Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The influence of information communication technology has brought about the phenomenon of sexting. Sexting is defined as sending, receiving, or forwarding on sexually explicit messages and images via the Internet or a mobile phone. The current study investigated relationships between sexting, sensation seeking, and self-esteem. Sexting was categorized in six ways: sending (1) sexually suggestive photos or videos, (2) photos or videos wearing lingerie, (3) nude photos or videos, (4) sexually suggestive text messages, (5) text messages propositioning sex, and (6) forwarding on or showing others sexts which were meant to be kept private. The sample comprised 583 young adults (80% female, M _age = 20.72 years, SD _age = 2.13) who participated in an online survey. The strongest predictor of sending all types of sexts was being in a relationship (compared to being single). In addition, high self-esteem was associated with reduced odds of sending nude photos/videos, while high sensation seeking was associated with increased odds of sending suggestive texts and texts propositioning sex. Finally, high self-esteem was associated with decreased odds, and high sensation seeking with increased odds, of forwarding on sexts which were meant to be kept private. This pattern of associations points to differences underlying engagement in the various types of sexting behaviors. Such information can be used by educators, parents, and clinicians to raise awareness of traits which make an individual more likely to engage in sexting, with a view to prevention and education about the risks of sexting and violation of privacy.

Keywords

sexting self-esteem sensation seeking young adult

Sexting is defined as sending, receiving, or forwarding on/showing others sexually explicit messages and images via the Internet or a mobile phone (Lenhart, 2009). The media and general public have a widespread interest in sexting and its potential personal, social, and legal impacts. These impacts include the nonconsensual dissemination of explicit content and the potential impacts of such violations on social and emotional health, employment, schooling, and relationships; potentially serious legal impacts, particularly if those involved are minors (under age 18), but also in the case of nonconsensual sexting; and the potential impacts of sexting on mental health and other risky behaviors, including risky sexual behaviors (e.g., Judge, 2012; Wolak, Finkelhor, & Mitchell, 2012). However, little is known about sexting, and its predictors and consequences. Reports on the prevalence of sexting are mixed, owing primarily to the varied definitions and measurement of sexting. Previous research among samples of young adults has reported rates of sexting (sending and/or receiving) between 30% and 89% (e.g., Benotsch, Snipes, Martin, & Bull, 2013; Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013; National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2008; Wysocki & Childers, 2011), while the published rates of sexting among adolescents are lower (4–39%; e.g., Dowdell, Burgess, & Flores, 2011; Lenhart, 2009).

Sexting and Problem Behaviors

A problem behavior is one that deviates from social and legal norms, is disapproved by society and authorities, and tends to result in social control responses such as reprimand or social rejection (Jessor, 1987). If sexting is conceptualized as a problem behavior, relationships between sexting and other risk behaviors could be predicted by problem behavior theory (PBT; Jessor & Jessor, 1977). According to PBT, problem behaviors have common psychological, social, and behavioral causes; thus, propensity to engage in one type of problem behavior is predictive of involvement in other problem behaviors. Indeed, a number of studies have shown that sexting is associated with risky sexual behavior (Benotsch et al., 2013; Ferguson, 2011; Van Ouytsel, Walrave, Ponnet, & Heirman, 2015), alcohol use (Benotsch et al., 2013), and illicit substance use (Benotsch et al., 2013).

The propensity to engage in risky or problem behaviors has also been suggested to be a function of personality traits which predispose an individual to seek complex, intense, and novel experiences (i.e., sensation seeking; Zuckerman, 1979). Research shows that those who score highly on measures of sensation seeking often take risks (physical, social, legal, and financial) simply to enjoy the experience (Zuckerman, 1994). While one published study investigated the relationship between sexting and sensation seeking among adults and found that sensation seeking did not predict sexting (in the form of sending explicit photos or text messages; Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013), another study found that adolescent who scored higher on a measure of sensation seeking were more likely to report sexting (defined as sending a sexually suggestive picture of themselves; Van Ouytsel, Van Gool, Ponnet, & Walrave, 2014).

Sexting and Self-Esteem

Engagement in risky or problem behaviors has also been investigated in regard to traits such as self-esteem. Low self-esteem has been shown to be associated with risky sexual behavior in both adults and adolescents (Lejuez, Simmons, Aklin, Daughters, & Dvir, 2004; Magnani, Seiber, Gutierrex, & Vereau, 2001; Wild, Flisher, Bhana, & Lombard, 2004). Research has shown that self-image influences an individual’s views on sex and sexuality (Tesser, 2001), suggesting that self-esteem problems may contribute to problems of sexuality and sex in young adults, including engaging in sexual risk-taking, and the experience of lasting consequences associated with sexual risk-taking, such as unplanned pregnancy (Boden & Horwood, 2006). Two studies have investigated self-esteem in relation to sexting. Gordon-Messer, Bauermeister, Grodzinski, and Zimmermanm (2013) found no difference in self-esteem levels across groups of adults categorized according to sexting behavior (nonsexters, two-way sexters [send and receive], and sext receivers). Similarly, a study of adolescents found that self-esteem did not predict the exchange of sexual content via a mobile phone (Vanden Abeele, Roe, & Eggermont, 2012).

