People often receive limited or inaccurate education about sexuality, which in part stems from sex education curricula being non-comprehensive and unstandardized (Youth Co, 2018; SIECCAN, 2019; Action Canada, 2020; Narushima et al., 2020; Pampati et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2021). Approximately 50% of North American adolescents report receiving sex education that meets minimum international standards [i.e., only teaching about birth control methods and preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs); Action Canada, 2020; Guttmacher Institute, 2022]. Outside of school settings, many people seek out information about sexuality from family, peers, or media (Evcili and Golbasi, 2017; Yeo and Chu, 2017), but these sources may be biased or provide inaccurate information (Ward, 2003; Coyne et al., 2019; Sartin-Tarm et al., 2021; Papp et al., 2022; Ward et al., 2022a,b). Receiving accurate information about sexuality in educational settings has a range of benefits for health (e.g., lower STI rates), social (e.g., greater empathy), and sexual (e.g., greater sexual communication) outcomes (Lo Presto et al., 1985; Constantine et al., 2015; Haberland and Rogow, 2015; Goldfarb and Lieberman, 2021; Ross et al., 2021; Ünal Toprak and Turan, 2021; Akalin, 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2023). Moreover, the benefits of sex education on these outcomes persist over time (Morales et al., 2020), demonstrating the critical importance of addressing gaps in the accessibility of information about sexuality.

In addition to the general lack of access to comprehensive sex education, there are specific disparities in who receives relevant sex education based on their identities, including assigned sex, gender modality¹ [i.e., whether individuals’ current gender identity aligns with the gender/sex they were assigned at birth (cisgender) or does not align (transgender and gender-diverse)], and sexual orientation. Sex education curricula are often gender/sex-segregated (Charmaraman et al., 2012; Hobaica and Kwon, 2017; Hobaica et al., 2019), or primarily focus on people with majoritized identities (i.e., those with greater structural/institutional power: assigned male at birth, cisgender, heterosexual; van Anders et al., 2022) versus minoritized identities (i.e., those with less structural/institutional power: assigned female at birth, transgender and gender-diverse, LGBQ+; Steinke et al., 2017; Rabbitte, 2020; Garg and Volerman, 2021; Pampati et al., 2021; Delmonaco and Haimson, 2022; Jia et al., 2022; Epps et al., 2023). For people with minoritized identities, failing to receive relevant sex education is associated with negative health (e.g., greater symptoms of depression), social (e.g., greater peer victimization), and sexual (e.g., greater sexual abuse victimization) outcomes (Gowen and Winges-Yanez, 2014; Bodnar and Tornello, 2019; Charley et al., 2023). Conversely, comprehensive sex education benefits LGBTQ+ youth’s mental health and is associated with less peer victimization (Blake et al., 2001; Greytak et al., 2013; Constantine et al., 2015; Proulx et al., 2019; Goldfarb and Lieberman, 2021). For people assigned female at birth, comprehensive sex education is linked with greater self-efficacy for experiencing sexual pleasure (Warshowsky et al., 2020). As such, receiving comprehensive sex education is beneficial for minoritized groups’ overall wellbeing. However, it is not yet well understood whether receiving comprehensive information about sexuality has differing degrees of benefit for minoritized and majoritized groups.

Having accurate sexual knowledge, which is facilitated through sex education, is important because greater endorsement of sexual myths is associated with poorer sexual wellbeing (e.g., higher sexual distress, lower sexual satisfaction, and lower sexual function; Baker and De Silva, 1988; Nobre and Pinto-Gouveia, 2006; Peixoto and Nobre, 2014; Erbil, 2019; Bakay et al., 2021). Despite being more likely to receive sex education relevant to their identities in school, majoritized groups (i.e., cisgender and heterosexual people, people assigned male at birth) are at greater risk of endorsing sexual myths than minoritized groups (Mosher, 1979; Eisenberg et al., 2004; Kukulu et al., 2009; Ziherl and Masten, 2010; Peixoto and Nobre, 2014; Evcili and Golbasi, 2017; Ekrem et al., 2022). This may be because majoritized groups are less likely than minoritized groups to seek out additional information about sexuality beyond what they learned in school to fill gaps in their sexual knowledge (Charest et al., 2016; Steinke et al., 2017).

