Methodological issues.

Measuring sexual harassment prevalence is not straightforward. As many authors point out, “There is no single universal definition of sexual harassment; however, common to all definitions is the fact that the prohibited behavior is unwanted and harms the victim” [10] (p268). Prevalence studies (including of online sexual harassment) report wide variations in rates. While some variation reflects real differences related to context, much is for methodological reasons. Studies use varying definitions, both in terms of the authors’ own perspective and how it is operationalized, varying time-frames and samples with different characteristics [9, 11–16].

Most adolescent studies come from the U.S and have used a modified version of ‘Hostile Hallways’. The original questionnaire, developed in the early 1990s, comprises a list of 14 physical/non-physical behaviors, prefaced by a definition of sexual harassment, to which students respond in respect of frequency of victimization and perpetration over their entire school life [17]. Factor analysis indicates that it taps dimensions broadly representing visual/verbal harassment versus sexual contact [18, 19]. Measures of online sexual harassment have also ranged from one or two general items [20, 21] to longer questionnaires, often based on Hostile Hallways [15, 16].

Substantive findings: Sexual harassment prevalence among adolescents.

As noted above, studies report wide variations in self-reported sexual harassment rates, but all find it is common in adolescence. In both the original 1993 ‘Hostile Hallways’ study of 8-11^th grade students and a 2001 repeat survey, around 80% reported they had been the target of, and around 55% had perpetrated, some form of sexual harassment during their school lives; the most common experience was being the target of sexual comments, jokes, gestures or looks [22]. More recent studies based on sub-sets of the original Hostile Hallways items found some form of school-based sexual harassment was reported by 48% of 7-12^th graders in respect of the 2010–11 school year [23], and by 43% of 9^th graders in respect of the past three months [24]. Internet harassment victimization was reported by 35% and perpetration by 21% of 10–15 year-olds participating in a 2006 US national cross-sectional online survey [25].

Although there are some exceptions (e.g. [26]), these and similar studies of adolescents generally find higher rates of victimization among girls and of perpetration among boys. Victimization and, some studies also find, perpetration, are also higher among young people whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual and who are not cis-gender [15, 27–29]. Rates also vary by age/grade, most studies finding highest levels around 9^th grade (age 14–15) [17, 26, 30]. There is also evidence of an association between sexual harassment victimization and perpetration in adolescence [23, 31].

There have been almost no published UK-based prevalence studies of adolescent sexual harassment, particularly within the academic literature or focusing on school-based experiences (although there have been recent studies of rates of adolescent partner interpersonal violence (e.g. [32]) and related school-based interventions (e.g. [33]). A 2010 online poll of 788 UK 16–18 year-olds about school-based sexual harassment found 71% had heard sexual name-calling towards girls a few times a week or more, 28% had seen sexual pictures on mobile phones a few times a month or more and 29% of girls had experienced unwanted sexual touching [34]. A 2014 largely online survey of 13–21 year-old young women found 59% had experienced past year school/college-based sexual harassment, among whom 37% reported jokes or taunts of a sexual nature and 20% had experienced unwanted sexual attention [35]. The sampling, opt-in and online nature of both studies means their results may not be generalizable. A 2017 school-based survey which asked how often sexual harassment was experienced in school and elsewhere found 9.5% of English 12–14 year-olds reported any experience, however results were not disaggregated by setting [33]. The 2021 UK government review found that among 13–18 year olds, 92% girls and 74% boys reported sexist name-calling happened ‘a lot’ or ‘sometimes’ between people of their own age, while among girls, 88% had been sent pictures/videos they did not want to see and 64% had experienced unwanted touching, with increased likelihood of both offline and online sexual harassment and violence among older adolescents [2].

Methodological issues.

The term ‘sexual harassment’ has been defined by many jurisdictions and organizations, including the US Centers for Disease Control (for gathering public health surveillance data) [36] and the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (as employer guidance) [37]. However, these definitions are unlikely to be known to people without specialized or professional knowledge, particularly children and young people. Sexual harassment research has adopted both a priori definitions (based on general statements about the type of behavior or a list of specific behaviors) and empirical definitions (based on asking respondents whether they have ever been sexually harassed and analyzing/classifying the experiences described) [38]. Some authors have criticized the idea that it should include any behavior which makes someone feel uncomfortable [39] and subjective perceptions may present dilemmas when ambiguous behaviors are inconsistently perceived as sexual harassment [10]. This may be a particular issue for adolescents; pressure to develop sexual relations at a time when they are learning to express their desires appropriately may mean it is hard to differentiate playful from abusive behaviors [18, 40, 41]. Thus, qualitative research with UK adolescents has found confusion as to the boundaries between consent and coercion [42], and what constitutes sexual violence or exploitation [43].

