Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The term “sexting” refers to sexually suggestive and/or explicit messages exchanged in one-to-one or one-to-many forms over Internet-enabled devices. According to the multisystem perspective, parent-adolescent communication influences sexual socialization globally and sexting locally. In the present study, a model of the relationships among the breadth of sex topics discussed between parents and adolescent children, comfort in parent-adolescent sexual communication, and adolescent sexting is evaluated. U.S. nationally representative data were gathered from 592 parents and their adolescent children. The results demonstrated that for both adolescents and parents, a wider array of sex topics discussed is associated with increased comfort in parent-adolescent sexual communication. Additionally, increased comfort in parent-adolescent sexual communication is associated with lower incidence of adolescent sexting. Equivalent alternative models that rearrange the variables of interest did not fit the data. These findings contribute to the conceptualization of parent-adolescent sexual communication by delineating between content (i.e., “what is talked about”) and process (i.e., “how it is talked about”) components. Theoretical contributions involve expanding the multisystem perspective of adolescent sexual behaviors to include technologically mediated risks and introducing communication comfort as a regulatory mechanism between message exchange and effects.

Keywords

sexting parent-adolescent communication sex topics sexual socialization development sexual risk

Introduction

The prevalence of young children and adolescents sexting, or sharing sexually explicit images, videos, or messages of themselves or others through Internet and mobile technologies, has been on the rise in the last few decades. Approximately 15% of adolescents ages 12 to 17 have reported sending sexts, whereas roughly 27.5% have said they have received them (Madigan et al., 2018). Although sexting is most often used safely and consensually in intimate relationships, it carries significant risks from the potential for the sexually explicit content to be shared with others without consent (Krieger, 2017). In fact, 12% of adolescents reported forwarding a sext without consent of the original producer, and 8.4% of adolescents received a nonconsensual sext (Madigan et al., 2018). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2025) has long alerted the public to the potential risks of sexting. The CDC interprets nonconsensual sexting as a form of nonphysical sexual violence. Additionally, sexting often goes against school policies, and these exchanges can put adolescents at risk of school suspension or expulsion (Phippen & Bond, 2023). In many U.S. states, even consensual sexting between adolescents is considered illegal and may be analyzed under child pornography statutes, which presents further risks (O’Connor et al., 2017; Strasburger et al., 2019). The possible legal, reputational, and nonconsensual repercussions of adolescent sexting have led to the general consensus that sexting can be interpreted as a sexual risk behavior (Houck et al., 2014).

Studies on adolescent sexting have mainly been aimed at identifying factors that protect or buffer against the negative outcomes associated with it (Doyle et al., 2021). One of the most robust protective factors of risky sexual behaviors is parent-adolescent communication about sex (Lohman & Billings, 2008; Mollaei et al., 2023). Parents' discussions of various sex topics with their adolescents have been shown to prevent early sexual debut, sex without condoms, and sex with multiple or frequently changing partners (see Coakley et al., 2017 for review). Adolescents who engage in sexting, however, seldom discuss these topics openly with their parents. Only about 18% of high school adolescents who have sent or received a sext have talked about sexting with their parents (Widman et al., 2021).

The main objectives of the current investigation are to (a) explicate the content and context facets of parent-adolescent sexual communication in the broader context of sexting, and (b) better understand how the discussion of sexual topics between parents and adolescents and their comfort in sexual communication play a role in adolescents’ sexting behaviors. First, although the majority of research studying ‘parent-adolescent communication about sex’ uses the term as an undifferentiated label without recognizing its nuances, Guilamo-Ramos et al. (2016) suggested its conceptualization is multifaceted and should entail what is said about sex, how it is said, and who is sharing the topics about sex. In looking at measurement, parent-adolescent communication about sex has been most commonly operationalized as breadth of sexual topics covered and comfort of sexual communication (Lehr et al., 2000). Second, some argue that parents are instrumental sexual educators that can discourage adolescents from engaging in sexting, whereas others suggest parent-adolescent sexual communication does not readily occur or have strong influence (cf. Draper, 2012; Haddon, 2016). This investigation can shed light on incongruities in how parent-adolescent communication about sex is related to potentially risky sex behaviors, such as sexting, found in extant literature.

What is sexting?

Sexting is part of a constellation of cybersexual behaviors wherein Internet-enabled communication technologies (e.g., smartphones, tablets, PCs, social media) are used to exchange sexually suggestive and/or explicit messages, broadly defined (Courtice & Shaughnessy, 2017). Narrative reviews of literature and meta-syntheses of research on sexting have brought to light controversies or discrepancies in the sexting definitions as they relate to the inclusion or exclusion of interaction dynamics (e.g., sending, receiving, forwarding), media types (e.g., text, images, live or recorded videos), message transmission types (e.g., one-to-one, publicized), and content characteristics (e.g., nude, partially nude) (Barrense-Dias et al., 2019; Courtice & Shaughnessy, 2021).

Sexting is defined as the sending, receiving, or forwarding of sexually explicit messages that include written text and/or nude, partially nude, or even sexually suggestive images and/or videos (live or recorded) exchanged between two or more people through an Internet-enabled device (Ngo et al., 2017). Hernández et al. (2021) referred to text-based sexually explicit messages as erotic sexts and labeled nude images and/or videos of oneself or undefined others as pornographic sexts (Maas et al., 2025). Individuals can compel or force others to engage in sexually explicit exchanges, referred to as coercive sexting. Some argue that sexting is an innocuous consensual sexual behavior shared between two or more interactants, whereas others believe the mere possibility that such sexts can be disseminated narrowly or broadly (i.e., go viral) in a nonconsensual manner positions sexting as a risky sexual behavior (Crimmins & Seigfried-Spellar, 2014; O’Sullivan, 2014). Additionally, reports of people being pressured or harassed on account of their sexts (i.e., sextortion) point to sexting as a risky sexual behavior (Gavey et al., 2024).

Sexting can occur between romantic partners, friends, acquaintances, or even strangers. Sexting in the context of romantic relationships is mainly predicated on the pursuit of implicit (e.g., personal excitement) and explicit (e.g., relational satisfaction) rewards (Brodie et al., 2019). Sexting outside romantic relationships is motivated less by differential reinforcement and more by positive appraisals of sexting. Nonromantic sexters hold more negative expectancies (e.g., makes me feel guilty/ashamed/vulnerable/embarrassed) toward sexting than romantic partners who sext (Dir et al., 2013).

Sexting can have profound personal and interpersonal effects on the individuals who engage in the exchange. Although some evidence shows that teens who sext feel happy, surprised, and even amused while sexting (e.g., Villacampa, 2017), the broader body of evidence has demonstrated that engagement in sexting is associated with putatively negative physical and mental health outcomes. Several longitudinal studies have demonstrated that sexting at prior time points is predictive of mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety, at later time points (Chaudhary et al., 2017; Dodaj et al., 2020; Wright & Wachs, 2024). The mental health problems can originate from chronic stress of exposure, shame, and social stigma associated with sexting. Alonso and Romero (2019) found that earlier engagement in sexting leads to expressions of less positive emotion one year later. Likewise, adolescents who sext have more personal body appearance dysfunction and engage in greater body surveillance than those who do not (Burén et al., 2025). Because sexting heightens awareness of one’s sexuality in the view of others, it can lead to increased self-objectification and body consciousness (Liong & Cheng, 2019).