The Current Study

Given that relationships between risky sexual behaviors and both sensation seeking (Arnett, 1996; Lejuez et al., 2004; Zuckerman, 1994) and self-esteem (Lejuez et al., 2004; Wild et al., 2004) have been reported in the literature, further investigation of whether these traits are associated with sexting behavior is warranted. Increased understanding of the individual traits of those who engage in sexting can help researchers, practitioners, and policy makers better understand the context in which sexting takes place. This is also of relevance from a theoretical perspective when considering whether sexting should be conceptualized as a problem behavior. Although research into sexting is in its infancy, some authors have suggested that this behavior (at least, when considering sending and receiving sexts) may be a normal, technology-mediated expression of sexuality among young people, particularly those in a relationship (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013; Levine, 2013). Examination of whether sexting behavior demonstrates associations with traits and behaviors in a manner similar to other risky or problem behaviors would allow investigation of this issue. In addition, studies of these relationships would be aided by clear delineation of different types of sexting behaviors (i.e., sexually explicit images vs. texts; Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013; Gordon-Messer et al., 2013) and examination of different forms of sexting exchange (i.e., sending sexts vs. forwarding on sexts which were meant to be kept private; Levine, 2013). Not only would this provide a more in-depth understanding of sexting and its correlates, but it may also assist in clarification of different findings across studies and would allow better comparisons between studies which have varied definitions and measurements of sexting.

Therefore, the current study aims to examine relationships between sexting, sensation seeking, and self-esteem. Based on research regarding problem behaviors and their relationship to both personality (Zuckerman, 1994) and self-esteem (Lejuez et al., 2004), it was predicted that sensation seeking would be associated with increased risk of engaging in sexting behaviors, and self-esteem would be associated with reduced risk of engaging in sexting behaviors. In line with the previous research (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013; Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011), sexting will be investigated in terms of sending (1) sexually suggestive photos or videos, (2) photos or videos wearing lingerie, (3) nude photos or videos, (4) sexually suggestive text messages, and (5) text messages propositioning sex. Further, this study will also investigate the behavior of nonconsensual sexting (i.e., forwarding on or showing others sexts which were meant to be kept private).

Method

Participants

The sample comprised 583 young adults (466 females and 117 males) aged between 18 and 26 years (M = 20.72 years SD = 2.13). Of the 583 participants, 53% were single, 44% were in a relationship, and 3% were married. The majority of the sample reported that their highest level of education achieved was some university (48.7%), while 4.1% had not completed secondary school (year 11 or below), 19.2% had completed secondary school, 9.3% had completed some or all of a Technical Further Education (TAFE) degree/diploma, 16.3% had completed a university bachelor degree, and 2.4% had completed a postgraduate university degree. Participants were self-selected and were recruited from the student population attending an Australian public university. An e-mail advertising the survey was sent to all students in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at the University. Further, advertisements were posted on notice boards around campus and on the University Facebook page.

Measures

Sexting

Questions regarding frequency of sexting behavior were developed by the investigators based on previous research (National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2008; Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011). The questions asked how often participants had sent or forwarded on/showed others sexually explicit messages, photographs, or videos via a mobile phone device. The five sexting sent questions began with the prefix “how often have you sent a …” followed by 5 items, “sexually suggestive photo or video of yourself,” “photo or video of yourself in underwear or in lingerie,” “nude photo or video of yourself,” “sexually suggestive text message,” and “text message propositioning sexual activity.” The sexting forwarded question read “how often have you forwarded on or showed others these explicit messages which were meant to be kept private.” The six sexting items were responded to on a 6-point scale: never (0), only ever once or twice (1), less than monthly (2), monthly (3), weekly (4), and daily (5).

Given that the distribution of the responses to each of these items was highly skewed (see Table 1), each item was dichotomized to reflect (0) never engaged in that sexting behavior and (1) engaged in that sexting behavior at least once.

Table 1.
Distribution of Frequencies for Specific Sexting Behaviors.

Type of Sexting Behavior Never Only Ever Once or Twice Less Than Monthly Monthly Weekly Daily

Sent

Sexually suggestive photo or video of yourself 318 (54.5) 178 (30.5) 51 (8.7) 22 (3.8) 14 (2.4) 0 (0.0)

Photo or video of yourself in underwear or lingerie 176 (30.2) 53 (9.1) 24 (4.1) 15 (2.6) 1 (0.2)

Nude photo or video of yourself 420 (72.0) 102 (17.5) 36 (6.2) 13 (2.2) 12 (2.1) 0 (0.0)

Sexually suggestive text message 107 (18.4) 134 (23.0) 137 (23.5) 92 (15.8) 86 (14.8) 27 (4.6)

Text message propositioning sexual activity 168 (28.8) 121 (20.8) 111 (19.0) 75 (12.9) 87 (14.9) 21 (3.6)

Forwarded on or showed others

Explicit messages which were meant to be kept private 447 (76.7) 106 (18.2) 16 (2.7) 6 (1.0) 5 (0.9) 3 (0.5)

Note. Number of participants with percentage of the sample in parentheses.