Substantive findings: What ‘counts’ as sexual harassment among adolescents?

Studies almost universally find differences in what ‘counts’ as sexual harassment according to characteristics of both the behavior and context, and of the individual making the rating. In respect of the behavior, a 1983 study of US undergraduates found incidents initiated by young women were viewed more positively [44]. A 1995 study of US high school students found criteria on what was viewed as sexual harassment included use of quid pro quo exchanges, physical force, repetition, levels of coercion and perpetrator intent, whether the target was uncomfortable, status/power differences and familiarity between the two people [45]. It is possible that some of the factors identified in these older studies may have changed over time. While one study comparing undergraduates in 1990 and 2000 found “surprisingly few cohort differences in the perception of harassment” [46] p344, another, comparing data gathered before and during the #MeToo movement found past unwanted experiences were increasingly recognized as ‘sexual assault’ over time [47].

In respect of online compared with offline, comments of a misogynist nature, relating to dress or using nicknames were seen as having more impact online than in classroom settings among US undergraduates [48]. In a Belgian study, online sexual harassment was perceived as more severe by adolescents when personally targeted, hard to escape (e.g. anonymous perpetrator, public message), involved insults, included non-consensual sex-related image-sharing or was frequent and adult-initiated [49], while a UK study of sexting (sharing sexual messages/images) found little concern about sexual approaches from strangers, who could be dismissed as ‘weirdos’, but far more about sexting from peers [50].

Rater gender is also important, with women tending to view a greater range of behaviors as sexual harassment [51]. However, while some studies have found young women are more likely to define more ambiguous situations as sexual harassment and/or particular behaviors as more severe or unacceptable [2, 45, 52], others have not [53, 54].

Online survey sample.

In two of the three schools, all students in Scottish school years Secondary 2 (S2—average age 13), S4 and S6 (average ages 15 and 17) were invited to participate. In the third school, only those in years S4 and S6 were invited, because the school considered the topic unsuitable for the S2 age-group. We provided information sheets (including opt-out consents) for parents, separate student information sheets, and both verbal explanation and a tick-box consent at the start of the survey (information and consent forms available in S1 File).

The potential sample was 904 students, of whom 638 (70.6%) completed a survey between June and November 2019. Opt-out was very low, with almost all non-response due to student absence on the survey day or, in one school, missing the survey due to organizational issues (planned additional data collection not completed due to COVID-19 related school closure). The achieved sample comprised N = 281 (44.0%) boys and N = 340 (53.3%) girls (N = 17 (2.7%) missing on this variable); there were N = 178 (27.9%) students from the S2 school year, N = 305 (47.8%) from S4 and N = 155 (24.3%) from S6. (Note that S6 year groups are smaller since around 40% of Scottish students leave secondary school after S4 or S5, the majority entering Further Education (that is post-secondary school study not taken as part of an undergraduate or graduate degree).)

Focus group sample.

Focus group discussions were conducted in January-February 2020 with a single class group of students from each of the three school years in two schools (not the third due to COVID-19 related school closure). Further information sheets were provided to parents and students. These described us as university researchers studying the Equally Safe at School project and inviting the student to join a small group discussion, some of which “will cover sexual harassment at school which you may find uncomfortable. We will be discussing issues in general, and not personal experiences. We need to ask these questions to understand the scale of the problem …”. The invitation explained that participation was voluntary and described our procedures in respect of confidentiality, anonymity and consent. Participants provided written consent at the start of each group (information and consent forms available in S1 File). Each participating class was divided into three (single gender if possible) groups, numbers ranging 4–10, with most students choosing their group. The total number of students participating in a focus group was 119 (41 S2s, 46 S4s and 32 S6s), split into 18 groups (three girl-only, two boy-only and one mixed S2 groups; three girl-only, two boy-only and one mixed S4 groups; three girl-only and three boy-only S6 groups).