Sexting is a contributory factor in peer aggression and violence. Couturiaux et al. (2021) identified sexting as a risk factor of dating and relationship violence. Adolescents are as much as three times more likely to encounter intimate partner violence when sexting. Other forms of online sexual victimization, such as receiving threats, follow sexting as well (Titchen et al., 2019). Kerstens and Stol (2014) found that sexting is more likely to be concomitant with sexual harassment and social pressures. Sexting also foretells adolescent online victimization in the form of cyberbullying (Gámez-Guadix & Mateos-Pérez, 2019). Engagement in sexting makes adolescents susceptible to online victimization given the inherent power imbalance created between the recipient and sender of the sexually explicit messages (Van Ouytsel et al., 2019). The digital record created by the explicit exchange on Internet-enabled devices can be used intentionally by some to embarrass, humiliate, or coerce others.

Engagement in sexting among adolescents has been shown in prior research to be related to relational consequences. As expected, consensual sexting between adolescent romantic partners is associated with neutral or even positive outcomes; however, the most negative relational evaluations are made when sexts are shared without consent (Barroso et al., 2023). In particular, Krieger (2017) suggested that nonconsensual sexting can lead to reputational harms among other things. Young females reported that they engage in sexting due to social pressures or a need for validation from their partners (Isotalo & Antfolk, 2024; Lippman & Campbell, 2014). Sexting in adolescent romantic relationships is associated with greater verbal conflicts (Van Ouystel et al., 2019). Finally, sexting at a younger age is correlated with an increased likelihood of earlier sexual debut, condomless sex, and impersonal sex (Brinkley et al., 2017; Maas et al., 2019).

Parent-adolescent sexual communication and sexual risk behaviors

Parents are among the strongest safeguards against adolescents’ risky sexual behaviors, such as sexting. Because sexting and parent-adolescent sexual communication point to familial sexual socialization, tenets of the multisystem perspective of adolescents’ sexual risk (Kotchick et al., 2001) are adopted as the organizational lens of this investigation. The core proposition of the multisystem perspective is that adolescents’ sexual risk behaviors are both informed by and affect personal (e.g., biological, psychological), familial, and extrafamilial (e.g., peers, school) systems. This perspective is predicated on the idea that reciprocal relationships exist between these systems and adolescents’ sexual risk behaviors. Feedback loops are built into the supraordinate system such that engagement in sexual risk behaviors can affect the way adolescents perceive these personal and environmental systems.

Adolescence serves as an important period in the development of sexual identity. Although adolescents embark on their own exploration of their sexuality at this age, they talk to their parents about sex and use them as informational resources on sexual risks and responsibilities (Epstein & Ward, 2008). Indeed, parent-adolescent communication about sex plays a dominant role in adolescent sexual maturation (Hill et al., 2007; Kotchick et al., 2001). Despite parents’ position as primary sexual educators in their adolescents’ lives, the extremely personal nature of sexual communication may lead to certain topics (e.g., sexual pleasure, consent, sexual violence) being avoided or ignored (DiIorio et al., 2003).

Parent-adolescent communication about sex is multifaceted and can be evaluated on different component parts. Previous research on parent-adolescent communication about sex has focused on two discrete facets of the message exchange: the content and the process involved (Dutra et al., 1999). Content refers to the information conveyed in the message; content is what ideas, facts, or insights are being said or left unsaid. Process involves the social/relational context of the exchanged message; it relates to how the information is said. In parent-adolescent sexual communication, a dominant indicator of content is the breadth of sex topics—which can include contraceptive use, pregnancy, STIs, sexual pleasure, and consent—covered in these conversations (DiIorio et al., 1999, 2003; Rogers, 2017). Parents can also impart family values regarding sex during these discussions. One main process element of parent-adolescent communication about sex studied is comfort level (Dutra et al., 1999). Level of comfort is a subjective evaluation that both parties can talk openly and freely about sex, can predict what the other is feeling during these discussions, and know the other is actively listening and has their interests in mind (Guzmán et al., 2003; Sneed, 2008; Widman et al., 2016). Comfort in parent-adolescent sexual communication is achieved when interactants experience an absence of embarrassment, feelings of efficacy in discussing sex, and openness to freely trade ideas on sexual topics (Malcom & Ronis, 2021). Consistent with its conceptualization, parent-adolescent communication is often operationalized by the sexual topics covered in communication and the comfort experienced by interactants during these exchanges (see Lehr et al., 2000; Warren & Neer, 1986).

Parent-adolescent sexual communication is said to affect various attitudes toward sex. Parental conversations about sex influence adolescents’ attitudes toward certain sexual behaviors, their perceptions about sexual self-efficacy, descriptive norms (i.e., perceptions of sexual behaviors most typically performed by others), and injunctive norms (i.e., perceptions of what sexual behaviors are considered permissible and impermissible by others) (Rogers, 2017). In communicating about sex, parents impart their own standards and referential norms, thereby shaping adolescents’ sex-related schemas and sexual scripts (Flores & Barroso, 2017).

Parent-adolescent communication can be both a protective and risk factor in adolescents’ sexual behaviors (Widman et al., 2016). Protective factors are any personal or environmental conditions that decrease the likelihood of engagement in risky sexual behaviors, whereas risk factors increase the probability of engagement in unsafe sexual behaviors (Jordahl & Lohman, 2009). Parent-adolescent communication, for instance, is predictive of delayed sexual intercourse (Clawson & Reese‐Weber, 2003; O’Donnell et al., 2007) and increased contraceptive/condom use (Widman et al., 2016), which underscores its protective aspects. But parent-adolescent communication can become a risk factor when parents focus their conversations about sex on fear or negative outcomes (Flores & Barroso, 2017). In such cases, adolescents may be more likely to engage in the very risky sexual behaviors that parent-adolescent communication about sex seeks to prevent. For example, Deptula et al. (2010) found in their longitudinal study that parents who use consequence-driven frames when discussing sex have adolescent children who are less likely to use condoms and have earlier initiation of sexual behaviors.

Parent-adolescent sexual communication and sexting

Parent-adolescent communication can have a protective effect against adolescent sexting. A longitudinal study of Italian adolescents over a seven-year period found that positive parental communication toward adolescents, including praise and demonstrating involvement in their lives, can lower the risk of adolescent sexting (Remondi et al., 2024). Meanwhile, dysfunctional parent-adolescent communication about sexting can hasten adolescent sexting (Dolev-Cohen & Ricon, 2022). Parents who report greater barriers to effective communication about sex, such as lacking informational resources, facing discomfort in discussing sexual topics, and making faulty assumptions about adolescents’ knowledge on safe sex practices, are more likely to have adolescents who have had sexting experience (Speno & Halliwell, 2023).