The Information Motivation Behavioral Skills (IMB) Model provides theoretical context as to why exposure to accurate sexual information may contribute to changes in sexuality myth endorsement and in turn have downstream benefits for sexual wellbeing. The IMB Model posits that if people are exposed to accurate information and are motivated to utilize the information, they can enact the skills needed for behavioral change (Fisher and Fisher, 1992). Applied to sexuality, if people receive accurate comprehensive education about sexuality and are motivated to engage with the content, they may be better equipped to revise their inaccurate beliefs and change their approach to sex as well. For example, if people receive accurate education about masturbation, people who were reluctant to masturbate may use this new information to change their sexual behaviors to include masturbation. This addition to their sexual repertoire could have benefits for their sexual wellbeing such as greater sexual satisfaction or lower sexual distress (Carvalheira and Leal, 2013; Coleman and Bockting, 2013).

There is a “valley of death” or profound gap in translating scientific findings into practice (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2011), such that new findings take approximately 17 years to be implemented into practice (Green, 2008), including sex education curricula. Knowledge translation is the practice of moving research findings into practice—whether through implementing scientific findings into policy, or individuals implementing findings into their lives (Jacobson et al., 2003; Estabrooks et al., 2006; Graham et al., 2006, 2007; Proctor et al., 2011; Straus et al., 2011; Grimshaw et al., 2012). One way to address the knowledge-to-practice gap in sex education is through developing innovative and accessible knowledge translation methods to disseminate sexuality science. Social media is one such avenue for knowledge translation of updated, inclusive, and evidence-based sex education to large and diverse audiences (Hamm et al., 2013; Perrin, 2015; Chan et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021). Furthermore, given that misinformation often proliferates on social media, combatting inaccurate sexual information with evidence-based findings is important for promoting sexual knowledge.

Initial evidence suggests that sexuality knowledge translation initiatives can change individuals’ beliefs and attitudes about sexuality, and in turn, their sexual behaviors. Exposure to sexual health information via social media knowledge translation initiatives is associated with increases in knowledge about STIs and contraception (Guse et al., 2012; Wadham et al., 2019), and in turn with behavioral outcomes, like increased frequency of STI testing, condom use, and contraception use (Bull et al., 2012; Gabarron and Wynn, 2016; Stevens et al., 2017). Social media knowledge translation initiatives are also efficacious for improving knowledge about specific sexual problems or gender diversity, including bolstering new and expectant parents’ confidence in discussing sexual concerns (Rosen et al., 2021), improving knowledge about gender/sex (Beischel et al., 2021), and increasing knowledge about specific sexual difficulties (Jackowich et al., 2022). To date, knowledge translation research has primarily focused on sexual health or specific sexual difficulties, as opposed to general sexual knowledge. Thus, a key gap in the literature is evaluating whether sexuality social media knowledge translation initiatives improve knowledge about a broad range of sexuality domains.

In addition to evaluating impacts on sexual knowledge, evaluating how successfully sexuality social media knowledge translation initiatives are implemented sheds light on individuals’ experiences with the initiatives. In their taxonomy of implementation outcomes, Proctor et al. (2011) describe several implementation targets, including acceptability (i.e., how satisfactory the initiative is to individuals), appropriateness (i.e., the perceived fit of the initiative with individuals), adoption (i.e., individuals’ intention to engage with the initiative), and penetration (i.e., individuals’ perception of the initiative’s impact on them). Initial evidence suggests that sexuality social media knowledge translation initiatives garner positive impressions on implementation outcomes (Brotto et al., 2021; Rosen et al., 2021; Jackowich et al., 2022; Lavery et al., 2023). Importantly though, individuals express reluctance to adopt sexuality social media initiatives (e.g., publicly engage or be affiliated with them; Jackowich et al., 2022). Thus, while sexuality social media knowledge translation initiatives may be well received by users, the public nature of social media may result in less adoption.

There are group-level differences in social media usage for sex education and receptivity to social media platforms in general that may similarly impact receptivity to sexuality-related social media knowledge translation initiatives. LGBTQ+ people seek out information about sexuality on social media more frequently than cisgender and heterosexual individuals do (Ceglarek and Ward, 2016; Charest et al., 2016; Herrmann et al., 2023). Additionally, with respect to general social media use, people assigned female at birth use Instagram more frequently and with more active engagement (e.g., “liking,” commenting on, and sharing posts) than people assigned male at birth (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2017; Vaid and Harari, 2021; Laor, 2022; Legkauskas and Kudlaitė, 2022). Therefore, minoritized groups may respond more positively to sexuality knowledge translation initiatives delivered via Instagram than majoritized groups given their use of social media for sex education or greater overall receptivity to Instagram.

