACBN pritchard_p_Page_058thm.jpg
a9ee935ab8b9862f03782e3ea6aa1c0d
203a18c45f9147dac04730fbb1941cc3e5344380
2158 F20101107_AAABWH pritchard_p_Page_026.txt
631b251339514fcca9fdec969b46d859
a4cf9bbd334cf1a9cc11cd7e1c7adf16937e8bd6
108183 F20101107_AAACAZ pritchard_p_Page_043.jpg
27a5c07820218c90a4961ea463833bc2
64dda5d180a224eef1b995b170e19456f1418c31
F20101107_AAABVT pritchard_p_Page_023.jp2
4bd90ad44b440bd7d582b38b01838ff6
e733728f8de4f34cd0843ccd1ba3e7bd1bb7bd6f
F20101107_AAADFF pritchard_p_Page_104.tif
1092dbbf253030705bd8fa108da13775
1c94736c98bf5b3b9df80b2dc6049111e5722cad
F20101107_AAADEQ pritchard_p_Page_061.tif
7ff55502e7c60b5c9d33c511badfc1e8
b9f9169bbe7b6b802a9c02f276b080c0463e5a57
2131 F20101107_AAACZK pritchard_p_Page_028.txt
43929f9abe765d803b4c006baad6776e
60e92ed8a2ee1f8ce8546e79088cc8c6d19252cd
148840 F20101107_AAACYW pritchard_p_Page_179.jpg
9bf10b064eb6a788a9260e4fafe8623f
5eaa0bcada63ce2152a84b66ce677716f40f0db6
8905 F20101107_AAACCD pritchard_p_Page_028thm.jpg
afc74cbfb0e9b134d78be3a2be1a3c4f
62ee92db1d49b7eb0d991cb75a270d2869feb207
F20101107_AAACBO pritchard_p_Page_064.tif
05dc834556d7d998811a31eb1d1bd216
c53c1792a54810c3f22c241fe12f3e20e5653af7
F20101107_AAABWI pritchard_p_Page_167thm.jpg
43f3ef8a88d4ecb56dc0ff0933f4c157
2a3e7a18b3f3a0beec6a6020bc8133eda268f83a
116817 F20101107_AAABVU pritchard_p_Page_163.jpg
75a4517dcda4bb50c03e45069d68ae80
d44f46edcbdb3ca1047f7235bc90a3b30a1f9571
F20101107_AAADFG pritchard_p_Page_107.tif
6f1f1ecb17df342aadcf84de2ad9e402
b97d51019e693fe13062714fc1bb72239e8e82a0
F20101107_AAADER pritchard_p_Page_067.tif
e19050b961e6fd0c6d10d15143e1abe6
99c71a477a684246cd2ce208df732aa0158916bf
F20101107_AAACZL pritchard_p_Page_108.tif
0b1959926ec8834addf4c2cc1792876c
e78a8e6d502ea429fd0ae199f48aa41d23156390
8958 F20101107_AAACYX pritchard_p_Page_025thm.jpg
7e0b7284c13d5ea1e60413cdbfe2a3ac
443462431a71690e81b3eaa8455ac57ce6de9390
8990 F20101107_AAACCE pritchard_p_Page_033thm.jpg
55a0d28e955edb32095df0bf2ea64a57
73c11d350b31075159be9b4284321cd8fa1592df
34372 F20101107_AAACBP pritchard_p_Page_031.QC.jpg
06abca6711bdedbd155d2b61c166b91e
d14ea6bdb540c1b50d93e4661d82f94f4a41ff1c
31979 F20101107_AAABWJ pritchard_p_Page_111.pro
b54a55fbfc55a0ce02ed6304394acb96
111015feaf3c42db31e12fa09e874fc44175a008
72243 F20101107_AAABVV pritchard_p_Page_086.jpg
833cf8656bc06aeb3f0f09c0faad0cff
fa389175375f928ecf5f7467cae4d75e461637b8
F20101107_AAADFH pritchard_p_Page_109.tif
d3e4a643ef5cc0dca6c052505c060a7a
f67f209ab4cc3fd1452efad7e5900706714ac212
F20101107_AAADES pritchard_p_Page_071.tif
5e1ff72ed602999e07caf9bf919e314d
8a1c1ad65e2c375adc2db15d7971c181c572e88a
F20101107_AAACZM pritchard_p_Page_008thm.jpg
db7c752efab3ea99b276df9dc9507d39
9cdc3d687e1712dd6174c223fd9d3a0c7deef106
F20101107_AAACYY pritchard_p_Page_097.tif
49958d26c73f9e9d8a26ba249fb7f4e4
a5c365ff048f051ae8b1d9d07ca33c866558490c
868885 F20101107_AAACCF pritchard_p_Page_057.jp2
ba86d128f3e31a7d1c68fc8fe3045f05
769ab83feb89fba37ed4ff8ed2202a17cbbee773
2212 F20101107_AAACBQ pritchard_p_Page_169.txt
15e7555dc1d209834c3c1ccb0c7e1eb2
45a48d2c5955547e13d453d365e9b6af22377be8
103350 F20101107_AAABWK pritchard_p_Page_091.jpg
4bd7c3e3613a885165122f58990bb853
56fe530b16ea476d8e26b72b9a3546dd29ce9b04
55262 F20101107_AAABVW pritchard_p_Page_046.pro
71aaa1c7ccabe588133641eb8f87777a
af88fe9d012afaeeea01352d4a55e7685f2fbde9
F20101107_AAADFI pritchard_p_Page_110.tif
f9f84beb7428b3cbaf33f18954d00d8f
b383242351bb8814c83274189a5395d98bed08f2
F20101107_AAADET pritchard_p_Page_072.tif
38f7cec18313b3fd00474b2a49181c26
000825886940816af87d12ab337e73c673f2f01d
680107 F20101107_AAACZN pritchard_p_Page_141.jp2
e80f0375312e9a943e295608e9163ba2
884ac37f9611d64f617bfbf747cbf013369a1789
677208 F20101107_AAACYZ pritchard_p_Page_135.jp2
b6dae5109e18fe61bdfc08243fc3d53c
0def22e9e52808f36b3f94a786f6ac3b594a23d5
588722 F20101107_AAACCG pritchard_p_Page_137.jp2
605594d8f2f9bb3c305b9e4b6f7a2a18
86490c80eebfbf593bb5a606cfe68d3e60a88c38
F20101107_AAABXA pritchard_p_Page_178.tif
eedc212baa5b15289af6abb03e38287d
9baf4c5782577284a0a9b81b75fa478c3f358bfd
1051977 F20101107_AAACBR pritchard_p_Page_074.jp2
7f954b66d7fb9744a589a2a1ea092510
330ff462c6487cc9b54ca3376e9a3c636e64b1f2
664970 F20101107_AAABWL pritchard_p_Page_128.jp2
f17022f60b555234d99164ea247bec91
e3b1e882c50226e7bfd56c3a1402fc95aa56f501
8326 F20101107_AAABVX pritchard_p_Page_001.QC.jpg
2342592f6e37b44a1193f925245ce258
fd88c5261399ddb2a36ef39c62c1b2b984fd0c56
F20101107_AAADFJ pritchard_p_Page_114.tif
4c098df52577e91259ad4835e37fe8bc
78c0580f8124a2d2af18e7bf8042698ff8ad0a2f
F20101107_AAADEU pritchard_p_Page_073.tif
f8c78ece0e0f33c0c5dd22057e43cec5
12ec8d571087c6394630486e5e4570b730cf8223
55824 F20101107_AAACZO pritchard_p_Page_192.pro
169b624572a033a297942db31880af80
68900acaaa6b703599f79d9b31c5ea2b76323b0a
28109 F20101107_AAACCH pritchard_p_Page_092.QC.jpg
763ca8cc98b9be995d48d9f052540092
9ebb82147470df85a6d8cfb580cabdd602cfb13a
107848 F20101107_AAACBS pritchard_p_Page_062.jpg
34ff967de2dd048accd8be9a70908d97
a2f976ba839e7f3833cd653cf2d2312e78360267
35230 F20101107_AAABWM pritchard_p_Page_109.pro
2d656bc0d9bd2bc5ebfe22c24542c71a
755370acd1a416f07e71412ccaa81387e878b46b
15304 F20101107_AAABVY pritchard_p_Page_118.QC.jpg
12a342f4cd8ea0dd023f03e49a095eab
dc1e9dfcf831e863d663283d5a494d53e1aa4d99
F20101107_AAADFK pritchard_p_Page_120.tif
faaa68e8d48a7dd722ba3e13c66f4f24
b80a3c1b42cc61edd5a99552de952516076f7f92
F20101107_AAADEV pritchard_p_Page_074.tif
30fce43b4777f563aadea87c8842f0f9
9877c7fb2f9044229f3d383f72b207dcae3365ec
16100 F20101107_AAACZP pritchard_p_Page_122.pro
b363e8de97e34b7e55c10a8675d82741
4f67e34b78ba022782baec7fbec6ce72e4dc70e1
1699 F20101107_AAABXB pritchard_p_Page_128.txt
5c168e67044ae3cfaece68623ea34c94
698dd7f1736ea0577144cafc5d05e7a19c0fef06
5858 F20101107_AAACBT pritchard_p_Page_126thm.jpg
1ef9109dffd433377de5ad76ac10bdcf
a9fb9d1cbe5507c6368241864145028f03b44c65
F20101107_AAABWN pritchard_p_Page_180.tif
7ec6c470198ef2fca0d28882489704a3
2dc09a17b9274d85a6cc0757302854cf5f7ad7e1
8114 F20101107_AAABVZ pritchard_p_Page_116thm.jpg
394b930f8a9cf5907f4b6eeb2a62a74f
0ce0c21664fb7b1f01725c24ee20585bc3b39e67
F20101107_AAACCI pritchard_p_Page_048.tif
8e916b10b9243454d8ccdb3604e23116
e47de9abb17ece97e5823dee0f89f172c3a68bbf
F20101107_AAADFL pritchard_p_Page_122.tif
f0cf7a3862b4ced314ba69e3768ad731
8089575704a9bbb0ee14d505ba673d1cad14a738
F20101107_AAADEW pritchard_p_Page_077.tif
63eccc38f3e17eccb767d161a447b069
dc73ead3d1af50db991d8fdef409014290ff26c0
35091 F20101107_AAACZQ pritchard_p_Page_100.pro
b0494505e92546988f108cf2c7bb3ab2
12ed4c90718ce9735e911ecf6d83d8091495d403
697013 F20101107_AAABXC pritchard_p_Page_080.jp2
70ecb7297f413f1fbfef608acd7ac157
8c588f28c7351c3cb84e64852c5ca20c252280cc
46668 F20101107_AAACBU pritchard_p_Page_106.jpg
3b896dca26c0851da9d43b3f2963b3c1
d106e5b5ed403338c8816af7ce43dc47d8af3b2c
29943 F20101107_AAABWO pritchard_p_Page_116.QC.jpg
88ea5e2966fdb6904647125bcdc32986
7b85cdd214bbc1705088eade9c731241e64bad85
6285 F20101107_AAACCJ pritchard_p_Page_077thm.jpg
cde79f26906fb93374841d47e0be304a
0a6d6edad9f4562b7f35031ef18e8144203429b5
F20101107_AAADGA pritchard_p_Page_174.tif
678098ca12ed869baca81a1257af6ff2
b11e30396d25954f89cee9dac54f7b0ba88313d5
F20101107_AAADFM pritchard_p_Page_123.tif
5ebbb6afad0d0fcaab212443f050a108
ced6ac77d7b86c0089fa116fa367897199d87a41
F20101107_AAADEX pritchard_p_Page_081.tif
b477ec2918a669ac1477364104479989
ec779bd49202e126a67cf68607a32e3b502748e1
F20101107_AAACZR pritchard_p_Page_183.jp2
ed04b54cc2da348d9ca99e705c789acd
8375dcb959fc0ab1eefced8dd8cc7b23bd1d868e
F20101107_AAABXD pritchard_p_Page_131.tif
3221f42f3b175d225a1d5c725b238ef7
16b6e3885406177c17eba784570686fd9133b361
8908 F20101107_AAACBV pritchard_p_Page_169thm.jpg
4ba1354b9e7a92a115fa9a88b07e011f
c2b8d16cac464064b937983a1f06717c758b5540
F20101107_AAABWP pritchard_p_Page_027.jp2
0b784cc434d0c041f81ce1d868d21175
27ebe1cbeb9f1ee09b83ce53e4a642f93a44e100
65726 F20101107_AAACCK pritchard_p_Page_103.jpg
3e75888b0710cf07115f4a656bdbb9de
05ad614c4109ca33be8d0b49ae6e7b3da405f3f8
F20101107_AAADGB pritchard_p_Page_184.tif
d97d066d39ac396b1d7846129b060424
7bd4b5bd8922d9e4fa008a12b334cdca2a680a57
F20101107_AAADEY pritchard_p_Page_088.tif
b466feaf25eccf0553a050be2d993bdb
5ce8e1ae0b408b9274a300a9dae67baf5532e3df
7991 F20101107_AAACZS pritchard_p_Page_194thm.jpg
e6ac0574aab89615b274de82c1ac7743
190afc3d97acc0e9d567ce8339dd1d4b6c738051
572986 F20101107_AAABXE pritchard_p_Page_096.jp2
caa5e8a476e40b838293236b4235efd5
d3d244e3e86e4792d66bd39a3c185f7324a9aa95
631875 F20101107_AAACBW pritchard_p_Page_123.jp2
29443a43d8174f38044d3e23af9938e3
ae6a9df83f4212f0c16fd52253a97f8c56606c37
827224 F20101107_AAABWQ pritchard_p_Page_105.jp2
197104721a8e083b46e6c90289e62847
05068f51747594af7cf24a2b5ef9c6989d3a6dff
F20101107_AAADGC pritchard_p_Page_192.tif
d8011f7266533b386189af628da708b0
80fc1fada08262496e83241ac3e19a60129434e8
F20101107_AAADFN pritchard_p_Page_126.tif
dcd2ab9b0aedcef910b0d88508996335
1bdd5479ed6929f12ce63b25b4ec3b9fc3c481d4
F20101107_AAADEZ pritchard_p_Page_091.tif
813288bab537d7859a1c8aa14929e911
cce357a158072f940165763c75d1b3634bd69e6c
106731 F20101107_AAACZT pritchard_p_Page_034.jpg
523089e69114985c756277eedb376f0d
7250c2bde928f21ff164c9c343ee683f3c9cbe10
23406 F20101107_AAABXF pritchard_p_Page_081.QC.jpg
670074ffe6825858af5cd7802ef6c541
d093841a1cfc03f6e4862ee0189e0d6408876212
47041 F20101107_AAACBX pritchard_p_Page_055.pro
2a3ac4f3cd8e717dc14d97dd3a3ff2b1
9998e334aecaeeb964d41841d56cfb69a577ddba
36486 F20101107_AAABWR pritchard_p_Page_024.QC.jpg
75d60be3c77d59c37efcfe91bd379029
2867289e1f4c4b9b278a694dece336650d5e7327
7904 F20101107_AAACDA pritchard_p_Page_097thm.jpg
4e0df826cf35a9ec1956cefad128402d
f155e7ad2c33b2d68655375e861afdcc9e9bf0a7
F20101107_AAACCL pritchard_p_Page_042.tif
ce01475fa724542d021c37ee8877f7bd
e152f9841d9400f2a6943d3f30011b5717eda7cc
1072 F20101107_AAADGD pritchard_p_Page_002.pro
3c94109def495416c34a1c9d1962b1fe
db75a0a2934ac343f4190b903541cec5ea4aee9a
F20101107_AAADFO pritchard_p_Page_130.tif
a424850d7f7efd85051ede116498bb18
eb7c0d9af35ff83626a6b775b79aaddae6389efd
2275 F20101107_AAACZU pritchard_p_Page_068.txt
3349af1782b0e415f37bd299e48bccbe
ebf818db0a8543ec87f3fcc4ce15f9ae2ec44494
F20101107_AAABXG pritchard_p_Page_107.jp2
1d826fed83c03d37be62f55243b9a626
1aadc14d92a0e398006a80cfb8ea0c262134ad4d
F20101107_AAACBY pritchard_p_Page_061.jp2
d1cee643271a58b28ffe1d864c5cf536
8bf45f6b5f95b20ac82b6a04a8e939ece1df2258
F20101107_AAABWS pritchard_p_Page_191.tif
b401b09711147fcc1986431ff5298b6e
a74fd15ff88c1db16030ef1612a0dba85965a0da
F20101107_AAACDB pritchard_p_Page_010.tif
915173529e410d242dea95d694acecd0
0b7407c71896d9af74bf499d5d2592157931e38f
F20101107_AAACCM pritchard_p_Page_028.jp2
d75365ed143d4971f7e0fa1db3cdf38a
6812debec2ebf8fa401b12180c2ffe325b4c32ff
120825 F20101107_AAADGE pritchard_p_Page_007.pro
46d27102179c1176d7d7b67a4bce8755
5bf5ea0c799e4ddd7a8a26699cfa3720eb395ce5
F20101107_AAADFP pritchard_p_Page_132.tif
cef5ebbbaf854c25f526f1d2329f355a
bef36a11ce8cfc40b443ec814beb3144ed171fe6
104269 F20101107_AAACZV pritchard_p_Page_059.jpg
b0d60bad2ee3726817b86e3813d41550
a7fca9cf78aacb795e7f99602ad4119c524af6f5
1051920 F20101107_AAABXH pritchard_p_Page_073.jp2
f2d587fca96422006fe8322c6c6070db
d00d79b7da91ab0c86afed0ed75cab4a8990eb6f
53964 F20101107_AAACBZ pritchard_p_Page_065.pro
b75fe197b7b7b35b978d99a8c8f3cdf2
a11007df9f01804ee3bf3ab341a6e60f0f0632eb
F20101107_AAABWT pritchard_p_Page_029.pro
a2ab32e598ac22630bfb96a68b0efb96
7e0709529f650d6a53e2956cd876be117579ebcd
18667 F20101107_AAACDC pritchard_p_Page_139.QC.jpg
bd2260ac12fa07e2add064885ed3b32e
b76934a1cba3095a3bc4a8f515e8f53546f67b20
F20101107_AAACCN pritchard_p_Page_046.tif
8c9d1cf6d2737f6279d56d02da9a1d4b
d77618a319e335b30ada3f9d434f89da315ebc9b
70111 F20101107_AAADGF pritchard_p_Page_010.pro
2157827ed90f187ab96a25f60576ec4a
e5013ce29a49e8917d72115956a75dcde214f6ff
F20101107_AAADFQ pritchard_p_Page_133.tif
6027285831deeb4ca700833a26526e6c
180ef3960f12c22a5c6617fa5644e7fd5347c2a5
35079 F20101107_AAACZW pritchard_p_Page_038.QC.jpg
ba2a75479353ad8803cdff8d395d8f93
67cda4ba115f8b7a60837e61f05403dff58ff97f
1021661 F20101107_AAABXI pritchard_p_Page_018.jp2
75684320eb751fbf1848b8cc22415b64
07b9f4a8cb25476d3afd3937be427a113fbe51eb
111132 F20101107_AAABWU pritchard_p_Page_040.jpg
5a9833c8a17fcabc86655486ae66a352
9f956706f2366c3fb194950935dd004fa4b3290a
37048 F20101107_AAACDD pritchard_p_Page_071.QC.jpg
6ec54da9336adaaba3aad53449bedb10
98c632385edc470a366f2005a8a68271bfb878b8
71694 F20101107_AAACCO pritchard_p_Page_185.pro
fdaff8d3c41a30f77dc6e41d6dcf4369
120eec0a03db5c5558c7ed8eb71682f74b87aba1
76487 F20101107_AAADGG pritchard_p_Page_012.pro
26b10048d8a0a6922ce674dcac169f94
b1f2f2b62c4e36f87ec35113c6d0c95a51b14429
F20101107_AAADFR pritchard_p_Page_135.tif
b30067f630d3982a06a56de01ff84951
715361801bebb683ee2525869fa1f2db61fc7b49
96893 F20101107_AAACZX pritchard_p_Page_098.jpg
15132a301acb4cc1ddaa10041443b694
5692508c73e2b0f06094029190468d82c312a339
27211 F20101107_AAABXJ pritchard_p_Page_001.jpg
daf13aafd6dae4001f5297a74d479962
5871b0326756fd34bf389af381743a7b7d7f38c2
8383 F20101107_AAABWV pritchard_p_Page_045thm.jpg
e77fd71df1631d7a46864486afdf654f
9ad21084c4595c619910102a3aa01caa0d48ffb0
2432 F20101107_AAACDE pritchard_p_Page_190.txt
80c67ec913de5de7b2841653a4116a18
b46ce0ecfc91604c93e1084fafa496399ede8a8f
811918 F20101107_AAACCP pritchard_p_Page_089.jp2
699f11a10807ff3c2e8230c4461f93cd
cf70785a6b59cafb5700e13631e448ef2baf52e9
71260 F20101107_AAADGH pritchard_p_Page_014.pro
b6a35b5dc2860cbc93709172cc3e27ac
fc74ffd5288069f628dd7df20c2a9c66fb595d27
F20101107_AAADFS pritchard_p_Page_137.tif
a46987b9fd3523ea31c71a079e6740f8
63d1e18d8b359e199b76a27b0c1cd7e0b8165265
F20101107_AAACZY pritchard_p_Page_108.QC.jpg
1d5f464208f200ac26d50e3a21c5a2a6
b76843e1d0a73395a7f3585830425a44ed67d16c
36598 F20101107_AAABXK pritchard_p_Page_026.QC.jpg
5b91caa9da8f3a95642820490a7db8d7
393ca982a22a9bcc79a4b1b52de6c6a7aa3cc9f0
56795 F20101107_AAABWW pritchard_p_Page_115.pro
37052fc61796d0cd52572d2a071abad4
a870755d75a6ae5a17d997c679e32171bb798550
143478 F20101107_AAACDF pritchard_p_Page_011.jpg
13bbd2869e18eba3cd3e064f4217acc0
2bda9c8917e2634ae2169ceb3f1188c889a987e7
2056 F20101107_AAACCQ pritchard_p_Page_027.txt
4490b91dc8cfe233db728e81cad8c9d6
8fca50c717c1890f9f75f126bd9288cd862b41b8
5559 F20101107_AAADGI pritchard_p_Page_016.pro
6930df83f00f69fc0be162f4298dcd75
ae803ed4df35fb27145528dbf2eaf3394da2fdd8
F20101107_AAADFT pritchard_p_Page_148.tif
1b3fdcec0dd8ceed92903fb129ecc580
23375f53bb1cb20791aa3e9b24098b7b8229ac39
20037 F20101107_AAACZZ pritchard_p_Page_129.pro
78b39a0d41ac26fe2a9b1f8e7263f333
67e5d95df947119f75b24373b5f105d33207fff0
9012 F20101107_AAABXL pritchard_p_Page_065thm.jpg
d8a304acb523768f80672790207f25bc
99eea25031a4ed6efa9e7e87f48147db7f253b8a
23101 F20101107_AAABWX pritchard_p_Page_126.QC.jpg
250c729355f79e96e350ace16c6dd93a
4a4209622808d76478b639a6f8556d77af999ca1
59963 F20101107_AAACDG pritchard_p_Page_191.pro
a79554c14467a223a7c9079328d9e3c4
1e7b6ef7a240ae8f5576e5f9bd296a592844255c
6638 F20101107_AAABYA pritchard_p_Page_183thm.jpg
ce0b415a7d4e7d6a63c4059d40647140
6c70a7f020e804e7b2936c47bf5404afb09c60e7
947601 F20101107_AAACCR pritchard_p_Page_058.jp2
404a9884520d69d3a6ceac9e1911d87e
65549992cef1458b8f54feb8fba85aaedb4a719a
46421 F20101107_AAADGJ pritchard_p_Page_018.pro
6d841035c2dbedb8c9bbd99e6967f8cb
7f1c12f65a59baeaed8216f76fd19e384fa52823
F20101107_AAADFU pritchard_p_Page_151.tif
b11dc218e13b4d9a6bcdce76f744ad5b
0e7a13368a3c0257ee10b043c09c20ca7f24cedf
F20101107_AAABXM pritchard_p_Page_097.jp2
b0e74b879a1a24374b9532b16bbcc1f9
d349b4b9f4d77c5a1a6f2578bc070afd59135a1a
2082 F20101107_AAABWY pritchard_p_Page_042.txt
16ec9d03ebad5a77e8996c6fd9381a20
29e55f9c9bbc7babece000348bd22de444bff7a4
17778 F20101107_AAACDH pritchard_p_Page_150.QC.jpg
0f5f5747260941d516673db531c40bbd
f2e60a98843decfc9924d4178222896040a958b4
F20101107_AAABYB pritchard_p_Page_166.tif
471432927edd95d12f2d8d6702b72ca1
b72789ade229a6865a9b071891aa834cda5b2e05
66624 F20101107_AAACCS pritchard_p_Page_103.jp2
56406ad1b1539cc08298da32ff12beb9
25b37706850a07fb6b62a20f43de0c8d9aa8ab35
49142 F20101107_AAADGK pritchard_p_Page_021.pro
d3e71190be0e5943f4c44538ce736794
158bea5f5965c42e6bee412e75ed591abf659041
F20101107_AAADFV pritchard_p_Page_157.tif
b62a5dd5772049552b6b7597a8180d08
2f273432e8f47de609c3b1596f63812a96ae522d
F20101107_AAABXN pritchard_p_Page_154.tif
0353aa7788f73daee901ca6660cb696d
3c058aceceddce069fb7f0ceb0a8fae77cc81237
55860 F20101107_AAABWZ pritchard_p_Page_035.pro
2c533bbb6c1c3387dcaaebcc3b1e9416
8023714dac09591f71c35904c4e7507ae61f5144
56272 F20101107_AAACDI pritchard_p_Page_073.pro
b1731d1b6cd6e5bb3b0bf0c753c5ef77
1a5f4e1e81f6bfff6307cc1e468aaf830c64e422
52535 F20101107_AAACCT pritchard_p_Page_159.pro
3e42f7adbebc3341f656c8830f5b8986
1082dc5ca7561642018c97292380f41d30fef555
53868 F20101107_AAADGL pritchard_p_Page_026.pro
38488ea71b838e5d59dbb3644fc94f1c
bc2919a1581de2db79048a24de7344adc48b7303
F20101107_AAADFW pritchard_p_Page_159.tif
41047168a8926a308131e4743b73b706
43bc846acafe26201c0535dd0f72def138f5b4e4
832756 F20101107_AAABXO pritchard_p_Page_085.jp2
9868a8bcf13ae182eb6a2b3254a65ba7
3d56d4e83a67efdb6b5d598918851d05c3cef752
8780 F20101107_AAACDJ pritchard_p_Page_061thm.jpg
7ae8d97d828de5fa8e60006552523f0a
09f74b52e0fb65fa3fe9e3273b5e31c0f5ae8ea3
F20101107_AAABYC pritchard_p_Page_161.tif
e0d64d8865a5a61c6709833c95015ff5
084591cd3825ca2ebe04b5896cee19e8114b64ff
F20101107_AAACCU pritchard_p_Page_162.txt
1bba5e2a8d2a92dcd6d3e489c6dd303d
fb8c78ae11d3890f5a0878beb209e781c4de11a3
53872 F20101107_AAADHA pritchard_p_Page_074.pro
043e0f980513fe11f6b3c36291c3ccd8
d2a89faa73ef3b1f2131355e8699443c9cd947ef
54253 F20101107_AAADGM pritchard_p_Page_028.pro
91aec70d484f53cb3e7f9f86ccb42036
996b91c1c8d6abaace9e8ce7a46006a8d4db77ee
F20101107_AAADFX pritchard_p_Page_167.tif
78694d41e910712babd9f98a7a8803fb
18baf8dd10d0f3b99d9f08c709ebf969d0cbe941
F20101107_AAABXP pritchard_p_Page_055.tif
24de8db31af2241dfa54d99d613933c9
586c37c576677c485d1e992a2535530e67f35d60
26086 F20101107_AAACDK pritchard_p_Page_133.QC.jpg
62f64e19eb41e7c4d5c4851ae3fcc48d
130576f93e153ed0144ba4935191db6c1b330807
467188 F20101107_AAABYD pritchard_p_Page_118.jp2
03dae066adb9d232bbd07b0c5a3ed866
0fe2a0fe8add7fee5e0b502eeec8df82349856f8
108641 F20101107_AAACCV pritchard_p_Page_030.jpg
c29e122a95d3ef68aeb5f465aa2cf982
8d54c561f7825fb68cb78725912a93df78f42ea0
41619 F20101107_AAADHB pritchard_p_Page_077.pro
2a0a9675b4c3da033f7c723c1e39f140
697ab5cf019e54824a3b930fd819b74d22074dd8
53748 F20101107_AAADGN pritchard_p_Page_031.pro
7d50c300e7a856c5cf14aa19ddad890b
fb023622fb7bf6225234a61e131df77622f3aa1f
F20101107_AAADFY pritchard_p_Page_168.tif
5dc5ecedc4c2aa45745b8fa2a823c688
ba4c92df12887d41f612698241aaadd5c75b48b7
102176 F20101107_AAABXQ pritchard_p_Page_076.jpg
a65ae97b6f42463c5a001205e5fbc9f0
a2bf9d4b0c76cd7c24489df0858306a1dac62d00
61728 F20101107_AAACDL pritchard_p_Page_123.jpg
adb5ae7bda29404ea5c8b676cbc2fd6e
5449ce6f10873bd49c63d6533bbc1c5fb75a5fea
F20101107_AAABYE pritchard_p_Page_162.tif
47931d8a5747445759b23cde463b2bd6
98c19727d3b965546b5f9ed0809946a16bf77268
F20101107_AAACCW pritchard_p_Page_066.txt
5e5047389c301509885dd0b3e24e6818
8a15f8fb90d085e628b0903ce3f64e42fdbc54f8
45110 F20101107_AAADHC pritchard_p_Page_082.pro
3833f5c51ec9dfc74a13815bdff1ea90
8e21d37822bbe5d3e33fbf1972f140f7e17e4c1c
F20101107_AAADFZ pritchard_p_Page_172.tif
9d373f3989aae5fcdabf636220e30242
3eae2acee39117401176840eebb01089dd0d3904
50979 F20101107_AAABXR pritchard_p_Page_154.pro
bea7205f581a6c6ba6e11be066082df0
6ebed6cc61d697ba15571897f5b971495dd87a82
97143 F20101107_AAACEA pritchard_p_Page_017.jpg
6b67d3743d6da06de6646edcb9a3b207
ec061f60e5ad8fbb1e317accca30b8a49a086d3c
F20101107_AAABYF pritchard_p_Page_027.tif
aff80c736040b9eb6b2e6da38c21d330
b80aa5d20f7875c9e4fe3b06c6de47a2bbbf5e8f
1599 F20101107_AAACCX pritchard_p_Page_078.txt
d97dfeb4ce14e4d914065372a54b5ccc
069f45e88d8fc7818bba86946346e7d6ede77736
41163 F20101107_AAADHD pritchard_p_Page_086.pro
883302c004025de9230fc552ea6b2e9c
99f6d9a12d3bcc642cadb919a346a08345de9918
51677 F20101107_AAADGO pritchard_p_Page_032.pro
714791ccd8296e2ab54c08b922788f50
01570caf1e15b56612bcba92e8afeb4dbad6cc9c
2169 F20101107_AAABXS pritchard_p_Page_070.txt
fcec4d712a558d74742391b4ec28712d
f4a78c5fd8c045cc9057a67eb815cec83af7d5dc
F20101107_AAACEB pritchard_p_Page_080.tif
8eae3331fe76c4c4537af57e3fadce2a
f302f50d69a785686a957bcd95e2c8284c1f01fb
2091 F20101107_AAACDM pritchard_p_Page_023.txt
005ba78a5bd4e413b2508cb69f85405a
27563ee795c2644bd994b6554c3a6756be3d04c9
9070 F20101107_AAABYG pritchard_p_Page_165thm.jpg
98ddf1361ebcefdd90c2f98d0526b03e
f9ea2eaa27ef6362c0367751d83174b4355726df
6337 F20101107_AAACCY pritchard_p_Page_085thm.jpg
d45a2b73be99c78154d3a90e59170e21
166ecd9b81e163c15b168f465d77299e65737239
49056 F20101107_AAADHE pritchard_p_Page_091.pro
55e0d59a8588569ef7afc923290d8689
8c7b1e0696f2decf304198fba8b672919eba34f7
52520 F20101107_AAADGP pritchard_p_Page_033.pro
828ea65223b997b028928a0ad8b60057
27840726fab2c3306d53edae94453939d32957e5
F20101107_AAABXT pritchard_p_Page_036.tif
fc30a1861b1f1224a31b137cafaac430
a525c84a2ab5d15364a87539482dc7c608ca255a
40266 F20101107_AAACEC pritchard_p_Page_120.jpg
b8e9405f5ff93740aa86e7d761283c4e
35ce242d07716cb48b37d29e18b6356f28146564
21162 F20101107_AAACDN pritchard_p_Page_135.QC.jpg
1b04b74b4a8d984e7d50e5c761593491
f3b9359910950335d4d2b5e71b65668867778e97
59340 F20101107_AAABYH pritchard_p_Page_190.pro
9f946fb23dfd1897cbcd7beda976e117
d415908ae663738deb01965d65b46afa6700442f
8657 F20101107_AAACCZ pritchard_p_Page_177thm.jpg
cb8b6ab66afe6b3bd004675071b6b35e
129dede34f60df867db739aa309033fa657467b6







INTERNET USE AND ITS EFFECT ON SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN TRADITIONAL
COLLEGE-AGE STUDENTS





















By

PAULA COURTNEY PRITCHARD


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008


































2008 Paula Courtney Pritchard

































To Dr. Sharleen Simpson









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my supervisory committee for their tireless patience and continued

support throughout this effort. Most significantly, I would like to thank my supervisory

committee chair Sharleen Simpson. Dr. Simpson has proven to be the epitome of a true mentor.

Her tireless efforts to intercede on my behalf seemingly at every turn have provided me

guidance, support, collegiality, and friendship. Her passion for research and her students can

only be outdone by her wonderful spirit and presence. It has been the blessing of this dissertation

to have met such an excellent individual as Dr. Simpson.

Dr. Sandra Seymour, an esteemed professor, and another member of my committee that

has also been monumental in assisting me to complete this task. She was motivational at moving

me forward, listening to my troubles, and pushing me in the right direction. Her nurturing

persona has had an enormous affect on my perception of the world. Her light hearted spirit has

turned many a half empty cup into an over-flowing one.

Dr. Greg Neimeyer, who is my minor committee member, has been a Godsend. When I

needed information, he was there. When I needed participants, he was there. When I needed a

minor committee member, he was there. I would become discouraged as we were not getting the

numbers to complete the survey; he was there with his favorite saying 'I think we can get more'

and always a suggestion to meet the task at hand. Through his guidance, wisdom and very unique

perspective of the world, he gave me ideas and knowledge. Dr. Neimeyer helped me move out of

my boxed way of thinking to understand behavior in this new realm of surrealistic technology

that until I met him, I would not have dreamed possible.

Dr. Karla Schmitt, another member of my committee is the keystone of this project. It was

a casual conversation of the notion of adolescents 'hooking up' and an article in a New York

magazine that brought about the initial idea and complete fruition of this dissertation.









I would like to thank my dear friend and colleague Dr. Alma Yearwood-Dixon, Dean of

the School of Nursing, at Bethune-Cookman University. Her dedication to following her dream

has been a guiding force for me following mine. Her tender care of my spirit has allowed me the

time and energy to complete this daunting task. Her vision of a better world and a belief that one

person can bring about change has been inspirational to me.

I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Patricia Goodson for allowing me to use her survey,

and modify it for this research. Her initial development and testing of this tool has allowed most

of the energy consumed in this project in actual data collection and analysis.

I would like to recognize DCova Technologies, the software company that was used in this

dissertation. Software for this project was specifically designed, tested and utilized for the survey

as well as all data collection in this dissertation. Many late nights were spent designing testing

and revamping the software so that it would do exactly what I needed it to do to get the job done.

The motto of the founder is 'We have the technology' and what they didn't have, they invented

on the spot. The 'tech' support provided for all of my many computers, hard-drives, backups,

and desire to keep my technology 'cutting-edge' has preempted many computer crashes and

brought about peace of mind.

Finally, I would also like to thank my very dear friend and partner, Jorge Valentin

DeLaCova. Without his support and presence, this would have never been possible. He is solely

responsible for helping me recognize the happiness that has replenished my life and made me

strong enough to get here. He has helped me realize all of the joy that I might have missed

otherwise throughout this journey.










TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

LIST OF TABLES ......... ........... .............................................. 9

ABSTRAC T ............... ................................... ............... 17

CHAPTER

1 THE PROBLEM .......................................... ...................... 18

Internet U se ..................................................................................... 20
Develop mental Factors ..................................... .. .. .. ........ .. ............23
Influ ential M edia ................................................................2 5
T h eoretical P ersp ectiv es ................................................................................................... 2 8
S tu d y P u rp o se ................................................................................................................... 3 0

2 REV IEW O F LITER A TU RE ......... ...................................................... ........................ .. 31

M edia Influence on Sex ............................ ........................ ............... ... ........................3 1
D expression, Religiosity, and Sexual D ebut ........................................ ........................ 34
M multiple Sex Partners ................................... .. ........... .. ............37
In te rn e t ................... ...................3...................9.........
S ex D efin e d .........................................................................4 2

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ................................................................................... ........................44

Intern et D ata C collection ............................................................................... ..................... 44
A dv an tag e s ................................................................4 4
D isadv antag es ................................................................................ 4 6
C o n fid e n tia lity .......................... ....................................................................................... 4 7
Procedures for the Protection of Human Subjects ....................................................47
D ata P protection .................................................................4 8
S u rv ey T o o l .........................................................................4 8
W eb B asked Survey s .................................................................49
O line Survey D design ........................................................................................ ............... 50
Survey Inform ation ............................................. 51
P o p u latio n .......... ................. ......................................................................................... 5 1
S am p le P articip an ts ................................................................................................... 5 1
E lig ib ility ................................ .................. .................................................... 5 1
Survey Procedures .................................................................... ... .................... 52
Sampling Techniques and Difficulties..........................................53
A ltern ativ e M eth o d s ............................................................................................................... 5 3




6









P person al C contacts ................................................................53
P roje ct S p a m .............................................................................................................. 5 4
Project G et-em ail ........................................................................................................ 54

4 R E S U L T S ................................................ ................. ............................................... 5 6

C h a p te r O v erv iew ............................................................................................................. 5 6
S u rv e y A im s ..................................................................................................................... 5 6
Exclusion Criteria for Surveys................................................. 57
D em graphics ................................................................................................. 58
M ultivariate A analysis of V ariance ..........................................................................................58
Tables W within the Study ............................................................59
How Long Have You Been Using Email?................................................. 59
H ow O ften D o Y ou U se E m ail? ....................................................................................... 60
How Long Have You Been Using The Internet? .............. ............................. 61
How Often Do You Use The Internet? ..................................................62
I Have Made New Friends Over The Internet ..................................................64
Have You Met Anyone In Person That You Met Online? .......................................... 65
I Have Posted Online Messages To Meet A Potential Partner ............................................65
Does Your Partner Object To The Amount Of Time You Spend Online ............................67
Does Your Offline Partner Know About The Friends/Relationships That You Have
O n lin e ............... ................ .................................................................................................. 6 9
Partner Jealousy Over Relationships Developed Online ...................... ............. 70
An Alternate Way/Place For Meeting New People ........................................................ 70
An Alternative Way/Place For Meeting Potential Online Sexual Partners ............................71
I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials On The Internet ...........................................72
I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials To Become Sexually Aroused.........................72
While Viewing Sexually Explicit Web Sites, I Have Masturbated ................. ................73
I Have Had Cybersex W ith An Online Partner. ................................................................74
I Like To Drink Alcohol While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner ..........................74
I Like To Use Stimulants While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner ....................75
Sum m ary .............................................. ................. .................. 75

5 D ISC U SSIO N ............. ........................................................................................ 153

Length of Internet Use And Email Use ........................ ............... .... ........153
F requ en cy O f E m ail U se ................................................................................................ 153
Frequency Of Internet U se ........................................................................ ......155
M making F friends O line .................................................................. ......................... 157
Meeting Friends' Offline ..............................................158
I Have Posted Online Messages To Meet A Potential Partner ........................................159
Does Your Partner Object To The Amount Of Time You Spend Online? ...........................161
Does Your Offline Partner Know About The Friends/Relationships That You Have
O line ........................................ .. ....... .............................162
The Expression Of Jealousy Over Online Relationships................................................... 163
The Importance Of Alternative Ways/Place For Meeting Potential Online Sexual
P a rtn e rs ............................ ................................................................. 1 6 3









I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials On The Internet.................................. 164
I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials To Become Sexually Aroused....................165
While Viewing Sexually Explicit Web Sites I Have Masturbated ............. ... ................ 166
I Have Had Cybersex With An Online Partner ......................... ................. 167
I Like To Drink Alcohol While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner.....................167
I Like To Use Stimulants While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner....................167
S u m m a ry ......... ................................................................................................1 6 7
L im stations ................. .. ... ...... ...........................................170
Suggestions For Further Investigation............. .. ............... ................... 172

APPENDIX

A IN F O R M E D C O N SE N T ......................................................................... .. .....................174

B IN TE R N E T SU R V E Y .............................................................................. ......................179

C MASS EMAIL........... ...... .... .......... .............. ..... .........186

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ..................................................................................... ..................184

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......................................................................... ........................ 189









LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

4-1 G ender from both universities com bined.................................... .................................... 76

4-2 Age from both universities combined....................................................... .............. 76

4-3 Race from both universities combined. ........................................ ........................ 76

4-4 Gender cross tabulated with race from both universities combined................................77

4-5 Gender cross tabulated with university and age differentiated.......................................77

4-6 Race cross tabulated with university and age differentiated...........................................78

4-7 Multivariate Test: Wilks Lambda: Independent Variables Main and Interaction
E effects ......................................................... ................................... 79

4-8 Correlations: How long have you been using email? ..................................................80

4-9 M ean: How long have you been using email: School........................................................80

4-10 Mean: How long have you been using email: Gender.....................................................80

4-11 Mean: How long have you been using email: Age ......................................................81

4-12 Mean: How long have you been using email: Race .....................................................81

4-13 Univariate ANOVA. How long have you been using email: Age, Gender, Race,
S ch o o l Y e ar........................................................................... 8 1

4-14 Correlations: How often have you been using email? ................................................. 82

4-15 Mean: How often do you use e-mail: School .......... ............................................ 82

4-16 M ean: How often do you use email: Gender ................................... ......... ............... 82

4-17 M ean: H ow often do you use em ail: Age .................................. ....................... ........... 83

4-18 M ean: H ow often do you use em ail: Race................................. ........................ .......... 83

4-19 Tests of between subjects. How often do you use email: Age, Gender, Race, School
Y e a r ................... ............................................................. ................ 8 3

4-20 How often do you use email: Mean, Standard Error and Confidence Interval .................. 84

4-21 Tukey HSD. How often do you use email: Race ...........................................................84









4-22 Correlations: How long have you been using the internet? ............................................85

4-23 Mean: How long have you been using the internet: School ...........................................85

4-24 Mean: How long have you been using the internet: Gender.........................................85

4-25 Mean: How long have you been using the internet: Age................ ...................86

4-26 Mean: How long have you been using the internet: Race .............................................86

4-27 Test of between subjects: How long have you been using the internet? .........................86

4-28 Correlations: How often do you use the internet? .................................. ............... 87

4-29 Mean: How often do you use the internet: School............ ................................. 87

4-30 Mean: How often do you use internet: Gender............... .................. .............. 87

4-31 Mean: How often do you use the internet; Age.......................... .....................88

4-32 Mean: How often do you use the internet: Race................................. .............. 88

4-33 Test of between subjects: How often do you use the internet?....................... ....... 88

4-34 How often do you use the internet: Mean: Race, School..................... ............... 89

4-35 How often do you use the internet: Mean: Gender, Age ................................................89

4-36 How often do you use the internet: Mean: Gender, Age, School ....................................89

4-37 How often do you use the internet: Mean: Females, Age, Race, School.........................90

4-38 How often do you use the internet: Mean: Males, Age, Race, School ...........................91

4-39 Tukey HSD. How often do you use internet: Age....... ... ....................................... 92

4-40 Tukey HSD. How often do you use internet: African American Blacks.........................92

4-41 Correlations: I have made friends over the internet................................... ... ..................93

4-42 M ean: I have made friends over the internet: School ................................ ............... 93

4-43 Mean: I have made friends over the internet: Gender..................................................94

4-44 M ean: I have made friends over the internet: Age..................... .......... ............... 94

4-45 M ean: I have made friends over the internet: Race ................................. ............... 94

4-46 Tests of between subjects. I have made new friends over the internet............................95









4-47 I have made new friends over the internet. Mean: Females, Age, Race, School ..............96

4-48 I have made new friends over the internet. Mean: Males, Age, Race, School ..................97

4-49 Tukey HSD.I have made new friends over the internet: Age....... ...... ...................98

4-50 Tukey HSD. I have made new friends over the internet: African American Blacks.........98

4-51 Correlations: Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line........................99

4-52 Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. School...............................99

4-53 Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Gender .............................100

4-54 Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Age ...................................100

4-55 Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Race...............................100

4-56 Tests of between subjects. Have you ever in person someone that you met online. .......101

4-57 Correlations: I have posted online personal messages in an attempt to find a potential
partner ........................................................ ...................................102

4-58 Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential
p artn er: S ch o o l ................................................... ................ ................ 10 2

4-59 Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential
p artn er: G en d er ..................................................................... ............... 10 3

4-60 Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential
p artn er: A g e .............................................................................103

4-61 Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential
partner: R ace .............. ................................................. ... ....... ...... 103

4-62 Tests of between subjects. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a
potential partner. ........................................................................ 104

4-63 I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean:
G en d e r, A g e ................................................... ................... ................ 10 4

4-64 I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean:
Gender, Age, School ......... ...................................... ....... ...... ............... 105

4-65 I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean:
Fem ales, A ge, R ace, School ................................................. ............................... 106

4-66 I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean:
M ales, A ge, R ace, School ......... ........................................................ ......................... 107









4-67 Tukey HSD. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential
p artn er: A g e .............................................................................10 8

4-68 Tukey HSD. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential
partner: A frican A m erican B lacks ......................................... ............. ................108

4-69 Correlations: Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line: ..........109

4-70 Mean: Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line. School.........109

4-71 Mean: Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line. Gender ........110

4-72 Mean: Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line. Age ...........10

4-73 Mean: Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line? Race ...........10

4-74 Tests of between subjects. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend
o n lin e ................. .. .......... ............... ................................................ 1 1 1

4-75 Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Gender and Age...... 111

4-76 Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Females,
R ace and School .......... ............................. ............. ...... .. .......... 112

4-77 Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Gender,
A g e, R ace ......................................... .. .. .................................................. 1 13

4-78 Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Age, Race,
S c h o o l ....... .. ....................... .............. .......................................... 1 1 4

4-79 Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Females,
A ge, R ace, School ........... ........................................ ............ .. ............ 115

4-80 Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Males, Age,
R a ce, S ch o o l ......................................... .. .. .................................................. 1 16

4-81 Tukey HSD. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Age .... 117

4-82 Tukey HSD. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Race... 117

4-83 Correlations: Does your partner know about your online friends...............................118

4-84 Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: School ........... .....................118

4-85 Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: Gender ..............................119

4-86 Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: Age .................................... 119

4-87 Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: Race..................................119









4-88 Tests of between subjects. Does your offline partner know about the
friends/relationships that you have online. ........................................... ............... 120

4-89 Does your offline partner know about the friends/relationships that you have online.
M ean: Age, School............ ........ ... ............. ...... ......... 120

4-90 Tukey HSD. Does your offline partner know about the friends/relationships that you
h av e on lin e? A g e..................................................................... 12 1

4-91 Correlations: Has your partner express jealousy over the relationships you have
o n lin e ................. .. .......... ................. ............................................... 12 2

4-92 Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: School.......123

4-93 Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: Gender......123

4-94 Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: Age ..........123

4-95 Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: Race..........123

4-96 Tests of between subjects. Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the
relationships you have developed online. ............................................. ............... 124

4-97 Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you have
developed online: A ge, R ace ........................................... .......................................... 125

4-98 Tukey HSD. Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you
have developed online: A ge.................................................. ............................... 125

4-99 Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you have developed
online. M ean: A ge R ace and School..................................................................... ..... 126

4-100 Correlations: It is important that an alternative place for meeting people is available.... 127

4-101 Mean: It is important that an alternative place for meeting people is available: School.127

4-102 Mean: It is important that an alternative place for meeting people is available ............128

4-103 Mean: It is important that an alternative place for meeting people is available: Age .....128

4-104 Mean: It is important that an alternative place for meeting people is available: Race ....128

4-105 Tests of between subjects. It is important that an alternate place for meeting people is
available: A ge, G ender, R ace, School ........................................ ........................ 129

4-106 Tukey HSD. How important is it to you that an alternate way/place for meeting new
people is available. A ge .................. ............................. ........ .. ........ .... 129

4-107 Correlations: An alternative way to meet online sex partners. ......................................130









4-108 Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: School.......130

4-109 Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Gender......131

4-110 Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Age ...........31

4-111 Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Race..........131

4-112 Tests of between subjects. An alternative way/place for meeting potential sexual
partners: G ender, R ace, A ge, School .................................................................... .... 132

4-113 Tukey HSD. An alternative way/place for meeting potential sexual partners: Age........132

4-114 Tukey HSD. An alternative way/place for meeting potential sexual partners: Race.......133

4-115 Correlations: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet.......................134

4-116 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet: School ...................134

4-117 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet: Gender ..................135

4-118 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet: Age........................135

4-119 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet: Race ......................135

4-120 Tests of between subjects. I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet... 136

4-121 Correlations: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused. .137

4-122 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused:
S ch o o l .............. ............................................................................ 13 8

4-123 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused:
G en d er ................... ............................ ........................... ................ 13 8

4-124 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused: Age .... 138

4-125 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused: Race...138

4-126 Tests of between subjects. I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet
to become sexually aroused: Gender, Race, Age, School...............................................139

4-127 Correlations: While viewing sexually explicit materials I have masturbated................140

4-128 Mean: While viewing sexually explicit web sites I have masturbated: School.............140

4-129 Mean: While viewing sexually explicit web sites I have masturbate: Gender ..............141

4-130 Mean: While viewing sexually explicit web sites I have masturbated: Age .................141









4-131 Mean: While viewing sexually explicit web sites I have masturbated: Race................41

4-132 Tests of between subjects. While viewing sexually explicit web sites on the internet,
I have masturbated. ................................................... .. ........... 142

4-133 While viewing sexually explicit web sites on the internet, I have masturbated. Mean:
G ender Fem ales, R ace and School.......... ................... ........................ ............... 143

4-134 Tukey HSD. While viewing sexually explicit web sites on the internet, I have
m asturbated: Race ............. .... ............ ......... ................ ............ 143

4-135 Correlations: I have had sex with online partners.................. ............................... 144

4-136 Mean: I have had sex with on line partnerss: School .............................................. 144

4-137 Mean.: I have had cybersex with on line partnerss: Gender ................ ................145

4-138 Mean: I have had sex with on line partnerss: Age ....................................................145

4-139 M ean: I have had sex with on line partnerss: Race.................................... ............... 145

4-140 Tests of between subjects. I have had cybersex with an online partner. .........................146

4-141 Correlations: I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex......................147

4-142 Mean: I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex with an online
partner: School ...................................................... .. ........................... 148

4-143 Mean: I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex with an online
p artn er: G en der ...................... .... ......... .. .. .......... .................................... 14 8

4-144 Mean: I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex with an online
p artn er: A g e .............................................................................14 8

4-145 Mean: I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex with an online
p artn er: R ace ...................... .. .. ......... .. .. .................................................. 14 8

4-146 Tests of between subjects. I like to drink alcohol while having cybersex with an
online partner. .......................................................................... 149

4-147 Correlations: I like to use stimulants while having online sex. .......................................150

4-148 Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner: School....151

4-149 Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner: Gender...151

4-150 Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner: Age.......151

4-151 Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner: Race.......151









4-152 Tests of between subjects. I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an
online: partner ...................................................... ................. .. ...... ......... 152










Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

INTERNET USE AND ITS EFFECT ON SEXUAL BEHAVIORS IN TRADITIONAL
COLLEGE AGE STUDENTS

By

Paula Courtney Pritchard

May 2008

Chair: Sharleen Simpson
Major: Nursing Sciences

As the internet has revolutionized communications and business practices worldwide, it

has been integrated into everything that humans as a population engage in. It provides

instantaneous access. This ubiquitous presence may appear innocent at the surface; however

there may be some sinister characteristics within this medium that require further study.

One of the issues that exists may be the effects of the internet on behavior, specifically in

the area of sexual activity in adolescents and traditional college age students. At least one third

of internet visits are intended to surf sexually oriented web sites, chat rooms, and news groups.

Our purpose was to explore how technology, specifically internet use, gender and ethnicity

may affect decision making, and influence sexual decision making in traditional college students.

Using a 'paper-survey' designed by using Goodson et. Al (2000) survey tool 'Survey Instrument

to Assess College Students' Behavior and Attitudes' to document demographic information as

well as college student's perceptions and behaviors while using the internet (specifically for

sexually related information) was modified into an actual internet survey document. Using mass

emails, participants in this study were solicited from two university campuses in Florida. Due to

their divergent populations, a small private Historically Black College/University (HBCU) as









well as a large Florida public university (PFU) were chosen. Overall, 1202 students participated

in the study.

Results of this study demonstrate differences in gender, age, race and university of record.

These differences appear in developing relationships, online sexual behaviors, email use, and

offline sexual behaviors. The results indicate that students who are 23 and older are more likely

to value the importance of the internet, and also value the opportunity to engage in developing

online partners for different relationships that include online sexual activity when compared to

their younger counterparts.

Gender differences are also identified as an inverse relationship when combined with age.

Females are less likely to use the internet as they age, and the opposite is true for males within

this sample population. This information may provide insight into program changes that would

target individuals based upon gender.

The study also demonstrated racial differences in internet use. It is important to note that

this area needs to be replicated specifically because socioeconomic factors were not taken into

account, and therefore may have a significant impact upon the validity of the results. Therefore

any future reports of racial differences using results of this study should be used with that

cautionary note.

The evidence of data obtained by this preliminary study of internet use and sexual

behaviors of traditional college age students demonstrates the immediate need for future studies

that target internet use and sexual behaviors by race, gender, and age. These studies should

specifically look at the aspect of heightened sexual behavior as a result of frequency of internet

use through the emerging adult years. .









CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM

As technological advancement continues to advance at such a rapid rate, much of the

technology that was a luxury a few years ago is now considered a necessity. The internet is

deemed such an item (Weiser, 2000). It is used in business, academics, information technology,

communication and entertainment. As communication and entertainment are instantaneous as a

result of internet technology, the process of human socialization and relationship roles are

changing. As such, the internet has the capability to impact socialization and relationship roles of

adolescents and young adults (Bryant & Bryant, 2005). Gender roles, sexual attitudes, and

behaviors are in a critical stage of development, and as such the internet provides a forum for

sensation seeking in chat rooms, interactive gaming, and viewing sexually explicit material

which may have an effect on sexual behavior (Weisskirch & Murphy, 2004).

Sexually active adolescents are absolutely at risk for pregnancy and sexually transmitted

infections (STI). Annually, approximately 900,000 adolescent females become pregnant and

over one third of these young women are less than 17 years. Incredibly, 35 % of all young

women in the United States will have been pregnant at least one time before they reach the age

of 20 (Escobar-Chaves et al., 2005).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2006), adolescents

aged 15-19 have the highest rates of STI of all age groups, and of the 19 million new infections

that occur every year, one half of those will take place in adolescents age 15 to 24 (CDC, 2006).

According to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) (2006), 7.4% of adolescents

had their first sexual encounter prior to the age of thirteen. 14.4 % of all high school students

have engaged in sexual activity with four or more partners.









In the United States, almost 4 million cases of STIs are diagnosed in adolescents each

year. The most common reported STI in the United States is Chlamydia, and it is most prevalent

among adolescents. Chlamydia prevalence reported by the CDC demonstrated that sexually

active adolescent females were six times more likely to be infected than the general population

(CDC, 2002).

In the United States, between the years 1990 to 1995, the incidence rate of Acquired

Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in the population between the ages of 13 to 25 years rose

nearly 20 %. In 2003, the CDC reported that approximately 50 % of all new HIV cases were

found among individuals less than 25 years of age. In 2004, HIV disease was named the tenth

leading cause of death in people aged 15 to 24. At the end of 2004, 12 % of all new HIV cases

reported in Florida were among individuals with ages ranging were from 13 to 29 years

(National Vital Statistics Reports, 2005).

There are many factors that place adolescents at risk for early sexual debut, multiple

partners, and subsequent STI. These risk factors include race, socioeconomics, drug and alcohol

use, and peer pressure. Exposure to sexual content in media may also be a contributing factor to

the increases in sexual activity and STI of adolescent as well as traditional college aged students.

There have been many studies that discuss sexual behaviors as they relate directly to the

internet; however there are virtually no studies that explore whether viewing sexual content or

participating in chat rooms (i.e. cybersex ) on the internet leads to offline sexual activity in

adolescents and traditional college age students (Escobar-Chaves et al., 2005). Therefore, the

purpose of this study is to explore how technology, specifically the amount of internet use may

affect sexual decision-making and influence sexual behaviors in traditional college age students.









Internet Use

The World Wide Web has been providing a novel type of communication that enables the

user to access large amounts of information with a touch of a finger. The inception of the

Internet began in approximately 1969 by the United States government. In 1969, the government

funded a program to determine the feasibility of networking computers together. ARAPANET

developed out of the government's effort to connect computers together throughout the country.

The main purpose of ARAPANET was to secure communication between military

organizations and safely store large amounts of critical information in the event of a nuclear

holocaust (Bogard, 1996).

In 1989, the World Wide Web (WWW) went global, and brought about the instantaneous

access of information to every comer of the planet. The number of internet users started to

increase in 1993 and has steadily increased since that time. The greatest increase in the number

of users accessing the internet began in 1999. In 1999, approximately 36 % of American

households had internet access (Anderson, 2001). According to Neilson Ratings (2005), for the

month of June 2005 more than 140 million Americans surfed the WWW. Sex is the most

frequently searched topic on the internet (Goodson, McCormick, & Evans, 2001; Griffiths,

2001). Compared to the general population, college students are the heaviest internet users

spending much of their time using and surfing the internet. In 2002, 59 % of all Americans had

visited the Internet at least one time; conversely, 86 % of all college students were regular users

of the Internet. According to Hoffman and associates (2004), the internet is all-encompassing in

the lives of college students, and has become a staple in college life. Internet use for college

students is primarily for social activities(Hoffman, Novak, & Venkatesh, 2004).









According to Anderson (2001), the most popular internet activities reflect social

behaviors. They include instant messaging, chat rooms, and email. Over 85 % of college students

participate in instant messaging. Seventy-Six % of all college students surf the web daily, and the

number of web pages is projected to increase to over 50 billion pages in 2005 (Anderson, 2001).

As the number of Internet users have grown, computer use has become ingrained in the

daily lives of American society. According to Hoffman and colleagues (2004) who studied

internet use, between the years of 2000 to 2003, more people reported that computers had

become part of their daily routines. Respondents in this study stated that computers increase

personal communication of family and friends through e-mail and has become the preferred

mode of communication (versus telephone and letter writing). This technological phenomenon

has changed certain normal daily activities such as banking and shopping for goods in person to

electronic banking and shopping via the internet. Personal satisfaction in computer use has also

increased from 64 to 72 % over a period of two years. According to Hoffman and colleagues

(2004), individuals who use the internet are much more satisfied with computer use as a result of

computer design, ease of use, webpage designs, and overall increase in efficiency of computers

and speed of internet connections.

As internet use has increased astronomically, it is uncertain how the amount of internet

usage affects certain portions of the populations. Minority populations, lower socioeconomic

populations, as well as the elderly are now accessing the Internet in greater numbers than has

ever been documented. Many studies have shown that there is little difference in internet use

between ethnicities, however the samples used in these studies may not have been reflective of

the general population as well as the increase in computer accessibility. The shift in internet use

with these populations may be due in part to improved accessibility, affordability, and ease of









use and as such more studies of ethnic differences in computer use may be warranted (Dickerson,

Reinhart, Feeley, Bidani, & al, 2004).

As there are multiple reasons for the increasing amount of internet use, there is little

documentation of an increase in pathologies related to increased usage. There is speculation that

some internet activities are more likely to produce an environment to encourage addictive

behaviors, however, that has not been documented in the general population. Some of the

activities that may promote already identified addictive behaviors, or potential developing of

addictive behaviors related to excessive use include e-mail, chat rooms and multiple players

gaming (Griffiths, 2001; Shapira et al., 2003).

Age, level of education, and gender have an effect on the type of internet activity that is

elicited. Men are more likely, and have been the dominant users of online sexual activities such

as viewing pornographic websites. Women are more likely to visit sexually oriented chat rooms

which provide interaction and socialization as well as anonymity (Cooper, Marahan-Martin,

Mathy, & Maheu, 2002). Finally, the typical educational profile suggests that excessive internet

users have levels of education of fifteen years or greater (Hall & Parsons, 2001; Kraut, Patterson,

Lundmark et al., 1998).

Original theories regarding internet use for sexuality purposes were very polarized in

their findings. One group of researchers emphasized that internet use specifically as it relates to

sexuality is pathological. These studies asserted that individuals would be able to effectively

engage in sexual fantasies, and elicit sex conversations that could range from simple flirtations to

downright naughty communication. These researchers thought the internet would be a breeding

ground for illegal sexual activities, including child pornography and pedophilia (Cooper,

Scherer, Boies, & Gordon, 1999). In contrast, the second group of researchers asserted that









internet use for sexual purposes may be adaptive versus pathological. According to this

scientific camp, internet use for adaptive sexual purposes created an opportunity to 'normalize

sexual desire' to create another avenue of information sharing about sexuality and intimacy that

is void of physical attributes (Cooper et al., 1999).

As more individuals become technologically literate, and excessive use of the internet is

being reported, the notion of internet addiction as well as internet use for sexually related

recreation has become of interest to researchers. However, the topic of sexual addiction as it

relates to the internet seems to be controversial. Griffiths (1999) suggests that many excessive

internet users are not internet addicts, but use the internet to engage in their particular addiction

(i.e. gambling, sex, and etc.). Griffiths (1999) determined that the internet has the inherent

capability to be used for sexually motivated behaviors, either online or offline. Offline internet

uses include the purchase of sexually relevant material (books, objects, and educational

purposes) or trolling for offline sexual partners. Griffiths (2001) suggests that very few of the

activities listed lead to sexual addiction, and/or sexual internet addiction. He argues that research

regarding internet use has overestimated the number of internet addicts (due to poor research

design). He does however admit that some behaviors are more likely to promote internet

addiction citing examples of email, and chat rooms. However, he alleges that sexual addiction

using the internet is possible, citing that behaviors most likely to promote sexual addiction within

this venue include online pornography for masturbatory purposes, and online sexual relationships

(Griffiths, 2001).

Developmental Factors

Adolescence is defined as the period of transition between childhood and adulthood.

During this transitional time, skills are developed in preparation for the roles and responsibilities

of adulthood. Biologic, cognitive and psychosocial changes are also occurring in preparation for









impending adulthood. This transitional phase can also prove to be a vulnerable time for

adolescents. Psychosocial interactions such as peer group acceptance can exert undue pressure

and affect decision making skills during these susceptible years (Delamater & Friedrich, 2002)..

During adolescence many patterns of behavior are established. These behaviors can be

influenced by psychosocial development. According to Erikson as cited by Calvert and

colleagues (2002), adolescents are in the process of developing personal identity. They are in the

psychosocial process of moving away from identifying with family and moving toward

identifying with a peer group. Adolescents are also in the process of managing physical and

emotional intimacy in personal relationships (Delamater & Friedrich, 2002;Calvert, Jordan, &

Cocking, 2002). As they attain this physical and emotional intimacy, gender and sexual identity

is established. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bi-sexuality lifestyles are determined in this

phase of development (Bancroft, 2002; Calvert, Jordan, & Cocking,2002).

This is extremely significant for college students as the psychological and environmental

changes that occur initially in the life of a college student may create extraneous stress and may

become a factor in developing addictive behaviors related to specific internet use (Hall &

Parsons, 2001). In addition to developmental factors, internet accessibility on college campuses

is a free service as most colleges and universities have user domains. This affordable, accessible,

and unmonitored use of the internet can increase the amount of computer time students' use and

allow them to circumvent necessary tasks of development. Online relationships provide an

environment of anonymity which allows the user to engage in fantasies and create an entirely

different self. This provides an escape from real world relationships, usurping developmental

tasks such as identity formation and building intimate relationships (Hall & Parsons, 2001).

