ID: 111064

Received: 2019-12-23
Reviewed: 2020-02-01
Accepted: 2020-03-11
Preprint: 2020-04-15
Published: 2020-06-01 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-01

Sexting in adolescents: Prevalence and behaviours

Sexting en adolescentes: Prevalencia y comportamientos

Mónica Ojeda
Predoctoral Fellow in the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology at the University of
Seville (Spain) ([email protected]) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6056-8595)
Dr. Rosario Del-Rey
Associate Professor in the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology
at the University of Seville (Spain) ([email protected]) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1907-5489)
Dr. Michel Walrave
Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Antwerp (Belgium)
([email protected]) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5214-0393)
Dr. Heidi Vandebosch
Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Antwerp (Belgium)
([email protected]) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6779-3170)

Abstract
Sexting is among the practices used by young people to explore their sexuality. Although an educational response to all
facets of this phenomenon is recommended, little research has been published to date in Spain that analyses its prevalence
by differentiating between the different types of sexting behaviours: sending, receiving, third-party forwarding, and receiving
via an intermediary. This gap in the research is addressed by exploring: 1) Sexting prevalence, differentiating between
behaviours; 2) Relationships between sexting behaviours and gender, age, sexual orientation, having a romantic/sexual
partner, social networking sites used, and the degree of normalisation and willingness to sext; 3) Gender-based differences.
In total, 3,314 adolescents aged 12 to 16 years participated in the study. The most frequent sexting behaviours were
identified as receiving and receiving via an intermediary, followed by third-party forwarding and the sending of sexual
content. The relative importance of each analysed variable depended on the specific sexting behaviour and the participants’
gender. The results highlight the need to disentangle the diversity behind sexting behaviours and to address each one in
an educational setting. This more detailed look at the different behaviours can be used as the basis for raising awareness
and decision-making in education.

Resumen
El sexting es una de las prácticas a través de la que los jóvenes exploran su sexualidad. Aunque se recomienda responder
educativamente a todas las formas en las que se puede expresar este fenómeno, en España, se ha publicado poca
investigación que analice su prevalencia diferenciando los distintos tipos de comportamientos de sexting: envío,
recepción, reenvío y recepción de reenvíos. El presente estudio aborda esta brecha en la investigación explorando: 1) La
prevalencia de sexting, diferenciando entre comportamientos; 2) Las relaciones entre los comportamientos de sexting y
el género, la edad, la orientación sexual, tener pareja romántica/sexual, las redes sociales utilizadas, el grado de
normalización del sexting y la predisposición para participar en él; 3) Las diferencias de género. En total, participaron
3.314 adolescentes de 12 a 16 años. Los comportamientos de sexting más frecuentes fueron la recepción y la recepción
de reenvíos, seguidos del reenvío y el envío. La importancia relativa de cada una de las variables analizadas dependió
del comportamiento analizado y del género de los adolescentes. Los resultados destacan la importancia de desenredar
la diversidad de los comportamientos de sexting y abordar cada uno de ellos desde la educación. Este punto de vista más
detallado sobre los diferentes comportamientos podría utilizarse como base para la toma de decisiones educativas y de
sensibilización.
Keywords / Palabras clave
Sexting, adolescence, prevalence, normalisation, willingness, social networking sites, gender, education.
Sexting, adolescencia, prevalencia, normalización, predisposición, redes sociales, género, educación.
1. Introduction