Sensation seeking

Sensation seeking was assessed with the Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (Arnett, 1994). This measure contains two 10-item subscales: novelty and intensity (Arnett, 1994). The 20 items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from “describes me very well” to “does not describe me at all.” Responses to the 20 items were summed to obtain the scale score, with higher scores indicating higher sensation seeking (with a possible range of 20–80).

Self-esteem

Self-esteem was measured with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1989). This measure contains 10 items, each scored on a 4-point scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Responses to the 10 item are summed to obtain the scale score (range 0–30), with higher scores indicating higher self-esteem.

Procedure

Potential participants accessed the survey (hosted by Qualtrics [Qualtrics Labs, 2012]) by following the electronic link provided in the advertisements. Before accessing the survey, participants were presented with an information letter and were instructed that by clicking on the “continue” button, they would be indicating their consent to take part in the research. The survey took 15–20 minute to complete; at its conclusion, participants were given the option to enter their e-mail address if they would like to enter a drawing to receive a prize (one of three gift vouchers) in gratitude for their participation. The database for storing the survey data was separate from the database storing participant e-mail addresses to ensure anonymity was maintained. This study was approved by the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data analysis was undertaken using SPSS 19.0 (IBM Corp., Released 2010). Descriptive statistics were computed for each variable and bivariate correlational analysis was conducted between the independent variables to examine the assumption of multicollinearity. Separate hierarchical multivariable logistic regression analyses were then conducted for each sexting behavior. In the first stage, demographic variables were entered (gender, age, and relationship status) and in the second stage, sensation seeking and self-esteem were added to the model.

Results

Summary statistics and psychometric properties of the measures can be found in Table 2. Table 3 displays the dichotomization of sexting variables for the purpose of the logistic regression analyses. As can be seen, sending a sexually suggestive photo or video and sending a photo or video of yourself in underwear or lingerie were reported by approximately half of the sample. Sending nude photos or videos of yourself was reported by less than 30% of the sample. Sending sexually suggestive text messages or text messages propositioning sexual activity were very common, reported by 82% and 71%, respectively. Forwarding on messages that were supposed to be kept private (nonconsensual sexting) was reported by almost one quarter of the sample.

Table 2.
Summary Statistics and Psychometric Properties of Measures.

Measure M SD α Range

AISS 50.50 7.75 .70 28–72

RSES 18.66 5.81 .91 1–30

Note. AISS = Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

Table 3.
Dichotomized Frequencies for Specific Sexting Behaviors.

Type of Sexting Behavior No Yes

Sent

Sexually suggestive photo or video of yourself 318 (54.55) 265 (45.45)

Photo or video of yourself in underwear or lingerie 314 (53.89) 269 (46.14)

Nude photo or video of yourself 420 (72.04) 163 (27.96)

Sexually suggestive text message 107 (18.35) 476 (81.65)

Text message propositioning sexual activity 168 (28.82) 415 (71.18)

Forwarded on or showed others

Explicit messages which were meant to be kept private 447 (76.67) 136 (23.33)

Note. Number of participants with percentage of the sample in parentheses. No = never engaged in a particular behavior; Yes = engaged in a particular behavior at least once.

The results of the hierarchical logistic regression analyses can be found in Table 4. In the final model, the only statistically significant predictor of sending suggestive photos/videos was relationship status; being in a relationship (compared to being single) was associated with increased odds of sending suggestive photos/videos. Similarly, being in a relationship (compared to being single) and being female were associated with increased odds of sending photos/video in underwear or lingerie. With regard to nude photos/videos, being in a relationship was associated with increased odds of sending nude photos/videos, while self-esteem was associated with reduced odds of sending such sexts. Lastly, being in a relationship, age, and sensation seeking were associated with increased odds of both sending a suggestive text message and sending a text message propositioning sex.

Table 4.
Results of Hierarchical Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting Each Type of Sexting Behavior.

Sending Sexts Forwarding Sexts

Model Suggestive Photo/Video, OR [95% CI] Photo/Video in Lingerie, OR [95% CI] Nude Photo/Video, OR [95% CI] Suggestive Text, OR [95% CI] Propositioning Text, OR [95% CI] Explicit Messages Meant to be Private, OR [95% CI]

1 Gender 1.26 [0.82,1.94] 1.71 [1.11,2.65]* 0.70 [0.44,1.11] 0.81 [0.46,1.41] 0.48 [0.29,0.80]** 0.66 [0.42,1.05]

Age 1.05 [0.97,1.14] 1.07 [0.98,1.16] 0.98 [0.98,1.07] 1.15 [1.03,1.28]* 1.13 [1.03,1.24]* 1.10 [1.00,1.21]*

Relationship status^a

In a relationship 2.90 [2.05,4.09]* 2.42 [1.71,3.40]* 2.50 [1.71,3.66]* 2.73 [1.70,4.42]* 3.26 [2.17,4.88]*** 0.81 [0.54,1.20]