Cognitive skills that allow the critical ability to make decisions are not fully developed which









places adolescents at a greater risk of influences that can affect decision-making. One of the

major influences that affect adolescent behavior is technology based media, specifically sexual

oriented media (Escobar-Chaves et al., 2005). The obsession with sex and sexuality is pervasive

in all areas of the media. It is estimated that on average, adolescents view 143 incidents of sexual

behavior on prime time television each week. Approximately 80 % of all movies shown on

network or cable television stations have sexual content in some form or another. At some point

in time during a 24 hour period, adolescents will tune in and watch music television (MTV)

(Brown & Newcomer, 2002). Approximately 60 % of the videos aired on MTV portray sexual

feelings and display provocative clothing, and sexually suggestive body movements. Analysis of

sexual messages on television indicate that they are predominantly presented with little

discussion of the potential risks of unprotected sexual intercourse, and only a small number of

messages include adverse consequences of this risk taking behavior (Gruber & Grube, 2000;

Rich, 2003).

Development also influences comprehension and interpretation of sexual content.

Younger children are less likely to understand the subtlety of suggestive material observed in the

media. Adolescents at an earlier stage of biologic development were less interested in sexual

content media than more mature adolescents. More mature adolescents sought out sexual content

as a way of learning about romance and relationships. These adolescents believed that media

(internet, television, movies) provides visual information on how to become popular and attract

the opposite sex (Collins et al., 2004).

Influential Media

A national study reported that the majority of American children live in homes with two

or more televisions; approximately 75 % of those homes have access to cable television. Over

half of the adolescents surveyed had a television set in their own room. These same adolescents









reported that media is used as an information source about sexuality, drug abuse, and violent

behaviors (Morris, 2004).

High amounts of exposure to portrayals of sex may have an effect upon adolescents'

beliefs and cultural norms. Media creates the illusion that sex is central to daily life and as a

result may promote earlier sexual debut. Behaviors that are observed in media sources may alter

beliefs about outcomes of engaging in sexual activity. Adolescents who view media and see

characters having casual sex without negative consequences may be more likely to adopt those

portrayed behaviors (Brener, Lowry, Kann, Kolbe, & al, 2002).

Correlational studies indicate that adolescent females choose television programs with

sexual content more often than do adolescent males. Interestingly, adolescent females are more

likely to observe it in the company of parents. To the contrary, older adolescent males view

media with greater hardcore sexual content, and are more likely to listen to more sexually

explicit music. Adolescent males use the internet, computer and or online games more often than

the female adolescents(Gruber & Grube, 2000).

Women are portrayed as sex objects in approximately 25 % of the 33 most popular video

games. Violence against women is portrayed in approximately 21 %, and in over 40 % of these

games, female characters do not have names (Rich, 2003). Adolescents who use these kinds of

media are more likely to believe these stereotypic sex roles versus reality than their counterparts

that do not use these games (Gruber & Grube, 2000; Morris, 2004).

The mainstream mass media (television, movies, music, and internet) provide

increasingly frequent portrayals of sexuality. Studies suggest that interactive visual media that

are interactive do have an impact on sexual behavior (Boies, 2002; Escobar-Chaves et al., 2005;

Griffiths, 2001; Hollander, 2004). Media portrayals of men and women reinforce relatively









consistent sets of sexual and relationship norms; however in many cases sexually responsible

models are not portrayed. According to Taylor (2005), people who watch television shows that

have increased sexual content are more likely to make elevated estimates of the frequency of

actual sexual behaviors based upon the media observed. Examples of overestimated sexual

behaviors include using sex for favors, sexual activity without love, or a romantic interest and

boasting sexual conquests. Sexual television content has also been linked to beliefs and

expectations about one's own sexual experiences. Increased exposure to visual sexual media are

correlated to decreased sexual inhibition (Taylor, 2005).

Over the past few decades, nationally representative surveys have accumulated a wealth

of data on levels of sexual activity in adolescents. According to one such survey, approximately

47 % of adolescents in grades 9 through 12 have had four or more sexual partners (Hollander,

2004). According to Remez (2000) most adolescents fear pregnancy over sexually transmitted

infections (STI). Adolescents growing up and educated in the era of HIV disease have the

misconception that oral sex is considered to be a risk free sexual behavior in comparison to

vaginal and/or anal intercourse. Many adolescents also believe that oral and anal sex are not

considered to be coital sex so engaging in them maintains the concept of virginity (Holowaty et

al., 1997; Remez, 2000).

The internet has begun to play an increasing role in the sex lives of young people. In one

particular survey, individuals with an age range of 18-24 reported meeting an average often

partners through the internet in the last two years. Many stated that seven of the ten partners were

obtained via the internet in the previous year. Participants within this age range were more

willing than their older counter parts to seek potential partners in chat rooms (anonymous) and

then elevate the interaction to exchange of addresses. Respondents to the anonymous survey









were recruited through chat rooms, electronic bulletin boards and list serves. This particular

survey revealed that of 40 % of the respondents had engaged in sex with a partner that they met

online, and males were 10 % more likely to engage in sex with a partner met online (McFarlane,

Bull, & Rietmeijer, 2002).

In the presence of a growing technological society, adolescents are observing sexual

activity in all sources of media; from television to the internet (Rich, 2003). These same

adolescents who are bombarded by this type of media are more likely to act out these behaviors,

and increase their risk of contracting STIs. Anecdotal informational sources have documented a

trend in adolescent sexual behaviors that use technology to locate partners to participate in these

activities. Decline in dating trends and romantic relationships on college campuses have brought

forth a different kind of relationship; an acronym known as "friends with benefits" (Denizet-

Lewis, 2004). A friend with benefits removes the romance component in relationships and

allows for the benefit of sex among and between friends. This phenomena has trickled down to

middle school and high school adolescents (Denizet- Lewis, 2004).

Persons who engage in sexual activity with multiple and/or anonymous sex partners are

more likely to become infected with STIs. Historically in the HIV era, sex with anonymous

partners had been initiated in bars, bathhouses, clubs, or parks. Research has documented that the

internet may be another venue for the initiation of sexual contact. Due to the anonymity of chat

rooms and other internet sites, communication of sexual fantasies can be completed without

reproach. These anonymous meetings may lead to in person meetings and sexual contact

(McFarlane, Bull, & Rietmeijer, 2000).

Theoretical Perspectives

In much of the literature reviewed, Social Cognitive Learning Theory (SCT) is used as a

framework for studying internet use and sexual behaviors. The basic tenets underlying this









theory assume that individuals are more inclined to imitate a behavior if they are rewarded.

Secondly, individuals are more likely to model a behavior when they can actually identify with

the model. Finally, if the model is attractive and the behavior is possible then it is more likely to

be performed (Boies, 2002; Goodson et al., 2001; LaRose & Eastin, 2004).

According to LaRose and Easton (2004), behavior is determined by outcome. If the

outcome is desirable, then the behavior is either experienced in a physical sense or mediated

through observation. Sexually oriented media on the internet provides an expected gratification.

The user can observe a desired behavior, and vicariously experience it through observation. If the

user is satisfied with the outcome of the behavior (i.e. viewing sexually explicit material), then in

all likelihood (according to SCT) the user would again be compelled to repeat the behavior

(LaRose & Eastin, 2004). In concert with Social Cognitive Learning Theory there is a

behavioral pattern that can lead to addiction.

Griffiths (2000) states that repeated use of technology may cause a behavioral addiction.

He describes this technical addiction in six steps. Addiction can occur through saliency (when

the behavior monopolizes the life of the user), mood modification (users experience a sense of

euphoria with each encounter of the behavior), tolerance (users are no longer feeling a sense of

euphoria, and spend larger amounts of time engaging in the behavior), withdrawal symptoms

(physiological, and psychological occurrences as a result of discontinuing or decreasing the

behavior), conflict (disaccord with interpersonal relationship and the self regarding concern over

engaging in the behavior), and finally relapse, which can occur even years after the behavior has

been extinguished.

Goodson, McCormick and Evans (2000) discuss three categories of sexual internet use as

it relates to SCT. Through a framework based upon SCT, they made the assertion that the









internet is used for obtaining information of a sexual nature, establishing and/or maintaining

relationships, and sexual entertainment. Goodson and colleagues (2000) designed a survey

instrument to assess student's perceptions and behaviors when surfing the net for sexually related

reasons based upon the three categories of use. Their study supported the hypothesis that those

who use the internet frequently have significantly different attitudes regarding information

seeking and sexual entertainment (i.e. pornography) than those who did not use the internet as

frequently.

The obvious concern for adolescent sexuality is the risk involved with sexual behaviors,

specifically STIs and adolescent pregnancy. Decreasing adolescent sexual behavior and its

associated risk is a top priority of the United States national health objectives. It is apparent that

there are other factors involved with the decision making process of adolescents to engage in

sexual activities that have yet to be determined. Given this information, it is essential to review

prevalent literature to gain insight into areas of current research and areas warranting further

research.

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to better understand how technology, age, race and university

of record (where these emerging adults attend college) may affect sexual decision making and

sexual behaviors in traditional college age students. A quantitative study design was chosen for

data collection. A modified version of Goodson' et al (2000) tool entitled 'Survey Instrument to

Assess College Students' Behavior and Attitudes' was redesigned to be used as a web based

survey. This survey tool used both Boolean and Likert style questions. Information obtained in

the introduction of the survey provided demographic information which included age range,

ethnicity, religious affiliation, as well as information regarding students' perceptions and

behaviors while using the internet for sexually related information, and entertainment.









CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The objective of this literature review is to explore the available evidence of adolescent

sexual behaviors, risk factors, and how they relate to internet use. This review examines research

studies selected from the literature for the years between 1997 and 2008. These research studies

were identified by a search ofPubMed, Proquest, and Ebsco-host databases for the specified

years. The key search terms used were adolescents, college age students, sexuality, sexual debut,

STI, internet, media and technology. Studies selected were those that reported findings related to

adolescents' sexual behavior, sexual debut, risk factors and internet use. Refereed journals were

used almost exclusively.

Media Influence on Sex

Durham's (1999) study identified the media's influence in the form of television and

video upon sexuality and feminine roles in adolescent females. This qualitative inquiry used

participant observation and in-depth interviewing of adolescent females. The participants were

recruited from two middle schools in the southwestern United States. The schools were selected

because of the diverse racial and socioeconomic status of the students. This diversity allowed

more generalizability of the results of the project.

This study attempted to gain an understanding of the social processes of adolescent peer

groups, specifically peer group activity and the media's effect on sexuality and the social context

of its formation. The findings indicated that although media (defined as television, internet, or

video) is an important factor in determining individual behaviors, peer group effect and mass

media together have a profound effect on individual behaviors. Group behaviors affected by

media access became the accepted norm of participants despite individual differences, activities

and lifestyle choices. Interestingly, Durham's (1999) study identified the idea that compulsory









heterosexuality was foundational in group acceptance of individuals, despite race, ethnicity, and

socioeconomic factors. As heterosexuality is the dominant theme in media, these findings

demonstrate the pervasiveness of the mass media effect on adolescent females, sexuality and

group behavior (Durham, 1999).

Roberts (2000) described adolescent access and exposure to all forms of media, as well as

the contexts where media exposure occurs. In this study, a cross sectional national random

sample of 2065 adolescents, 8 through 18 years of age completed questionnaires about personal

use of media, including television, videos, computers, video games, radio, compact discs, tape

players, books, newspapers, and magazines. The results showed that most households contain

most media, and the majority of adolescents have their own personal access to the media. The

average daily use of varying forms of media is approximately six to eight hours per day.

Television remains the dominant medium and approximately one-half of the adolescents sampled

use a computer daily. A substantial proportion of adolescents' media use occurs in the absence of

parents. An interesting demographic outcome occurred in household media based upon gender.

Availability of video games in male adolescent homes was 27 % higher than that of their female

counterparts.

Media availability in adolescent bedrooms proved to have many variables. Differences

between computers present in White and Black adolescents' bedrooms proved to be negligible.

However, Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than their White counterparts to have

televisions, video cassette recorders (VCR) or video games in their bedrooms. White adolescents

were more likely to have audio systems in their rooms. Televisions, VCRs, and video game

systems in adolescent bedrooms are inversely related to household income. Adolescents who

attend schools in lower income communities are more likely than those who attend in high









income communities to report having their own television, VCR and video games (Roberts,

2000). This may become a factor of potentially harmful internet exposure without parental

intervention of children especially those from lower income families.

Gruber and Grube(2000), reviewed recent scientific literature on adolescents and

sexuality in the media. Findings indicated that the available research did not address adolescent

exposure to sexual content in the media and its effects on beliefs, knowledge, intentions, and

behaviors. The literature review also identified lack of research on sexual content of the internet,

video games or handheld devices, (Gruber & Grube, 2000).

Collins and colleagues (2004) conducted a national longitudinal survey of 1792

adolescents approximately 12 to 17 years of age. Participating adolescents described their media

viewing habits and sexual experience using initial and yearly follow-up interviews. Multivariate

regression analysis determined that adolescents who viewed more sexual content at initial

interview were more likely to initiate intercourse and participate in non-coital sexual activities

during the following year. This study also noted that adolescents in the 90th percentile of TV sex

viewing had a predicted probability of intercourse initiation that was twice that of adolescents in

the 10th percentile, for all ages studied. Interestingly, Black adolescents who watched more

representations of sexual risks or safety in an educational format were less likely to initiate

intercourse in the subsequent year (Collins et al., 2004).

The purpose of Morrison and colleagues (2004) research was to investigate variables that

may be associated with exposure to sexually explicit material (SEM). Participants for this study

were psychology students enrolled at a Canadian University.

Results revealed a weak correlation between exposure to SEM via media (internet, TV,

and video) and sexual esteem and sexual anxiety. Pornography exposure was greater for the









non-virgin participants. The authors examined the results within the SCT framework, with

unexpected results. According to Morrison and company (2004) the presumption was that

exposure to SEM presents viewers with an unrealistic view of sex. This exposure would result in

a decreased sexual self esteem, diminished genital self image and lessen the likelihood of

practicing safe sex. However, that was not the case. SCT did not support Morrison's hypothesis.

Morrison and company (2004) predicted that male and female participants' levels of sexual

anxiety would be inversely correlated in self reported exposure to SEM. They concluded that

due to technology and accessibility, studies of explicit material should move from a harms based

framework (sexual pathology) to a more adaptive role and develop frameworks in which to

capture the complexity of SEM and its effect on the viewer (Morrison, Bearden, Harriman,

Morrison, & Ellis, 2004).

Depression, Religiosity, and Sexual Debut

Longmore and colleagues (2004) using a restricted use sample of the National

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, examined the influence of self esteem and depressive

symptoms on sexual debut. Adolescents were interviewed initially and at one year intervals.

These intervals were identified as wave one and wave two. Criteria for inclusion to the study

required that all adolescents participating must not have previously engaged in sexual activity

prior to the first wave. The dependent variable measured in the study was vaginal intercourse.

Independent variables included self esteem, depressive symptoms, dating patterns, ethnicity,

socioeconomic status, mother's education, and family makeup (i.e. single parent, biologic

family, or step family). In the first wave of this study, a total of 18,924 students enrolled in

grades 7 through 12 were interviewed. In wave two, a total of 13,570 students were re-

interviewed. The final sample of this study included 7,965 students (4,300 girls and 3,665 boys).

Using logistic regression, this study demonstrated that depressive symptoms would increase the









likelihood of sexual debut at a younger age. Race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status were

moderating factors on self esteem and depressive symptoms. Results showed that both self

esteem and depressive symptoms affect sexual debut in adolescent males. Depressive symptoms,

however, exert the greatest effect on sexual debut in adolescent males. In older adolescent males

a more positive self-esteem correlates with later sexual debut. Male adolescents that live with

both biological parents are more likely to have a later sexual debut than those of single or step

parent families. This study suggested that self esteem and depressive symptoms have no

correlational relationship to race or ethnicity in adolescent males.

In female adolescents, age, race and ethnicity proved to be a predictor of sexual debut.

Frequency of depressive symptoms in White female adolescents aged 13 proved to be a predictor

of earlier sexual debut in contrast to Black females in the same age range. Age and dating also

influence sexual onset in older adolescent females. One date or consecutive dating during wave

one and wave two increases the odds of sexual debut. For female adolescents, living with a

single parent or other alternative family types (i.e. gay or lesbian family structures) increases the

frequency of sexual debut during the time between wave one and wave two. Step parent families

do not have an effect on sexual debut of females. Finally, female adolescents who have mothers

with greater than 16 years of education have decreased odds of sexual debut during wave one

and wave two of the study (Longmore, Manning, Giordano, & Rudolph, 2004).

Internet use has also been linked to social isolation and depression among adolescents.

Sanders and colleagues (2000) investigated whether levels of internet use were associated with

depression and social isolation. The study looked at length of daily internet use and how it

correlated to social isolation and depression. This study demonstrated similar findings to those

of Kraut and colleagues' (1998) research that looked at internet use and family communication









systems. Both studies showed that increased internet use increased social isolation and created

weaker social ties, but could not be positively linked to depression (Kraut, Patterson, Landmark

et al., 1998; Sanders, Field, Diego, & Kaplan, 2000).

Rotosky, Regnerus, and Wright (2003) also used the National Longitudinal Study of

Adolescent Health to determine if religiosity was associated with the delay of adolescent coital

debut. Using data from 3,691 adolescents, Rotosky and colleagues (2003), wanted to determine

if adolescent religiosity and sexual attitudes predicted sexual debut in gender and ethnicity.

Again, there were two contact points approximately one year apart. The researchers selected a

sample of 80 high schools, which were stratified by region, urban location, school type, ethnic

diversity, and enrollment size. The sample of schools ranged in size from fewer than 100

students to more than 3,000 students. Approximately 80% of the schools contacted agreed to

participate. The schools and students proved to be representative samples of the population and

provided generalizability to the study. As with Longmore and colleagues (2004) study, only

those adolescents who indicated that they had not engaged in sexual intercourse by the first wave

of the study were selected to comprise the sample for the analysis of predicting coital debut.

Adolescents ages 15 and older were asked sex attitude questions exclusively. Correlational

analyses with a Bonferroni correction were used to determine associations between independent

and dependent variables for males and females. 23% of the males and 25% of the females who

reported no sexual intercourse at the first wave had engaged in sexual intercourse by the second

wave. Each year of age of the adolescent determined an approximate increase of 21 % in sexual

debut between the first and second wave of the study. In Black males, earlier sexual debut was

twice that of White males regardless of religiosity and virginity pledging. In adolescent boys, the

odds of sexual debut decreased by approximately 36 % when their mothers had at least a college









education. Finally, in the presence of at least one or more romantic partners present at the first

wave, sexual debut increased by approximately 90 % by the second wave.(Rostosky, Regnerus,

& Wright, 2003).

Multiple Sex Partners

Howard and Wang (2004) examined the relationship of multiple sexual-partners to other

risk behaviors among adolescent girls. Using the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 3288

sexually active adolescent females participated in this study. This study attempted to correlate

relative risk of engaging in risk taking behaviors, age, ethnicity, and number of sexual partners.

Results showed that having one sexual partner was associated with lack of condom use and being

in 12th grade. Two or more partners was associated with being Black, fighting, binge drinking,

and cigarette use (Howard & Wang, 2004).

Welch and colleagues (1998) found a surprising number of gonorrhea cases in lower

income cases in Syracuse, New York. A study was conducted to provide information for public

health interventions regarding gonorrhea and other STIs in the identified high risk population.

The descriptive study provided information from individual and focus group interviews in an

attempt to develop effective health education messages and services for the teen population. A

major portion of high-risk behavior occurred in conjunction with the use of alcohol and

marijuana. Coercion and possibly violence are a part of sexual activity for at least some teens.

Concerns included violence as a health problem, rape in jail as an STI risk, and sex with a female

partner who is unconscious from intoxication. Female adolescents reported that males would

pressure them to have sex without a condom. They concluded that early sexual debut can be the

result of coercion specifically in the early sexual experience of adolescents in this group.

Interestingly, participants described the practice of exchanging sex for consumer items (food,









brand name clothing, and sneakers) although they did not consider this to be prostitution.

(Welych, Laws, Fiorito, Durham, & al, 1998).

Dodge and colleagues (2004) suggest that an association exists between sexual

compulsivity and participation in sexual behaviors that are high risk in terms of HIV/STD

infection. Dodge and colleagues (2004) studied 876 heterosexual college students using the

Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS). Predominant studies using the SCS were done with members

of high risk groups (i.e. HIV at risk, and or HIV infected). Dodge and colleagues were able to

support reliability and construct validity of the SCS in a heterosexual population. Dodge et al

(2004), found a significant relationship (p<0.001) between sexual compulsivity and partner sex

activities. Participants who reported a broader range of partner sex activities with higher

frequencies had higher sexual compulsivity scores. Additionally, a relationship between solo sex

activities (masturbation) and sexual compulsivity emerged from the statistical analysis (p <

0.001). Participants who reported higher frequencies were more likely to have higher sexual

compulsivity scores. Analysis of the data also divulged a relationship between public sex

activities and sexual compulsivity (p < 0.001). Those who participated in public sex activities

with higher frequencies were more likely to have higher sexual compulsivity scores. Finally, post

hoc analysis of this data demonstrated that participants who had non exclusive relationships had

higher sexual compulsivity scores.

There was a significant difference between men and women in terms of sexual

compulsivity scores. Mean scores for sexual compulsivity were higher in male population

f (876) = 12.63, p < 0.001, d = .81. Frighteningly, there was a relationship present in sexual

compulsivity and age. Younger participants had higher sexual compulsivity scores (Dodge,

Reece, Cole, & Sandfort, 2004).









The limitations of this particular study included a convenience sample, and as such it

would be difficult to compare it with the general population. The authors also noted that as only

college students were the focus of the research, a different cohort might answer questions

differently. As with all sexual surveys, there is always a risk of under reporting or exaggerating

sexual encounters/compulsivity. As with the majority of research on human sexual behavior, the

use of self-report questionnaires may create a source of bias in that participants may exaggerate

the frequency of sexual activities, underreport the frequency of sexual activities, misunderstand a

question due to lack of knowledge and respond inaccurately, or answer questions in ways that

they feel are socially desirable.

Internet

McFarlane and associates (2000) used a cross sectional design study conducted in

Colorado from September 1999 through April 2000 compared the risk of STI transmission of

persons seeking sex partners on the internet versus those not seeking sex partners on the internet.

Of the 856 participants interviewed, 135 of those participating had sought sex partners on the

internet. Eighty-eight of those who sought sex partners reported having sex with someone they

met online. Thirty-four of those people had had four or more partners in a six month period.

Condom use was reported in only 44 % of those with four or more contacts. In this study only

adults were asked to participate, and 70 % reported themselves to be White and homosexual.

However, most of the participants who used the internet as a method of obtaining partners were

more likely to report previous STIs (McFarlane et al., 2000).

Mitchell and colleagues (2001) conducted a study to assess the risk factors surrounding

online sexual solicitations of youth. Telephone surveys were performed from August 1999 to

February 2000 which captured a random sample of 1501 adolescents from 10 through 17 years

of age who regularly used the internet. Nineteen % of those interviewed experienced at least one









sexual solicitation while using the internet in the previous year and 3 % reported an aggressive

solicitation. Only 10 % of sexual solicitations were reported to any authority. Approximately 75

% of parents and adolescents had no idea of where to report this type of behavior. Adolescent

females were more likely to be solicited as well as those who used the internet more frequently.

Solicitation occurred more frequently in those adolescents who participated in chat rooms,

engaged in risky behavior online, talked to strangers online, or used the internet at households

other than their own (Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2001).

The objectives in Koch & Praterelli's (2004) study 'Effects ofIntroversion and

Extroversion on Social Internet Use' research the social significance of the internet. They used

Likert scores to rate the negative effects of internet use (i.e. addiction). Participants were asked

to rate the internet based upon reading a passage to determine different responses based upon

gender. They hypothesized that individuals who read a passage about negative effects of the

internet would respond negatively. They also hypothesized that Introverts would be more

comfortable with the anonymity that the internet provides than those individuals that were

described as extroverts. Participants were recruited from freshmen level courses (n=240). Results

of the statistical analysis proved not to be statistically significant regarding reading a negative

passage about the internet. Koch & Praterelli (2004) determined that the reason why it might not

be statistically significant because addicts don't always identify themselves as addicts. This

study demonstrated that there was a large difference between men and women's perceptions and

use of the internet which is consistent with previous research. Again, college age males reported

viewing more sexually explicit material for social purposes (Koch & Pratarelli, 2004).

Hightow et al (2005) reviewed state surveillance records as part of a retrospective study

that examined new diagnoses and risk behaviors in men 18 to 30 years old living in North









Carolina. They reviewed 735 records and of the 735 records, approximately, 11 % (84) were

male college students. Eighty seven % of the 84 college students were Black Americans.

Approximately 92 % of those students were either men who had sex with men, or men who had

sex with women. Hightow and company (2005) described an epidemic that was previously

unknown. Even more disconcerting is that the collegiate sexual network of this cohort extends

into five other states in the Southeast United States.

Hightow and colleagues (2005) found limited research on the phenomenon (one study in

1990) and concluded that although the rates of HIV infection in college age black men are lower

than found in the general population, it does demonstrate that a higher prevalence in a small

cohort can have a significant effect on transmission. Additionally, Hightow and colleagues

(2005) determined upon a literature search that college students (again) are more likely to meet

sex partners over the internet, and report higher rates of risky sex behaviors (Hightow et al.,

2005).

Sanger and associates (2004) studied 62 adolescent females residing in a correctional

facility and their use of the internet to participate in chat room conversations. Findings indicated

that 87 % participated in chat rooms' interactions and spent an average of 10 hours per week

interacting in the chat rooms. Seventy % of those had been approached in chat rooms to

participate in sexual behaviors. Findings identified the high incidence of participants, and the

implications of chat room interactions. Implications of chat room interactions were identified as

a potential for language problems (based upon vocabulary, meanings of certain words,

processing information conveyed, recognition of hidden messages and/or in words, or

understanding attempts of others to use manipulative language). This raised questions about

whether the seriousness of possible harmful or manipulative interactions is actually understood









by adolescents. The absence of physical, verbal, and nonverbal cues that exist within the chat

room arena has been well documented in the literature. This absence may make the chat room

environment dangerous to adolescents as they may not be able to discern whether a message is

truthful, sincere, or accurate. Adolescents do not have the luxury of experience and therefore

they are at an increased risk to sexual predators that may lurk within this environment. This

study also suggested that more research in these addressed areas is warranted.

Sex Defined

This very interesting study assessed exactly what respondents considered to be the

definition of sex. Bogart and colleagues (2000) used an interesting design to determine how

respondents interpret actual sex by assuming whether or not hypothetical actors would deem the

act to be defined as actual sex. The participants of this study had to make this determination

based upon gender of the participant, gender of the actor, the act, and whether an orgasm

influenced their labeling of behaviors.

The sample consisted of 223 undergrad students who were concurrently enrolled in a

human sexuality course at a university in the western United States. This particular study is

extremely significant as it occurred not quite two months after President Clinton stated that he

"did 'not' have sex with that woman." This study was conducted prior to specific details

regarding the President's alleged indiscretion.

Results for vaginal and anal sex were similar to previous findings. The participants

believed that the female actor would have a larger definition sex; meaning that more variety of

sexual behaviors would be construed as actual sex. Interestingly, if the male actor achieved

orgasm, the behavior would likely be perceived as sex. Whether the female did or did not orgasm

had no bearing on the male's definition of sex. In the case of oral intercourse if the recipient

climaxed, the sex behavior was more likely to be construed as sex. The performer was less likely









to consider oral sex to be actual sex. The authors determined that (in this study) vaginal and anal

intercourse were more likely to be construed as sex, but oral intercourse was less likely to be

defined as actual sex. This demonstrates the importance of having participants define exactly

what they believe is sex (Bogart, Cecil, Wagstaff, Pinkerton, & Abramson, 2000)

As new technologies, such as computer-mediated communication, expand the potential

for mass influence on society, adolescent sexual behaviors, the pervasiveness of media culture,

earlier sexual debut, and risky behaviors will continue to become more problematic. The

presence of sex and its co-star, violence saturates all forms of media that adolescents have at

easy access and have been, and continue to be, the focus of entertainment. Mass media producers

are only concerned with the effects of sex and violence inasmuch as it affects their profits.

Adolescent interest in the technological world allows them to view media without the ability to

discern the information critically. In the substantial body of knowledge present in the literature;

specific studies of adolescents are limited perhaps due to the nature of the topic. This literature

review has identified the need for a more comprehensive look at risky sexual behaviors, chat

room use and earlier sexual debut of exposed adolescents and traditional age college students

with computer access.









CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to better understand how technology and culture affect

sexual decision making and sexual behaviors in traditional college age students. In order to

determine this, a web based quantitative study using survey methods to collect data was initiated.

Internet Data Collection

Advantages

Data collection using internet surveys has multiple advantages. Economy is an initial

factor. Web based surveys are about one half of the costs of traditional mailings (Duffy, 2002).

Ease of recruitment and the potential to achieve larger samples in a reasonably short period of

time is another. Depending on how the participants are notified, web based surveys are most

successful in the first few days of recruitment. Respondents who are interested in participating

will usually answer in the first two days or not at all (Duffy, 2002).

According to Rhodes et al (2003), using web based surveys improves actual usable data

versus more traditional methods. Rhodes (2003) suggests that because of the explanatory design

inherent in web based surveys there is an actual reduction of errors. Instructions are simple to

follow. Respondents are directed to a site; they follow instructions supplied on menus, and

follow the format of the survey. If built into the design, respondents can see how much of the

survey they have actually completed (i.e. page one of eight...) and may be more likely to

complete the entire survey. Errors that occur in paper based surveys, such as skipped items or

accidentally choosing multiple items can be avoided with web-based surveys. The interactive

features that are built into the survey may offer dialogue boxes that pop up based upon the

particular response a participant may choose. This allows the participant to skip questions that

may not be relevant (Couper, Conrad, & Tourangeau, 2007)









Participants have the luxury of responding in their own time frame as web based surveys

are available twenty-four seven. This may be very important specifically when attempting to

solicit particular groups (i.e. college students). Survey participants also have the ability to

'disconnect' their participation at any time based upon comfort level. This level of comfort may

actually improve how honest online respondents are in comparison to face to face interviewees.

This comfort level may be a direct result of the anonymity factor in web based surveys.

Participants who access internet surveys believe that there is anonymity in web based surveys.

The anonymity factor may add to the respondent's level of comfort, thus improving the honesty

factor, especially when it relates to sexual behaviors. Level of embarrassment may be minimized

for participants using web based surveys, and improve the level of participant control in the

process (Rhodes, Bowie, & Hergenrather, 2003). Individuals who partake in web based surveys

make a personal decision to actively participate as they 'log on' to the site where the survey is

housed. According to Rhodes and colleagues (2003), this concept of active participation moves

the respondent from the mindset of experimentation to a partnership position with the research

being accomplished.

This partnership may improve completion of survey responses. Malone (2002) suggests

that web based participation with subjects opens up a new way of thinking in research design and

development. Respondents engaging in web based research are more likely to provide feedback,

and have an interest in the outcome of the research. Rhodes (2003) found this to be evident as

respondents in their study supplied URL addresses to potential candidates of their own volition.

Another advantage of web based surveys is minimizing the error rates in recording data.

Depending on the survey design, many web based surveys can be compatible with statistical

software. Weber, et al (2005) found that utilizing computer based research methods for recording









results virtually eliminated errors in coding and recording when compared to human coding. In

this study, hand coding resulted in a 15 % error rate per case and computerized coding provided

a data pool free of errors. Results from computer based surveys that are compatible with

statistical software can be automatically downloaded into software products such as Excel, and

uploaded into other statistical software products without data-entry errors and with time

efficiency (Rogelberg & Stanton 2007).

Disadvantages

Unfortunately, there are always pitfalls to this type of data collection. The major problem

with gathering this type of data is determining validity. There is always a possibility of

respondents not being completely honest when answering. Another issue is the possibility of

repeated submission from the same respondent. According to Rhodes et al (2003) the potential

for multiple submissions can be minimized using specific designs embedded into the software

program. Predominantly, questions such as asking the respondent if they have previously

completed the survey or having the participant provide some unique identifiable information

such as date of birth have also proven to be effective techniques. However, the major drawback

to multiple submissions may be the length of the survey as an inhibitor for multiple submissions

in itself.

Another problem with internet surveys is attempting to maintain the integrity of the data

pool. With public internet surveys, it is difficult to maintain a specified populace. Even though

there are many ways to protect surveys and target specific groups, it is not infallible. It is not

unusual for a legitimate respondent to participate, and then share the URL link with a friend who

may not meet the eligibility requirement initially intended by the researcher. This snow ball

effect can be detrimental to the validity of the study, and the researcher may be entirely unaware

of this issue (Rhodes, Bowie, & Hergenrather, 2003).









An additional problem is meta-tagging. Meta tagging is the practice of embedding of

certain words that can be indexed through basic internet searches. An example of this is that an

individual may 'Google' a certain word or phrase, if a survey has that meta-tag within it, it is

likely to come up within that particular search. Using this type of code embedding can increase

the number of participants by publicizing a survey; however, the downside is the resultant breach

of sampling to uncontrolled participants outside of the intended population (Rhodes, Bowie, &

Hergenrather, 2003).

Adding the URL link of the survey to a published website will also be picked up by many

search engines, thus causing publishing the location of a web based survey. This is an effective

tool if the researcher is attempting to obtain a large sample. However, in the case of attempting

to control the sampling body, a URL link to a published web site can be very detrimental.

There are a few ways that researchers may be able to protect the data pool. One way is to

minimize the publicity of the actual web survey. This can successfully be completed by using

private domains to house the web survey. Usually, private web based surveys are difficult to

search for, which reduces the risk of unintended participants.

Confidentiality

Procedures for the Protection of Human Subjects

Before beginning data collection, approval from the HBCU and the PFU Institutional

Review Boards (IRB) were obtained. This became a difficult process as the original study

protocol proposed was a mixed methodology design. The IRB at the PFU had some difficulty

with the data collection in the qualitative portion, and after some discussion, this portion of the

study was scrapped. The same study and all protocols were approved completely at the HBCU.

This study was an anonymous study. Data collected had no identifiers that could

distinguish participants individually. The only demographics obtained in this study were gender,









race, age range, and school. The school value was embedded in the design of the web survey.

This survey tool did not store or retain the user (student) source internet protocol (IP) address as

an added protection method for participant anonymity.

Data Protection

As stated in the original protocol submitted, any data that will be presented or published

would be presented as aggregate data and no identifiers to the participant universities would be

included. All survey data that was collected was in comma delimited format. Survey results were

immediately saved into a database hosted on the secure web server. The raw data was stored as

index values (i.e. numbers 0, 1, 2, 3), in the database. A schema map for the web survey was

developed from the original survey design of Goodson, et al (2000) and was required in order to

decipher the data. All string, nominal and ordinal data variables were given index values. These

index values could only be interpreted as meaningful information with the corresponding unique

schema map.

Survey Tool

Goodson and colleagues (2000), developed a paper and pencil survey tool to document

college students use of the internet. This survey tool entitled 'Survey Instrument to Assess

College Students' Behavior and Attitudes' documented demographic information as well as

college student's perceptions and behaviors while using the internet (specifically for sexually

related information). Goodson and colleagues (2000) goal was to validate the actual tool versus

data collection. Using the construct of Social Cognitive Theory, this tool was developed to

document students' use of the internet to acquire information regarding sexuality, establishing

and maintaining relationships, and/or sexual gratification. This tool was validated through

reliability of internal consistencies, temporal stability and factor analysis by the authors. The









average Cronbach-Alpha coefficient for questions ranges from .78 to .95. Any question that

yielded a result of less than .50 in their testing criteria was eliminated.

In the 'paper survey', there were areas that respondents could fill in their area of study

and the school that they attended as well as any comments or suggestions. The paper survey

consisted of 134 separate questions where responses were documented by ascending or

descending Likert type scales as well as Boolean answers consisting of yes or no responses.

Web Based Surveys

Creating a web based survey using the recommended SNAP software program became

problematic given the size and length of Goodson's (2000) paper survey. Initial work with the

SNAP program revealed that it required the data to be individually entered into the statistical

software that was to be used (SPSS-15). As there were 134 separate questions with at least five

responses, it made the task of reentering data into SPSS quite formidable. Given the error rate in

coding and reentering data, an alternative method was suggested.

Rather than attempt to 'fit the survey' into SNAP, a custom software package was

designed to mimic the original design of the paper survey. In addition, the custom software

package could download the survey data in a comma delimited file format to import directly into

SPSS-15.

DCova Technologies (2007), a software development company out of Orlando, Florida

was commissioned to develop the program. The software programmer had intensive knowledge

in Java, Hypertext Preprocessor (PHP), and Microsoft .Net platforms. The web server in which

the survey application was hosted did not support Microsoft .Net so it was removed as a

candidate. PHP and Java platforms were both supported by the web server and either could be

used. However, the skill set of the programmers was much greater in Java versus PHP, and









therefore it was determined that the Java platform was best suited for the survey. DCova

Technologies (2007), also registered the domain name where the survey was hosted.

Online Survey Design

After review of different online survey designs, a modified shopping cart design was

developed around the requirements document (paper survey). A modified shopping cart design is

used to collect user data choices throughout the web session. The results persist throughout the

session of the user's survey activity. This means that as long as the user's web browser is open

during a single session, the user has the ability to go back to previous pages, change and over

write answers without creating double entries. This minimized the risk of superfluous data being

collected.

In order to improve and accommodate ease of use within the design, both radio style push

button and checkbox style buttons were implemented based upon usability engineering

principles. Radio style buttons differ greatly from checkbox style buttons. With radio style

buttons, the user can only choose one item on a specific menu. In contrast, a checkbox style

button offers the user one or more choices on a specific menu. As the requirements document

had both styles of questions and responses, it was necessary to use both within the design model.

As the survey was to be used at two universities, and the target audience was college age

students, to define the separate student bodies, logos of differing universities were superimposed

on the survey design. However, the actual survey was otherwise unchanged. Students accessing

the web based survey would be able to identify with their corresponding universities, and

perhaps provide a sense of active participation in the process.

In the event that the student did not complete the entire survey, responses were collected

to the point where they completed the answers. If the answer to the responses to a specific survey

question was blank, it was identified as such in Excel as well as SPSS.









Survey Information

Using the web based survey program previously described, this survey document and

approved consent would be available and accessible to currently enrolled college age students

via a hyperlink sent by mass email with an invitation to participate in the survey.

Population

Sample Participants

Undergraduate students who attended a specific HBCU in Florida as well as those

students who attended a large public university in Florida (PFU) were the targeted population.

As previously stated, traditional age college students by far have had more technology

experience, and by this experience are best suited to participate in this study.

The rationale for using the HBCU and PFU student populations has to do with specific

demographics. PFU has a predominantly white population (66%). It also has the designated title

as being one of the largest universities in the United States. PFU has approximately 30,000

students registered as undergraduates enrolled.

The HBCU selected is a private university and the student population is predominantly

black (91%). This particular HBCU is also a Christian/Methodist University. In contrast to PFU,

the HBCU is a small university with an approximate undergraduate population of 3000 students.

According to Fall 2007 enrollment data for both schools, the approximate number of

undergraduate students attending both of these universities is 33100. Using a confidence level of

.95, a confidence interval of 3.1, the total number of students needed for the sample would be

approximately 1000.

Eligibility

In order to be eligible for this study, students must be enrolled at either university.

Undergraduate Students were the target population, and therefore, age ranges were identified as









17 or less, between 18 and 19, between 20 and 22, and 23 or older. There were also

specifications for class level (i.e. freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate, and other).

Students also needed to be able to read and comprehend English, as well as have access to a

computer with internet capabilities. The survey asked where the participant was most likely to

access the internet, however, did not specify from where the survey was accessed for

participation.

Survey Procedures

A mass mailing was sent to students attending both universities (Appendix C). This

email explained the study and invited the student to participate. In the email, students were

informed of the study, including the title of the study with a statement of the type of information

being solicited (i.e. demographic information, frequency and duration of internet use, using if the

internet to surf for sexually related content, establish personal relationships, sexual

entertainment, arousal, perceptions, and public access to sexually explicit material). A URL link

specific to each university was embedded into the mass email. Students who wished to

voluntarily participate would click on the URL link embedded into the mass email and were sent

to the approved informed consent page.

Upon reading and agreeing to consent and acceptance (by clicking on agree)

Students were hyperlinked to start page of the actual survey site hosted by the PI. If the student

clicked on the disagree button, they were hyperlinked to a page that stated 'thank you for your

time'.

The first page of the study provided demographic data. As the survey was designed for

consenting adults, any student who identified themselves as 17 or under would be hyperlinked

from the study to a page stating ineligibility. As this study is anonymous, and did not collect IP

addresses, there were no safeguards in place to prevent an under aged individual from accessing









the survey again and identifying themselves as older in order to participate. This is an inherent

problem in all surveys (whether online, telephonic or in paper format), and this factor is

dependent on the honesty and/or morality of the individual respondent.

Sampling Techniques and Difficulties

After approval from the various IRB were obtained, it was necessary to send out the mass

emails. At the HBCU, a copy of the mass email was forwarded to the Chief Information Officer

(CIO) as well as the Information Technology (IT) department. This was provided so an email

could be sent to each and every student in attendance at the HBCU. The current enrollment of the

HBCU is 3093 undergraduate students as well as 47 graduate students.

At PFU, the same principles were followed. However, at PFU, the IT department stated

that they did not have a complete email list for undergraduate or graduate students in attendance.

As this presented a significant problem to this survey, alternative methods were employed to

capture the population in order to successfully meet the sample size required.

Alternative Methods

Personal Contacts

One of the alternate avenues to accessing the student body was by directly contacting

departments through known faculty. A database of approximately 450 students from the

Psychology department was solicited through faculty emails. Approximately 600 students from

the Nursing department were solicited through faculty emails. Faculty from both the

Anthropology and Communications departments were also contacted, but they were unavailable

to assist in this process.

A separate contact was made through the housing department, and a list of 2500 emails

was sent to the PI. In order to send out the emails efficiently and attempt not to be perceived as









spam by the simple mail transfer protocol (SMTP) email server through PFU, another program

had to be developed.

Project Spam

This program designed and developed by DCova technology was named the SPAM

project. This program used Java platform and made a list of the 2500 email recipients and

automatically sent out the intended email to each individual email. This significantly decreased

the required time completing this arduous process from days and weeks to hours using this

program. The program sent out an email every 5 seconds for the duration of the initial list

received. Subsequent emails were sent out every two seconds without any difficulty experienced

by either PFU web server, or the residential server used to send out the large number of emails.

Project Get-email

Another avenue used to improve and increase the sample number and response from PFU

was to harvest emails using the published directory on the main website. As there are no

software programs readily available that harvest emails directly, again, another program had to

be developed. This program was developed with Java platforms and named 'GETEMAIL'

harvested email addresses by directly connecting to the server site pages using alphabet

components.

Approximately 20,919 emails and six harvesting later, emails were sent out to PFU

students. The program could identify students (from employees and faculty through the

published listings); however there was no specification whether the student was classified as

undergraduate or graduate. Therefore mailings were not specifically sent out to undergraduates.

Of the 20,919 emails sent out approximately 300 were returned as either mailer-daemon failure

related to mailboxes over quota, no longer valid email, or no such individual.









Through these unique and creative attempts to solicit a reasonable sample size over 1500

participants responded. This sample size provided more than an adequate number of responses to

validate the findings of the study. Email correspondence with the PI from participants regarding

questions and comments were extremely valuable and will be included in the discussion section

of this dissertation.









CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

Chapter Overview

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the results of the analysis of specific questions as

they relate to the overarching research question. The primary purpose of this study is to better

understand how technology and culture affect sexual decision making influence sexual behaviors

in traditional college age students.

In order to determine this, the variables of gender, race, age, and school are analyzed

using the amount of internet use and how sexual activity, sexual behaviors, and relationships,

both online and offline.

Survey Aims

In Goodson and colleagues (2000) modified survey used in this research project there

were approximately 134 variables/questions and as such provided a plethora of data. However,

this particular study was only attempting to address specific issues based upon the results of the

literature review. The aims of the study addressed the following research questions:

* Is age a factor in Internet Use and Sexual Behaviors?

* Is gender a factor in Internet Use and Sexual Behaviors

* Does internet use have an effect on established relationships?

* Is ethnicity a factor in Internet Use and Sexual Behaviors?

* Is the location (university of record a factor in Internet Use?

Some of the data variables analyzed to attempt to answer these questions included:

* I have made new friends over the internet.

* How long have you been using the internet

* How often do you use the internet?









* How long have you been using email?

* How often do you use email?

* I have posted online messages to meet a potential partner.

* Met anyone in person that you met online

* Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online?

* Does your partner know about the friends/relationships that you have online?

* Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you have developed online?

* How important is it to you that an alternate way/place for meeting new people?

* How important is it to you that an alternative way/place for meeting potential on-line sexual
partners is available?

* I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet

* I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet to become sexually
aroused/excited?

* While viewing sexually explicit web sites, I have masturbated.

* I have had cybersex with an online partner.

* I like to drink alcohol while having cybersex with an online partner.

* I like to use stimulants (drugs) while having cybersex with an online partner

Exclusion Criteria for Surveys

As the survey had 134 separate questions, criteria had to be set to determine what

constituted a complete survey. Many participants would get through at least four or five of the

eight page survey and then would abandon the process. Based upon this information a precedent

needed to be set. Some of the question information was set within the design and unless

answered the individual would not be able to progress through the survey. The two information

items were school and age. In one section of the survey (section C-4) there were seventeen









checkboxes that could be left blank as a response to the question being asked, and also were

excluded from the number of questions that could be counted in determining percentage of

survey completion. It was determined that students completing at least 50 % of the survey

(excluding section C-4, school and age), would have to answer at least 58 questions on the

survey in order to be included in the final sample.

Approximately 1512 surveys were submitted by participants via email. Of those 1512

surveys, 1212 were completed with over 50 % of all questions answered, and were kept in the

data sample. The response rate of completed surveys was 78 %. Of all surveys collected 87 % of

surveys collected were from PFU students (n=1056). At the HBCU, students submitted 13 % of

surveys (n=156).

Demographics

The tables that are presented in 4-1 through 4-3 give an overall description of the

demographics of the population sampled. The information identifies gender, age, race, and

classification (school year). In tables 4-4 through 4-6, specific grouped data are displayed that

includes differences in the specific university population that was sampled. Of the 1064 surveys

accepted, 69.9 % were female (n= 839), and 29.9 % were males (n= 371). Of the 1212

respondents, 60.6 % of the survey participants were Non-Hispanic White (NHW) (n=733), 17.5

% were African American Black (AAB) (n=211), 11 % were Mexican American Latino (MAL)

(n=133), 5.9 % were Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) (n=72), 4.5 % identified

themselves as Other (0) (n=55) and Native Americans (NA) were 5 in number and as such will

be excluded from the data to avoid confounders.

Multivariate Analysis of Variance

Using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), overall analysis was completed on

the independent variables. The independent variables included in this study were age, race,









gender, and university of record. The results included in table 4-7 are the main effects and

interaction effects of those variables. The Wilks Lambda statistics were chosen because they are

the most widely used test that will measure the proportion of the variance in the dependent

variable that is unaccounted for in the independent variable (Polit, 1996). The results identify

significant main effects for school (p=.031), gender (p=.000), age (p=000), and race (p=.041).

Interaction effects include gender and age (p=.000), school, gender and age (p=.014), school,

gender, and race (p=.007), and school, age, gender and race (p=.000).

Tables Within the Study

All questions within the study will have a correlation table with Pearson R scores and

levels of significance. ANOVA analysis tables will follow. After the ANOVA table, means

tables will be provided with standard deviations and number of participants.

In the event that the interaction of the ANOVA is significant as well as the MANOVA,

means tables will be present to determine the different means and confidence intervals of those

specific means. In the event that there at least three variables, TUKEY Honestly Significantly

different (HSD) tables will also be displayed. An overall description of the interactions will

follow these groupings of tables.

In the event that the ANOVA is significant and the MANOVA proved not to be in the

initial analysis, it will be treated as an insignificant interaction. This is an effort to create clarity

within all of the significant interactions that will be discussed.

How Long Have You Been Using Email?

Email is considered an important part of communication and has become a seemingly

necessary part of life. Email usage was measured specifically as it may provide data on the

number of students using email and the length of time it has actually been used. The survey

asked participants the specific question "How long have you been using email?" The participant









responded using specific phrases. The responses included 'less than six months' (1), six to

twelve months' (2), 'two to three years' (3), 'greater than three years' (4) and 'I don't use email'

(5).

Univariate ANOVA analysis on the question 'How long have you been using email?' as

the dependent variable was compared with gender, race, university of record, and age as the

independent variables. All tests of between subjects proved to be non significant. Tables 4-11

through 4-14 demonstrate the analysis and means. .

How Often Do You Use Email?

The next dependent variable to be tested was the question "How often do you use email?

The responses that the sample participants could chose from were: daily (1), 2 to 3 times per

week (2), and less than once a week (3). Using ANOVA, the dependent variables described were

compared to the four independent variables: age, race, gender and university of record (school).

There was a significant main interaction for school as the independent variable compared

with frequency of email use as a main effect (p=.001) in both ANOVA (table 4-19) and

MANOVA (table 4-7). The mean demonstrated in table 4-15 that students from HBCU use their

emails less frequently than those from PFU. There was also a significant interaction effect for

gender, race and school (table 4-20) as compared with frequency of internet use (p=.003) in both

the ANOVA (table 4-19) and MANOVA (table 4-7).

Overall, students who attend HBCU use their emails less frequently than their racial

counterparts at PFU (table 4-20). There is also both gender and racial differences as well. In

comparison to all other students, Black males and females attending HBCU use email less

frequently than their racially like counterparts at PFU. AA/PI females (overall) use email more

than their female counterparts. In contrast to AAB male students attending HBCU, AAB

students attending PFU are the most frequent of all male email users, and AAB males attending









HBCU are the least frequent of all email users. When comparing MAL attending both

universities, there was no MAL representation from HBCU. School interactions could not be

determined by the study within this group. However, MAL females used email more frequently

than their male counterparts (table 4-20).

The mean for gender is very small and in this interaction is not the driving force. School

and race prove to be the most significant in determining this interaction. In table 4-21, the Tukey

HSD demonstrated that AAB use email less frequently than all of their racial counterparts, with

levels of significance (p=.001) or less among all races represented. Overall, this particular

analysis demonstrates that the interaction of school, as well as gender and race proved to make a

difference in how often email is used within this sample.

How Long Have You Been Using The Internet?

Internet use is differentiated from email use as there are different qualities for its use. Internet

use has other applications for use versus just communication. The internet can be used for

education, recreation, as well as numerous other reasons. Therefore, it is important to determine

whether length of internet use demonstrates differences among the variables. ANOVA statistics

were used to analyze this data. Participants who answered the question 'How long have you been

using the internet had response choices of 'less than six months' (1), 'six to twelve months' (2),

'two to three years'(3), and 'greater than three years' (4) and 'I don't use the internet (5).

The ANOVA (table 4-27) demonstrated that all tests of between subjects proved to be non

significant. The means in tables 4-23 through 4-27 suggest that all of the participants in the study

have been using the internet for at least 3 to 4 years, and the mean differences within the

different groups are very small. These results identify and acknowledge that students

participating in the study have at least the same or similar skill levels.









How Often Do You Use The Internet?

One of the variables that may influence behavior is the frequency with which an

individual participates in that particular behavior. Therefore it was important to determine if age,

race, gender, university of record had an effect on the frequency that an individual spends online.

This variable was stated in a question format "How often do you use the internet?" There were

three choices for a response with values from one to three. Participants who chose daily use were

given the value of one. Those who chose two to three times per week were given a value of two

and those who described the frequency of internet use as less than once per week were given a

numeric value of three. The variables analyzed were the universities of record. Using ANOVA,

the dependent variable described in table 4-33 was compared to the four independent variables:

age, race, gender and university of record (school).

The main effect variable age demonstrated significance (p=.029) when compared to the

variable of frequency of internet use. Individuals who identified themselves as older did not use

the internet as frequently as those who identified themselves as younger. Race demonstrated a

significant main effect (p=.006). Overall, AAB use the internet less frequently than their racial

counterparts. Interestingly, with this variable, gender proved to be insignificant in this interaction

as a main effect variable.

In comparing the independent variables as interaction variables, gender age and school

proved significant (p=.000) on both ANOVA (table 4-33) and MANOVA (table 4-7). The four

way interaction between gender, age, race and school (p=.003) also proved significant on

ANOVA (table 4-33) and MANOVA (table4-7).

The interaction of gender and age proved to be significant as the findings demonstrated

that in this sample, females use the internet less frequently as they age, and in comparison, males









use the internet more frequently. It appears in this interaction there is an inverse relationship in

relation to gender and aging. This relationship is demonstrated in table 4-35.

The interaction of age gender and school also demonstrated a significant difference.

Students regardless of gender or age (overall) who attended PFU had higher rates of internet use

than their HBCU counterparts (tables 4-29 through 4-31). Females at both PFU and HBCU

demonstrated the same tendencies as they did as a whole. Regardless of school, their overall

means decreased as they aged. Males who attended these universities did not demonstrate a

similar pattern. HBCU male students who were age 18-19 or 23 and older used the internet less

frequently than their PFU counterparts. Interestingly as demonstrated in table 4-36, both

populations of male students demonstrated an increase in internet use during the ages of 20-22.

The significant difference in internet use in males occurred in the HBCU population. Males

demonstrated more frequent use as they aged (as previously stated), however the use of the

internet in HBCU males who were age 18-19 had a much lower mean than those male students

age 18-19 at PFU. The difference may be accounted for in the racial differences in the sample.

In the four way interaction effect of gender, race, school and age, females overall used

the internet less frequently than their male counterparts (table 4-37). AAB females from HBCU

age 18 and older who participated in the sample demonstrated less frequent internet use than

their age and race similar counterparts from PFU. All AAB from HBCU who were age 18-20

and 23 and older demonstrated the least frequent use of their entire male and racially different

counterparts (table 4-38).

This interaction demonstrates that there is a difference in frequency of internet use

between school, age, gender and race. When comparing race, age, gender, and school as factors

in a four way interaction in this sample, many of the races do not have a single individual in the









sample in certain age groups when separated for age and gender. Therefore, it would be difficult

to attempt to describe, define, or interpret the interaction in between and as a result of these very

specific areas. These four way interactions must be viewed with some skepticism based upon the

very specific population representation.

I Have Made New Friends Over The Internet

The next variable to be analyzed was question: 'I have made new friends over the

internet'. Sample participants were able to choose from four response categories. The responses

ranged from a numeric value of one for never, two for rarely, three for sometimes and four for

frequently. Univariate ANOVA statistics were used to analyze this data. The question 'I have

made new friends over the internet' was the dependent variable, and age, race, gender and school

were used as the independent variables.

The ANOVA in table 4-46 demonstrated significance between the independent variables

when compared to making new friends over the internet. The only main effect that was

demonstrated proved to be gender. The level of significance was measured at p=.013.

There was also a four way interaction between gender, race, age and school (p=.016). The

Tukey HSD in table 4-49 did not identify any significance within the groups for age. Race

proved to be significant in the groups. This interaction demonstrated that there is a difference in

the way that AAB, MAL, and NHW make friends over the internet.

According to the means represented in table 4-43, based upon those means, males who

participated in the survey were more likely to make new friends over the internet. In comparison

to university of record (school), students attending HBCU versus PFU (table 4-42) were more

likely to make friends over the internet. In race, both AAB males and females attending HBCU

were more likely to make friends over the internet. When comparing races; AAB were more

likely to make friends over the internet in comparison to both MAL and NHW. The Tukey HSD









in table 4-50 demonstrated a level of significance for the interaction between AAB and MAL and

NHW both (p=.000). Age was not significant in the Tukey HSD (table 49), so the interaction

effects of groups within the groups (multiple comparison) was not significant. It is interesting to

note that the means of all groups who identified themselves as 23 or older were significantly

higher (more likely to make friends over the internet) when compared to other age groups.

This analysis identified that race, gender, and university of record (school) are factors in

making new friends on the internet. There was a significant interaction between gender, race and

school, demonstrating that AAB, MAL, and NHW (male or female) who attend HBCU are more

likely to make friends over the internet. However, as previously stated, the representation of

these groups within the sample does not demonstrate representation in all groups, and should be

viewed with cautious suspicion.

Have You Met Anyone In Person That You Met Online?

The online survey asked specific questions regarding relationships. Two of the questions

were used in this analysis. These questions were Boolean Style (yes-no) responses. The

questions were posed in this fashion: "Have you ever met in person anyone you first met online".

These questions were again analyzed using the variables of gender, race, university of record,

and age. Univariate ANOVA tests were performed and there was no significant interaction

among any of the variables as represented in table 4-56. The results demonstrate that in this

particular sample, meeting a person online may not equate into meeting them in person in an

offline situation. Tables 4-51 through 4-56 illustrate the results.

I Have Posted Online Messages To Meet A Potential Partner

One of the questions asked in the survey was phrased "I have posted online personal

messages in attempts to meet a potential partner (for example, in web sites for singles)". The

answers were given numeric values that ranged from the number four for frequently, three for









sometimes, two for rarely, and one for never. Using ANOVA, the question was compared with

gender, age, race, and university of record (school). Tables 4-57 through 4-68 demonstrate the

findings.

The ANOVA proved to be significant (table 4-62). There were significant main effect

interactions between gender and age with the dependent variable (separately). Gender and age

also proved significant as an interaction effect of both independent variables when compared

with the dependent variable (p=.000). In table 4-64, gender, age and school also proved to have a

significant interaction as independent variables when combined and then compared with the

dependent variable (p=.026). Finally there were four way interactions between gender, age, race,

and school as four independent variables combined and compared with the dependent variable

proved significant as well (p=.001). All of the independent variables also proved significant in

the initial MANOVA (table 4-7).

The result for the means for gender in table 4-59 identify that males (mean=1.690) are

more likely than their female (mean=1.228) counterparts to post a message in order to meet a

potential partner. Age also proved significant (table 4-60). Males who participated in the study

more frequently posted messages as they aged. The means between the ages of males increased

in each of the groups. Females, on the other hand, did the exact opposite. Their average means

decreased as they got older (table 4-63). Table 4-58 demonstrated that the overall mean PFU

(mean=1.445) was higher than that of HBCU (mean=1.398). Non Hispanic Whites had higher

overall means than their racial counterparts. However, African American Black's means were

second highest among the groups (table 4-61).

Table 4-64 demonstrates that males attending HBCU who identified themselves as 23 or

older had the highest means of all groups, Females attending PFU had a higher average mean









than that of their HBCU counterparts, and there also was a trend in the means that suggested that

as they age they more frequently post messages in order to meet a potential partner. However,

those females attending HBCU had a lower overall mean, and as they aged, they were less likely

to post messages. Males attending HBCU had a higher overall average mean than their PFU

counterparts. The same phenomena occurred in males attending PFU, as the means increased

with age. Males attending HBCU had an increase in age and use among those students 18-19,

and decreased use from 20-22. Then the age group of 23 and older students jumped almost

disproportionately with an average mean of 2.750.

When comparing race, age, gender, and school as factors in a four way interaction in this

sample, many of the races do not have a single individual in the sample in certain age groups

when separated for age and gender (see tables 4-65 and 4-66). Therefore, it would be difficult to

attempt to describe the interaction in between and as a result of these very specific areas.

Does Your Partner Object To The Amount Of Time You Spend Online

One of the key factors in internet use may be its effect on personal relationships. A few of

the questions in the survey alluded to these types of relationship questions. The questions were

Boolean style with yes (1) or no responses (2). The first question to be analyzed is Does your

partners) object to the amount of time you spend online? Using ANOVA statistics, the question

'Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line' (as the dependent variable)

was compared to gender, race, age, and university of record (school). The results in table 4-74

demonstrated a tremendous amount of significant interactions. Gender (p=.002) and age (p=.041)

were both significant as main effect independent variables. Gender and age proved significant as

the interaction of both variables combined with the dependent variable. Gender, age and race

also proved significant as a combined interaction effect when compared to the dependent

variable (p=.011). However this was not significant on the MANOVA (table 4-7), therefore it









will not be discussed. The interaction of gender, race and school proved significant. The

combined interaction of the variables when compared to the dependent variable produced a p

value of (.001). This comparison was also significant on the MANOVA (table 4-7). Race, age

and school as an interaction proved significant on the ANOVA (table 4-74), however the

interaction was not significant on the MANOVA (table 4-7) and as such will not be discussed.

Finally the four way interaction again proved to be significant with the combined interaction

producing a p value of (.000) when compared to the dependent variable of partner objection to

the amount of time an individual spends on line.

Gender proved to be interesting. Based upon the population represented, females are less

likely to have a partner object to the amount of time that they spend online. The average female

overall mean was higher (mean= 1.974) than the male average mean (1.881) as demonstrated in

table 4-71. The average mean for age found in table 4-72 indicated that people age 20 to 22 are

more likely to have partner objection to the amount of time they spend on line. Individuals age

23 and older were less likely to experience partner objection when compared to their younger

counterparts. When gender and age were combined in table 4-75, the results indicated that

females grouped by ages 20 and older were less likely than their same age male counterparts to

experience partner objection to online use. Males who identified themselves as 18-19 did not

experience the same level of partners objecting to their overall time spent using the internet.

Although the results demonstrate a difference, there is not an explanation that may account for

this difference.

When comparing race, gender and school, the results in table 4-76 demonstrated that

females attending HBCU were less likely than their racially similar counter parts at PFU to

experience partner objection unless they were AAB. Those students matching that demography









were more likely to experience partner objection when compared to their PFU counterparts.

When comparing males by race and school in table 4-76, MAL, O, and AAPI could not be

compared as there was no representation at HBCU among this grouping. However, when looking

specifically at AAB and NWH; AAB attending HBCU were less likely than their PFU

counterparts to experience partner objection. On the other hand, NHW attending PFU were less

likely than their male counterparts at HBCU to experience partner objection. It is important to

note that both Tukey HSD tests for age and race found in tables 4-81 and 4-82 demonstrated

insignificance among the interaction effects in multiple comparisons. Therefore, the overall

results show significance but based upon the sample there is no way to determine the relevance

of the interaction as it pertains to this grouping.

The overall interaction found in table 4-74 demonstrates that there is a difference in

partner objection between school, age, gender and race. When comparing race, age, gender, and

school as factors in a four way interaction in this sample illustrated in tables 4-79 and 4-80, many

of the races do not have a single individual in the sample in certain age groups when separated

for age and gender. As previously stated with the other significant interactions of the four

independent variables, it would be difficult to interpret the interaction in between and as a result

of these very specific groups.

Does Your Offline Partner Know About The Friends/Relationships That You Have Online

The next dependent variable analyzed was the question 'Does your offline partner know

about the friends that you have online?' There were two categories in which respondents could

answer the question. Yes had a value of one (1), and no had a value of no (2). ANOVA statistics

were used to analyze this variable with the independent variables of race, age, gender and

university of record. The data in table 4-88 demonstrated only significant result of the interaction

effect of age and school on the dependent variable.









When comparing school to partner knowledge of online relationships over the internet,

table 4-84 illustrates the findings that students attending PFU are more likely to share that

information with their offline partners than those students attending HBCU. Regarding age, and

partner knowledge, the Tukey HSD in table 4-90 demonstrated that there is an interaction

between younger participants when compared to their older counterparts. Overall, students over

the age of 23 are more likely to disclose online relationships to their partners when compared to

their younger counterparts. Students who are between the ages of 20-22 are less likely to disclose

that information when compared to their older or younger counterparts, and students are more

likely to share their information when compared to students 20-22. Interestingly, they are less

likely to share information with regarding relationships (online) with their partners than their 23

year old and older counterparts.

Partner Jealousy Over Relationships Developed Online

The next question analyzed stated: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the

relationships you have developed online? The subjects had the response choices of yes which

had a value of one (1), and no, which had a value of two (2). Using ANOVA, the results in table

4-95 demonstrated significance in the interactions between age and race as a combined

interaction, as well as school and age and race as another interaction when compared with the

dependent variable of jealousy. The overall MANOVA in table 4-7 demonstrated insignificance

in these groups. Tables 4-91 through 4-99 illustrate the data.

An Alternate Way/Place For Meeting New People

The next question to be analyzed was 'How important is it to you that an alternate

way/place for meeting new people is available?' This statement was scaled with the following

numeric responses: Extremely important was valued at five (5), Important was valued at four (4),

Uncertain was valued at three (3), Not important was valued at two (2) and Not important at all









was valued at one (1). ANOVA statistics were used to analyze this dependent variable compared

with gender, race, age, and school as the dependent variables. The initial ANOVA in table 4-105

proved significant for the main effect of age only.