The structure of parent-adolescent communication about sex contributes to greater compliance with parents’ advice. Structure indicates how facets of the message, including content (i.e., breadth of sex topics discussed) and process (i.e., comfort in discussing sex) elements, are organized to facilitate understanding (Farkas & Grolnick, 2010; Mauras et al., 2013). Maintaining structure in parent-adolescent sexual communication can aid in the effectiveness of reducing adolescent sexting (Lamprianidou et al., 2025). The sex topics discussed and comfort experienced in parent-adolescent sexual communication have been shown to be correlated in prior research (Dutra et al., 1999). However, such associations do not shed light on the constructs’ organization or temporal precedence. The time ordering of content and process elements of parent-adolescent sexual communication was explored by Martino et al. (2008). Their longitudinal study, using a worksite-based intervention aimed at improving parent-adolescent communication about sex, demonstrated that discussing a broader bandwidth of sexual topics at earlier points in time leads to greater comfort in sexual communication at later stages. Greater comfort in sexual communication, conversely, does not necessarily result in the proliferation of sexual topics discussed.

Tenets of the multisystem perspective suggest that familial systems are instrumental in protecting adolescents against risky sexual behaviors. In familial systems, parent-adolescent communication about sex is one of the strongest predictors of reduced risky sexual behaviors (Widman et al., 2016), such as sexting. A nuanced approach to examining parent-adolescent communication about sex suggests the organization of content (e.g., breadth of sex topics discussed) and process (e.g., comfort) elements affects adolescents’ risky sexual behaviors, such as sexting. Prior research has demonstrated that content precedes process elements in the processual chain of parent-adolescent communication about sex. Accordingly, it is anticipated that adolescents who discuss a wide bandwidth of sex topics with their parents are more likely to feel comfortable talking to them about sex. It could be that broadening the sexual topics covered in parent-adolescent communication makes the conversation less taboo (Bleakley et al., 2009), thereby ushering in greater comfort. The ensuing comfort in sexual communication at earlier time points results in later safer-sex behaviors (such as sexting) over time (Padilla-Walker, 2018). From the preceding, it is hypothesized that:

H1: Perceived breadth of sexual topics discussed in parent-adolescent communication for adolescents is positively associated with their perceived comfort in sexual communication, which in turn is negatively associated with incidence of their sexting.

Parents’ perceptions of parent-adolescent sexual communication should be congruent with the perceptions of their adolescents. In other words, parents’ perceptions of increased breadth of sex topics discussed with their adolescent children should correspond to greater comfort in communicating about sex with them, which in turn should be associated with their adolescents’ sexting behaviors. For example, a study of 600 parent-child dyads conducted by White et al. (1995) demonstrated that one of the strongest correlates of breadth of sex topics discussed across all dyadic compositions (i.e., mother-son, mother-daughter, father-son, father-daughter) is parental comfort when discussing human sexuality.

Nevertheless, several studies underscore inconsistencies between parents and adolescents in perceptions of their sexual communication and adolescents’ sex behaviors (e.g., Jaccard & Dittus, 1991; Mollborn & Everett, 2010). For example, parents often exaggerate the number of sex topics discussed with their adolescents; adolescents’ observations do not match their parents’ self-reports (Grossman et al., 2017; Miller et al., 1998). Additionally, adolescents’ perceptions of their sexual communication with their parents (e.g., breadth of sex topics) is a much stronger predictor of their sexual behaviors than their parents’ perceptions of such communication. Even disagreements in the level of comfort of parent-adolescent communication about sex has been found in the literature. Potter et al. (2017) discovered that a large majority of parents (84.1%) feel a sense of comfort toward discussing sexual health, whereas only about half their adolescents (55.3%) express such comfort in these discussions. The overestimates may stem from some parents conflating the quality of the relationships with their adolescent children with the comfort they have in discussing sex topics (Jaccard et al., 1998). Given the lack of correspondence between parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of sexual communication and adolescents’ sexual behaviors, a research question is posed.

RQ1: Is parents’ perceived breadth of sex topics discussed in parent-adolescent communication associated with their comfort in sexual communication, and is their comfort in turn associated with incidence of their adolescents’ sexting?

Method

Procedure

Data for the present investigation are from the National Survey of Porn Use, Relationships, and Sexual Socialization (NSPRSS), a U.S. nationally representative cross-sectional survey study (Herbenick et al., 2020). Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based online sample, was employed for data collection. KnowledgePanel® is constructed using address-based sampling methodologies and the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. Mailings and follow-up phone calls are used to invite households associated with randomly selected U.S. addresses to join the panel. Households without Internet access are offered Internet access to facilitate participation. Scientists frequently utilize KnowledgePanel® to collect U.S. nationally representative probability data on varied topics, including health and sexual behavior (e.g., Chang & Krosnick, 2009; Harris et al., 2009). Study protocols and instruments were reviewed and approved by the institutional review board at the last author’s university. The NSPRSS was funded by the Harnisch Foundation, Artemis Rising Foundation, The Fledgling Fund, and Embrey Family Foundation, among others.

The target population consisted of adults aged 18 to 60 and dyads composed of participants who were parents or guardians of a 14- to 18-year-old son or daughter. The parent/guardian-child dyads are the focus of the present study. Parents were recruited directly from KnowledgePanel®, whereas children were recruited through their parents. That is, adult KnowledgePanel® members who were parents or legal guardians of 14- to 18-year-olds were asked for their consent to invite their son/daughter to participate (see Byrne et al., 2014, for a similar methodology). If parents had multiple children within this age range, Ipsos randomly selected a child and asked the parent to invite them into the study. Survey questions were then asked only in relation to that particular child.

Assent was obtained from adolescents and consent from their parents or legal guardians. KnowledgePanel® members are incentivized with points/tokens for their participation. Accumulated points can be exchanged for merchandise or payment. Ipsos uses an iterative proportional fitting procedure once data are collected to develop statistical weights for each study sample. Applying these weights to statistical procedures accounts for any over/under-coverage or nonresponse occurring during data collection.

Participants

Participants in the present study were 592 parent-adolescent child dyads. For adolescents, 298 (50.3%) were sons, whereas 294 (49.7%) were daughters. For parents, 261 (44.1%) were fathers and 331 (55.9%) were mothers. Of the total sample, 132 were father-son pairs, 165 were mother-daughter pairs, 166 were mother-son pairs, and 129 were father-daughter pairs. The average age of adolescents was 15.96 (SD = 1.39; range = 14–18) years old, and the average age of parents was 45.02 (SD = 7.83; range = 18–60) years old. For adolescents, 326 (55.0%) were White, 130 (21.9%) were of Hispanic descent, 82 (13.8%) were Black, 19 (3.3%) were biracial/multiracial, and 35 (6.0%) considered themselves “other.” For parents, 346 (58.4%) were White, 120 (20.3%) were of Hispanic descent, 89 (15.1%) were Black, 7 (1.2%) were biracial/multiracial, and 30 (5.0%) were “other.”