The present study aimed to evaluate whether exposure to MisconSEXions content would reduce individuals’ sexuality myth endorsement. We hypothesized that majoritized groups (by assigned sex, gender modality, and sexual orientation) would have greater reductions in their sexuality myth endorsement after exposure to MisconSEXions content than minoritized groups. We also aimed to evaluate the implementation of MisconSEXions content, including potential group differences in these outcomes. In general, we hypothesized that MisconSEXions content would have relatively high scores for acceptability and appropriateness, with lower scores for adoption and penetration. Based on the findings that people assigned male at birth, cisgender people, and heterosexual people are less likely to use Instagram or access education about sexuality on social media (Ceglarek and Ward, 2016; Charest et al., 2016; Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2017; Vaid and Harari, 2021; Laor, 2022; Legkauskas and Kudlaitė, 2022; Herrmann et al., 2023), we hypothesized that cisgender heterosexual men (i.e., majoritized groups) relative to other groups would report lower scores for implementation outcomes.

Participants included undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia recruited through the undergraduate psychology subject pool and community members recruited through social media advertisements (e.g., Reddit). Recruitment through social media involved posting advertisements in groups or subreddits after contacting moderators of groups relevant to the survey topic (i.e., r/sex) and obtaining permission to post. Undergraduate students were compensated with 0.5 course credits per each half hour of participation in the study, while community participants were not compensated for their participation. All procedures were approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia.

To be eligible for the study, participants had to be over 18 years of age, fluent in English, and have access to a device that could connect to the Internet. Recruitment of community members was open to individuals living in any country. A total of 1,334 undergraduate participants and 2,585 community members signed up for and consented to participate in the study. Of those who consented, participants were removed prior to analysis for the following reasons: did not start the survey (n = 54 and n = 368, undergraduate and community members respectively), did not view any MisconSEXions content (n = 15 and n = 37), did not complete any of the core measures (e.g., sexuality myth endorsement pre- and post-MisconSEXions or implementation outcomes; n = 15 and n = 724), failed two or more of three attention checks (n = 13 and n = 265), or indicated that we should not use their data in analyses based on a question at the end of the survey (n = 60 and n = 12). Removal of these participants left a sample of 1,177 undergraduate students and 1,179 community members for a total sample of 2,356 participants.

Undergraduate participants received a secure link to an online consent form after signing up to participate in the study through the undergraduate psychology subject pool. Participants in the community sample accessed the online consent form via a secure link in the advertisement posted on social media (e.g., on Reddit). After consenting via an online consent form, participants were directed to complete an online survey hosted on the Qualtrics platform. Participants then reported on their demographic information, and their agreement with the 10 statements (myths) about sexuality (pre-MisconSEXions exposure). Next, participants were exposed to a list of 40 MisconSEXions posts organized by topic (i.e., desire, arousal, masturbation, sexual activity, orgasm, genitals, and sexual response cycles) and were instructed to view the posts. Participants were able to click on as few or as many posts as they wished to and read the post content. When participants clicked on a post, a hyperlink opened a new tab in their browser with a PDF file containing the post for participants to view. The survey page with the 40 posts remained locked for 3 min to prevent participants from immediately skipping through the MisconSEXions content, and participants could only proceed in the survey after the 3 min passed. Following exposure to MisconSEXions content, participants completed measures reporting on implementation outcomes. Lastly, participants reported on their agreement with the same 10 myths about sexuality that they reported on prior to viewing MisconSEXions content (post-MisconSEXions exposure). Following their completion of the survey, participants were directed to an online debriefing form, and those in the undergraduate sample received course credit as compensation.