Online survey.

The online survey was completed in school under exam conditions led by researchers and survey assistants, via students’ phones or tablet computers provided for those without a (suitable/working) phone. In addition to sexual harassment, it included items on socio-demographic factors, including gender and sexual orientation (heterosexual or straight; gay or lesbian; bisexual; other).

Sexual harassment victimization and perpetration were assessed via 17 behavioral items (Table 1): the original 14-item Hostile Hallways questionnaire [17] with slight modifications to encompass the possibility that the behavior might be online (e.g. “Shown, given, or left sexual pictures. photographs. illustrations, messages or notes” rephrased as “Showed you or sent you sexual images or messages that you did not want to see”) and three additional items (Table 1, items 15–17) representing personally-targeted online behaviors included in other adolescent studies [16, 25] (e.g. “Pressured you to send them a naked (nude) or sexual picture of yourself”). The test-reliability correlation coefficient for the original Hostile Hallways victimization behaviours has been assessed as 0.95 [22].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Individual victimization and perpetration items by gender.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262248.t001

While mindful of suggestions that the words ‘sexual harassment’ might act as cues when assessing prevalence [9], we followed the Hostile Hallways methodology which includes a definition [17, 22, 23]. The items were therefore preceded by “In this section there will be questions about your experience of sexual harassment within the school, but also on the way to school. What is sexual harassment? It is any unwanted behavior of a sexual nature that you find offensive or which makes you feel uncomfortable, intimidated or humiliated”.

To assess victimization, students were asked “In the last 3 months, how often, if at all, has anyone done any of the following things to you at school or on the way to or from school when you did not want them to? (This includes students, teachers, other school employees, or anyone else.)” To assess perpetration, students were asked “In the last 3 months, how often, if at all, have you done any of the following things to someone else at school or going to school when they did not want you to?” in respect of the same items. Response options for both victimization and perpetration were ‘often’, ‘occasionally’, ‘rarely’, ‘never’ (as in the original Hostile Hallways) and ‘not sure’ (added to reflect our interest in understandings).

Focus groups.

Each focus group discussion was facilitated by one researcher; all authors facilitated one or more groups; all had previous experience of qualitative data collection from young people and/or in respect of sensitive topics. Teachers were present but not involved. The three groups per class were held simultaneously in large rooms (e.g. school library, large classrooms) and audio-recorded with consent. They began with a whole-class introduction describing our research and explaining the consent forms and discussion ground rules. Students were asked to speak about their perceptions (“what you think”; “your ideas”) but avoid sharing personal experiences, naming others, detailing events or repeating any of the discussion to others outside the group. They were also told they could opt-out of the discussions at any time, without any questions asked.

Almost all the qualitative data presented here were obtained via a discussion focused around what counts as sexual harassment; for which each group was provided with a large sheet of paper with three columns, ‘OK’, ‘not OK’ and ‘not sure’ and packs of ten cards each listing a behavior (Table 2). Seven cards reflected items from our survey. Four were modified (by removing: “in a sexual way” from both “Touched, grabbed or pinched you” and “Pulled at your clothing”; “that you did not want to see” from “Showed you or sent you sexual images or messages”; and “in a hurtful way” from “Said you were gay or lesbian”) to draw out discussion of what students thought made behaviors both sexual or not sexual, and OK or not OK. Three items were added (e.g. “Giving gifts of a sexual or romantic nature”) to focus on less clear-cut examples and allow for differences of opinion to emerge. Students were not provided with a definition of sexual harassment, or told the cards referred to this. Students took turns to pick a card at random and were prompted (if necessary) to discuss whether the behavior was OK and what might make it more/less OK. Additional data in respect of how young people understood/labelled these behaviors were obtained at the start of a second activity, based on ‘soft systems’ methods [60] and devised to help students think about wider systemic influences on sexual harassment. Key findings from the activity will be reported separately, but here we used data from the first step, in which students were probed for their own overall definition/terminology for the behaviors described on the cards.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Discussion prompts (with number of equivalent survey item).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262248.t002

Online survey.