The means of the three groups in table 4-103 demonstrated that as respondents increased

in age, they were more likely to value the internet is an important way to meet new people. The

Tukey HSD in table 4-106 demonstrated significance with the groups using multiple

comparisons of age. The Tukey HSD identified that significant interaction occurred between

ages 23 and older and all other age groups. In comparing ages, as students aged, they valued the

importance of the internet much more than those who identified themselves as younger,

An Alternative Way/Place For Meeting Potential Online Sexual Partners

The next variable to be tested was 'How important is it to you that an alternative

way/place for meeting potential sexual partners is available?' The responses were valued through

numerical values. 'How important is it to you that an alternate way/place for meeting new people

is available?' This statement was scaled with the following numeric responses: Extremely

important (5), Important (4), Uncertain (3), Not important (2) and Not important at all (1). This

dependent variable was again tested comparing age, gender, university of record (school), and

race as independent variables. The analysis illustrated in table 4-112 proved significant for main

effects of gender as well as age when compared to the dependent variable.

In table 4 109, the means in males were much higher than that of their female

counterparts. The overall male mean for gender was higher (2.52) as compared with the female

sample in this group (1.88). This demonstrated that gender is a factor in determining the

importance of the internet as a way to meet potential online sexual partners. Men participating in

the sample believe that the internet as more important than females as an approach to meet online

sexual partners.









Age also had a significant interaction. Table 4-113 demonstrates the significance of age

in the Tukey HSD as well. Individuals who are older (in the sample) are more likely to value the

internet as an alternate way to meet individuals when compared to those who were younger. The

interaction appears to be insignificant when comparing students 18-20 with those who are 20-22.

The significant interaction occurs at ages greater than 23. The overall results demonstrates that

gender and age have a significant effect on the difference in perceptions of the importance of the

internet as a place to meet online sex partners.

I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials On The Internet

The next variable to be tested was 'I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the

internet'. The responses were valued through numerical values. Using ANOVA statistics, the

question posed to respondents read: "I have accessed sexually explicit material on the internet'

was analyzed. The responses for this specific question included frequently which was given a

value of four, sometimes which was given a response of three, rarely, which was given a

response of two, and never, which was given a value of one.

The dependent variable was the question: 'I have accessed sexually explicit materials on

the internet? The independent variables were gender age race and university of record (school).

The only significant analyses demonstrated on table 4-120 proved to be gender and school.

Gender was also significant as a main affect on the MANOVA analysis (table 4-7). Table 4-116

and 4-117 identifies that Males and students from PFU were more likely (base upon means) to

have accessed the internet for sexually explicit material than females and students from HBCU.

I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials To Become Sexually Aroused

The next variable to be tested was 'I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet to

become sexually aroused'. The responses were valued through numerical values. Using ANOVA

statistics, the question "I have accessed sexually explicit material on the internet to become









sexually aroused was analyzed. The responses for this specific question included frequently

which was given a value of four, sometimes which was given a response of three, rarely, which

was given a response of two, and never, which was given a value of one. The dependent variable

was the question: 'I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet to become sexually

aroused.' The independent variables were gender age race and university of record (school). The

only significant analyses in the ANOVA in table 4-126 proved to be gender and university of

record (school) in these analyses (separately). Gender and school were also significant as a main

affect on the MANOVA analysis (table 4-7).

The mean in table 4-123 demonstrate the differences between males and females on

accessing sexually explicit materials on the internet. The results indicate that accessing sexually

explicit material was almost 1 12 times higher in males than in females. This finding although

significant is not a surprise. Males are very visual creatures in the nature of sex and arousal

(Canli, &Gabrieli, 2004), and it is not surprising that this would occur in this population.

According to the results in table4-122, students who attend HBCU were much less likely

to access the internet than their counterparts at PFU in the pursuit of accessing sexually explicit

materials for sexual arousal. This may directly relate to the number of males from HBCU that are

represented in this population as well as the availability of computers and internet access as well.

Therefore, although this is an interesting revelation, it should be viewed with caution.

While Viewing Sexually Explicit Web Sites, I Have Masturbated

The question "while viewing sexually explicit material I have masturbated" was analyzed

with ANOVA. The responses for this specific question included frequently (4), sometimes (3),

rarely (2), and never (1). This question was analyzed as the dependent variable with age, gender

and race as the independent variables.









Gender and School proved to be significant as a main effect interaction with gender, race

and school as a combined interaction when compared with the dependent variable in table 4-132.

All three tests were significant on the MANOVA (table 4-7). Based upon the means of these

analyses found in table 4-129, males are far more likely than their female counterparts to view

sexually explicit materials for the purpose of masturbation. Based upon these mean, males are

twice as likely to masturbate to sexually explicit web sites versus their female counterparts.

Table 4-127 identifies that students attending PFU are far more likely to view these materials for

the purpose of masturbation. Although it was not significant on the ANOVA table (4-132), with

the exception of AAPI females, females at PFU of any other race are more likely to view this

material for the purpose of self gratification than their racial counterparts at HBCU.

In table 4-133, males who are AAB attending PFU are twice as likely to view sexually

explicit material on the internet for the purpose of masturbation as that of their HBCU

counterparts. The Tukey HSD in table 4-134 demonstrated that AAB were less likely to

masturbate while viewing sexually explicit material than all other races sampled in this study.

I Have Had Cybersex With An Online Partner.

Using ANOVA statistics, the question "I have had cybersex with an online partner" was

analyzed. The responses for this specific question included frequently which was given a value

of four, sometimes which was given a response of three, rarely, which was given a response of

two, and never, which was given a value of one. This question was analyzed as the dependent

variable with age, gender, race and university of record (school). The results found in table 4-140

proved to be insignificant with all effects.

I Like To Drink Alcohol While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner

Using ANOVA statistics, the question 'I like to drink alcohol while having cybersex with an

online partner' was analyzed. The responses for this specific question included frequently which









was given a value of four, sometimes which was given a response of three, rarely, which was

given a response of two, and never, which was given a value of one. This question was analyzed

as the dependent variable with age, gender, race and university of record (school). Table 4-146

illustrates that results were insignificant with all effects.

I Like To Use Stimulants While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner

Using ANOVA statistics, the question 'I like to use stimulants (drugs) while having cybersex

with an online partner' was analyzed. The responses for this specific question included

frequently which was given a value of four, sometimes which was given a response of three,

rarely, which was given a response of two, and never, which was given a value of one. This

question was analyzed as the dependent variable with age, gender, race and university of record

(school). The results demonstrated in table 4-152 were insignificant with all effects.

Summary

These variables do not represent the entire cachet of variables within the study. However,

they were chosen from the many different variables in order to best respond to the aims of the

study. The results of chapter four demonstrate that gender, age, and race have an effect on

internet use and some behaviors. As the results of this study are quantitative, the results only

address whether or not a specific interaction exists.

This study demonstrates that overall, men are more likely to use the internet for sexual

behaviors. They are also more likely to attempt to find an online partner for sexual activity as

well as other relationships.

Age is also a large factor in internet use as it relates to importance. In the sample

population, as the respondents age increased, so did their perceptions of the value of the internet.

Interestingly, their frequency of internet use did not. This may be a result of more specific tasks

while these older individuals are engaged in internet activity.









This information concludes the summation of the results of this dissertation. Chapter five will

discuss the results in context with interpretation and implications. This examination will occur in

the same order as the results section when the questions that specifically pertained to this study

were initially analyzed

Table 4-1. Gender from both universities combined.
Cumulative
Label Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Females 839 69.2 69.3 70.1
Male 371 30.6 30.7 100.0
Missing 2 .2
Total 1212 100.0

Table 4-2. Age from both universities combined.
Cumulative
Label Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
18-19 416 34.3 34.4 34.4
20-22 523 43.2 43.2 77.5
23-up 272 22.4 22.9 100.0
Missing 1 .1 0

Table 4-3. Race from both universities combined.
Cumulative
Label Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
AAB 211 17.4 17.5 17.5
Native
American 5 0.4 0.4 17.9
Asian American
Pacific Islander 72 5.9 6.0 23.8
Mexican
American/Latino 133 11.0 11.0 34.8
Non-Hispanic
White 733 60.5 60.6 95.5
Self Designated
Other 55 4.5 4.5 100.0
Missing 3 0.2
Total 1212 100.0 100.0









Table 4-4. Gender cross tabulated with race from both universities combined.
Gender Race Race Race Race Race Other Total
Asian
African American Mexican Non
American Native Pacific American Hispanic Identified
Black American Islander Latino White Other
Female 169 1 51 93 490 34 838
Male 42 4 21 40 241 21 369
Missing 5
Total 211 5 72 133 731 55 1212

Table 4-5. Gender cross tabulated with university and age differentiated.
Gender School Age 18-19 Age 20-22 Age 23- up Total
Females HBCU 47 49 31 127
Females PFU 254 301 122 677
Total Total Females 301 350 154 744
Males HBCU 17 5 7 29
Males PFU 98 115 111 292
Total Total Males 115 120 118 353
Missing
Data 3
Totals 416 522 271 1212









Table 4-6. Race cross tabulated with university and age differentiated.
Race School Age 18-19 Age 20-22 Age 23-up Total
African American
Black HBCU 60 51 29 125
African American
Black PFU 33 34 4 65
African American
Black Total 93 85 33 190
Asian American
Pacific Islander HBCU 0 0 1 1
Asian American
Pacific Islander PFU 28 32 11 65
Asian American
Pacific Islander Total 28 32 12 66
Mexican
American
Latino HBCU 0 0 1 1
Mexican
American
Latino PFU 49 58 25 112
Mexican
American
Latino Total 49 58 26 113
Non Hispanic
White HBCU 3 1 4 7
Non Hispanic
White PFU 224 325 175 637
Non Hispanic
White Total 227 326 179 644
Other HBCU 1 2 3 4
Other PFU 15 19 15 41
Other Total 16 21 18 45
Missing Total 10
Total Population 413 522 267 1212









Table 4-7. Multivariate Test: Wilks Lambda: Independent Variables Main and Interaction
Effects.


Effect

School

Gender

Age

Race
School/
Gender

School/Age

Gender/Age
School/
Gender/ Age

School/Race
Gender
/Race
School/Race
Gender

Age/Race
School/Age/
Race
Age/Gender
/Race
School/Age/
Gender/Race


Test
Wilks
Lambda
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda
Wilks
Lambda


Value


.965

.917

.922

.896

.977

.969

.919

.936

.917

.926

.959

.869

.905

.845

.948


1.680

4.217

1.942

1.295

1.074

.750

2.005

1.563

1.029

.910

1.975

.827

1.186

.992

2.539


Degree of
Freedom

20.000

20.000

40.000

80.000

20.000

40.000

40.000

40.000

80.000

80.000

20.000

160.000

80.000

160.000

20.000


Error

933.000

933.000

1866.000

3682.99

933.000

1866.000

1866.000

1866.000

3682.990

3682.990

933.000

6981.594

3682.990

9681.594

933.000


Level of
Significance

.031

.000

.000

.041

.371

.873

.000

.014

.410

.702

.007

.945

.126

.513

.000









Table 4-8. Correlations: How long have you been using email?
How long
have you
been using
School Gender Age Race email


Pearson
School Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Age Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Race Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


1 -.101(**)


1212


-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


.000
1210


-.025 -.662(**) -.167(**)


.391
1211


1 .114(**)


1210

.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


How long
have you
been using Pearson
email Correlation -.167(**) -.014
Sig. (2-
tailed) .000 .639
N 1205 1203
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)


.000
1209


.000
1209


.103(**)

.000
1207


1 .118(**)


1211

.118(**)

.000
1208



.123(**)

.000
1204


-.014

.639
1203

.123(**)


.000
1208


1 .121(**)


1209


.121(**)


.000
1202


Table 4-9. Mean: How long have you been using email: School
School Mean Std. Deviation N
PFU 3.94 .319 1042
HBCU 3.75 .651 155
Total 3.91 .384 1197

Table 4-10. Mean: How long have you been using email: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
females 3.92 .380 834
Males 3.90 .393 361
Total 3.91 .384 1195


.000
1205


.000
1204


.000
1202


1205









Table 4-11. Mean: How long have you been using email: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 3.84 .509 413
20-22 3.95 .283 520
23-and above 3.96 .306 263
Total 3.91 .384 1196

Table 4-12. Mean: How long have you been using email: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 3.80 .588 210
AAPI 3.99 .119 71
MAL 3.92 .411 132
NHW 3.94 .304 730
O 3.93 .428 54
Total 3.91 .384 1197


Table 4-13. Univariate ANOVA. How long have you been using email:
School Year


Independent
Variable
Gender
Age
Race
School
Gender/Age
Gender/Race
Age/Race
Gender Age
Race
Gender/School
Age/School
Gender/Age/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race/School
Gender/Age/Race
School
Error
Total
Corrected Total


Type III
Sum of
Squares
.014
.691
.554
.004
.530
.368
1.054

1.084
.000
.070
.192
.764

.029
.211

.131
159.157
18465.000
176.15


Degrees
of
Freedom
1
2
4
1
2
4
8

8
1
2
2
4

1
4

1
1148
1194
1193


Mean
Square
.014
.346
.138
.004
.265
.092
.132

.136
.000
.035
.096
.191

.029
.053

.131
.139


F value
.099
2.493
.999
.026
1.913
.664
.950


.978
.003
.251
.691
1.378

.206
.381

.948


Age, Gender, Race,


Level of
Significance
.753
.083
.407
.871
.148
.617
.474


.451
.956
.778
.501
.239

.650
.822

.330


Partial
Eta
Squared
.000
.004
.003
.000
.003
.002
.007

.007
.000
.000
.001
.005

.000
.001

.001









Table 4-14. Correlations: How often have you been using email?


School


Pearson
School Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Age Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Race Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


Gender


Age


1 -.101(**)

.000
1212 1210


-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


How often
do you use Pearson
email Correlation .306(**)
Sig. (2-
tailed) .000
N 1201
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level


Race


-.025 -.662(**)


.391
1211


1 .114(**)


1210

.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


-.015

.608
1199
(2-tailed).


.000
1209


How often
do you use
email

.306(**)


.000
1209


.103(**)

.000
1207


.000
1201

-.015

.608
1199

-.040

.171
1200


1 .118(**)


1211

.118(**)

.000
1208


.000
1208


1 -.194(**)


.000
1199


1209


-.040 -.194(**)


.171
1200


.000
1199


1201


Table 4-15. Mean: How often do you use email: School
School Mean Std. Deviation N
PFU 1.05 .232 1046
HBCU 1.34 .597 155
Total 1.09 .320 1201

Table 4-16. Mean: How often do you use email: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
females 1.09 .320 830
Males 1.08 .319 369
Total 1.09 .320 1199










Table 4-17. Mean: How often do you use email: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 1.11 .354 412
20-22 1.07 .283 520
23-and above 1.09 .330 268
Total 1.09 .320 1200

Table 4-18. Mean: How often do you use email: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.24 .530 210
AAPI 1.01 .119 71
MAL 1.06 .240 131
NHW 1.06 .253 728
O 1.06 .231 54
Total 1.09 .320 1199


Table 4-19. Tests of between subjects. How often do you use email: Age, Gender,
Year


Type III


D


Independent Sum of ol
Variable Squares Fi
Gender .266
Age .386
Race .867
School 1.081
Gender/Age .058
Gender/Race .744
Age/Race .846
Gender Age
Race .326
Gender/School .288
Age/School .220
Gender/Age/School .052
Race/School .818
Gender
Race/School .844
Age/Race/School .914
Gender/Age/Race
School .063
Error 106.102
Total 1535.000
Corrected Total 122.566
R squared= .134 (adjusted R squared


degrees
f
freedom
1
2
4
1
2
4
8

8
1
2
2
4

1
4

1
1145
1191
1190
.100)


Mean
Square
.266
.193
.217
1.081
.029
.186
.106

.041
.288
.110
.026
.204

.844
.229

.063
.093


F value
2.872
2.084
2.338
11.664
.313
2.006
1.141


.440
3.106
1.190
.280
2.207

9.105
2.467

.675


Level of
Significan
.0
.1
.0
.0
.7
.0
.3


.8
.0
.3
.7
.0

.0
.0

.4


Race, School

Partial
Eta
ce Squared
90 ..003
25 ..004
154 .008
101 .010
'31 .001
191 .007
33 .008

,97 .003
78 .003
05 .002
'56 .000
66 .008

03 .008
143 .009

11 .001









Table 4-20. How often do you use email: Mean, Standard Error and Confidence Interval
95% Confidence Interval
Standard Lower Upper
Gender Race University Mean Error Bound Bound
Females AAB PFU 1.065 .077 .914 1.216
AAB HBCU 1.318 .030 1.259 1.378
AA/PI PFU 1.000 .059 .884 1.116
AA/PI HBCU 1.000 .304 .403 1.597
MAL PFU 1.052 .036 .981 1.124
MAL HBCU 2.000 .304 1.403 2.597
NHW PFU 1.044 .015 1.015 1.073
NHW HBCU 1.667 .155 1.363 1.971
O PFU 1.033 .072 .893 1.174
O HBCU 1.111 .137 .842 1.381
Males AAB PFU 1.000 .090 .823 1.177
AAB HBCU 1.465 .067 1.324 1.587
AA/PI PFU 1.056 .068 .923 1.188
AA/PI HBCU
MAL PFU 1.037 .050 .938 1.136
MAL HBCU
NHW PFU 1.072 .020 1.003 1.111
NHW HBCU 1.250 .186 .884 1.616
O PFU 1.067 .075 .920 1.213
O HBCU
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

Table 4-21. Tukey HSD. How often do you use email: Race.
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Standard Level of Lower Upper
Race Race Difference Error Significance Bound Bound
AAB AAPI .23 .042 .000 .11 .34
AAB MAL .18 .034 .000 .09 .27
AAB NHW .18 .024 .000 .12 .25
AAB O .19 .046 001 .06 .31
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.









Table 4-22. Correlations: How long have you been using the internet?
How long
have you
been using
School Gender Age Race the internet


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)


121


Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N


Age


Race


How long
have you
been using
the


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)


-.101(**)
.000
1210


-.025
.391
1211


-.662(**)
.000
1209


1 -.101(**)
.000
2 1210


-.025
.391
1211


1 .114(**)
.000
1210 1209


.114(**)
.000
1209

.103(**)
.000
1207


Pearson


internet Correlation -.078(**) -.009
Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .762
N 1207 1205
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


.662(**)
.000
1209

.103(**)
.000
1207


-.078(**)
.007
1207

-.009
.762
1205


1 .118(**)
.000
1211 1208


.118(**)
.000
1208





.022
.450
1206


1 .095(**)
.001
1209 1204


.095(**)
.001
1204


Table 4-23. Mean: How long have you been using the internet: School
School Mean Std. Deviation N
PFU 3.98 .205 1044
HBCU 3.93 .362 155
Total 3.98 .232 1199

Table 4-24. Mean: How long have you been using the internet: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
females 3.98 .231 834
Males 3.97 .233 363
Total 3.98 .232 1197


School


.022
.450
1206


1

1207









Table 4-25. Mean: How long have you been using the internet: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 3.97 .259 412
20-22 3.98 .210 520
23-and above 3.98 .229 266
Total 3.98 .232 1198

Table 4-26. Mean: How long have you been using the internet: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 3.92 .396 210
AAPI 4.00 .000 71
MAL 3.98 .261 132
NHW 3.99 .173 731
0 4.00 .000 55
Total 3.98 .232 1199

Table 4-27. Test of between subjects: How long have you been using the internet?
Type III Degrees Partial
Independent Sum of of Mean Level of Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared


Gender .054
Age .057
Race .093
School .015
Gender/Age .127
Gender/Race .304
Age/Race .456
Gender Age
Race .543
Gender/
School .063
Age/School .006
Gender/Age/School .094
Race/School .030
Gender
Race/School .009
Age/Race/School .041
Gender/Age/
Race School .079
Error 60.744
Total 18969.000
R squared=.997 (adjusted R Squared


1.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
8.0

8.0

1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0

1.0
4.0

1.0
1150.00
1196
=.997)


.054
.029
.023
.015
.063
.076
.057

.068

.063
.003
.047
.008

.009
.010

.079
.053


1.023
.543
.442
.288
1.198
1.439
1.079


1.284

1.186
.056
.890
.143

.172
.196

1.503


.312
.581
.778
.592
.302
.219
.375


.248

.276
.945
.411
.966

.678
.940

.221


.001
.001
.002
.000
.002
.005
.007


.009

.001
.000
.002
.000

.000
.001

.001









Table 4-28. Correlations: How often do you use the internet?


Race


How often
do you use
the internet


Pearson
School Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Age Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Race Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


1 -.101(**)

.000
1212 1210


-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


-.025 -.662(**) -.078(**)


.391
1211


1 .114(**)


1210

.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


How often
do you use
the Pearson
internet Correlation -.078(**) -.009
Sig. (2-
tailed) .007 .762
N 1207 1205
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


.000
1209


.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


1 .118(**)


1211

.118(**)

.000
1208



.022

.450
1206


.000
1208

1


1209



.095(**)

.001
1204


Table 4-29. Mean: How often do you use the internet: School
School Mean Std. Deviation
PFU 1.00
HBCU 1.11
Total 1.02


.070
.348
.145


1022
152
1174


Table 4-30. Mean: How often do you use internet: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Females 1.02 .139 813
Males 1.02 .157 359
Total 1.02 .145 1172


School


Gender


Age


.007
1207

-.009

.762
1205

.022

.450
1206


.095(**)


.001
1204


1207









Table 4-31. Mean: How often do you use the internet; Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 1.01 .140 406
20-22 1.01 .077 509
23-and above 1.05 .229 258
Total 1.02 .145 1173

Table 4-32. Mean: How often do you use the internet: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.06 .263 206
AAPI 1.00 .000 71
MAL 1.00 .000 125
NHW 1.01 .117 719
0 1.00 .000 53
Total 1.02 .145 1174

Table 4-33. Test of between subjects: How often do you use the internet?
Type III Degrees Partial
Independent Sum of of Mean Level of Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared


Gender
Age
Race
School
Gender/Age
Gender/Race
Age/Race
Gender Age
Race
Gender/School
Age/School
Gender/Age/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race/School
Gender/Age/Race
School
Error
Total
R squared=.983


.008
.129
.266
.044
.537
.014
.186


1.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
8.0


.229
.009
.105
.545
.223

.012
.155


.165 1.0
20.501 1125
1238.000 1171
(Adjusted R squared=.983)


.509
.029
.006
.122
.000
.941
.252


.000
.006
.013
.002
.026
.001
.009


.008
.065
.066
.044
.268
.004
.023


.029
.009
.052
.273
.056

.012
.039

.165
.018


.436
3.540
3.648
2.401
14.732
.196
1.275

1.570
.470
2.878
14.965
3.066

.680
2.123

9.079


.129
.493
.057
.000
.016

.410
.076

.003


.011
.000
.005
.026
.011

.001
.007

.008









Table 4-34. How often do you use the internet: Mean: Race, School
95% Confidence Level
Lower Upper
Race School Mean Standard Error Bound Bound
AAB PFU 1.000 .026 .948
AAB HBCU 1.120 .017 1.086
AAPI PFU 1.000 .020 .961
AAPI HBCU 1.000* .135 .735
MAL PFU 1.000 .014 .972
MAL HBCU 1.000* .135 .735
NHW PFU 1.009 .006 .998
NHW HBCU 1.233* .053 1.130
O PFU 1.000 .025 .951
O HBCU 1.000 .061 .880
*Based on a modified population marginal mean
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.


1.052
1.153
1.039
1.265
1.028
1.265
1.020
1.337
1.049
1.120


Table 4-35. How often do you use the internet: Mean: Gender, Age
Standard 95 % Confidence Interval
Gender Age Mean Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Females 18-19 1.003 .025 .953 1.052
20-22 1.006 .022 .963 1.049
23-up 1.097 .027 1.044 1.151
Males 18-19 1.102 .021 1.061 1.144
20-22 1.000 .021 .959 1.041
23-up 1.026 .027 .972 1.080

Table 4-36. How often do you use the internet: Mean: Gender, Age, School
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper


Std. Error
.013
.064
.011
.056
.031
.044
.021
.051
.021
.067
.025
.073


Bound
.975
.882
.978
.906
.943
1.103
1.961
1.250
.959
.868
.954
.940


Gender
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males


Age
18-19
18-19
20-22
20-22
23-up
23-up
18-19
18-19
20-22
20-22
23-up
23-up


School
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU


Mean


1.000
1.008
1.001
1.014
1.004
1.190
1.003
1.350
1.000
1.000
1.003
1.083


Bound
1.025
1.133
1.023
1.123
1.065
1.278
1.045
1.450
1.041
1.132
1.052
1.226










Table 4-37. How often do you use the internet: Mean: Females, Age, Race, School


Gender
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females


95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound


Age
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up


Race
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0


AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.
* This level combination of factors is not observed, thus the corresponding marginal mean is not
estimable


School
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU


Mean
1.000
1.023
1.000
1.000

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

1.043

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.004
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.286

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.021
1.667
1.000
1.000


Standard
Error
.027
.020
.029
*
.021
*
.011
.135
.043
.135
.026
.020
.028
*
.023
*
.009
.135
.035
.095
.095
.029
.067
.135
.037
.135
.014
.078
.095
.078


.947
.983
.944
*
.958
*
.978
.735
.916
.735
.949
1.004
.945
*
.955
*
.987
.735
.932
.813
.813
1.228
.868
.735
.927
.735
.994
1.514
.813
.847


1.053
1.063
1.056
*
1.042
*
1.022
1.265
1.084
1.265
1.051
1.083
1.055
*
1.045
*
1.022
1.265
1.068
1.187
1.187
1.344
1.132
1.265
1.073
1.265
1.048
1.820
1.187
1.153










Table 4-38. How often do you use the internet: Mean: Males, Age, Race, School


Race School Mean


Gender
Males

Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males


Age


18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up


AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0


Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound


PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU


1.000
1.200
1.000
*
1.000
*
1.015
1.500
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

1.000
1.000

1.000




1.000
1.167
1.000
*




1.000
1.014
1.000
1.167
1.000
*
1.000
*
1.014
1.000
1.000
*


.048
.035
.055
*
.048
*
.016
.095
.060
*
.055
.067
.045
*
.033
*
.014
*
.067
*
.095
.055
.055
*
.039
*
.016
.135
.041
*


AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.
*This level combination of factors is not observed, thus the corresponding marginal mean is not
estimable


.906
1.132
.892
*
.906
*
.983
1.313
.882
*
.892
.868
.912
*
.936
*
.973
*
.868
*
.813
1.059
.892
*
.927
*
.983
.735
.920
*


1.094
1.268
1.108
*
1.094
*
1.047
1.687
1.118
*
1.108
1.132
1.088
*
1.064
*
1.027
*
1.132
*
1.187
1.275
1.108
*
1.076
*
1.044
1.265
1.080
*










Table 4-39. Tukey HSD.
Age Age
Comparison


18-19 20-22
23-up
20-22 18-19
23-up
23-up 18-19
20-22


How often do you use internet: Age
Mean Standard Level of 95% Confidence Interval
Difference Error Significance Lower Upper
Bound Bound


.01
-.04
-.01
-.05
.04
.05


.009
.011
.009
.010
.011
.010


.585
.009
.585
.000
.009
.000


-.01
-.06
-.03
-.07
.01
.02


.03
-.01
.01
-.02
.06
.07


Table 4-40. Tukey HSD. How often do you use internet: African American Blacks
Race Race Mean Standard Level of 95% Confidence
Difference Error Significance Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
AAB AAPI .06 .019 .006 .01 .11
AAB MAL .06 .015 .000 .02 .10
AAB NHW .05 .011 .000 .02 .08
AAB O .06 .021 .021 -.01 .12
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.









Table 4-41. Correlations: I have made friends over the internet.


School


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


Gender


Age


1 -.101(**)


1212


-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


.000
1210


Race


-.025 -.662(**)


.391
1211


1 .114(**)


School





Gender





Age





Race


I have
made new
friends
over the Pearson
internet Correlation .149(**) .153(**)
Sig. (2-
tailed) .000 .000
N 1208 1206
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


.000
1209

.103(**)


.000
1209


I have
made new
friends
over the
internet

.149(**)


.000
1208


.153(**)


.000
1207


1 .118(**)


1211


.000
1208


.118(**)


.000
1208


.000
1206

.005

.850
1207


1 -.144(**)


.000
1205


1209


.005 -.144(**)


.850
1207


.000
1205


1208


Table 4-42. Mean: I have made friends over the internet: School
School Mean Std. Deviation


PFU
HBCU
Total


2.15
2.60
2.21


1210

.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


.986
1.126
1.016


1045
155
1200









Table 4-43. Mean: I have made friends over the internet: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation


Females
Males
Total


2.10
2.44
2.21


.998
1.021
1.017


835
363
1198


Table 4-44. Mean: I have made friends over the internet: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 2.22 1.011 410
20-22 2.18 1.021 521
23-and above 2.25 1.020 268
Total 2.21 1.017 1199

Table 4-45. Mean: I have made friends over the internet: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 2.56 1.097 210
AAPI 2.31 1.043 72
MAL 2.03 .941 132
NHW 2.11 .979 731
0 2.42 .994 55
Total 2.21 1.016 1200










Table 4-46. Tests of between subjects. I have made new friends over the internet.


Independent
Variable
Gender
Age
Race
School
Gender/Age
Gender/Race
Age/Race
Gender Age
Race


Type III
Sum of
Squares
6.049
1.132
2.727
1.219
2.487
1.952
3.007

6.130


Der
of
Fre


Gender
/School .582
Age/School .402
Gender/Age
/School 2.559
Race/School .678
Gender
Race/School .576
Age/Race/School 3.560
Gender/Age/
Race School 5.619
Error 1117.948
Total 7060.00
R squared=.842 (adjusted R Squared


agrees

edom
1
2
4
1
2
4
8

8

1
2

2
4

1
4

1
1151
1197
=.835)


Mean
Square
6.049
.566
.682
1.219
1.244
.488
.376

.766

.582
.201

1.279
.170

.576
.890

5.619
.971


F value
6.228
.583
.702
1.255
1.280
.502
.387


Level of
Significance
.013
.559
.591
.263
.278
.734
.928


.789

.599
.207

1.317
.175

.593
.916

5.785


.612

.439
.813

.268
.951

.442
.454

.016


Partial
Eta
Squared
.842
.005
.001
.002
.001
.002
.002


.003

.005
.001

.000
.002

.001
.003

.005










I have made new friends over the internet. Mean: Females, Age, Race, School


Gender
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females


Age
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up


Race
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0


* This level combination of factors is not observed, thus the corresponding marginal mean is not
estimable
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other


School
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU


Mean
2.440
2.636
2.318
*
1.795
*
1.891
3.000
1.900
3.000
2.393
2.543
2.043
*
1.949
1.974
2.000
2.467
3.000
1.500
2.739
2.200
2.000
2.000
1.000
2.121
1.000
2.667
1.333


Standard
Error
.197
.149
.210
*
.158
*
.079
.986
.312
.986
.186
.145
.205
*
.158
*
.065
.986
.254
.697
.697
.205
.441
.986
.273
.986
.099
.569
.569
.569


95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
2.053 2.827
2.345 2.928
1.906 2.730
*
1.485 2.105
*
1.736 2.046
1.066 4.934
1.289 2.511
1.066 4.934
2.027 2.758
2.258 2.829
1.640 2.447
* *
1.639 2.258
*
1.846 2.101
.066 3.934
1.967 2.966
1.633 4.367
.133 2.867
2.336 3.142
1.335 3.065
.066 3.934
1.464 2.536
-.934 2.934
1.927 2.316
-.116 2.116
1.550 3.783
.217 2.450


Table 4-47.










I have made new friends over the internet. Mean: Males, Age, Race, School


Gender
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males


Age
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up


Race
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0


* This level combination of factors is not observed, thus the corresponding marginal mean is not
estimable
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.


School
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU


Mean
2.375
3.000
2.500
*
2.111
*
2.642
2.500
2.200
*
2.333
2.400
2.778
*
2.362
*
2.280
*
3.250
*
2.000
2.833
2.500
2.167

2.167
*
2.267
4.000
2.667
*


Standard
Error
.348
.254
.402
*
.329
*
.120
.697
.441
*
.402
.441
.328
*
.226
*
.102
*
.493
*
.697
.402
.402
*
.285
*
.114
.986
.285
*


95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
1.691 3.059
2.501 3.499
1.711 3.289
*
1.467 2.756
*
2.406 2.878
1.133 3.867
1.335 3.065
*
1.544 3.123
1.535 3.265
2.133 3.422
* *
2.188 3.075
*
2.079 2.480
*
2.283 4.217
*
.633 3.367
2.044 3.623
1.711 3.289
*
1.608 2.725
*
2.043 5.490
2.066 5.934
2.108 3.225
*


Table 4-48.










Table 4-49. Tukey HSD.I have made new friends over the internet: Age
95% Confidence Interval


Age
Age Comparison
18-19 20-22
23-up
20-22 18-19
23-up
23-up 18-19
20-22


Mean
Difference
.04
-.03
-.04
-.07
.03
.07


Standard
Error
.065
.078
.065
.074
.078
.074


Level of
Significance
.811
.938
.811
.643
.938
.643


Table 4-50. Tukey HSD. I have made new friends over the internet:


African American Blacks
95% Confidence Interval


Mean Standard Level of Lower Upper
Race Race Difference Error Significance Bound Bound
AAB AAPI .26 .135 .315 -.11 .62
AAB MAL .53* .109 .000 .23 .83
AAB NHW .45* .077 .000 .24 .66
AAB O .14 .149 .872 -.26 .55
Based upon observed means. *The mean is significant at the .05 level. AAB= African American
Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non
White Hispanic, O=Other.


Lower
Bound


Upper
Bound


-.11
-.21
-.19
-.24
-.16
-.11









Table 4-51. Correlations: Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line.
Have you
ever met
anyone in
person that
you met on
School Gender Age Race line?


Pearson
School Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


Age





Race



Have you
ever met
anyone in
person
that you


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


1 -.101(**)


1212


-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


met on Pearson
line? Correlation -.044
Sig. (2-
tailed) .127
N 1208
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01


.000
1210


-.025

.391
1211


-.662(**)

.000
1209


-.044

.127
1208


1 .114(**)


1210


.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207







-.144(**)

.000
1206
level (2-tailed).


.000
1209


.000
1207


.000
1206


1 .118(**) -.128(**)


1211


.118(**)

.000
1208







-.128(**)

.000
1207


.000
1208


.000
1207

.009

.760
1205


1209


.009

.760
1205


1208


Table 4-52. Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. School
School Mean Std. Deviation N
PFU 1.68 .466
HBCU 1.62 .487
Total 1.67 .469


1045
155
1200


.103(**) -.144(**)









Table 4-53. Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Females 1.72 .451 836
Males 1.57 .495 362
Total 1.67 .469 1198

Table 4-54. Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 1.72 .450 413
20-22 1.70 .458 520
23-and above 1.55 .499 266
Total 1.67 .469 1199

Table 4-55. Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.63 .483 210
AAPI 1.76 .428 72
MAL 1.71 .453 133
NHW 1.68 .468 730
0 1.56 .501 55
Total 1.67 .469 1200









Table 4-56. Tests of between subjects. Have you ever in person someone that you met online.
Type III
Independent Sum of Degrees of Mean Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared
Gender .455 1 .455 2.141 .144 .002
Age 1.208 2 .604 2.844 .059 .005
Race 1.024 4 .256 1.205 .307 .004
School .075 1 .075 .355 .552 .000
Gender/Age .175 2 .087 .411 .663 .001
Gender/Race 1.432 4 .358 1.685 .151 .006
Age/Race .416 8 .052 .245 .982 .002


Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School


1.197

.093
.333

.928
.437

.143

.419


Gender/Age/
Race School .058
Error 244.503
Total 3612.000
R squared=.932. (adjusted R


1
1151
1197
Squared=.930)


.688

.508
.457

.113
.725

.512


.150

.093
.166

.464
.109

.143

.105

.058
.212


.005

.000
.001

.004
.002


.704

.439
.783

2.183
.515

.675

.493

.274


.601


.002

.000









Table 4-57. Correlations: I have posted online personal messages in an attempt to find a potential
partner.
I have


School Gender


Age


Race


posted
personal
messages


Pearson
School Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Age Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Race Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


I have
posted
personal
messages


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


1 -.101(**)


1212

-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


.053

.067
1208


.000
1210


-.025

.391
1211


1 .114(**)


1210

.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


.171(**)

.000
1206


.000
1209


1 .118(**)


1211

.118(**)

.000
1208


.166(**)

.000
1207


Table 4-58. Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential
partner: School


Mean


Std. Deviation


1.29
1.40
1.30


1044
156
1200


.784
.688


-.662(**)


.000
1209


.053

.067
1208


.103(**)


.171(**)


.000
1207


.000
1206


.000
1208


1209


.166(**)


.000
1207

-.054

.062
1205


-.054

.062
1205


School
PFU
HBCU
Total


1208









Table 4-59. Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential
partner: Gender


Mean


Gender
Females
Males
Total


Std. Deviation


1.23
1.48
1.30


836
362
1198


.598
.836
.688


Table 4-60. Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential
partner: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 1.20 .530 410
20-22 1.28 .677 521
23-and above 1.51 .859 268
Total 1.30 .688 1199

Table 4-61. Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential
partner: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.40 .770 211
AAPI 1.35 .772 72
MAL 1.23 .638 133
NHW 1.27 .641 729
0 1.49 .879 55
Total 1.30 .688 1200









Table 4-62. Tests of between subjects. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a
potential partner.
Type III
Independent Sum of Degrees of Mean Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared
Gender 4.948 1 4.948 113.19 .001 .010
Age 5.849 2 2.925 6.690 .001 .011
Race .291 4 .073 .166 .955 .001
School .011 1 .011 .025 .875 .000
Gender/Age 7.927 2 3.964 9.067 .000 .016
Gender/Race 1.036 4 .259 .592 .668 .002
Age/Race 2.864 8 .358 .819 .586 .006


Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School


5.207

.058
.907

3.217
1.654

1.099

1.666


Gender/Age/
Race School 4.874
Error 503.154
Total 2597.000
R squared=.806. (adjusted R


8

1
2

2
4

1

4

1
1151
1197
Squared=.799)


Table 4-63. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean:
Gender, Age
Gender Age Mean Standard 95 % Confidence Interval
Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Females 18-19 1.253 .124 1.011 1.496
20-22 1.227 .108 1.016 1.439
23-up 1.209 .129 .955 1.463
Males 18-19 1.261 .103 1.059 1.463
20-22 1.618 .098 1.425 1.810
23-up 2.180 .134 1.917 2.442


.651

.058
.453

1.609
.414

1.099

.416

4.874
.437


1.489

.133
1.037

3.680
.946

2.515

.953

11.149


.157

.716
.355

.026
.436

.113

.433

.001


.010

.000
.002

.006
.003

.002

.003

.010










Table 4-64. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean:
Gender, Age, School


Mean
1.134
1.452*
1.281
1.138*
1.330
1.087
1.232
1.333*
1.741
1.000*
1.951
2.750*


*Based upon a modified population marginal mean


95% Confidence
Interval
Lower Upper
Std. Error Bound Bound


.062
.313
.055
.272
.140
.218
.104
.249
.102
.296
.122
.357


1.014
.837
1.172
.604
1.056
.660
1.028
.845
1.542
.420
1.713
2.049


1.255
2.067
1.390
1.671
1.605
1.514
1.436
1.822
1.941
1.580
2.190
3.451


Gender
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males


Age
18-19
18-19
20-22
20-22
23-up
23-up
18-19
18-19
20-22
20-22
23-up
23-up


School
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU










Table 4-65. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean:
Females, Age, Race, School


Standard
Error
.132
.099
.141
.105
.105


95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound


Gender
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females


* This level combination of factors is not observed, thus the corresponding marginal
estimable.
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mel
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.


Age
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up


Race
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0


School
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU


Mean
1.240
13.56
1.091
*
1.025
*
1.116
2.000
1.200
1.000
1.286
1.413
1.261
*
1.103
*
1.157
1.00
1.600
1.000
1.500
1.435
1.200
1.000
1.154
1.000
1.465
1.000
1.333
1.000


.981
1.162
.814
*
.820
*
1.012
.703
.790
-.297
1.041
1.222
.990

.895
*
1.071
-.297
1.265
.083
.583
1.164
620
-.297
.794
-.297
1.334
.251
.584
.251


1.499
1.549
1.367
*
1.230
*
1.220
3.297
1.610
2.297
1.531
1.604
1.531
*
1.310
*
1.242
2.297
1.935
1.917
2.417
1.705
1.780
2.297
1.514
2.297
1.595
1.749
2.082
1.749
mean is not

xican


.053
.661
.209
.661
.125
.097
.138
*
.106
*
.044
.661
.171
.468
.468
.138
.296
.661
1.83
.661
.066
.382
.382
.382









Table 4-66. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean:
Males, Age, Race, School
95% Confidence Interval
Standard Lower Upper
Gender Age Race School Mean Error Bound Bound
Males 18-19 AAB PFU 1.500 .234 1.041 1.959
Males 18-19 AAB HBCU 1.667 .171 1.332 2.002
Males 18-19 AAPI PFU 1.167 .270 .637 1.696
Males 18-19 AAPI HBCU *
Males 18-19 MAL PFU 1.222 .220 .790 1.655
Males 18-19 MAL HBCU *
Males 18-19 NHW PFU 1.273 .081 1.13 1.432
Males 18-19 NHW HBCU 1.000 .146 .083 1.917
Males 18-19 O PFU 1.000 .296 .420 1.580
Males 18-19 O HBCU *
Males 20-22 AAB PFU 1.833 .270 1.304 2.363
Males 20-22 AAB HBCU 1.00 .296 .420 1.580
Males 20-22 AAPI PFU 1.667 .220 1.234 2.099
Males 20-22 AAPI HBCU *
Males 20-22 MAL PFU 1.579 .152 1.281 1.877
Males 20-22 MAL HBCU *
Males 20-22 NHW PFU 13.76 .069 1.242 1.511
Males 20-22 NHW HBCU *
Males 20-22 O PFU 2.250 .331 1.601 2.899
Males 20-22 O HBCU *
Males 23-up AAB PFU 2.00 .468 1.083 2.917
Males 23-up AAB HBCU 15.00 .270 .970 2.030
Males 23-up AAPI PFU 2.500 .270 1.970 3.030
Males 23-up AAPI HBCU *
Males 23-up MAL PFU 1.917 .191 1.542 2.291
Males 23-up MAL HBCU *
Males 23-up NHW PFU 1.507 .076 1.357 1.656
Males 23-up NHW HBCU 4.000 .661 2.703 5.297
Males 23-up O PFU 1.833 .191 1.459 2.208
Males 23-up O HBCU *
This level combination of factors is not observed, thus the corresponding marginal mean is not
estimable
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.









Table 4-67. Tukey HSD. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential
partner: Age
95% Confidence Interval
Age Mean Standard Level of Lower Upper
Age Comparison Difference Error Significance Bound Bound
18-19 20-22 .32 .044 .164 -.18 .02
23-up -.32 .052 .000 -.44 -.19
20-22 18-19 .08 .044 .164 -.02 .18
23-up -.24 .050 .000 -.35 -.12
23-up 18-19 .32 .052 .000 .19 .44
20-22 .24 .050 .000 .12 .35
*Based upon a modified population marginal mean. The mean difference is significant at the .05
level

Table 4-68. Tukey HSD. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential
partner: African American Blacks
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Standard Level of Lower Upper
Race Race Difference Error Significance Bound Bound
AAB AAPI .05 .090 .980 -.20 .30
AAB MAL .17 .073 .161 -.03 .37
AAB NHW .13 .052 .090 -.01 .27
AAB O -.09 .100 .886 -.37 .18
Based upon observed means. AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific.24
Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.









Table 4-69. Correlations: Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line:
Does your
partner


School Gender


Age


Race


object to
the
amount of
time you
spend on
line?


Pearson
School Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Age Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


Race


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


1 -.101(**)


1212

-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


.000
1210

1


1210

.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


Does
your
partner
object to


amount
of time
you
spend on Pearson
line? Correlation -.057 -.044
Sig. (2-
tailed) .059 .147
N 1101 1099
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


Table 4-70. Mean: Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line. School
School Mean Std. Deviation N


-.662(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207

.118(**)

.000
1208


-.025

.391
1211

.114(**)

.000
1209

1


1211

.118(**)


.000
1208


-.057

.059
1101

-.044

.147
1099

-.043

.156
1100

.055

.068
1099


1209


-.043

.156
1100


.055

.068
1099


1101









PFU 1.96 .202
HBCU 1.92 .270
Total 1.95 .213 1


941
153
094


Table 4-71. Mean: Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line. Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Females 1.96 .201 760
Males 1.94 .238 332
Total 1.95 .213 1092

Table 4-72. Mean: Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line. Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 1.96 .196 377
20-22 1.96 .206 475
23-and above 1.94 .242 241
Total 1.95 .211 1093

Table 4-73. Mean: Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line? Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.92 .270 203
AAPI 1.97 .174 65
MAL 1.98 .157 120
NHW 1.96 .199 654
0 1.92 .269 52
Total 1.95 .213 1094










Table 4-74. Tests of between subjects. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend
online.


Independent
Variable
Gender
Age
Race
School
Gender/Age
Gender/Race
Age/Race
Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School
Gender/Age/
Race School
Error
Total
R squared=.070


Type III
Sum of Degre
Squares Freedi
.413
.278
.071
.058
.378
.250
.545

.866

.162
.013

.233
.289

.464

.711

.584
45.226
4121.11
(adjusted r squared=


es of
om


1
1045
1091
=.030)


Mean
Square
.413
.139
.018
.058
.189
.063
.068


.108

.162
.006

.116
.072

.464

.178

.584
.043


F value
9.544
3.209
.413
1.329
4.363
1.445
1.574


Level of
Significance
.002
.041
.799
.249
.013
.217
.128


2.500

3.745
.146

2.688
1.669

10.720

4.107

13.500


.011

.053
.864

.068
.155

.001

.003

.000


Table 4-75. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Gender and Age
Standard 95 % Confidence Interval
Gender Age Mean Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Females 18-19 1.982 .039 1.906 2.059
20-22 1.951 .034 1.884 2.018
23-up 1.987 0.044 1.889 2.074
Males 18-19 1.946 .033 1.882 2.010
20-22 1.992 .034 1.925 2.059
23-up 1.720 .042 1.637 1.803


Partial Eta
Squared
.009
.006
.002
.001
.008
.006
.012

.019


.004
.000

.005
.006

.010

.015

.013









Table 4-76. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Females,
Race and School
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Gender Race School Mean Std. Error Bound Bound
Females AAB PFU 1.949 .072 1.807 2.090
Females AAB HBCU 1.926 .021 1.885 1.966
Females AAPI PFU 1.985 .041 1.905 2.065
Females AAPI HBCU 2.000 .208 1.592 2.408
Females MAL PFU 1.981 .027 1.927 2.035
Females MAL HBCU 2.000 .208 1.592 2.408
Females NHW PFU 1.962 .011 1.940 1.983
Females NHW HBCU 2.000 .106 1.792 2.208
Females 0 PFU 1.974 .057 1.862 2.086
Females 0 HBCU 2.000 .094 1.816 2.184
Males AAB PFU 1.833 .063 1.170 1.957
Males AAB HBCU 1.933 .048 1.839 2.028
Males AAPI PFU 1.944 .051 1.845 2.044
Males MAL HBCU *
Males MAL PFU 1.952 .037 1.879 2.026
Males MAL HBCU *
Males NHW PFU 1.959 .014 1.930 1.987
Males NHW HBCU 1.500 .127 1.250 1.750
Males 0 PFU 1.917 .051 1.817 2.016
Males O HBCU *
This level of mean is not observed therefore the corresponding population marginal mean is
not estimable. AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific.24 Islander,
MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.









Table 4-77. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Gender,
Age, Race
Standard 95% Confidence Interval
Gender Age Race Mean Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Females 18-19 AAB 1.943 .026 1.891 1.995
Females 18-19 AAPI 2.000 .045 1.911 2.089
Females 18-19 MAL 2.000 .034 1.934 2.066
Females 18-19 NHW 1.985 .104 1.781 2.190
Females 18-19 O 2.000 .109 1.786 2.214
Females 20-22 AAB 1.912 .026 1.862 1.962
Females 20-22 AAPI 1.955 .044 1.868 2.042
Females 20-22 MAL 1.943 .035 1.874 2.012
Females 20-22 NHW 1.981 .104 1.776 2.185
Females 20-22 O 1.962 .079 1.807 2.117
Females 23-up AAB 1.957 .106 1.748 2.165
Females 23-up AAPI 2.000 .116 1.772 2.228
Females 23-up MAL 2.000 1.09 1.786 2.214
Females 23-up NHW 1.976 .061 1.856 2.096
Females 23-up O 2.000 .095 1.184 2.186
Males 18-19 AAB 1.900 .046 1.811 1.989
Males 18-19 AAPI 2.000 .085 1.833 2.167
Males 18-19 MAL 1.857 .079 1.703 2.011
Males 18-19 NHW 1.983 .075 1.836 2.130
Males 18-19 O 2.000 .093 1.817 2.183
Males 20-22 AAB 2.000 .070 1.863 2.137
Males 20-22 AAPI 2.000 .093 1.817 2.183
Males 20-22 MAL 2.000 .049 1.904 2.096
Males 20-22 NHW 1.953 .022 1.909 1.998
Males 20-22 O 2.000 .104 1.796 2.204
Males 23-up AAB 1.750 .085 1.583 1.917
Males 23-up AAPI 1.833 .085 1.667 2.000
Males 23-up MAL 2.000 .063 1.877 2.123
Males 23-up NHW 1.479 .105 1.273 1.684
Males 23-up O 1.750 .060 1.632 1.868
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific.24 Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.









Table 4-78. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Age, Race,
School
Standard 95% Confidence Interval
Age Race School Mean Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
18-19 AAB PFU 2.000 .042 1.917 2.083
18-19 AAB HBCU 1843 .031 1.782 1.904
18-19 AAPI PFU 2.000 .048 1.906 2.094
18-19 AAPI HBCU
18-19 MAL PFU 1.929 .043 1.845 2.013
18-19 MAL HBCU *
18-19 NHW PFU 1.968 .016 1.936 2.000
18-19 NHW HBCU 2.000 .127 1.750 2.250
18-19 O PFU 2.000 .057 1.888 2.112
18-19 O HBCU 2.000 .208 1.592 2.408
20-22 AAB PFU 1.923 .051 1.823 2.023
20-22 AAB HBCU 1.989 .054 1.882 2.095
20-22 AAPI PFU 1.977 .052 1.876 2.078
20-22 AAPI HBCU *
20-22 MAL PFU 1.971 .030 1.912 2.031
20-22 MAL HBCU *
20-22 NHW PFU 1.958 .013 1.931 1.984
20-22 NHW HBCU 2.000 .208 1.592 2.408
20-22 O PFU 1.962 .059 1.845 2.078
20-22 O HBCU 2.000 .147 1.711 2.289
23-up AAB PFU 1.750 .127 1.500 2.000
23-up AAB HBCU 1.957 .048 1.863 2.050
23-up AAPI PFU 1.917 .067 1.785 2.048
23-up AAPI HBCU 2.000 .208 1.592 2.408
23-up MAL PFU 2.000 .045 1.911 2.089
23-up MAL HBCU 2.000 .208 1.592 2.408
23-up NHW PFU 1.955 .017 1.922 1.988
23-up NHW HBCU 1.500 .120 1.264 1.736
23-up O PFU 1.875 .079 1.719 2.031
23-up O HBCU 2.000 .120 1.764 2.236
This level of mean is not observed therefore the corresponding population marginal mean is
not estimable. AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific.24 Islander,
MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.










Table 4-79. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Females,
Age, Race, School


95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound


Gender
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females


* This level combination of factors is not observed, thus the corresponding marginal
estimable.
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mel
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.


Age
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
18-19
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
20-22
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up
23-up


Race
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
0
0


School
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU


Mean
2.000
1.886
2.000

2.000
*
1.971
2.000
2.000
2.000
1.846
1.978
1.955
*
1.943
*
1.962
2.000
1.923
2.000
2.000
1.913
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
1.962
2.000
2.000
2.000


Std. Error
.042
.031
.045

.034
*
.018
.208
.066
.208
.041
.031
.044
*
.035
*
.014
.208
.058
.147
.208
.043
.104
.208
.066
.208
.023
.120
.147
.120


1.917
1.825
1.911

1.934
*
1.936
1.592
1.871
1.592
1.766
1.917
1.868
*
1.874
*
1.933
1.592
1.810
1.711
1.592
1.828
1.796
1.592
1.871
1.592
1.908
1.764
1.711
1.764


2.083
1.948
2.089

2.066
*
2.006
2.408
2.129
2.408
1.926
2.039
2.042
*
2.012
*
1.990
2.408
2.036
2.289
2.408
1.998
2.204
2.408
2.129
2.408
1.997
2.236
2.144
1.905
mean is not

xican









Table 4-80. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Males, Age,
Race, School
95% Confidence Interval
Standard Lower Upper
Gender Age Race School Mean Error Bound Bound
Males 18-19 AAB PFU 2.000 .074 1.856 2.144
Males 18-19 AAB HBCU 1.800 .054 1.695 1.905
Males 18-19 AAPI PFU 2.000 .085 1.833 2.167
Males 18-19 AAPI HBCU *
Males 18-19 MAL PFU 1.857 .079 1.703 2.011
Males 18-19 MAL HBCU *
Males 18-19 NHW PFU 1.966 .027 1.912 2.019
Males 18-19 NHW HBCU 2.000 .147 1.711 2.289
Males 18-19 O PFU 2.000 .093 1.817 2.183
Males 18-19 O HBCU *
Males 20-22 AAB PFU 2.000 .093 1.817 2.183
Males 20-22 AAB HBCU 2.000 .104 1.796 2.204
Males 20-22 AAPI PFU 2.000 .093 1.817 2.183
Males 20-22 AAPI HBCU *
Males 20-22 MAL PFU 2.000 .049 1.904 2.096
Males 20-22 MAL HBCU *
Males 20-22 NHW PFU 1.953 .022 1.909 1.998
Males 20-22 NHW HBCU *
Males 20-22 O PFU 2.000 .104 1.796 2.204
Males 20-22 O HBCU *
Males 23-up AAB PFU 1.500 .147 1.211 1.789
Males 23-up AAB HBCU 2.000 .085 1.833 2.167
Males 23-up AAPI PFU 1.833 .085 1.667 2.000
Males 23-up AAPI HBCU *
Males 23-up MAL PFU 2.000 .063 1.877 2.123
Males 23-up MAL HBCU *
Males 23-up NHW PFU 1.957 .025 1.908 2.006
Males 23-up NHW HBCU 1.000 .208 .592 1.408
Males 23-up O PFU 1.750 .060 1.632 1.868
Males 23-up O HBCU *
This level combination of factors is not observed, thus the corresponding marginal mean
is not estimable
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.









Table 4-81. Tukey HSD. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Age
95% Confidence Interval
Age Mean Level of Lower Upper
Age Comparison Difference Std Error Significance Bound Bound
18-19 20-22 .00 .014 .947 .03 .04
23-up .02 .017 .383 -.02 .06
20-22 18-19 .00 .014 .947 -.04 .03
23-up .02 .016 .512 -.02 .06
23-up 18-19 -.02 .017 .383 -.06 .02
20-22 -.02 .016 .512 -.06 .02.

Table 4-82. Tukey HSD. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Race
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Standard Level of Lower Upper
Race Race Difference Error Significance Bound Bound
AAB AAPI -.05 .030 .484 -.13 .03
AAB MAL -.05 .024 .164 -.12 .01
AAB NHW -.04 .017 .138 -.08 .01
AAB O .00 .032 1.000 -.09 .09









Table 4-83. Correlations: Does your partner know about your online friends.


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


Does your partner
know about the
friends/relationships
you have over the
internet?


School Gender

1 .101(**)


1212

.101(**)

.000
1210


.000
1210


Age


Does your partner
know about the
friends/relationships
you have over the
Race internet?


-.025 .662(**)


.391
1211


.104(**)


.000
1209


1 .114(**) .103(**)


.000
1210 1209


-.025 .114(**)


School




Gender




Age




Race


Pearson
Correlation .104(**)
Sig. (2-


.000
1209


.084(**)


.000
1207


1 .118(**)


1211


.103(**) .118(**)


.000
1207


.084(**)


.000
1208


.000
1208

1


1209


-.115(**)

.000
1079


-.050 .115(**)


tailed) .001 .006
N 1081 1079
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


.098
1080


.000
1079


1081


Table 4-84. Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: School
School Mean Std. Deviation N
PFU 1.52 .500 922
HBCU 1.66 .474 152
Total 1.54 .499 1074


.391
1211

.662(**)

.000
1209


.001
1081


.006
1079

-.050

.098
1080









Table 4-85. Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Females 1.51 .500 741
Males 1.60 .491 331
Total 1.54 .499 1072

Table 4-86. Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 1.54 .499 370
20-22 1.58 .494 467
23-and above 1.45 .498 236
Total 1.54 .499 1073

Table 4-87. Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.66 .474 201
AAPI 1.55 .501 65
MAL 1.52 .502 120
NHW 1.50 .500 636
0 1.58 .499 52
Total 1.54 .499 1074









Table 4-88. Tests of between subjects. Does your offline partner know about the
friends/relationships that you have online.
Type III
Independent Sum of Degrees of Mean Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared
Gender .747 1 .747 3.088 .079 .003
Age .121 2 .061 .251 .778 .000
Race .573 4 .143 .592 .668 .002
School .007 1 .007 .029 .866 .000
Gender/Age .719 2 .360 1.429 .227 .003
Gender/Race .915 4 .229 .946 .436 .004
Age/Race 1.661 8 .208 .859 .551 .007


Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School
Gender/Age/
Race School
Error
Total
R squared = .069


.646

.336
1.486

.059
.529

.006

1.042


.254 1
247.912 1025
2793.000 1071
(adjusted R squared=.028)


Table 4-89. Does your offline partner know about the friends/relationships that you have online.
Mean: Age, School


Std. Error


.046
.158
.046
.164
.081
.138


95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
1.521 1.700
1.235 1.856
1.574 1.755
1.243 1.885
1.204 1.523
1.387 1.930


.081

.336
.743

.029
.132

.006

.260

.254
.242


.334

1.391
3.071

.122
.547

.023

1.077

1.051


.953

.239
.047

.885
.701

.880

.367


.003

.001
.006

.000
.002

.000

.004


Age
18-19

20-22

23-up


Mean


School
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU


1.610
1.546
1.665
1.564
1.363
1.658









Table 4-90. Tukey HSD. Does your offline partner know about the friends/relationships that you
have online? Age


Age Mean Standard
Age Comparison Difference Error
18-19 20-22 -.04 .034
23-up .09 .041
20-22 18-19 .04 .034
23-up .13 .039
23-up 18-19 -.09 .041
20-22 -.13 .039
The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.


Level of
Significance
.445
.068
.445
.002
.068
.002


95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
-.12 .04
-.01 .19
-.04 .12
.04 .22
-.19 .01
-.22 -.04









Table 4-91. Correlations: Has your partner express jealousy over the relationships you have
online.


Race


Has your
partner ever
expressed
jealousy
over the
relationships
you have
developed
on line?


School




Gender





Age


Race



Has your
partner ever
expressed
jealousy
over the
relationships
you have


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


1 -.101(**)


1212

-.101(**)

.000
1210


.000
1210


-.025 -.662(**)


.391
1211


.000
1209


1 .114(**) .103(**)


1210


.000
1209


-.025 .114(**)


.391
1211


-.662(**)

.000
1209


.000
1209


103(**)

.000
1207


developed Pearson
on line? Correlation -.058 -.047
Sig. (2-
tailed) .058 .119
N 1085 1083
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


.000
1207


1 .118(**)


1211


.118(**)

.000
1208









-.024

.431
1084


.000
1208

1


1209


.077(*)


.011
1083


School


Gender


Age


-.058

.058
1085

-.047

.119
1083

-.024

.431
1084


.077(*)

.011
1083


1085









Table 4-92. Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: School
School Mean Std. Deviation N
PFU 1.94 .240 926
HBCU 1.89 .308 152
Total 1.93 .251 1078

Table 4-93. Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N


Females
Males
Total


1.92
1.93


.240
.276
.252


749
327
1076


Table 4-94. Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 1.93 .251 370
20-22 1.94 .230 467
23-and above 1.91 .283 240
Total 1.93 .250 1077

Table 4-95. Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.89 .313 201
AAPI 1.94 .242 65
MAL 1.93 .264 120
NHW 1.95 .221 640
0 1.90 .298 52
Total 1.93 .251 1078









Table 4-96. Tests of between subjects. Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the
relationships you have developed online.
Type III
Independent Sum of Degrees of Mean Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared
Gender .055 1 .055 .895 .344 .001
Age .160 2 .080 1.290 .276 .003
Race .584 4 .146 2.362 .052 .009
School .085 1 .085 1.370 .242 .001
Gender/Age .116 2 .058 .937 .392 .002
Gender/Race .311 4 .078 1.257 .285 .005
Age/Race 1.041 8 .130 2.104 .033 .016


Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School
Gender/Age/
Race School
Error
Total
R squared=984.


.263

.003
.113

.021
.169

.125

.831


.051 1
63.637 1027
4084.000 1075
(Adjusted R Squared=.984)


.033

.003
.056

.011
.042

.125

.208

.051
.062


.530

.048
.913

.172
.684

2.016

3.360

.828


.833

.826
.402

.842
.603

.156

.010

.363


.004

.000
.002

.000
.003

.002

.013










Table 4-97. Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you have
developed online: Age, Race


Standard 95% Confidence Interval
Age Race Mean Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
18-19 AAB 1.933 .033 1.869 1.997
18-19 AAPI 1.893 .058 1.780 2.006
18-19 MAL 1.902 .051 1.802 2.003
18-19 NHW 1.963 .077 1.812 2.113
18-19 O 1.967 .095 1.781 2.152
20-22 AAB 1.939 .044 1.852 2.026
20-22 AAPI 1.877 .062 1.756 1.998
20-22 MAL 1.916 .036 1.845 1.987
20-22 NHW 1.974 .084 1.801 2.138
20-22 O 1.949 .075 1.810 2.097
23-up AAB 1.571 .081 1.411 1.730
23-up AAPI 2.000 .099 1.806 2.194
23-up MAL 1.936 .090 1.759 2.114
23-up NHW 1.887 .072 1.745 2.029
23-up O 1.944 .079 1.789 2.100
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other


Table 4-98. Tukey HSD. Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you
have developed online: Age
95% Confidence Interval
Age Mean Standard Level of Lower Upper
Age Comparison Difference Error Significance Bound Bound


18-19 20-22
23-up
20-22 18-19
23-up
23-up 18-19
20-22


.01
.02
.01
.03
-.02
-.03


.017
.21
.017
.020
.021
.020


.775
587
.775
.237
.587
.237


-.05 .03
-.03 .07
-.03 .05
-.01 .08
-.07 .03
-.08 .01









Table 4-99. Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you have developed
online. Mean: Age Race and School
Standard 95% Confidence Interval
Age Race School Mean Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
18-19 AAB PFU 1.979 .053 1.874 2.084
18-19 AAB HBCU 1.887 .037 1.814 1.960
18-19 AAPI PFU 1.893 .058 1.780 2.006
18-19 AAPI HBCU *
18-19 MAL PFU 1.902 .051 1.802 2.003
18-19 MAL HBCU *
18-19 NHW PFU 1.926 .020 1.887 1.964
18-19 NHW HBCU 2.00 .152 1.701 2.299
18-19 0 PFU 1.950 .068 1.816 2.084
18-19 0 HBCU 2.000 .249 1.512 2.488
20-22 AAB PFU 1.923 .061 1.804 2.042
20-22 AAB HBCU 1.956 .065 1.828 2.083
20-22 AAPI PFU 1.877 .062 1.756 1.998
20-22 AAPI HBCU *
20-22 MAL PFU 1.916 .036 1.845 1.987
20-22 MAL HBCU *
20-22 NHW PFU 1.961 .016 1.929 1.993
20-22 NHW HBCU 2.000 .249 1.512 2.488
20-22 0 PFU 1.923 .071 1.784 2.063
20-22 0 HBCU 2.000 .176 1.655 2.345
23-up AAB PFU 1.250 .152 .951 1.549
23-up AAB HBCU 1.891 .057 1.779 2.003
23-up AAPI PFU 2.000 .080 1.843 2.157
23-up AAPI HBCU 2.000 .249 1.512 2.488
23-up MAL PFU 1.905 .054 1.798 2.011
23-up MAL HBCU 2.000 .249 1.512 2.488
23-up NHW PFU 1.940 .020 1.901 1.980
23-up NHW HBCU 1.833 .144 1.552 2.115
23-up 0 PFU 1.917 .095 1.730 2.103
23-up 0 HBCU 2.000 .144 1.718 2.282
This level combination of factors is not observed, thus the corresponding marginal
mean is not estimable. AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander,
MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.









Table 4-100. Correlations: It is important that an alternative place for meeting people is
available.