We used SPSS version 28.0 to conduct all analyses. Participants who did not have both a pre- and post-MisconSEXions average myth endorsement score (n = 247; including the 11 who were missing over 20% of individual myth data and thus did not have average myth endorsement scores and 236 who skipped the sexual myths measure entirely) were excluded from the analysis testing whether exposure to MisconSEXions content reduced myth endorsement, but were included in the implementation outcomes analyses because they did report viewing the MisconSEXions content. A 2 (Time: pre-MisconSEXions, post-MisconSEXions) × 2 (Assigned sex: male, female) × 2 (Gender modality: cisgender, transgender and gender-diverse) × 2 (Sexual orientation: heterosexual, LGBQ+) mixed-model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the hypothesis that there would be a change in average myth endorsement after exposure to MisconSEXions content and that the degree of change would differ as a function of group (assigned sex, gender modality, and sexual orientation).

For the MisconSEXions implementation outcomes, a 2 (Assigned sex: male, female) × 2 (Gender modality: cisgender, transgender and gender-diverse) × 2 (Sexual orientation: heterosexual, LGBQ+) factorial ANOVA was used for each implementation outcome item to test the hypothesis that majoritized vs. minoritized groups would differ in their scores on implementation outcomes. Separate ANOVAs were conducted for individual implementation outcome items because items were moderately positively correlated with one another, suggesting that they captured related but distinct experiences of MisconSEXions content.

Our sample was diverse with respect to gender modality, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity/nationality. See Table 1 for information about participant demographics. In the sample, 76.4% of participants reported being Instagram users (i.e., downloaded the Instagram app). Of the participants who reported being Instagram users, in a typical week, 21.6% reported using Instagram between one to five times per week, 12.9% reported using it once per day, and 41.5% reported using it more than once per day. The remaining 24.0% reported no Instagram use during a typical week despite having downloaded the app.

The four-way interaction between time, assigned sex, gender modality, and sexual orientation was not significant, F(1, 2,101) = 0.86, p = 0.35, partial η² = 0.000. The three-way interactions between time, assigned sex, and gender modality, F(1, 2,101) = 0.51, p = 0.47, partial η² = 0.000, time, assigned sex, and sexual orientation, F(1, 2,101) = 1.46, p = 0.23, partial η² = 0.001, and time, gender modality, and sexual orientation, F(1, 2,101) = 0.23, p = 0.63, partial η² = 0.000 were not significant. The two-way interactions between time and assigned sex, F(1, 2,101) = 0.46, p = 0.50, partial η² = 0.000, time and gender modality, F(1, 2,101) = 0.58, p = 0.44, partial η² = 0.000, and time and sexual orientation, F(1, 2,101) = 0.21, p = 0.65, partial η² = 0.000 were not significant.

There was a significant main effect of time, F(1, 2,101) = 107.59, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.049, such that participants’ average myth endorsement scores were lower post-MisconSEXions exposure (M = 2.62; SD = 0.58), compared to their average myth endorsement scores pre-MisconSEXions exposure (M = 3.26; SD = 0.48). This suggests that, on average, participants had significantly lower sexuality myth endorsement following exposure to MisconSEXions content.

There were no significant three-way interactions (all Fs ≤ 2.04, ps ≥ 0.15) or two-way interactions (all Fs ≤ 2.46, ps ≥ 0.12) for any of the factorial ANOVAs for individual implementation outcome items. Of note, degrees of freedom vary throughout the implementation outcome results due to participant attrition through the implementation outcome section of the survey or participants skipping certain implementation outcome items.

Most participants (74.2%) reported viewing between 1 and 10 MisconSEXions posts, with the remaining minority of participants viewing between 11 and 40 posts (23.6%) or no posts (2.2%; these participants were excluded from the MisconSEXions evaluation analyses). Of participants who viewed at least one MisconSEXions post, on average, participants spent 5.47 min (SD = 7.42) looking at MisconSEXions content. With respect to the characteristics of participants who viewed no MisconSEXions posts (n = 52), 59.6% reported being assigned female at birth and 40.4% reported being assigned male, 84.6% reported being cisgender and 15.4% reported being transgender and gender-diverse, and 59.6% reported a heterosexual sexual orientation and 40.4% reported a LGBQ+ sexual orientation. Of these participants who viewed no posts, 48.1% reported doing so because they did not have time, 26.9% because they reported already having a solid knowledge of sexuality, 23.1% because the content did not look relevant to them, and 19.2% because the content did not look interesting to them (percentages add up to over 100% because participants could select more than one response option). Participants also reported on how suitable they thought platforms other than Instagram would be for sharing MisconSEXions content (possible range = 1.00–5.00). On average, participants reported that Facebook was somewhat suitable (M = 3.10, SD = 1.23), whereas YouTube (M = 3.61, SD = 1.24), TikTok (M = 3.70, SD = 1.28), Twitter (M = 3.53, SD = 1.23), and a dedicated website (M = 4.40, SD = 0.96) were all quite suitable.