Quantitative analysis of the survey items was conducted via SPSS.25 and based on those providing valid responses to relevant items. Individual behavioral items are presented via descriptive statistics for each item (victimization and perpetration), and analyses of composite measures representing experience/perpetration of items representing: ‘visual/verbal’ and ‘physical contact/ personally directed or invasive’ (hereafter ‘contact/personally-invasive’) victimization or perpetration, based on previous factor analyses of Hostile Hallways items [18, 19, 61] and as indicated on Table 1. The six ‘visual/verbal’ items included behaviors such as “Made sexual jokes, gestures or looks”, “Showed you or sent you sexual images or messages that you did not want to see” and “Spread sexual rumors about you online or in person”; the 11 ‘contact/personally-invasive’ items included behaviors such as “Touched, grabbed, or pinched you in a sexual way”, “Made you kiss him/her” and “Pressured you to send them a naked (nude) or sexual picture of yourself”. We used crosstabulations (chi-square tests) to examine relationships between sexual harassment victimization and perpetration and differences according to gender, sexual orientation and age. Note that our quantitative analysis in respect of gender was based on the question what “was written on your birth certificate”. While recognizing rates of sexual harassment are higher among young people who are not cis-gender [15], we did not include current gender identity because the numbers reporting this were very small in the survey (transgender N = 4, non-binary or other N = 10). In addition, this information was not collected for the focus group discussions. Thus in this paper, we refer to two gender categories, girl/woman and boy/man.

Focus groups.

Audio recordings were transcribed; a few combined facilitator-expanded notes with transcription (where audio quality was poor). Analysis followed a thematic approach [62]. Following data familiarisation and initial discussions (all authors), we used an inductive approach to generate initial core codes as follows: Friendships/relationships; Familiarity; Intentions and ‘received’ meanings; Social context; Physicality; Pressure and persistency; Gender; Recognition of rights and values). These (and sub-codes) were coded via NVivo by three authors (CB, JR, SB). The resulting NVivo qualitative data analysis software output was again discussed (by CB, KM, HS) in the process of generating the themes presented here and during write- up.

What is the self-reported prevalence of sexual harassment (victimization and perpetration) among young people?

Table 1 shows frequencies of each behavioral item (ever victim and perpetrator versus ‘never’, with ‘not sure’ coded as missing) according to gender. Overall, by far the most frequently experienced behavioral item (i.e. as a victim) in the past three months, reported by around half the sample, was being the recipient of sexual jokes, gestures or looks; around a quarter had been shown unwanted sexual images or messages and a fifth had been described as gay or lesbian in a hurtful way. In contrast, several items were only very rarely reported, including having had a picture taken to see under clothes; being made to do something sexual other than kissing; a naked/sexual picture of themselves being forwarded without consent; and having clothing pulled off or down. S1 Table shows the proportions responding often/occasionally, rarely, never and not sure to each item. The proportions responding ‘not sure’ were striking, and varied between items, suggesting (sometimes clearly justified) uncertainty, rather than a group consistently choosing this answer as a way of not responding. For instance, while around 9% were ‘not sure’ whether they had been the targets of sexual gestures, jokes or looks and 8% whether others had spied on them while showering or getting dressed, only 2–3% were ‘not sure’ whether they had been pressured to send a naked picture or whether their clothing had been pulled off/down.

The frequency order in which the behavioral items were experienced as a victim was very similar to that of reported perpetration, although rates of perpetration were markedly lower (Table 1 and S1 Table). Thus, while making sexual jokes, gestures or looks was reported by 24% and calling someone gay/lesbian by 8%, fewer than 1% reported: blocking or cornering; making someone kiss them; forwarding a naked/sexual picture; pressuring someone to send a naked/sexual picture; spying; making someone do something sexual other than kissing; or taking a picture up someone’s clothes. In contrast to the victimization items, ‘not sure’ was consistently reported by around 2–3% in respect of each perpetration item.

Relationships between sexual harassment victimization and perpetration, and differences according to gender, sexual orientation and age.