The vast majority of adolescent children in the sample (n = 560, 94.6%) identified as straight/heterosexual, 22 (3.8%) were bisexual, 4 (0.6%) were gay or lesbian, 2 (0.4%) were asexual, and 4 (0.6%) identified as something else when asked about their sexual orientation. Adolescents’ current relationship status was as follows: 420 (71.0%) were single, 103 (17.4%) were in a monogamous romantic relationship, 61 (10.4%) were dating or hooking up with one or more people, 4 (0.8%) were married, and 3 (0.6%) declined to respond.

Most parents (n = 434, 73.2%) were currently married, 60 (10.1%) were never married, 69 (11.7%) were divorced or separated, 25 (4.2%) were living with a partner, and 5 (0.9%) were widowed. The large majority (n = 504) said they considered themselves the head of the household. The average household size according to parents was 4.28 (SD = 1.55) people.

Measures

Teen sexting behaviors

Adolescents were asked: “Have you ever shared a sexually explicit image or video of yourself (including a nude selfie)? By ‘sexually explicit,’ we mean images or videos of full or partial nudity, or of sexual acts (such as penetration/intercourse, oral sex, masturbation, and the use of sexual toys). This could include sending or uploading images or videos via text message, social media, or websites, of a friend, romantic partner, acquaintance, co-worker, etc.” (for similar measurement, see Houck et al., 2014; Rice et al., 2012). The response categories were “No, never,” “Yes, once,” and “Yes, more than once.” If participants answered more than once, they were asked to estimate the approximate number of times they sexted in the past. This estimate was used in the main analysis for these individuals. When asked about any prior experience with sexting, most of the adolescents (n = 545, 91.9%) said they had never engaged in the activity, 34 (5.7%) said they sexted once before, and 14 (2.4%) said they sexted more than once (range = 2–40).

Parent-adolescent sex topics

Adolescents and parents were asked parallel questions about the range of sex topics they discuss with each other (see Rosenthal & Feldman, 1999, for similar measurement). The measure asked adolescents to “mark which topics you and a parent/guardian have talked about,” with topics including (1) how to use condoms, (2) birth control, (3) sexually transmitted infections, (4) sexual pleasure, (5) family’s values related to sex, and (6) how to say “no” to sex that you don’t want or aren’t ready for. Parents were asked to “mark which topics you and your teenager have talked about,” and included the same six topics. Responses were binary (no/yes). The breadth of sex topics measure for both adolescents (α = .75, M = 2.49, SD = 1.86) and parents (α = .75, M = 2.53, SD = 1.89) was reliable.

Comfort in sexual communication

Adolescents were asked about the level of comfort they feel while talking to their parents about sex, whereas parents were asked about the extent to which they feel comfortable talking to their adolescent child openly about sex. The one-item measure for adolescents, evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), was “If I have questions about sex, I feel comfortable asking my parents those questions” (M = 2.90, SD = 0.83). The single-item, 4-point Likert measure (1 = not at all, 4 = very much) for parents was “How comfortable are you talking to your teenager about sex?” (M = 3.03, SD = 0.97).

Analysis plan

Hypothesis 1 predicted that as the perceived breadth of sex topics discussed with parents grows, adolescents’ comfort in discussing sex increases. More comfort in discussing sex topics with parents is in turn associated with lower incidence of sexting. Research Question 1 explored whether parents’ perceptions of breadth of sex topics discussed with their adolescents, comfort in discussing sex, and adolescent sexting followed the predictions of adolescents’ perceptions. This sequencing of variables was tested in path analysis. Path analysis provides both a metric for goodness-of-fit of the global model and parameter estimates of the local relationships. Statistical weights correcting for unequal probabilities of known population totals and nonresponse bias were applied to the analysis. Analyses were carried out using SAS 9.4.

Results

Main analysis

Path analysis was used to test Hypothesis 1. In this proposed model, adolescents’ reports of the range of sex topics discussed with their parents lead to greater comfort in their sexual communication with them, which in turn predicts less sexting. The model fit the data well, χ²(1) = 3.16, p = .08, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI [.00, .14], SRMR = .03. The standardized path coefficients demonstrated that the breadth of sex topics discussed with parents is positively associated with perceived comfort in speaking with them about sex (b* = .41, SE = .03, p < .001). An increase in adolescents’ comfort in parent-adolescent sexual communication is associated with less sexting (b* = −.14, SE = .04, p < .001). A 10,000-bootstrap resamples indirect effect test was undertaken to investigate whether adolescents’ comfort in sexual communication mediated the relationship between sexual topics discussed and sexting. The bias corrected confidence interval of the indirect effect did not include zero, demonstrating support for the mediation (b = −0.09, bootstrap SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.21, −0.03]).

A second path model tested Research Question 1. In this proposed model, parents’ perceived breadth of sex topics discussed with their adolescent children leads to greater comfort in sexual communication with their adolescents, which in turn predicts a lower likelihood of their adolescents’ engaging in sexting. The hypothesized model fit the data well, χ²(1) = 3.25, p = .07, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI [.00, .14], SRMR = .03. The range of sex topics parents feel they discuss with their adolescents is positively associated with the perceived comfort they experience in talking with them about sex (b* = .48, SE = .03, p < .001). Growing comfort in sexual communication with their adolescent children among parents is associated with lower incidence of sexting among adolescents (b* = −.11, SE = .04, p = .01). A mediation test examined whether parents’ comfort in sexual communication mediated the relationship between sex topics they discussed with their adolescent and their adolescent child’s sexting. The bias corrected confidence interval of the indirect effect did not include zero, demonstrating support for the mediation (b = −0.08, bootstrap SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.19, −0.0001]).¹

Supplemental analysis

Post hoc tests were conducted to see if alternative models fit the data well. Specifically, the models tested exchanged the breadth of sex topics and comfort in sexual communication variables in the models (i.e., comfort in sexual communication→breadth of sex topics→sexting). These supplemental analyses were done to explore whether alternative explanations for the relationships proposed in this investigation are supported by the data. For adolescents, this alternative model does not fit the data well, χ² (1) = 15.69, p < .001, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .16, 90% CI [.10, .23], SRMR = .06. Although comfort in parent-adolescent sexual communication is associated with greater breadth of sex topics discussed (b* = .41, SE = .03, p < .001), breadth of sexual topics is not associated directly with adolescents’ sexting behaviors (b* = .01, SE = .04, p = .88). For parents, the alternative model also did not fit the data well, χ²(1) = 10.33, p = .001, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .13, 90% CI [.06, .20], SRMR = .05. Similarly to their adolescent children, heightened parental comfort in sexual communication is related to greater breadth of sex topics shared in conversations with their adolescents (b* = .48, SE = .03, p < .001); however, the sex topics discussed does not influence adolescents’ sexting behaviors (b* = .01, SE = .04, p = .77).