Married 1.89 [0.64,5.56] 1.17 [0.40,3.45] 1.67 [0.49,5.66] 0.59 [0.17,2.04] 1.98 [0.52,7.48] 0.59 [0.15,2.23]

Nagelkerke R ² .09 .08 .06 .08 .12 .02

2 Gender 1.27 [0.81,2.00] 1.79 [1.14,2.83]* 0.75 [0.46,1.21] 1.10 [0.61,1.99] 0.63 [0.37,1.09] 0.87 [0.53,1.42]

Age 1.05 [0.97,1.14] 1.070.99,1.17] 0.99 [0.90,1.09] 1.17 [1.05,1.32] 1.14 [1.04,1.26] 1.12 [1.02,1.23]*

Relationship status^a

In a relationship 2.94 [2.07,1.17]* 2.50 [1.76,3.53]* 2.70 [1.83,3.98]* 2.97 [1.80,4.81]* 3.47 [2.29,5.26]* 0.87 [0.58,1.31]

Married 1.91 [0.65,5.64] 1.21 [0.41,3.58] 1.77 [0.51,6.08] 0.69 [0.19,2.47] 2.12 [0.62,9.35] 0.68 [0.17,2.65]

AISS 1.00 [0.98,1.03] 1.01 [0.99,1.03] 1.02 [0.99,1.04] 1.06 [1.03,1.10]* 1.06 [1.03,1.09]* 1.06 [1.03,1.09]*

RSES 0.99 [0.96,1.02] 0.98 [0.95,1.01] 0.96 [0.93,1.00]* 0.97 [0.99,1.01] 0.99 [0.96,1.02] 0.96 [0.93,0.99]*

Nagelkerke R ² .10 .09 .07 .12 .16 .08

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; AISS = Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

^aCompared to category “single.”

p < .05. p < .01. p < .0005.

With regard to forwarding on sexts which were meant to be kept private (nonconsensual sexting), in the final model, age and sensation seeking were associated with increased odds of forwarding on or showing others these private messages, while self-esteem was associated with reduced odds of this behavior.

Discussion

The current study examined relationships between sensation seeking, self-esteem, and various sexting behaviors. The pattern of associations points to different psychological constructs underlying the different types of sexting behaviors and highlights the need to distinguish between different sexting behaviors in research. When considering sending sexts, the strongest predictor of sending all types of sexts was being in a relationship. Central to the current study, self-esteem was protective of (reduced odds) sending nude photos/videos, while sensation seeking was a risk factor (increased odds) for sending suggestive texts and texts propositioning sex. Conversely, nonconsensual sexting (forwarding on sexts which were meant to be kept private) was not associated with relationship status. Instead, sensation seeking was associated with increased risk of forwarding sexts, while self-esteem reduced the odds of this behavior.

This study is consistent with other research showing that young adults who are in a relationship are more likely to send sexts than those who are single (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013; National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2008; Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011). It has been proposed that one of the most common sexting situations is between two romantic partners (Lenhart, 2009). The reasoning for this may be obvious; those in a relationship may send sexts simply because they have someone to send them to. Alternatively, it has been suggested that within a romantic relationship, sexting may be used as a relationship maintenance strategy, or a form of foreplay, and may enhance the relationship (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013; Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011). Given the high rates of sexting, the fact that relationship status consistently emerges as a strong predictor in this and other studies (Dir, Cyders, & Coskunpinar, 2013; Vanden Abeele et al., 2012; Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011), and the studies showing that the vast majority of sexters report two-way sexting (sending and receiving, usually within the context of a relationship; Gordon-Messer et al., 2013), it may be suggested that sending sexts is a normal, technology-mediated expression of sexual behavior among young adults in a romantic relationship.

Consistent with previous research (Klette, Hallford, & Mellor, 2014), among our young adult sample, older age was associated with sexting (both text-based and nonconsensual sexting; associations between sexting of visual content and age did not reach statistical significance). There are several possible explanations for these findings, including participants in their mid-20s may be more comfortable exploring their sexuality and sharing sexual content than participants in their late teens; and/or older participants may perceive less risk from sharing sexual content such as text-based sexts. Future research is required to understand why sexting is more common among young adults than teenagers, and the motivations behind sexting across the developmental span of adolescence to adulthood.

In the current study, high self-esteem was protective against (reduced odds) sending nude photos or videos, but there was no association between self-esteem and sexting other types of photos/videos or text messages. Of the various types of sexting behaviors investigated in the present study, it could be argued that sending photos/videos where the sender depicted in the photo/video is completely nude is the riskiest behavior; accordingly, less than 30% of the sample reported engaging in this behavior at least once. Such photos may have the greatest potential for exploitation, and the sender may feel the greatest vulnerability when taking and sending such photos. Low self-esteem has been shown to be associated with high-risk sexual behaviors in many studies (Lejuez et al., 2004; Magnani et al., 2001; Preston et al., 2004), in line with research suggesting that self-image influences an individual’s views on sex and sexuality (Tesser, 2001). However, it is not entirely clear whether associations between self-esteem and risk behaviors reflect direct effects, or result from social and contextual factors contributing to the development of both self-esteem and risk behaviors (Boden & Horwood, 2006). Two studies examining sexting in particular have reported no relationships between sexting and self-esteem in adolescent and adult samples (Gordon-Messer et al., 2013; Vanden Abeele et al., 2012). These two studies differed from the present study substantially in terms of definition and conceptualization of sexting and methodology for analyses. This highlights the importance and utility of investigating specific forms of sexting.