Table 1 shows significant gender differences for only three victimization items. “Showed you or sent you sexual images or messages that you did not want to see” and “Pressured you to send them a naked (nude) or sexual picture of yourself” were more likely for girls and “Flashed /mooned at you (showed their private parts or exposed themselves)” for boys. Gender differences for two further items approached significance, both more likely for boys: “Said you were gay or lesbian, in a hurtful way” and “Made you do something sexual other than kissing (like touching their private parts)”. Rates of all perpetration items were markedly higher among boys, most of these differences were statistically significant. The behaviors with the smallest gender differences were “Made sexual jokes, gestures or looks” (37.5% boys, 14.8% girls) and “Spreading sexual rumours” (6.4% boys and 2.7% girls).

S2 Table shows composite prevalence for any visual/verbal behaviors and any contact/personally-invasive behaviors. In respect of victimization, it shows that 64.7% reported any of a visual/verbal type, 34.3% any of a contact/personally-invasive type and 68.3% either type. In respect of perpetration, 29.0% reported any visual/verbal, 6.4 any contact/personally-invasive and 30.0% either type. Further analyses (S3 Table) showed that for both victimization and perpetration, contact/personally-invasive behaviors (i.e. those which would generally be regarded as more severe) were only very rarely reported in the absence of visual/verbal behaviors. Thus, among those with valid data in respect of both types of victimization (N = 525): 33.9% reported neither type; 29.7% visual/verbal only; 2.7% contact/personally-invasive only; and 33.7% both. In the same way, among those with valid data (N = 551): 71.7% reported neither perpetration type; 21.81% visual/verbal only; 0.2% contact/personally-invasive only; and 6.3% both. There was also a very strong association between victimization and perpetration (S4 Table): almost all (94.7%) of those who reported no victimization also reported no perpetration and none reported contact/personally-invasive perpetration. However, contact/personally-invasive perpetration was reported by a fifth (19.5%) of those also reporting contact/personally-invasive victimization.

Fig 1 shows composite victimization and perpetration variables (categorised none; visual/verbal only; any contact/personally-invasive) according to gender, sexual orientation and school year group. Reflecting the Table 1 results, it demonstrates that while there were no gender differences in either victimization type, rates of perpetration, particularly contact/personally-invasive types were higher among boys. Experience of contact/personally-invasive (but not visual/verbal only) harassment was higher among students whose sexual orientation was not heterosexual. Finally, rates of both victimization and perpetration increased with age, with jumps in the rates of contact/personally-invasive types between S2 (age 13) and S4 (age 15).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Composite victimization and perpetration variables (none, visual/verbal only; any contact/personally-invasive) according to gender, sexual orientation and school year group (with significance of group differences).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262248.g001

Are behaviors used to measure prevalence of sexual harassment in surveys also understood/labelled by young people as ‘sexual harassment’?

Following the card-sorting task—and having not been explicitly provided with the term ‘sexual harassment’ for the behaviors they had just discussed—students formulated a wide range of terms to label them. Three of the 18 groups decided they were ‘sexual harassment’. Some of the others included ‘harassment’ (only) or incorporated ‘sexual’(e.g. “sexual behaviors”; “sexual abuse”; “sexual assault”; “sexual issues or actions”). However, around half the groups used neither ‘sexual’ nor ‘harassment’, instead, choosing terms such as “inappropriate behavior”, “things that have consequences”, “abuse”, “unwanted”, “non-consensual” or behaviors meaning “people might feel pressure or uncomfortable”. Ideas of non-consent and discomfort were more in evidence among S4 and S6 (i.e. older) students.

What do young people consider acceptable and unacceptable behavior?

The ‘OK’, ‘not sure’ and ‘not OK’ cards task suggested the ten behaviors could be ordered on the basis of increasing acceptability. This did not appear to be clearly patterned on the basis of gender, year group or school.

Table 3 shows the least acceptable behaviors were “Made you kiss him/her” and “Wanted you to send them a naked (nude) or sexual picture of yourself”. Both ‘made’ and ‘wanted’ were associated with being forced to do something which was ‘not OK’. These were followed by “Staring in a sexually suggestive manner, or whistling” and “Showed you or sent you sexual images or messages”. No group suggested any of these behaviors was ‘OK’.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Numbers of focus groups (total N = 18) deciding each behavior was ‘OK’, ‘not OK’ or that they were ‘not sure’—behaviors ordered according to increasing perceived acceptability.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262248.t003

Increasingly more acceptable and more ambiguous were “Making sexual comments about appearance, clothing or body parts”; “Said you were gay or lesbian”, “Pulled at your clothing”, “Touched, grabbed or pinched you” and “Made sexual jokes”; half or more of the focus groups were unsure about the acceptability of each of these. Finally, only one group regarded “Giving gifts of a sexual or romantic nature” as ‘not OK’ and most were unsure. Students generally felt this would be unusual in a Scottish context and more something that happened in American movies. All six of these behaviors prompted considerable discussion about the importance of context and nuances around the exact nature of the behavior.