Discussion

Concerns about the implications of sexting on adolescents’ health and technological citizenship have grown over the past decade. Negative intrapersonal (e.g., guilt, shame) and interpersonal (e.g., bullying, nonconsensual sharing) consequences reported by adolescents who engage in sexting have been cited as principal reasons for the increasing public awareness of the phenomenon (Gennari et al., 2025). Adolescents gather information on sexual behaviors from a variety of interpersonal (e.g., healthcare professionals, peers) and mediated (e.g., television shows, pornography) sources. Given the primary role parents play in adolescents' maturation toward adulthood, it is unsurprising that these caretakers are regarded as some of the most important sexual educators for adolescents. Indeed, several models of parent-adolescent sexual communication recognize that the content, quality, and frequency of parent-adolescent communication about sex cascade onto their adolescents’ sexual behaviors (e.g., Rogers, 2017). But the body of literature has demonstrated that frequency of parent-adolescent sexual communication alone does not have a reliable protective effect against adolescents’ risky sexual behaviors (Deptula et al., 2010). Instead, examining both what is talked about and how it is talked about is crucial to understanding how sexting and other risky sexual behaviors can be mitigated through parent-adolescent discourse.

This study found that content and process facets of parent-adolescent sexual communication are relevant in adolescents’ engagement in sexting. Consistent with broader tenets of the multisystem perspective, the greater the breadth of sex topics discussed in parent-adolescent communication, the more comfortable both feel in the exchange. Rosenthal et al. (1998) found that when parents and adolescents are able to bring up sexual issues across a broad spectrum of topics, both feel more comfort and less anxiety. It may be that discussing a wider array of sex topics can normalize sexuality in the household, thereby increasing comfort in such discussions. Comfort in parent-adolescent sexual communication is critical because it fosters openness and counteracts any anxiety or avoidant behaviors (Afifi et al., 2008).

Greater comfort in parent-adolescent sexual communication consequently is associated with lower adolescent sexting. These results are consistent with how parents recall previous positive experiences in conversations about sexting with their adolescents. In an interview study of 23 parents of adolescents, Speno and Halliwell (2023) discovered that more than a third of the parents find comfortable, direct communication about sexting to be met with efficacy. Some parents noted that if comfortable dialogue about sexting is not achieved, adolescents will not take messages of sexual risk seriously. Parents understand their primary role in communication on sexting is to guide their adolescents on matters of intimacy in digital spaces while equipping adolescents to be safe on these platforms (Lamprianidou et al., 2025).

These findings taken together align with the broader corpus of research on parent-adolescent communication about sex and sexual behaviors. The most important contribution of Widman et al. (2016)’s meta-analysis is uncovering a link between parent-adolescent communication about sex and safer-sex behaviors. Findings from the present investigation underscore the link between parent-adolescent sexual communication to sexual risk behaviors in the digital domain. Results demonstrate that narrow sex talk models (i.e., focusing on limited sex topics) are ineffective in turning adolescents away from sexting but only because they limit the perceived comfort felt by parents and their adolescent children. It is worth noting that because the findings come from cross-sectional data, causal inference cannot be substantiated. As Jerman and Constantine (2010) pointed out, it could very well be that discomfort in parent-adolescent sexual communication limits the range of sex topics discussed.

Alternative models of the hypothesized relationships of this investigation do not fit the data as well. That is, it does not appear that the breadth of sex topics discussed between parents and adolescents has any palpable direct effect on adolescent sexting. Comfort in sexual communication seems to be the integral component in the locomotion from talking about a variety of sexual topics to effecting any change in adolescents’ sexting behaviors. A handful of cross-sectional studies have demonstrated some evidence that as parent-adolescent communication about sex increases, so too do risky sexual behaviors (e.g., condomless sex) among adolescents (Somers & Ali, 2011; Somers & Paulson, 2000). However, the ambiguity of temporal precedence in these studies opens the possibility that parents of adolescents who engage in risky sexual behaviors are more likely to have frequent conversations about sexual health.

Contributions to multisystem perspective

The theoretical contributions of this study deserve mention. The multisystem perspective originally endeavored to describe factors that influence risky sexual behaviors in adolescents’ in-person interactions, such as unintended pregnancies and STI transmission (Kotchick et al., 2001). This and other studies like it, which take a micro-level view of family system influences and adolescent sexting, provide initial evidence that the multisystem perspective can be extended to technologically mediated sexual risks. Such a contribution is significant because it connects theories of sexual communication to digital literacy by demonstrating that parent-adolescent sex talk can indirectly affect digital intimacy and risks. Extending offline theories of sexual interactions to novel technological landscapes is a worthy pursuit, and future theoretical refinement (e.g., investigating relevant affordances, perceptions of technology) in this area should continue (Courtice & Shaughnessy, 2021).

The multisystem perspective suggests that the family system has a reciprocal relationship with adolescent sexual risk, but comfort in communication is introduced as a regulatory mechanism in these reciprocal effects. Adolescents and parents define comfort in sexual communication by the qualities of openness, honesty, mutual understanding, and being judgment free (Grossman & Richer, 2022). Communication comfort is found to be an intermediary emotional/psychological regulator in sexual health literacy and familial interactions.

Limitations and future directions

The present study broadens our understanding of the complex relationships between parents and adolescents regarding sexting. The theoretical, conceptual, and practical contributions are underscored. Nevertheless, limitations of this study and future directions of this research should be acknowledged. First, it is important to note that sexting was undifferentiated in this investigation. Adolescents were asked if they had ever sent a sexually explicit message of themselves to someone else. They were not asked about the specific content or context in which the sexting occurred. For instance, some studies have differentiated between sexting in and outside of romantic relationships (e.g., van Ouytsel et al., 2017). Others have made a distinction between consensual and nonconsensual sexting experiences (e.g., Barroso et al., 2023). Having nonconsensual sexting experiences and sexting outside of romantic relationships are more consistent with risky sex behaviors, whereas consensual sexting within romantic relationships is viewed as a safer-sex—albeit not entirely safe—behavior. Accordingly, these contextual factors surrounding sexting may moderate the relationships between sexting behaviors and parent-adolescent communication about sex, to which future studies should be more sensitive.

Second, single-item measures were used to evaluate comfort in parent-adolescent sexual communication and adolescent sexting. Arguments have long been proposed that single-item measures lack reliability, they cannot capture granular details in constructs, and important subdimensions can be missed (see Allen et al., 2022). These criticisms have been leveled in sexting research as well (Courtice & Shaughnessy, 2021). Although single-item measures are poor choices when it comes to capturing the nomothetic net of human psychological states and emotions, Wanous et al. (1997) suggested they can be appropriate for certain research occasions where constructs are unambiguous or narrow in scope. Likewise, in large-scale survey research, like the method implemented in this investigation, single-item measures can result in less participant fatigue and burnout (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). An important contribution of future research would be to replicate these findings using well-validated multi-item measures of comfort in parent-adolescent sexual communication and adolescent sexting.