Brief exposure to MisconSEXions content during our study led to a small reduction in participants’ sexuality myth endorsement. Consistent with predictions from the IMB Model (Fisher and Fisher, 1992), when participants engaged with accurate sexual education through MisconSEXions content, we saw shifts in their knowledge and beliefs about sexuality. Indeed, participants on average spent over 5 min looking at content and most participants viewed between 1 and 10 posts, suggesting they were motivated to engage with the content. Additionally, in the present study, participants could view any MisconSEXions posts that they wanted to—meaning participants did not necessarily view posts corresponding to the myths that they endorsed pre-MisconSEXions exposure. Our findings highlight that participants did not need to view content busting the specific myths they reported their endorsement of to experience reductions in their overall sexuality myth endorsement. As such, receiving any accurate sexual information appears to have benefits for sexuality myth endorsement that generalize across topics, regardless of the specific topics discussed in content that individuals view.

Contrary to our hypotheses, we did not find group differences in the degree of change in participants’ myth endorsement after exposure to MisconSEXions content, suggesting that brief exposure to it was similarly effective across groups. Despite some groups—people assigned male at birth, heterosexual people, cisgender people—being more likely to endorse sexual myths (Mosher, 1979; Eisenberg et al., 2004; Kukulu et al., 2009; Ziherl and Masten, 2010; Peixoto and Nobre, 2014; Evcili and Golbasi, 2017; Ekrem et al., 2022), our findings suggest that MisconSEXions content was similarly effective at reducing myth endorsement, regardless of initial levels of myth endorsement.

In general, participants found MisconSEXions content to be acceptable. Indeed, one of the major strengths of MisconSEXions content was that participants found it to be “quite” likeable, visually-appealing, of good quality, and “very much” understandable. While the effect of gender modality on inclusivity of the content was significant, the effect size was very small, and the means revealed that both gender modality groups reported that MisconSEXions content was “quite” inclusive. The high acceptability scores in our sample highlight the success of intentionally designing inclusive sexuality social media knowledge translation initiatives to be satisfying regardless of individuals’ identities with respect to the graphics and language. Given that many individuals report dissatisfaction with the non-comprehensive sex education they received in school (Allen, 2005; Rutledge et al., 2011; Cense et al., 2020), our findings suggest that social media knowledge translation initiatives can be an appealing alternative avenue for comprehensive sex education that is inclusive and satisfactory to diverse groups of people.

While participants generally found Instagram to be an appropriate platform for hosting MisconSEXions content, our findings suggest that content could potentially be made more appropriate. Despite finding that the content was “quite” inclusive, participants reported that the content was only “somewhat” personally relevant and helpful. This suggests that MisconSEXions content could be improved with regard to appropriateness by tailoring the content even more. In our efforts to be broadly inclusive, MisconSEXions posts generally focused on busting myths applicable to most people, rather than myths endorsed by specific groups. However, people perceive sex education to be more relevant when it discusses topics pertaining to their identities (Gowen and Winges-Yanez, 2014; Hobaica et al., 2019; Tordoff et al., 2021; Epps et al., 2023). Indeed, sexuality social media knowledge translation initiatives focused on specific problems and populations have produced higher ratings of appropriateness (Rosen et al., 2021; Jackowich et al., 2022). As such, a downside of our goal to make MisconSEXions content broadly inclusive is that not all content will feel personally relevant to everyone; at the same time, no one group will be excluded from content. Indeed, one of the strengths of MisconSEXions content was that it appealed to a diverse audience and thus filled critical gaps in the accessibility of sex education for all groups.