Sexting (the sharing of self-produced sexual material through electronic means) is one of many behaviours
adolescents adopt to express and explore their sexuality. Sexting often leads to positive outcomes, but it can
also have negative repercussions (Englander, 2019) that pose new challenges for parents and educational
professionals (McEachern et al., 2012). Risks may increase given the peer pressure to engage in sexting, the
non-consensual dissemination of sexting messages, and the presence of associated risks such as
(cyber)bullying (Medrano et al., 2018). Thus, an educational response to the myriad of ways this phenomenon
can be expressed is recommended. Forwarding is a behaviour that must clearly be avoided, and strategies for
tackling it need to be taught (Van-Ouytsel et al., 2014). However, we also need to know how best to act when
this kind of content is received (Mitchell et al., 2012) and how to engage in sending sexual content safely
(Wurtele & Miller-Perrin, 2014). Within the current context, few studies have been published in Spain which
analyse sexting prevalence by differentiating between the different types of sexting behaviours. Most studies
focus on a single behaviour, such as sending (Gámez-Guadix et al., 2017) or receiving (Garmendia et al.,
2016). However, other sexting behaviours may entail different consequences for those involved and need to
be addressed in education. As such, it is important to disentangle the diversity behind sexting behaviours,
going beyond sending and receiving by also including the forwarding of personally received sexts and the
further transmission of a third-party sexting message.

1.1. What does sexting imply?

A first broad differentiation of sexting behaviours can be made between active sexting (sending or forwarding)
and passive sexting (receiving directly from the creator or receiving content forwarded by third-parties)
(Barrense-Dias et al., 2017). A further distinction can be made between primary sexting (sending and
receiving), where sexual content is normally exchanged consensually amongst peers and not sent to anyone
else (except for group pressure, sextortion...), and secondary sexting (forwarding and receiving via an
intermediary), when someone shares the sexual content beyond the intended recipient, often non-consensual
(Schmitz & Siry, 2011).
In this context, we find restrictive definitions that limit sexting to sending sexually explicit images (Marume et
al., 2018) as well as more comprehensive definitions that describe it as the sending, receiving and forwarding
of sexually suggestive and explicit images, videos or text messages (Mitchell et al., 2012; Villacampa, 2017).
However, studies that adopt a comprehensive definition sometimes fail to differentiate between separate
behaviours which are included (Beckmeyer et al., 2019; West et al., 2014). Consequently, in the present study,
sexting is defined as sending, receiving and forwarding sexually suggestive and explicit images, videos or text
messages via the internet and electronic media, and each sexting behaviour is analysed independently.

1.2. How prevalent is sexting?

Sexting prevalence rates among adolescents vary according to the criteria used to define the phenomenon,
the age of the participants, the time range and measuring instrument, among others (Barrense-Dias et al.,
2017). In a recent meta-analysis, which examines studies from the USA, Europe, Australia, Canada, South
Africa and South Korea, the average prevalence of sending sexual content was 14.8%; receiving sexts was
27.4%; forwarding a sext without consent was 12.0%; and receiving a forwarded sext was 8.4% (Madigan et
al., 2018). However, no studies from Spain featured among this literature. Specifically, in Spain, few articles
have analysed sexting prevalence, differentiating between specific types of sexting behaviours. Villacampa
(2017) found that 7.9% of 489 youths aged between 14 and 18 had produced content of this type, whereas
Gámez-Guadix et al. (2017) found that the prevalence for sending sexts in 3,223 youths aged 12 to 17 years
was 13.5%. Moreover, Garmendia et al. (2016) observed a considerable increase in the receiving of sexual
content, whereas Villacampa (2017) reported that the rate of third-party forwarding of sexual images or videos
was 8.2%.

1.3. Sexting engagement and its associated characteristics

International studies have reported considerable variability in sexting prevalence based on sociodemographic
characteristics (Olivari & Confalonieri, 2017). The previously mentioned meta-analysis found that sexting
participation rates increase with age (Madigan et al., 2018). It also occurs more frequently between desired or
actual sexual and/or romantic partners (Beckmeyer et al., 2019; Wood et al., 2015). Despite the limited number