Third, cross-sectional data were used in the present investigation. Although nationally representative cross-sectional studies have the benefit of being more cost effective and easier to execute than their longitudinal counterparts, the conclusions are limited to correlational, not causal, inferences. Future investigations in this area can replicate these results in longitudinal survey studies using multiple waves to determine intraindividual and interindividual change.

Fourth, a key limitation is that parental perceptions of adolescent sexting were not measured in the present investigation. The present investigation links parents’ perceptions about sexual communication with their adolescent to their adolescent child’s self-reported behaviors. In such an exploratory study, parental perceptions of adolescents’ sexting behaviors should also be evaluated. Future studies in this area should expand the measures to include parental perceptions of adolescent sexting frequency.

Finally, it is noteworthy that measures assessing the breadth of sex topics discussed in parent-adolescent communication did not include sexting. Although the present investigation demonstrated that discussing consequences of sex in parent-adolescent communication more broadly (e.g., STIs, pregnancy, birth control) can influence adolescent sexting downstream, likely through higher-order scripting (see Simon & Gagnon, 1986), it would be fruitful to examine whether having an open discussion about sexting can result in specific scripting effects on adolescent sexting behaviors.

Conclusion

This study highlights the importance of parent-adolescent sexual communication, particularly the role of comfort as a mechanism linking breadth of sex topics discussed to adolescent sexting behaviors. By extending the multisystem perspective into technologically mediated contexts, the findings suggest that family communication influences not only offline but also digital sexual risks. The theoretical and practical importance of fostering open, comfortable dialogue about a wide range of sexual topics is highlighted.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by Julie Parker Benello, Abigail E. Disney, Natasha and David Dolby, Embrey Family Foundation, The Fledgling Fund, Ruth Ann Harnisch and The Harnisch Foundation, Chandra Jessee, Suzanne Lerner, Cristina Ljungberg, Ann Lovell, Nion McEvoy, Regina K. Scully, Artemis Rising Foundation, Lindsey Taylor Wood, and Jacki Zehner.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing robert.tokunaga@utsa.edu.

ORCID iD

Robert S. Tokunaga

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.*

Note

References

Afifi

T. D.

Joseph

Aldeis

(2008). Why can’t we just talk about it? An observational study of parents’ and adolescents’ conversations about sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(6), 689–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408323841

Allen

M. S.

Iliescu

Greiff

(2022). Single item measures in psychological science. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000699

Alonso

Romero

(2019). Sexting behaviours in adolescents: Personality predictors and psychosocial outcomes in a one-year follow-up. Anales de Psicología, 35(2), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.35.2.339831

Barrense-Dias

Surís

J. C.

Akre

(2019). “When it deviates it becomes harassment, doesn’t it?” A qualitative study on the definition of sexting according to adolescents and young adults, parents, and teachers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(8), 2357–2366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1358-5

Barroso

Marinho

A. R.

Figueiredo

Ramião

Silva

A. S.

(2023). Consensual and non-consensual sexting behaviors in adolescence: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 8(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-022-00199-0

Bergkvist

Rossiter

J. R.

(2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175

Bleakley

Hennessy

Fishbein

Jordan

(2009). How sources of sexual information relate to adolescents’ beliefs about sex. American Journal of Health Behavior, 33(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.33.1.4

Brinkley

D. Y.

Ackerman

R. A.

Ehrenreich

S. E.

Underwood

M. K.

(2017). Sending and receiving text messages with sexual content: Relations with early sexual activity and borderline personality features in late adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior, 70(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.082

Brodie

Z. P.

Wilson

Scott

G. G.

(2019). Sextual intercourse: Considering social-cognitive predictors and subsequent outcomes of sexting behavior in adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(8), 2367–2379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01497-w

10.

Burén

Gattario

K. H.

Lunde

(2025). The role of body image factors in Swedish adolescents’ sexting behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 54(4), 1441–1457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03115-4

11.

Byrne

Katz

S. J.

Lee

Linz

McIlrath

(2014). Peers, predators, and porn: Predicting parental underestimation of children’s risky online experiences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12040

12.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention . (2025). Teen dating violence. https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/about-teen-dating-violence.html

13.

Chang

Krosnick

J. A.

(2009). National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing vs. the internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 641–678. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp075

14.

Chaudhary

Peskin

Temple

J. R.

Addy

R. C.

Baumler

Ross

(2017). Sexting and mental health: A school-based longitudinal study among youth in Texas. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 8(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.58464/2155-5834.1329. https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol8/iss1/11/

15.

Clawson

C. L.

Reese‐Weber

(2003). The amount and timing of parent‐adolescent sexual communication as predictors of late adolescent sexual risk‐taking behaviors. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(3), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552190

16.

Coakley

T. M.

Randolph

Shears

Beamon

E. R.

Collins

Sides

(2017). Parent-youth communication to reduce at-risk sexual behavior: A systematic literature review. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 27(6), 609–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2017.1313149

17.

Courtice

E. L.

Shaughnessy

(2017). Technology-mediated sexual interaction and relationships: A systematic review of the literature. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32(3-4), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2017.1397948

18.

Courtice

E. L.

Shaughnessy

(2021). Four problems in sexting research and their solutions. Sexes, 2(4), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes2040033

19.

Couturiaux

D. V.

Young

Anthony

R. E.

Page

Lowthian

Melendez-Torres

G. J.

Moore

G. F.

(2021). Risk behaviours associated with dating and relationship violence among 11-16 year olds in Wales: Results from the 2019 Student Health and Wellbeing Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031192

20.

Crimmins

D. M.

Seigfried-Spellar

K. C.

(2014). Peer attachment, sexual experiences, and risky online behaviors as predictors of sexting behaviors among undergraduate students. Computers in Human Behavior, 32(1), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.012

21.

Deptula

D. P.

Henry

D. B.

Schoeny

M. E.

(2010). How can parents make a difference? Longitudinal associations with adolescent sexual behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 731–739. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021760

22.

DiIorio

Kelley

Hockenberry-Eaton

(1999). Communication about sexual issues: Mothers, fathers, and friends. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24(3), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(98)00115-3

23.

DiIorio

Pluhar

Belcher

(2003). Parent-child communication about sexuality: A review of the literature from 1980-2002. Journal of HIV/AIDS Prevention & Education for Adolescents & Children, 5(3-4), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1300/J129v05n03_02

24.

Dir

A. L.

Coskunpinar

Steiner

J. L.

Cyders

M. A.

(2013). Understanding differences in sexting behaviors across gender, relationship status, and sexual identity, and the role of expectancies in sexting. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(8), 568–574. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0545

25.

Dodaj

Sesar

Jerinić

(2020). A prospective study of high-school adolescent sexting behavior and psychological distress. Journal of Psychology, 154(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2019.1666788

26.