On the other hand, the two forms of text sexting (i.e., sending a suggestive text or a text propositioning sex) were both associated with sensation seeking. Sending explicit or propositioning text messages was very common in the current sample—reported by 82% and 71%, respectively. Research suggests that sensation seekers often take risks merely to enjoy the experience (Zuckerman, 1994). However, risk is not the principal source of arousal for those high in sensation seeking, and most do not engage in risky activities just for that purpose; most individuals high in sensation seeking try to minimize the risk by taking precautions (e.g., Zuckerman, 1991). Thus, those high in sensation seeking may choose to engage in text-based sexting, rather than sexting of visual content, to minimize personal risks while also experiencing arousal from engaging in novel and risky experiences. A recent study using structural equation modeling demonstrated that the association between sensation seeking and sexting using a mobile phone, among females, is indirect, through sex-related sexting expectancies (Dir & Cyders, 2015). That is, sensation seeking appears to influence expectancies regarding sex and sexting, which in turn influences sexting behaviors. Future longitudinal research is required to better understand the temporal course of these associations.

Finally, in the current study, nonconsensual sexting (forwarding on or showing others explicit messages which were meant to be kept private) was reported by approximately one quarter of the sample and was associated with both sensation seeking (increased odds) and self-esteem (decreased odds). While sending/receiving sexts, which is strongly related to relationship status and appears to occur most commonly between romantic partners (Lenhart, 2009), may be a normal expression of sexuality in a modern technology-driven society, forwarding on such sexts when they were supposed to be kept private is a violation of privacy which should be targeted and discouraged. Our findings suggest that individuals expressing a propensity for sensation seeking are at increased risk of engaging in this behavior, while high self-esteem is protective against this behavior. Those with a sensation seeking propensity may be flagged as potential targets for prevention and education surrounding the impact of violating the sender’s privacy by sharing images or messages that were meant to be kept private.

From a theoretical perspective, it is unclear whether sexting should be conceptualized as a problem behavior. Some authors have suggested that sexting in the form of sending/receiving sexts may be a normal, relatively harmless, behavior among young people in a relationship (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013; Levine, 2013). In the current study, relationship status was by far the strongest predictor of sending sexts, while self-esteem and sensation seeking were weak, but statistically significant, predictors. These findings, together with the small amount of variance explained by the models in the current study, suggest there are other important factors that contribute to engagement in these sexting behaviors. Accordingly, this provides some support to the notion that, among adults, sending/receiving sexts within a relationship may not be in itself a problem or risky behavior. On the other hand, forwarding on or showing others these explicit messages when they were meant to be kept private is clearly a deviant behavior and was not associated with relationship status. Again, this model accounted for only a small amount of variance, with sensation seeking and self-esteem statistically significant, but weak, predictors. Clearly, further research on the motivations and traits underlying this behavior is warranted.

Research has suggested that despite being aware of the potential implications of engaging in sexting, young people continue to participate in this behavior (Lenhart, 2009; Walker, Sanci, & Temple-Smith, 2013). Therefore, policy and education approaches should move beyond simply imparting knowledge regarding sexting (Walker et al., 2013). It has been suggested that coercion is a major factor in sexting, both with young women feeling pressured by young men to produce and distribute sexts and with young men feeling pressured by each other to obtain and share these images (often without consent; Walker et al., 2013). The current study suggests that boosting self-esteem may reduce the likelihood of engaging in the most risky (sending of nude photos) and deviant (nonconsensual sexting) forms of sexting. This may result from an increased ability and confidence to stand up to peer and intimate partner pressure. Similarly, individuals who exhibit a tendency for sensation seeking should be considered targets for preventive efforts. Research suggests that young people scoring high on sensation seeking are best targeted through the use of messages high in sensation value, for instance, through the use of vivid depictions of negative consequences (Palmgreen, Lorch, Stephenson, Hoyle, & Donohew, 2007). In addition, prevention programs which empower young people to challenge power dynamics in relationships, and which promote the “bystander approach” (i.e., teaching young men to recognize themselves as a bystander to violence or coercion against women, and to stand up to this; Walker et al., 2013) have been suggested as possible approaches which may be more effective than simply imparting knowledge regarding the legal and personal implications of sexting. Ultimately, there is growing evidence that consensual sending and receiving of sexts between two individuals within a romantic relationship may be relatively harmless. It is the sharing of sexts without consent (in the present study, forwarding on sexts which were meant to be kept private) which is of great concern. The individual who commits this act of privacy violation should be the target for prevention efforts. Further, socially acceptable standards of behavior for communication via text message or mobile phone need to be clearly conveyed to young people so that they understand the expectations and etiquette that should be adhered to when communicating in these ways.