© COMUNICAR, 64 (2020-3); e-ISSN: 1988-3293; Preprint DOI: 10.3916/C64-2020-01

of studies analysing prevalence in adolescents based on sexual orientation, there do seem to be significant
differences. Non-heterosexual adolescents appear more involved in sending and receiving sexual content than
their heterosexual peers, though not in non-consensual forms of sexting (Van-Ouytsel et al., 2019).
Regarding gender, a range of results have been reported. Some studies found that girls are more likely to send
sexual images than boys (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2014) whereas, in contrast, boys participate to a greater extent
in sending, receiving and third-party forwarding (Strassberg et al., 2017). Other studies, however, found no
gender differences in the rates of sending and receiving sexual messages or images (Beckmeyer et al., 2019;
Campbell & Park, 2014). Specifically, in Spain, few studies were identified as analysing different sexting
behaviours based on these sociodemographic variables. Garmendia et al. (2016) found that receiving sexts
increases with age. Likewise, in a study developed by Gámez-Guadix et al. (2017), boys sent more sexual text
messages than girls, but no significant differences were found in sending images/videos. In addition, sending
this type of content was significantly more likely among non-heterosexual adolescents (Gámez-Guadix et al.,
2017).
Despite the differences in sexting prevalence, studies show considerable percentages of involvement and
some even claim that it is a common behaviour in online interactions during adolescence (Gámez-Guadix et
al., 2017). However, although it is true that the exchange and visualisation of sexual content is becoming
increasingly more normalised among adolescents and young people, that is, they perceive sexting as a
mainstream, standard behaviour (Stanley et al., 2018), it cannot be considered a normative practice, which
most of them do (Van-Ouytsel et al., 2015). Adolescents generally believe that the messages shared in their
environment (i.e. those coming from friends and the media) influence their predisposition to sext by implying it
is normal (Davidson, 2015). Yet the majority, regardless of their gender or age, do not participate in sexting,
meaning that it does not fall under a normative aspect of adolescent flirting and relationships (Wood et al.,
2015).

1.4. Current study

Despite the real concern about preventing the negative consequences of sexting, little research has been
published to date in Spain that analyses sexting prevalence by differentiating between the different types of
behaviours. Furthermore, sexting is a phenomenon closely linked to social norms, so it is important to address
both sexting normalisation and gender differences (Symons et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2015). This would allow
us to gain a better understanding of its complexity and effectively analyse this phenomenon, thus laying the
groundwork for educational efforts. As such, this exploratory study seeks to: 1) Analyse sexting prevalence,
differentiating between the four behaviours: sending, receiving, third-party forwarding, and receiving via an
intermediary; 2) Identify whether gender, age, sexual orientation, having a romantic/sexual partner, SNS used,
degree of normalisation and willingness to sext predict each sexting behaviour; 3) Explore gender differences.

2. Method
2.1. Participants

The sample comprised 3,314 adolescents (48.6% girls) aged between 12 and 16 years (Mage=13.63,
SDage=1.23) recruited from 15 secondary schools in the south of Spain. Specifically, they came from the
provinces of Seville, Huelva and Córdoba in the Region of Andalusia (Table 1).

Table 1. Sample characteristics

Variables N %
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual 1602 85.6
Non-heterosexual 270 14.4
Asexual 133 7.1
Bisexual 112 6.0
Homosexual 25 1.3
Romantic/sexual partner in the last 3 months
Yes 1015 31.4
No 2218 68.6
SNS used
None 53 1.6
At least one 3259 98.4
WhatsApp 3197 96.6

© COMUNICAR, 64 (2020-3); e-ISSN: 1988-3293; Preprint DOI: 10.3916/C64-2020-01

 Instagram 2737 82.6
Snapchat 1433 43.6
Facebook 914 28.0
Twitter 882 26.6
Telegram 142 4.4
Tinder 13 0.4