School


Pearson
School Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Age Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


Race


Important
that an
alternative
place for
meeting
people is
available


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


Gender


Age


1 -.101(**)

.000
1212 1210


-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


-.001

.967
1210


Race


-.025 -.662(**)


.391
1211


1 .114(**)


1210

.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


.117(**)

.000
1208


.000
1209


.000
1209


.103(**)


.000
1207


1 .118(**)


1211

.118(**)

.000
1208


.050

.081
1209


.000
1208

1


1209


-.003

.904
1207


Table 4-101. Mean: It is important that an alternative place for meeting people is available:
School


Mean


Std. Deviation


2.66
2.66
2.66


1.092
1.161
1.100


1046
156
1202


Important
that an
alternative
place for
meeting
people is
available


-.001

.967
1210


.117(**)


.000
1208

.050

.081
1209

-.003

.904
1207


School
PFU
HBCU
Total


1210











Table 4-102. Mean: It is important that an alternative place for meeting people is available
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N


Females
Males
Total


2.58
2.86
2.66


1.074
1.135
1.100


836
364
1200


Table 4-103. Mean: It is important that an alternative place for meeting people is available: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N


18-19
20-22
23-and above
Total


2.65
2.60
2.82
2.67


1.048
1.114
1.138
1.100


413
520
268
1201


Table 4-104. Mean: It is important that an alternative place for meeting people is available: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N


AAB
AAPI
MAL
NHW
0
Total


2.64
2.89
2.70
2.62
2.98
2.66


1.130
1.120
1.128
1.065
1.296
1.100


133
732
54
1202









Table 4-105. Tests of between subjects. It is important that an alternate place for meeting people
is available: Age, Gender, Race, School
Type III Degrees
Independent Sum of of Mean F Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square value Significance Squared
Gender .403 1 .403 .378 .539 .919
Age 11.049 2 5.524 5.177 .006 .009
Race 7.996 4 1.999 1.873 .113 .006
School .138 1 .138 .129 .720 .000
Gender/Age 2.383 2 1.192 1.117 .328 .002
Gender/Race 3.888 4 .972 .911 .457 .003
Age/Race 5.718 8 .715 .670 .718 .005
Gender/Age 6.178 8 .772 .724 .671 .005


/Race
Gender/Schoo
1
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
/Race/School
Age/Race
/School
Gender/Age
/Race/School
Error
Total


1.019

1.327
1.729

2.688
.017

5.416

.865


1225.082
15710.000


1 1.019 .954


.663 .622
.865 .810

.672 .630
.017 .016


4 1.354 1.269

1 .865 .810


1148
1194


.329

.537
.445

.641
.900

.280

.368


.001
.001

.002
.000

.004

.001


1.067


Table 4-106. Tukey HSD. How important is it to you that an alternate way/place for meeting new
people is available. Age


Standard L


Age Age Difference Error S
18-19 20-22 -.15 .068
23-up -.51 .081
20-22 18-19 .15 .068
23-up -.37 .078
23-up 18-19 .51 .081
20-22 .37 .078
(Mean difference is significant at the .05 level)


,evel of
significance
.78
.000
.078
.000
.000
.000


95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
-.31 .01
-.70 -.32
-.01 .31
-.55 -.18
.32 .70
.18 .55


Mean









Table 4-107. Correlations: An alternative way to meet online sex partners.


Gender Age


Race


An
alternative
way/place
for meeting
potential
online
sexual
partners is
available


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)


Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N


An
alternative
way/place
for
meeting
potential
online
sexual
partners is


1

1212

-.101(**)
.000
1210


-.025
.391
1211


-.662(**)
.000
1209


-.101(**)
.000
1210


-.025
.391
1211


1 .114(**)
.000
1210 1209


.114(**)
.000
1209

.103(**)
.000
1207


-.662(**)
.000
1209

.103(**)
.000
1207


1 .118(**)
.000
1211 1208


.118(**)
.000
1208


1 .076(**)
.009
1209 1201


Pearson


available Correlation -.057(*) .344(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .047 .000
N 1204 1202
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


.218(**)
.000
1203


.076(**)
.009
1201


Table 4-108. Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: School
School Mean Std. Deviation N


PFU
HBCU
Total


2.09
1.99
2.08


1.056
1.051
1.056


1044
154
1198


School


School


Age


Race


-.057(*)
.047
1204

.344(**)
.000
1202

.218(**)
.000
1203


1204









Table 4-109. Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N


Females
males
Total


1.88
2.52
2.08


.963
1.124
1.056


832
364
1196


Table 4-110. Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 2.04 1.012 412
20-22 1.99 1.047 518
23-and above 2.30 1.108 267
Total 2.08 1.056 1197

Table 4-111. Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.95 1.080 209
AAPI 2.29 1.067 72
MAL 2.14 1.072 133
NHW 2.08 1.036 730
0 2.11 1.144 54
Total 2.08 1.056 1198










Table 4-112. Tests of between subjects. An alternative way/place for meeting potential sexual
partners: Gender, Race, Age, School
Type III
Independent Sum of Degrees of Mean Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared
Gender 7.901 1 7.901 5.995 .014 .005
Age 33.439 2 16.719 12.686 .000 .022
Race 6.724 4 1.681 1.275 .278 .004
School 2.126 1 2.126 1.613 .204 .001
Gender/Age 1.662 2 .831 .630 .533 .001
Gender/Race 6.544 4 1.636 1.241 .292 .004
Age/Race 7.109 8 .889 .674 .715 .005


Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School


11.697

2.880
3.986

3.113
1.035

1.334

13.882


Gender/Age/
Race School 1.356
Error 1511.710
Total 10253.000
R squared=.806. (adjusted R


8

1
2

2
4

1

4

1
1147
1193
Squared=.799)


Table 4-113. Tukey HSD. An alternative way/place for meeting potential sexual partners: Age
95% Confidence Interval
Age Mean Standard Level of Lower Upper
Age Comparison Difference Error Significance Bound Bound


18-19 20-22
23-up
20-22 18-19
23-up
23-up 18-19
20-22


-.16
-.77
.16
-.61
.77
.61


.076
.090
.076
.087
.090
.087


.081
.000
.081
.000
.000
.000


-.34
-.99
-.01
-.81
.56
.41


.01
-.56
.34
-.41
.99
.81


.354

.140
.221

.307
.940


1.462

2.880
1.993

1.557
.259

1.334

3.470

1.356
1.318


.008

.002
.003

.002
.001


1.109

2.185
1.512

1.181
.196

1.012

2.633

1.029


.033


.009









Table 4-114. Tukey HSD. An alternative way/place for meeting potential sexual partners: Race
95% Level of Confidence
Mean Standard Level of Lower Upper
Race Race Difference Error Significance Bound Bound
AAB AAPI -.25 .157 .486 -.68 .17
AAB MAL -.11 .128 .921 -.45 .24
AAB NHW -.27 .090 .026 -.51 .02
AAB O -.24 .177 .641 -.73 .24
AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican
American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.









Table 4-115. Correlations: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet.


School


Gender


Age


Race


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


1 -.101(**)


1212


.000
1210


-.101(**)


.000
1210


-.025 -.662(**) -.154(**)


.391
1211


1 .114(**)


1210


.000
1209


-.025 .114(**)


.391
1211


-.662(**)

.000
1209


.000
1209


.103(**)

.000
1207


on the Pearson
Internet Correlation -.154(**) .516(**)
Sig. (2-
tailed) .000 .000
N 1211 1209
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


1211


.118(**)


.000
1208


.000
1209


.103(**)


.000
1207


1 .118(**)


.000
1208


1 .106(**)


1209


.046 .106(**)


.113
1210


.000
1208


Table 4-116. Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet: School
School Mean Std. Deviation N
PFU 2.66 .972 1047
HBCU 2.21 .930 156
Total 2.60 .978 1203


I have
accessed
sexually
explicit
materials
on the
Internet


.000
1211


School


Gender


Age


Race



I have
accessed
sexually
explicit
materials


.516(**)


.000
1209

.046

.113
1210


.000
1208


1211









Table 4-117. Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Females 2.27 .870 837
Males 3.36 .764 364
Total 2.60 .978 1201

Table 4-118. Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 2.57 .998 412
20-22 2.57 .966 522
23-and above 2.69 .966 268
Total 2.60 .977 1202

Table 4-119. Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 2.35 .931 211
AAPI 2.69 .914 72
MAL 2.63 1.007 132
NHW 2.65 .984 733
0 2.69 .960 55
Total 2.60 .978 1203









Table 4-120. Tests of between subjects. I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the
internet.
Type III
Independent Sum of Degrees of Mean Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared
Gender 26.888 1 26.888 38.981 .000 .033
Age 1.527 2 .763 1.107 .331 .002
Race 2.890 4 .722 1.047 .381 .004
School 3.796 1 3.796 5.503 .019 .005
Gender/Age .140 2 .070 .101 .904 .000
Gender/Race 2.592 4 .648 .939 .440 .003
Age/Race 3.533 8 .442 .640 .744 .004


Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School


1.953

.959
.852

.317
2.000

2.264

1.868


Gender/Age/
Race School .045 1
Error 795.983 1154
Total 9248.000 1200
R squared=.914 (adjusted R Squared=.910)


.244

.959
.426

.159
.500

2.264

.467

.045
.690


.354

1.390
.617

.230
.725

3.282

.677

.065


.944

.239
.540

.795
.575

.070

.608


.002


.000
.003

.003

.002

.000










Table 4-121. Correlations: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually
aroused.
I have


Age


Race


accessed
sexually
explicit
materials to
become
sexually
aroused


Pearson
School Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Age Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Race Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
I have
accessed
sexually
explicit


1 -.101(**)

.000
1212 1210


-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


-.025 -.662(**) -.177(**)


.391
1211


1 .114(**)


1210

.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


materials
to become
sexually Pearson
aroused Correlation -.177(**) .577(**)
Sig. (2-
tailed) .000 .000
N 1209 1207
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


.000
1209


.000
1209


.103(**)


.000
1209


.577(**)


.000
1207


1 .118(**)


1211

.118(**)

.000
1208








.077(**)

.007
1208


.000
1207


.077(**)


.000
1208


.007
1208


1 .134(**)

.000
1209 1206


.134(**)


.000
1206


1209


School


Gender









Table 4-122. Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused:
School


Mean


School
PFU
HBCU
Total


Std. Deviation


2.32
1.70
2.24


1.187
.953
1.177


1045
156
1201


Table 4-123. Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused:
Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Females 1.79 .986 836
Males 3.27 .903 363
Total 2.24 1.177 1199

Table 4-124. Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 2.17 1.179 411
20-22 2.18 1.166 521
23-and above 2.44 1.174 268
Total 2.23 1.176 1200

Table 4-125. Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N


AAB
AAPI
MAL
NHW
0
Total


1.86
2.32
2.27
2.33
2.27
2.24


1.021
1.220
1.199
1.193
1.178
1.177


132
731
55
1201









Table 4-126. Tests of between subjects. I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the
internet to become sexually aroused: Gender, Race, Age, School
Type III
Independent Sum of Degrees of Mean Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared
Gender 41.807 1 41.807 47.036 .000 .039
Age .818 2 .409 .460 .631 .001
Race 3.169 4 .792 .891 .468 .003
School 7.666 1 7.666 8.625 .003 .007
Gender/Age .707 2 .354 .398 .672 .001
Gender/Race 3.747 4 .937 1.054 .378 .004
Age/Race 2.957 8 .370 .416 .912 .003


Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School
Gender/Age/
Race School
Error
Total


3.779


2.698
.109

.005
1.819

2.824

.272

.023
1023.927
7639.000


8

1
2

2
4

1

4

1
1152
1198


.472

2.698
.054

.003
.455

4.824

.068

.023
.889


.531

3.035
.061

.003
.512

3.178

.076

.026


.833


.997
.727


.004

.003
.000

.000
.002

.003

.000

.000


.989









Table 4-127. Correlations: While viewing sexually explicit materials I have masturbated.
Viewing
explicit
web sites I


School


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


Gender


Age


1 -.101(**)


1212


-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


.000
1210


Race


have
masturbated


-.025 -.662(**) -.187(**)


.391
1211


1 .114(**)


1210


School





Gender





Age





Race


viewing
explicit
web sites I
have Pearson
masturbated Correlation -.187(**) .587(**)
Sig. (2-
tailed) .000 .000
N 1208 1206
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


.000
1209


.000
1209


.103(**)


.000
1208


.587(**)


.000
1207


1 .118(**)


1211

.118(**)

.000
1208


.000
1206


.093(**)


.000
1208


.001
1207


1 .136(**)


.000
1205


1209


.093(**)


.001
1207


.000
1205


1208


Table 4-128. Mean: While viewing sexually explicit web sites I have masturbated: School
School Mean Std. Deviation N
PFU 2.20 1.245 1045
HBCU 1.52 .893 155
Total 2.11 1.227 1200


.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207









Table 4-129. Mean: While viewing sexually explicit web sites I have masturbate: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Females 1.64 .982 833
Males 3.19 1.029 365
Total 2.11 1.227 1198

Table 4-130. Mean: While viewing sexually explicit web sites I have masturbated: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 2.00 1.204 409
20-22 2.10 1.223 522
23-and above 2.30 1.252 268
Total 2.11 1.227 1199

Table 4-131. Mean: While viewing sexually explicit web sites I have masturbated: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.70 1.039 210
AAPI 2.26 1.267 72
MAL 2.11 1.252 132
NHW 2.21 1.248 731
0 2.13 1.203 55
Total 2.11 1.227 1200









Table 4-132. Tests of between subjects. While viewing sexually explicit web sites on the
internet, I have masturbated.
Type III
Independent Sum of Degrees of Mean Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared
Gender 56.277 1 560277 59.528 .000 .049
Age 2.044 2 1.022 1.081 .340 .002
Race 3.487 4 .872 .922 .450 .003
School 6.249 1 6.249 6.610 .010 .006
Gender/Age 2.971 2 1.486 1.571 .208 .003
Gender/Race 6.395 4 1.599 1.691 .150 .006
Age/Race 3.104 8 .388 .410 .915 .003


Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School


4.477

.941
.011

.207
2.562

5.441

1.519


Gender/Age/
Race School .846 1
Error 1088.145 1151
Total 7140.000 1197
R squared=.848 (adjusted R Squared=.842)


.560

.941
.006

.104
.641

5.441

.380


.592

.995
.006.110

.678
5.755

.402

.895


.846
.945


.785

.319
.994

.896
.608


.004

.001
.000

.000
.002

.005


.808

.344










Table 4-133. While viewing sexually explicit web sites on the internet, I have masturbated.
Mean: Gender Females, Race and School
95% Confidence Interval


Gender
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males
Males


Race
AAB
AAB
AAPI
AAPI
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
O
O
AAB
AAB
AAPI
MAL
MAL
MAL
NHW
NHW
O
O


School
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU
PFU
HBCU


Mean
1.643
1.421
1.945
2.000*
1.641
1.000*
1.689
1.111
1.633
1.000
3.486
1.733
3.407
**
3.188
**
3.315
3.500*
3.011
**


Std. Error
.246
.096
.174
.972
.116
.972
.047
.495
.229
.439
.288
.213
.216
**
.161
**
.064
.595
.237


Lower
Bound
1.161
1.232
1.603
.092
1.413
-.908
1.597
.140
1.184
.139
2.920
1.315
2.983
**
2.872
**
3.190
2.332
2.547
**


Upper
Bound
2.126
1.610
2.287
3.908
1.869
2.908
1.781
2.082
2.083
1.861
4.052
2.152
3.831
**
3.504
**
3.440
4.668
3.476
**


* Based upon a modified population marginal mean
** This level of mean is not observed therefore the corresponding population marginal mean is
not estimable

Table 4-134. Tukey HSD. While viewing sexually explicit web sites on the internet, I have
masturbated: Race
95% Confidence Interval
Mean Standard Level of Lower Upper
Race Race Difference Error Significance Bound Bound
AAB AAPI -.56 .133 .000 -.92 -.20
AAB MAL -.41 .108 .002 -.70 -.11
AAB NHW -.51 .076 .000 -.72 -.30
AAB O -.42 .147 .034 -.82 -.02









Table 4-135. Correlations: I have had sex with online partners.
I have had
sex with on
line
School Gender Age Race partners)


Pearson
School Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Age Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Race Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


1 -.101(**)


1212


-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


.000
1210


-.025 -.662(**)


.391
1211


1 .114(**)


1210

.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


I have had
sex with
on line Pearson
partners) Correlation -.057(*) .143(**)
Sig. (2-
tailed) .049 .000
N 1205 1203
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


.000
1209


.000
1209


.103(**)


.000
1207


1 .118(**)


1211

.118(**)

.000
1208



.027

.349
1204


.000
1208


1209


.014

.623
1202


Table 4-136. Mean: I have had sex with on line partnerss: School
School Mean Std. Deviation


PFU
HBCU
Total


1.30
1.19
1.29


-.057(*)


.049
1205


143(**)


.000
1203

.027

.349
1204

.014

.623
1202


1205


.644
.537
.632


1043
154
1197









Table 4-137. Mean.: I have had cybersex with on line partnerss: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Females 1.23 .576 831
Males 1.41 .732 364
Total 1.29 .633 1195

Table 4-138. Mean: I have had sex with on line partnerss: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 1.29 .630 408
20-22 1.26 .614 521
23-and above 1.33 .670 267
Total 1.29 .632 1196

Table 4-139. Mean: I have had sex with on line partnerss: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.24 .589 209
AAPI 1.38 .721 72
MAL 1.33 .695 132
NHW 1.28 .629 729
0 1.25 .552 55
Total 1.29 .632 1197









Table 4-140. Tests of between subjects. I have had cybersex with an online partner.
Type III
Independent Sum of Degrees of Mean Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared
Gender 1.457 1 1.457 3.669 .056 .003
Age .053 2 .027 .067 .935 .000
Race .308 4 .077 .194 .942 .001
School .421 1 .421 1.061 .303 .001
Gender/Age .068 2 .034 .85 .918 .000
Gender/Race .921 4 .230 .580 .677 .002
Age/Race 1.016 8 .127 .320 .959 .002


Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School
Gender/Age/
Race School
Error
Total
R squared=.814


1.070

.033
.132

.005
.342

.729

.167


.513 1
455.834 1148
2451.000 1194
(adjusted R Squared=.807)


.952

.774
.847

.993
.930

.176


.134

.033
.066

.003
.085

.729

.042

.513
.397


.337

.082
.166

.007
.215

1.837

.105

1.293


.002

.000
.000

.000
.001

.002

.000


.256









Table 4-141. Correlations: I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex.
I like to
drink
alcoholic
beverages
while
having
cybersex
with an
online
School Gender Age Race partner


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


1 -.101(**)


1212


-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


.000
1210


-.025 -.662(**)


.391
1211


1 .114(**)


1210

.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


I like to
drink
alcoholic
beverages
while
having
cybersex
with an
online Pearson
partner Correlation -.044 .140(**)
Sig. (2-
tailed) .124 .000
N 1203 1201
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


.000
1209


.000
1209

.103(**)


.000
1207


1 .118(**)


1211

.118(**)

.000
1208


.083(**)

.004
1202


.000
1208


1209


.015

.610
1200


School




Gender





Age





Race


-.044

.124
1203

.140(**)


.000
1201


.083(**)


.004
1202

.015

.610
1200


1203









Table 4-142. Mean: I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex with an online
partner: School


Mean


School
PFU
HBCU
Total


Std. Deviation


1.06
1.02
1.05


1042
153
1195


.289
.180
.277


Table 4-143. Mean: I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex with an online
partner: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Females 1.03 .207 831
Males 1.11 .390 362
Total 1.05 .278 1193

Table 4-144. Mean: I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex with an online
partner: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 1.03 .190 407
20-22 1.05 .276 520
23-and above 1.08 .369 267
Total 1.05 .276 1194

Table 4-145. Mean: I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex with an online
partner: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.03 .218 208
AAPI 1.07 .256 72
MAL 1.05 .285 132
NHW 1.06 .300 728
0 1.02 .135 55
Total 1.05 .277 1195









Table 4-146. Tests of between subjects. I like to drink alcohol while having cybersex with an
online partner.
Type III
Independent Sum of Degrees of Mean Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared
Gender .044 1 .044 .576 .448 .001
Age .017 2 .009 .113 .893 .000
Race .042 4 .011 .139 .968 .000
School .043 1 .043 .571 .450 .000
Gender/Age .011 2 .006 .075 .927 .000
Gender/Race .310 4 .078 1.027 .392 .004
Age/Race .663 8 .083 1.096 .363 .008


Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School
Gender/Age/
Race School
Error
Total
R squared=.938


.279

.002
.062

.175
.065

.034

.010

.018
86.611
1406.000
(Adjusted R


.884

.867
.662

.315
.930


8

1
2

2
4

1

4

1
1146
1192
squared-


.035

.002
.031

.087
.016

.034

.002

.018
.076


.461

.028
.413

1.157
.215

.448

.033

.239


.003

.000
.001

.002
.001

.000

.000

.000


.998


.936)










Table 4-147. Correlations: I like to use stimulants while having online sex.
I like to use
stimulants
while
having
cybersex
with an
online
School Gender Age Race partner


Pearson
School Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Gender Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N
Pearson
Age Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


Race



I like to
use
stimulants
while


Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
N


1 -.101(**)


1212


-.101(**)

.000
1210

-.025

.391
1211

-.662(**)

.000
1209


.000
1210


-.025 -.662(**)


.391
1211


1 .114(**)


1210

.114(**)

.000
1209

.103(**)

.000
1207


having
cybersex
with an
online Pearson
partner Correlation -.018 .103(**)
Sig. (2-
tailed) .542 .000
N 1197 1195
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


.000
1209


.000
1209

.103(**)


.000
1207


1 .118(**)


1211

.118(**)

.000
1208









.033

.251
1196


.000
1208


1209


.002

.948
1194


-.018

.542
1197

103(**)


.000
1195

.033

.251
1196

.002

.948
1194


1197









Table 4-148. Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner: School
School Mean Std. Deviation N
PFU 1.03 .233 1037
HBCU 1.02 .181 152
Total 1.03 .227 1189

Table 4-149. Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner: Gender
Gender Mean Std. Deviation N


Females
males
Total


1.06
1.03


.163
.328
.227


827
360
1187


Table 4-150. Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner: Age
Age Mean Std. Deviation N
18-19 1.02 .149 403
20-22 1.04 .272 519
23-and above 1.03 .220 266
Total 1.03 .225 1188


Table 4-151. Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner: Race
Race Mean Std. Deviation N
AAB 1.01 .155 2(
AAPI 1.04 .204
MAL 1.04 .228 13
NHW 1.03 .253 72


O
Total


1.00
1.03


.000
.227


55
1189


2
25









Table 4-152. Tests of between subjects. I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an
online: partner
Type III
Independent Sum of Degrees of Mean Level of Partial Eta
Variable Squares Freedom Square F value Significance Squared
Gender .026 1 .026 .499 .480 .000
Age .010 2 .005 .094 .910 .000
Race .020 4 .005 .096 .984 .000
School 9.88 E- 1 988-E .002 .965 .000
Gender/Age .068 2 .034 .663 .515 .001
Gender/Race .045 4 .011 .220 .927 .001
Age/Race .054 8 .007 .131 .998 .001


Gender Age
Race
Gender/
School
Age/School
Gender/Age
/School
Race/School
Gender
Race/School
Age/Race
/School


.180

.001
.019

.034
.026

.019

.008


Gender/Age/
Race School .009 1
Error 58.563 1140
Total 1313.000 1186
R squared= .955 (Adjusted R squared=.954)


.023

.001
.009

.017
.006

.019

.002

.009
.051


.439

.018
.184

.332
.126

.370

.040

.179


.898

.894
.832

.717
.973


.003

.000
.000

.001
.000

.000

.000

.000


.997









CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION


The information provided in this chapter will attempt to provide insight and interpretation

of the results of the data analyzed for this study. After this information is presented, limitations

as to the sample population, questionnaire, and recommendations for further studies will be

brought forth.

With this particular research interest, there are more questions than answers and that will

be a focus of this discussion. To begin this discussion, revisiting the specific research questions

is necessary. Also, to respond to these questions, a review of the analyses is in order.

Length of Internet Use And Email Use

Based upon the results of this research study and the question of length of internet use,

neither age, race, gender, nor university of record proved to be significant in length of email or

internet use. Over 95% of all participants in the study have used the internet for least three years

consecutively. As the results are insignificant, it does demonstrate that the population of both

schools has been exposed to and has been using the internet and email for at least three years.

This is important because it indicates that almost all of the participants have enough experience

to be able to navigate the specific areas of the internet. This finding also suggests that despite

age, race, gender and university of record, all of the participants have a basis for understanding

how to use the internet for information, entertainment and/or any other purposes.

Frequency Of Email Use

The next area of interest within this group of questions (identified in the survey) was how

often the internet was used. It appears as though overall, all students who attend HBCU use their

emails less frequently than their racial counterparts at PFU. There is a gender difference as well.

In comparison to all other students, Black males and females attending HBCU use email less









frequently than racially like counterparts at PFU. AA/PI females (overall) use email more than

their male counterparts. There is a significant difference between AAB males frequency of email

use as well. AAB males attending PFU are the most frequent of all male email users, and AAB

males attending HBCU use email the least frequent of all email users. MAL females used email

more frequently than their male counterparts. No interaction could be determined for MAL

males, as there was no representation in the sample from HBCU. Gender differences demonstrate

that males use email less frequently than females overall. Overall, the Tukey HSD proved

significant on the interaction between AAB and all other race categories in the sample.

In the case of gender, race and school, African American Blacks use the internet less

frequently than their racial counterparts. The Tukey HSD demonstrated that the interaction

between races was significant for African American Blacks and all other races.

AAB females from HBCU age 18 and older who participated in the sample demonstrated

less frequent internet use than their age and race similar counterparts from PFU. AAB from

HBCU who were age 18-20 and 23 and older demonstrated the least frequent use of all of their

male and racially different counterparts.

According to the sample population surveyed, AAB males and females attending HBCU

use email less frequently than their PFU counterparts. There are a multitude of reasons for this

difference. Perhaps one of the main reasons relates directly to socioeconomic factors.

Unfortunately, African American Blacks (as a whole) have lower gross incomes overall, lower

socioeconomic status, and this certainly affects availability and frequency of use of email and

internet use directly related to availability of computers. In order to communicate, cellular

telephones have gained popularity. In these current times (based on personal observation),

everyone has a cellular telephone, and it is especially prevalent in these age groups. Cellular









telephones are cheap, making it a preferable method of communication. It is much quicker, and

requires little skill or levels of literacy to use.

Another difference that might be explained for less email use is the geography of the

campuses. The campus at PFU is large and expansive, the population is large, more diverse and

interactions because of computer availability and extensive landscape may be more compatible

with this population. Although this study did not address socioeconomic factors between the two

institutions, this information would significantly help in addressing these issues. This finding

may also be a direct result of mandatory computers at PFU

Students who are enrolled at HBCU are not mandated to purchase computers for school.

Students at PFU are required to have these items upon admission. There are also larger computer

work areas for the students at PFU, with tech support available night and day. Students at

HBCU, which is a private university, are at the mercy of much smaller work areas and not

having the availability of a computer when they need it. Approximately 80% of the students at

HBCU have computers. Until last year (2007), wireless access was not available campus wide at

HBCU. This has not been the case at PFU. Students attending HBCU are primarily funded by

financial aid, scholarships and student loans. These students do not have an expendable income

and are less likely to purchase a computer unless it becomes mandatory.

Frequency Of Internet Use

As previously stated, one of the variables that may influence behavior is the frequency

with which an individual spends participating in that particular behavior. With regard to internet

use, outside of the aspect of communication (excluding www.myspace.com, and their

contemporaries), the internet can be used for information seeking, entertainment, gaming,

voyeurism, and education and because of this frequency of internet use is differentiated from

email use.









In this study, gender and age (together) as interaction variables demonstrated the most

striking differentiation in the frequency of internet use. Males and females who use the internet

have an inverse relationship as they age. In this sample, females use the internet less frequently

as they age, and males do the exact opposite. As males age, they tend to use the internet more.

This difference may be demonstrative of the activities that are occurring within the cyber

environment of the internet or as a result of the internet. This finding demonstrates a need for

further follow up investigation, as this may be significant in the development of programs in

which internet use and gender might impact.

Race was also a factor in frequency of internet use. In an overall comparison, AAB used

the internet less frequently than other races. Based upon the means in this interaction, AAB used

the internet less than NHW and MAL. This interaction was also significant in the Tukey HSD.

NHW used the internet more than AAB, but less than other races. These results may be a direct

consequence of economics, and availability of the internet in AAB. As suggested earlier, in

follow up studies, it would be important to inquire about socioeconomic status, as this

information may shed some light on crucial information as it relates to frequency of internet use

and race.

Finally, the four way interaction effect of gender, race, school and age proved significant.

Overall, females and males from HBCU used the internet less overall when compared to PFU,

Females from HBCU used the internet less than their HBCU male counterparts. Black females

from HBCU, regardless of age used the internet less than their Black female counterparts from

PFU. Although there were other interactions for race, gender, school and age, many of the

categories had either very few or no representation within these very specific groups. The

specific information for AAB in this study is cited as there was adequate representation in









females. The representation of AAB males who attended HBCU were less in number in the older

age groups, therefore the discussion is limited to females in the four way interaction. NHW

females who attended HBCU also had less frequent internet use than their NHW counterparts at

PFU. This finding may demonstrate that the significance may be a result of availability versus

racial differences as suggested earlier. In light of the lack of representation of some subgroups

(age, race, and gender) within the overall population, the interpretation of the results for these

variables should be viewed with caution.

The most important aspect of this question involves the interaction of the variables, age

and gender. It is revealing that the relationship of the frequency of internet use to age and gender

may be significant in how and why it is used. Further investigations may illuminate study areas

that include such topics as internet addictions and the impact of the internet on psychosocial

development.

Making Friends Online

ANOVA statistics demonstrated significance between the independent variables. Main

effects were demonstrated in gender. Males were more likely to use the internet to make new

friends. In this grouping, there was also a four way interaction between gender, race, age and

school (p=.016). The Tukey HSD proved to be insignificant for age, and significant for the

interaction (multiple comparisons) of AAB when compared to MAL and NHW..

In comparison to university of record (school), students attending HBCU were more

likely to engage in making friends online. With regard to race both AAB males and females

attending HBCU were more likely to make friends over the internet than those AAB attending

PFU. Interestingly, when comparing all races; AAB were more likely to make friends over the

internet than both MAL and NHW. Overall, these results demonstrate that there is a difference in

internet use in these populations.









It is a little surprising that males in general were more likely to make friends over the

internet. This was a general purpose statement, and it did not specify the nature of the

relationship. With that being said, the idea of relationships for on line games (i.e. XBOX), may

be important as the technological aspect of the internet may be a driving factor in this

relationship.

It is more difficult to explain the trend in online friendship from different universities.

This may be a result of the cultural and demographic climate of the institution itself. This cannot

be adequately explained by the current study, but would be an important aspect of further

research.

Although AAB (as a whole) in this study are more likely to make friends on the internet

(as these results indicate), using these findings to gain insight into the relationships that are

generated within the cyber realm and acted out in different scenarios may be premature without

further information about the context of each situation. It may simply be a function of being

further away from home and separated from friends. Further investigation into the internet use

patterns of all adolescents and emerging adults, particularly as they peruse sexual topics may

help us comprehend phenomena like the record level of STI's, earlier ages of sexual initiation

and practice of serial monogamy among the adolescent and emerging adult populations of all

races. These kinds of questions may be more appropriately addressed in qualitative studies to

allow understanding of the context of each situation.

Meeting Friends' Offline

As previously stated, the idea of making friends online may influence the idea of meeting

offline. The online survey asked specific questions regarding relationships. The questions were

posed in this fashion: "Have you ever met in person anyone you first met online". These

questions were again analyzed using the variables of gender, race, university of record, and age.









Univariate ANOVA tests were performed and there was no significant interaction among any of

the variables.

According to the study completed by (McFarlane et al., 2002) there was a correlation

between online relationships and offline meetings for sexual encounters. However, in this study,

when this variable was compared with meeting a person offline, there was no significant

interaction. Therefore, although it has been examined in other studies the results could not be

replicated in this population. However, in the context of making friends on line, different

questions need to be posed to have an understanding of the offline relationship. The questions

that need to be asked include relationships for friendship, romance, gaming, and as such

information may determine the nature of the offline relationship.

I Have Posted Online Messages To Meet A Potential Partner

The results for this particular analysis demonstrate that males are more likely than their

female counterparts to post a message in order to meet a potential partner. Age also proved

significant as males who participated in the study were more likely to post messages as they

aged. The average means between ages and the male gender demonstrated an increase whereas

females did the exact opposite. Their average means decreased as they got older. This may be

influenced by the types of relationships that females are more likely to engage in as they age.

These answers may also be respective of ongoing relationships. However, follow up questions as

to the reasons for meeting a potential partner are in order to understand the relationship within

the groups.

The overall mean PFU (mean=1.445) was higher than that of HBCU (mean=1.398). Non

Hispanic Whites had higher overall means than their racial counterparts. However, the means of

African American Blacks were second highest among the groups. Males attending HBCU who

identified themselves as 23 or older had the highest means of all groups, Females attending PFU









had a higher average mean than that of their HBCU counterparts, and a trend in the means

suggests that as they age they more frequently post messages in order to meet a potential partner.

This may be directly related to the racial mix from both schools. Again, the variation of ethnic

population between HBCU and PFU is very polarized and the significant ANOVAs may be a

direct result of this.

Males attending HBCU had a higher overall average mean than their PFU counterparts

in attempting to meet potential online partners. However, the phenomenon with increases in the

male populations between the universities was the same phenomena that occurred in the female

population. Males attending PFU demonstrated an increase in means related to age and posting

messages in order to meet a potential partner. Remarkably, there was a jump in the mean of

HBCU males 23 and older, which is almost twice of that of their age 20-22 year old counter

parts. This should definitely be studied further as there was reasonable representation in that

grouping variable (N=29).

As previously stated, in comparing race, age, gender, and school as factors in a four way

interaction in this sample, many of the races do not have a single individual in the sample in

certain age groups when separated for age and gender. Therefore, it would be difficult to attempt

to describe the interaction in between and as a result of these very specific areas. There is

significance in the relationship, and as such further studies should attempt to include larger

numbers within these categories.

The question about meeting potential partners did not specifically ask the sample

population what the purpose of the posting or the relationship of the anticipated partner might be.

It would be interesting to do a follow up survey with questions about the specific purposes of the

posting to meet a potential partner (i.e. friendship, romantic relationship, and/or etc.).









The importance of the internet as an alternate way to meet new people was also

significant to all independent variables. The means of age range rises subsequently with each

advancing category. This finding correlates with many of the other data analyses discussed, and

may be associated with the growing trend that the internet continues to become more subtly

pervasive in daily lives of emerging adults (Weiser, 2000).

Does Your Partner Object To The Amount Of Time You Spend Online?

The first question analyzed had to do with whether or not a partner knew about an online

friendships or relationships (partner knowledge). This was a Boolean style question (yes or no). .

Gender and age were both significant as main effect independent variables. In the analysis of

interactions gender and age proved significant as the interaction of both variables combined with

the dependent variable. The interaction of gender, race and school proved significant as well as

the combined interaction of the variables when compared to the dependent variable. These

comparisons were also significant on the MANOVA. The four way interaction of all independent

and dependent variables again proved to be significant with the combined interaction (p=.000)

Based upon the sample population and the results, Non White Hispanics are less likely to

disclose their on line relationships to their off line partners/relationships. Partner knowledge was

also statistically significant for university of record. In this analysis, students who attended PFU

were less likely to disclose their online relationships than their HBCU counterparts. This finding

may be a direct result of the higher number of Non Hispanic Whites in attendance at PFU

(n=637) versus HBCU (n=7). The results of university of record should be discounted based

upon the sample size of Non Hispanic Whites in attendance at HBCU.

Gender proved to be interesting. Based upon the population represented, females are less

likely to have a partner object to the amount of time that they spend online. The average female

overall mean was higher (mean= 1.974) than the male average mean (1.881).









It is important to note that both Tukey HSD tests for age and race demonstrated

insignificance among the interaction effects in multiple comparisons. Therefore, the results of the

ANOVA show significance but based upon the sample (as evidenced by the Tukey HSD) there is

no way to determine the relevance of the interaction as it pertains to this grouping. There is no

clear relationship between race and age as it relates to partner objection except that there may be

racial differences that cannot be identified based upon the sample. A larger sample of minority

populations (i.e. AAPI and MAL) may provide an interpretable interaction between race and age.

The overall interaction demonstrates that there is a difference in partner objection

between school, age, gender and race. As mentioned earlier, uneven distribution of the sample

population make it difficult to interpret the significance of these interactions.

The interaction of the variables of gender and age when compared to partner objection

proved to be most interesting. The inverse relationship that was indicated in frequency of internet

use was replicated in this question. Females, as they age are less likely to experience partner

objection, and males are more likely to experience partner objection. This may be a direct result

of the specific use of the internet. According to O'Reilly and colleagues (2007), males are more

likely to view sexually explicit material online, and women are more likely to feel threatened by,

or object the use of the internet for this specific behavior. Although it was not specified on the

current survey, the work of O'Reilly and colleagues (2007) suggests that a similar effect may be

present in this population.

Does Your Offline Partner Know About The Friends/Relationships That You Have Online

In the analysis of this particular variable, partner knowledge of online relationships

demonstrated significant results in the interaction effect of age and school on the dependent

variable. Overall, students attending PFU are more likely to share information with their offline

partners about relationships than those students attending HBCU. Regarding age, and partner









knowledge, the Tukey HSD demonstrated significance in the multiple comparisons of age. There

is an interaction between younger participants when compared to their older counterparts.

Overall, students over the age of 23 are more likely to disclose online relationships to their

partners when compared to their younger counterparts. In comparing age and university, the only

age group that is less likely to disclose information to their offline partners is HBCU students

who are 23 or older. All other age ranges demonstrate that PFU students are more likely to

provide information to their offline partners.

This may be related to the type of university (private, Christian based) in comparison to a

public university, as race proved to be insignificant. Based upon the results, again further in-

depth follow up about this behavior should be initiated within this population.

The Expression Of Jealousy Over Online Relationships

The next question analyzed stated: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the

relationships you have developed online? Using ANOVA, the results demonstrated significance

in the interactions between age, race and school and age and race as grouped interaction

variables, (age, race, and school, as one group interaction and race and school as the other).

Unfortunately, these variable groupings proved insignificant on the MANOVA. Therefore, the

results cannot be considered significant and/or reportable as such.

The Importance Of Alternative Ways/Place For Meeting Potential Online Sexual Partners

The next variable to be tested was 'the internet/email is an alternative way/place for

meeting potential sexual partners'. This dependent variable was again tested comparing age,

gender, university of record (school), and race as independent variables. The analysis proved

significant for the main effect of gender as well as age when compared to the dependent variable.

There was also a significant interaction of age, race and school; however this combination was









not significant on the MANOVA. Both the main effects of gender as well as age were significant

on the MANOVA. Age and race proved significant on the Tukey HSD as well.

In this grouping the means in males were much higher than that of their female

counterparts. The overall male mean for gender was higher (3.520) as compared with the female

sample in this group (2.524). This demonstrated a significant difference in the groups as to the

importance of the internet as an important way to meet potential online sexual partners. Men in

the sample believe that this is an important alternative way to meet online sexual partners when

compared to their female counterparts.

Age also had a significant interaction. As individuals are older (in the sample) they are

more likely to value the internet as an alternate way to meet individuals. The Tukey HSD

demonstrated that although the interaction is not significant between students 18-20 and those

who are 20-22, there is a significant interaction between those individuals who identified

themselves as 23 and older when compared to their younger counterparts. This demonstrates that

gender and age have a significant effect on the difference in perceptions of the importance of the

internet as a place to meet online sex partners. This is the third interaction among this grouping

variable and identifies the continuing theme of how gender and age play a role in the importance

as well as integration of the internet as a component in life styles.

I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials On The Internet

One of the questions asked of respondents was to assess their access to sexually explicit

materials on the internet. The only significant analyses proved to be gender and university of

record in both ANOVA and MANOVA. Men were more likely than women to access sexually

explicit materials on the internet. Students attending PFU were also more likely to access

sexually explicit material. This demonstrates a significant difference in internet use from HBCU

and PFU. This is another pattern that suggests that further research is necessary when assessing









sexual behaviors in this population. The difference in universities and the access of sexually

explicit material may be a result of internet accessibility, computer availability, and

socioeconomics.

One of the variables within the survey alluded to religion and religiosity; however it was

not analyzed in this study. The fact that HBCU is affiliated with a religious organization may

have an impact on using the internet for this purpose. This relationship may require future

investigation and analysis of data collected as a part of this study as it may provide elucidation of

this specific area of interest

I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials To Become Sexually Aroused

I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet was another question posed to

the sample population. The only significant analyses proved to be gender and university of

record (school) in these analyses (separately). Gender and school were also significant as a main

affect on the MANOVA analysis.

Not surprising, the means between males and females on accessing sexually explicit

materials on the internet were almost 1 12 times higher in males than females. It is far more

interesting that students who attend HBCU were much less likely to access the internet than their

counterparts at PFU in the pursuit of accessing sexually explicit materials for sexual arousal.

This difference exists without any connotation to race. As neither race nor age proved to be

significant, this indicates that the interaction of school perhaps has more to do with the different

social environments, sociocultural history, and overall mission statement of the separate

institutions. HBCU as previously stated is a Christian based organization, and this may be a

factor in how this behavior is perceived and accepted by the overall population. In contrast, PFU

is a large public university with a huge overall student population and the case for increased

anonymity can be made when using the internet for these purposes. Another variable that was not









analyzed in this study is the idea of guilt or shame associated with using the internet for these

purposes. Perhaps the interaction of religion/religiosity and guilt and/or shame may be associated

as a deterrent in viewing erotica for arousal. This may be important in further studies when

comparing students who attend religiously based universities to those who do not, or do not

attend a university at all. In any case this is an area that requires further study.

While Viewing Sexually Explicit Web Sites I Have Masturbated

The question "while viewing sexually explicit material I have masturbated" was analyzed

with ANOVA. Based upon the results of these analyses, males are far more likely than their

female counterparts to view sexually explicit materials for the purpose of masturbation. The

varying means demonstrated by males and females indicates that the male participants of this

study were twice as likely to masturbate to sexually explicit web sites as their female

counterparts.

Seidman (2004) demonstrated that males are more likely to masturbate when viewing

sexually explicit material and are more likely to view it alone. In contrast, females who view

sexually explicit material are more likely to view it with a partner without the act of self sexual

gratification. The findings in this study support Seidman's (2004) findings.

Students attending PFU are far more likely to view these materials for the purpose of

masturbation. Coincidentally, (with the exception of AAPI females), all representatives at PFU

of any other race are more likely to view this material for the purpose of self gratification than

their racial counterparts at HBCU.

AAB males attending PFU are twice more likely to view sexually explicit material on the

internet for the purpose of masturbation than that of their AAB HBCU counterparts. The Tukey

HSD analysis of multiple comparisons demonstrated within the groups that overall, AAB were

less likely to masturbate while viewing sexually explicit material. To adequately interpret this









result, further studies are needed in order to replicate and validate these preliminary results and

specify this information in both quantitative and qualitative inquiry.

As previously stated, the idea of guilt or shame associated with using the internet for

these purposes may be a factor in students from HBCU exhibiting these behaviors. Seidman's

work (2004) also demonstrated that earlier exposure to sexually explicit material may be a

predictor of frequency of current pornography use. Therefore, the need for further research in

this particular area becomes extremely important in attempting to predict online sexual behaviors

and offline behaviors.

I Have Had Cybersex With An Online Partner

Using ANOVA statistics, the question "I have had cybersex with an online partner" was

analyzed. This question was analyzed as the dependent variable with age, gender, race and

university of record (school). The results were insignificant.

I Like To Drink Alcohol While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner

Using ANOVA statistics, the question 'I like to drink alcohol while having cybersex with

an online partner' was analyzed. This question was analyzed as the dependent variable with age,

gender, race and university of record (school). The results were insignificant.

I Like To Use Stimulants While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner

Using ANOVA statistics, the question 'I like to use stimulants (drugs) while having

cybersex with an online partner' was analyzed. This question was analyzed as the dependent

variable with age, gender, race and university of record (school). The results were insignificant

with all effects.

Summary

This study had a very large and controlled sample size that was extremely representative

of the U.S. population according to race. There was greater representation of African American









Blacks (17.4%) than reflected in the U.S. population (12.3%). There was a greater percentage of

Asian American/Pacific Islanders (6.0%) than in the U.S. total population (3.7%). Mexican

Americans/Latinos represented 11. % of the study population and demonstrate 12.5 % of the

U.S. population. Non Hispanic Whites were under represented in the study as that group only

represented 60.5% of the study, and 75.1 % of the U.S. population according to the year 2000

census data (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-9.pdf).

In the data analyzed for this study, gender continues to be the major factor in internet

usage. Age is also very noteworthy when looking at trends of decisions that may likely influence

behaviors. Race, specifically AAB appear to be a determinant of behaviors that involve internet

use overall. This is very significant as it may provide some insight as how to effectively use the

internet for educative and health related topics. This study collected data related to internet use

and education/information, but was not analyzed for this specific study. This study specifically

looked at internet use differences in age, race, gender and school. Future analysis of gathered

data may lead to further research within this topic.

As for the idea of race as a determinant for efficacy of use; there have been studies that

discuss how internet knowledge and frequency of use is a determinant of efficacy (Potosky,

2006). Race was not identified as a determinant of efficacy of use. It is important to note that as

this study compared a small private black university to a major public university, there is a

significant difference in internet use and interest overall. As the study did not ask specific

information regarding socioeconomic status (current or overall economic status history), there is

no way to determine if the differences in internet use are related to race or socioeconomic status.

This is an imperative area of further research, specifically because it is foundational to the notion

of whether or not race is an indicator of internet use. Finally, there needs to be research









conducted to investigate to determine if these specific internet behaviors among AAB are a

phenomenon to these particular universities or AAB college students in general.

One of the most outstanding revelations of this study is the notion that internet use, length

and frequency have a definite increasing influence and value during the emerging adult years

(generally identified as late teens and early twenties). The data seems to demonstrate that the

internet becomes more omnipresent as emerging adults go through this growth and development

period. This relationship supports previous findings regarding addictive behaviors and the idea of

an increasing frequency and level of satiety (Griffiths, 2001; Shapira et al., 2003; Young, 1998).

Griffith (2001), alleges that behaviors most likely to promote sexual addiction within this

venue include online pornography for masturbatory purposes, and online sexual relationships

(Griffiths, 2001). It is possible that the increase in age and valuing the importance of the internet

for potential partner (sexual or otherwise) as well as partner objection increasing with age

demonstrates this effect occurring within this emerging adult population. According to Young

(1998) frequency of internet use is central to the notion of addiction. The levels of need for

satiety are increased with each passing encounter and it is in this desire to quench this

physiological/ psychological urge. Young (1998) emphasizes that individuals can get lost in the

interaction and the socialization of the internet and lose track of all time and spatial dimensions

in the cyber realm. In adolescents and emerging adults, this pattern may prove to be detrimental

to psychosocial behaviors.

Huang (2006) demonstrated that internet use (greater than 10 hours per week) leads to a

breakdown in the psychosocial development of individuals during the sixth phase of Erickson's

developmental framework (intimacy versus isolation). The inability to develop intimacy relates

directly to the incapability to develop a sense of identity and creates an environment for









gratification in order to satiate this internal desire (Huang, 2006). The trend that has been

identified in this study demonstrates that the longer an individual uses the internet, the more

important it becomes (even for sexual arousal). If the importance of intimate relationships is

devalued, then there is an effect on psychosocial behavior that must be addressed. It is this lack

of intimacy in favor of the internet which feeds the idea of isolation and creates crises. These

crises can manifest in the form of self gratification, self loathing, or more isolated behaviors

(Hall & Parsons, 2001). In essence, this behavior has a potential to escalate in adults who have

the full capabilities of cognition. Emerging adults and adolescents who do not have full cognition

are at even greater risk. They may become lost in the conundrum of this technological medium

and lose their identities, and ability to form intimate meaningful relationships. This is another

area of study that requires further understanding, especially in adolescents and emerging adults.

The level of importance of meeting for the purpose of online sex relationships that has

been identified within this population sample may very well identify a pattern that exists in a

generalized population of emerging adults. Multiple studies have demonstrated this behavior in

gay populations (Ross, Rosser, Coleman, & Mazin, 2006). This may play a factor in the

development of offline sex partners as this behavior may escalate. The questions in the survey

were not specific enough to elicit this type of information; however it does identify the need for

further study in this area using this age population.

Limitations

Although this was a large sample size, there were limitations to the populations in

general. Gender was the main issue within the sample. Females dominated the sample population

by over 30 %. The gender sample was approximately 70 % female and 30 % male.

Interestingly, this result demonstrates that despite the topic (which many may assume is

of more interest to emerging adult males) women are more likely to participate in surveys and









therefore are better represented in the study. This fact is profuse demonstrated throughout the

literature and this phenomenon does occur whether surveys are online or offline, females perhaps

by nature are more interested in partaking in these endeavors compared with their male

counterparts (Rhodes, Bowie, & Hergenrather 2003). The lack of sufficiency in the number of

male participants may be a factor in the results.

Another limitation of the study is that the questionnaire may not have been specific

enough, and may have resulted in confusion among some of the respondents. As respondents had

the opportunity to email the primary investigator, some of the comments directly related to the

questions for both internet use and meeting online partners. A few respondents wrote in concerns

about the wording of a few of the questions and an interpretation of meaning (i.e. what was the

purpose behind the use of the internet or the meeting of an individual). An example of the type of

email has been included to give an example. The participant wrote:

"I participated in the "Sexual Behaviors and Internet Use" Survey and I am a little
concerned. I have never looked at sexually explicit material over the internet and during
many of the questions there was no N/A selection that could be made. I'm afraid that it
will make the data appear a certain way that is not necessarily true, not just for me but for
many people taking this survey. To provide an example, one of the questions was "I feel
embarrassed when looking at sexually explicit material over the internet." Do I answer as
"Frequently" or "Never"? Do I speculate about my embarrassment had I looked at the
material, or do I say never because I have never looked at it? I wasn't sure who to address
about this, but I just believe that this is something to look at. I think this research is very
important and I would hate for it to be affected by this confusion."

This may be a limitation and may also have been a factor for some of the insignificant findings.

A very important factor in creating a follow up study would be to take this data and develop

future qualitative studies based upon this observation. These qualitative findings could then be

used to refine the questionnaire before replicating it.









Suggestions For Further Investigation

The quantitative information presented in this study demands follow up

qualitative inquiry. Utilizing a mixed methods approach to data collection allows the quantitative

data analysis to be followed by a qualitative follow up study. This is clarified as an explanatory

approach (Creswell, 2003). This explanatory model allows the narrative of individuals and

groups to bring out the subtle information that may describe aspects of a quantitative study that

can be translated into findings that can capture a people's ideas and thus yield a further

understanding of this important quantitative study.

According to Tasshakkori and Teddlie (1998), using a mixed method model with

sequential quantitative qualitative analysis provides an engendering environment in which to

develop further understanding. This environmental change occurs as a result of group dynamics

that are exposed. This resultant exposure allows those participating to take into consideration the

subtle differences in people and settings. It is within these unique encounters that enrich the

original findings of that specific quantitative data analysis. When the qualitative narratives are

analyzed there is a stronger description of the actual quantitative analysis with the melding of

these research methods

One of the best suited venues to venture into the virtual reality of the internet is

ethnography. A key feature of ethnographic method is that has the ability to be used without a

design, and therefore makes it unequivocally useful in cyber space. This lack of design is the key

feature as it allows an unfettered flow of the information between the researcher, group and or

individuals simultaneously. Fortunately, it also allows the researcher to be even more flexible in

response to the ebb and flow of the venue in which individuals are participating (Patton, 2002;

Prendergast, 2004).









Ethnographic methods are used predominantly to study societal issues. Qualitative

inquiry, specifically ethnography has been used to study culture occurring within the internet.

The attraction of cyberspace as a research medium provides versatility that is not restricted by

geography. It has the unique ability to interact with groups that would not normally be available

to the researcher. The use of this web based survey demonstrates the potential to provide large

accurate sample sizes, minimization of the risk of unintended participants (through limited

advertisement), as well as improve the ethnic generalizability of the population. However, it was

limited as to the ability to find the nuances in behavior that may occur in all of the participants

that cannot be reflected in the data collected in the survey.

Very few studies have engaged in demonstrating differences among students attending

HBCU and public universities. This study utilized this design in order to capture the significant

differences that occur within these populations in other venues (i.e. learning, culture). The results

also demonstrate the importance of studying populations within their own cultural environment

to denote differences and develop interventions through those findings.

A few suggestions for further study include focus groups that are not only gender based,

but age restrictive and ethnically similar. In order to investigate specific topics such as internet

use, internet surfing whether recreational or educational; groups need to be age specific to the

age groups within this study.

Another recommendation would be to replicate this study within the HBCU system. This

would allow using a similar demographic population on a larger scale. A replication like this

may validate the findings in this study within a larger more specific population. It would be

necessary to use a mixed methods study to elicit more complete and rich responses.









APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT


Sexual Behaviors of nternet Use of Traditional College Age Students: An
exploratory study.


U Institutional Review Board
U. UNIVERSITY of FLORIDA

Informed Consent Form
to Participant in Research

INTRODUCTION

Name of person seeking your consent: Paula C. Pritchard

Place of employment & position: University of Florida Doctoral Student.

This is a research study of sexual behaviors and internet use of traditional college age students is
to explore how technology, specifically the internet may affect sexual decision making and
influence sexual behaviors in traditional college age students.

Could participating in this study offer any direct benefits to you? No, as described on question
lla.

Could participating cause you any discomforts or are there any risks to you? No, as described on
question 10.

Please read this form which describes the study in some detail. I or one of my co-workers will
also describe this study to you and answer all of your questions. Your participation is entirely
voluntary. If you choose to participate you can change your mind at any time and withdraw from
the study. You will not be penalized in any way or lose any benefits to which you would
otherwise be entitled if you choose not to participate in this study or to withdraw. If you have
questions about your rights as a research subject, please call the University of Florida
Institutional Review Board (IRB) office at (352) 846-1494. If you decide to take part in this
study, please click agree at the end of this consent.

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS STUDY


1. What is the Title of this research study?









INFORMED CONSENT


Sexual Behaviors and Internet Use of Traditional College Age Students

2. Who do you call if you have questions about this research study?

Paula C. Pritchard (principal investigator)

pcwrn@ufl.edu

(386) 562-4533

3. Who is paying for this research study?

The sponsor of this study is University of Florida

4. Why is this research study being done?

The purpose of this research study is to look at sexual behaviors and internet use of traditional
college age students. The purpose is to explore how technology, specifically the internet may
affect sexual decision-making and influence sexual behaviors in traditional college age students.
If the internet does influence sexual decision making in traditional aged college student, the
results of this study could help better understand the interaction between internet use and sexual
behaviors You are being asked to be in this research study because traditional age college
students by far have had more technology experience than older adults, as well as use the internet
more often. As a traditional age college student (18-22), you are best suited to participate in this
study.

WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT IF YOU PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY?

5. What will be done as part of your normal clinical care (even if you did not participate in
this research study)?

This is not applicable

6. What will be done only because you are in this research study?

You are agreeing to participate in an anonymous online survey where your responses will be
correlated and analyzed in order to understand more fully, internet use and sexual behaviors. If
you have any questions now or at any time during the study, please contact Paula C. Pritchard in
question 2 of this form.

7. How long will you be in this research study?

Your participation in the survey will take approximately 30 to 45 minutes of your time









INFORMED CONSENT
8. How many people are expected to take part in this research study?

2500 people are expected to participate in this research study

WHAT ARE THE RISKS AND BENEFITS OF THIS STUDY AND WHAT ARE YOUR
OPTIONS?

9. What are the possible discomforts and risks from taking part in this research study?

There are no possible discomforts or risk involved with this study. Some of the questions may
make you feel slightly uncomfortable because of the subject matter. Your identity will remain
anonymous, and therefore it is impossible to link your responses to yourself in any way. There
are no physical or psychological risks to you by your participation in this study.

Other possible risks to you may include: not applicable. This study may include risks that are
unknown at this time.

Participation in more than one research study or project may further increase the risks to you. If
you are already enrolled in another research study, please inform Paula C. Pritchard (listed in
question 2 of this consent form) or the person reviewing this consent with you before enrolling in
this or any other research study or project.

Throughout the study, the researchers will notify you of new information that may become
available and might affect your decision to remain in the study.

If you wish to discuss the information above or any discomforts you may experience, please ask
questions now or call the name of PI or contact person listed on the front page of this form.

10a. What are the potential benefits to you for taking part in this research study ?

There is no direct benefit to you for participating in this research study

10b. How could others possibly benefit from this study?

Potential benefits include the opportunity to improve understanding of how traditional age
college students utilize the internet and explore the possibilities of its influence on sexual
behaviors and sexual decision making.

10c. How could the researchers benefit from this study?

In general, presenting research results helps the career of a scientist. Therefore, Paula C.
Pritchard may benefit if the results of this study are presented at scientific meetings or in
scientific journals. There is no conflict of interest associated with the principal or any other
associated with this study.









11. What other choices do you have if you do not want to be in this study?


You have been invited to participate in this research project because you are a student and as
previously stated college students utilize the internet more frequently, and have more experience
using the internet, and this may influence sexual decision making and behavior. The
investigators associated with this project may or may not teach in your college or be associated
with courses for which you are enrolled or might be expected to register in the future. Your
participation is voluntary and any decision to part or not participate will in no way affect your
grade or class standing.

If you believe that your participation in this study or your decision to withdraw from or not to
participate has improperly affected your grades(s), you should discuss this with the dean of your
college or you may contact the IRB office.

12a. Can you withdraw from this study?

You are free to withdraw your consent and to stop participating in this study at any time. If you
do withdraw your consent, you will not be penalized in any way and you will not lose any
benefits to which you are entitled.

If you decide to withdraw your consent to participate in this study for any reason, please contact
Paula C. Pritchard at (386) 562-4533. They will tell you how to stop your participation safely.

If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, please call the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) office at (352) 846-1494.

12b. If you withdraw, can information about you still be used and/or collected?

Information obtained in the survey data collection after it is submitted by you cannot be removed
as there are no identifiers to your specific answers. Survey data is maintained in aggregate form
from the time of survey submission.

12c. Can the Principal Investigator withdraw you from this study?

You may be withdrawn from the study without your consent for the following reasons: If you do
not meet the inclusion criteria, you can be withdrawn from participating in this study.

= WHAT ARE THE FINANCIAL ISSUES IF YOU PARTICIPATE?

13. If you choose to take part in this research study, will it cost you anything?

No.









INFORMED CONSENT


14. Will you be paid for taking part in this study?
No.

15. What if you are injured because of the study?
If you are injured as a direct result of your participation in this study, only professional
consultative care that you receive at the University of Florida Student Health Care Center will be
provided without charge. Any hospital charges incurred would be paid by you or your insurance
provider. You will be responsible for any deductible, co-insurance, or copayments. Some
insurance companies may not cover costs associated with research studies. Please contact your
insurance company for additional information.

No additional compensation is offered. The Principal Investigator and other involved with this
study may be University of Florida employees. As employees of the University, they are
protected under state law, which limits financial recovery for negligence.

Please contact the Principal Investigator listed in question 3 of this form if you experience an
injury or have questions about any discomforts that you experience while participating in this
study.

16. How will your privacy and the confidentiality of your research records be protected?
Information collected about you will be stored in locked filing cabinets or in computers with
security passwords. Only certain people have the legal right to review these research records, and
they will protect the secrecy (confidentiality) of these records as much as the law allows. These
people include the researchers for this study, certain University of Florida officials, the hospital
or clinic (if any) involved in this research, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB; an IRB is a
group of people who are responsible for looking after the rights and welfare of people taking part
in research). Otherwise your research records will not be released without your permission unless
required by law or a court order.

Researchers will take appropriate steps to protect any information they collect about you.
However there is a slight risk that information about you could be revealed inappropriately or
accidentally. Depending on the nature of the information such a release could upset or embarrass
you, or possibly even affect your insurability or employability.
If the results of this research are published or presented at scientific meetings, your identity will
not be disclosed.
17. Authorization
You have read about this study's purpose, procedures, possible benefits, and risks; the
alternatives to being in the study; and how your privacy will be protected. You may download a
copy of this form. You have been given the opportunity to ask questions before you agree and
you have read that you can ask other questions at any time. By clicking on agree at the bottom of
this form this form you are voluntarily agreeing to participate in this study. You are not waiving
any of your legal rights.

Agree Disagree












APPENDIX B
INTERNET SURVEY


W UNIErST1 College Students' Perceptions and Behavior When Using the Internet for Sexuality-Related Information: An
SFLORIDA exploratory study.

Using a survey designed by:
PATRICIA GOODSON, Ph.D., DEBORAH MCCORMICK, Ph.D.,and ALEXANDRA EVANS, Ph.D. 2 "'" i

For all quei oir, please select your answer or fill in the blank with the appropriate information.

A. Demographic Characteristics

A. Are you A2. How old are you?
OMale 0 17 or less
OFemale OBetween 18 and 19
0 Between 20 and 22
0 23 or older


A3. What is your it i: eduu -r 'i, A4. What is your current marital status?
01. Afiican American'Black 0 1- Su'Ir
02. Native American 02. uigl ig' idi p.dm~ati
03. Asian American/Pacific Islande 0 3 Married
0 4. M '.':,,i .. .i .'? -:, iitj',,, i.': _asic:. 0 4. .." .'.rtd i ri:r legal, d'..':. .i:ed
0 5. AngloNon-HispanicWhite 0 5. Divorced and re-married
06. Other 0 6. Divorced and never re-married
0 7. Widowed


A5. What is your religious preference? A6. Religiously, what do you consider yourself?
01. Protestant 0 1 Fundamentalist
02. Catholic 0 2. Conservative
03. Jewish 0 3- Moderate
04. None ---> kip. to A7 04. Liberal
05. Other 05. None of these


A7. During this semester in school, what is your classification? AS. Have you ever had a semester-long
01. Freshman class/course in human sietur, while in high school.
02. Sophomore *:: ll.lg cr graduate school?
03. Junior 0 1 Yes
04. Senior 02. No
05. Graduate
06. Other


Page 1 of 7

















ULFYjivijj ad College Stdents' Perceptions and Behavior When Using the Internet for Sexuality-Related Information. An
Iexploratory study.


B. 1User Characteristics

The questions below are intended to assess your use of the Internet and Email. Please click the circle underneath the number that best
represents your use of access to the services listed.


Less than
2-3 times once a
Daily a week week
l. How often do you use email? I 0 0 0
B2. How often do you use the Internet? 0 | 0 0


B3. How long have you been using e-mail?
0 1 < than 6 months
02. 6- 12 months
03. 2 3 years
04. > 3 years
0 5. I don't use email



5. Where do _.u u uil. log on to your e-mail?
,: 1,:,: e mie r ir ri eque ly used site)
0 1. campus computer lab
02. personal computer at home
0 3. personal computer at work
0 4. a friend'relative' s computer
0 5. other


B4- How long have you been using the Internet?
0 1. < than 6 months
02. 6 12 months
03.2 3 years
04. > 3 years
0 5. I don't use e-mail



B6. Where do you usually log on to the Internet?
(choose most frequently used site)
0 1. campus computer lab
0 2. personal computer at home
03. personal computer at work
0 4. a friendrelative's computer
05. other


Page 2 of 7













,I I C vvR TTY College Students' Perceptions and Behavior When Using the Internet for S ,,'r: r, P',at ,'.' 7r ', ,.:rr ,r: An
U I FLORIDA exploratory study.


C. Use of the Internet to search for sexuality-related information

The objective of this study is to learn about college students' views regarding "surfing" the Internet for sexuality-related materials. The
InternetEmail are sometimes used for sexuality related information to develop o' L, in ir i,, i l ari, ;I ,_irp and/or for sexual gratification-
In this section, the questions are designed to assess your use of the Internetemail to obtain information on sexuality related topics.


I Frequently I Sometimes I


Rarely I Never


I. I have searched the Internet for information about sexuality-related topics. O O O O
C2.I have searchedthe Intemet to do i-,;ur, i-l ~ar de 't-a 1, :l
or a class or a homework assignment.
C3. I have searched the Internet for personal information (not class related) O O
n sexuality-related topics.


C4. When searching the Internet for sexuality-related information- which type of information have you searched for? Please select all
that apply:

[ 1. Female anatomy and/or physiology 0 8. Infertility treatment
S2. Male anatomy andor physiology [ 9. Pregnancy
[ 3. Symptoms of sexually transmitted diseases 0 10. Homosexuality / Bisexuality
[ 4. Treatments for sexually transmitted diseases [ 11. Disease Prevention
0 5. AIDS and HIV infection 0 12. Sexual Abuse
[ 6. Prostitution [ 13. Abortion
[ 7. Contraception [ 14. Rape
0 15. Sex Therapy
0 16. Other


Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Uncertain Aree Agree
C5. I have learned about sexuality related topics by using the internet. 0 0 0 0 0
C6. Using the Internet to learn about sexuality allows me to remain
anonymous while searching for information.
C7. Using the Internet to learn about sexuality minimizes my O O O O O
embarrassment.-F o o o
C8.I find the sexuality-related information available on the
nternet to be accurate._O O
C9. The Internet is a good way for anyone to learn about
sexuality-related topics.