Dolev-Cohen

Ricon

(2022). Dysfunctional parent-child communication about sexting during adolescence. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(3), 1689–1702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02286-8

27.

Doyle

Douglas

O'Reilly

(2021). The outcomes of sexting for children and adolescents: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Adolescence, 92(1), 86–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.08.009

28.

Draper

N. R.

(2012). Is your teen at risk? Discourses of adolescent sexting in United States television news. Journal of Children and Media, 6(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2011.587147

29.

Dutra

Miller

K. S.

Forehand

(1999). The process and content of sexual communication with adolescents in two-parent families: Associations with sexual risk-taking behavior. AIDS and Behavior, 3(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025419519668

30.

Epstein

Ward

L. M.

(2008). “Always use protection”: Communication boys receive about sex from parents, peers, and the media. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9187-1

31.

Farkas

M. S.

Grolnick

W. S.

(2010). Examining the components and concomitants of parental structure in the academic domain. Motivation and Emotion, 34(3), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-010-9176-7

32.

Flores

Barroso

(2017). 21st century parent-child sex communication in the United States: A process review. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(4-5), 532–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1267693

33.

Gámez-Guadix

Mateos-Pérez

(2019). Longitudinal and reciprocal relationships between sexting, online sexual solicitations, and cyberbullying among minors. Computers in Human Behavior, 94(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.004

34.

Gavey

Wech

Hindley

Thorburn

Single

Calder-Dawe

Benton-Greig

(2024). Preventing image-based sexual coercion, harassment and abuse among teenagers: Girls deconstruct sexting-related harm prevention messages. Sex Education, 24(3), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2023.2198205

35.

Gennari

Büchi

Guedes

Schafer

Kardefelt-Winther

(2025). The role of psychosocial factors in youth sexting: A multi-country analysis of risk perception. Journal of Adolescent Health, 76(5), 847–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2025.01.008

36.

Grossman

J. M.

Richer

A. M.

(2022). A longitudinal look at family communication about sexual issues. Sexes, 3(1), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes3010013

37.

Grossman

J. M.

Sarwar

P. F.

Richer

A. M.

Erkut

(2017). “We talked about sex.” “No, we didn’t”: Exploring adolescent and parent agreement about sexuality communication. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 12(4), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2017.1372829

38.

Guilamo-Ramos

Lee

J. J.

Jaccard

(2016). Parent-adolescent communication about contraception and condom use. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(1), 14–16. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3109

39.

Guzmán

B. L.

Schlehofer-Sutton

M. M.

Villanueva

C. M.

Stritto

M. E. D.

Casad

B. J.

Feria

(2003). Let’s talk about sex: How comfortable discussions about sex impact teen sexual behavior. Journal of Health Communication, 8(6), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/716100416

40.

Haddon

(2016). Parental mediation of internet use: Evaluating family relationships. In Loos

Haddon

Mante-Meijer

(Eds.), Generational use of new media (pp. 13–30). Routledge.

41.

Harris

K. M.

Schonlau

Lurie

(2009). Surveying a nationally representative internet-based panel to obtain timely estimates of influenza vaccination rates. Vaccine, 27(6), 815–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.11.052

42.

Herbenick

T. C.

Wright

Paul

Gradus

Bauer

Jones

(2020). Diverse sexual behaviors and pornography use: Findings from a nationally representative probability survey of Americans aged 18 to 60 years. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 17(4), 623–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.01.013

43.

Hernández

M. P.

Schoeps

Maganto

Montoya-Castilla

(2021). The risk of sexual erotic online behavior in adolescents–Which personality factors predict sexting and grooming victimization? Computers in Human Behavior, 114(1), Article 106569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106569

44.

Hill

N. E.

Bromell

Tyson

D. F.

Flint

(2007). Developmental commentary: Ecological perspectives on parental influences during adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(3), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410701444322

45.

Houck

C. D.

Barker

Rizzo

Hancock

Norton

Brown

L. K.

(2014). Sexting and sexual behavior in at-risk adolescents. Pediatrics, 133(2), e276–e282. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-1157

46.

Isotalo

Antfolk

(2024). Young people’s reasons for and emotional reactions to sexting in intimate relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 62(7), 1198–1213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2410335

47.

Jaccard

Dittus

(1991). Parent-teen communication: Toward the prevention of unintended pregnancies. Springer-Verlag.

48.

Jaccard

Dittus

P. J.

Gordon

V. V.

(1998). Parent‐adolescent congruency in reports of adolescent sexual behavior and in communications about sexual behavior. Child Development, 69(1), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06146.x

49.

Jerman

Constantine

N. A.

(2010). Demographic and psychological predictors of parent–adolescent communication about sex: A representative statewide analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(10), 1164–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9546-1

50.

Jordahl

Lohman

B. J.

(2009). A bioecological analysis of risk and protective factors associated with early sexual intercourse of young adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1272–1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.014

51.

Kerstens

Stol

(2014). Receiving online sexual requests and producing online sexual images: The multifaceted and dialogic nature of adolescents’ online sexual interactions. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-1-8

52.

Kotchick

B. A.

Shaffer

Miller

K. S.

Forehand

(2001). Adolescent sexual risk behavior: A multi-system perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(4), 493–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00070-7

53.

Krieger

M. A.

(2017). Unpacking “sexting”: A systematic review of nonconsensual sexting in legal, educational, and psychological literatures. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(5), 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016659486

54.

Lamprianidou

E.-A.

Venard

del Rio Carral

Zimmermann

Van Petegem

(2025). When sexting becomes “sexteen”: Exploring parental representations and regulations of adolescent sexting. Sexuality & Culture, 29(3), 1232–1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-025-10321-8

55.

Lehr

S. T.

DiIorio

Dudley

W. N.

Lipana

J. A.

(2000). The relationship between parent-adolescent communication and safer sex behaviors in college students. Journal of Family Nursing, 6(2), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/107484070000600206

56.

Liong

Cheng

G. H. L.

(2019). Objectifying or liberating? Investigation of the effects of sexting on body image. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(3), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1438576

57.

Lippman

J. R.

Campbell

S. W.

(2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…if you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8(4), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.923009

58.

Lohman

B. J.

Billings

(2008). Protective and risk factors associated with adolescent boys’ early sexual debut and risky sexual behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(6), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9283-x

59.

Maas

M. K.

Bray

B. C.

Noll

J. G.

(2019). Online sexual experiences predict subsequent sexual health and victimization outcomes among female adolescents: A latent class analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(5), 837–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-00995-3

60.

Maas

M. K.

Wright

P. J.

Rothman

E. F.

Nelson

K. M.

Weigle

Herbenick

(2025). Pornography use during adolescence: The current state of knowledge and recommendations. In Christakis

D. A.

Hale

(Eds.), Children and screens: A handbook on digital media and the development, health, and well-being of children and adolescents (pp. 341–347). Springer.

61.

Madigan

Rash

C. L.

Van Ouytsel

Temple

J. R.

(2018). Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behavior among youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5314

62.