Although the current study provides novel information regarding associations between sexting, self-esteem and sensation seeking, it does have several limitations. First, this study cannot offer any insight into causal relationships. Longitudinal research is needed to understand the temporal sequence of the associations. Longitudinal studies would significantly enhance this field and assist in designing appropriate education or prevention programs. Further, the survey was self-report and thus may be subject to biases. To combat this, a measure of social desirability was included in the survey; however, this measure was dropped due to low internal consistency in the current sample. It is possible that response to sexting questions was influenced by socially desirable responding. However, the prevalence estimates of sexting in the current study are similar to recent studies using the same definition and conceptualization of sexting (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013). In addition, similar to other research on sexting (Ferguson, 2011; Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011), the current sample comprised more females than males. As a result, gender differences could not be sufficiently examined and caution should be exercised when generalizing these findings to males. Gender differences in sexting have been found in some studies (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013; Dir et al., 2013; Gordon-Messer et al., 2013; Vanden Abeele et al., 2012) but not others (Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011). It is possible that frequency estimates of sexting are underestimated in the present study, if males more frequently engage in sexting than females (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013). Finally, the current study was an online survey and is subject to the limitations associated with such methodology, including sampling and self-selection biases. The sample was also drawn from a university student population and thus may not be generalizable to the wider population. Yet, online survey methodology and university samples are employed in many of the studies on sexting to date. Further, research suggests that patterns of association are robust to such selective participation biases (Heiervang & Goodman, 2011). Nonetheless, the findings should be considered in light of these limitations.

In conclusion, the current study found associations between sexting, sensation seeking, and self-esteem which differed as a function of the type of sexting behavior investigated. These findings highlight the need to discriminate between different sexting behaviors in research. Such information can be used by educators and practitioners to raise awareness of traits which make an individual more likely to engage in sexting, with a view to prevention and education about the risks of sexting and violation of privacy, as well as socially acceptable behavior and etiquette for communication via text message and mobile phone. Although statistically significant associations between self-esteem, sensation seeking, and sexting were observed, the models explained little of the variance in the occurrence of each sexting behavior. Future research is required to understand other factors, both individual and social, which contribute to engagement in sexting.

Type of Sexting Behavior	Never	Only Ever Once or Twice	Less Than Monthly	Monthly	Weekly	Daily
Sent
Sexually suggestive photo or video of yourself	318 (54.5)	178 (30.5)	51 (8.7)	22 (3.8)	14 (2.4)	0 (0.0)
Photo or video of yourself in underwear or lingerie		176 (30.2)	53 (9.1)	24 (4.1)	15 (2.6)	1 (0.2)
Nude photo or video of yourself	420 (72.0)	102 (17.5)	36 (6.2)	13 (2.2)	12 (2.1)	0 (0.0)
Sexually suggestive text message	107 (18.4)	134 (23.0)	137 (23.5)	92 (15.8)	86 (14.8)	27 (4.6)
Text message propositioning sexual activity	168 (28.8)	121 (20.8)	111 (19.0)	75 (12.9)	87 (14.9)	21 (3.6)
Forwarded on or showed others
Explicit messages which were meant to be kept private	447 (76.7)	106 (18.2)	16 (2.7)	6 (1.0)	5 (0.9)	3 (0.5)

Measure	M	SD	α	Range
AISS	50.50	7.75	.70	28–72
RSES	18.66	5.81	.91	1–30

Type of Sexting Behavior	No	Yes
Sent
Sexually suggestive photo or video of yourself	318 (54.55)	265 (45.45)
Photo or video of yourself in underwear or lingerie	314 (53.89)	269 (46.14)
Nude photo or video of yourself	420 (72.04)	163 (27.96)
Sexually suggestive text message	107 (18.35)	476 (81.65)
Text message propositioning sexual activity	168 (28.82)	415 (71.18)
Forwarded on or showed others
Explicit messages which were meant to be kept private	447 (76.67)	136 (23.33)

