Differences between Internet samples and conventional samples of men who have sex with men: implications for research and HIV interventions
The Internet is becoming a new erotic oasis for obtaining sex online or in person. We reviewed the literature on cybersex and compared differences in data from samples of homosexually active men obtained on identical questionnaires from a conventional written questionnaire, distributed through the mailing and contact lists of a large national gay organization in Sweden, and through the same organization's website and chat room. A total of 716 written questionnaires and 678 Internet questionnaires were obtained. The Internet sample was younger, more likely to live in small towns or cities, live with parents or a girlfriend, and have lower formal education. They are less likely to have previous sexual experience solely with other men (one in three of the Internet sample vs. 1 in 14 of the written sample defined themselves as bisexual) and more likely to visit erotic oases such as bathhouses, video clubs and erotic movie houses. They also visited Internet chat rooms more frequently (86% of the Internet sample vs. 50% of the written sample). One third of the Internet sample wanted the opportunity to talk with an expert about HIV compared with a quarter of the written sample. Sexual practices between the two samples were generally similar, although the Internet sample reported significantly less body contact, kissing, hugging, mutual masturbation, and more condom use for anal intercourse with steady partners. Over four times as many of the Internet samples reported sex with women in the past year as the written sample. These data indicate that Internet data collection is feasible and that this mode of data collection, despite the nonrandom and self-selected nature of both types of samples, is likely to be more significantly oriented toward the young, geographically more isolated, and more behaviorally and self-identified bisexual respondent than conventionally distributed written questionnaires.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 51 (2000)
Issue (Month): 5 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:51:y:2000:i:5:p:749-758. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.