What influences whether young people perceive a behavior to be acceptable or not?

Discussions around the acceptability of each behavior highlighted several influencing factors. Central were the characteristics of the behavior, including degrees of pressure, persistency and physicality, based on whether individual rights were infringed. Distinct from the behavior itself were the degree of familiarity and relationship between instigator and recipient and the instigator’s (perceived) intent. Gender was also important; both whether behaviors were within or between genders and differences in what was regarded as acceptable for adolescent boys compared with girls. Each of these factors is explored below.

Characteristics of the behavior: Pressure, persistency and physicality. Pressure and/or persistency were almost always described as making a behavior unacceptable. Students condemned any form of pressure, whether physical or social/emotional and regardless of whether or not it was in the context of a close relationship. Discussions around “Made you kiss them”, the least acceptable of the ten behaviors, particularly highlighted these views:

No—if you’re making them then I don’t think it’s right.

Cos it’s against their will.

(Sc1_S4G.2)

A girl-only group highlighted the potential for aggression:

My mum always says ‘they can’t make you’, but see, they can, they really can make you. See if you are sitting there, they can grab you.

It can be in an aggressive way.

(Sc2_S2G)

While a boy-only group described social/emotional pressures:

I’d say there is an element of mental toying with you if it’s making you like that.

If you are playing those games like truth or dare—that can be psychological, like peer pressure.

(Sc1_S6B)

Persistent or repeated requests were also described by all participants as making a behavior unacceptable.

I think worse like if it’s over a long time, like if they continue to persist.

[…]

If you say no the first time they shouldn’t continue asking.

(Sc1_S4G.2: Wanted you to send a sexual picture)

The acceptability of touched, grabbed or pinched depended on “what way it is, so if it’s just going up to someone and, like, touching them, or something, you do that all the time with your pals, […] so I think it’s alright” (Sc2_S6B.1). Touching someone else was generally perceived as only acceptable between friends, among same-gender groups, and (unless in a close, consenting relationship) if it was not on an intimate part of the body. Thus, “if they’re pinching their arm and that, that’s fine. But, like, touching and grabbing other places isn’t really right” (Sc1_S4G.1). If touching was sexual then it was only OK with consent, otherwise “that’s abuse …bang out of order” (Sc2_S2Mx).

Underpinning discussions around behaviors involving pressure, persistence and physicality were students’ understandings about rights, both legal and in terms of individual rights to have one’s feelings respected. Consent was crucial to acceptability; a behavior was considered unequivocally ‘not OK’ if the group perceived it as being forced:

Made you? Made you! No that is not ok! You can’t make someone kiss someone.

That’s horrible.

Let’s say you asked someone to kiss you, and they say no, and you kiss them anyways, that’s wrong.

(Sc2_S2G)

There was awareness of laws around sharing sexual images, but not all were clear on their detail, which impacted on understandings of whether this was OK from a legal point of view (note that in the UK it is an offence to make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18, even if the content was created with the consent of that young person). A group of S4 students (aged about 15) all agreed this was not allowed “aye we’re too young” (Sc1_S4B). However, some S6s (aged about 17) were (incorrectly) very clear that being “of age” meant from age 16 (Sc1_S6G.1) and others were unsure whether it was allowed if aged under 18, whether consent was required and whether it mattered if the images were of themselves or another (Sc2_S6B.2).

However, separate from legal rights, students also more frequently used “un/comfortable” in respect of how a behavior was received, suggesting recipient feelings, bodily autonomy and privacy as more important criteria for acceptability:

If someone’s uncomfortable with it, and it happens, then it’s obviously not alright.