Not
How Important is it to you that... Extremely Not Important
Important Important Uncertain Important at all
C10. You can learn about sexuality-related topics by using O O O O O
te Internet?
Cll. You have a' .::f m::lI fz, i -culr, .el rte:i uf::,iiiau::,O
while remaining anonymous?
C12. You do not feel embarrassed when learning about
sexuality-related topics.
C 13. You have access to accurate information about
umman sexuality? 0 O o 0 o
C14. Other people have away cf le.Im u, al-::ur e'-u lr, -iO O O O O
topics using the Internet?



SContinue ->

Page 3 of7
















UF I ftb^ College Students' Perceptions and Behavior When Using the Internet for Sexuality-Related Information. An
Ur F FDor A exploratory st-.v.


D. Use of InternetfEmail to establish personal connections/relationships

In the next section we would like to ask questions related to your use of the InternetEmail for developing and maintaining personal (not professional)
relationships

Frequently Sometimes Rarel Never
1 I use e-mail to keep in touch with family an3d friends O O O O
D2 I have made new friends iver the email/internet O O O O
3. I have discussed sexuaality-reated issues with my finds 0 0 I I
ve the InternetEmail
04. I have participated in chat-groups on the Internet. O O O
5 I have en a silent observer on chatgroups on the Interet. [[ o
06. I have said things on line that I would not say in person. O o O
07. I have disclosed personal information on-line that I would F o T o
ot disclose in person
58. I have posted on-line personal messages in attempts to meet O O O O
a potential partner (for example, on web sites for singles)


any times people wish to participate in chat group discussion forums,
t want to remain anonymous. A common strategy is to create a persona"
r a fictional character and present oneself as being that character Yes No
09. Have you ever created a new iden-tty or new 'persona"
lrr yourself on-line? HWhich aspets ofyour identity to you re-create?
)10. Did you change your gender? O O
1i1. Did you change your age and present yourself as someone older?
D12 Did you change your ag and present yourself as someone younger? O O
)513 Did you change your sexual orientation? O O
ID14 Did you change your appearance? O
115 Did you change your "availabiity status? C
resented yourself as unattached, when you have an ofline relationships) or vic versa)?


Yes No
S16. Have you ever met in person anyone you fast met on line? O O
P17. Whmen you met in person was your first meeting in a public "safe" place I I
Such as a restaurant coffee house campus, party)?
118. Are you currently in an ofiine relationship I
fo instance dating, dating exclusively engaged, married living with a significant other)
1 9. Does your offline partner know about the friends/relationships ) I
you have over the Intrnet Emai?
D20. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line? O
521. Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships
you have developed on-line? F o


22 If"cybe-relationships" are defined as any kind of personal relationship you maintain with other people over the InternettEmail how do you
perceive the impact ofyour cyber-relationships on the relationships you have when you're not on-line? Please select the statement that best reflects
your opiio
I. My cyber relationships have a positive impact on my off-line relationshipss. O 0
[2 My cyber relationships have a negative on my off-line relationship's). [
13. My cyber relationships have no impact on my off-line relationshipss. O 0
4 My cyber relationships have no impact on my off-line relationships)
because my partners) doesn't know about them.
5 I.m not sure whether my cybe relationships impact my off-line relationships) O
6 Not applicable I don't have any cyber relationships- O


Strongly Strongly
__Disagree Disagree Uncerain Agree Ag
23. Te Iteet is an alternative way/place to meet new people. O O O O O
D24. People can develop meaningful relationships over the Internet'Email. O0 0 0 0 O
P25. The Internet provides a way of developing emotionally I I I I I
support w relationships
26. The InternetEmail is an alternative way/place for 0 O 0 0 )
meeting potential sexual partners


Not
ow Important is it to you that Extremely Not Important
important Importnt Uncertain Important tall
D27 An alternative way/place for meeting new people is available? O O O O O
D28 People can develop meaningEul relationships over- the Internet/e-mail7 O O O 0 O
V29A way of developing emotionally supportive relationships O O o
is available?
530 An alternative way/place for meeting potential on-line
sexual partners is available? ( c




Page 4 of 7














r i C L' vR? i College Students' Perceptions and Behavior When Using the Internet for Sexuality-RelatedInformation: An
UFI F LOR IDA exploratory stuca,


E. Use of the Internet for sexual entertainment/arousal

Many people use the Intenet'Email for sexual gratification of various kinds. Below are questions related to your personal use of the
Internet for this purpose and your opinions about the availability of sexual entertainment on the Internet. In this section- we are defining
sexually explicit materials" as those that either show clear pictures of, or talk/write about sexuality using sexual vocabulary (language).

Freq-ntly Sometmmes Rarely Never
E1. I have accessed sexual explicit materials on the Internet
(either accidentally or intentionally)
2. I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the Internet because
Sam cious about sex I i
3 I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the Internet to become
sexually aroused'excited.0 0
E4. I have accessed sexual explicit materials on the Internet to enhance T
my sex life with my off line partnerss.
E5 When I access sexualy explicit web-sites I do it alone O O O
E6 When I access sexually explicit web-sites I do it with my offlin partner(s)- 0 0 0
E7. When I access sexually explicit web-sites I do it with a group ofpeople. O O O O
E. I have posted messages to sexually explicit chat groups on the Internet. 0 0 0 0
9. I have been a si-nt observer in sexual explicitchat rooms on the Internet. O O I O
lD. I have posted objections to sexually explicit chat-group conversations when
Sound them distasteful._
11 I have felt sexually harassed during certain cyber conversations 0 0 0
E12 I have subscrbed to sexuallyexplicit web ites (paidfor registeing) 0 i O 0 O


The next two questions will ask you about searching for andior purchasing sexual paraphernalia on-line By sexual paraphernalia we are
referring to sex toys; video tapes, DVDs, clothing lingerie, condoms= oils etc Please select the statements that most fits your use of the
Internet for these activities

Fruently Sometimes Rarel Never
l13 I have used the Internet to window shop'browse~iew sexual paraphenalia- O O O O
14. I have used the Internet to order.purchasesexual paraphernalia O O O O


The next set of questions has the purpose of assessing sexual behavior while on line Some people, whie viewing sexually explicit
materials on-ine wil masturbate and/or have cyber-sex ("viral sex with a cyber partners) while on line)

Frequent Sometimes Rarely Never
15. While viewing sexual expect web- sites. I have masturbated- O O
16. I have had cyber sex with an online partnerss. O0 0 0
17. Like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cyber sex with an [ 0 0 0
online partnerss.
18 I like to use stimulants (drugs) while having cyber sex with an online partner(s)- O O O 0
l 9 I like to view other types of sexually explicit material such as adult magazines 0 0 O 0
2D I like to view other types of sexually explicit material such as 0
adult video tapes/q VDs 0


Sexually explicit materials on the Internet: Stony Uneta A Strongly
21 Are a way of learning new sexual techniques- 0 0 0 O 0
r22 HeTp improve my sexual relationships off-line- O O O O O
23 Are a way of fills ng my sexual fantasies O O O O O0
24 Stimulatemy sexualfantasies- or 0 0 0 0 o
E25 MaToe me seualy aroused. O O O O O
E26 Tatis l y curiosity about sex-? 0 0 0 0 [


Not
how important is it to you to use the Internet Extremely Not Important
mportat Importat Uncertain Importat at all
E27 To learn new sexual techniques O O O O O
2 To improve your seual relationships off- line? O O O O O
E29To fil your sexua] fantasies? O O O O O
E3D. To stimulate your sexual fantasies? 0 0 O O 0
E31. To becomes sexually aroused? O O O O O
E32. To satisfy your cRioSty about sex? O O O O O


I Cont nue-

Page 5 of 7












UFCl1 ^i6;'i br College Students' Perceptions andBehavior When Using the Internet for Sexuality-Related Information: An
Ur LORDA exploratory study.


F. Emotional Arousal

People have a variety of expectations for and feelings about accessing ;ievu 1l. explicit materials. Some people may feel entertained,
sexually aroused or excited, while others may feel guilty, anxious about being caught, embarrassed, uncomfortable, or angry and
disgusted about what they fnd. The following .u.e ~rm::- ill : H d r; emotions you may feel while viewing sexually ,.p bI::ir ~l arr a h
on the Internet. Please select the answer that best reflects your feelings.

Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
1. I feel entertained. O O O O
F2 Ifeelsexually aroused. O O O- O
3 Have a general feeling of excitement and anticipation. O O 0
4.-I feel guilty that I am engaging in this activity. O O O O
F5. Ifeel anxious about being caught while I am viewing it. O 0 o F O
6. I am concerned that my c .lbe r ad lj be bIalI. ed culdI be caught later). 0 0 F O O
7.I am worried that others might judge me if theyfound out- F O O O
8. Feel embarrassed- O O O
F9I feeluncomfortable. O o O O
S10. Ifeel angry with what I see. F O O O O
i1. I feel disgusted with what I see- F O O O


G. Perception

my opio... Strongly .Strongly
I~gemy opinion--- A J Agree Uncerta Disagree gree
Gl. Cybersex can be considered real sex. 0 0 0 0 0
G2. If a person participates only in cyber sex, he'she is still a virgin. O O O O
3. Cyber sex is a form of sexual activity/expression that carries no
physical risk whatsoever.
G4. Cyber sex is a form of sexual activity/expression that carries no
emotional risk whatsoever.
G5. Cyber sex is an alternative way to practice safer sex O O 0 0
SpI. .i,: l. emotionally, socially).
6. If a person has an offine partner, engaging in cyber sex is cheating O 0 O
on that partner.
G7. Persons who engage in cyber sex are "weird"- O O O O O
G8. Men tend to search the Internet for *e'uj_, .e p,: D r ,i, a ra ., 1; more O O
Li '7p,:id, di,, women.
G9. College students tend to search the Internet for sexually explicit
materials more frequently than people who are not college students.


Contnue->

Page 6 of 7















IF IVERSITYo College Students'Perceptions and Behavior When Using the Internetfor s r' PR',nl. "..r .r.An
FLORIDA exploratory? study.


H. Public access to sexually explicit materials on the Internet

This section contains several questions related to regulation and'or public access to ie'u ai. ,. bi: r ii are i i s on the Internet. Please
select whether you are in favor of or against the following practices:

Are you in favor or against... Infavor Against
I. The government regulatingicontrolling all sexually explicit materials on the Internet- 0 0
H2. The government blocking ::::e ~ r: i; \u e'g ::r web sites whose primary purpose is
sexual'entertainment arousal.
H3. Universities blocking access to sexually explicit web-sites whose primary purpose is O O
sexual informationteducation.
H4. Universities blocking access to sexually explicit web-sites whose primary purpose is O O
sexual entertainmentarousal.
H5. Public libraries blocking access to sexually .'. b:: i -. iir whose primary purpose is 0 0
sexual information/education.
M6. Public libraries blocking access to sexually explicit web-sites whose primary purpose is O O
sexual entertainmentiarousal.
H7. Adults having the right to access any -.ie ilf iiU,. '.pl, :ir iS, tar.i i, on the Internet O O
H8. ChildrenAdolescents having access to any type of sexually explicit materials on the Internet. O O



Page 7 of 7
Page 7 of 7









APPENDIX C
MASS EMAIL

Mass Email Letter

Dear Student,



As a doctoral student at the University of Florida, I am cordially inviting you to participate in a

survey that is investigating Sexual Behaviors and Internet Use in Traditional College Aged

Students (aged 18-22). This survey is completely anonymous and will take approximately 30-45

minutes of your time to complete.

Your participation in this research may increase understanding of how the World Wide Web

plays a part in sexual decision making. Questions asked on the survey include basic demographic

information, questions about frequency and duration of internet use, use if the internet to surf for

sexually related content, use of the internet to establish personal relationships i.e. friends), use of

the internet for sexual entertainment, emotional arousal and perception, and finally, public access

to sexually explicit material on the internet.

Should you decide to participate in this ground breaking research, please complete the entire

survey by allowing yourself an appropriate amount of time to complete this survey.

Again, your participation is completely voluntary and your results remain anonymous. Data

collected will be in aggregate form, and information will only be published for this dissertation

in aggregate (grouped) delimited (numbers) data. The results of the data collected from this

survey will not include the name of the university that you attend, nor any of your particular

demographic data.









Thank you for your participation!

In you have any questions, please contact:

Paula C. Pritchard

pcwrn@ufl.edu

If you are interested- please click on the link to



http://paula.pritchard.name/uf

http://paula.pritchard.name/bcu









LIST OF REFERENCES


Anderson, K. (2001). Internet use among college students: An exploratory study. Journal of
American College Health, 50(1), 21.

Bancroft, J. (2002). Biological factors in human sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(1),
15.

Bogard, W. (1996). The Simulation of Surveillance: Hypercontrol in Telematic Societies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bogart, L., Cecil, H., Wagstaff, D., Pinkerton, S., & Abramson, P. (2000). Is it "sex"?: College
students' interpretations of sexual behavior terminology. The Journal of Sex Research.,
37(2), 108-117.

Boies, S. C. (2002). University students' uses of and reactions to online sexual information and
entertainment: Links to online and offline sexual behaviour. The Canadian Journal of
Human Sexuality, 11(2), 77.

Brener, N., Lowry, R., Kann, L., Kolbe, L., & al, e. (2002). Trends in sexual risk behaviors
among high school students--United States, 1991-2001. JAMA, 288(15), 1842.

Brown, J., & Newcomer, S. (2002). Television viewing and adolescents' sexual behavior.
Journal of homosexuality, 21(1), 77-91.

Bryant, P., & Bryant, J. A. (2005). Adolescents and the internet. Adolescent Medicine Clinics,

16(2), 413.

Canli,T, & Gabrieli, J. (2004) Imaging gender differences in sexual arousal. Nature
Neuroscience, 7, (4). 325.

Calvert, S., Jordan, A, & Cocking, R. (2002). Children in the digital age: Influences of electronic
media on development. Westport, CT. PraegerPublisher/Greenwood Publishing Group.

CDC. (2006). Trends in reportable sexually transmitted diseases in the United States. Retrieved
December 23, 2007 from: http://www.cdc.gov/stad/stats.

Collins, R. E., Elliott, M., Berry, S., Kanouse, D., Kunkel, D., Hunter, S., et al. (2004). Watching
sex on television predicts adolescent initiation of sexual behavior. Pediatrics, 114(3),
280-289.

Cooper, A., Marahan-Martin, J., Mathy, R., & Maheu, M. (2002). Towards an increased
understanding of user demographics in online sexual activities. Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 28, 105-109.









Cooper, A., Scherer, C., Boies, S. C., & Gordon, B. L. (1999). Sexuality on the internet: From
sexual exploration to pathological expression. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 30(2), 154-164.

Couper, M., Conrad, F., Tourangeau, R. (2007).Visual context in web surveys. Public Opinion
Quarterly 17,(4), 623.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Delamater, J., & Friedrich, W. (2002). Human sexual development. The Journal of Sex
Research, 39(1).

Denizet- Lewis, B. (2004, May 30, 2004). Friends, friends with benefits and the benefits of the
local mall. The New York Times.

Dickerson, S., Reinhart, A. M., Feeley, T. H., Bidani, R., & al, e. (2004). Patient internet use for
health information at three urban primary care clinics. Journal of the American Medical
Informatics Association, 11(6), 499.

Dodge, B., Reece, M., Cole, S., & Sandfort, T. (2004). Sexual Compulsivity Among
Heterosexual College Students. The Journal of Sex Research, 41(4), 343.

Duffy, M., (2002). Methodological issues in web-based research. Journal of Nursing
Scholarship. 34(1),83.

Durham, M. G. (1999). Girls, media, and the negotiations of sexuality: A study of race, class,
and gender in adolescent peer groups. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
76(2), 193.

Escobar-Chaves, S. L., Tortolero, S., Markham, C., Low, B., Eitel, P., & Thickstun, P. (2005).
Impact of the media on adolescent sexual attitudes and behaviors. Pediatrics [NLIM-
MEDLINE], 116(1), 303.

Goodson, P., McCormick, D., & Evans, A. (2001). Searching for sexually explicit materials on
the Internet: An exploratory study of college students' behavior and attitudes. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 30(2), 101.

Griffiths, M. (2001). Sex on the Internet: Observations and implications for Internet sex
addiction. The Journal of Sex Research, 38(4), 333.

Gruber, E., & Grube, J. (2000). Adolescent sexuality and the media: A review of current
knowledge and implications. Western Journal of Medicine, 172(3), 210.

Hall, A., & Parsons, J. (2001). Internet addiction: College student case study using best practices
in cognitive behavior therapy. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 23(4), 312-328.









Hightow, L., MacDonald, P., Pilcher, C., Kaplan, A., Foust, E., Nguyen, T., et al. (2005). The
unexpected movement of the HIV epidemic in the southeastern United States:
Transmission among college students. JAIDS, 38(5), 531-537.

Hoffman, D., Novak, T. P., & Venkatesh, A. (2004). Has the internet become indespensible?
Communications of the ACM, 47(7).

Hollander, D. (2004). Changes in teenagers' sexual behaviors stall. Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health, 36(4), 141.

Holowaty, P., Harvey, B., Feldman, L., Rannie, K., Shortt, L., & Jamal, A. (1997). A comparison
of the demographic, lifestyle and sexual behaviour characteristics of virgin and non-
virgin adolescents. The Canadian Journal ofHuman Sexuality, 6(3), 197.

Howard, D., & Wang, M. (2004). Multiple Sexual-Partner Behavior Among Sexually Active US
Adolescent Girls. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28(1), 3.

Huang, Y. (2006). Identity and intimacy crisis and their relationship to internet dependence
among college students. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 571-576.

Koch, W., & Pratarelli, M. (2004). Effects of intro/extraversion and sex on social internet use.
North American Journal of Psychology, 6(3), 371-382.

Kraut, R., Patterson, J., Landmark, V., Kiesler, K., Mukopadhay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998).
Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological
well being? American Psychologist, 539, 1017-1031.

LaRose, R., & Eastin, M. (2004). A social cognitive theory of internet uses and gratifications:
Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal ofBroadcasting & Electronic Media,
48(3), 358.

Leiblum, S. (2001). Women, sex and the internet. Sexual and Relationship Therapry, 16(4), 390-
405.

Longmore, M. A., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Rudolph, J. L. (2004). Self esteem,
depressive symptoms and adolescent sexual onset. SocialPsychology, 67(3q), 279.

Malone, R. (2000). Research, the internet, and the way things are. Health Education and
Behavior (27).697.

McCown, J., Fischer, D., Page, R., & Homant, M. (2001). Internet relationships: People who
meet people. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 4(5), 593-596.

McFarlane, M., Bull, S., & Rietmeijer, C. (2000). The internet as a newly emerging risk
environment. JAMA, 284(4).









McFarlane, M., Bull, S. S., & Rietmeijer, C. (2002). Young adults on the Internet: risk behaviors
for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. The Journal ofAdolescent Health Negro
Education, 31(1), 11-16.

Mitchell, K., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2001). Risk factors for and impactof online sexual
solicitation of youth. JAMA, 285(23).

MMWR, (2006). Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States, 2005. Retrieved December 2,
2007 from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5505.pdf

Morris, P. (2004). Media pulse: Measuring the media in kid's lives. Patient Care, 15(7), 26.

Morrison, T., Bearden, A., Harriman, R., Morrison, M., & Ellis, S. (2004). Correlates of
exposure to sexually explicit material among Canadian post-secondary students. The
Canadian Journal ofHuman Sexuality., 13(3/4), 143-157.

National Vital Statistics Reports. (2005). Young people at risk: HIV/AIDS among america's
youth. Retrieved July 30, 2005, 2005, from www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/youths.htm

Neilson Ratings. (2005). Retrieved June 30, 2005, 2005, from http://www.nielsen-
netratings.com/news.j sp?section=datto&country=us.

O'Reilly, S., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. (2007). College students attitudes toward pornography
use. College Student Journal. 41 (2), 402.

Pendergast, C. (2004). The typical outline of an ethnographic research publication

Teaching Sociology, 32(3), 322.

Polit, D. (1996). Data analysis and statistics for nursing research. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Prentice Hall

Potosky, D. (2006). The internet knowledge (iKnow) measure. Computers in Human Behavior,
23, 2760-2777.

Remez, L. (2000). Oral sex among adolescents: Is it sex or is it abstinence? Family Planning
Perspectives, 32(6), 298.

Rhodes, S., Bowie, & Hergenrather (2003). Collecting behavioral data using the world wide
web: Considerations for researchers. Journal ofEpidemiological Community Health, 5 7,1.
68.

Rich, M. (2003). Boy, Mediated: Effects of Entertainment Media on Adolescent Male Health.
Adolescent Medicine, 14(3), 691.

Roberts, D. (2000). Media and youth: Access, exposure and privatization. Journal ofAdolescent
Health, 27(2), 8-14.









Rogelberg, S., Stanton, J. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with organizational
survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 195.

Ross, M., Rosser, B., Coleman, E. &Mazin, R. (2006). Misrepresentation on the internet and in
real life about sex and HIV: A study of Latino men who have sex with men. Culture,
Health and Sexuality, 8

Rostosky, S. S., Regnerus, M. D., & Wright, M. L. (2003). Coital debut: The role of religiosity
and sex attitudes in the add health survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(4), 358.

Sanders, C. E., Field, T. M., Diego, M., & Kaplan, M. (2000). The relationship of internet use to
depression and isolation. Adolescence, 35(138), 237.

Sanger, D., Long, A., Ritzman, M., Stofer, K., & Davis, C. (2004). Opinions of female juvenile
delinquents about their interactions in chat rooms. Journal of Correction
Education, 55(2), 120.

Seidman, E., (2004). The pornographic retreat: Contemporary patterns of pornography use and
the psychodynamic meaning of frequent pornography use for heterosexual men.
Dissertation Abstract International: Section B:. The Sciences and Engineering (64) (8-
B), 4063.

Shapira, N., Lessig, M., Goldsmith, T., Szabo, S., Lazoritz, M., & Stein, D. (2003). Problematic
internet use: proposed classification and diagnostic criteria. Depression andAnxiety(17),
207-216

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Taylor, L. D. (2005). Effects of visual and verbal sexual television content and perceived realism
on attitudes and beliefs. The Journal of Sex Research, 42(2), 130-138.

Weber, B., Yarandi, H., Rowe, M., & Weber, J. (2005). A comparison study: Paper versus web-
based data collection and management. Applied Nursing Research 18, 182.

Weiser, E. (2000). Gender differences in internet use patterns and internet application
preferences: A two sample comparison. Cyberpsychology andBehavior, 3(2), 167-178.

Weisskirch, R. S., & Murphy, L. C. (2004).Friends, porn, punk: Sensation seeking in personal
relationships, internet activities, and music preferences among college friends.
Adolescence, 39(54), 13.

Welych, L. R., Laws, B., Fiorito, A., Durham, T., & al, e. (1998). Formative research for
interventions among adolescents at high risk for gonorrhea and other STDs. Journal of
Public Health Management and Practice, 4(6), 54.

Young, K. (1998). Caught in the Net: How to recognize the signs of nternet addiction and a
winning strategy for recovery. New York.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

My name is Paula C. Pritchard. I have been a nurse for over 20 years. I have practiced in

the state of California as well as the state of Florida. My area of expertise is in maternal child

nursing. I have worked in both the acute care settings as well as the public sector caring for

infants, children, adolescents and emerging adults. I have worked for the predominant portion of

my career with the individuals and families that have been exposed to HIV disease, drug

addiction, STI and those who had no or little access to appropriate healthcare. During the last

five years, I have had the opportunity to teach as both as an adjunct and assistant professor at the

'Great Bethune-Cookman University'.

I am a graduate from California state university at Fullerton where I received a

baccalaureate degree in nursing science (BSN). Prior to the BSN, I received a associate of

science in nursing from San Jacinto Junior College in San Jacinto, California. I completed my

master of science in adult health and administration for the University of Phoenix in Maitland,

Florida. My utilization review project involved African American Black Women in Volusia

County with HIV disease and barriers to health care access. This research developed my personal

desire to improve health care access and preventable diseases from impacting this population to

total annihilation.

As this area of research has been one that is very close to my heart, during my doctoral

studies, I determined that qualitative inquiry was the very best method to use to gain insight into

this pandemic. I developed this eclectic minor that encompassed psychology, anthropology,

internet technology, and a deeper understanding of adolescent and emerging adults within this

framework.









Future plans include immediately pursuing the second phase of this study using one of

the populations within the sample. I also plan to attempt to develop a survey tool that will elicit

clearer responses from participants in these vital areas. After developing that tool, I will

investigate the internet phenomenon within the HBCU system and replicate parts of the study for

clarification and deeper understanding. I hope to make a difference in this at risk population.





PAGE 1

1 INTERNET USE AND ITS EFFECT ON SE XUAL BEHAVIOR IN TRADITIONAL COLLEGE-AGE STUDENTS By PAULA COURTNEY PRITCHARD A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 Paula Courtney Pritchard

PAGE 3

3 To Dr. Sharleen Simpson

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank m y supervisory committ ee for their tireless patience and continued support throughout this effort. Most significantly, I would lik e to thank my supervisory committee chair Sharleen Simpson. Dr. Simpson has proven to be the epitome of a true mentor. Her tireless efforts to intercede on my behalf seemingly at every turn have provided me guidance, support, collegiality, and friendship. Her passion for research and her students can only be outdone by her wonderful spirit and presence. It has been the blessi ng of this dissertation to have met such an excellent individual as Dr. Simpson. Dr. Sandra Seymour, an esteemed professor, and another member of my committee that has also been monumental in a ssisting me to complete this task. She was motivational at moving me forward, listening to my tr oubles, and pushing me in the right direction. Her nurturing persona has had an enormous affect on my perception of the world. Her li ght hearted spirit has turned many a half empty cup into an over-flowing one. Dr. Greg Neimeyer, who is my minor committee member, has been a Godsend. When I needed information, he was there. When I needed participants, he was there. When I needed a minor committee member, he was there. I would b ecome discouraged as we were not getting the numbers to complete the survey; he was there wi th his favorite saying I think we can get more and always a suggestion to meet the task at ha nd. Through his guidance, wisdom and very unique perspective of the world, he gave me ideas and knowledge. Dr. Neimeyer helped me move out of my boxed way of thinking to understand behavior in this new realm of surrealistic technology that until I met him, I would not have dreamed possible. Dr. Karla Schmitt, another member of my committ ee is the keystone of this project. It was a casual conversation of the notion of adolesce nts hooking up and an article in a New York magazine that brought about the initial idea a nd complete fruition of this dissertation.

PAGE 5

5 I would like to thank my d ear friend and colleague Dr. Alma Yearwood-Dixon, Dean of the School of Nursing, at Bethune-Cookman Univ ersity. Her dedication to following her dream has been a guiding force for me following mine. He r tender care of my spir it has allowed me the time and energy to complete this daunting task. He r vision of a better world and a belief that one person can bring about change has been inspirational to me. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Patricia Goodson for allowing me to use her survey, and modify it for this research. Her initial development and testing of this tool has allowed most of the energy consumed in this project in actual data collection and analysis. I would like to recognize DCova Technologies, the software comp any that was used in this dissertation. Software for this pr oject was specifically designed, test ed and utilized for the survey as well as all data collection in this dissertation. Ma ny late nights were spent designing testing and revamping the software so that it would do ex actly what I needed it to do to get the job done. The motto of the founder is We have the technol ogy and what they didnt have, they invented on the spot. The tech support pr ovided for all of my many com puters, hard-drives, backups, and desire to keep my technology cutting-e dge has preempted many computer crashes and brought about peace of mind. Finally, I would also like to thank my very dear friend and partner, Jorge Valentin DeLaCova. Without his support and presence, this w ould have never been possible. He is solely responsible for helping me rec ognize the happiness that has repl enished my life and made me strong enough to get here. He has helped me r ealize all of the joy that I might have missed otherwise throughout this journey.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................9ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............17 CHAP TER 1 THE PROBLEM .....................................................................................................................18Internet Use .............................................................................................................................20Developmental Factors ......................................................................................................... ..23Influential Media ............................................................................................................. .......25Theoretical Perspectives ...................................................................................................... ...28Study Purpose .........................................................................................................................302 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................................31Media Influence on Sex ..........................................................................................................31Depression, Religiosity, and Sexual Debut ............................................................................ 34Multiple Sex Partners ......................................................................................................... ....37Internet ....................................................................................................................................39Sex Defined ............................................................................................................................423 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 44Internet Data Collection ..........................................................................................................44Advantages .................................................................................................................... ..44Disadvantages ................................................................................................................. .46Confidentiality ............................................................................................................... .........47Procedures for the Protection of Human Subjects ........................................................... 47Data Protection ................................................................................................................48Survey Tool ............................................................................................................................48Web Based Surveys ................................................................................................................49Online Survey Design .............................................................................................................50Survey Information ..........................................................................................................51Population .................................................................................................................... ...........51Sample Participants .........................................................................................................51Eligibility ................................................................................................................... ......51Survey Procedures ...........................................................................................................52Sampling Techniques and Difficulties .................................................................................... 53Alternative Methods ........................................................................................................... ....53

PAGE 7

7 Personal Contacts ............................................................................................................53Project Spam ....................................................................................................................54Project Get-email ............................................................................................................. 544 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ........56Chapter Overview .............................................................................................................. .....56Survey Aims ...........................................................................................................................56Exclusion Criteria for Surveys ................................................................................................57Demographics .................................................................................................................. .......58Multivariate Analysis of Variance .......................................................................................... 58Tables Within the Study ....................................................................................................... ..59How Long Have You Been Using Email? .............................................................................. 59How Often Do You Use Email? .............................................................................................60How Long Have You Been Using The Internet? .................................................................... 61How Often Do You Use The Internet? ................................................................................... 62I Have Made New Friends Over The Internet ........................................................................64Have You Met Anyone In Person That You Met Online? .....................................................65I Have Posted Online Messages To Meet A Potential Partner ...............................................65Does Your Partner Object To The Amount Of Time You Spend Online .............................. 67Does Your Offline Partner Know About Th e Friends/Relationships That You Have Online ........................................................................................................................ ..........69Partner Jealousy Over Relati onships Developed Online ........................................................ 70An Alternate Way/Place For Meeting New People ................................................................70An Alternative Way/Place For Meeting Potential Online Sexual Partners ............................ 71I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials On The Internet ..............................................72I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials To Become Sexually Aroused ........................ 72While Viewing Sexually Explicit We b Sites, I Have Masturbated ........................................ 73I Have Had Cybersex With An Online Partner. .....................................................................74I Like To Drink Alcohol While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner .......................... 74I Like To Use Stimulants While Havi ng Cybersex With An Online Partner ......................... 75Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........755 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... ...153Length of Internet Use And Email Use ................................................................................ 153Frequency Of Email Use ...................................................................................................... 153Frequency Of Internet Use .................................................................................................... 155Making Friends Online .........................................................................................................157Meeting Friends Offline ......................................................................................................158I Have Posted Online Messages To Meet A Potential Partner .............................................159Does Your Partner Object To The Amount Of Time You Spend Online? ........................... 161Does Your Offline Partner Know About Th e Friends/Relationships That You Have Online ........................................................................................................................ ........162The Expression Of Jealousy Over Online Relationships ......................................................163The Importance Of Alternative Ways/Pl ace For Meeting Potential Online Sexual Partners ...................................................................................................................... ........163

PAGE 8

8 I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials On The Internet ............................................164I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Materials To Become Sexually Aroused ...................... 165While Viewing Sexually Explicit Web Sites I Have Masturbated ....................................... 166I Have Had Cybersex With An Online Partner ....................................................................167I Like To Drink Alcohol While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner ........................ 167I Like To Use Stimulants While Havi ng Cybersex With An Online Partner ....................... 167Summary ....................................................................................................................... ........167Limitations ................................................................................................................... .........170Suggestions For Further Investigation .................................................................................. 172APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT ......................................................................................................174B INTERNET SURVEY ..........................................................................................................179C MASS EMAIL .................................................................................................................... ..186LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................184BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................189

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4-1 Gender from both universities combined. ..........................................................................76 4-2 Age from both universities combined. ............................................................................... 76 4-3 Race from both universities combined. .............................................................................76 4-4 Gender cross tabulated with race from both universities combined. ................................. 77 4-5 Gender cross tabulated with uni versity and age differentiated. ......................................... 77 4-6 Race cross tabulated with unive rsity and age differentiated. ............................................. 78 4-7 Multivariate Test: Wilks Lambda: Independent Variables Main and Interaction Effects. ...................................................................................................................... .........79 4-8 Correlations: How long have you been using email? ........................................................ 80 4-9 Mean: How long have you been using email: School........................................................ 80 4-10 Mean: How long have you been using email: Gender ....................................................... 80 4-11 Mean: How long have you been using email: Age ............................................................ 81 4-12 Mean: How long have you been using email: Race ........................................................... 81 4-13 Univariate ANOVA. How long have you been u sing email: Age, Gender, Race, School Year ........................................................................................................................81 4-14 Correlations: How often have you been using email? ....................................................... 82 4-15 Mean: How often do you use email: School ...................................................................... 82 4-16 Mean: How often do you use email: Gender ..................................................................... 82 4-17 Mean: How often do you use email: Age .......................................................................... 83 4-18 Mean: How often do you use email: Race ......................................................................... 83 4-19 Tests of between subjects. How often do you use email: Age, Gender, Race, School Year .......................................................................................................................... ..........83 4-20 How often do you use email: Mean, Standard Error and Confidence Interval .................. 84 4-21 Tukey HSD. How often do you use email: Race. .............................................................. 84

PAGE 10

10 4-22 Correlations: How long have you been using the internet? ............................................... 85 4-23 Mean: How long have you been using the internet: School .............................................. 85 4-24 Mean: How long have you been using the internet: Gender .............................................. 85 4-25 Mean: How long have you been using the internet: Age ...................................................86 4-26 Mean: How long have you been using the inte rnet: Race .................................................86 4-27 Test of between subjects: How long have you been using the internet? ........................... 86 4-28 Correlations: How often do you use the internet? .............................................................87 4-29 Mean: How often do you use the internet: School ............................................................. 87 4-30 Mean: How often do you use internet: Gender ..................................................................87 4-31 Mean: How often do you use the internet; Age ................................................................. 88 4-32 Mean: How often do you us e the internet: Race ................................................................ 88 4-33 Test of between subjects: How often do you use the internet? ..........................................88 4-34 How often do you use the internet: Mean: Race, School ................................................... 89 4-35 How often do you use the in ternet: Mean: Gender, Age ................................................... 89 4-36 How often do you use the intern et: Mean: Gender, Age, School ...................................... 89 4-37 How often do you use the internet: Mean: Fem ales, Age, Race, School ........................... 90 4-38 How often do you use the internet : Mean: Males, Age, Race, School .............................. 91 4-39 Tukey HSD. How often do you use internet: Age ............................................................. 92 4-40 Tukey HSD. How often do you use in ternet: African Am erican Blacks ........................... 92 4-41 Correlations: I have made friends over the internet. .......................................................... 93 4-42 Mean: I have made friends over the internet: School ........................................................ 93 4-43 Mean: I have made friends over the internet: Gender ........................................................ 94 4-44 Mean: I have made friends over the internet: Age ............................................................. 94 4-45 Mean: I have made friends over the internet: Race ........................................................... 94 4-46 Tests of between subjects. I have m ade new friends over the internet. ............................. 95

PAGE 11

11 4-47 I have made new friends over the inte rnet. Mean: Fe males, Age, Race, School ...............96 4-48 I have made new friends over the inte rnet. Mean: Males, Age, Race, School .................. 97 4-49 Tukey HSD.I have made new friends over the internet: Age ............................................ 98 4-50 Tukey HSD. I have made new friends ove r the internet: African Am erican Blacks ......... 98 4-51 Correlations: Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. ......................... 99 4-52 Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. School ................................... 99 4-53 Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Gender ................................ 100 4-54 Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Age ..................................... 100 4-55 Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Race .................................... 100 4-56 Tests of between subjects. Have you ev er in person som eone that you met online. ....... 101 4-57 Correlations: I have posted online personal m essages in an attempt to find a potential partner. ...................................................................................................................... .......102 4-58 Mean: I have posted on line personal me ssages in an attem pt to meet a potential partner: School .................................................................................................................102 4-59 Mean: I have posted on line personal me ssages in an attem pt to meet a potential partner: Gender ................................................................................................................103 4-60 Mean: I have posted on line personal me ssages in an attem pt to meet a potential partner: Age .....................................................................................................................103 4-61 Mean: I have posted on line personal me ssages in an attem pt to meet a potential partner: Race ....................................................................................................................103 4-62 Tests of between subjects. I have posted online personal m essages in order to meet a potential partner. ..............................................................................................................104 4-63 I have posted online personal messages in order to m eet a potential partner. Mean: Gender, Age .....................................................................................................................104 4-64 I have posted online personal messages in order to m eet a potential partner. Mean: Gender, Age, School ........................................................................................................105 4-65 I have posted online personal messages in order to m eet a potential partner. Mean: Females, Age, Race, School ............................................................................................106 4-66 I have posted online personal messages in order to m eet a potential partner. Mean: Males, Age, Race, School ................................................................................................ 107

PAGE 12

12 4-67 Tukey HSD. I have posted online persona l m essages in order to meet a potential partner: Age .....................................................................................................................108 4-68 Tukey HSD. I have posted online persona l m essages in order to meet a potential partner: African American Blacks ...................................................................................108 4-69 Correlations: Does your partner object to the amount of tim e you spend on line: ..........109 4-70 Mean: Does your partner object to th e am ount of time you spend on line. School ......... 109 4-71 Mean: Does your partner object to th e am ount of time you spend on line. Gender ........ 110 4-72 Mean: Does your partner object to th e am ount of time you spend on line. Age .............110 4-73 Mean: Does your partner object to th e am ount of time you spend on line? Race ........... 110 4-74 Tests of between subjects. Does your pa rtner object to the amount of tim e you spend online................................................................................................................................111 4-75 Does your partner object to the amount of tim e you spend online. Gender and Age ......111 4-76 Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Females, Race and School ...............................................................................................................112 4-77 Does your partner object to the amount of tim e you spend online. Mean: Gender, Age, Race .........................................................................................................................113 4-78 Does your partner object to the amount of tim e you spend online. Mean: Age, Race, School ........................................................................................................................ ......114 4-79 Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Females, Age, Race, School ............................................................................................................115 4-80 Does your partner object to the amount of tim e you spend online. Mean: Males, Age, Race, School ....................................................................................................................116 4-81 Tukey HSD. Does your partner object to the amount of tim e you spend online. Age .... 117 4-82 Tukey HSD. Does your partner object to the amount of tim e you spend online. Race ... 117 4-83 Correlations: Does your partne r know about your online friends. ...................................118 4-84 Mean: Does your partner know a bout your online friends: School ................................. 118 4-85 Mean: Does your partner know a bout your online friends: Gender ................................ 119 4-86 Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: Age ..................................... 119 4-87 Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: Race .................................... 119

PAGE 13

13 4-88 Tests of between subjects. Does your offline partner know about the friends/relationships th at you have online. ......................................................................120 4-89 Does your offline partner know about the friends/relationships that you have online. Mean: Age, School........................................................................................................... 120 4-90 Tukey HSD. Does your offline partner know about the friends/relationships that you have online? Age ..............................................................................................................121 4-91 Correlations: Has your partner express jealousy over the relationships you have online................................................................................................................................122 4-92 Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: School ....... 123 4-93 Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: Gender ...... 123 4-94 Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: Age ........... 123 4-95 Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over online relationships: Race .......... 123 4-96 Tests of between subjects. Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you have developed online. ........................................................................124 4-97 Mean: Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you have developed o nline: Age, Race ........................................................................................... 125 4-98 Tukey HSD. Has your part ner ever expressed jealous y over the relationships you have developed online: Age ............................................................................................. 125 4-99 Has your partner ever ex pressed jealousy over the relationships you have developed online. Mean: Age Race and School ................................................................................126 4-100 Correlations: It is important that an alte rnative place for m eeting people is available. ... 127 4-101 Mean: It is important that an alternativ e place for m eeting people is available: School 127 4-102 Mean: It is important that an altern ative place for m eeting people is available .............. 128 4-103 Mean: It is important that an alternativ e place for m eeting people is available: Age ..... 128 4-104 Mean: It is important that an alternativ e place for m eeting people is available: Race .... 128 4-105 Tests of between subjects. It is important that an alternate place for m eeting people is available: Age, Gender, Race, School ............................................................................. 129 4-106 Tukey HSD. How important is it to you that an alternate way/place for m eeting new people is available. Age ...................................................................................................129 4-107 Correlations: An alternative wa y to m eet online sex partners. ........................................ 130

PAGE 14

14 4-108 Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: School ....... 130 4-109 Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Gender ...... 131 4-110 Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Age ........... 131 4-111 Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Race .......... 131 4-112 Tests of between subjects. An alternative way/place for meeting potential sexual partners: Gender, Race, Age, School ............................................................................... 132 4-113 Tukey HSD. An alternative way/place fo r m eeting potential sexual partners: Age ........ 132 4-114 Tukey HSD. An alternative way/place fo r m eeting potential se xual partners: Race ....... 133 4-115 Correlations: I have acce ssed sexually explicit m aterials on the internet. ....................... 134 4-116 Mean: I have accessed sexually explic it m aterials on the internet: School ..................... 134 4-117 Mean: I have accessed sexually explic it m aterials on the internet: Gender .................... 135 4-118 Mean: I have accessed sexually explic it m aterials on the internet: Age .......................... 135 4-119 Mean: I have accessed sexually explic it m aterials on the internet: Race ........................ 135 4-120 Tests of between subjects. I have accessed sexually explicit m ateri als on the internet. .. 136 4-121 Correlations: I have accessed sexually explicit m aterials to become sexually aroused. 137 4-122 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused: School ........................................................................................................................ ......138 4-123 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused: Gender ........................................................................................................................ ......138 4-124 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit ma terials to becom e sexually aroused: Age .... 138 4-125 Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit mate rials to becom e sexually aroused: Race ... 138 4-126 Tests of between subjects. I have accessed sexually explicit m ateri als on the internet to become sexually aroused: Gender, Race, Age, School ................................................ 139 4-127 Correlations: While viewing sexually explicit m aterials I have masturbated. ................. 140 4-128 Mean: While viewing sexually explicit we b sites I have m asturbated: School ............... 140 4-129 Mean: While viewing sexually explicit web sites I have masturbate: Gender ................ 141 4-130 Mean: While viewing sexually explicit web sites I have m asturbated: Age ...................141

PAGE 15

15 4-131 Mean: While viewing sexually explicit web sites I have m asturbated: Race ..................141 4-132 Tests of between subjects. While viewing sexually explicit w eb sites on the internet, I have masturbated. .......................................................................................................... 142 4-133 While viewing sexually explicit web sites on the internet, I have m asturbated. Mean: Gender Females, Race and School ................................................................................... 143 4-134 Tukey HSD. While viewing sexually e xplicit web sites on th e internet, I have m asturbated: Race ............................................................................................................143 4-135 Correlations: I have had sex with online partners. ........................................................... 144 4-136 Mean: I have had sex with on line partner(s): School .....................................................144 4-137 Mean.: I have had cybersex with on line partner(s): Gender ...........................................145 4-138 Mean: I have had sex with on line partner(s): Age .......................................................... 145 4-139 Mean: I have had sex with on line partner(s): Race ......................................................... 145 4-140 Tests of between subjects. I have ha d cybersex with an online partner. ......................... 146 4-141 Correlations: I like to drink alcohol ic beverages while having cybersex. ....................... 147 4-142 Mean: I like to drink alcoholic bevera ges while having cybersex with an online partner: School .................................................................................................................148 4-143 Mean: I like to drink alcoholic bevera ges while having cybersex with an online partner: Gender ................................................................................................................148 4-144 Mean: I like to drink alcoholic bevera ges while having cybersex with an online partner: Age .....................................................................................................................148 4-145 Mean: I like to drink alcoholic bevera ges while having cybersex with an online partner: Race ....................................................................................................................148 4-146 Tests of between subjects. I like to dr ink alcohol while having cybersex with an online partner. ..................................................................................................................149 4-147 Correlations: I like to use stim ulants while having online sex. ....................................... 150 4-148 Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner: School .... 151 4-149 Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner: Gender ... 151 4-150 Mean: I like to use stimul ants while having cybersex w ith an online partner: Age ....... 151 4-151 Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an on line partner: Race .......151

PAGE 16

16 4-152 Tests of between subjects. I like to us e stim ulants while having cybersex with an online: partner ............................................................................................................... ...152

PAGE 17

17 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INTERNET USE AND ITS EFFECT ON SE XUAL BEHAVIORS IN TRADITIONAL COLLEGE AGE STUDENTS By Paula Courtney Pritchard May 2008 Chair: Sharleen Simpson Major: Nursing Sciences As the internet has revolutionized communica tions and business prac tices worldwide, it has been integrated into everything that hum ans as a population engage in. It provides instantaneous access. This ubiquitous presence may appear innocent at the surface; however there may be some sinister characteristics within this medium that requi re further study. One of the issues that exists may be the effect s of the internet on behavior, specifically in the area of sexual activity in adolescents and traditional college age students. At least one third of internet visits are intended to surf sexually or iented web sites, chat rooms, and news groups. Our purpose was to explore how technology, specifically internet use, gender and ethnicity may affect decision making, and influence sexual d ecision making in traditional college students. Using a paper-survey designed by usi ng Goodson et. Al (2000) survey tool Survey Instrument to Assess College Students Behavior and Attitudes to document demographic information as well as college students percep tions and behaviors while using the internet (specifically for sexually related information) was modified into an actual internet survey document. Using mass emails, participants in this study were solicited from two university campuses in Florida. Due to their divergent populations, a small private Hist orically Black College/University (HBCU) as

PAGE 18

18 well as a large Florida public university (PFU) were chosen. Overall, 1202 students participated in the study. Results of this study demonstrate differences in gender, age, race and university of record. These differences appear in developing relations hips, online sexual behaviors, email use, and offline sexual behaviors. The results indicate th at students who are 23 and older are more likely to value the importance of the internet, and also value the opportunity to engage in developing online partners for different relationships that include online sexual activity when compared to their younger counterparts. Gender differences are also identified as an inverse relationship when combined with age. Females are less likely to use the internet as they age, and the opposite is true for males within this sample population. This information may provi de insight into program changes that would target individuals based upon gender. The study also demonstrated racial differences in internet use. It is important to note that this area needs to be replicated specifically because socioeconomic factors were not taken into account, and therefore may have a significant imp act upon the validity of th e results. Therefore any future reports of racial differences using re sults of this study should be used with that cautionary note. The evidence of data obtained by this pr eliminary study of internet use and sexual behaviors of traditional college age students dem onstrates the immediate need for future studies that target internet use and sexual behaviors by race, gender, and age. These studies should specifically look at the aspect of heightened sexual behavior as a result of frequency of internet use through the emerging adult years. .

PAGE 19

18 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM As technological advancem ent continues to a dvance at such a rapi d rate, much of the technology that was a luxury a few years ago is now considered a necessity. The internet is deemed such an item (Weiser, 2000). It is us ed in business, academics, information technology, communication and entertainment. As communicati on and entertainment are instantaneous as a result of internet technology, th e process of human socializat ion and relationship roles are changing. As such, the internet has the capability to impact socialization and relationship roles of adolescents and young adults (Bryant & Bryant, 2005). Gender roles, sexual attitudes, and behaviors are in a critical stag e of development, and as such the internet provides a forum for sensation seeking in chat rooms, interactiv e gaming, and viewing sexually explicit material which may have an effect on sexual be havior (Weisskirch & Murphy, 2004). Sexually active adolescents are absolutely at risk for pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STI). Annually, approximately 900,00 0 adolescent females become pregnant and over one third of these young women are less than 17 years. Incredibly, 35 % of all young women in the United States will have been pregna nt at least one time before they reach the age of 20 (Escobar-Chaves et al., 2005). According to the Centers for Disease Contro l and Prevention (CDC ) (2006), adolescents aged 15-19 have the highest rate s of STI of all age groups, and of the 19 million new infections that occur every year, one half of those will take place in adolescents age 15 to 24 (CDC, 2006). According to the Morbidity and Mortality Week ly Report (MMWR) (2006), 7.4% of adolescents had their first sexual encounter prior to the age of thirteen. 14.4 % of all high school students have engaged in sexual activity with four or more partners.

PAGE 20

19 In the United States, almost 4 million cases of STIs are diagnosed in adolescents each year. The most common reported STI in the United States is Chlamydia, and it is most prevalent among adolescents. Chlamydia prevalence reporte d by the CDC demonstrated that sexually active adolescent females were six times more like ly to be infected than the general population (CDC, 2002). In the United States, between the year s 1990 to 1995, the incidence rate of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in the popul ation between the ages of 13 to 25 years rose nearly 20 %. In 2003, the CDC reported that a pproximately 50 % of all new HIV cases were found among individuals less than 25 years of age. In 2004, HIV disease was named the tenth leading cause of death in people aged 15 to 24. At the end of 2004, 12 % of all new HIV cases reported in Florida were among individuals with ages rangin g were from 13 to 29 years (National Vital Statis tics Reports, 2005). There are many factors that place adolescents at risk for early sexual debut, multiple partners, and subsequent STI. These risk factor s include race, socioeconomics, drug and alcohol use, and peer pressure. Exposure to sexual content in media may also be a contributing factor to the increases in sexual activity a nd STI of adolescent as well as tr aditional college aged students. There have been many studies that discuss sexua l behaviors as they relate directly to the internet; however there are virt ually no studies that explore wh ether viewing sexual content or participating in chat rooms (i.e. cybersex ) on the internet leads to offline sexual activity in adolescents and traditional college age student s (Escobar-Chaves et al., 2005). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore how technolog y, specifically the amount of internet use may affect sexual decision-making and in fluence sexual behaviors in tr aditional college age students.

PAGE 21

20 Internet Use The W orld Wide Web has been providing a nove l type of communication that enables the user to access large amounts of information with a touch of a finger. The inception of the Internet began in approximately 1969 by the Unit ed States government. In 1969, the government funded a program to determine the feasibilit y of networking computers together. ARAPANET developed out of the governments effort to c onnect computers together throughout the country. The main purpose of ARAPANET was to secure communication between military organizations and safely store la rge amounts of critical informa tion in the event of a nuclear holocaust (Bogard, 1996). In 1989, the World Wide Web (WWW) went globa l, and brought about the instantaneous access of information to every corner of the planet. The number of internet users started to increase in 1993 and has steadily increased since that time. The gr eatest increase in the number of users accessing the internet began in 1999. In 1999, approximately 36 % of American households had internet access (Anderson, 2001). A ccording to Neilson Ratings (2005), for the month of June 2005 more than 140 million Ameri cans surfed the WWW. Sex is the most frequently searched topic on the internet (Goodson, McCormic k, & Evans, 2001; Griffiths, 2001). Compared to the general population, college students are the heav iest internet users spending much of their time using and surfing the internet. In 2002, 59 % of all Americans had visited the Internet at least one time; conversely, 86 % of all colle ge students were regular users of the Internet. Acco rding to Hoffman and associates (2004), the internet is all-encompassing in the lives of college students, and has become a st aple in college life. Internet use for college students is primarily for social activ ities(Hoffman, Novak, & Venkatesh, 2004).

PAGE 22

21 According to Anderson (2001), the most popular internet activities reflect social behaviors. They include instant messaging, chat rooms, and email. Over 85 % of college students participate in instant messaging. Se venty-Six % of all college stude nts surf the web daily, and the number of web pages is projected to increase to over 50 billion pages in 2005 (Anderson, 2001). As the number of Internet users have grown, computer use has become ingrained in the daily lives of American society. According to Hoffman and colleagues (2004) who studied internet use, between the years of 2000 to 2003, more people reported that computers had become part of their daily rou tines. Respondents in this study stated that computers increase personal communication of family and friends through e-mail and has become the preferred mode of communication (versus telephone and le tter writing). This technological phenomenon has changed certain normal daily activities such as banking and shopping for goods in person to electronic banking and shopping via th e internet. Personal satisfacti on in computer use has also increased from 64 to 72 % over a period of two years. According to Hoffman and colleagues (2004), individuals who use the inte rnet are much more satisfied w ith computer use as a result of computer design, ease of use, webpage designs, a nd overall increase in efficiency of computers and speed of internet connections. As internet use has increased astronomicall y, it is uncertain how the amount of internet usage affects certain portions of the populations. Minority p opulations, lower socioeconomic populations, as well as the elderl y are now accessing the Internet in greater numbers than has ever been documented. Many studies have shown that there is little diffe rence in internet use between ethnicities, however the samples used in these studies may not have been reflective of the general population as well as the increase in computer accessibility. The shift in internet use with these populations may be due in part to improved accessibility, a ffordability, and ease of

PAGE 23

22 use and as such more studies of ethnic differenc es in computer use may be warranted (Dickerson, Reinhart, Feeley, Bidani, & al, 2004). As there are multiple reasons for the increasi ng amount of internet use, there is little documentation of an increase in pathologies related to increased usage. There is speculation that some internet activities are more likely to produce an environment to encourage addictive behaviors, however, that has not been docum ented in the general population. Some of the activities that may promote already identified ad dictive behaviors, or potential developing of addictive behaviors related to excessive use in clude e-mail, chat rooms and multiple players gaming (Griffiths, 2001; Shapira et al., 2003). Age, level of education, and gender have an e ffect on the type of inte rnet activity that is elicited. Men are more likely, and have been the dominant users of online sexual activities such as viewing pornographic websites. Women are more likely to vis it sexually oriented chat rooms which provide interaction and socialization as well as anonymity (C ooper, Marahan-Martin, Mathy, & Maheu, 2002). Finally, the t ypical educational profile sugge sts that excessive internet users have levels of education of fifteen year s or greater (Hall & Pars ons, 2001; Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark et al., 1998). Original theories regarding internet use fo r sexuality purposes were very polarized in their findings. One group of researchers emphasized that internet use specifically as it relates to sexuality is pathological. These studies asserted that individuals would be able to effectively engage in sexual fantasies, and el icit sex conversations that could range from simple flirtations to downright naughty communication. These researcher s thought the internet would be a breeding ground for illegal sexual activ ities, including child pornogr aphy and pedophilia (Cooper, Scherer, Boies, & Gordon, 1999). In contrast, th e second group of researchers asserted that

PAGE 24

23 internet use for sexual purposes may be adaptive versus pathological. According to this scientific camp, internet use for adaptive sexual purposes created an opportunity to normalize sexual desire to create another avenue of information sharing about sexuality and intimacy that is void of physical attributes (Cooper et al., 1999). As more individuals become technologically lite rate, and excessive use of the internet is being reported, the notion of in ternet addiction as well as internet use for sexually related recreation has become of interest to researchers. However, the topic of sexual addiction as it relates to the internet seems to be controversia l. Griffiths (1999) suggests that many excessive internet users are not internet addicts, but use the internet to engage in their part icular addiction (i.e. gambling, sex, and etc.). Griffiths (1999) de termined that the internet has the inherent capability to be used for sexually motivated behavi ors, either online or offline. Offline internet uses include the purchase of sexually relevant material ( books, objects, and educational purposes) or trolling for offline se xual partners. Griffiths (2001) suggests that very few of the activities listed lead to sexual a ddiction, and/or sexual internet addiction. He argues that research regarding internet use has overes timated the number of internet addicts (due to poor research design). He does however admit that some beha viors are more likely to promote internet addiction citing examples of email, and chat ro oms. However, he alleges that sexual addiction using the internet is possible, ci ting that behaviors most likely to promote sexual addiction within this venue include online pornography for masturba tory purposes, and online sexual relationships (Griffiths, 2001). Developmental Factors Adolescence is defined as the period of transition between childhood and adulthood. During this transitiona l time, skills are developed in preparation for the roles and responsibilities of adulthood. Biologic, cognitive and psychosocial changes are also occurring in preparation for

PAGE 25

24 impending adulthood. This transitional phase ca n also prove to be a vulnerable time for adolescents. Psychosocial interactions such as peer group acceptance can exert undue pressure and affect decision making skills during these susceptible years (Delamat er & Friedrich, 2002).. During adolescence many patterns of behavior are established. These behaviors can be influenced by psychosocial development. A ccording to Erikson as cited by Calvert and colleagues (2002), adolescents are in the process of developing pers onal identity. They are in the psychosocial process of moving away from identifying with family and moving toward identifying with a peer group. Adolescents are also in the process of managing physical and emotional intimacy in personal relationships (D elamater & Friedrich, 2002;Calvert Jordan, & Cocking, 2002). As they attain this physical a nd emotional intimacy, gende r and sexual identity is established. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bi-sexuality lifestyles are determined in this phase of development (Bancroft, 2002; Calvert, Jordan, & Cocking,2002). This is extremely significant for college st udents as the psychological and environmental changes that occur initially in the life of a colle ge student may create ex traneous stress and may become a factor in developing addictive behavi ors related to specific internet use (Hall & Parsons, 2001). In addition to developmental f actors, internet accessibility on college campuses is a free service as most colleges and universities have user domains. This affordable, accessible, and unmonitored use of the internet can increase the amount of computer time students use and allow them to circumvent necessary tasks of development. Online relationships provide an environment of anonymity which allows the user to engage in fantasies and create an entirely different self. This provides an escape from real world relationships, usurping developmental tasks such as identity formation and buildi ng intimate relationships (Hall & Parsons, 2001). Cognitive skills that allow the critical ability to make decisions are not fully developed which

PAGE 26

25 places adolescents at a greater risk of influen ces that can affect decision-making. One of the major influences that affect adolescent behavior is technology based media, specifically sexual oriented media (Escobar-Chaves et al., 2005). The obsession with se x and sexuality is pervasive in all areas of the media. It is estimated that on average, adolescents view 143 incidents of sexual behavior on prime time television each week. Approximately 80 % of all movies shown on network or cable television stations have sexual content in some fo rm or another. At some point in time during a 24 hour period, adolescents will tune in and watch music television (MTV) (Brown & Newcomer, 2002). Approximately 60 % of the videos aired on MTV portray sexual feelings and display provocativ e clothing, and sexually suggestive body movements. Analysis of sexual messages on television indicate that th ey are predominantly presented with little discussion of the potential risk s of unprotected sexua l intercourse, and only a small number of messages include adverse consequences of th is risk taking behavior (Gruber & Grube, 2000; Rich, 2003). Development also influences comprehensi on and interpretation of sexual content. Younger children are less likely to understand the subtlety of suggestive ma terial observed in the media. Adolescents at an earlier stage of biol ogic development were less interested in sexual content media than more mature adolescents. More mature adolescents sought out sexual content as a way of learning about romance and relatio nships. These adolescent s believed that media (internet, television, movies) provides visual in formation on how to become popular and attract the opposite sex (Collins et al., 2004). Influential Media A national study reported that the m ajority of American children live in homes with two or more televisions; approximately 75 % of thos e homes have access to cable television. Over half of the adolescents surveyed had a televisi on set in their own room. These same adolescents

PAGE 27

26 reported that media is used as an informati on source about sexuality, drug abuse, and violent behaviors (Morris, 2004). High amounts of exposure to portrayals of sex may have an effect upon adolescents beliefs and cultural norms. Media creates the illusion that sex is central to daily life and as a result may promote earlier sexual debut. Behaviors that are observed in media sources may alter beliefs about outcomes of engaging in sexual activity. Adolescen ts who view media and see characters having casual sex without negative consequences may be more likely to adopt those portrayed behaviors (Brener, Lowr y, Kann, Kolbe, & al, 2002). Correlational studies indicate that adolescent females choose television programs with sexual content more often than do adolescent males. Interestingly, adolescent females are more likely to observe it in the company of parents. To the contrary, older adolescent males view media with greater hardcore se xual content, and are more likely to listen to more sexually explicit music. Adolescent males use the internet, computer and or online games more often than the female adolescents(Gruber & Grube, 2000). Women are portrayed as sex objects in appr oximately 25 % of the 33 most popular video games. Violence against women is portrayed in approximately 21 %, and in over 40 % of these games, female characters do not have names (R ich, 2003). Adolescents who use these kinds of media are more likely to believe these stereotypi c sex roles versus realit y than their counterparts that do not use these games (Gr uber & Grube, 2000; Morris, 2004). The mainstream mass media (television, movies, music, and internet) provide increasingly frequent portrayals of sexuality. Studies suggest that interactive visual media that are interactive do have an impact on sexual be havior (Boies, 2002; Esco bar-Chaves et al., 2005; Griffiths, 2001; Hollander, 2004). Media portray als of men and women reinforce relatively

PAGE 28

27 consistent sets of sexual and relationship norms; however in many cases sexually responsible models are not portrayed. According to Taylor (2005), people who watch television shows that have increased sexual content are more likely to make elevated estimates of the frequency of actual sexual behaviors based upon the media obs erved. Examples of overestimated sexual behaviors include using sex for fa vors, sexual activity without love, or a romantic interest and boasting sexual conquests. Sexual television content has also been linked to beliefs and expectations about ones own sexual experiences. Increased exposur e to visual sexual media are correlated to decreased sexual inhibition (Taylor, 2005). Over the past few decades, nationally representative surveys have accumulated a wealth of data on levels of sexual activity in adolescents. According to one such survey, approximately 47 % of adolescents in grades 9 through 12 have had four or more sexua l partners (Hollander, 2004). According to Remez (2000) most adolescents fear pregnancy over sexually transmitted infections (STI). Adolescents growing up and educated in the era of HIV disease have the misconception that oral sex is considered to be a risk free sexual behavior in comparison to vaginal and/or anal intercourse. Many adolescents also believe th at oral and anal sex are not considered to be coital sex so engaging in them maintains the concept of virginity (Holowaty et al., 1997; Remez, 2000). The internet has begun to pl ay an increasing role in the sex lives of young people. In one particular survey, individuals with an age ra nge of 18-24 reported meeting an average of ten partners through the internet in the last two years. Many stated that seven of the ten partners were obtained via the internet in the previous year. Participants within this age range were more willing than their older c ounter parts to seek potential part ners in chat rooms (anonymous) and then elevate the intera ction to exchange of addresses. Respondents to the anonymous survey

PAGE 29

28 were recruited through chat rooms, electronic bu lletin boards and list se rves. This particular survey revealed that of 40 % of the respondents ha d engaged in sex with a partner that they met online, and males were 10 % more likely to engage in sex with a partner met online (McFarlane, Bull, & Rietmeijer, 2002). In the presence of a growing technological society, adolescents are observing sexual activity in all sources of media; from televi sion to the internet (R ich, 2003). These same adolescents who are bombarded by this type of medi a are more likely to act out these behaviors, and increase their risk of cont racting STIs. Anecdotal informa tional sources have documented a trend in adolescent sexual behaviors that use tech nology to locate partners to participate in these activities. Decline in da ting trends and romantic relationships on college campuses have brought forth a different kind of relationship; an acronym known as frie nds with benefits (DenizetLewis, 2004). A friend with benefits removes the romance component in relationships and allows for the benefit of sex among and between friends. This phenomena has trickled down to middle school and high school adol escents (DenizetLewis, 2004). Persons who engage in sexual activity with multiple and/or anonymous sex partners are more likely to become infected with STIs. Hist orically in the HIV er a, sex with anonymous partners had been initiated in bars, bathhouses, cl ubs, or parks. Research has documented that the internet may be another venue fo r the initiation of sexual contact. Due to the anonymity of chat rooms and other internet sites, communication of sexual fantasies can be completed without reproach. These anonymous meetings may lead to in person meetings and sexual contact (McFarlane, Bull, & Rietmeijer, 2000). Theoretical Perspectives In much of the literature re viewed, Social Cognitive Learning Theory (SCT) is used as a framework for studying internet use and sexual behaviors. The basic tenets underlying this

PAGE 30

29 theory assume that individuals ar e more inclined to imitate a behavior if they are rewarded. Secondly, individuals are more likely to model a behavior when they can actually identify with the model. Finally, if the model is attractive and th e behavior is possible then it is more likely to be performed (Boies, 2002; Goodson et al., 2001; LaRose & Eastin, 2004). According to LaRose and Easton (2004), behavior is determined by outcome. If the outcome is desirable, then the behavior is eith er experienced in a physical sense or mediated through observation. Sexually oriented media on the internet provides an e xpected gratification. The user can observe a desired behavior, and vi cariously experience it through observation. If the user is satisfied with the outcome of the behavior (i.e. viewing se xually explicit material), then in all likelihood (according to SCT) the user woul d again be compelled to repeat the behavior (LaRose & Eastin, 2004). In concert with Social Cognitive Learning Theory there is a behavioral pattern that can lead to addiction. Griffiths (2000) states that repeated use of technology may cause a behavioral addiction. He describes this technical addi ction in six steps. Addiction can occur through saliency (when the behavior monopolizes the life of the user), mood modification (users experience a sense of euphoria with each encounter of the behavior), to lerance (users are no longer feeling a sense of euphoria, and spend larger amounts of time engaging in the behavior), withdrawal symptoms (physiological, and psychological occurrences as a result of discontinuing or decreasing the behavior), conflict (disa ccord with interpersonal relationship and the self regarding concern over engaging in the behavior), and fi nally relapse, which can occur even years after the behavior has been extinguished. Goodson, McCormick and Evans (2000) discuss th ree categories of sexual internet use as it relates to SCT. Through a framework based upon SCT, they made th e assertion that the

PAGE 31

30 internet is used for obtaining information of a sexual nature, establis hing and/or maintaining relationships, and sexual entertainment. G oodson and colleagues (2000) designed a survey instrument to assess students perceptions and beha viors when surfing the net for sexually related reasons based upon the three categories of use. Their study supported th e hypothesis that those who use the internet frequently have significantly di fferent attitudes regarding information seeking and sexual entertainment (i.e. pornography) than those who did not use the internet as frequently. The obvious concern for adolescent sexuality is the risk involved with sexual behaviors, specifically STIs and adolescen t pregnancy. Decreasing adoles cent sexual behavior and its associated risk is a top priority of the United Stat es national health objectiv es. It is apparent that there are other factors involved with the decision making process of adolescents to engage in sexual activities that have yet to be determined. Given this information, it is essential to review prevalent literature to gain insight into areas of current research and areas warranting further research. Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to better unders tand how technology, age, race and university of record (w here these emerging adults attend college) may affect sexual decision making and sexual behaviors in traditional college age students. A quantitative study design was chosen for data collection. A modified version of Goodson et al ( 2000) tool entitled Survey Instrument to Assess College Students Behavior and Attitudes was redesigned to be used as a web based survey. This survey tool used both Boolean and Likert style questions. Information obtained in the introduction of the survey provided demographic informa tion which included age range, ethnicity, religious affiliation, as well as information regard ing students perceptions and behaviors while using the internet for sexuall y related information, and entertainment.