Sending Sexts	Forwarding Sexts
1	Gender	1.26 [0.82,1.94]	1.71 [1.11,2.65]*	0.70 [0.44,1.11]	0.81 [0.46,1.41]	0.48 [0.29,0.80]**	0.66 [0.42,1.05]
Age	1.05 [0.97,1.14]	1.07 [0.98,1.16]	0.98 [0.98,1.07]	1.15 [1.03,1.28]*	1.13 [1.03,1.24]*	1.10 [1.00,1.21]*
Relationship status^a
In a relationship	2.90 [2.05,4.09]***	2.42 [1.71,3.40]***	2.50 [1.71,3.66]***	2.73 [1.70,4.42]***	3.26 [2.17,4.88]***	0.81 [0.54,1.20]
Married	1.89 [0.64,5.56]	1.17 [0.40,3.45]	1.67 [0.49,5.66]	0.59 [0.17,2.04]	1.98 [0.52,7.48]	0.59 [0.15,2.23]
Nagelkerke R ²	.09	.08	.06	.08	.12	.02
2	Gender	1.27 [0.81,2.00]	1.79 [1.14,2.83]*	0.75 [0.46,1.21]	1.10 [0.61,1.99]	0.63 [0.37,1.09]	0.87 [0.53,1.42]
Age	1.05 [0.97,1.14]	1.070.99,1.17]	0.99 [0.90,1.09]	1.17 [1.05,1.32]**	1.14 [1.04,1.26]**	1.12 [1.02,1.23]*
Relationship status^a
In a relationship	2.94 [2.07,1.17]***	2.50 [1.76,3.53]***	2.70 [1.83,3.98]***	2.97 [1.80,4.81]***	3.47 [2.29,5.26]***	0.87 [0.58,1.31]
Married	1.91 [0.65,5.64]	1.21 [0.41,3.58]	1.77 [0.51,6.08]	0.69 [0.19,2.47]	2.12 [0.62,9.35]	0.68 [0.17,2.65]
AISS	1.00 [0.98,1.03]	1.01 [0.99,1.03]	1.02 [0.99,1.04]	1.06 [1.03,1.10]***	1.06 [1.03,1.09]***	1.06 [1.03,1.09]***
RSES	0.99 [0.96,1.02]	0.98 [0.95,1.01]	0.96 [0.93,1.00]*	0.97 [0.99,1.01]	0.99 [0.96,1.02]	0.96 [0.93,0.99]*
Nagelkerke R ²	.10	.09	.07	.12	.16	.08

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants for their valuable contribution to this research and the University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences Research Grants Scheme.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Arnett

(1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 289–296. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90165-1

Arnett

(1996). Sensation seeking, aggressiveness, and adolescent reckless behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 693–702. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(96)00027-x

Benotsch

E. G.

Snipes

D. J.

Martin

A. M.

Bull

S. S.

(2013). Sexting, substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 307–313.

Boden

J. M.

Horwood

L. J.

(2006). Self-esteem, risky sexual behavior, and pregnancy in a New Zealand birth cohort. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 549–560.

Delevi

Weisskirch

R. S.

(2013). Personality factors as predictors of sexting. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2589–2594.

Dir

A. L.

Cyders

M. A.

(2015). Risks, risk factors, and outcomes associated with phone and internet sexting among university students in the United States. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1675–1684.

Dir

A. L.

Cyders

M. A.

Coskunpinar

(2013). From the bar to the bed via mobile phone: A first test of the role of problematic alcohol use, sexting, and impusivity-related traits in sexual hookups. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1664–1670.

Dowdell

E. B.

Burgess

A. W.

Flores

J. R.

(2011). Online social networking patterns among adolescents, young adults, and sexual offenders. The American Journal of Nursing, 111, 28–36.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2011). Sexting behaviors among young Hispanic women: Incidence and association with other high-risk sexual behaviors. The Psychiatric Quarterly, 82, 239–243.

10.

Gordon-Messer

Bauermeister

J. A.

Grodzinski

Zimmermanm

(2013). Sexting among young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 301–306.

11.

Heiervang

Goodman

(2011). Advantages and limitations of web-based surveys: Evidence form a child mental health survey. Social Psychaitry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46, 69–76.

12.

IBM Corp. (Released 2010). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, Version 19.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

13.

Jessor

(1987). Problem-behavior theory, psychosocial development, and adolescent problem drinking. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 331–342. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1987.tb01490.x

14.

Jessor

S. L.

(1977). Problem behaviour and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. Boulder, CO: Academic Press.

15.

Judge

A. M.

(2012). “Sexting” among U.S. adolescents: Psychological and legal implications. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 20, 86–96.

16.

Klette

Hallford

D. J.

Mellor

D. J.

(2014). Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 44–53.

17.

Lejuez

C. W.

Simmons

B. L.

Aklin

W. M.

Daughters

S. B.

Dvir

(2004). Risk-taking propensity and risky sexual behaviour of individuals in residential substance use treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 1643–1647.

18.

Lenhart

(2009). Teens and sexting. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/∼/media//Files/Reports/2009/PIP_Teens_and_Sexting.pdf

19.

Levine

(2013). Sexting: A terrifying health risk… or the new normal for young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 257–258.

20.

Magnani

R. J.

Seiber

E. E.

Gutierrex

E. Z.

Vereau

(2001). Correlates of sexual activity and condom use among secondary-school students in urban Peru. Studies in Family Planning, 32, 53–66.

21.

National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. (2008). Sex and tech: Results from a survey of teens and young adults. Washington, DC: Author.

22.

Palmgreen

Lorch

E. P.

Stephenson

M. T.

Hoyle

R. H.

Donohew

(2007). Effects of the office of national drug control policy’s marijuana initiative campaign on high-sensation-seeking adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1644–1649.

23.

Preston

D. B.

D’Augelli

A. R.

Kassab

C. D.

Cain

R. E.

Schulze

F. W.

Starks

M. T.

(2004). The influence of stigma on the sexual risk behavior of rural men who have sex with men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 16, 291–303.

24.