(Sc2_S6B.1: Touched, grabbed or pinched)

Familiarity and relationship between instigator and recipient. No (or limited) familiarity with the instigator was seen as a reason to regard a behavior as inappropriate. To illustrate this, students often used the case of “an old man’, “stranger” or “random person”, the latter referring to the idea that the behaviors were both unexpected and out of context. (Hypothetical) examples were therefore generally out of school and regarded as “weird” or “creepy”.

[Researcher] Would it matter who sends it to you?

If it’s an old guy. Think about that.

Yeah.

[Researcher] Would it ever be ok?

No.

(Sc1_S2G.1: Showed/sent you sexual messages)

If it’s [named friend (girl)] it’s OK but if it’s some weird man coming up to touch you that’s not OK.

(Sc2_S2Mx: Touched, grabbed or pinched)

Some lower-level behaviors were acceptable within friendship groups. Generally, knowing the person well meant there was trust among individuals: “if it’s with a friend, and you are used to it” (Sc2_S4Mx). However, making sexual jokes and calling someone gay or lesbian if you were unsure how they might react was not OK: “You don’t just go up to someone and start saying stuff. Cause they might take it wrongly” (Sc2_S4Mx). This meant that, while acknowledging these sorts of jokes could cause offence if in public, two boy-only discussion groups suggested they were more acceptable on PlayStation chat among trusted friends, where “we know we are having a laugh and it is private” (Sc2_S2B; Sc2_S4B). Being a friend might also make something feel more acceptable. A group of boys discussing pulling at clothes commented that although “there could be a sexual manner to it” (Sc2_S2B), doing this to a friend, especially another boy would mean it was more likely to be seen as a joke, while a girl-only group member, talking about boys’ hands on her waist suggested that “I suppose it does just determine how close you are with the person, if you’re comfortable with it or not…” (Sc1_S4G.1). Friends had shared understandings and should therefore ‘know’ that an otherwise potentially unacceptable behavior was meant as a joke: “If it’s one of your friends and they understand. If it’s an actual joke and, just kidding, by the way, that’s alright” (Sc1_S6G.1: Made sexual jokes). Friendship also meant that the recipient should feel comfortable about providing feedback on the basis it would be acted upon: “If it’s your mate they’d understand, they’d say just don’t do it again” (Sc1_S4B: Made sexual jokes).

More sexual behaviors were acceptable within a close relationship, but still required care. Making sexual comments was OK “if you are in a relationship and you know the person and their boundaries” (Sc2_S6B.2), as was staring at someone “if they are in a relationship, fair enough, if that person feels comfortable with it” (Sc1_S4B). Similarly, in respect of being shown or sent sexual material:

I feel like there are circumstances where sometimes people might be in a relationship and sometimes that’s…

Aye, then it’s fine for it, but if you’re not then…

(Sc1_S4G.1)

However, not all were sure about this; a girl from another group suggested that “If it’s a good boyfriend, he wouldn’t ask this” (Sc1_S2G.1).

Flirting, which might, or might not, lead to a close relationship also required care. A group discussing touching, grabbing or pinching were questioned:

[Researcher] What if they were already flirting?

You can cross the line a wee bit.

But you could nae [not] go right to the other end, like line, don’t cross it.

(Sc1_S4B)

However, this was a tricky balance since there was little or no explicit discussion between those in a (potential) relationship about boundary-setting. When one group was asked about this, they suggested their decisions as to the acceptability of behaviors within relationships were on the basis of ‘knowing’ the person and ‘feeling’ it was OK, “they are virtually never set by a discussion, they are from experience or a person reacts and says ‘that is too much’” (Sc2_S6B.2: Making sexual comments).

Instigator’s (perceived) intent. Acceptability of a behavior was also related to both intentions and received meanings. These could be broadly grouped as comedic, positive (e.g. compliments) and harmful (e.g. objectifying).

Behaviors were unacceptable if the (perceived) intention was to cause distress. Thus, while calling someone gay or lesbian as “a bit of banter [teasing, joking]” (Sc1_S4B) was acceptable, doing so “in a hurtful way, that is not ok, especially in our day and age” (Sc1_S2B), similarly, if “they’ve done it to just make them feel uncomfortable, then no [not OK]” (Sc1_S6G.1: pulling clothing). Related to this, targeted behaviors were therefore unacceptable, “I think if you mention a name it’s a lot worse” (Sc1_S4G.1: Made sexual jokes). This had particular implications in respect of calling someone gay or lesbian, since that person might be questioning their sexuality or keeping their sexual identity hidden, and might be distressed by having attention drawn to this:

Or if someone’s self-conscious about it, then it could be considered aggressive.