PAGE 32

31 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE The objectiv e of this literature review is to explore the available evidence of adolescent sexual behaviors, risk factors, and how they relate to internet use. This re view examines research studies selected from the literature for the ye ars between 1997 and 2008. These research studies were identified by a search of PubMed, Proquest and Ebsco-host databases for the specified years. The key search terms used were adolescen ts, college age students, sexuality, sexual debut, STI, internet, media and technology. Studies selected were those that reported findings related to adolescents sexual behavior, sexua l debut, risk factors and internet use. Refereed journals were used almost exclusively. Media Influence on Sex Durham s (1999) study identified the medias influence in the form of television and video upon sexuality and feminine roles in adol escent females. This qualitative inquiry used participant observation and in-depth interviewing of adolescent females. The participants were recruited from two middle schools in the southwestern United Stat es. The schools were selected because of the diverse racial a nd socioeconomic status of the st udents. This diversity allowed more generalizability of the results of the project. This study attempted to gain an understanding of the social processes of adolescent peer groups, specifically peer group activity and the medi as effect on sexuality and the social context of its formation. The findings indicated that al though media (defined as television, internet, or video) is an important factor in determining individual behavi ors, peer group effect and mass media together have a profound effect on indivi dual behaviors. Group behaviors affected by media access became the accepted norm of participants despite individual differences, activities and lifestyle choices. Interesti ngly, Durhams (1999) study identif ied the idea that compulsory

PAGE 33

32 heterosexuality was foundational in group acceptance of individuals, despite race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors. As heterosexuality is the dominant theme in media, these findings demonstrate the pervasiveness of the mass medi a effect on adolescent females, sexuality and group behavior (Durham, 1999). Roberts (2000) described adolescent access and exposure to all forms of media, as well as the contexts where media exposure occurs. In this study, a cross sectional national random sample of 2065 adolescents, 8 through 18 years of age completed questi onnaires about personal use of media, including television, videos, comp uters, video games, radio, compact discs, tape players, books, newspapers, and magazines. The results showed that most households contain most media, and the majority of adolescents have their own personal access to the media. The average daily use of varying forms of media is approximately six to eight hours per day. Television remains the dominant medium and appr oximately one-half of the adolescents sampled use a computer daily. A substantial proportion of a dolescents media use occu rs in the absence of parents. An interesting demographic outcome occurred in household media based upon gender. Availability of video games in male adolescent homes was 27 % higher than that of their female counterparts. Media availability in adoles cent bedrooms proved to have many variables. Differences between computers present in White and Black a dolescents bedrooms proved to be negligible. However, Blacks and Hispanics were more likel y than their White counterparts to have televisions, video cassette recorders (VCR) or video games in th eir bedrooms. White adolescents were more likely to have audio systems in th eir rooms. Televisions, VCRs, and video game systems in adolescent bedrooms are inversely related to household income. Adolescents who attend schools in lower income communities ar e more likely than those who attend in high

PAGE 34

33 income communities to report having their ow n television, VCR and video games (Roberts, 2000). This may become a factor of potentially harmful internet expos ure without parental intervention of children especially those from lower income families. Gruber and Grube(2000), reviewed recent sc ientific literature on adolescents and sexuality in the media. Findings indicated that the available res earch did not address adolescent exposure to sexual content in the media and it s effects on beliefs, know ledge, intentions, and behaviors. The literature review also identified lack of research on sexual content of the internet, video games or handheld devi ces, (Gruber & Grube, 2000). Collins and colleagues (2004) conducted a national longitudinal survey of 1792 adolescents approximately 12 to 17 years of age. Participating adolescent s described their media viewing habits and sexual experience using initial and yearly follow-up interviews. Multivariate regression analysis determined that adolescents who viewed more sexua l content at initial interview were more likely to initiate intercourse and participate in non-coital sexual activities during the following year. This study al so noted that adolescents in the 90th percentile of TV sex viewing had a predicted probability of intercourse initiati on that was twice that of adolescents in the 10th percentile, for all ages studied. Interestingly, Black adolescents who watched more representations of sexual risks or safety in an educational format were less likely to initiate intercourse in the subsequent year (Collins et al., 2004). The purpose of Morrison and colleagues (2004) re search was to investigate variables that may be associated with exposure to sexually explicit material (SEM). Participants for this study were psychology students enrolled at a Canadian University. Results revealed a weak correlation between exposure to SEM via media (internet, TV, and video) and sexual esteem and sexual anxiety. Pornography exposure was greater for the

PAGE 35

34 non-virgin participants. The au thors examined the results within the SCT framework, with unexpected results. According to Morrison a nd company (2004) the presumption was that exposure to SEM presents viewers with an unrealistic view of se x. This exposure would result in a decreased sexual self esteem, diminished ge nital self image and le ssen the likelihood of practicing safe sex. However, th at was not the case. SCT did not support Morrisons hypothesis. Morrison and company (2004) predicted that male and female participan ts levels of sexual anxiety would be inversely correlated in self re ported exposure to SEM. They concluded that due to technology and accessibility, studies of ex plicit material should move from a harms based framework (sexual pathology) to a more adaptiv e role and develop frameworks in which to capture the complexity of SEM and its eff ect on the viewer (Morrison, Bearden, Harriman, Morrison, & Ellis, 2004). Depression, Religiosity, and Sexual Debut Longm ore and colleagues (2004) using a restricted use sample of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent H ealth, examined the influence of self esteem and depressive symptoms on sexual debut. Adolescents were in terviewed initially and at one year intervals. These intervals were identified as wave one a nd wave two. Criteria fo r inclusion to the study required that all adolescents participating must not have previously e ngaged in sexual activity prior to the first wave. The dependent variable measured in the study was vaginal intercourse. Independent variables included se lf esteem, depressive sympto ms, dating patterns, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, mothers education, and family makeup (i.e. single parent, biologic family, or step family). In the first wave of this study, a total of 18,924 students enrolled in grades 7 through 12 were interviewed. In wa ve two, a total of 13,570 students were reinterviewed. The final sample of this study included 7,965 studen ts (4,300 girls and 3,665 boys). Using logistic regression, this study demonstrated that depressive symptoms would increase the

PAGE 36

35 likelihood of sexual debut at a younger age. Race ethnicity and socioeconomic status were moderating factors on self esteem and depressi ve symptoms. Results showed that both self esteem and depressive symptoms affect sexual debut in adolescen t males. Depressive symptoms, however, exert the greatest effect on sexual debut in adolescent ma les. In older adolescent males a more positive self-esteem correlates with later sexual debut. Male adolescents that live with both biological parents are more likely to have a later sexual debut than those of single or step parent families. This study suggested that self esteem and depressive symptoms have no correlational relationship to race or ethnicity in adolescent males. In female adolescents, age, race and ethnicity proved to be a predictor of sexual debut. Frequency of depressive symptoms in White female adolescents aged 13 proved to be a predictor of earlier sexual debut in contrast to Black females in the same age range. Age and dating also influence sexual onset in older adolescent female s. One date or consecutive dating during wave one and wave two increases the odds of sexual debut. For female adolescents, living with a single parent or other alternative family types (i.e gay or lesbian family structures) increases the frequency of sexual debut during the time between wave one and wave two. Step parent families do not have an effect on sexual debut of females. Finally, female adolescents who have mothers with greater than 16 years of education have decreased odds of sexual debut during wave one and wave two of the study (Longm ore, Manning, Giordano, & Rudolph, 2004). Internet use has also been linked to soci al isolation and depression among adolescents. Sanders and colleagues (2000) investigated whether levels of internet use were associated with depression and social isolation. The study looked at length of daily internet use and how it correlated to social isolation and depression. Th is study demonstrated si milar findings to those of Kraut and colleagues (1998) research that looked at internet use and family communication

PAGE 37

36 systems. Both studies showed that increased inte rnet use increased social isolation and created weaker social ties, but could not be positively linked to depre ssion (Kraut, Patterson, Landmark et al., 1998; Sanders, Field, Diego, & Kaplan, 2000). Rotosky, Regnerus, and Wright (2003) also used the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to determine if religiosity was associated with the dela y of adolescent coital debut. Using data from 3,691 adolescents, Roto sky and colleagues (2003), wanted to determine if adolescent religiosity and sexual attitudes pr edicted sexual debut in gender and ethnicity. Again, there were two contact points approximately one year apart. The researchers selected a sample of 80 high schools, which were strati fied by region, urban location, school type, ethnic diversity, and enrollment size. The sample of schools ranged in size from fewer than 100 students to more than 3,000 stude nts. Approximately 80% of the schools contacted agreed to participate. The schools and stude nts proved to be representative samples of the population and provided generalizability to the study. As w ith Longmore and colleagues (2004) study, only those adolescents who indicated that they had not engaged in sexual intercourse by the first wave of the study were selected to comprise the samp le for the analysis of predicting coital debut. Adolescents ages 15 and older were asked sex attitude questions ex clusively. Correlational analyses with a Bonferroni correction were used to determine associations between independent and dependent variables for males and females. 23% of the males and 25% of the females who reported no sexual intercourse at the first wave had engaged in sexual intercourse by the second wave. Each year of age of the adolescent determ ined an approximate increase of 21 % in sexual debut between the first and second wave of the st udy. In Black males, earlier sexual debut was twice that of White males regard less of religiosity and virginit y pledging. In adolescent boys, the odds of sexual debut decreased by approximately 36 % when their mothers had at least a college

PAGE 38

37 education. Finally, in the presence of at least one or more romantic partne rs present at the first wave, sexual debut increased by approximately 90 % by the second wave.(Rostosky, Regnerus, & Wright, 2003). Multiple Sex Partners Howard and Wang (2004) examined the relation ship of multiple sexua l-partners to other risk behaviors among adolescent girls. Using the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 3288 sexually active adolescent females participated in this study. This study attempted to correlate relative risk of engaging in risk taking behaviors, age, ethnic ity, and number of sexual partners. Results showed that having one sexual partner was associated with lack of condom use and being in 12th grade. Two or more partne rs was associated with bein g Black, fighting, binge drinking, and cigarette use (Howard & Wang, 2004). Welch and colleagues (1998) found a surpri sing number of gonorrhea cases in lower income cases in Syracuse, New York. A study was conducted to provide information for public health interventions regarding gonorrhea and othe r STIs in the identified high risk population. The descriptive study provided information from individual and focus group interviews in an attempt to develop effective health education messages and services for the teen population. A major portion of high-risk behavior occurred in conjunction with th e use of alcohol and marijuana. Coercion and possibly violence are a part of sexual activity for at least some teens. Concerns included violence as a health problem, rape in jail as an STI risk, and sex with a female partner who is unconscious from intoxication. Female adolescents reported that males would pressure them to have sex without a condom. They concluded that early sexual debut can be the result of coercion specifically in the early sexual experience of adolescents in this group. Interestingly, participants described the practice of exchanging sex for consumer items (food,

PAGE 39

38 brand name clothing, and sneakers) although they did not consid er this to be prostitution. (Welych, Laws, Fiorito, Durham, & al, 1998). Dodge and colleagues (2004) suggest that an association exists between sexual compulsivity and participation in sexual beha viors that are high risk in terms of HIV/STD infection. Dodge and colleagues (2004) studied 876 heterosexual college students using the Sexual Compulsivity Scale (SCS). Predominant studies using the SCS were done with members of high risk groups (i.e. HIV at risk, and or HIV infected). Dodge and colleagues were able to support reliability and construct validity of the SCS in a hete rosexual population. Dodge et al (2004), found a significant relationship (p<0.001) be tween sexual compulsivity and partner sex activities. Participants who re ported a broader range of partne r sex activities with higher frequencies had higher sexual compulsivity scores Additionally, a relationship between solo sex activities (masturbation) and sexual compulsivity emerged from the statistical analysis (p < 0.001). Participants who reported higher frequenc ies were more likely to have higher sexual compulsivity scores. Analysis of the data al so divulged a relationship between public sex activities and sexual com pulsivity (p < 0.001). Those who part icipated in public sex activities with higher frequencies were more likely to have higher sexual compulsivity scores. Finally, post hoc analysis of this data demonstrated that pa rticipants who had non exclusive relationships had higher sexual compulsivity scores. There was a significant difference between men and women in terms of sexual compulsivity scores. Mean scores for se xual compulsivity were higher in male population f (876) = 12.63, p < 0.001, d = .81. Frighteningly, th ere was a relationship present in sexual compulsivity and age. Younger participants ha d higher sexual compulsivity scores (Dodge, Reece, Cole, & Sandfort, 2004).

PAGE 40

39 The limitations of this particular study in cluded a convenience sample, and as such it would be difficult to compare it with the genera l population. The authors al so noted that as only college students were the focus of the resear ch, a different cohort might answer questions differently. As with all sexual su rveys, there is always a risk of under reporting or exaggerating sexual encounters/compulsivity. As with the majority of resear ch on human sexual behavior, the use of self-report questionnaires ma y create a source of bias in th at participants may exaggerate the frequency of sexual activities underreport the fre quency of sexual activities, misunderstand a question due to lack of knowledge and respond in accurately, or answer questions in ways that they feel are socially desirable. Internet McFarlane and associates (2000) used a cr oss sectional design study conducted in Colorado from September 1999 through April 2000 co mpared the risk of STI transmission of persons seeking sex partners on th e internet versus those not seeking sex partners on the internet. Of the 856 participants intervie wed, 135 of those participating had sought sex partners on the internet. Eighty-eight of those who sought sex partners reported having sex with someone they met online. Thirty-four of those people had had f our or more partners in a six month period. Condom use was reported in only 44 % of those with four or more contacts. In this study only adults were asked to participate, and 70 % re ported themselves to be White and homosexual. However, most of the participants who used the internet as a me thod of obtaining partners were more likely to report previous STIs (McFarlane et al., 2000). Mitchell and colleagues (2001) conducted a st udy to assess the risk factors surrounding online sexual solicitations of youth. Telephone surveys were performed from August 1999 to February 2000 which captured a random samp le of 1501 adolescents from 10 through 17 years of age who regularly used the internet. Nineteen % of those interviewed e xperienced at least one

PAGE 41

40 sexual solicitation while using the internet in th e previous year and 3 % reported an aggressive solicitation. Only 10 % of sexual so licitations were reported to any authority. Approximately 75 % of parents and adolescents had no idea of where to report this type of behavior. Adolescent females were more likely to be solicited as well as those who used the internet more frequently. Solicitation occurred more frequently in those adolescents who particip ated in chat rooms, engaged in risky behavior online, talked to strangers online, or used the internet at households other than their ow n (Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2001). The objectives in Koch & Praterellis (2004) study Effects of Introversion and Extroversion on Social Internet Use research the social significance of the internet. They used Likert scores to rate the negativ e effects of internet use (i.e. a ddiction). Participants were asked to rate the internet based upon reading a passage to determine different responses based upon gender. They hypothesized that individuals who read a passage about negative effects of the internet would respond negatively. They also hypothesized that Intr overts would be more comfortable with the anonymity that the intern et provides than those individuals that were described as extroverts. Participants were recru ited from freshmen level courses (n=240). Results of the statistical analysis prove d not to be statistically signifi cant regarding reading a negative passage about the internet. Koch & Praterelli (2004) de termined that the reason why it might not be statistically significant because addicts dont always identify themselves as addicts. This study demonstrated that there was a large difference between me n and womens perceptions and use of the internet which is consistent with pr evious research. Again, college age males reported viewing more sexually explicit material for social purposes (Koch & Pratarelli, 2004). Hightow et al (2005) reviewed state surveillance records as pa rt of a retrospective study that examined new diagnoses and risk behavi ors in men 18 to 30 years old living in North

PAGE 42

41 Carolina. They reviewed 735 r ecords and of the 735 records, approximately, 11 % (84) were male college students. Eighty seven % of the 84 college students were Black Americans. Approximately 92 % of those stud ents were either men who had sex with men, or men who had sex with women. Hightow and co mpany (2005) described an epidemic that was previously unknown. Even more disconcerting is that the collegiate sexual ne twork of this cohort extends into five other states in the Southeast United States. Hightow and colleagues (2005) found limited re search on the phenomenon (one study in 1990) and concluded that although the rates of HIV infection in college age black men are lower than found in the general popula tion, it does demonstrate that a higher prevalence in a small cohort can have a significant effect on transmission. Additionally, Hightow and colleagues (2005) determined upon a literature search that college students (a gain) are more likely to meet sex partners over the internet, a nd report higher rates of risky sex behaviors (Hightow et al., 2005). Sanger and associates (2004) studied 62 a dolescent females residing in a correctional facility and their use of the inte rnet to participate in chat room conversations. Findings indicated that 87 % participated in chat rooms interact ions and spent an average of 10 hours per week interacting in the chat rooms. Seventy % of those had been approached in chat rooms to participate in sexual behaviors. Findings identi fied the high incidence of participants, and the implications of chat room interactions. Implications of chat room interactions were identified as a potential for language problems (based upon vocabulary, meanings of certain words, processing information conveyed, recognition of hidden messages and/or in words, or understanding attempts of others to use manipulative language). This raised questions about whether the seriousness of possibl e harmful or manipulative intera ctions is actually understood

PAGE 43

42 by adolescents. The absence of physical, verbal, a nd nonverbal cues that exist within the chat room arena has been well documented in the lite rature. This absence may make the chat room environment dangerous to adolescents as they ma y not be able to discern whether a message is truthful, sincere, or accurate. A dolescents do not have the luxury of experience and therefore they are at an increased risk to sexual predators that may lurk within this environment. This study also suggested that more research in these addressed areas is warranted. Sex Defined This very interesting study assessed exactly what respondents considered to be the definition of sex. Bogart and colleagues (2000) used an interesting design to determine how respondents interpret actual sex by assuming whether or not hypothe tical actors would deem the act to be defined as actual sex. The participants of this study had to make this determination based upon gender of the particip ant, gender of the actor, the act, and whether an orgasm influenced their labeling of behaviors. The sample consisted of 223 undergrad student s who were concurrently enrolled in a human sexuality course at a unive rsity in the western United St ates. This particular study is extremely significant as it occurred not quite two m onths after President Clinton stated that he did not have sex with that woman. This study was conducted prior to specific details regarding the President s alleged indiscretion. Results for vaginal and anal sex were simila r to previous findings. The participants believed that the female actor would have a larger definition sex; meaning that more variety of sexual behaviors would be constr ued as actual sex. Interestingly, if the male actor achieved orgasm, the behavior would likely be perceived as sex. Whether the female did or did not orgasm had no bearing on the males definition of sex. In the case of oral interc ourse if the recipient climaxed, the sex behavior was more likely to be construed as sex. The performer was less likely

PAGE 44

43 to consider oral sex to be actua l sex. The authors determined that (in this study) vaginal and anal intercourse were more likely to be construed as sex, but oral in tercourse was less likely to be defined as actual sex. This demonstrates the importance of having participants define exactly what they believe is sex (Bogart, Ceci l, Wagstaff, Pinkerton, & Abramson, 2000) As new technologies, such as computer-m ediated communication, expand the potential for mass influence on society, adol escent sexual behaviors, the pe rvasiveness of media culture, earlier sexual debut, and risky behaviors will continue to become more problematic. The presence of sex and its co-star, violence saturate s all forms of media that adolescents have at easy access and have been, and continue to be, the focus of entertainment. Mass media producers are only concerned with the effects of sex and violence inasmuch as it affects their profits. Adolescent interest in the techno logical world allows them to view media without the ability to discern the information criticall y. In the substantial body of knowledge presen t in the literature; specific studies of adolescents are limited perhaps due to the nature of the topic. This literature review has identified the need for a more compre hensive look at risky sexual behaviors, chat room use and earlier sexual de but of exposed adolescents and traditional age college students with computer access.

PAGE 45

44 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to better understand how technology and culture affect sexual decision m aking and sexual behaviors in traditional college age students. In order to determine this, a web based quantitative study using su rvey methods to collect data was initiated. Internet Data Collection Advantages Data collection using in ternet surveys has multiple advantages. Economy is an initial factor. Web based surveys are abou t one half of the costs of traditional mailings (Duffy, 2002). Ease of recruitment and the potential to achieve larger samples in a reasonably short period of time is another. Depending on how the particip ants are notified, web based surveys are most successful in the first few days of recruitment. Respondents who are intere sted in participating will usually answer in the first two days or not at all (Duffy, 2002). According to Rhodes et al (2003), using web based surveys improves actual usable data versus more traditional methods. Rhodes (2003) s uggests that because of the explanatory design inherent in web based surveys there is an actual reduction of errors. Inst ructions are simple to follow. Respondents are directed to a site; th ey follow instructions supplied on menus, and follow the format of the survey. If built into the design, respondents can see how much of the survey they have actually completed (i.e. page one of eight) and may be more likely to complete the entire survey. Errors that occur in paper based surveys, such as skipped items or accidentally choosing multiple items can be avoi ded with web-based surveys. The interactive features that are built into th e survey may offer dialogue box es that pop up based upon the particular response a participant may choose. This allows the participant to skip questions that may not be relevant (Couper, Conrad, & Tourangeau, 2007)

PAGE 46

45 Participants have the luxury of responding in their own time frame as web based surveys are available twenty-four seven. This may be ve ry important specifically when attempting to solicit particular groups (i.e. college students). Survey participants also have the ability to disconnect their participation at any time based upon comfort leve l. This level of comfort may actually improve how honest online respondents are in comparison to face to face interviewees. This comfort level may be a direct result of the anonymity factor in web based surveys. Participants who access internet surveys believe th at there is anonymity in web based surveys. The anonymity factor may add to the respondents level of comfort, thus improving the honesty factor, especially when it rela tes to sexual behaviors. Level of embarrassment may be minimized for participants using web based surveys, and im prove the level of participant control in the process (Rhodes, Bowie, & Hergenrather, 2003). Individuals who partake in web based surveys make a personal decision to actively participate as they log on to the site where the survey is housed. According to Rhodes and colleagues (2003) this concept of activ e participation moves the respondent from the mindset of experimentati on to a partnership position with the research being accomplished. This partnership may improve completion of survey responses. Malone (2002) suggests that web based participation with subjects opens up a new way of thinking in research design and development. Respondents engaging in web based research are more likely to provide feedback, and have an interest in the out come of the research. Rhodes (2003) found this to be evident as respondents in their study supplied URL addresses to potential candidates of their own volition. Another advantage of web based surveys is mi nimizing the error rates in recording data. Depending on the survey design, many web based surveys can be compatible with statistical software. Weber, et al (2005) f ound that utilizing computer based research methods for recording

PAGE 47

46 results virtually eliminated erro rs in coding and recording when compared to human coding. In this study, hand coding resulted in a 15 % error ra te per case and computerized coding provided a data pool free of errors. Resu lts from computer based surveys that are compatible with statistical software can be automatically downloa ded into software products such as Excel, and uploaded into other statistical software produc ts without data-entry errors and with time efficiency (Rogelberg & Stanton 2007). Disadvantages Unfortunately, there are always pitfalls to th is type of data collection. The m ajor problem with gathering this type of data is determin ing validity. There is always a possibility of respondents not being completely honest when an swering. Another issue is the possibility of repeated submission from the same respondent. According to Rhodes et al (2003) the potential for multiple submissions can be minimized using specific designs embedded into the software program. Predominantly, questions such as asking the respondent if th ey have previously completed the survey or having the participan t provide some unique identifiable information such as date of birth have also proven to be effective techniques. However, the major drawback to multiple submissions may be the length of the survey as an inhibitor for multiple submissions in itself. Another problem with internet surveys is atte mpting to maintain the integrity of the data pool. With public internet surveys, it is diffi cult to maintain a specified populace. Even though there are many ways to protect surveys and target specific groups, it is not infallible. It is not unusual for a legitimate respondent to participate, and then share the UR L link with a friend who may not meet the eligibility re quirement initially intended by the researcher. This snow ball effect can be detrimental to the validity of the study, and the researcher may be entirely unaware of this issue (Rhodes, Bowi e, & Hergenrather, 2003).

PAGE 48

47 An additional problem is meta-tagging. Meta tagging is the prac tice of embedding of certain words that can be indexed through basic internet searches. An example of this is that an individual may Google a certain wo rd or phrase, if a survey has th at meta-tag within it, it is likely to come up within that pa rticular search. Using this type of code embedding can increase the number of participants by publicizing a survey ; however, the downside is the resultant breach of sampling to uncontrolled participants outside of the intended population (Rhodes, Bowie, & Hergenrather, 2003). Adding the URL link of the survey to a publis hed website will also be picked up by many search engines, thus causing publishing the location of a web based survey. This is an effective tool if the researcher is atte mpting to obtain a large sample. However, in the case of attempting to control the sampling body, a URL link to a published web site can be very detrimental. There are a few ways that researchers may be ab le to protect the data pool. One way is to minimize the publicity of the actual web survey. This can successfully be completed by using private domains to house the web survey. Usuall y, private web based surveys are difficult to search for, which reduces the ri sk of unintended participants. Confidentiality Procedures for the Prot ection of Human Subjects Before beginning data collection, approval fr om the HBCU and the PFU Institutional Review Boards (IRB) were obtained. This beca me a difficult process as the original study protocol proposed was a mixe d methodology design. The IRB at the PFU had some difficulty with the data collection in the qualitative portion, and after some discussion, this portion of the study was scrapped. The same study and all protoc ols were approved comp letely at the HBCU. This study was an anonymous study. Data collected had no iden tifiers that could distinguish participants individu ally. The only demographics obtai ned in this study were gender,

PAGE 49

48 race, age range, and school. The school value was embedded in the design of the web survey. This survey tool did not store or retain the user (student) source internet protocol (IP) address as an added protection method for participant anonymity. Data Protection As stated in the original protocol submitted, any data that will be presented or published would be presented as aggregate data and no iden tifiers to the participant universities would be included. All survey data that was collected was in comma delimited format. Survey results were immediately saved into a database hosted on the secure web server. The ra w data was stored as index values (i.e. numbers 0, 1, 2, 3), in the da tabase. A schema map for the web survey was developed from the original survey design of G oodson, et al (2000) and wa s required in order to decipher the data. All string, nominal and ordinal data variables were given index values. These index values could only be inte rpreted as meaningful information with the corresponding unique schema map. Survey Tool Goodson and colleagues (2000), developed a paper and pencil survey tool to docum ent college students use of the inte rnet. This survey tool entitled Survey Instrument to Assess College Students Behavior and Attitudes documented demographic information as well as college students perceptions and behaviors while using the internet (specifically for sexually related information). Goodson and colleagues (2000) goal was to validate the actual tool versus data collection. Using the construct of Social Cognitive Theory, this tool was developed to document students use of the in ternet to acquire information regarding sexuality, establishing and maintaining relationships, and/or sexual gratification. This tool was validated through reliability of internal consistencies, temporal st ability and factor analysis by the authors. The

PAGE 50

49 average Cronbach-Alpha coefficient for questions ranges from .78 to .95. Any question that yielded a result of less than .50 in th eir testing criteria was eliminated. In the paper survey, there were areas that respondents could fill in their area of study and the school that they attended as well as any comments or suggestions. The paper survey consisted of 134 separate questions where responses were documented by ascending or descending Likert type scales as well as Boolean answers co nsisting of yes or no responses. Web Based Surveys Creating a web based survey using the r ecommended SNAP software program became problematic given the size and le ngth of Goodsons (2000) paper survey. Initial work with the SNAP program revealed that it required the data to be individually entered into the statistical software that was to be used (SPSS-15). As there were 134 separate questions with at least five responses, it made the task of reentering data into SPSS quite form idable. Given the error rate in coding and reentering data, an alternative method was suggested. Rather than attempt to fit the survey into SNAP, a custom software package was designed to mimic the original design of the paper survey. In addition, the custom software package could download the survey data in a comma delimited file format to import directly into SPSS-15. DCova Technologies (2007), a software de velopment company out of Orlando, Florida was commissioned to develop the program. The so ftware programmer had intensive knowledge in Java, Hypertext Preprocessor (P HP), and Microsoft .Net platforms. The web server in which the survey application was hosted did not s upport Microsoft .Net so it was removed as a candidate. PHP and Java platforms were both su pported by the web server and either could be used. However, the skill set of the programmers was much greater in Java versus PHP, and

PAGE 51

50 therefore it was determined that the Java pl atform was best suited for the survey. DCova Technologies (2007), also regi stered the domain name where the survey was hosted. Online Survey Design After review of different online survey designs, a modified shopping cart design was developed around the requirements document (paper survey). A modified shopping cart design is used to collect user data c hoices throughout the web session. Th e results persis t throughout the session of the users survey activ ity. This means that as long as the users web browser is open during a single session, the user has the ability to go back to pr evious pages, change and over write answers without creating double entries. This minimized the ri sk of superfluous data being collected. In order to improve and accommodate ease of use within the design, both radio style push button and checkbox style buttons were impl emented based upon usability engineering principles. Radio style buttons differ greatly from checkbox st yle buttons. With radio style buttons, the user can only choose one item on a specific menu. In contrast, a checkbox style button offers the user one or more choices on a specific menu. As the requirements document had both styles of questions and responses, it was necessary to use both within the design model. As the survey was to be used at two univers ities, and the target audience was college age students, to define the separate student bodies, logos of differing universities were superimposed on the survey design. However, the actual su rvey was otherwise unchanged. Students accessing the web based survey would be able to identify with their correspond ing universities, and perhaps provide a sense of active participation in the process. In the event that the student did not complete the entire survey, re sponses were collected to the point where they completed the answers. If the answer to the responses to a specific survey question was blank, it was identified as such in Excel as well as SPSS.

PAGE 52

51 Survey Information Using the web based survey program previous ly described, this survey document and approved consent would be available and accessibl e to currently enrolled college age students via a hyperlink sent by mass email with an invitation to participate in the survey. Population Sample Participants Undergraduate students who attended a specifi c HBCU in Florida as well as those students who attended a large pub lic university in Florida (PFU) were the targeted population. As previously stated, tr aditional age college students by far have had more technology experience, and by this experience are best suited to participate in this study. The rationale for using the HBCU and PFU st udent populations has to do with specific demographics. PFU has a predominantly white popul ation (66%). It also has the designated title as being one of the largest universities in the United States. PFU has approximately 30,000 students registered as un dergraduates enrolled. The HBCU selected is a private university and the student population is predominantly black (91%). This particular HBCU is also a Christian/Methodist University. In contrast to PFU, the HBCU is a small university with an approxi mate undergraduate populati on of 3000 students. According to Fall 2007 enrollment data for both schools, the approximate number of undergraduate students attending both of these universities is 33100. Using a confidence level of .95, a confidence interval of 3.1, the total number of students needed for the sample would be approximately 1000. Eligibility In order to be eligible for this study, students m ust be enrolled at either university. Undergraduate Students were the target population, and therefore, age ranges were identified as

PAGE 53

52 17 or less, between 18 and 19, between 20 and 22, and 23 or older. There were also specifications for class level (i.e. freshman, s ophomore, junior, senior, graduate, and other). Students also needed to be able to read and comprehend English, as well as have access to a computer with internet capabilities. The survey asked where the participant was most likely to access the internet, however, did not specify from where the survey was accessed for participation. Survey Procedures A m ass emailing was sent to students atte nding both universities (Appendix C). This email explained the study and invi ted the student to participate. In the email, students were informed of the study, incl uding the title of the study with a statement of the type of information being solicited (i.e. demographic information, frequency and duration of internet use, using if the internet to surf for sexually related content, establish personal relationships, sexual entertainment, arousal, perceptions, and public access to sexually explicit material). A URL link specific to each university was embedded into the mass email. Students who wished to voluntarily participate would click on the URL link embedded into the mass email and were sent to the approved informed consent page. Upon reading and agreeing to consent and acceptance (by clicking on agree) Students were hyperlinked to start page of the actu al survey site hosted by the PI. If the student clicked on the disagree button, they were hyperlinked to a page th at stated thank you for your time. The first page of the study provided demogr aphic data. As the survey was designed for consenting adults, any student who identified th emselves as 17 or under would be hyperlinked from the study to a page stating ineligibility. As this study is anonymous, and did not collect IP addresses, there were no safeguards in place to prevent an under aged individual from accessing

PAGE 54

53 the survey again and identifying themselves as older in order to participate. This is an inherent problem in all surveys (whether online, telephonic or in paper format), and this factor is dependent on the honesty and/or moral ity of the individual respondent. Sampling Techniques and Difficulties After approval from the various IRB were obtained, it was necessary to send out the mass emails. At the HBCU, a copy of the mass email was forwarded to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) as well as the Informa tion Technology (IT) department. This was provided so an email could be sent to each and every student in atte ndance at the HBCU. The cu rrent enrollment of the HBCU is 3093 undergraduate students as well as 47 gra duate students. At PFU, the same principles were followed. Ho wever, at PFU, the IT department stated that they did not have a comple te email list for undergra duate or graduate students in attendance. As this presented a significant problem to this survey, alternative methods were employed to capture the population in order to successf ully meet the sample size required. Alternative Methods Personal Contacts One of the alternate avenues to accessing the student body was by directly contacting departments through known faculty. A database of approximately 450 students from the Psychology department was solicited through faculty emails. Approximately 600 students from the Nursing department were solicited th rough faculty emails. Faculty from both the Anthropology and Communications de partments were also contacted, but they were unavailable to assist in this process. A separate contact was made through the housing department, and a list of 2500 emails was sent to the PI. In order to send out the emails efficiently and attempt not to be perceived as

PAGE 55

54 spam by the simple mail transfer protocol (SMT P) email server through PFU, another program had to be developed. Project Spam This program designed and developed by DCova technology was nam ed the SPAM project. This program used Java platform a nd made a list of the 2500 email recipients and automatically sent out the intended email to each individual email. This significantly decreased the required time completing this arduous process from days and weeks to hours using this program. The program sent out an email every 5 seconds for the duration of the initial list received. Subsequent emails were sent out every two seconds without any difficulty experienced by either PFU web server, or the residential server used to send out the large number of emails. Project Get-email Another avenue used to improve and increase the sam ple number and response from PFU was to harvest emails using the published dire ctory on the main website. As there are no software programs readily available that harves t emails directly, again, another program had to be developed. This program was developed with Java platforms and named GETEMAIL harvested email addresses by directly connectin g to the server site pages using alphabet components. Approximately 20,919 emails and six harvesting s later, emails were sent out to PFU students. The program could identify student s (from employees and faculty through the published listings); however there was no specifica tion whether the student was classified as undergraduate or graduate. Therefore mailings were not specifically sent out to undergraduates. Of the 20,919 emails sent out approximately 300 we re returned as either mailer-daemon failure related to mailboxes over quot a, no longer valid email, or no such individual.

PAGE 56

55 Through these unique and creative attempts to solicit a reasonable sample size over 1500 participants responded. This sample size provided more than an ad equate number of responses to validate the findings of the study. Email correspondence with the PI from participants regarding questions and comments were extremely valuable and will be included in the discussion section of this dissertation.

PAGE 57

56 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS Chapter Overview The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the resu lts of the analysis of specific questions as they relate to the overarching research questi on. The prim ary purpose of this study is to better understand how technology and cultur e affect sexual decision maki ng influence sexual behaviors in traditional college age students. In order to determine this, the variables of gender, race, age, and school are analyzed using the amount of internet use and how sexual activity, sexual behaviors, and relationships, both online and offline. Survey Aims In Goodson and colleagues (2000) modified surv ey used in this re search project there were approximately 134 variables/qu estions and as such provided a plethora of data. However, this particular study was only attempting to addre ss specific issues based upon the results of the literature review. The aims of the study addressed the following research questions: Is age a factor in Internet Use and Sexual Behaviors? Is gender a factor in Intern et Use and Sexual Behaviors Does internet use have an effect on established relationships? Is ethnicity a factor in Inte rnet Use and Sexual Behaviors? Is the location (university of reco rd a factor in Internet Use? Some of the data variables analyzed to at tempt to answer these questions included: I have made new friends over the internet. How long have you been using the internet How often do you use the internet?

PAGE 58

57 How long have you been using email? How often do you use email? I have posted online messages to meet a poten tial partner. Met anyone in person that you met online Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online? Does your partner know about the friends/relationships that you have online? Has your partner ever expresse d jealousy over the relationships you have developed online? How important is it to you that an al ternate way/place for meeting new people? How important is it to you that an alterna tive way/place for meeti ng potential on-line sexual partners is available? I have accessed sexually explic it materials on the internet I have accessed sexually explicit material s on the internet to become sexually aroused/excited? While viewing sexually explicit we b sites, I have masturbated. I have had cybersex with an online partner. I like to drink alcohol while having cybersex with an online partner. I like to use stimulants (drugs) while having cybersex with an online partner Exclusion Criteria for Surveys As the survey had 134 separate questions, cr iteria had to be set to determine what constituted a complete survey. Many participants would get through at least four or five of the eight page survey and then would abandon the pr ocess. Based upon this in formation a precedent needed to be set. Some of the question information was set within the design and unless answered the individual would not be able to progress through the surv ey. The two information items were school and age. In one section of the survey (section C-4) there were seventeen

PAGE 59

58 checkboxes that could be left bl ank as a response to the ques tion being asked, and also were excluded from the number of questions that coul d be counted in determining percentage of survey completion. It was determined that st udents completing at least 50 % of the survey (excluding section C-4, school a nd age), would have to answer at least 58 questions on the survey in order to be included in the final sample. Approximately 1512 surveys were submitted by participants via email. Of those 1512 surveys, 1212 were completed with over 50 % of all questions answered, and were kept in the data sample. The response rate of completed surv eys was 78 %. Of all surveys collected 87 % of surveys collected were from PFU students (n=10 56). At the HBCU, students submitted 13 % of surveys (n=156). Demographics The tables that are presented in 4-1 th rough 4-3 give an overall description of the demographics of the population sampled. The information identifies gender, age, race, and classification (school year). In tables 4-4 through 4-6, specific grouped data are displayed that includes differences in the specific university population that was sampled. Of the 1064 surveys accepted, 69.9 % were female (n= 839), and 29.9 % were males (n= 371). Of the 1212 respondents, 60.6 % of the survey participants were Non-Hispanic White (NHW) (n=733), 17.5 % were African American Black (AAB) (n=211) 11 % were Mexican American Latino (MAL) (n=133), 5.9 % were Asian American/Pacifi c Islander (AAPI) (n=72), 4.5 % identified themselves as Other (O) (n=55) and Native Ameri cans (NA) were 5 in number and as such will be excluded from the data to avoid confounders. Multivariate Analysis of Variance Using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), overall analysis was completed on the independent variables. The independent variab les included in this study were age, race,

PAGE 60

59 gender, and university of record. The results in cluded in table 4-7 are the main effects and interaction effects of t hose variables. The Wilks Lambda statis tics were chosen because they are the most widely used test that will measure the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is unaccounted for in the independe nt variable (Polit, 1996). The results identify significant main effects for sc hool (p=.031), gender (p=.000), age (p=000), and race (p=.041). Interaction effects include gender and age (p =.000), school, gender and age (p=.014), school, gender, and race (p=.007), and school, age, gender and race (p=.000). Tables Within the Study All questions within the study will have a co rrelation table with Pearson R scores and levels of significance. ANOVA analysis ta bles will follow. After the ANOVA table, means tables will be provided with standard deviations and number of participants. In the event that the interaction of th e ANOVA is significant as well as the MANOVA, means tables will be present to determine the different means and confidence intervals of those specific means. In the event that there at leas t three variables, TUKEY Honestly Significantly different (HSD) tables will also be displayed. An overall description of the interactions will follow these groupings of tables. In the event that the ANOVA is significant and the MANOVA proved not to be in the initial analysis, it will be treated as an insignifica nt interaction. This is an effort to create clarity within all of the significant interactions that will be discussed. How Long Have You Been Using Email? Em ail is considered an important part of communication and has become a seemingly necessary part of life. Email usage was measured specifically as it may provide data on the number of students using email and the length of time it has actually been used. The survey asked participants the specific question How long have you been using email? The participant

PAGE 61

60 responded using specific phrases. The responses included less than six months (1), six to twelve months (2), two to thr ee years (3), greater than three years (4 ) and I dont use email (5). Univariate ANOVA analysis on the question How long have you been using email? as the dependent variable was compared with gender race, university of record, and age as the independent variables. All tests of between subj ects proved to be non significant. Tables 4-11 through 4-14 demonstrate the analysis and means. How Often Do You Use Email? The next dependent variable to be tested was the question How often do you use em ail? The responses that the sample participants coul d chose from were: daily (1), 2 to 3 times per week (2), and less than once a week (3). Usi ng ANOVA, the dependent variables described were compared to the four independent variables: age, race, gender and university of record (school). There was a significant main interaction for sc hool as the independent variable compared with frequency of email use as a main e ffect (p=.001) in both ANOVA (table 4-19) and MANOVA (table 4-7). The mean demonstrated in table 4-15 that students from HBCU use their emails less frequently than those from PFU. Ther e was also a significant interaction effect for gender, race and school (table 4-20 ) as compared with frequency of internet use (p=.003) in both the ANOVA (table 4-19) and MANOVA (table 4-7). Overall, students who attend HBCU use their emails less frequently than their racial counterparts at PFU (table 4-20). There is also both gender and ra cial differences as well. In comparison to all other students, Black males and females attending HBCU use email less frequently than their racially like counterparts at PFU. AA/PI females (overall) use email more than their female counterparts. In contrast to AAB male students attending HBCU, AAB students attending PFU are the most frequent of all male email users, and AAB males attending

PAGE 62

61 HBCU are the least frequent of all email users. When compari ng MAL attending both universities, there was no MAL representation from HBCU. School interactions could not be determined by the study within this group. Howe ver, MAL females used email more frequently than their male counte rparts (table 4-20). The mean for gender is very small and in this interaction is not the driving force. School and race prove to be the most significant in determ ining this interaction. In table 4-21, the Tukey HSD demonstrated that AAB use email less frequently than all of their raci al counterparts, with levels of significance (p=.001) or less among a ll races represented. Over all, this particular analysis demonstrates that the in teraction of school, as well as gender and race proved to make a difference in how often email is used within this sample. How Long Have You Been Using The Internet? Internet use is different iated from email use as there are diffe rent qualities for its use. Internet use has other applications for use versus just communication. The internet can be used for education, recreation, as well as numerous other r easons. Therefore, it is important to determine whether length of internet use demonstrates di fferences among the variables. ANOVA statistics were used to analyze this data Participants who answered the question How long have you been using the internet had response choi ces of less than six months (1), six to twelve months (2), two to three years(3), and greater than th ree years (4) and I dont use the internet (5). The ANOVA (table 4-27) demonstrated that a ll tests of between subj ects proved to be non significant. The means in tables 4-23 through 4-27 suggest that all of the participants in the study have been using the internet for at least 3 to 4 years, and the mean differences within the different groups are very small. These re sults identify and acknowledge that students participating in the study have at least the same or similar skill levels.

PAGE 63

62 How Often Do You Use The Internet? One of the variables that may influence behavior is the frequency with which an individual participates in that particular behavior. Therefore it wa s important to determine if age, race, gender, university of record had an effect on the frequency th at an individual spends online. This variable was stated in a question format How often do you use the internet? There were three choices for a response with values from one to three. Participants who chose daily use were given the value of one. Those who chose two to th ree times per week were given a value of two and those who described the frequency of internet use as less than once per week were given a numeric value of three The variables analyzed were the universities of record. Using ANOVA, the dependent variable described in table 4-33 was compared to th e four independent variables: age, race, gender and university of record (school). The main effect variable age demonstrated significance (p=.029) when compared to the variable of frequency of internet use. Individuals who identified themselves as older did not use the internet as frequently as those who identi fied themselves as younger. Race demonstrated a significant main effect (p=.006). Ov erall, AAB use the in ternet less frequently than their racial counterparts. Interestingly, with th is variable, gender proved to be insignificant in this interaction as a main effect variable. In comparing the independent variables as in teraction variables, gender age and school proved significant (p=.000) on both ANOVA (table 4-33) and MANOVA (table 4-7). The four way interaction between gender, age, race a nd school (p=.003) also proved significant on ANOVA (table 4-33) and MANOVA (table4-7). The interaction of gender and age proved to be significant as the findings demonstrated that in this sample, females use the internet less frequently as they age, and in comparison, males

PAGE 64

63 use the internet more frequently. It appears in this interaction th ere is an inverse relationship in relation to gender and aging. This relati onship is demonstrated in table 4-35. The interaction of age gender and school al so demonstrated a significant difference. Students regardless of gender or age (overall) wh o attended PFU had higher rates of internet use than their HBCU counterparts (tables 4-29 th rough 4-31). Females at both PFU and HBCU demonstrated the same tendencies as they did as a whole. Regardless of school, their overall means decreased as they aged. Males who atte nded these universities did not demonstrate a similar pattern. HBCU male students who were ag e 18-19 or 23 and older us ed the internet less frequently than their PFU counterparts. Intere stingly as demonstrated in table 4-36, both populations of male students demonstrated an increase in internet use during the ages of 20-22. The significant difference in in ternet use in males occurred in the HBCU population. Males demonstrated more frequent use as they aged (as previously stated), however the use of the internet in HBCU males who were age 18-19 had a much lower mean than those male students age 18-19 at PFU. The difference may be accounted fo r in the racial differences in the sample. In the four way interaction effect of gende r, race, school and age, females overall used the internet less frequently than their male c ounterparts (table 4-37). AAB females from HBCU age 18 and older who participated in the sample demonstrated less frequent internet use than their age and race similar counterparts from PFU. All AAB from HB CU who were age 18-20 and 23 and older demonstrated the least frequent us e of their entire male and racially different counterparts (table 4-38). This interaction demonstrates that there is a difference in frequency of internet use between school, age, gender and race. When comp aring race, age, gender, and school as factors in a four way interaction in this sample, many of the races do not have a single individual in the

PAGE 65

64 sample in certain age groups when separated fo r age and gender. Therefore, it would be difficult to attempt to describe, define, or interpret the inte raction in between and as a result of these very specific areas. These four way interactions must be viewed with some skepticism based upon the very specific population representation. I Have Made New Friends Over The Internet The next variable to be analyzed was que stion: I have made new friends over the internet. Sample participants were able to c hoose from four response categories. The responses ranged from a numeric value of one for never, tw o for rarely, three for sometimes and four for frequently. Univariate ANOVA statistics were used to analyze this data. The question I have made new friends over the internet was the depende nt variable, and age, race, gender and school were used as the independent variables. The ANOVA in table 4-46 demonstrated signi ficance between the independent variables when compared to making new friends over the internet. The only main effect that was demonstrated proved to be gender. The leve l of significance was measured at p=.013. There was also a four way interaction betw een gender, race, age and school (p=.016). The Tukey HSD in table 4-49 did not identify any significance within the groups for age. Race proved to be significant in the groups. This interaction demonstrated that th ere is a difference in the way that AAB, MAL, and NHW ma ke friends over the internet. According to the means represented in tabl e 4-43, based upon those means, males who participated in the survey were more likely to make new friends over the internet. In comparison to university of record (school), students atte nding HBCU versus PFU (table 4-42) were more likely to make friends over the internet. In race, both AAB males and females attending HBCU were more likely to make friends over the in ternet. When comparing races; AAB were more likely to make friends over the internet in comparison to both MAL and NHW. The Tukey HSD

PAGE 66

65 in table 4-50 demonstrated a level of significan ce for the interaction between AAB and MAL and NHW both (p=.000). Age was not significant in the Tukey HSD (table 49), so the interaction effects of groups within the groups (multiple comparison) was not sign ificant. It is interesting to note that the means of all groups who identified themselves as 23 or older were significantly higher (more likely to make friends over the in ternet) when compared to other age groups. This analysis identified that race, gender, a nd university of record (school) are factors in making new friends on the internet. There was a si gnificant interaction betw een gender, race and school, demonstrating that AAB, MAL, and NHW (male or female) who attend HBCU are more likely to make friends over the internet. Howeve r, as previously stated, the representation of these groups within the sample does not demonstr ate representation in al l groups, and should be viewed with cautious suspicion. Have You Met Anyone In Person That You Met Online? The online survey asked specific questions rega rding relationships. Two of the questions were used in this analysis. These questions were Boolean Style (yes-no) responses. T he questions were posed in this fashion: Have you ever met in person anyone you first met online. These questions were again analyzed using the va riables of gender, race, university of record, and age. Univariate ANOVA tests were perfor med and there was no significant interaction among any of the variables as re presented in table 4-56. The resu lts demonstrate that in this particular sample, meeting a person online may not equate into meeting them in person in an offline situation. Tables 4-51 thr ough 4-56 illustrate the results. I Have Posted Online Messages To Meet A Potential Partner One of the questions asked in the survey was phrased I have posted online personal m essages in attempts to meet a potential partne r (for example, in web sites for singles). The answers were given numeric values that ranged from the number four for frequently, three for

PAGE 67

66 sometimes, two for rarely, and one for never. Using ANOVA, the question was compared with gender, age, race, and university of record (school). Tables 4-57 through 4-68 demonstrate the findings. The ANOVA proved to be significant (table 462). There were significant main effect interactions between gender a nd age with the dependent variable (separately). Gender and age also proved significant as an in teraction effect of both indepe ndent variables when compared with the dependent variable (p=.000). In table 4-6 4, gender, age and school also proved to have a significant interaction as indepe ndent variables when combined and then compared with the dependent variable (p=.026). Fina lly there were four way interact ions between gender, age, race, and school as four independent variables combined and compared with the dependent variable proved significant as well (p=.001). All of the independent variab les also proved significant in the initial MANOVA (table 4-7). The result for the means for gender in tabl e 4-59 identify that males (mean=1.690) are more likely than their female (mean=1.228) counte rparts to post a message in order to meet a potential partner. Age also prove d significant (table 4-60). Male s who participated in the study more frequently posted messages as they aged. The means between the ages of males increased in each of the groups. Females, on the other hand, did the exact opposite. Their average means decreased as they got older (table 4-63). Tabl e 4-58 demonstrated that the overall mean PFU (mean=1.445) was higher than that of HBCU (mean=1.398). Non Hispanic Whites had higher overall means than their racial counterparts. However, African American Blacks means were second highest among the groups (table 4-61). Table 4-64 demonstrates that males attending HBCU who identified th emselves as 23 or older had the highest means of all groups, Fe males attending PFU had a higher average mean

PAGE 68

67 than that of their HBCU counterparts, and there al so was a trend in the means that suggested that as they age they more frequently post messages in order to meet a potential partner. However, those females attending HBCU had a lower overall m ean, and as they aged, they were less likely to post messages. Males attending HBCU had a higher overall average mean than their PFU counterparts. The same phenomena occurred in males attending PFU, as the means increased with age. Males attending HB CU had an increase in age and use among those students 18-19, and decreased use from 20-22. Then the age gr oup of 23 and older students jumped almost disproportionately with an average mean of 2.750. When comparing race, age, gender, and school as factors in a four wa y interaction in this sample, many of the races do not have a single individual in the sample in certain age groups when separated for age and gender (see tables 4-65 and 4-66). Therefore, it would be difficult to attempt to describe the interaction in between and as a result of these very specific areas. Does Your Partner Object To The Amount Of Time You Spend Online One of the key factors in internet use m ay be its effect on personal relationships. A few of the questions in the survey alluded to these type s of relationship questio ns. The questions were Boolean style with yes (1) or no responses (2). The first question to be analyzed is Does your partner(s) object to the amount of time you spend online? Usi ng ANOVA statistics, the question Does your partner object to th e amount of time you spend on line (as the dependent variable) was compared to gender, race, age, and university of record (school). The results in table 4-74 demonstrated a tremendous amount of significant interactions. Gender (p=.002) and age (p=.041) were both significant as main effect independent variables. Gende r and age proved significant as the interaction of both variables combined with the dependent variable. Gender, age and race also proved significant as a combined interact ion effect when compared to the dependent variable (p=.011). Howeve r this was not significant on the MANOVA (table 4-7), therefore it

PAGE 69

68 will not be discussed. The interaction of gender, race and school proved significant. The combined interaction of the variables when co mpared to the dependent variable produced a p value of (.001). This comparison was also si gnificant on the MANOVA (t able 4-7). Race, age and school as an interaction proved signifi cant on the ANOVA (table 4-74), however the interaction was not sign ificant on the MANOVA (table 4-7) a nd as such will not be discussed. Finally the four way interaction again proved to be significant with the combined interaction producing a p value of (.000) when compared to the dependent variable of partner objection to the amount of time an individual spends on line. Gender proved to be interesting. Based upon the population represented, females are less likely to have a partner object to the amount of time that they spend online. The average female overall mean was higher (mean= 1.974) than the ma le average mean (1.881) as demonstrated in table 4-71. The average mean for age found in ta ble 4-72 indicated that people age 20 to 22 are more likely to have partner objection to the am ount of time they spend on line. Individuals age 23 and older were less likely to experience partner objection when co mpared to their younger counterparts. When gender and age were combin ed in table 4-75, the results indicated that females grouped by ages 20 and older were less lik ely than their same age male counterparts to experience partner objection to online use. Male s who identified themselves as 18-19 did not experience the same level of partners objecting to their overall time spent using the internet. Although the results demonstrate a difference, ther e is not an explanation that may account for this difference. When comparing race, gender and school, the results in table 4-76 demonstrated that females attending HBCU were less likely than their racially similar counter parts at PFU to experience partner objection unless they were AAB. Those students matching that demography

PAGE 70

69 were more likely to experience partner objecti on when compared to th eir PFU counterparts. When comparing males by race and school in table 4-76, MAL, O, and AAPI could not be compared as there was no representation at HBCU among this grouping. However, when looking specifically at AAB and NWH; AAB attendi ng HBCU were less lik ely than their PFU counterparts to experience part ner objection. On the other hand, NHW attending PFU were less likely than their male counterparts at HBCU to experi ence partner objection. It is important to note that both Tukey HSD tests for age and race found in tables 4-81 and 4-82 demonstrated insignificance among the interaction effects in multiple comparisons. Therefore, the overall results show significance but based upon the samp le there is no way to determine the relevance of the interaction as it pe rtains to this grouping. The overall interaction found in table 4-74 de monstrates that there is a difference in partner objection between school, age, gender and race. When comparing race, age, gender, and school as factors in a four way in teraction in this sample illustra ted in tables 4-79 and 4-80, many of the races do not have a single individual in the sample in certain age groups when separated for age and gender. As previously stated with the other significant inte ractions of the four independent variables, it would be difficult to interpret the intera ction in between and as a result of these very specific groups. Does Your Offline Partner Know About The Friends/Relationships That You Have Online The next dependent variable analyzed was the question Does your offline partner know about the friends that you have online? There were two categories in which respondents could answer the question. Yes had a value of one (1), and no had a value of no (2). ANOVA statistics were used to analyze this variable with the independent variables of race, age, gender and university of record. The data in table 4-88 demo nstrated only significant re sult of the interaction effect of age and school on the dependent variable.

PAGE 71

70 When comparing school to partner knowledge of online relationships over the internet, table 4-84 illustrates the findings that students attending PFU ar e more likely to share that information with their offline partners than t hose students attending HBCU Regarding age, and partner knowledge, the Tukey HSD in table 4-90 demonstrated that there is an interaction between younger participants when compared to their older counter parts. Overall, students over the age of 23 are more likely to disclose online relationships to their partners when compared to their younger counterparts. Students who are between the ages of 20-22 are less likely to disclose that information when compared to their olde r or younger counterparts, and students are more likely to share their information when compared to students 20-22. Inte restingly, they are less likely to share information with regarding relations hips (online) with their partners than their 23 year old and older counterparts. Partner Jealousy Over Relationships Developed Online The next question analyzed stated: Has your partner ever expre ssed jealousy over the relationships you have developed online? The s ubjects had the response choices of yes which had a value of one (1), and no, which had a value of two (2). Using ANOVA, the results in table 4-95 demonstrated significance in the interac tions between age and race as a combined interaction, as well as school a nd age and race as another interaction when compared with the dependent variable of jealousy. The overall M ANOVA in table 4-7 demonstrated insignificance in these groups. Tables 4-91 th rough 4-99 illust rate the data. An Alternate Way/Place For Meeting New People The next question to be analyzed was How im portant is it to you that an alternate way/place for meeting new people is available? This statement was scaled with the following numeric responses: Extremely important was valued at five (5), Important was valued at four (4), Uncertain was valued at three (3), Not important was valued at two (2) an d Not important at all

PAGE 72

71 was valued at one (1). ANOVA statistics were used to analyze this dependent variable compared with gender, race, age, and school as the depe ndent variables. The initial ANOVA in table 4-105 proved significant for the main effect of age only. The means of the three groups in table 4-103 de monstrated that as respondents increased in age, they were more likely to value the intern et is an important way to meet new people. The Tukey HSD in table 4-106 demonstrated si gnificance with the groups using multiple comparisons of age. The Tukey HSD identified that significant intera ction occurred between ages 23 and older and all other ag e groups. In comparing ages, as students aged, they valued the importance of the internet mu ch more than those who identified themselves as younger, An Alternative Way/Place For Meeting Poten tial Online Sexual Partners The next variable to be tested was How important is it to you that an alternative way/place for meeting potential sexual partners is available? The responses were valued through numerical values. How important is it to you th at an alternate way/place for meeting new people is available? This statement was scaled w ith the following numeri c responses: Extremely important (5), Important (4), Uncertain (3), Not im portant (2) and Not important at all (1). This dependent variable was again tested comparing age, gender, unive rsity of record (school), and race as independent variables. The analysis illu strated in table 4-112 proved significant for main effects of gender as well as age when compared to the dependent variable. In table 4 109, the means in males were much higher than that of their female counterparts. The overall male mean for gender wa s higher (2.52) as comp ared with the female sample in this group (1.88). This demonstrated that gender is a factor in determining the importance of the internet as a way to meet potential online sexual partners. Men participating in the sample believe that the internet as more impo rtant than females as an approach to meet online sexual partners.

PAGE 73

72 Age also had a significant interaction. Table 4-113 demonstrates th e significance of age in the Tukey HSD as well. Individuals who are ol der (in the sample) are more likely to value the internet as an alternate way to meet individu als when compared to t hose who were younger. The interaction appears to be insignificant when comparing students 18-20 with those who are 20-22. The significant interaction occurs at ages greater than 23. The ove rall results demonstrates that gender and age have a significant effect on the diffe rence in perceptions of the importance of the internet as a place to me et online sex partners. I Have Accessed Sexually Explic it Materials On The Internet The next variable to be tested was I ha ve access ed sexually explicit materials on the internet. The responses were valued through numerical values. Usi ng ANOVA statistics, the question posed to respondents read: I have ac cessed sexually explicit material on the internet was analyzed. The responses for this specific que stion included frequently which was given a value of four, sometimes which was given a re sponse of three, rare ly, which was given a response of two, and never, which was given a value of one. The dependent variable was the question: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet? The independent variables were gend er age race and universit y of record (school). The only significant analyses demonstrated on table 4-120 proved to be gender and school. Gender was also significant as a main affect on the MANOVA analysis (t able 4-7). Table 4-116 and 4-117 identifies that Males a nd students from PFU were more likely (base upon means) to have accessed the internet for sexually explicit material than females and students from HBCU. I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Ma terials T o Become Sexually Aroused The next variable to be tested was I have acce ssed sexually explicit materials on the internet to become sexually aroused. The responses were valued through numerical values. Using ANOVA statistics, the question I have accessed sexuall y explicit material on the internet to become

PAGE 74

73 sexually aroused was analyzed. The responses fo r this specific questi on included frequently which was given a value of four, sometimes whic h was given a response of three, rarely, which was given a response of two, and never, which wa s given a value of one. The dependent variable was the question: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet to become sexually aroused. The independent variable s were gender age race and university of record (school). The only significant analyses in the ANOVA in table 4-126 proved to be gender and university of record (school) in these analyses (separately). Gender and school were also significant as a main affect on the MANOVA an alysis (table 4-7). The mean in table 4-123 demonstrate the differences between males and females on accessing sexually explicit materials on the internet. The results indicate that accessing sexually explicit material was almost 1 times higher in males than in females. This finding although significant is not a surprise. Males are very visu al creatures in the natu re of sex and arousal (Canli, &Gabrieli, 2004), and it is not surprising that this would occur in this population. According to the results in table4-122, students who attend HBCU were much less likely to access the internet than their counterparts at PFU in the pursuit of accessing sexually explicit materials for sexual arousal. This may directly rela te to the number of males from HBCU that are represented in this population as well as the availability of computers and internet access as well. Therefore, although this is an interesting revelation, it s hould be viewed with caution. While Viewing Sexually Explicit Web Sites, I Have Masturbated The question while viewing sexually explicit m a terial I have masturbated was analyzed with ANOVA. The responses for this specific ques tion included frequently (4), sometimes (3), rarely (2), and never (1). This question was analyzed as the depe ndent variable with age, gender and race as the independent variables.

PAGE 75

74 Gender and School proved to be significant as a main effect interac tion with gender, race and school as a combined interaction when compar ed with the dependent variable in table 4-132. All three tests were significant on the MANOVA (table 4-7). Based upon the means of these analyses found in table 4-129, males are far more likely than their female counterparts to view sexually explicit materials for the purpose of masturbation. Based upon these mean, males are twice as likely to masturbate to sexually exp licit web sites versus thei r female counterparts. Table 4-127 identifies that students attending PFU are far more like ly to view these materials for the purpose of masturbation. Although it was not significant on the ANOVA table (4-132), with the exception of AAPI females, females at PFU of any other race are more likely to view this material for the purpose of self gratificati on than their racial c ounterparts at HBCU. In table 4-133, males who are AAB attending PFU are twice as likely to view sexually explicit material on the internet for the purpos e of masturbation as that of their HBCU counterparts. The Tukey HSD in table 4-134 de monstrated that AAB were less likely to masturbate while viewing sexually explicit material than all other races sampled in this study. I Have Had Cybersex With An Online Partner. Using ANOVA statistics, the question I have had cybersex with an online partner was analyzed. T he responses for this specific question included frequently which was given a value of four, sometimes which was given a response of three, rarely, which was given a response of two, and never, which was given a value of one. This question was analyzed as the dependent variable with age, gender, race and university of record (school). The results found in table 4-140 proved to be insignifican t with all effects. I Like To Drink Alcohol While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner Using ANOVA statistics, the question I like to drink alcohol while having cybersex with an online partner was analyzed. The responses for th is specific question included frequently which

PAGE 76

75 was given a value of four, sometimes which was given a response of three, rarely, which was given a response of two, and never, which was given a value of one. This question was analyzed as the dependent variable with age, gender, r ace and university of record (school). Table 4-146 illustrates that results were insignificant with all effects. I Like To Use Stimulants While Havi ng Cybersex With A n Online Partner Using ANOVA statistics, the question I like to use stimulants (drugs) while having cybersex with an online partner was analyzed. The responses for this specific question included frequently which was given a value of four, so metimes which was given a response of three, rarely, which was given a response of two, and never, which was given a value of one. This question was analyzed as the dependent variable with age, gender, race a nd university of record (school). The results demonstrated in table 4152 were insignificant with all effects. Summary These variables do not represen t the entire cach et of variables within the study. However, they were chosen from the many different variable s in order to best res pond to the aims of the study. The results of chapter four demonstrate that gender, age, and race have an effect on internet use and some behaviors. As the result s of this study are quantitative, the results only address whether or not a sp ecific interaction exists. This study demonstrates that overall, men are more likely to use the internet for sexual behaviors. They are also more likely to attemp t to find an online partner for sexual activity as well as other relationships. Age is also a large factor in internet use as it relates to importance. In the sample population, as the respondents age in creased, so did their perceptions of the value of the internet. Interestingly, their frequency of internet use did not. This may be a result of more specific tasks while these older individuals ar e engaged in internet activity.

