|
With the increase in use of media without supervision during adolescence, research attention and psychology in New York have increasingly focused on whether media consumption has negative effects on adolescents (Roberts, Henriksen, and Foehr, 2004). Research of media effects on adolescents has historically focused more on violence, but has also focused on adolescent’s sexual beliefs and behavior. Because media frequently contains sexual content, it is often suggested that media assumes a prominent role in the sexual education of adolescents (Roberts et al., 2004; Ward, 2005). Those practicing psychology in New York are no exception to making this assumption. Some correlational studies have linked exposure to sexual media content including music, music videos, and magazines, to earlier sexual activity but results have been mixed (Kopacz, 2006; Werner-Wilson, Fitzharris, and Morrissey, 2004). As a New York City therapist, I have found that a limitation in this field, however, is that sexual content is varyingly defined. Much media includes passionate kissing, flirting, and intimate touching, while less includes implications of sexual intercourse (Kunkel et al., 1999; Ward, 2005). Never less, the correlation between media and sexual behaviors is potentially important. Virtually every adolescent will be focused on sex at some point during development and there is more content related to sex than to violence when all media are considered (Roberts et al., 2004). Lastly, because sex is often not discussed between adults and adolescents, adolescents by default look to other sources, including media, for information. This is why I, a New York City therapist, propose looking at parent-child communication regarding adolescent sexuality. Another important factor often studied in relation to adolescent sexual attitudes and behaviors is neighborhood and community (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2004). Focus on community factors by New York City therapists has increased as views have shifted towards more systemic theories of development. A focus on community remains to be important in the practice of psychology in New York. The most widely studied area in neighborhood research in recent years has been on adolescent sexual and fertility outcomes, specifically focusing on national data sets for older adolescents in low socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2004). The presence of advantaged SES conditions such as affluent or professional neighbors has been associated with a lower risk of nonmarital childbearing, but results are mixed (Kirby, 2002; Mancini and Heubner, 2004; South and Crowder, 1999). Some studies found that neighborhood factors did not account for statistically significant amounts of variance (Mancini and Heubner, 2004; Santelli, Lowry, Brener, and Robin, 2000), while other studies found that factors such as higher divorce rates, unemployment rates, and crime rates were significantly correlated with an earlier initiation of sex (Aronowitz, Rennells, and Todd, 2006; Cubbin, Santelli, Brindis, and Braveman, 2005; Kirby, 2002). As a clinician practicing psychology in New York, I am aware that selection bias is a problem with studies using national data sets, city or regional surveys, and neighborhood-based surveys (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2004). Families have some choice as to where they live, and some omitted variable associated with neighborhood residence, such as parental motivation or mental health problems, could account for observed neighborhood effects. Additionally, New York City therapists should know that adolescents who live in low-SES neighborhoods may also have low expectations about the opportunities available to them, resulting in a disincentive to avoid problem behavior. Written by Dr. Cortney Weissglass as part of Clinical Research Project submitted to the Faculty of the American School of Professional Psychology of Argosy University, Washington, DC Campus, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Psychology in Clinical Psychology. Dissertation chair: Ann Womack, PhD and Member: Jennifer McEwan, PhD. August, 2010. For a full list of references, contact Dr. Weissglass at cweissglass@gmail.com. In late 2012, Dr. Weissglass will be licensed to practice psychology in New York. As a New York City therapist, Dr. Weissglass will be working with clients of all backgrounds to address issues ranging from anxiety and depression to more serious issues, including suicidal thoughts.
Related Articles -
psychology in New York, New York City therapist,
|