Yeah. So they, themselves…

Are maybe thinking, they are, and that. Or maybe they’re like considering if they are or not as well, and they’re not sure, and then someone says that to them, then they might be, they might think, oh maybe I am.

(Sc2_S6B.1)

There was also some discussion around the importance of responsibility. This could be with regard to responsibility for any unintentional harms “with a joke—you know what I mean—I think as long as you’re willing to apologize after that if you’ve like offended someone I think it’s OK” (Sc1_S6G.2). However, it could also make “just sharing and forwarding” sexual jokes more acceptable because “it is not us making the joke, it is other people” (Sc2_S2B).

As highlighted above, perceived comedic intentions meant certain behaviors were acceptable within friendship groups. In part, this was because of a mutual assumption that good friends would not want to hurt each other. Among friends, saying someone was gay or lesbian in the context of a funny conversation or when you knew they were heterosexual, should be perceived as a joke. However, mistakes were always possible:

I suppose you could be saying it in like a joking way to a friend, but they might be uncomfortable.

You’d be better off not saying it.

Yeah.

(Sc1_S6G.2: Said you were gay/lesbian)

As the above quote illustrates, more important than the instigator’s actual intentions, perceived intentions depended, in an almost circular way, on how the recipient interpreted, and therefore felt, about a behavior:

If it’s just…if it’s not made in, like, a sexual way, then it’s not that bad. But again it just depends if they feel comfortable or not. But if it’s done in, like, an angry or aggressive way it’s not okay.

[Researcher] What would make you say that it’s not in a sense in a sexual way or in a way that makes …

Uncomfortable…if it made me uncomfortable.

(Sc1_S4G.1: Touched, grabbed or pinched)

This could mean differences between individuals in how acceptable they found certain behaviors:

Some people might take it as a joke but some others…

Some are too sensitive.

(Sc2_S2Mx: Pulled at clothing)

These intention-related factors meant that some young people thought it could be difficult to determine where the line was located, as discussed by a group of boys in respect of making sexual comments:

It’s hard to define what’s a comment, and what’s a sexual comment …

I don’t know if saying to someone, you look nice…

It’s nice to receive a compliment.

I don’t know if saying to someone, you look good, is a sexual comment.

[…]

I think it depends on the person, like someone might like getting nice comments about themselves, and then some people could say, it’s rude, or something like that.

(Sc2_S6B.2)

Gender. Behaviors were generally regarded as more acceptable if instigator and recipient were both the same gender. It was suggested that for making sexual jokes and name-calling, “Sometimes boys are more likely to take it further than the girls […] or try to embarrass” (Sc1_S6G.2) so “it makes it more awkward if a boy says it to you” (Sc1_S2G). Reflecting on this, one girl-only discussion group suggested that boys and girls had different perspectives on what is funny and counts as just joking (Sc2_S4G) while another attributed it to differing levels of maturity (Sc1_S4G.1).

Some groups discussed gender double standards, presenting ideas which again appeared underpinned by beliefs around rights, this time the right to equal treatment. Thus, in respect of name-calling, girls suggested “Boys get away with it […] it’s always, like, the girls that get the worst out of it” (Sc1_S4G.1), while for showing or sending sexual pictures “See if a girl and a boy does this and the picture gets sent around, the girl gets called a name, but the boy doesn’t. He doesn’t get called one thing” (Sc2_S2G). However, boy-only discussion groups also gave examples of gender double-standards, working in the opposite way, particularly in respect of physical behaviors such as pulling at clothing:

Everyone’s done it. But that’s like a boy to a pal, like another boy. To do it to a girl, even if they’re your friend, it’s still bad.

[…]

(Sc2_S6B.2)

Girls were aware of this, with one older group suggesting that while a boy pulling at a girl’s clothes, even if flirting, was not OK, it should therefore also be not OK for girls to target such behavior at boys, because it might make them feel uncomfortable (Sc2_S6G) and another that for all behaviors the gender of perpetrator and victim “shouldn’t matter” (Sc1_S6G.1).