PAGE 77

76 This information concludes the summation of the results of this dissertation. Chapter five will discuss the results in context with interpretation and implications. This examination will occur in the same order as the results se ction when the questions that sp ecifically pertained to this study were initially analyzed Table 4-1. Gender from both universities combined. Label Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Females 839 69.2 69.3 70.1 Male 371 30.6 30.7 100.0 Missing 2 .2 Total 1212 100.0 Table 4-2. Age from both universities combined. Label FrequencyPercentValid Percent Cumulative Percent 18-19 416 34.3 34.4 34.4 20-22 523 43.2 43.2 77.5 23-up 272 22.4 22.9 100.0 Missing 1 .1 0 Table 4-3. Race from both universities combined. Label Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent AAB 211 17.4 17.5 17.5 Native American 50.40.4 17.9 Asian American Pacific Islander 725.96.0 23.8 Mexican American/Latino 13311.011.0 34.8 Non-Hispanic White 73360.560.6 95.5 Self Designated Other 554.54.5 100.0 Missing 30.2 Total 1212100.0 100.0

PAGE 78

77 Table 4-4. Gender cross tabulated with race from both universities combined. Gender Race Race Race Race Race Other Total African American Black Native American Asian American Pacific Islander Mexican American Latino Non Hispanic White Identified Other Female 169 1 519349034 838 Male 42 4 214024121 369 Missing 5 Total 211 5 7213373155 1212 Table 4-5. Gender cross tabulated with university and age differentiated. Gender School Age 18-19 Age 20-22 Age 23up Total Females HBCU 47 49 31 127 Females PFU 254 301 122 677 Total Total Females 301 350 154 744 M a l e s H B C U 1 757 2 9 Males PFU 98 115 111 292 Total Total Males 115 120 118 353 Missing Data 3 Totals 416 522 271 1212

PAGE 79

78 Table 4-6. Race cross tabulated with university and age differentiated. Race School Age 18-19 Age 20-22 Age 23-up Total African American Black HBCU 605129 125 African American Black PFU 33344 65 African American Black Total 938533 190 Asian American Pacific Islander HBCU 001 1 Asian American Pacific Islander PFU 283211 65 Asian American Pacific Islander Total 283212 66 Mexican American Latino HBCU 001 1 Mexican American Latino PFU 495825 112 Mexican American Latino Total 495826 113 Non Hispanic White HBCU 314 7 Non Hispanic White PFU 224325175 637 Non Hispanic White Total 227326179 644 Other HBCU 123 4 Other PFU 151915 41 Other Total 162118 45 Missing Total 10 Total Population 413522267 1212

PAGE 80

79 Table 4-7. Multivariate Test: Wilks Lambda: Independent Variables Main and Interaction Effects. Effect Test Value F Degree of Freedom Error Level of Significance School Wilks Lambda .9651.68020.000933.000 .031 Gender Lambda Wilks .9174.21720.000933.000 .000 Age Lambda Wilks .9221.94240.0001866.000 .000 Race Lambda Wilks .8961.29580.0003682.99 .041 School/ Gender Lambda Wilks .9771.07420.000933.000 .371 School/Age Wilks Lambda .969.75040.0001866.000 .873 Gender/Age Wilks Lambda .9192.00540.0001866.000 .000 School/ Gender/ Age Wilks Lambda .9361.56340.0001866.000 .014 School/Race Wilks Lambda .9171.02980.0003682.990 .410 Gender /Race Wilks Lambda .926.91080.0003682.990 .702 School/Race Gender Wilks Lambda .9591.97520.000933.000 .007 Age/Race Wilks Lambda .869.827160.0006981.594 .945 School/Age/ Race Wilks Lambda .9051.18680.0003682.990 .126 Age/Gender /Race Wilks Lambda .845.992160.0009681.594 .513 School/Age/ Gender/Race Wilks Lambda .9482.53920.000933.000 .000

PAGE 81

80 Table 4-8. Correlations: How long have you been using email? School Gender Age Race How long have you been using email School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.167(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .000 N 1212121012111209 1205 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) -.014 Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .639 N 1210121012091207 1203 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .123(**) Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .000 N 1211120912111208 1204 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .121(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .000 N 1209120712081209 1202 How long have you been using email Pearson Correlation -.167(**)-.014.123(**).121(**) 1 Sig. (2tailed) .000.639.000.000 N 1205120312041202 1205 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table 4-9. Mean: How long have you been using email: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 3.94 .319 1042 HBCU 3.75 .651 155 Total 3.91 .384 1197 Table 4-10. Mean: How long have you been using email: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N females 3.92 .380 834 Males 3.90 .393 361 Total 3.91 .384 1195

PAGE 82

81 Table 4-11. Mean: How long have you been using email: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 3.84 .509 413 20-22 3.95 .283 520 23-and above 3.96 .306 263 Total 3.91 .384 1196 Table 4-12. Mean: How long have you been using email: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 3.80 .588 210 AAPI 3.99 .119 71 MAL 3.92 .411 132 NHW 3.94 .304 730 O 3.93 .428 54 Total 3.91 .384 1197 Table 4-13. Univariate ANOVA. How long have you been using email: Age, Gender, Race, School Year Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender .014 1.014.099.753 .000 Age .691 2.3462.493.083 .004 Race .554 4.138.999.407 .003 School .004 1.004.026.871 .000 Gender/Age .530 2.2651.913.148 .003 Gender/Race .368 4.092.664.617 .002 Age/Race 1.054 8.132.950.474 .007 Gender Age Race 1.084 8.136.978.451 .007 Gender/School .000 1.000.003.956 .000 Age/School .070 2.035.251.778 .000 Gender/Age/School .192 2.096.691.501 .001 Race/School .764 4.1911.378.239 .005 Gender Race/School .029 1.029.206.650 .000 Age/Race/School .211 4.053.381.822 .001 Gender/Age/Race School .131 1.131.948.330 .001 Error 159.157 1148.139 Total 18465.000 1194 Corrected Total 176.15 1193

PAGE 83

82 Table 4-14. Correlations: How ofte n have you been using email? School Gender Age Race How often do you use email School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) .306(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .000 N 1212121012111209 1201 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) -.015 Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .608 N 1210121012091207 1199 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) -.040 Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .171 N 1211120912111208 1200 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 -.194(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .000 N 1209120712081209 1199 How often do you use email Pearson Correlation .306(**)-.015-.040-.194(**) 1 Sig. (2tailed) .000.608.171.000 N 1201119912001199 1201 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-15. Mean: How often do you use email: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 1.05 .232 1046 HBCU 1.34 .597 155 Total 1.09 .320 1201 Table 4-16. Mean: How often do you use email: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N females 1.09 .320 830 Males 1.08 .319 369 Total 1.09 .320 1199

PAGE 84

83 Table 4-17. Mean: How often do you use email: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 1.11 .354 412 20-22 1.07 .283 520 23-and above 1.09 .330 268 Total 1.09 .320 1200 Table 4-18. Mean: How often do you use email: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.24 .530 210 AAPI 1.01 .119 71 MAL 1.06 .240 131 NHW 1.06 .253 728 O 1.06 .231 54 Total 1.09 .320 1199 Table 4-19. Tests of between subjects. How of ten do you use email: Age, Gender, Race, School Year Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender .266 1.2662.872.090 ..003 Age .386 2.1932.084.125 ..004 Race .867 4.2172.338.054 .008 School 1.081 11.08111.664.001 .010 Gender/Age .058 2.029.313.731 .001 Gender/Race .744 4.1862.006.091 .007 Age/Race .846 8.1061.141.333 .008 Gender Age Race .326 8.041.440.897 .003 Gender/School .288 1.2883.106.078 .003 Age/School .220 2.1101.190.305 .002 Gender/Age/School .052 2.026.280.756 .000 Race/School .818 4.2042.207.066 .008 Gender Race/School .844 1.8449.105.003 .008 Age/Race/School .914 4.2292.467.043 .009 Gender/Age/Race School .063 1.063.675.411 .001 Error 106.102 1145.093 Total 1535.000 1191 Corrected Total 122.566 1190 R squared= .134 (adjusted R squared=.100)

PAGE 85

84 Table 4-20. How often do you use email: Mean, Standard Error and Confidence Interval Gender Race University Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females AAB PFU1.065.077.914 1.216 AAB HBCU1.318.0301.259 1.378 AA/PI PFU1.000.059.884 1.116 AA/PI HBCU1.000.304.403 1.597 MAL PFU1.052.036.981 1.124 MAL HBCU2.000.3041.403 2.597 NHW PFU1.044.0151.015 1.073 NHW HBCU1.667.1551.363 1.971 O PFU1.033.072.893 1.174 O HBCU1.111.137.842 1.381 Males AAB PFU1.000.090.823 1.177 AAB HBCU1.465.0671.324 1.587 AA/PI PFU1.056.068.923 1.188 AA/PI HBCU MAL PFU1.037.050.938 1.136 MAL HBCU NHW PFU1.072.0201.003 1.111 NHW HBCU1.250.186.884 1.616 O PFU1.067.075.920 1.213 O HBCU AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other. Table 4-21. Tukey HSD. How often do you use email: Race. Race Race Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound AAB AAPI.23.042.000.11 .34 AAB MAL.18.034.000.09 .27 AAB NHW.18.024.000.12 .25 AAB O.19.046001.06 .31 AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 86

85 Table 4-22. Correlations: How long ha ve you been using the internet? School Gender Age Race How long have you been using the internet School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025 .662(**) -.078(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000.391.000 .007 N 1212121012111209 1207 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) -.009 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000.000 .762 N 1210121012091207 1205 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .022 Sig. (2-tailed) .391.000 .000 .450 N 1211120912111208 1206 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .095(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000.000.000 .001 N 1209120712081209 1204 How long have you been using the internet Pearson Correlation -.078(**)-.009.022.095(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .007.762.450.001 N 1207120512061204 1207 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-23. Mean: How long have you been using the internet: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 3.98 .205 1044 HBCU 3.93 .362 155 Total 3.98 .232 1199 Table 4-24. Mean: How long have you been using the internet: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N females 3.98 .231 834 Males 3.97 .233 363 Total 3.98 .232 1197

PAGE 87

86 Table 4-25. Mean: How long have y ou been using the internet: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 3.97 .259 412 20-22 3.98 .210 520 23-and above 3.98 .229 266 Total 3.98 .232 1198 Table 4-26. Mean: How long have you been using the internet: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 3.92 .396 210 AAPI 4.00 .000 71 MAL 3.98 .261 132 NHW 3.99 .173 731 O 4.00 .000 55 Total 3.98 .232 1199 Table 4-27. Test of between subjects: Ho w long have you been using the internet? Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender .054 1.0.0541.023.312 .001 Age .057 2.0.029.543.581 .001 Race .093 4.0.023.442.778 .002 School .015 1.0.015.288.592 .000 Gender/Age .127 2.0.0631.198.302 .002 Gender/Race .304 4.0.0761.439.219 .005 Age/Race .456 8.0.0571.079.375 .007 Gender Age Race .543 8.0.0681.284.248 .009 Gender/ School .063 1.0.0631.186.276 .001 Age/School .006 2.0.003.056.945 .000 Gender/Age/School .094 2.0.047.890.411 .002 Race/School .030 4.0.008.143.966 .000 Gender Race/School .009 1.0.009.172.678 .000 Age/Race/School .041 4.0.010.196.940 .001 Gender/Age/ Race School .079 1.0.0791.503.221 .001 Error 60.744 1150.00.053 Total 18969.000 1196 R squared=.997 (adjusted R Squared=.997)

PAGE 88

87 Table 4-28. Correlations: How of ten do you use the internet? School Gender Age Race How often do you use the internet School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.078(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .007 N 1212121012111209 1207 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) -.009 Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .762 N 1210121012091207 1205 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .022 Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .450 N 1211120912111208 1206 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .095(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .001 N 1209120712081209 1204 How often do you use the internet Pearson Correlation -.078(**)-.009.022.095(**) 1 Sig. (2tailed) .007.762.450.001 N 1207120512061204 1207 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-29. Mean: How often do you use the internet: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 1.00 .070 1022 HBCU 1.11 .348 152 Total 1.02 .145 1174 Table 4-30. Mean: How often do you use internet: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.02 .139 813 Males 1.02 .157 359 Total 1.02 .145 1172

PAGE 89

88 Table 4-31. Mean: How often do you use the internet; Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 1.01 .140 406 20-22 1.01 .077 509 23-and above 1.05 .229 258 Total 1.02 .145 1173 Table 4-32. Mean: How often do you use the internet: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.06 .263 206 AAPI 1.00 .000 71 MAL 1.00 .000 125 NHW 1.01 .117 719 O 1.00 .000 53 Total 1.02 .145 1174 Table 4-33. Test of between subjects : How often do you use the internet? Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean SquareF value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender .008 1.0.008.436.509 .000 Age .129 2.0.0653.540.029 .006 Race .266 4.0.0663.648.006 .013 School .044 1.0.0442.401.122 .002 Gender/Age .537 2.0.26814.732.000 .026 Gender/Race .014 4.0.004.196.941 .001 Age/Race .186 8.0.0231.275.252 .009 Gender Age Race .229 8.0.0291.570.129 .011 Gender/School .009 1.0.009.470.493 .000 Age/School .105 2.0.0522.878.057 .005 Gender/Age/School .545 2.0.27314.965.000 .026 Race/School .223 4.0.0563.066.016 .011 Gender Race/School .012 1.0.012.680.410 .001 Age/Race/School .155 4.0.0392.123.076 .007 Gender/Age/Race School .165 1.0.1659.079.003 .008 Error 20.501 1125.018 Total 1238.000 1171 R squared=.983 (Adjusted R squared=.983)

PAGE 90

89 Table 4-34. How often do you use th e internet: Mean: Race, School Race School Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Level Lower Bound Upper Bound AAB PFU 1.000.026.948 1.052 AAB HBCU 1.120 .0171.086 1.153 AAPI PFU 1.000 .020.961 1.039 AAPI HBCU 1.000* .135.735 1.265 MAL PFU 1.000 .014.972 1.028 MAL HBCU 1.000* .135.735 1.265 NHW PFU 1.009 .006.998 1.020 NHW HBCU 1.233* .0531.130 1.337 O PFU 1.000 .025.951 1.049 O HBCU 1.000 .061.880 1.120 *Based on a modified population marginal mean AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other. Table 4-35. How often do you use th e internet: Mean: Gender, Age Gender Age Mean Standard Error 95 % Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females 18-19 1.003.025.953 1.052 20-22 1.006 .022 .963 1.049 23-up 1.097 .027 1.044 1.151 Males 18-19 1.102 .021 1.061 1.144 20-22 1.000 .021 .959 1.041 23-up 1.026 .027 .972 1.080 Table 4-36. How often do you use the in ternet: Mean: Gender, Age, School Gender Age School Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females 18-19 PFU 1.000.013.975 1.025 Females 18-19 HBCU 1.008.064.882 1.133 Females 20-22 PFU 1.001.011.978 1.023 Females 20-22 HBCU 1.014.056.906 1.123 Females 23-up PFU 1.004.031.943 1.065 Females 23-up HBCU 1.190.0441.103 1.278 Males 18-19 PFU 1.003.0211.961 1.045 Males 18-19 HBCU 1.350.0511.250 1.450 Males 20-22 PFU 1.000.021.959 1.041 Males 20-22 HBCU 1.000.067.868 1.132 Males 23-up PFU 1.003.025.954 1.052 Males 23-up HBCU 1.083.073.940 1.226

PAGE 91

90 Table 4-37. How often do you use the intern et: Mean: Females, Age, Race, School Gender Age Race School Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females 18-19 AAB PFU 1.000.027.947 1.053 Females 18-19 AAB HBCU 1.023.020.983 1.063 Females 18-19 AAPI PFU 1.000.029.944 1.056 Females 18-19 AAPI HBCU *** Females 18-19 MAL PFU 1.000.021.958 1.042 Females 18-19 MAL HBCU *** Females 18-19 NHW PFU 1.000.011.978 1.022 Females 18-19 NHW HBCU 1.000.135.735 1.265 Females 18-19 O PFU 1.000.043.916 1.084 Females 18-19 O HBCU 1.000.135.735 1.265 Females 20-22 AAB PFU 1.000.026.949 1.051 Females 20-22 AAB HBCU 1.043.0201.004 1.083 Females 20-22 AAPI PFU 1.000.028.945 1.055 Females 20-22 AAPI HBCU *** Females 20-22 MAL PFU 1.000.023.955 1.045 Females 20-22 MAL HBCU *** Females 20-22 NHW PFU 1.004.009.987 1.022 Females 20-22 NHW HBCU 1.000.135.735 1.265 Females 20-22 O PFU 1.000.035.932 1.068 Females 20-22 O HBCU 1.000.095.813 1.187 Females 23-up AAB PFU 1.000.095.813 1.187 Females 23-up AAB HBCU 1.286.0291.228 1.344 Females 23-up AAPI PFU 1.000.067.868 1.132 Females 23-up AAPI HBCU 1.000.135.735 1.265 Females 23-up MAL PFU 1.000.037.927 1.073 Females 23-up MAL HBCU 1.000.135.735 1.265 Females 23-up NHW PFU 1.021.014.994 1.048 Females 23-up NHW HBCU 1.667.0781.514 1.820 Females 23-up O PFU 1.000.095.813 1.187 Females 23-up O HBCU 1.000.078.847 1.153 AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other. This level combination of fact ors is not observed, thus the corre sponding marginal mean is not estimable

PAGE 92

91 Table 4-38. How often do you use the inte rnet: Mean: Males, Age, Race, School Gender Age Race School Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Males Lower Bound Upper Bound Males 18-19 AAB PFU 1.000.048.906 1.094 Males 18-19 AAB HBCU 1.200.0351.132 1.268 Males 18-19 AAPI PFU 1.000.055.892 1.108 Males 18-19 AAPI HBCU *** Males 18-19 MAL PFU 1.000.048.906 1.094 Males 18-19 MAL HBCU *** Males 18-19 NHW PFU 1.015.016.983 1.047 Males 18-19 NHW HBCU 1.500.0951.313 1.687 Males 18-19 O PFU 1.000.060.882 1.118 Males 18-19 O HBCU *** Males 20-22 AAB PFU 1.000.055.892 1.108 Males 20-22 AAB HBCU 1.000.067.868 1.132 Males 20-22 AAPI PFU 1.000.045.912 1.088 Males 20-22 AAPI HBCU *** Males 20-22 MAL PFU 1.000.033.936 1.064 Males 20-22 MAL HBCU *** Males 20-22 NHW PFU 1.000.014.973 1.027 Males 20-22 NHW HBCU *** Males 20-22 O PFU 1.000.067.868 1.132 Males 20-22 O HBCU *** Males 23-up AAB PFU 1.000.095.813 1.187 Males 23-up AAB HBCU 1.167.0551.059 1.275 Males 23-up AAPI PFU 1.000.055.892 1.108 Males 23-up AAPI HBCU *** Males 23-up MAL PFU 1.000.039.927 1.076 Males 23-up MAL HBCU *** Males 23-up NHW PFU 1.014.016.983 1.044 Males 23-up NHW HBCU 1.000.135.735 1.265 Males 23-up O PFU 1.000.041.920 1.080 Males 23-up O HBCU *** AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other. *This level combination of factor s is not observed, thus the corre sponding marginal mean is not estimable

PAGE 93

92 Table 4-39. Tukey HSD. How often do you use internet: Age Age Age Comparison Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 20-22 .01.009.585-.01 .03 23-up -.04.011.009-.06 -.01 20-22 18-19 -.01.009.585-.03 .01 23-up -.05.010.000-.07 -.02 23-up 18-19 .04.011.009.01 .06 20-22 .05.010.000.02 .07 Table 4-40. Tukey HSD. How often do you us e internet: African American Blacks Race Race Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound AAB AAPI .06.019.006.01 .11 AAB MAL .06.015.000.02 .10 AAB NHW .05.011.000.02 .08 AAB O .06.021.021-.01 .12 AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 94

93 Table 4-41. Correlations: I have ma de friends over the internet. School Gender Age Race I have made new friends over the internet School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) .149(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .000 N 1212121012111209 1208 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) .153(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .000 N 1210121012091207 1206 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .005 Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .850 N 1211120912111208 1207 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 -.144(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .000 N 1209120712081209 1205 I have made new friends over the internet Pearson Correlation .149(**).153(**).005-.144(**) 1 Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.850.000 N 1208120612071205 1208 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-42. Mean: I have made fr iends over the internet: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 2.15 .986 1045 HBCU 2.60 1.126 155 Total 2.21 1.016 1200

PAGE 95

94 Table 4-43. Mean: I have made fr iends over the internet: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 2.10 .998 835 Males 2.44 1.021 363 Total 2.21 1.017 1198 Table 4-44. Mean: I have made friends over the internet: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 2.22 1.011 410 20-22 2.18 1.021 521 23-and above 2.25 1.020 268 Total 2.21 1.017 1199 Table 4-45. Mean: I have made friends over the internet: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 2.56 1.097 210 AAPI 2.31 1.043 72 MAL 2.03 .941 132 NHW 2.11 .979 731 O 2.42 .994 55 Total 2.21 1.016 1200

PAGE 96

95 Table 4-46. Tests of between subjects. I ha ve made new friends over the internet. Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender 6.049 16.0496.228.013 .842 Age 1.132 2.566.583.559 .005 Race 2.727 4.682.702.591 .001 School 1.219 11.2191.255.263 .002 Gender/Age 2.487 21.2441.280.278 .001 Gender/Race 1.952 4.488.502.734 .002 Age/Race 3.007 8.376.387.928 .002 Gender Age Race 6.130 8.766.789.612 .003 Gender /School .582 1.582.599.439 .005 Age/School .402 2.201.207.813 .001 Gender/Age /School 2.559 21.2791.317.268 .000 Race/School .678 4.170.175.951 .002 Gender Race/School .576 1.576.593.442 .001 Age/Race/School 3.560 4.890.916.454 .003 Gender/Age/ Race School 5.619 15.6195.785.016 .005 Error 1117.948 1151.971 Total 7060.00 1197 R squared=.842 (adjusted R Squared=.835)

PAGE 97

96 Table 4-47. I have made new friends over the internet. Mean: Females, Age, Race, School Gender Age Race School Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females 18-19 AAB PFU 2.440.1972.053 2.827 Females 18-19 AAB HBCU 2.636.1492.345 2.928 Females 18-19 AAPI PFU 2.318.2101.906 2.730 Females 18-19 AAPI HBCU *** Females 18-19 MAL PFU 1.795.1581.485 2.105 Females 18-19 MAL HBCU *** Females 18-19 NHW PFU 1.891.0791.736 2.046 Females 18-19 NHW HBCU 3.000.9861.066 4.934 Females 18-19 O PFU 1.900.3121.289 2.511 Females 18-19 O HBCU 3.000.9861.066 4.934 Females 20-22 AAB PFU 2.393.1862.027 2.758 Females 20-22 AAB HBCU 2.543.1452.258 2.829 Females 20-22 AAPI PFU 2.043.2051.640 2.447 Females 20-22 AAPI HBCU *** Females 20-22 MAL PFU 1.949.1581.639 2.258 Females 20-22 MAL HBCU 1.974** Females 20-22 NHW PFU 2.000.0651.846 2.101 Females 20-22 NHW HBCU 2.467.986.066 3.934 Females 20-22 O PFU 3.000.2541.967 2.966 Females 20-22 O HBCU 1.500.6971.633 4.367 Females 23-up AAB PFU 2.739.697.133 2.867 Females 23-up AAB HBCU 2.200.2052.336 3.142 Females 23-up AAPI PFU 2.000.4411.335 3.065 Females 23-up AAPI HBCU 2.000.986.066 3.934 Females 23-up MAL PFU 1.000.2731.464 2.536 Females 23-up MAL HBCU 2.121.986-.934 2.934 Females 23-up NHW PFU 1.000.0991.927 2.316 Females 23-up NHW HBCU 2.667.569-.116 2.116 Females 23-up O PFU 1.333.5691.550 3.783 Females 23-up O HBCU .569.217 2.450 This level combination of fact ors is not observed, thus the corre sponding marginal mean is not estimable AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other

PAGE 98

97 Table 4-48. I have made new friends over the internet. Mean: Males, Age, Race, School Gender Age Race School Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Males 18-19 AAB PFU 2.375.3481.691 3.059 Males 18-19 AAB HBCU 3.000.2542.501 3.499 Males 18-19 AAPI PFU 2.500.4021.711 3.289 Males 18-19 AAPI HBCU *** Males 18-19 MAL PFU 2.111.3291.467 2.756 Males 18-19 MAL HBCU *** Males 18-19 NHW PFU 2.642.1202.406 2.878 Males 18-19 NHW HBCU 2.500.6971.133 3.867 Males 18-19 O PFU 2.200.4411.335 3.065 Males 18-19 O HBCU *** Males 20-22 AAB PFU 2.333.4021.544 3.123 Males 20-22 AAB HBCU 2.400.4411.535 3.265 Males 20-22 AAPI PFU 2.778.3282.133 3.422 Males 20-22 AAPI HBCU *** Males 20-22 MAL PFU 2.362.2262.188 3.075 Males 20-22 MAL HBCU *** Males 20-22 NHW PFU 2.280.1022.079 2.480 Males 20-22 NHW HBCU *** Males 20-22 O PFU 3.250.4932.283 4.217 Males 20-22 O HBCU *** Males 23-up AAB PFU 2.000.697.633 3.367 Males 23-up AAB HBCU 2.833.4022.044 3.623 Males 23-up AAPI PFU 2.500.4021.711 3.289 Males 23-up AAPI HBCU *** Males 23-up MAL PFU 2.167.2851.608 2.725 Males 23-up MAL HBCU *** Males 23-up NHW PFU 2.267.1142.043 5.490 Males 23-up NHW HBCU 4.000.9862.066 5.934 Males 23-up O PFU 2.667.2852.108 3.225 Males 23-up O HBCU *** This level combination of fact ors is not observed, thus the corre sponding marginal mean is not estimable AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 99

98 Table 4-49. Tukey HSD.I have made new friends over the internet: Age Age Age Comparison Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 20-22 .04.065.811-.11 .19 23-up -.03.078.938-.21 .16 20-22 18-19 -.04.065.811-.19 .11 23-up -.07.074.643-.24 .11 23-up 18-19 .03.078.938-.16 .21 20-22 .07.074.643-.11 .24 Table 4-50. Tukey HSD. I have made new friends over the interne t: African American Blacks 95% Confidence Interval Race Race Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance Lower Bound Upper Bound AAB AAPI .26 .135 .315 -.11 .62 AAB MAL .53* .109 .000 .23 .83 AAB NHW .45* .077 .000 .24 .66 AAB O .14 .149 .872 -.26 .55 Based upon observed means. *The mean is signifi cant at the .05 level. AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Island er, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 100

99 Table 4-51. Correlations: Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. School Gender Age Race Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line? School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.044 Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .127 N 1212121012111209 1208 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) -.144(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .000 N 1210121012091207 1206 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) -.128(**) Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .000 N 1211120912111208 1207 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .009 Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .760 N 1209120712081209 1205 Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line? Pearson Correlation -.044-.144(**)-.128(**).009 1 Sig. (2tailed) .127.000.000.760 N 1208120612071205 1208 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-52. Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 1.68 .466 1045 HBCU 1.62 .487 155 Total 1.67 .469 1200

PAGE 101

100 Table 4-53. Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.72 .451 836 Males 1.57 .495 362 Total 1.67 .469 1198 Table 4-54. Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 1.72 .450 413 20-22 1.70 .458 520 23-and above 1.55 .499 266 Total 1.67 .469 1199 Table 4-55. Have you ever met anyone in person that you met on line. Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.63 .483 210 AAPI 1.76 .428 72 MAL 1.71 .453 133 NHW 1.68 .468 730 O 1.56 .501 55 Total 1.67 .469 1200

PAGE 102

101 Table 4-56. Tests of between subjects. Have you ever in person someone that you met online. Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender .455 1.4552.141.144 .002 Age 1.208 2.6042.844.059 .005 Race 1.024 4.2561.205.307 .004 School .075 1.075.355.552 .000 Gender/Age .175 2.087.411.663 .001 Gender/Race 1.432 4.3581.685.151 .006 Age/Race .416 8.052.245.982 .002 Gender Age Race 1.197 8.150.704.688 .005 Gender/ School .093 1.093.439.508 .000 Age/School .333 2.166.783.457 .001 Gender/Age /School .928 2.4642.183.113 .004 Race/School .437 4.109.515.725 .002 Gender Race/School .143 1.143.675.512 .001 Age/Race /School .419 4.105.493.741 .002 Gender/Age/ Race School .058 1.058.274.601 .000 Error 244.503 1151.212 Total 3612.000 1197 R squared=.932. (adjusted R Squared=.930)

PAGE 103

102 Table 4-57. Correlations: I have pos ted online personal messages in an attempt to find a potential partner. School Gender Age Race I have posted personal messages School Pearson Correlation 1 -.101(**) -.025 -.662(**) .053 Sig. (2tailed) .000 .391 .000 .067 N 1212 1210 1211 1209 1208 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**) 1 .114(**) .103(**) .171(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 1210 1210 1209 1207 1206 Age Pearson Correlation -.025 .114(**) 1 .118(**) .166(**) Sig. (2tailed) .391 .000 .000 .000 N 1211 1209 1211 1208 1207 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**) .103(**) .118(**) 1 -.054 Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000 .000 .062 N 1209 1207 1208 1209 1205 I have posted personal messages Pearson Correlation .053 .171(**) .166(**) -.054 1 Sig. (2tailed) .067 .000 .000 .062 N 1208 1206 1207 1205 1208 Table 4-58. Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential partner: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 1.29 .671 1044 HBCU 1.40 .784 156 Total 1.30 .688 1200

PAGE 104

103 Table 4-59. Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential partner: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.23 .598 836 Males 1.48 .836 362 Total 1.30 .688 1198 Table 4-60. Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential partner: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 1.20 .530 410 20-22 1.28 .677 521 23-and above 1.51 .859 268 Total 1.30 .688 1199 Table 4-61. Mean: I have posted on line personal messages in an attempt to meet a potential partner: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.40 .770 211 AAPI 1.35 .772 72 MAL 1.23 .638 133 NHW 1.27 .641 729 O 1.49 .879 55 Total 1.30 .688 1200

PAGE 105

104 Table 4-62. Tests of between subjects. I have post ed online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender 4.948 14.948113.19.001 .010 Age 5.849 22.9256.690.001 .011 Race .291 4.073.166.955 .001 School .011 1.011.025.875 .000 Gender/Age 7.927 23.9649.067.000 .016 Gender/Race 1.036 4.259.592.668 .002 Age/Race 2.864 8.358.819.586 .006 Gender Age Race 5.207 8.6511.489.157 .010 Gender/ School .058 1.058.133.716 .000 Age/School .907 2.4531.037.355 .002 Gender/Age /School 3.217 21.6093.680.026 .006 Race/School 1.654 4.414.946.436 .003 Gender Race/School 1.099 11.0992.515.113 .002 Age/Race /School 1.666 4.416.953.433 .003 Gender/Age/ Race School 4.874 14.87411.149.001 .010 Error 503.154 1151.437 Total 2597.000 1197 R squared=.806. (adjusted R Squared=.799) Table 4-63. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean: Gender, Age Gender Age Mean Standard Error 95 % Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females 18-19 1.253 .1241.011 1.496 20-22 1.227 .1081.016 1.439 23-up 1.209 .129 .955 1.463 Males 18-19 1.261 .1031.059 1.463 20-22 1.618 .0981.425 1.810 23-up 2.180 .1341.917 2.442

PAGE 106

105 Table 4-64. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean: Gender, Age, School Gender Age School Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females 18-19 PFU 1.134 .062 1.014 1.255 Females 18-19 HBCU 1.452* .313 .837 2.067 Females 20-22 PFU 1.281 .055 1.172 1.390 Females 20-22 HBCU 1.138* .272 .604 1.671 Females 23-up PFU 1.330 .140 1.056 1.605 Females 23-up HBCU 1.087 .218 .660 1.514 Males 18-19 PFU 1.232 .104 1.028 1.436 Males 18-19 HBCU 1.333* .249 .845 1.822 Males 20-22 PFU 1.741 .102 1.542 1.941 Males 20-22 HBCU 1.000* .296 .420 1.580 Males 23-up PFU 1.951 .122 1.713 2.190 Males 23-up HBCU 2.750* .357 2.049 3.451 *Based upon a modified population marginal mean

PAGE 107

106 Table 4-65. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean: Females, Age, Race, School Gender Age Race School Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females 18-19 AAB PFU 1.240.132.981 1.499 Females 18-19 AAB HBCU 13.56.0991.162 1.549 Females 18-19 AAPI PFU 1.091.141.814 1.367 Females 18-19 AAPI HBCU *** Females 18-19 MAL PFU 1.025.105.820 1.230 Females 18-19 MAL HBCU ** Females 18-19 NHW PFU 1.116.0531.012 1.220 Females 18-19 NHW HBCU 2.000.661.703 3.297 Females 18-19 O PFU 1.200.209.790 1.610 Females 18-19 O HBCU 1.000.661-.297 2.297 Females 20-22 AAB PFU 1.286.1251.041 1.531 Females 20-22 AAB HBCU 1.413.0971.222 1.604 Females 20-22 AAPI PFU 1.261.138.990 1.531 Females 20-22 AAPI HBCU *** Females 20-22 MAL PFU 1.103.106.895 1.310 Females 20-22 MAL HBCU *** Females 20-22 NHW PFU 1.157.0441.071 1.242 Females 20-22 NHW HBCU 1.00.661-.297 2.297 Females 20-22 O PFU 1.600.1711.265 1.935 Females 20-22 O HBCU 1.000.468.083 1.917 Females 23-up AAB PFU 1.500.468.583 2.417 Females 23-up AAB HBCU 1.435.1381.164 1.705 Females 23-up AAPI PFU 1.200.296620 1.780 Females 23-up AAPI HBCU 1.000.661-.297 2.297 Females 23-up MAL PFU 1.1541.83.794 1.514 Females 23-up MAL HBCU 1.000.661-.297 2.297 Females 23-up NHW PFU 1.465.0661.334 1.595 Females 23-up NHW HBCU 1.000.382.251 1.749 Females 23-up O PFU 1.333.382.584 2.082 Females 23-up O HBCU 1.000.382.251 1.749 This level combination of fact ors is not observed, thus the corre sponding marginal mean is not estimable. AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 108

107 Table 4-66. I have posted online personal messages in order to meet a potential partner. Mean: Males, Age, Race, School Gender Age Race School Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Males 18-19 AAB PFU 1.500 .234 1.041 1.959 Males 18-19 AAB HBCU 1.667 .171 1.332 2.002 Males 18-19 AAPI PFU 1.167 .270 .637 1.696 Males 18-19 AAPI HBCU * Males 18-19 MAL PFU 1.222 .220 .790 1.655 Males 18-19 MAL HBCU * Males 18-19 NHW PFU 1.273 .081 1.13 1.432 Males 18-19 NHW HBCU 1.000 .146 .083 1.917 Males 18-19 O PFU 1.000 .296 .420 1.580 Males 18-19 O HBCU * Males 20-22 AAB PFU 1.833 .270 1.304 2.363 Males 20-22 AAB HBCU 1.00 .296 .420 1.580 Males 20-22 AAPI PFU 1.667 .220 1.234 2.099 Males 20-22 AAPI HBCU * Males 20-22 MAL PFU 1.579 .152 1.281 1.877 Males 20-22 MAL HBCU * Males 20-22 NHW PFU 13.76 .069 1.242 1.511 Males 20-22 NHW HBCU * Males 20-22 O PFU 2.250 .331 1.601 2.899 Males 20-22 O HBCU * Males 23-up AAB PFU 2.00 .468 1.083 2.917 Males 23-up AAB HBCU 15.00 .270 .970 2.030 Males 23-up AAPI PFU 2.500 .270 1.970 3.030 Males 23-up AAPI HBCU * Males 23-up MAL PFU 1.917 .191 1.542 2.291 Males 23-up MAL HBCU * Males 23-up NHW PFU 1.507 .076 1.357 1.656 Males 23-up NHW HBCU 4.000 .661 2.703 5.297 Males 23-up O PFU 1.833 .191 1.459 2.208 Males 23-up O HBCU * This level combination of fact ors is not observed, thus the corre sponding marginal mean is not estimable AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 109

108 Table 4-67. Tukey HSD. I have posted online pers onal messages in order to meet a potential partner: Age Age Age Comparison Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 20-22 .32.044.164-.18 .02 23-up -.32.052.000-.44 -.19 20-22 18-19 .08.044.164-.02 .18 23-up -.24.050.000-.35 -.12 23-up 18-19 .32.052.000 .19 .44 20-22 .24.050.000 .12 .35 *Based upon a modified population marginal mean. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level Table 4-68. Tukey HSD. I have posted online pers onal messages in order to meet a potential partner: African American Blacks 95% Confidence Interval Race Race Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance Lower Bound Upper Bound AAB AAPI .05.090.980-.20 .30 AAB MAL .17.073.161-.03 .37 AAB NHW .13.052.090-.01 .27 AAB O -.09.100.886-.37 .18 Based upon observed means. AAB= African Amer ican Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific.24 Islander, MAL=Mexican American Lati no, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 110

109 Table 4-69. Correlations: Does your partner object to the am ount of time you spend on line: School Gender Age Race Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line? School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.057 Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .059 N 1212121012111209 1101 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) -.044 Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .147 N 1210121012091207 1099 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) -.043 Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .156 N 1211120912111208 1100 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .055 Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .068 N 1209120712081209 1099 Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend on line? Pearson Correlation -.057-.044-.043.055 1 Sig. (2tailed) .059.147.156.068 N 1101109911001099 1101 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-70. Mean: Does your pa rtner object to the amount of time you spend on line. School School Mean Std. Deviation N

PAGE 111

110 PFU 1.96.202941 HBCU 1.92.270153 Total 1.95.2131094 Table 4-71. Mean: Does your pa rtner object to the amount of time you spend on line. Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.96 .201 760 Males 1.94 .238 332 Total 1.95 .213 1092 Table 4-72. Mean: Does your pa rtner object to the amount of time you spend on line. Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 1.96 .196 377 20-22 1.96 .206 475 23-and above 1.94 .242 241 Total 1.95 .211 1093 Table 4-73. Mean: Does your pa rtner object to the amount of time you spend on line? Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.92 .270 203 AAPI 1.97 .174 65 MAL 1.98 .157 120 NHW 1.96 .199 654 O 1.92 .269 52 Total 1.95 .213 1094

PAGE 112

111 Table 4-74. Tests of between subjects. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender .413 1.4139.544.002 .009 Age .278 2.1393.209.041 .006 Race .071 4.018.413.799 .002 School .058 1.0581.329.249 .001 Gender/Age .378 2.1894.363.013 .008 Gender/Race .250 4.0631.445.217 .006 Age/Race .545 8.0681.574.128 .012 Gender Age Race .866 8.1082.500.011 .019 Gender/ School .162 1.1623.745.053 .004 Age/School .013 2.006.146.864 .000 Gender/Age /School .233 2.1162.688.068 .005 Race/School .289 4.0721.669.155 .006 Gender Race/School .464 1.46410.720.001 .010 Age/Race /School .711 4.1784.107.003 .015 Gender/Age/ Race School .584 1.58413.500.000 .013 Error 45.226 1045.043 Total 4121.11 1091 R squared=.070 (adjusted r squared=.030) Table 4-75. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Gender and Age Gender Age Mean Standard Error 95 % Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females 18-19 1.982.0391.906 2.059 20-22 1.951 .034 1.884 2.018 23-up 1.987 0.044 1.889 2.074 Males 18-19 1.946 .033 1.882 2.010 20-22 1.992 .034 1.925 2.059 23-up 1.720 .042 1.637 1.803

PAGE 113

112 Table 4-76. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Females, Race and School Gender Race School Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females AAB PFU 1.949.0721.807 2.090 Females AAB HBCU 1.926.0211.885 1.966 Females AAPI PFU 1.985.0411.905 2.065 Females AAPI HBCU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 Females MAL PFU 1.981.0271.927 2.035 Females MAL HBCU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 Females NHW PFU 1.962.0111.940 1.983 Females NHW HBCU 2.000.1061.792 2.208 Females O PFU 1.974.0571.862 2.086 Females O HBCU 2.000.0941.816 2.184 Males AAB PFU 1.833.0631.170 1.957 Males AAB HBCU 1.933.0481.839 2.028 Males AAPI PFU 1.944.0511.845 2.044 Males MAL HBCU *** Males MAL PFU 1.952.0371.879 2.026 Males MAL HBCU *** Males NHW PFU 1.959.0141.930 1.987 Males NHW HBCU 1.500.1271.250 1.750 Males O PFU 1.917.0511.817 2.016 Males O HBCU *** This level of mean is not observed therefore the correspondi ng population marginal mean is not estimable. AAB= African American Blac k, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific.24 Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 114

113 Table 4-77. Does your partner object to the am ount of time you spend online. Mean: Gender, Age, Race Gender Age Race Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females 18-19 AAB 1.943.0261.891 1.995 Females 18-19 AAPI 2.000.0451.911 2.089 Females 18-19 MAL 2.000.0341.934 2.066 Females 18-19 NHW 1.985.1041.781 2.190 Females 18-19 O 2.000.1091.786 2.214 Females 20-22 AAB 1.912.0261.862 1.962 Females 20-22 AAPI 1.955.0441.868 2.042 Females 20-22 MAL 1.943.0351.874 2.012 Females 20-22 NHW 1.981.1041.776 2.185 Females 20-22 O 1.962.0791.807 2.117 Females 23-up AAB 1.957.1061.748 2.165 Females 23-up AAPI 2.000.1161.772 2.228 Females 23-up MAL 2.0001.091.786 2.214 Females 23-up NHW 1.976.0611.856 2.096 Females 23-up O 2.000.0951.184 2.186 Males 18-19 AAB 1.900.0461.811 1.989 Males 18-19 AAPI 2.000.0851.833 2.167 Males 18-19 MAL 1.857.0791.703 2.011 Males 18-19 NHW 1.983.0751.836 2.130 Males 18-19 O 2.000.0931.817 2.183 Males 20-22 AAB 2.000.0701.863 2.137 Males 20-22 AAPI 2.000.0931.817 2.183 Males 20-22 MAL 2.000.0491.904 2.096 Males 20-22 NHW 1.953.0221.909 1.998 Males 20-22 O 2.000.1041.796 2.204 Males 23-up AAB 1.750.0851.583 1.917 Males 23-up AAPI 1.833.0851.667 2.000 Males 23-up MAL 2.000.0631.877 2.123 Males 23-up NHW 1.479.1051.273 1.684 Males 23-up O 1.750.0601.632 1.868 AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific.24 Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 115

114 Table 4-78. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend onlin e. Mean: Age, Race, School Age Race School Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 AAB PFU 2.000.0421.917 2.083 18-19 AAB HBCU 1843.0311.782 1.904 18-19 AAPI PFU 2.000.0481.906 2.094 18-19 AAPI HBCU 18-19 MAL PFU 1.929.0431.845 2.013 18-19 MAL HBCU *** 18-19 NHW PFU 1.968.0161.936 2.000 18-19 NHW HBCU 2.000.1271.750 2.250 18-19 O PFU 2.000.0571.888 2.112 18-19 O HBCU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 20-22 AAB PFU 1.923.0511.823 2.023 20-22 AAB HBCU 1.989.0541.882 2.095 20-22 AAPI PFU 1.977.0521.876 2.078 20-22 AAPI HBCU *** 20-22 MAL PFU 1.971.0301.912 2.031 20-22 MAL HBCU *** 20-22 NHW PFU 1.958.0131.931 1.984 20-22 NHW HBCU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 20-22 O PFU 1.962.0591.845 2.078 20-22 O HBCU 2.000.1471.711 2.289 23-up AAB PFU 1.750.1271.500 2.000 23-up AAB HBCU 1.957.0481.863 2.050 23-up AAPI PFU 1.917.0671.785 2.048 23-up AAPI HBCU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 23-up MAL PFU 2.000.0451.911 2.089 23-up MAL HBCU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 23-up NHW PFU 1.955.0171.922 1.988 23-up NHW HBCU 1.500.1201.264 1.736 23-up O PFU 1.875.0791.719 2.031 23-up O HBCU 2.000.1201.764 2.236 This level of mean is not observed therefore the correspondi ng population marginal mean is not estimable. AAB= African American Blac k, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific.24 Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 116

115 Table 4-79. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Females, Age, Race, School Gender Age Race School Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females 18-19 AAB PFU 2.000.0421.917 2.083 Females 18-19 AAB HBCU 1.886.0311.825 1.948 Females 18-19 AAPI PFU 2.000.0451.911 2.089 Females 18-19 AAPI HBCU Females 18-19 MAL PFU 2.000.0341.934 2.066 Females 18-19 MAL HBCU *** Females 18-19 NHW PFU 1.971.0181.936 2.006 Females 18-19 NHW HBCU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 Females 18-19 O PFU 2.000.0661.871 2.129 Females 18-19 O HBCU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 Females 20-22 AAB PFU 1.846.0411.766 1.926 Females 20-22 AAB HBCU 1.978.0311.917 2.039 Females 20-22 AAPI PFU 1.955.0441.868 2.042 Females 20-22 AAPI HBCU *** Females 20-22 MAL PFU 1.943.0351.874 2.012 Females 20-22 MAL HBCU *** Females 20-22 NHW PFU 1.962.0141.933 1.990 Females 20-22 NHW HBCU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 Females 20-22 O PFU 1.923.0581.810 2.036 Females 20-22 O HBCU 2.000.1471.711 2.289 Females 23-up AAB PFU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 Females 23-up AAB HBCU 1.913.0431.828 1.998 Females 23-up AAPI PFU 2.000.1041.796 2.204 Females 23-up AAPI HBCU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 Females 23-up MAL PFU 2.000.0661.871 2.129 Females 23-up MAL HBCU 2.000.2081.592 2.408 Females 23-up NHW PFU 1.962.0231.908 1.997 Females 23-up NHW HBCU 2.000.1201.764 2.236 Females 23-up O PFU 2.000.1471.711 2.144 Females 23-up O HBCU 2.000.1201.764 1.905 This level combination of fact ors is not observed, thus the corre sponding marginal mean is not estimable. AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 117

116 Table 4-80. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Mean: Males, Age, Race, School Gender Age Race School Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Males 18-19 AAB PFU 2.000.0741.856 2.144 Males 18-19 AAB HBCU 1.800.0541.695 1.905 Males 18-19 AAPI PFU 2.000.0851.833 2.167 Males 18-19 AAPI HBCU *** Males 18-19 MAL PFU 1.857.0791.703 2.011 Males 18-19 MAL HBCU *** Males 18-19 NHW PFU 1.966.0271.912 2.019 Males 18-19 NHW HBCU 2.000.1471.711 2.289 Males 18-19 O PFU 2.000.0931.817 2.183 Males 18-19 O HBCU *** Males 20-22 AAB PFU 2.000.0931.817 2.183 Males 20-22 AAB HBCU 2.000.1041.796 2.204 Males 20-22 AAPI PFU 2.000.0931.817 2.183 Males 20-22 AAPI HBCU *** Males 20-22 MAL PFU 2.000.0491.904 2.096 Males 20-22 MAL HBCU *** Males 20-22 NHW PFU 1.953.0221.909 1.998 Males 20-22 NHW HBCU *** Males 20-22 O PFU 2.000.1041.796 2.204 Males 20-22 O HBCU *** Males 23-up AAB PFU 1.500.1471.211 1.789 Males 23-up AAB HBCU 2.000.0851.833 2.167 Males 23-up AAPI PFU 1.833.0851.667 2.000 Males 23-up AAPI HBCU *** Males 23-up MAL PFU 2.000.0631.877 2.123 Males 23-up MAL HBCU *** Males 23-up NHW PFU 1.957.0251.908 2.006 Males 23-up NHW HBCU 1.000.208.592 1.408 Males 23-up O PFU 1.750.0601.632 1.868 Males 23-up O HBCU *** This level combination of f actors is not observed, thus th e corresponding marginal mean is not estimable AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 118

117 Table 4-81. Tukey HSD. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Age Age Age Comparison Mean Difference Std Error Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 20-22 .00 .014 .947 -.03 .04 23-up .02 .017 .383 -.02 .06 20-22 18-19 .00 .014 .947 -.04 .03 23-up .02 .016 .512 -.02 .06 23-up 18-19 -.02 .017 .383 -.06 .02 20-22 -.02 .016 .512 -.06 .02. Table 4-82. Tukey HSD. Does your partner object to the amount of time you spend online. Race 95% Confidence Interval Race Race Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance Lower Bound Upper Bound AAB AAPI -.05 .030 .484 -.13 .03 AAB MAL -.05 .024 .164 -.12 .01 AAB NHW -.04 .017 .138 -.08 .01 AAB O .00 .032 1.000 -.09 .09

PAGE 119

118 Table 4-83. Correlations: Does your pa rtner know about your online friends. School Gender Age Race Does your partner know about the friends/relationships you have over the internet? School Pearson Correlation 1 .101(**)-.025 .662(**) .104(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .001 N 1212121012111209 1081 Gender Pearson Correlation .101(**)1.114(**).103(**) .084(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .006 N 1210121012091207 1079 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) -.050 Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .098 N 1211120912111208 1080 Race Pearson Correlation .662(**).103(**).118(**)1 -.115(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .000 N 1209120712081209 1079 Does your partner know about the friends/relationships you have over the internet? Pearson Correlation .104(**).084(**)-.050 .115(**) 1 Sig. (2tailed) .001.006.098.000 N 1081107910801079 1081 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-84. Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 1.52 .500 922 HBCU 1.66 .474 152 Total 1.54 .499 1074

PAGE 120

119 Table 4-85. Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.51 .500 741 Males 1.60 .491 331 Total 1.54 .499 1072 Table 4-86. Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 1.54 .499 370 20-22 1.58 .494 467 23-and above 1.45 .498 236 Total 1.54 .499 1073 Table 4-87. Mean: Does your partner know about your online friends: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.66 .474 201 AAPI 1.55 .501 65 MAL 1.52 .502 120 NHW 1.50 .500 636 O 1.58 .499 52 Total 1.54 .499 1074

PAGE 121

120 Table 4-88. Tests of between subjects. Do es your offline partner know about the friends/relationships that you have online. Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender .747 1.7473.088.079 .003 Age .121 2.061.251.778 .000 Race .573 4.143.592.668 .002 School .007 1.007.029.866 .000 Gender/Age .719 2.3601.429.227 .003 Gender/Race .915 4.229.946.436 .004 Age/Race 1.661 8.208.859.551 .007 Gender Age Race .646 8.081.334.953 .003 Gender/ School .336 1.3361.391.239 .001 Age/School 1.486 2.7433.071.047 .006 Gender/Age /School .059 2.029.122.885 .000 Race/School .529 4.132.547.701 .002 Gender Race/School .006 1.006.023.880 .000 Age/Race /School 1.042 4.2601.077.367 .004 Gender/Age/ Race School .254 1.2541.051.305 .001 Error 247.912 1025.242 Total 2793.000 1071 R squared = .069 (adjus ted R squared=.028) Table 4-89. Does your offline partner know about th e friends/relationships that you have online. Mean: Age, School Age School Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 PFU 1.610.0461.521 1.700 HBCU 1.546 .1581.235 1.856 20-22 PFU 1.665 .0461.574 1.755 HBCU 1.564 .1641.243 1.885 23-up PFU 1.363 .0811.204 1.523 HBCU 1.658 .1381.387 1.930

PAGE 122

121 Table 4-90. Tukey HSD. Does your offline partner know about the friends/relationships that you have online? Age Age Age Comparison Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 20-22 -.04.034.445-.12 .04 23-up .09.041.068-.01 .19 20-22 18-19 .04.034.445-.04 .12 23-up .13.039.002.04 .22 23-up 18-19 -.09.041.068-.19 .01 20-22 -.13.039.002-.22 -.04 The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

PAGE 123

122 Table 4-91. Correlations: Has your partner expre ss jealousy over the relationships you have online. School Gender Age Race Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you have developed on line? School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.058 Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .058 N 1212121012111209 1085 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) -.047 Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .119 N 1210121012091207 1083 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) -.024 Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .431 N 1211120912111208 1084 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .077(*) Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .011 N 1209120712081209 1083 Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you have developed on line? Pearson Correlation -.058-.047-.024.077(*) 1 Sig. (2tailed) .058.119.431.011 N 1085108310841083 1085 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 124

123 Table 4-92. Mean: Has your partner ever expre ssed jealousy over onlin e relationships: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 1.94 .240 926 HBCU 1.89 .308 152 Total 1.93 .251 1078 Table 4-93. Mean: Has your partner ever expre ssed jealousy over onlin e relationships: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.94 .240 749 Males 1.92 .276 327 Total 1.93 .252 1076 Table 4-94. Mean: Has your partner ever expre ssed jealousy over onl ine relationships: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 1.93 .251 370 20-22 1.94 .230 467 23-and above 1.91 .283 240 Total 1.93 .250 1077 Table 4-95. Mean: Has your partner ever expre ssed jealousy over onlin e relationships: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.89 .313 201 AAPI 1.94 .242 65 MAL 1.93 .264 120 NHW 1.95 .221 640 O 1.90 .298 52 Total 1.93 .251 1078

PAGE 125

124 Table 4-96. Tests of between subjects. Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you have developed online. Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender .055 1.055.895.344 .001 Age .160 2.0801.290.276 .003 Race .584 4.1462.362.052 .009 School .085 1.0851.370.242 .001 Gender/Age .116 2.058.937.392 .002 Gender/Race .311 4.0781.257.285 .005 Age/Race 1.041 8.1302.104.033 .016 Gender Age Race .263 8.033.530.833 .004 Gender/ School .003 1.003.048.826 .000 Age/School .113 2.056.913.402 .002 Gender/Age /School .021 2.011.172.842 .000 Race/School .169 4.042.684.603 .003 Gender Race/School .125 1.1252.016.156 .002 Age/Race /School .831 4.2083.360.010 .013 Gender/Age/ Race School .051 1.051.828.363 .001 Error 63.637 1027.062 Total 4084.000 1075 R squared=984. (Adjusted R Squared=.984)

PAGE 126

125 Table 4-97. Mean: Has your partner ever expre ssed jealousy over the relationships you have developed online: Age, Race Age Race Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 AAB 1.933.0331.869 1.997 18-19 AAPI 1.893 .058 1.780 2.006 18-19 MAL 1.902 .051 1.802 2.003 18-19 NHW 1.963 .077 1.812 2.113 18-19 O 1.967 .095 1.781 2.152 20-22 AAB 1.939 .044 1.852 2.026 20-22 AAPI 1.877 .062 1.756 1.998 20-22 MAL 1.916 .036 1.845 1.987 20-22 NHW 1.974 .084 1.801 2.138 20-22 O 1.949 .075 1.810 2.097 23-up AAB 1.571 .081 1.411 1.730 23-up AAPI 2.000 .099 1.806 2.194 23-up MAL 1.936 .090 1.759 2.114 23-up NHW 1.887 .072 1.745 2.029 23-up O 1.944 .079 1.789 2.100 AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other Table 4-98. Tukey HSD. Has your partner ever expressed jeal ousy over the relationships you have developed online: Age Age Age Comparison Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 20-22 -.01.017.775-.05 .03 23-up .02.21587-.03 .07 20-22 18-19 .01.017.775-.03 .05 23-up .03.020.237-.01 .08 23-up 18-19 -.02.021.587-.07 .03 20-22 -.03.020.237-.08 .01

PAGE 127

126 Table 4-99. Has your partner ever expressed jealousy over the relationships you have developed online. Mean: Age Race and School Age Race School Mean Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 AAB PFU 1.979.0531.874 2.084 18-19 AAB HBCU 1.887.037 1.814 1.960 18-19 AAPI PFU 1.893.058 1.780 2.006 18-19 AAPI HBCU * 18-19 MAL PFU 1.902.051 1.802 2.003 18-19 MAL HBCU * 18-19 NHW PFU 1.926.020 1.887 1.964 18-19 NHW HBCU 2.00.152 1.701 2.299 18-19 O PFU 1.950.068 1.816 2.084 18-19 O HBCU 2.000.249 1.512 2.488 20-22 AAB PFU 1.923.061 1.804 2.042 20-22 AAB HBCU 1.956.065 1.828 2.083 20-22 AAPI PFU 1.877.062 1.756 1.998 20-22 AAPI HBCU * 20-22 MAL PFU 1.916.036 1.845 1.987 20-22 MAL HBCU * 20-22 NHW PFU 1.961.016 1.929 1.993 20-22 NHW HBCU 2.000.249 1.512 2.488 20-22 O PFU 1.923.071 1.784 2.063 20-22 O HBCU 2.000.176 1.655 2.345 23-up AAB PFU 1.250.152 .951 1.549 23-up AAB HBCU 1.891.057 1.779 2.003 23-up AAPI PFU 2.000.080 1.843 2.157 23-up AAPI HBCU 2.000.249 1.512 2.488 23-up MAL PFU 1.905.054 1.798 2.011 23-up MAL HBCU 2.000.249 1.512 2.488 23-up NHW PFU 1.940.020 1.901 1.980 23-up NHW HBCU 1.833.144 1.552 2.115 23-up O PFU 1.917.095 1.730 2.103 23-up O HBCU 2.000.144 1.718 2.282 This level combination of factors is not observed, thus the corresponding marginal mean is not estimable. AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian American/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 128

127 Table 4-100. Correlations: It is important that an alternative place for meeting people is available. School Gender Age Race Important that an alternative place for meeting people is available School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.001 Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .967 N 1212121012111209 1210 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) .117(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .000 N 1210121012091207 1208 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .050 Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .081 N 1211120912111208 1209 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 -.003 Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .904 N 1209120712081209 1207 Important that an alternative place for meeting people is available Pearson Correlation -.001.117(**).050-.003 1 Sig. (2tailed) .967.000.081.904 N 1210120812091207 1210 Table 4-101. Mean: It is important that an al ternative place for meeting people is available: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 2.66 1.092 1046 HBCU 2.66 1.161 156 Total 2.66 1.100 1202

PAGE 129

128 Table 4-102. Mean: It is important that an al ternative place for meeting people is available Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 2.58 1.074 836 Males 2.86 1.135 364 Total 2.66 1.100 1200 Table 4-103. Mean: It is important that an alte rnative place for meeting people is available: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 2.65 1.048 413 20-22 2.60 1.114 520 23-and above 2.82 1.138 268 Total 2.67 1.100 1201 Table 4-104. Mean: It is important that an altern ative place for meeting peopl e is available: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 2.64 1.130 211 AAPI 2.89 1.120 72 MAL 2.70 1.128 133 NHW 2.62 1.065 732 O 2.98 1.296 54 Total 2.66 1.100 1202

PAGE 130

129 Table 4-105. Tests of between subjects. It is impor tant that an alternate place for meeting people is available: Age, Gender, Race, School Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender .403 1.403.378.539 .919 Age 11.049 25.5245.177.006 .009 Race 7.996 41.9991.873.113 .006 School .138 1.138.129.720 .000 Gender/Age 2.383 21.1921.117.328 .002 Gender/Race 3.888 4.972.911.457 .003 Age/Race 5.718 8.715.670.718 .005 Gender/Age /Race 6.178 8.772.724.671 .005 Gender/Schoo l 1.019 11.019.954.329 .001 Age/School 1.327 2.663.622.537 .001 Gender/Age /School 1.729 2.865.810.445 .001 Race/School 2.688 4.672.630.641 .002 Gender /Race/School .017 1.017.016.900 .000 Age/Race /School 5.416 41.3541.269.280 .004 Gender/Age /Race/School .865 1.865.810.368 .001 Error 1225.082 11481.067 Total 15710.000 1194 Table 4-106. Tukey HSD. How important is it to you that an alternate way/place for meeting new people is available. Age Age Age Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 20-22 -.15 .068.78-.31 .01 23-up -.51 .081.000 -.70 -.32 20-22 18-19 .15 .068.078 -.01 .31 23-up -.37 .078.000 -.55 -.18 23-up 18-19 .51 .081.000 .32 .70 20-22 .37 .078.000 .18 .55 (Mean difference is signi ficant at the .05 level)

PAGE 131

130 Table 4-107. Correlations: An alternativ e way to meet online sex partners. School Gender Age Race An alternative way/place for meeting potential online sexual partners is available School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.057(*) Sig. (2-tailed) .000.391.000 .047 N 1212121012111209 1204 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) .344(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000.000 .000 N 1210121012091207 1202 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .218(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .391.000 .000 .000 N 1211120912111208 1203 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .076(**) Sig. (2-tailed) .000.000.000 .009 N 1209120712081209 1201 An alternative way/place for meeting potential online sexual partners is available Pearson Correlation -.057(*).344(**).218(**).076(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .047.000.000.009 N 1204120212031201 1204 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 4-108. Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 2.09 1.056 1044 HBCU 1.99 1.051 154 Total 2.08 1.056 1198

PAGE 132

131 Table 4-109. Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.88 .963 832 males 2.52 1.124 364 Total 2.08 1.056 1196 Table 4-110. Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 2.04 1.012 412 20-22 1.99 1.047 518 23-and above 2.30 1.108 267 Total 2.08 1.056 1197 Table 4-111. Mean: Important alternative way to meet potential on line sexual partners: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.95 1.080 209 AAPI 2.29 1.067 72 MAL 2.14 1.072 133 NHW 2.08 1.036 730 O 2.11 1.144 54 Total 2.08 1.056 1198

PAGE 133

132 Table 4-112. Tests of between subjects. An al ternative way/place for meeting potential sexual partners: Gender, Race, Age, School Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender 7.901 17.9015.995.014 .005 Age 33.439 216.71912.686.000 .022 Race 6.724 41.6811.275.278 .004 School 2.126 12.1261.613.204 .001 Gender/Age 1.662 2.831.630.533 .001 Gender/Race 6.544 41.6361.241.292 .004 Age/Race 7.109 8.889.674.715 .005 Gender Age Race 11.697 81.4621.109.354 .008 Gender/ School 2.880 12.8802.185.140 .002 Age/School 3.986 21.9931.512.221 .003 Gender/Age /School 3.113 21.5571.181.307 .002 Race/School 1.035 4.259.196.940 .001 Gender Race/School 1.334 11.3341.012.315 .001 Age/Race /School 13.882 43.4702.633.033 .009 Gender/Age/ Race School 1.356 11.3561.029.311 .001 Error 1511.710 11471.318 Total 10253.000 1193 R squared=.806. (adjusted R Squared=.799) Table 4-113. Tukey HSD. An alternative way/pl ace for meeting potential sexual partners: Age Age Age Comparison Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 18-19 20-22 -.16.076.081-.34 .01 23-up -.77.090.000-.99 -.56 20-22 18-19 .16.076.081-.01 .34 23-up -.61.087.000-.81 -.41 23-up 18-19 .77.090.000.56 .99 20-22 .61.087.000.41 .81

PAGE 134

133 Table 4-114. Tukey HSD. An alternative way/plac e for meeting potential sexual partners: Race Race Race Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance 95% Level of Confidence Lower Bound Upper Bound AAB AAPI -.25.157.486-.68 .17 AAB MAL -.11.128.921-.45 .24 AAB NHW -.27.090.026-.51 .02 AAB O -.24.177.641-.73 .24 AAB= African American Black, AAPI=Asian Am erican/Pacific Islander, MAL=Mexican American Latino, NWH=Non White Hispanic, O=Other.