Malcom

K. E.

Ronis

S. T.

(2021). Observed comfort in sexual communication between mothers and adolescents. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 16(1), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1838376

63.

Martino

S. C.

Elliott

M. N.

Corona

Kanouse

D. E.

Schuster

M. A.

(2008). Beyond the “big talk”: The roles of breadth and repetition in parent-adolescent communication about sexual topics. Pediatrics, 121(3), e612–e618. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-2156

64.

Mauras

C. P.

Grolnick

W. S.

Friendly

R. W.

(2013). Time for “The talk”. Now what? Autonomy support and structure in mother-daughter conversations about sex. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(4), 458–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431612449385

65.

Miller

K. S.

Kotchick

B. A.

Dorsey

Forehand

Ham

A. Y.

(1998). Family communication about sex: What are parents saying and are their adolescents listening? Family Planning Perspectives, 30(5), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991607

66.

Mollaei

Ahmadi

Yousefi

(2023). Risk and protective factors of high-risk sexual behaviors in young people: A systematic review. International Journal of High Risk Behaviors and Addiction, 12(1), e131119. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijhrba-131119

67.

Mollborn

Everett

(2010). Correlates and consequences of parent–teen incongruence in reports of teens’ sexual experience. The Journal of Sex Research, 47(4), 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902954315

68.

Ngo

Karuppannan

Agustina

J. R.

(2017). Sexting: Current research gaps and legislative issues. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(2), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1037369

69.

O’Connor

Drouin

Yergens

Newsham

(2017). Sexting legislation in the United States and abroad: A call for uniformity. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(2), 218–245. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1037397

70.

O’Donnell

Wilson‐Simmons

Dash

Jeanbaptiste

Myint‐U

Moss

Stueve

(2007). Saving sex for later: Developing a parent-child communication intervention to delay sexual initiation among young adolescents. Sex Education, 7(2), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810701264441

71.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

(2014). Linking online sexual activities to health outcomes among teens. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 144(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20059

72.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

(2018). Longitudinal change in parent-adolescent communication about sexuality. Journal of Adolescent Health, 63(6), 753–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.031

73.

Phippen

Bond

(2023). Teen sexting: A modern, cultural phenomenon? Or not so new? In Phippen

Bond

(Eds.), Policing teen sexting: Supporting children’s rights while applying the law (pp. 7–39). Springer International Publishing.

74.

Potter

Soren

Santelli

(2017). Predictors of parental knowledge of adolescent sexual experience: United States, 2012. Preventive Medicine Reports, 6(1), 94–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.02.020

75.

Remondi

Gerbino

Zuffianò

Baiocco

Cirimele

Thartori

Pastorelli

Lunetti

Favini

Bacchini

Regalia

Lansford

J. E.

(2024). Longitudinal associations between positive parenting and youths’ engagement in sexting behaviors: The mediating role of filial self-efficacy beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 158(1), Article 108320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108320

76.

Rice

Rhoades

Winetrobe

Sanchez

Montoya

Plant

Kordic

(2012). Sexually explicit cell phone messaging associated with sexual risk among adolescents. Pediatrics, 130(4), 667–673. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0021

77.

Rogers

A. A.

(2017). Parent-adolescent sexual communication and adolescents’ sexual behaviors: A conceptual model and systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 2(4), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-016-0049-5

78.

Rosenthal

D. A.

Feldman

S. S.

(1999). The importance of importance: Adolescents’ perceptions of parental communication about sexuality. Journal of Adolescence, 22(6), 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1999.0279

79.

Rosenthal

D. A.

Feldman

S. S.

Edwards

(1998). Mum’s the word: Mothers' perspectives on communication about sexuality with adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 21(6), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1998.0192

80.

Simon

Gagnon

J. H.

(1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542219

81.

Sneed

C. D.

(2008). Parent-adolescent communication about sex: The impact of content and comfort on adolescent sexual behavior. Journal of HIV/AIDS Prevention in Children & Youth, 9(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10698370802126477

82.

Somers

C. L.

Ali

W. F.

(2011). The role of parents in early adolescent sexual risk-taking behavior. The Open Psychology Journal, 4(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350101104010088

83.

Somers

C. L.

Paulson

S. E.

(2000). Students’ perceptions of parent-adolescent closeness and communication about sexuality: Relations with sexual knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 23(5), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2000.0349

84.

Speno

A. G.

Halliwell

(2023). “It’s not just talking about the birds and the bees anymore”: Parent-child communication about sexting. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 31(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2021.2009481

85.

Strasburger

V. C.

Zimmerman

Temple

J. R.

Madigan

(2019). Teenagers, sexting, and the law. Pediatrics, 143(5), Article e20183183. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3183

86.

Titchen

K. E.

Maslyanskaya

Silver

E. J.

Coupey

S. M.

(2019). Sexting and young adolescents: Associations with sexual abuse and intimate partner violence. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 32(5), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2019.07.004

87.

Van Ouytsel

Ponnet

Walrave

d’Haenens

(2017). Adolescent sexting from a social learning perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.05.009

88.

Van Ouytsel

Ponnet

Walrave

Temple

J. R.

(2019). Longitudinal associations between sexting, cyberbullying, and bullying among adolescents: Cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 73(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.03.008

89.

Villacampa

(2017). Teen sexting: Prevalence, characteristics and legal treatment. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 49(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.01.002

90.

Wanous

J. P.

Reichers

A. E.

Hudy

M. J.

(1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are the single item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247

91.

Warren

Neer

(1986). Family sex communication orientation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 14(2), 86–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909888609360307

92.

White

C. P.

Wright

D. W.

Barnes

H. L.

(1995). Correlates of parent-child communication about specific sexual topics: A study of rural parents with school‐aged children. Personal Relationships, 2(4), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00096.x

93.

Widman

Choukas-Bradley

Noar

S. M.

Nesi

Garrett

(2016). Parent-adolescent sexual communication and adolescent safer sex behavior: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2731

94.

Widman

Javidi

Maheux

A. J.

Evans

Nesi

Choukas-Bradley

(2021). Sexual communication in the digital age: Adolescent sexual communication with parents and friends about sexting, pornography, and starting relationships online. Sexuality & Culture, 25(6), 2092–2109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09866-1

95.

Wright

M. F.

Wachs

(2024). Longitudinal associations between different types of sexting, adolescent mental health, and sexual risk behaviors: Moderating effects of gender, ethnicity, disability status, and sexual minority status. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(3), 1115–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02764-7

Parent-adolescent communication about sex and adolescent sexting behaviors

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

What is sexting?

Parent-adolescent sexual communication and sexual risk behaviors

Parent-adolescent sexual communication and sexting

Method

Procedure

Participants

Measures

Teen sexting behaviors

Parent-adolescent sex topics

Comfort in sexual communication

Analysis plan

Results

Main analysis

Supplemental analysis

Discussion

Contributions to multisystem perspective

Limitations and future directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Open research statement

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

Note

References