Similar to other studies evaluating sexuality social media knowledge translation initiatives (Jackowich et al., 2022), our sample reported relatively low levels of adoption. Despite finding Instagram to be “quite” suitable for hosting MisconSEXions content, participants assigned male at birth and female at birth reported being only “a little bit” or “somewhat” likely respectively to follow the MisconSEXions account or “like” its posts on Instagram. Individuals report being wary of publicly affiliating themselves with sex education accounts that contain explicit sexual language or imagery (e.g., drawings of sex toys and genitals) due to social taboo (Ramallo et al., 2015; Jackowich et al., 2022). While participants of all groups reported being only “a little bit” likely to share a MisconSEXions post with other people, they did report being “somewhat” likely to share information they learned from MisconSEXions with others. This could suggest that participants’ reluctance to engage with MisconSEXions on Instagram centers around how explicitly and publicly the sexual information is presented, as opposed to the sexual information itself. Indeed, individuals report preferring sex education that can be accessed anonymously and privately (Selkie et al., 2011). Thus, the public nature of social media could be one potential barrier to the adoption of sexuality social media knowledge translation initiatives. However, it is possible that participants need not publicly engage with content (e.g., “liking” and sharing posts) to benefit from the knowledge. Indeed, in the present study, simply viewing posts for approximately 5 min was sufficient for reducing participants’ sexuality myth endorsement. Future research can explore whether other metrics of adoption—like the amount of time individuals spend viewing posts on Instagram—are potentially more relevant to the extent that individuals benefit from sexuality social media knowledge translation initiatives than public engagement with initiatives.

Our findings with respect to penetration and the small but positive effect of MisconSEXions content on participants’ myth endorsement shed light on the potential importance of repeated or prolonged exposure to sexuality social media knowledge translation for enduring sexual attitude change. Participants perceived that exposure to MisconSEXions content “somewhat” changed their attitudes about topics discussed in the posts and only changed their attitudes about sexuality in general “a little bit.” Potentially, for individuals to perceive that their overall sexual attitudes changed, they may require longer and repeated exposure to MisconSEXions content, as opposed to a brief, single exposure (approximately 5 min on average) in our study. Indeed, research on general attitude change suggests that shifts in attitudes occur gradually over time through repeated exposure to new information (Olson and Zanna, 1993; Ranganath and Nosek, 2008; Bohner and Dickel, 2011; Benton et al., 2022). Given that participants expressed interest in learning more about sexuality after viewing MisconSEXions content, they may be motivated to repeatedly view the same or new content. This highlights a potential strength of delivering MisconSEXions content via Instagram; repeated exposure to MisconSEXions content on Instagram may facilitate larger and enduring change in individuals’ overall sexual attitudes.

Our study boasts a large and inclusive sample with respect to gender modality, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity/nationality. Indeed, nearly 50% of the sample reported a minoritized sexual orientation and over 10% of the sample reported being transgender or gender-diverse. This diversity allowed us to examine group differences in individuals’ experience of MisconSEXions content, providing important insight into ways that groups do or do not differ with respect to the impact and their perceptions of the social media knowledge translation initiative. The diversity of the sample in terms of gender modality and sexual orientation is particularly important given that most sex education curricula and sex research studies predominantly focus on majoritized identities (Steinke et al., 2017; Rabbitte, 2020; Garg and Volerman, 2021; Pampati et al., 2021; Delmonaco and Haimson, 2022; Jia et al., 2022; Epps et al., 2023).

The design of our study is limited in terms of external validity because we required participants to view MisconSEXions content within a survey platform rather than directly on Instagram. Therefore, while the present study represents an important first step in providing evidence about the impact of MisconSEXions content and participants’ perceptions of their hypothetical engagement with MisconSEXions content on Instagram, we were unable to examine knowledge change and implementation outcomes when MisconSEXions is used on Instagram itself. This is an important limitation given that individuals’ intentions to act often fail to translate into actual behaviors (Sheeran and Webb, 2016), which is relevant for the adoption outcomes. Indeed, with respect to adoption in the present study, despite reporting low hypothetical intentions to engage with MisconSEXions, participants spent over 5 min viewing MisconSEXions content on average. Future research should assess the effectiveness and implementation outcomes of sexuality social media knowledge translation initiatives in more ecologically valid ways, including behavioral measures of implementation (e.g., actual “liking” and sharing of posts). This will provide an understanding of how individuals engage with initiatives outside of the context of a survey and whether ongoing exposure to MisconSEXions content on Instagram produces even greater reductions in sexuality myth endorsement.