PAGE 135

134 Table 4-115. Correlations: I have accessed se xually explicit materials on the internet. School Gender Age Race I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the Internet School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.154(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .000 N 1212121012111209 1211 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) .516(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .000 N 1210121012091207 1209 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .046 Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .113 N 1211120912111208 1210 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .106(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .000 N 1209120712081209 1208 I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the Internet Pearson Correlation -.154(**).516(**).046.106(**) 1 Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.113.000 N 1211120912101208 1211 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-116. Mean: I have accessed sexually e xplicit materials on the internet: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 2.66 .972 1047 HBCU 2.21 .930 156 Total 2.60 .978 1203

PAGE 136

135 Table 4-117. Mean: I have accessed sexually e xplicit materials on the internet: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 2.27 .870 837 Males 3.36 .764 364 Total 2.60 .978 1201 Table 4-118. Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 2.57 .998 412 20-22 2.57 .966 522 23-and above 2.69 .966 268 Total 2.60 .977 1202 Table 4-119. Mean: I have accessed sexually e xplicit materials on the internet: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 2.35 .931 211 AAPI 2.69 .914 72 MAL 2.63 1.007 132 NHW 2.65 .984 733 O 2.69 .960 55 Total 2.60 .978 1203

PAGE 137

136 Table 4-120. Tests of between subjects. I have accessed sexually exp licit materials on the internet. Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender 26.888 126.88838.981.000 .033 Age 1.527 2.7631.107.331 .002 Race 2.890 4.7221.047.381 .004 School 3.796 13.7965.503.019 .005 Gender/Age .140 2.070.101.904 .000 Gender/Race 2.592 4.648.939.440 .003 Age/Race 3.533 8.442.640.744 .004 Gender Age Race 1.953 8.244.354.944 .002 Gender/ School .959 1.9591.390.239 .001 Age/School .852 2.426.617.540 .001 Gender/Age /School .317 2.159.230.795 .000 Race/School 2.000 4.500.725.575 .003 Gender Race/School 2.264 12.2643.282.070 .003 Age/Race /School 1.868 4.467.677.608 .002 Gender/Age/ Race School .045 1.045.065.798 .000 Error 795.983 1154.690 Total 9248.000 1200 R squared=.914 (adjusted R Squared=.910)

PAGE 138

137 Table 4-121. Correlations: I have accessed sexua lly explicit materials to become sexually aroused. School Gender Age Race I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.177(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .000 N 1212121012111209 1209 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) .577(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .000 N 1210121012091207 1207 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .077(**) Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .007 N 1211120912111208 1208 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .134(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .000 N 1209120712081209 1206 I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused Pearson Correlation -.177(**).577(**).077(**).134(**) 1 Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.007.000 N 1209120712081206 1209 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 139

138 Table 4-122. Mean: I have accessed sexually explic it materials to become sexually aroused: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 2.32 1.187 1045 HBCU 1.70 .953 156 Total 2.24 1.177 1201 Table 4-123. Mean: I have accessed sexually explic it materials to become sexually aroused: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.79 .986 836 Males 3.27 .903 363 Total 2.24 1.177 1199 Table 4-124. Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 2.17 1.179 411 20-22 2.18 1.166 521 23-and above 2.44 1.174 268 Total 2.23 1.176 1200 Table 4-125. Mean: I have accessed sexually explicit materials to become sexually aroused: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.86 1.021 211 AAPI 2.32 1.220 72 MAL 2.27 1.199 132 NHW 2.33 1.193 731 O 2.27 1.178 55 Total 2.24 1.177 1201

PAGE 140

139 Table 4-126. Tests of between subjects. I have accessed sexually exp licit materials on the internet to become sexually ar oused: Gender, Race, Age, School Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender 41.807 141.80747.036.000 .039 Age .818 2.409.460.631 .001 Race 3.169 4.792.891.468 .003 School 7.666 17.6668.625.003 .007 Gender/Age .707 2.354.398.672 .001 Gender/Race 3.747 4.9371.054.378 .004 Age/Race 2.957 8.370.416.912 .003 Gender Age Race 3.779 8.472.531.833 .004 Gender/ School 2.698 12.6983.035.082 .003 Age/School .109 2.054.061.941 .000 Gender/Age /School .005 2.003.003.997 .000 Race/School 1.819 4.455.512.727 .002 Gender Race/School 2.824 14.8243.178.075 .003 Age/Race /School .272 4.068.076.989 .000 Gender/Age/ Race School .023 1.023.026.873 .000 Error 1023.927 1152.889 Total 7639.000 1198

PAGE 141

140 Table 4-127. Correlations: While viewing sexually explicit materials I have masturbated. School Gender Age Race Viewing explicit web sites I have masturbated School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.187(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .000 N 1212121012111209 1208 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) .587(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .000 N 1210121012091207 1206 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .093(**) Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .001 N 1211120912111208 1207 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .136(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .000 N 1209120712081209 1205 viewing explicit web sites I have masturbated Pearson Correlation -.187(**).587(**).093(**).136(**) 1 Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.001.000 N 1208120612071205 1208 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-128. Mean: While viewing sexually expl icit web sites I have masturbated: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 2.20 1.245 1045 HBCU 1.52 .893 155 Total 2.11 1.227 1200

PAGE 142

141 Table 4-129. Mean: While viewing sexually expl icit web sites I have masturbate: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.64 .982 833 Males 3.19 1.029 365 Total 2.11 1.227 1198 Table 4-130. Mean: While viewing sexually ex plicit web sites I have masturbated: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 2.00 1.204 409 20-22 2.10 1.223 522 23-and above 2.30 1.252 268 Total 2.11 1.227 1199 Table 4-131. Mean: While viewing sexually expl icit web sites I have masturbated: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.70 1.039 210 AAPI 2.26 1.267 72 MAL 2.11 1.252 132 NHW 2.21 1.248 731 O 2.13 1.203 55 Total 2.11 1.227 1200

PAGE 143

142 Table 4-132. Tests of between subjects. While viewing sexually explicit web sites on the internet, I have masturbated. Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender 56.277 156027759.528.000 .049 Age 2.044 21.0221.081.340 .002 Race 3.487 4.872.922.450 .003 School 6.249 16.2496.610.010 .006 Gender/Age 2.971 21.4861.571.208 .003 Gender/Race 6.395 41.5991.691.150 .006 Age/Race 3.104 8.388.410.915 .003 Gender Age Race 4.477 8.560.592.785 .004 Gender/ School .941 1.941.995.319 .001 Age/School .011 2.006.006.110.994 .000 Gender/Age /School .207 2.104.678.896 .000 Race/School 2.562 4.6415.755.608 .002 Gender Race/School 5.441 15.441.402.017 .005 Age/Race /School 1.519 4.380.895.808 .001 Gender/Age/ Race School .846 1.846.344 .001 Error 1088.145 1151.945 Total 7140.000 1197 R squared=.848 (adjusted R Squared=.842)

PAGE 144

143 Table 4-133. While viewing sexua lly explicit web sites on the in ternet, I have masturbated. Mean: Gender Females, Race and School Gender Race School Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Females AAB PFU 1.643 .246 1.161 2.126 Females AAB HBCU 1.421 .096 1.232 1.610 Females AAPI PFU 1.945 .174 1.603 2.287 Females AAPI HBCU 2.000* .972 .092 3.908 Females MAL PFU 1.641 .116 1.413 1.869 Females MAL HBCU 1.000* .972 -.908 2.908 Females NHW PFU 1.689 .047 1.597 1.781 Females NHW HBCU 1.111 .495 .140 2.082 Females O PFU 1.633 .229 1.184 2.083 Females O HBCU 1.000 .439 .139 1.861 Males AAB PFU 3.486 .288 2.920 4.052 Males AAB HBCU 1.733 .213 1.315 2.152 Males AAPI PFU 3.407 .216 2.983 3.831 Males MAL HBCU ** ** ** ** Males MAL PFU 3.188 .161 2.872 3.504 Males MAL HBCU ** ** ** ** Males NHW PFU 3.315 .064 3.190 3.440 Males NHW HBCU 3.500* .595 2.332 4.668 Males O PFU 3.011 .237 2.547 3.476 Males O HBCU ** ** ** ** Based upon a modified population marginal mean ** This level of mean is not observed therefore the correspondi ng population marginal mean is not estimable Table 4-134. Tukey HSD. While viewing sexually explicit web sites on the internet, I have masturbated: Race Race Race Mean Difference Standard Error Level of Significance 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound AAB AAPI -.56.133.000-.92 -.20 AAB MAL -.41.108.002-.70 -.11 AAB NHW -.51.076.000-.72 -.30 AAB O -.42.147.034-.82 -.02

PAGE 145

144 Table 4-135. Correlations: I have had sex with online partners. School Gender Age Race I have had sex with on line partner(s) School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.057(*) Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .049 N 1212121012111209 1205 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) .143(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .000 N 1210121012091207 1203 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .027 Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .349 N 1211120912111208 1204 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .014 Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .623 N 1209120712081209 1202 I have had sex with on line partner(s) Pearson Correlation -.057(*).143(**).027.014 1 Sig. (2tailed) .049.000.349.623 N 1205120312041202 1205 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 4-136. Mean: I have had sex with on line partner(s): School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 1.30 .644 1043 HBCU 1.19 .537 154 Total 1.29 .632 1197

PAGE 146

145 Table 4-137. Mean.: I have had cybe rsex with on line partner(s): Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.23 .576 831 Males 1.41 .732 364 Total 1.29 .633 1195 Table 4-138. Mean: I have had se x with on line partner(s): Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 1.29 .630 408 20-22 1.26 .614 521 23-and above 1.33 .670 267 Total 1.29 .632 1196 Table 4-139. Mean: I have had se x with on line partner(s): Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.24 .589 209 AAPI 1.38 .721 72 MAL 1.33 .695 132 NHW 1.28 .629 729 O 1.25 .552 55 Total 1.29 .632 1197

PAGE 147

146 Table 4-140. Tests of between subjects. I have had cybersex with an online partner. Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender 1.457 11.4573.669.056 .003 Age .053 2.027.067.935 .000 Race .308 4.077.194.942 .001 School .421 1.4211.061.303 .001 Gender/Age .068 2.034.85.918 .000 Gender/Race .921 4.230.580.677 .002 Age/Race 1.016 8.127.320.959 .002 Gender Age Race 1.070 8.134.337.952 .002 Gender/ School .033 1.033.082.774 .000 Age/School .132 2.066.166.847 .000 Gender/Age /School .005 2.003.007.993 .000 Race/School .342 4.085.215.930 .001 Gender Race/School .729 1.7291.837.176 .002 Age/Race /School .167 4.042.105.981 .000 Gender/Age/ Race School .513 1.5131.293.256 .001 Error 455.834 1148.397 Total 2451.000 1194 R squared=.814 (adjusted R Squared=.807)

PAGE 148

147 Table 4-141. Correlations: I like to drink al coholic beverages while having cybersex. School Gender Age Race I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex with an online partner School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.044 Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .124 N 1212121012111209 1203 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) .140(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .000 N 1210121012091207 1201 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .083(**) Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .004 N 1211120912111208 1202 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .015 Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .610 N 1209120712081209 1200 I like to drink alcoholic beverages while having cybersex with an online partner Pearson Correlation -.044.140(**).083(**).015 1 Sig. (2tailed) .124.000.004.610 N 1203120112021200 1203 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 149

148 Table 4-142. Mean: I like to dri nk alcoholic beverages while ha ving cybersex with an online partner: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 1.06 .289 1042 HBCU 1.02 .180 153 Total 1.05 .277 1195 Table 4-143. Mean: I like to dri nk alcoholic beverages while ha ving cybersex with an online partner: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.03 .207 831 Males 1.11 .390 362 Total 1.05 .278 1193 Table 4-144. Mean: I like to dri nk alcoholic beverages while ha ving cybersex with an online partner: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 1.03 .190 407 20-22 1.05 .276 520 23-and above 1.08 .369 267 Total 1.05 .276 1194 Table 4-145. Mean: I like to dri nk alcoholic beverages while ha ving cybersex with an online partner: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.03 .218 208 AAPI 1.07 .256 72 MAL 1.05 .285 132 NHW 1.06 .300 728 O 1.02 .135 55 Total 1.05 .277 1195

PAGE 150

149 Table 4-146. Tests of between subjects. I like to drink alcohol while havi ng cybersex with an online partner. Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender .044 1.044.576.448 .001 Age .017 2.009.113.893 .000 Race .042 4.011.139.968 .000 School .043 1.043.571.450 .000 Gender/Age .011 2.006.075.927 .000 Gender/Race .310 4.0781.027.392 .004 Age/Race .663 8.0831.096.363 .008 Gender Age Race .279 8.035.461.884 .003 Gender/ School .002 1.002.028.867 .000 Age/School .062 2.031.413.662 .001 Gender/Age /School .175 2.0871.157.315 .002 Race/School .065 4.016.215.930 .001 Gender Race/School .034 1.034.448.504 .000 Age/Race /School .010 4.002.033.998 .000 Gender/Age/ Race School .018 1.018.239.625 .000 Error 86.611 1146.076 Total 1406.000 1192 R squared=.938 (Adjusted R squared=.936)

PAGE 151

150 Table 4-147. Correlations: I like to us e stimulants while having online sex. School Gender Age Race I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner School Pearson Correlation 1-.101(**)-.025-.662(**) -.018 Sig. (2tailed) .000.391.000 .542 N 1212121012111209 1197 Gender Pearson Correlation -.101(**)1.114(**).103(**) .103(**) Sig. (2tailed) .000 .000.000 .000 N 1210121012091207 1195 Age Pearson Correlation -.025.114(**)1.118(**) .033 Sig. (2tailed) .391.000 .000 .251 N 1211120912111208 1196 Race Pearson Correlation -.662(**).103(**).118(**)1 .002 Sig. (2tailed) .000.000.000 .948 N 1209120712081209 1194 I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner Pearson Correlation -.018.103(**).033.002 1 Sig. (2tailed) .542.000.251.948 N 1197119511961194 1197 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 152

151 Table 4-148. Mean: I like to use s timulants while having cybersex with an online partner: School School Mean Std. Deviation N PFU 1.03 .233 1037 HBCU 1.02 .181 152 Total 1.03 .227 1189 Table 4-149. Mean: I like to use s timulants while having cybersex with an online partner: Gender Gender Mean Std. Deviation N Females 1.01 .163 827 males 1.06 .328 360 Total 1.03 .227 1187 Table 4-150. Mean: I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online partner: Age Age Mean Std. Deviation N 18-19 1.02 .149 403 20-22 1.04 .272 519 23-and above 1.03 .220 266 Total 1.03 .225 1188 Table 4-151. Mean: I like to use s timulants while having cybersex with an online partner: Race Race Mean Std. Deviation N AAB 1.01 .155 207 AAPI 1.04 .204 70 MAL 1.04 .228 132 NHW 1.03 .253 725 O 1.00 .000 55 Total 1.03 .227 1189

PAGE 153

152 Table 4-152. Tests of between subjects. I like to use stimulants while having cybersex with an online: partner Independent Variable Type III Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F value Level of Significance Partial Eta Squared Gender .026 1.026.499.480 .000 Age .010 2.005.094.910 .000 Race .020 4.005.096.984 .000 School 9.88 E1988-E.002.965 .000 Gender/Age .068 2.034.663.515 .001 Gender/Race .045 4.011.220.927 .001 Age/Race .054 8.007.131.998 .001 Gender Age Race .180 8.023.439.898 .003 Gender/ School .001 1.001.018.894 .000 Age/School .019 2.009.184.832 .000 Gender/Age /School .034 2.017.332.717 .001 Race/School .026 4.006.126.973 .000 Gender Race/School .019 1.019.370.543 .000 Age/Race /School .008 4.002.040.997 .000 Gender/Age/ Race School .009 1.009.179.672 .000 Error 58.563 1140.051 Total 1313.000 1186 R squared= .955 (Adjusted R squared=.954) .

PAGE 154

153 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION The inf ormation provided in this chapter will attempt to provide insight and interpretation of the results of the data analyzed for this st udy. After this information is presented, limitations as to the sample population, questionnaire, and recommendations for further studies will be brought forth. With this particular research interest, there are more questions than answers and that will be a focus of this discussion. To begin this di scussion, revisiting the speci fic research questions is necessary. Also, to respond to these questions a review of the anal yses is in order. Length of Internet Use And Email Use Based upon the results of this research study a nd the question of length of internet use, neither age, race, gend er, nor university of record proved to be significant in length of email or internet use. Over 95% of all pa rticipants in the study have used the internet for least three years consecutively. As the results are insignificant, it does demonstrate that the population of both schools has been exposed to and has been using th e internet and email for at least three years. This is important because it indicates that almost all of the participants have enough experience to be able to navigate the specific areas of th e internet. This finding al so suggests that despite age, race, gender and university of record, all of the participants have a basis for understanding how to use the internet for information, entertainment and/or any other purposes. Frequency Of Email Use The next area of interest within this group of questions (identified in the survey) was how often the internet was used. It appears as though overall, all st udents who attend HBCU use their em ails less frequently than thei r racial counterparts at PFU. Ther e is a gender difference as well. In comparison to all other students, Black ma les and females attending HBCU use email less

PAGE 155

154 frequently than racially like counterparts at PFU. AA/PI females (overall) use email more than their male counterparts. There is a significant difference between AAB males frequency of email use as well. AAB males attending PFU are the most frequent of all male email users, and AAB males attending HBCU use email the least frequent of all email users. MAL females used email more frequently than their male counterparts. No interaction could be determined for MAL males, as there was no representation in the sample from HBCU. Gender differences demonstrate that males use email less frequently than females overall. Overall, the Tukey HSD proved significant on the interaction between AAB and all other race categories in the sample. In the case of gender, race and school, Af rican American Blacks use the internet less frequently than their racial counterparts. Th e Tukey HSD demonstrated that the interaction between races was significant for African American Blacks and all other races. AAB females from HBCU age 18 and older who participated in the sample demonstrated less frequent internet use than their age and race similar counterpar ts from PFU. AAB from HBCU who were age 18-20 and 23 a nd older demonstrated the least frequent use of all of their male and racially different counterparts. According to the sample population surveye d, AAB males and females attending HBCU use email less frequently than their PFU counterpa rts. There are a multitude of reasons for this difference. Perhaps one of the main reasons relates directly to socioeconomic factors. Unfortunately, African American Blacks (as a whole) have lower gross incomes overall, lower socioeconomic status, and this certainly affects availability and frequency of use of email and internet use directly related to availability of computers. In order to communicate, cellular telephones have gained popularity. In these current times (based on personal observation), everyone has a cellular telephone, and it is especially prevalen t in these age groups. Cellular

PAGE 156

155 telephones are cheap, making it a preferable met hod of communication. It is much quicker, and requires little skill or leve ls of literacy to use. Another difference that might be explained for less email use is the geography of the campuses. The campus at PFU is large and expansiv e, the population is large, more diverse and interactions because of computer availability and extensive lands cape may be more compatible with this population. Although this study did not address socioeconomic factors between the two institutions, this information would significantly help in addressing th ese issues. This finding may also be a direct result of mandatory computers at PFU Students who are enrolled at HBCU are not mandated to purc hase computers for school. Students at PFU are required to have these items upon admission. There are also larger computer work areas for the students at PFU, with tech support available nigh t and day. Students at HBCU, which is a private university, are at th e mercy of much smaller work areas and not having the availability of a computer when they need it. Approximately 80% of the students at HBCU have computers. Until last year (2007), wireless access was not available campus wide at HBCU. This has not been the case at PFU. St udents attending HBCU are primarily funded by financial aid, scholarships and student loans. Th ese students do not have an expendable income and are less likely to purchase a co mputer unless it becomes mandatory. Frequency Of Internet Use As previously stated, one of the variables th at m ay influence behavior is the frequency with which an individual spends pa rticipating in that particular behavior. With regard to internet use, outside of the aspect of communi cation (excluding www.myspace.com, and their contemporaries), the internet can be used fo r information seeking, entertainment, gaming, voyeurism, and education and because of this frequency of internet use is differentiated from email use.

PAGE 157

156 In this study, gender and age (together) as in teraction variables demonstrated the most striking differentiation in the frequency of internet use. Males and females who use the internet have an inverse relationship as th ey age. In this sample, females use the internet less frequently as they age, and males do the exact opposite. As males age, they tend to use the internet more. This difference may be demonstrative of the activities that are occu rring within the cyber environment of the internet or as a result of the internet. This finding demonstrates a need for further follow up investigation, as this may be significant in the development of programs in which internet use and gender might impact. Race was also a factor in fre quency of internet use. In an overall comparison, AAB used the internet less frequently than other races. Ba sed upon the means in this interaction, AAB used the internet less than NHW and MAL. This intera ction was also significa nt in the Tukey HSD. NHW used the internet more than AAB, but less than other races. These results may be a direct consequence of economics, and availability of th e internet in AAB. As suggested earlier, in follow up studies, it would be important to i nquire about socioeconom ic status, as this information may shed some light on crucial informa tion as it relates to fre quency of internet use and race. Finally, the four way interacti on effect of gender, race, school and age proved significant. Overall, females and males from HBCU used the internet less overall when compared to PFU, Females from HBCU used the internet less than their HBCU male counterparts. Black females from HBCU, regardless of age used the internet less than their Black female counterparts from PFU. Although there were other interactions fo r race, gender, school and age, many of the categories had either very few or no represen tation within these very specific groups. The specific information for AAB in this study is ci ted as there was adequa te representation in

PAGE 158

157 females. The representation of AAB males who attended HBCU were less in number in the older age groups, therefore the discussion is limited to females in the four way interaction. NHW females who attended HBCU also had less frequent internet use than their NHW counterparts at PFU. This finding may demonstrate that the signifi cance may be a result of availability versus racial differences as suggested earlier. In light of the lack of represen tation of some subgroups (age, race, and gender) within th e overall population, the interpreta tion of the results for these variables should be viewed with caution. The most important aspect of this question i nvolves the interaction of the variables, age and gender. It is revealing that the relationship of the frequency of internet use to age and gender may be significant in how and why it is used. Fu rther investigations may illuminate study areas that include such topics as inte rnet addictions and the impact of the internet on psychosocial development. Making Friends Online ANOVA statistics d emonstrated significance between the independent variables. Main effects were demonstrated in ge nder. Males were more likely to use the internet to make new friends. In this grouping, there was also a four way interaction between gender, race, age and school (p=.016). The Tukey HSD proved to be in significant for age, and significant for the interaction (multiple comparisons) of AAB when compared to MAL and NHW.. In comparison to university of record (sc hool), students attending HBCU were more likely to engage in making friends online. With regard to race both AAB males and females attending HBCU were more likely to make frie nds over the internet than those AAB attending PFU. Interestingly, when comparing all races; AAB were more likely to make friends over the internet than both MAL and NHW. Overall, these results demonstrat e that there is a difference in internet use in these populations.

PAGE 159

158 It is a little surprising that males in gene ral were more likely to make friends over the internet. This was a general purpose statement, and it did not specify the nature of the relationship. With that being said, the idea of relationships for on line games (i.e. XBOX), may be important as the technologica l aspect of the internet may be a driving factor in this relationship. It is more difficult to explain the trend in online friendship from di fferent universities. This may be a result of the cultural and demogra phic climate of the instit ution itself. This cannot be adequately explained by the current study, bu t would be an important aspect of further research. Although AAB (as a whole) in this study are mo re likely to make friends on the internet (as these results indicate), using these findings to gain insight into the relationships that are generated within the cyber realm and acted out in different scenarios may be premature without further information about the context of each situ ation. It may simply be a function of being further away from home and separated from friends Further investigation into the internet use patterns of all adolescents and emerging adults, pa rticularly as they pe ruse sexual topics may help us comprehend phenomena like the record leve l of STIs, earlier ages of sexual initiation and practice of serial monogamy among the adol escent and emerging adult populations of all races. These kinds of questions may be more appr opriately addressed in qualitative studies to allow understanding of the context of each situation. Meeting Friends Offline As previously stated, the idea of m aking frie nds online may influence the idea of meeting offline. The online survey asked specific questions regarding relationships. The questions were posed in this fashion: Hav e you ever met in person anyone you first met online. These questions were again analyzed using the variables of gender, race, university of record, and age.

PAGE 160

159 Univariate ANOVA tests were performed and th ere was no significant in teraction among any of the variables. According to the study completed by (McFar lane et al., 2002) th ere was a correlation between online relationships and offline meetings for sexual encounters. However, in this study, when this variable was compared with mee ting a person offline, there was no significant interaction. Therefore, although it has been examined in other st udies the results could not be replicated in this population. Ho wever, in the context of making friends on line, different questions need to be posed to have an understa nding of the offline re lationship. The questions that need to be asked include relationships for friendship, romance, gaming, and as such information may determine the nature of the offline relationship. I Have Posted Online Messages To Meet A Potential Partner The results f or this particular analysis dem onstrate that males are more likely than their female counterparts to post a message in order to meet a potential partner. Age also proved significant as males who participated in the st udy were more likely to post messages as they aged. The average means between ages and the male gender demonstrated an increase whereas females did the exact opposite. Their average mean s decreased as they got older. This may be influenced by the types of relationships that fema les are more likely to engage in as they age. These answers may also be respective of ongoing relationships. However, follow up questions as to the reasons for meeting a potential partner ar e in order to understand the relationship within the groups. The overall mean PFU (mean=1.445) was highe r than that of HBCU (mean=1.398). Non Hispanic Whites had higher overall means than thei r racial counterparts. However, the means of African American Blacks were second highest among the groups. Male s attending HBCU who identified themselves as 23 or older had the highest means of all groups, Females attending PFU

PAGE 161

160 had a higher average mean than that of their HBCU counterparts, and a trend in the means suggests that as they age they more frequently po st messages in order to meet a potential partner. This may be directly related to the racial mix from both schools. Again, the variation of ethnic population between HBCU and PFU is very po larized and the significant ANOVAs may be a direct result of this. Males attending HBCU had a higher overall average mean than their PFU counterparts in attempting to meet potential online partners However, the phenomenon with increases in the male populations between the unive rsities was the same phenomena that occurred in the female population. Males attending PFU de monstrated an increase in m eans related to age and posting messages in order to meet a pot ential partner. Remarkably, there was a jump in the mean of HBCU males 23 and older, which is almost twice of that of their age 20-22 year old counter parts. This should definitely be studied furthe r as there was reasonable representation in that grouping variable (N=29). As previously stated, in comparing race, age, gender, and school as factors in a four way interaction in this sample, many of the races do not have a single individual in the sample in certain age groups when separated for age and gende r. Therefore, it would be difficult to attempt to describe the interaction in between and as a result of these very specific areas. There is significance in the relatio nship, and as such further studies should attempt to include larger numbers within these categories. The question about meeting potential partne rs did not specifically ask the sample population what the purpose of the posting or the relationship of th e anticipated partner might be. It would be interesting to do a follow up survey with questions a bout the specific purposes of the posting to meet a potential partner (i.e. frie ndship, romantic relationship, and/or etc.).

PAGE 162

161 The importance of the internet as an a lternate way to meet new people was also significant to all independent vari ables. The means of age range rises subsequently with each advancing category. This finding co rrelates with many of the othe r data analyses discussed, and may be associated with the growing trend that the internet continues to become more subtly pervasive in daily lives of emerging adults (Weiser, 2000). Does Your Partner Object To The Amount Of Time You Spend Online? The first question analyzed had to do with whether or not a partner knew about an online friendships or relationshi ps (partner knowledge). This was a B oolean style question (yes or no). Gender and age were both significant as m ain effect independent variables. In the analysis of interactions gender and age proved significant as the interaction of both variables combined with the dependent variable. The interaction of gende r, race and school proved significant as well as the combined interaction of the variables when compared to the dependent variable. These comparisons were also significant on the MANOVA. The four way interaction of all independent and dependent variables again proved to be sign ificant with the combined interaction (p=.000) Based upon the sample population and the result s, Non White Hispanic s are less likely to disclose their on line relationships to their off line partners/rel ationships. Partner knowledge was also statistically significant for university of record. In this analysis, students who attended PFU were less likely to disclose their online relations hips than their HBCU co unterparts. This finding may be a direct result of the higher number of Non Hispanic Whites in attendance at PFU (n=637) versus HBCU (n=7). The results of uni versity of record should be discounted based upon the sample size of Non Hispanic Whites in attendance at HBCU. Gender proved to be interesting. Based upon the population represented, females are less likely to have a partner object to the amount of time that they spend online. The average female overall mean was higher (mean= 1.974) th an the male average mean (1.881).

PAGE 163

162 It is important to note that both Tukey HSD tests for age and race demonstrated insignificance among the interaction effects in multip le comparisons. Therefore, the results of the ANOVA show significance but based upon the sample (as evidenced by the Tukey HSD) there is no way to determine the relevance of the interact ion as it pertains to this grouping. There is no clear relationship between race a nd age as it relates to partner objection except that there may be racial differences that cannot be identified based upon the sample A larger sample of minority populations (i.e. AAPI and MAL) ma y provide an interpretable inte raction between race and age. The overall interaction demonstrates that there is a difference in partner objection between school, age, gender and race. As men tioned earlier, uneven dist ribution of the sample population make it difficult to interpret th e significance of th ese interactions. The interaction of the variables of gender and age when compared to partner objection proved to be most interesting. The inverse relationship that was indi cated in frequency of internet use was replicated in this question. Females, as they age are less likel y to experience partner objection, and males are more likely to experience partner objection. This may be a direct result of the specific use of the intern et. According to OReilly and colleagues (2007), males are more likely to view sexually explicit ma terial online, and women are more likely to feel threatened by, or object the use of the internet for this spec ific behavior. Although it was not specified on the current survey, the work of OReilly and colleagues (2007) suggests that a similar effect may be present in this population. Does Your Offline Partner Know About The Friends/Relationships That You Have Online In the analysis of this pa rticular variable, partner know ledge of online relationships demonstrated significant results in the interaction e ffect of age and school on the dependent variable. Overall, students atte nding PFU are more likely to shar e information with their offline partners about relationships th an those students attending HBCU. Regarding age, and partner

PAGE 164

163 knowledge, the Tukey HSD demonstrated significance in the multiple comparisons of age. There is an interaction between younger participants when compared to their older counterparts. Overall, students over the age of 23 are more lik ely to disclose online relationships to their partners when compared to their younger counter parts. In comparing ag e and university, the only age group that is less likely to di sclose information to their off line partners is HBCU students who are 23 or older. All other age ranges demo nstrate that PFU students are more likely to provide information to their offline partners. This may be related to the type of universit y (private, Christian base d) in comparison to a public university, as race proved to be insignificant. Based upon the results, again further indepth follow up about this behavior shoul d be initiated within this population. The Expression Of Jealousy Over Online Rela tionships The next question analyzed stated: Has your partner ever expre ssed jealousy over the relationships you have developed online? Using ANOVA, the results demonstrated significance in the interactions between ag e, race and school and age and race as grouped interaction variables, (age, race, and school, as one group interaction and race and school as the other). Unfortunately, these variable groupings proved insignificant on the MANOVA. Therefore, the results cannot be considered signif icant and/or reportable as such. The Importance Of Alternative Ways/Place Fo r Meeting Potentia l Online Sexual Partners The next variable to be tested was the in ternet/email is an alternative way/place for meeting potential sexual partners. This dependent variable was again tested comparing age, gender, university of record (school), and race as independent variables. The analysis proved significant for the main effect of gender as well as age when compared to the dependent variable. There was also a significant inte raction of age, race and schoo l; however this combination was

PAGE 165

164 not significant on the MANOVA. Both the main eff ects of gender as well as age were significant on the MANOVA. Age and race proved si gnificant on the Tukey HSD as well. In this grouping the means in males were much higher than that of their female counterparts. The overall male mean for gender wa s higher (3.520) as compared with the female sample in this group (2.524). This demonstrated a significant difference in the groups as to the importance of the internet as an important way to meet potential online sexual partners. Men in the sample believe that this is an important al ternative way to meet online sexual partners when compared to their female counterparts. Age also had a significant interaction. As i ndividuals are older (in the sample) they are more likely to value the internet as an alte rnate way to meet individuals. The Tukey HSD demonstrated that although the interaction is not significant between students 18-20 and those who are 20-22, there is a signifi cant interaction between those individuals who identified themselves as 23 and older when compared to th eir younger counterparts. Th is demonstrates that gender and age have a significant effect on the diffe rence in perceptions of the importance of the internet as a place to me et online sex partners. This is the third interaction among this grouping variable and identifies the continuing theme of how gender and age play a role in the importance as well as integration of the intern et as a component in life styles. I Have Accessed Sexually Explic it Materials On The Internet One of the questions ask ed of respondents wa s to assess their access to sexually explicit materials on the internet. The only significant an alyses proved to be gender and university of record in both ANOVA and MANOVA. Men were more likely than women to access sexually explicit materials on the internet. Students attending PFU were also more likely to access sexually explicit material. This demonstrates a significant difference in internet use from HBCU and PFU. This is another pattern that suggests th at further research is necessary when assessing

PAGE 166

165 sexual behaviors in this population. The differe nce in universities a nd the access of sexually explicit material may be a result of intern et accessibility, computer availability, and socioeconomics. One of the variables within the survey allu ded to religion and religiosity; however it was not analyzed in this study. The fact that HBCU is affiliated with a religious organization may have an impact on using the internet for this purpose. This relationship may require future investigation and analysis of data collected as a part of this study as it may provide elucidation of this specific area of interest I Have Accessed Sexually Explicit Ma terials T o Become Sexually Aroused I have accessed sexually explicit materials on the internet was anot her question posed to the sample population. The only significant anal yses proved to be gender and university of record (school) in these analyses (separately). Gender and school were also significant as a main affect on the MANOVA analysis. Not surprising, the means between males and females on accessing sexually explicit materials on the internet were almost 1 times higher in males than females. It is far more interesting that students who a ttend HBCU were much less likely to access the intern et than their counterparts at PFU in the pursuit of accessing sexually explicit materials for sexual arousal. This difference exists wit hout any connotation to race. As neither race nor age proved to be significant, this indicates that th e interaction of school perhaps has more to do with the different social environments, sociocultural history, a nd overall mission statement of the separate institutions. HBCU as previously stated is a Christian based organization, and this may be a factor in how this behavior is perceived and accepted by the overall popul ation. In contrast, PFU is a large public university with a huge overall student popula tion and the case for increased anonymity can be made when using the internet fo r these purposes. Another variable that was not

PAGE 167

166 analyzed in this study is the idea of guilt or sham e associated with using the internet for these purposes. Perhaps the interaction of religion/religio sity and guilt and/or shame may be associated as a deterrent in viewi ng erotica for arousal. This may be important in further studies when comparing students who attend religiously based universities to those who do not, or do not attend a university at all. In any case this is an area that requires further study. While Viewing Sexually Explicit Web Sites I Have Masturbated The question while viewing sexually explicit m a terial I have masturbated was analyzed with ANOVA. Based upon the results of these anal yses, males are far more likely than their female counterparts to view sexually explicit materials for the purpose of masturbation. The varying means demonstrated by males and females i ndicates that the male participants of this study were twice as likely to masturbate to sexually explicit web sites as their female counterparts. Seidman (2004) demonstrated that males are more likely to masturbate when viewing sexually explicit material and are more likely to view it alone. In cont rast, females who view sexually explicit material are more likely to view it with a partner withou t the act of self sexual gratification. The findings in this study support Seidmans (2004) findings. Students attending PFU are far more likely to view these materials for the purpose of masturbation. Coincidentally, (with the exception of AAPI females), all representatives at PFU of any other race are more likely to view this mate rial for the purpose of self gratification than their racial counter parts at HBCU. AAB males attending PFU are twice more likely to view sexually explicit material on the internet for the purpose of masturbation than th at of their AAB HBCU counterparts. The Tukey HSD analysis of multiple comparisons demonstrat ed within the groups that overall, AAB were less likely to masturbate while viewing sexually explicit material. To adequately interpret this

PAGE 168

167 result, further studies are needed in order to re plicate and validate these preliminary results and specify this information in both quantitative and qualitative inquiry. As previously stated, the idea of guilt or sh ame associated with using the internet for these purposes may be a factor in students fr om HBCU exhibiting these behaviors. Seidmans work (2004) also demonstrated that earlier expo sure to sexually explicit material may be a predictor of frequency of current pornography use. Therefore, the need for further research in this particular area becomes extr emely important in attempting to predict online sexual behaviors and offline behaviors. I Have Had Cybersex With An Online Partner Using ANOVA statistics, the question I have had cybersex with an online partner was analyzed. T his question was analyzed as the de pendent variable with age, gender, race and university of record (school). The results were insignificant. I Like To Drink Alcohol While Having Cybersex With An Online Partner Using ANOVA statistics, the question I like to drink alcohol wh ile having cybersex with an online partner was analyzed. This question w as analyzed as the dependent variable with age, gender, race and university of record (school). The results were insignificant. I Like To Use Stimulants While Havi ng Cybersex With A n Online Partner Using ANOVA statistics, the question I like to use stimulants (drugs) while having cybersex with an online partner was analyzed. This question wa s analyzed as the dependent variable with age, gender, race and university of record (school). The results were insignificant with all effects. Summary This study had a very large and controlled sam p le size that was extr emely representative of the U.S. population according to race. There was greater repres entation of African American

PAGE 169

168 Blacks (17.4%) than reflected in the U.S. populati on (12.3%). There was a gr eater percentage of Asian American/Pacific Islanders (6.0%) than in the U.S. total population (3.7%). Mexican Americans/Latinos represented 11. % of the study population and demo nstrate 12.5 % of the U.S. population. Non Hispanic Whites were under represented in the study as that group only represented 60.5% of the study, and 75.1 % of th e U.S. population according to the year 2000 census data (http://www.censu s.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-9.pdf). In the data analyzed for this study, gender cont inues to be the major factor in internet usage. Age is also very noteworthy when looking at trends of decisions that may likely influence behaviors. Race, specifically AAB appear to be a determinant of behaviors that involve internet use overall. This is very signifi cant as it may provide some insight as how to effectively use the internet for educative and health related topics. This study collected data related to internet use and education/information, but was not analyzed for this specific study. This study specifically looked at internet use differences in age, race, gender and school. Future analysis of gathered data may lead to further research within this topic. As for the idea of race as a determinant for e fficacy of use; there have been studies that discuss how internet knowledge and frequency of use is a determinant of efficacy (Potosky, 2006). Race was not identified as a dete rminant of efficacy of use. It is important to note that as this study compared a small private black univers ity to a major public university, there is a significant difference in internet use and intere st overall. As the st udy did not ask specific information regarding socioeconomic status (current or overall economic status history), there is no way to determine if the differences in internet use are related to race or socioeconomic status. This is an imperative area of further research, sp ecifically because it is foundational to the notion of whether or not race is an indicator of internet use. Finally, there needs to be research

PAGE 170

169 conducted to investigate to determine if thes e specific internet be haviors among AAB are a phenomenon to these particular universitie s or AAB college students in general. One of the most outstanding revelations of this study is the notion that internet use, length and frequency have a definite increasing influence and value during the emerging adult years (generally identified as late teens and early twen ties). The data seems to demonstrate that the internet becomes more omnipresent as emerging adults go through this growth and development period. This relationship s upports previous findings regarding a ddictive behaviors and the idea of an increasing frequency and le vel of satiety (Griffiths, 2001; Shapira et al., 2003; Young, 1998). Griffith (2001), alleges that behaviors most lik ely to promote sexual addiction within this venue include online pornography for masturbato ry purposes, and online sexual relationships (Griffiths, 2001). It is po ssible that the increase in age and valuing the importance of the internet for potential partner (sexual or otherwise) as well as part ner objection incr easing with age demonstrates this effect occurring within this emerging adult populat ion. According to Young (1998) frequency of internet use is central to the notion of addiction. Th e levels of need for satiety are increased with each passing encounter and it is in this desire to quench this physiological/ psychological urge. Young (1998) empha sizes that individuals can get lost in the interaction and the socialization of the internet and lose track of all time and spatial dimensions in the cyber realm. In adolescents and emerging a dults, this pattern may prove to be detrimental to psychosocial behaviors. Huang (2006) demonstrated that internet use (greater than 10 hours per week) leads to a breakdown in the psychosocial development of i ndividuals during the sixth phase of Ericksons developmental framework (intimacy versus isola tion). The inability to develop intimacy relates directly to the incapability to develop a sens e of identity and crea tes an environment for

PAGE 171

170 gratification in order to satiate this internal desire (Huang, 2006). The trend that has been identified in this study demonstrat es that the longer an individu al uses the internet, the more important it becomes (even for sexual arousal). If the importance of intimate relationships is devalued, then there is an effect on psychosocial behavior that must be addressed. It is this lack of intimacy in favor of the internet which feed s the idea of isolation and creates crises. These crises can manifest in the form of self gratif ication, self loathing, or more isolated behaviors (Hall & Parsons, 2001). In essence, this behavior has a potential to escalate in adults who have the full capabilities of cognition. Emerging adults and adolescents who do not have full cognition are at even greater risk. They may become lost in the conundrum of th is technological medium and lose their identities, and ab ility to form intimate meaningful relationships. This is another area of study that requires furthe r understanding, especi ally in adolescents and emerging adults. The level of importance of meeting for the pur pose of online sex relationships that has been identified within this populat ion sample may very well identif y a pattern that exists in a generalized population of emerging a dults. Multiple studies have demonstrated this behavior in gay populations (Ross, Rosser, Coleman, & Mazin, 2006). This may play a factor in the development of offline sex partners as this behavior may escalate. The questions in the survey were not specific enough to elicit this type of information; howev er it does identify the need for further study in this area using this age population. Limitations Although this was a large sample size, th ere were limitations to the populations in general. Gender was the main i ssue within the sample. Females dominated the sample population by over 30 %. The gender sample was approximately 70 % female and 30 % male. Interestingly, this result demonstrates that despite the topic (which many may assume is of more interest to emerging adult males) wome n are more likely to participate in surveys and

PAGE 172

171 therefore are better represented in the study. This fact is profuse dem onstrated throughout the literature and this phenomenon does occur whether su rveys are online or offline, females perhaps by nature are more interested in partaking in these endeavors compared with their male counterparts (Rhodes, Bowie, & Hergenrather 2003) The lack of sufficiency in the number of male participants may be a factor in the results. Another limitation of the study is that the questionnaire may not have been specific enough, and may have resulted in confusion amo ng some of the respondents. As respondents had the opportunity to email the primary investigator, some of the co mments directly related to the questions for both internet use and meeting online partners. A fe w respondents wrote in concerns about the wording of a few of the questions and an interpretation of meaning (i.e. what was the purpose behind the use of the internet or the meeti ng of an individual). An example of the type of email has been included to give an example. The participant wrote: I participated in the "Sexual Behaviors a nd Internet Use" Survey and I am a little concerned. I have never looked at sexually ex plicit material over th e internet and during many of the questions there was no N/A selectio n that could be made. I'm afraid that it will make the data appear a certain way that is not necessarily true, not just for me but for many people taking this survey. To provide an example, one of the questions was "I feel embarrassed when looking at sexually explicit mate rial over the internet." Do I answer as "Frequently" or "Never"? Do I speculate about my emba rrassment had I looked at the material, or do I say never because I have never looked at it? I wasn't sure who to address about this, but I just believe that this is some thing to look at. I think this research is very important and I would hate for it to be affected by this confusion. This may be a limitation and may also have been a factor for some of th e insignificant findings. A very important factor in cr eating a follow up study would be to take this data and develop future qualitative studies based upon this observati on. These qualitative findings could then be used to refine the questionnaire before replicating it.

PAGE 173

172 Suggestions For Further Investigation The quantitative information presen ted in this study demands follow up qualitative inquiry. Utilizing a mi xed methods approach to data co llection allows the quantitative data analysis to be followed by a qualitative follow up study. This is clarified as an explanatory approach (Creswell, 2003). This explanatory model allows the narrative of individuals and groups to bring out the subtle in formation that may describe asp ects of a quantitative study that can be translated into findings that can cap ture a peoples ideas a nd thus yield a further understanding of this important quantitative study. According to Tasshakkori and Teddlie (1998), using a mixed method model with sequential quantitative qualitati ve analysis provides an enge ndering environment in which to develop further understanding. This environmental change occurs as a result of group dynamics that are exposed. This resultant exposure allows t hose participating to take into consideration the subtle differences in people and settings. It is within these unique encounters that enrich the original findings of that specifi c quantitative data anal ysis. When the qualitative narratives are analyzed there is a stronger de scription of the actual quantitative analysis with the melding of these research methods One of the best suited venues to venture in to the virtual reality of the internet is ethnography. A key feature of ethnographic method is that has the ability to be used without a design, and therefore makes it unequivocally useful in cyber space. This lack of design is the key feature as it allows an unfettere d flow of the information between the researcher, group and or individuals simultaneously. Fortunatel y, it also allows the researcher to be even more flexible in response to the ebb and flow of the venue in which individuals are pa rticipating (Patton, 2002; Prendergast, 2004).

PAGE 174

173 Ethnographic methods are used predominantly to study societal issues. Qualitative inquiry, specifically ethnography has been used to study culture occurring within the internet. The attraction of cyberspace as a research medium provides versatility that is not restricted by geography. It has the unique ability to interact wi th groups that would not normally be available to the researcher. The use of this web based su rvey demonstrates the potential to provide large accurate sample sizes, minimization of the risk of unintended partic ipants (through limited advertisement), as well as improve the ethnic ge neralizability of the population. However, it was limited as to the ability to find the nuances in beha vior that may occur in all of the participants that cannot be reflected in the data collected in the survey. Very few studies have engaged in demons trating differences am ong students attending HBCU and public universities. This study utilized this design in order to capture the significant differences that occur within thes e populations in other venues (i.e. learning, culture). The results also demonstrate the importance of studying popul ations within their ow n cultural environment to denote differences and develop interventions through those findings. A few suggestions for further study include focus groups that are not only gender based, but age restrictive and ethnically similar. In order to investigate specific topics such as internet use, internet surfing whether recreational or educ ational; groups need to be age specific to the age groups within this study. Another recommendation would be to replicate this study within the HBCU system. This would allow using a similar demographic population on a larger scale. A re plication like this may validate the findings in this study within a larger more specific population. It would be necessary to use a mixed methods study to el icit more complete and rich responses.

PAGE 175

174 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT Sexual Behaviors of Internet Use of Traditional College Age Students: An exploratory study. Informed Consent Form to Participant in Research INTRODUCTION Name of person seeking your consent: Paula C. Pritchard Place of employment & position: University of Florida Doctoral Student This is a research study of sexual behaviors and internet use of traditional co llege age students is to explore how technology, specifically the in ternet may affect sexual decision making and influence sexual behaviors in tr aditional college age students. Could participating in this study offer any direct benefits to you? No, as described on question 11a. Could participating cause you any discomforts or ar e there any risks to yo u? No, as described on question 10. Please read this form which describes the study in some detail. I or one of my co-workers will also describe this study to you and answer all of your questions. Your par ticipation is entirely voluntary. If you choose to particip ate you can change your mind at any time and withdraw from the study. You will not be penalized in any way or lose any benefits to which you would otherwise be entitled if you choose not to participate in this study or to withdraw. If you have questions about your rights as a research subject, please cal l the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) office at (352) 846-1494. If you d ecide to take part in this study, please click agree at the end of this consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS STUDY 1. What is the Title of this research study?

PAGE 176

175 INFORMED CONSENT Sexual Behaviors and Internet Use of Traditional College Age Students 2. Who do you call if you have que stions about this research study? Paula C. Pritchard (pri ncipal investigator) pcwrn@ufl.edu (386) 562-4533 3. Who is paying for this research study? The sponsor of this study is University of Florida 4. Why is this research study being done? The purpose of this research study is to look at sexual behaviors and internet use of traditional college age students. The purpose is to explore how technology, specifically the internet may affect sexual decision-making and in fluence sexual behaviors in tr aditional college age students. If the internet does influence sexual decision making in traditi onal aged college student, the results of this study could help better understand the interaction between internet use and sexual behaviors You are being asked to be in this research study because tr aditional age college students by far have had more technology experience than older adults, as well as use the internet more often. As a traditional age college student (18-22), you are best suited to participate in this study. WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT IF YO U PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY? 5. What will be done as part of your normal clin ical care (even if you did not participate in this research study)? This is not applicable 6. What will be done only because you are in this research study? You are agreeing to participate in an anonymous online survey where your responses will be correlated and analyzed in order to understand more fully, internet use and sexual behaviors. If you have any questions now or at any time during the study, please contact Paula C. Pritchard in question 2 of this form. 7. How long will you be in this research study? Your participation in the su rvey will take approximately 30 to 45 minutes of your time

PAGE 177

176 INFORMED CONSENT 8. How many people are expected to take part in this research study? 2500 people are expected to particip ate in this research study WHAT ARE THE RISKS AND BENEFITS OF THIS STUDY AND WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS? 9. What are the possible discomforts and risks from taking part in this research study? There are no possible discomforts or risk involv ed with this study. Some of the questions may make you feel slightly uncomforta ble because of the subject matter. Your identity will remain anonymous, and therefore it is impossible to link your responses to yourself in any way. There are no physical or psychological risks to you by your participation in this study. Other possible risks to you may include: not app licable. This study may include risks that are unknown at this time. Participation in more than one research study or project may further increase the risks to you. If you are already enrolled in another research stud y, please inform Paula C. Pritchard (listed in question 2 of this consent form) or the person reviewing this consent with you before enrolling in this or any other rese arch study or project. Throughout the study, the research ers will notify you of new information that may become available and might affect your de cision to remain in the study. If you wish to discuss the information above or any discomforts you may experience, please ask questions now or call the name of PI or contac t person listed on the front page of this form. 10a. What are the potential benefits to you fo r taking part in this research study ? There is no direct benefit to you for pa rticipating in this research study 10b. How could others possibl y benefit from this study? Potential benefits include th e opportunity to improve understa nding of how traditional age college students utilize the internet and expl ore the possibilities of its influence on sexual behaviors and sexual decision making. 10c. How could the researchers benefit from this study? In general, presenting research results helps th e career of a scientist. Therefore, Paula C. Pritchard may benefit if the resu lts of this study are presented at scientific meetings or in scientific journals. There is no conflict of interest associated with the principal or any other associated with this study.

PAGE 178

177 11. What other choices do you have if you do not want to be in this study? You have been invited to participate in this research project because you are a student and as previously stated college students utilize the internet more frequently, and have more experience using the internet, and this may influen ce sexual decision making and behavior. The investigators associated with this project may or may not teach in your college or be associated with courses for which you are enrolled or might be expected to register in the future. Your participation is voluntary and any decision to part or not participate wi ll in no way affect your grade or class standing. If you believe that your participation in this st udy or your decision to withdraw from or not to participate has improperly affected your grades(s), you should discuss this with the dean of your college or you may contact the IRB office. 12a. Can you withdraw from this study? You are free to withdraw your consent and to stop participating in this study at any time. If you do withdraw your consent, you will not be pena lized in any way and you will not lose any benefits to which you are entitled. If you decide to withdraw your consent to partic ipate in this study for a ny reason, please contact Paula C. Pritchard at (386) 562-4533. They will tell you how to stop your participation safely. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, plea se call the Institutional Review Board (IRB) office at (352) 846-1494. 12b. If you withdraw, can information about you still be used and/or collected? Information obtained in the survey data collectio n after it is submitted by you cannot be removed as there are no identifiers to your specific answers. Survey data is maintained in aggregate form from the time of survey submission. 12c. Can the Principal Investigator withdraw you from this study? You may be withdrawn from the study without yo ur consent for the following reasons: If you do not meet the inclusion criteria, you can be w ithdrawn from participating in this study. WHAT ARE THE FINANCIAL I SSUES IF YOU PARTICIPATE? 13. If you choose to take part in this research study, will it cost you anything? No.

PAGE 179

178 INFORMED CONSENT 14. Will you be paid for taking part in this study? No. 15. What if you are injured because of the study? If you are injured as a direct result of your participation in this study, only professional consultative care that you receive at the University of Florida Student Health Care Center will be provided without charge. Any hospital charges in curred would be paid by you or your insurance provider. You will be responsible for any de ductible, co-insurance, or copayments. Some insurance companies may not cover costs associat ed with research studies. Please contact your insurance company for additional information. No additional compensation is offered. The Principa l Investigator and other involved with this study may be University of Florida employees. As employees of the University, they are protected under state law, which limits financial recovery for negligence. Please contact the Principal Inves tigator listed in ques tion 3 of this form if you experience an injury or have questions about any discomforts that you experience while participating in this study. 16. How will your privacy and the confidential ity of your research records be protected? Information collected about you will be stored in locked filing cabinets or in computers with security passwords. Only certain people have the legal right to review thes e research records, and they will protect the secrecy (confidentiality) of these records as much as the law allows. These people include the researchers for this study, certain University of Florida officials, the hospital or clinic (if any) involved in this research, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB; an IRB is a group of people who are responsible for looking after the rights a nd welfare of people taking part in research). Otherwise your research records wi ll not be released wit hout your permission unless required by law or a court order. Researchers will take appropriate steps to protect any information they collect about you. However there is a slight risk that informati on about you could be reveal ed inappropriately or accidentally. Depending on the nature of the information such a release could upset or embarrass you, or possibly even affect your insurability or employability. If the results of this research are published or presented at scientific meetings, your identity will not be disclosed. 17. Authorization You have read about this studys purpose, procedures, possi ble benefits, and risks; the alternatives to being in the st udy; and how your privacy will be protected. You may download a copy of this form. You have been given the opportunity to ask questions before you agree and you have read that you can ask othe r questions at any time. By clic king on agree at the bottom of this form this form you are voluntarily agreeing to participate in this study. You are not waiving any of your legal rights. Agree Disagree

PAGE 180

179 APPENDIX B INTERNET SURVEY

PAGE 181

180

PAGE 182

181

PAGE 183

182

PAGE 184

183

PAGE 185

184

PAGE 186

185

PAGE 187

186 APPENDIX C MASS EMAIL Mass Email Letter Dear Student, As a doctoral student at the University of Florida, I am cordially inviting you to participate in a survey that is investigating Sexual Behaviors and Internet Use in Traditional College Aged Students (aged 18-22). This survey is complete ly anonymous and will take approximately 30-45 minutes of your time to complete. Your participation in this research may in crease understanding of how the World Wide Web plays a part in sexual decision making. Questions asked on the survey include basic demographic information, questions about frequenc y and duration of internet use, use if the internet to surf for sexually related content, use of the internet to establish personal re lationships i.e. friends), use of the internet for sexual entertainment, emotional arousal and perception, an d finally, public access to sexually explicit material on the internet. Should you decide to participate in this ground breaking researc h, please complete the entire survey by allowing yourself an appropriate am ount of time to complete this survey. Again, your participation is completely volunt ary and your results remain anonymous. Data collected will be in aggregate fo rm, and information will only be published for this dissertation in aggregate (grouped) delimited (numbers) data. The results of the data collected from this survey will not include the name of the unive rsity that you attend, nor any of your particular demographic data.

PAGE 188

187 Thank you for your participation! In you have any questions, please contact: Paula C. Pritchard pcwrn@ufl.edu If you are interestedplea se click on the link to http://paula.pritchard.name/uf http://paula.pritchard.name/bcu

PAGE 189

184 LIST OF REFERENCES Anderson, K. (2001). Internet use among co llege students: An exploratory study. Journal of American College Health, 50 (1), 21. Bancroft, J. (2002). Biological factors in hum an sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(1), 15. Bogard, W. (1996). The Simulation of Surveillance: Hypercontrol in Telematic Societies Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bogart, L., Cecil, H., Wagstaff, D., Pinkerton, S ., & Abramson, P. (2000). Is it "sex"?: College students' interpretations of sexual behavior terminology. The Journal of Sex Research., 37(2), 108-117. Boies, S. C. (2002). University students' uses of and reactions to online sexual information and entertainment: Links to online and offline sexual behaviour. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 11(2), 77. Brener, N., Lowry, R., Kann, L., Kolbe, L., & al e. (2002). Trends in sexual risk behaviors among high school students --United States, 1991-2001. JAMA, 288 (15), 1842. Brown, J., & Newcomer, S. (2002). Television viewing and adolescents' sexual behavior. Journal of homosexuality, 21 (1), 77-91. Bryant, P., & Bryant, J. A. (2005) Adolescents and the internet. Adolescent Medicine Clinics, 16(2), 413. Canli,T, & Gabrieli, J. (2004) Imagi ng gender differences in sexual arousal. Nature Neuroscience, 7, (4). 325. Calvert, S., Jordan, A, & Cocking, R. (2002). Children in the digital age: Influences of electronic media on development. Westport, CT. PraegerPublisher/Greenwood Publishing Group. CDC. (2006). Trends in reporta ble sexually transmitted diseases in the United States. Retrieved December 23, 2007 from: http://www.cdc.gov/stad/stats. Collins, R. E., Elliott, M., Berry, S., Kanouse, D., Kunkel, D., Hunter, S., et al. (2004). Watching sex on television predicts adolesce nt initiation of sexual behavior. Pediatrics, 114 (3), 280-289. Cooper, A., Marahan-Martin, J., Mathy, R., & Maheu, M. (2002). Towards an increased understanding of user demographics in online sexual activities. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 28 105-109.

PAGE 190

185 Cooper, A., Scherer, C., Boies, S. C., & Gordon, B. L. (1999). Sexuality on the internet: From sexual exploration to pathological expression. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30 (2), 154-164. Couper, M., Conrad, F., Tourangeau, R. (2007).Visual context in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 17, (4), 623. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Delamater, J., & Friedrich, W. (2002). Human sexual development. The Journal of Sex Research, 39 (1). DenizetLewis, B. (2004, May 30, 2004). Friends, frie nds with benefits and the benefits of the local mall. The New York Times. Dickerson, S., Reinhart, A. M., F eeley, T. H., Bidani, R., & al, e. (2004). Patient internet use for health information at three urban primary care clinics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11 (6), 499. Dodge, B., Reece, M., Cole, S., & Sandfort, T. (2004). Sexual Compulsivity Among Heterosexual College Students. The Journal of Sex Research, 41 (4), 343. Duffy, M., (2002). Methodological i ssues in web-based research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 34 (1),83. Durham, M. G. (1999). Girls, media, and the ne gotiations of sexuality: A study of race, class, and gender in adolescent peer groups. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 193. Escobar-Chaves, S. L., Tortolero, S., Markham, C., Low, B., Eitel, P., & Thickstun, P. (2005). Impact of the media on adolescent sexual attitudes and behaviors. Pediatrics [NLM MEDLINE], 116(1), 303. Goodson, P., McCormick, D., & Evans, A. (2001). Searching for sexually explicit materials on the Internet: An explorator y study of college students' behavior and attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(2), 101. Griffiths, M. (2001). Sex on the Internet: Obse rvations and implicati ons for Internet sex addiction. The Journal of Sex Research, 38 (4), 333. Gruber, E., & Grube, J. (2000). Adolescent sexu ality and the media: A review of current knowledge and implications. Western Journal of Medicine, 172 (3), 210. Hall, A., & Parsons, J. (2001). Inte rnet addiction: College student case study using best practices in cognitive behavior therapy. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 23 (4), 312-328.

PAGE 191

186 Hightow, L., MacDonald, P., Pilcher, C., Kaplan, A., Foust, E., Nguyen, T., et al. (2005). The unexpected movement of the HIV epidemic in the southeastern United States: Transmission among college students. JAIDS, 38(5), 531-537. Hoffman, D., Novak, T. P., & Venkatesh, A. (20 04). Has the internet b ecome indespensible? Communications of the ACM, 47 (7). Hollander, D. (2004). Changes in teen agers' sexual behaviors stall. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36 (4), 141. Holowaty, P., Harvey, B., Feldman, L., Rannie, K ., Shortt, L., & Jamal, A. (1997). A comparison of the demographic, lifestyle and sexual be haviour characteristics of virgin and nonvirgin adolescents. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6 (3), 197. Howard, D., & Wang, M. (2004). Multiple SexualPartner Behavior Among Sexually Active US Adolescent Girls. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28 (1), 3. Huang, Y. (2006). Identity and intimacy crisis an d their relationship to internet dependence among college students. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9 (5), 571-576. Koch, W., & Pratarelli, M. (2004). Effects of intro/extraversion a nd sex on social internet use. North American Journal of Psychology, 6 (3), 371-382. Kraut, R., Patterson, J., Landmark, V., Kiesle r, K., Mukopadhay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well being? American Psychologist, 539 1017-1031. LaRose, R., & Eastin, M. (2004). A social cognitive theory of inte rnet uses and gratifications: Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(3), 358. Leiblum, S. (2001). Women, sex and the internet. Sexual and Relationship Therapry, 16 (4), 390405. Longmore, M. A., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Rudolph, J. L. (2004). Self esteem, depressive symptoms and adolescent sexual onset. Social Psychology, 67 (3q), 279. Malone, R. (2000). Research, the internet and the way things are. Health Education and Behavior (27). 697. McCown, J., Fischer, D., Page, R., & Homant, M. (2001). Internet relationships: People who meet people. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 4 (5), 593-596. McFarlane, M., Bull, S., & Rietmeijer, C. (2000). The internet as a newly emerging risk environment. JAMA, 284 (4).

PAGE 192

187 McFarlane, M., Bull, S. S., & Rietmeijer, C. (2 002). Young adults on the In ternet: risk behaviors for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. The Journal of Adolescent Health Negro Education, 31 (1), 11-16. Mitchell, K., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2001). Risk factors for and impactof online sexual solicitation of youth. JAMA, 285 (23). MMWR, (2006). Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States, 2005. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5505.pdf Morris, P. (2004). Media pulse: Meas uring the media in kid's lives. Patient Care, 15 (7), 26. Morrison, T., Bearden, A., Harriman, R., Morri son, M., & Ellis, S. (2004). Correlates of exposure to sexually explicit material among Canadian post-secondary students. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality., 13 (3/4), 143-157. National Vital Statistics Repor ts. (2005). Young people at risk: HIV/AIDS among america's youth. Retrieved July 30, 2005, 2005, from www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/youths.htm Neilson Ratings. (2005). Re trieved June 30, 2005, 2005, from http://www.nielsennetra tings.com/news.jsp?s ection=dat_to&country=us. O'Reilly, S., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. (2007). College students attitudes toward pornography use. College Student Journal. 41 (2), 402. Pendergast, C. (2004). The typical outline of an ethnographic research publication Teaching Sociology, 32 (3), 322. Polit, D. (1996). Data analysis and statistics for nursing research. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall Potosky, D. (2006). The internet knowedge (iKnow) measure. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2760-2777. Remez, L. (2000). Oral sex among adoles cents: Is it sex or is it abstinence? Family Planning Perspectives, 32 (6), 298. Rhodes, S., Bowie, & Hergenrather (2003). Coll ecting behavioural data using the world wide web: Considerations for researchers. Journal of Epidemiological Community Health,57, 1. 68. Rich, M. (2003). Boy, Mediated: Effects of En tertainment Media on Adolescent Male Health. Adolescent Medicine, 14 (3), 691. Roberts, D. (2000). Media and youth: Access, exposure and privatization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(2), 8-14.

PAGE 193

188 Rogelberg, S., Stanton, J. (2007) Introduction: Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10 (2), 195. Ross, M., Rosser, B., Coleman, E. &Mazin, R. ( 2006). Misrepresentation on the internet and in real life about sex and HIV: A study of Latino men who have sex with men. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 8 Rostosky, S. S., Regnerus, M. D., & Wright, M. L. (2003). Coital debut: Th e role of religiosity and sex attitudes in th e add health survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(4), 358. Sanders, C. E., Field, T. M., Diego, M., & Kaplan, M. (2000). The relationship of internet use to depression and isolation. Adolescence, 35 (138), 237. Sanger, D., Long, A., Ritzman, M., Stofer, K., & Davis, C. (2004). Opinions of female juvenile delinquents about their intera ctions in chat rooms. Journal of Correction Education,55 (2),120. Seidman, E., (2004). The pornographic retr eat: Contemporary patterns of pornographyuse and the psychodynamic meaning of frequent pornography use for heterosexual men. Dissertation Abstract International: Sec tion B:. The Sciences and Engineering (64) (8B), 4063. Shapira, N., Lessig, M., Goldsmith, T., Szabo, S., Lazoritz, M., & Stein, D. (2003). Problematic internet use: proposed classif cation and diagnostic criteria. Depression and Anxiety (17), 207-216 Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks: Sage Taylor, L. D. (2005). Effects of visual and verb al sexual television conten t and perceived realism on attitudes and beliefs. The Journal of Sex Research, 42 (2), 130-138. Weber, B., Yarandi, H., Rowe, M., & Weber, J. (2005). A comparison study: Paper versus webbased data collection and management. Applied Nursing Research 18, 182. Weiser, E. (2000). Gender differences in intern et use patterns and internet application preferences: A two sample comparison. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 3 (2), 167-178. Weisskirch, R. S., & Murphy, L. C. (2004).Frien ds, porn, punk: Sensatio n seeking in personal relationships, internet activities, and music preferences among college friends. Adolescence, 39 (54), 13. Welych, L. R., Laws, B., Fiorito, A., Durham, T., & al, e. (1998). Formative research for interventions among adolescents at hi gh risk for gonorrhea and other STDs. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 4 (6), 54. Young, K. (1998). Caught in the Net: How to recognize the signs of Intern et addiction and a winning strategy for recovery. New York.

PAGE 194

189 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH My name is Paula C. Pritchard. I have been a nurse for over 20 years. I have practiced in the state of California as well as the state of Florida. My area of expertise is in maternal child nursing. I have worked in both the acute care set tings as well as the public sector caring for infants, children, adolescents and emerging adults. I have worked for the predominant portion of my career with the individuals and families that have been exposed to HIV disease, drug addiction, STI and those who had no or little acce ss to appropriate healthcare. During the last five years, I have had the opportuni ty to teach as both as an adjunc t and assistant professor at the Great Bethune-Cookman University. I am a graduate from California state university at Fullerton where I received a baccalaureate degree in nursing sc ience (BSN). Prior to the BS N, I received a associate of science in nursing from San Jaci nto Junior College in San Jaci nto, California. I completed my master of science in adult health and administ ration for the University of Phoenix in Maitland, Florida. My utilization review project involved African Amer ican Black Women in Volusia County with HIV disease and barriers to health ca re access. This research developed my personal desire to improve health care a ccess and preventable diseases from impacting this population to total annihilation. As this area of research has been one that is very close to my heart, during my doctoral studies, I determined that qualitative inquiry was th e very best method to use to gain insight into this pandemic. I developed this eclectic mi nor that encompassed psychology, anthropology, internet technology, and a deeper understanding of adolescent and emerging adults within this framework.

PAGE 195

190 Future plans include immediately pursuing th e second phase of this study using one of the populations within the sample. I also plan to attempt to develop a survey tool that will elicit clearer responses from participants in these vital areas. After developing that tool, I will investigate the internet phenome non within the HBCU system and replicate parts of the study for clarification and deeper understanding. I hope to make a diff erence in this at risk population.