2.2. Measures

Four direct questions on sexting behaviours were used to assess sexting involvement: sending (“I have sent
erotic-sexual videos, images or messages to my boyfriend/girlfriend”); receiving (“I have received erotic-sexual
videos, images or messages from my boyfriend/girlfriend”); third-party forwarding (“I have forwarded or shared
erotic-sexual videos, images or messages of other boys or girls”); and receiving via an intermediary (“Someone
sent me erotic-sexual videos, images or messages of other boys or girls”). The first two questions refer to self-
produced sexual content, while the other two questions refer to sexual content of other adolescents. Multiple
format responses were used according to the degree of frequency: 0=Never; 1=Rarely; 2=Occasionally
(several times/month); 3=Often (several times/week); and 4=Frequently (daily). All variables were
dichotomised (never engaged, engaged).
Two dimensions of the Normalisation Sexting Questionnaire (NSQ) (Casas et al., 2019) were also used to
assess sexting normalisation and willingness to engage in sexting. Specifically, the normalisation dimension
comprised five items about the perception of sexting as a normal and usual practice among peers (e.g.
“Sending erotic-sexual videos, images or messages is normal, nothing happens”) (α=.60). Willingness to
engage in sexting was measured using six items that indicate a predisposition to exhibit such behaviours (e.g.
“I would send erotic-sexual messages or photos/videos to have fun with my boyfriend/girlfriend”) (α=.84). Both
dimensions measured the degree of agreement: 0=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. Two variables
resulted from the average of each dimension.
Respondents were asked to indicate the SNS they used: WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat,
Telegram or Tinder. Each variable was dichotomised. Telegram and Tinder were removed given their low use.
Regarding sexual orientation, participants had to select the option which most coincided with how they felt in
erotic-affective relationships (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual). Because of the relatively low
prevalence of some sexual orientation categories, the sexual orientation variable was dichotomised.
Lastly, a dichotomous item was added to assess whether they had a romantic/sexual partner (“Do you
have/Have you had a partner in the last 3 months?”).

2.3. Procedure

This study was approved by the Andalusia Biomedical Research Ethics Coordinating Committee (0568-N-14),
which follows the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice set by the International Conference on Harmonization.
The study adopted a transversal, prospective, single-group ex post facto design (Montero & León, 2007) and
incidental sampling was performed. The schools’ management teams were contacted by e-mail about
participating in a large study on the use of SNS and the potential associated risks. Those schools expressing
interest were included in the study. Parental written informed consent was obtained via acceptance of project
participation headed by the respective School Board. Once permissions were obtained, data were collected.
Paper-and-pencil questionnaires were administered during class time by either researchers or teachers who
had received prior training. During questionnaire administration, respondents were clearly informed about the
anonymous and voluntary nature of participation, the confidential treatment of data, and the importance of
responding truthfully.

2.4. Data analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS 25.0. Basic descriptive analyses were performed, including Cronbach's
alphas and frequencies. Binary logistic regressions were used to assess associations between gender, age,
sexual orientation, having a romantic/sexual partner, SNS used, sexting normalisation and willingness to
engage in sexting as independent variables, and the four sexting behaviours as dependent variables.
Nagelkerke’s R2 was considered as a measure of effect size. All variables were entered into the model
simultaneously. The analysis was also stratified by gender.

© COMUNICAR, 64 (2020-3); e-ISSN: 1988-3293; Preprint DOI: 10.3916/C64-2020-01

3. Results
3.1. Prevalence of sexting behaviours

The most frequent sexting behaviours are receiving (21.2%) and receiving via an intermediary (28.4%),
followed by third-party forwarding of sexual content (9.3%) and, lastly, sending (8.1%). Descriptive statistics
are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Sexting prevalence based on gender, age, sexual orientation, having