Qualtrics Labs. (2012). Qualtrics. Retrieved from www.qualtrics.com

25.

Rosenberg

(1989). Society and the adolescent self-image. Revised edition. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

26.

Tesser

(2001). Self-esteem. In Tesser

Schwarz

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes (pp. 479–498). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

27.

Van Ouytsel

Van Gool

Ponnet

Walrave

(2014). Brief report: The association between adolescents’ characteristics and engagement in sexting. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 1387–1391.

28.

Van Ouytsel

Walrave

Ponnet

Heirman

(2015). The association between adolescent sexting, psychosocial difficulties, and risk behavior: Integrative review. Journal of School Nursing, 31, 54–69.

29.

Vanden Abeele

Roe

Eggermont

(2012). An exploration of adolescents’ sexual contact and conduct risks through mobile phone use. Communications, 37, 55–77.

30.

Walker

Sanci

Temple-Smith

(2013). Sexting: Young women’s and men’s views on its naure and origins. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 697–701.

31.

Weisskirch

R. S.

Delevi

(2011). “Sexting” and adult romantic attachment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1697–1701.

32.

Wild

L. G.

Flisher

A. J.

Bhana

Lombard

(2004). Associations among adolescent risk behaviours and self-esteem in six domains. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1454–1467.

33.

Wolak

Finkelhor

Mitchell

K. J.

(2012). How often are teens arrested for sexting? Data from a national sample of police cases. Pediatrics, 129, 4–12. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2242

34.

Wysocki

D. K.

Childers

C. D.

(2011). “Let my fingers do the talking”: Sexting and infidelity in cyberspace. Sexuality & Culture, 15, 217–239.

35.

Zuckerman

(1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

36.

Zuckerman

(1991). Sensation seeking: The balance between risk and reward. In Lipsitt

L. P.

Mitnick

L. L.

(Eds.), Self regulatory behavior and risk taking: Causes and consequences (pp. 143–152). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

37.

Zuckerman

(1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seek. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sending Sexts							Forwarding Sexts
Model		Suggestive Photo/Video, OR [95% CI]	Photo/Video in Lingerie, OR [95% CI]	Nude Photo/Video, OR [95% CI]	Suggestive Text, OR [95% CI]	Propositioning Text, OR [95% CI]	Explicit Messages Meant to be Private, OR [95% CI]
1	Gender	1.26 [0.82,1.94]	1.71 [1.11,2.65]*	0.70 [0.44,1.11]	0.81 [0.46,1.41]	0.48 [0.29,0.80]**	0.66 [0.42,1.05]
	Age	1.05 [0.97,1.14]	1.07 [0.98,1.16]	0.98 [0.98,1.07]	1.15 [1.03,1.28]*	1.13 [1.03,1.24]*	1.10 [1.00,1.21]*
	Relationship status^a
	In a relationship	2.90 [2.05,4.09]***	2.42 [1.71,3.40]***	2.50 [1.71,3.66]***	2.73 [1.70,4.42]***	3.26 [2.17,4.88]***	0.81 [0.54,1.20]
	Married	1.89 [0.64,5.56]	1.17 [0.40,3.45]	1.67 [0.49,5.66]	0.59 [0.17,2.04]	1.98 [0.52,7.48]	0.59 [0.15,2.23]
Nagelkerke R ²		.09	.08	.06	.08	.12	.02
2	Gender	1.27 [0.81,2.00]	1.79 [1.14,2.83]*	0.75 [0.46,1.21]	1.10 [0.61,1.99]	0.63 [0.37,1.09]	0.87 [0.53,1.42]
	Age	1.05 [0.97,1.14]	1.070.99,1.17]	0.99 [0.90,1.09]	1.17 [1.05,1.32]**	1.14 [1.04,1.26]**	1.12 [1.02,1.23]*
	Relationship status^a
	In a relationship	2.94 [2.07,1.17]***	2.50 [1.76,3.53]***	2.70 [1.83,3.98]***	2.97 [1.80,4.81]***	3.47 [2.29,5.26]***	0.87 [0.58,1.31]
	Married	1.91 [0.65,5.64]	1.21 [0.41,3.58]	1.77 [0.51,6.08]	0.69 [0.19,2.47]	2.12 [0.62,9.35]	0.68 [0.17,2.65]
	AISS	1.00 [0.98,1.03]	1.01 [0.99,1.03]	1.02 [0.99,1.04]	1.06 [1.03,1.10]***	1.06 [1.03,1.09]***	1.06 [1.03,1.09]***
	RSES	0.99 [0.96,1.02]	0.98 [0.95,1.01]	0.96 [0.93,1.00]*	0.97 [0.99,1.01]	0.99 [0.96,1.02]	0.96 [0.93,0.99]*
Nagelkerke R ²		.10	.09	.07	.12	.16	.08

Relationships Between Sexting,Self-Esteem,and Sensation Seeking Among Australian Young Adults

Abstract

Keywords

Sexting and Problem Behaviors

Sexting and Self-Esteem

The Current Study

Method

Participants

Measures

Sexting

Sensation seeking

Self-esteem

Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References