a romantic/sexual partner and SNS used
Sending Receiving Third-party Receiving via an
Variables
N (%) N (%) forwarding N (%) intermediary N (%)
Gender
Girl 111 (7.0) 273 (17.1) 100 (6.3) 412 (25.8)
Boy 155 (9.2) 421 (25.1) 205 (12.2) 519 (30.8)
Age
12 11 (1.5) 71 (9.8) 21 (2.9) 98 (13.5)
13 37 (4.2) 156 (17.8) 58 (6.6) 210 (23.8)
14 92 (11.7) 198 (25.2) 79 (10.0) 243 (30.8)
15 85 (13.2) 174 (27.1) 100 (15.6) 265 (41.3)
16 41 (16.6) 95 (38.6) 48 (19.4) 116 (47.2)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual 130 (8.2) 354 (22.3) 150 (9.4) 459 (28.8)
Non-heterosexual 38 (14.1) 59 (21.9) 18 (6.7) 71 (26.3)
Romantic/sexual partner
No 89 (4.1) 297 (13.6) 142 (6.5) 494 (22.5)
Yes 169 (16.7) 372 (36.9) 156 (15.4) 405 (40.1)
SNS used
WhatsApp 259 (8.2) 680 (21.5) 302 (9.5) 913 (28.8)
Instagram 249 (9.2) 644 (23.7) 293 (10.8) 859 (31.6)
Twitter 122 (13.9) 253 (28.9) 135 (15.4) 333 (38.0)
Facebook 110 (12.1) 271 (30.0) 133 (14.7) 329 (36.2)
Snapchat 159 (11.1) 359 (25.2) 160 (11.2) 474 (33.2)

3.2. Relationships between sexting behaviours and associated characteristics

The regression models were significant. Nagelkerke’s R 2 was .42 for the “sending” model, .29 for the
“receiving” model, .23 for the “third-party forwarding” model, and .17 for the “receiving via an intermediary”
model (Table 3: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12017964.v1).
In the “sending” model, willingness to sext (OR: 8.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.36-12.75), having a
romantic/sexual partner (OR: 3.44; 95% CI: 2.25-5.25), using Snapchat (OR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.19-2.93), sexual
orientation (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.04-3.00) and age (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.14-1.63) were significantly related to
sending engagement.
In the “receiving” model, having a romantic/sexual partner (OR: 3.27; 95% CI: 2.51-4.28), willingness to sext
(OR: 2.79; 95% CI: 2.01-3.89), using Instagram (OR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.16-3.10), gender (OR: 1.82; 95% CI:
1.37-2.41), using Snapchat (OR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.21-2.14), sexting normalisation (OR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.20-
1.86) and age (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.12-1.41) were significantly related to receiving engagement.
In the “third-party forwarding” model, using Instagram (OR: 2.74; 95% CI: 1.16-6.51), willingness to sext (OR:
2.00; 95% CI: 1.48-2.72), gender (OR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.32-2.91), having a romantic/sexual partner (OR: 1.86;
95% CI: 1.29-2.68), using Facebook (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.03-2.26), sexting normalisation (OR: 1.43; 95% CI:
1.09-1.87) and age (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.22-1.66) were significantly related to engagement in third-party
forwarding.
In the “receiving via an intermediary” model, using Instagram (OR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.47-3.19), sexting
normalisation (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.52-2.24), having a romantic/sexual partner (OR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.35-2.17),
gender (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.11-1.80) and age (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.23-1.49) were significantly related to
engagement in receiving via an intermediary.

© COMUNICAR, 64 (2020-3); e-ISSN: 1988-3293; Preprint DOI: 10.3916/C64-2020-01

3.3. Gender differences

The regression models were significant. Nagelkerke’s R2 was .50 for girls and .41 for boys for the “sending”
model; .31 for girls and .29 for boys for the “receiving” model; .18 for girls and .24 for boys for the “third-party
forwarding” model; and .14 for girls and .22 for boys for the “receiving via an intermediary” model (Table 4:
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12017964.v1).
In the “sending” model, for girls, willingness to sext (OR: 30.44; 95% CI: 11.93-77.68), having a romantic/sexual
partner (OR: 4.54; 95% CI: 2.27-9.09) and age (OR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.17-2.20) were significantly related to
sending engagement. For boys, these were willingness to sext (OR: 6.05; 95% CI: 3.68-9.94), having a
romantic/sexual partner (OR: 2.79; 95% CI: 1.59-4.88) and using Snapchat (OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.32-4.29).
In the “receiving” model, for girls, willingness to sext (OR: 5.11; 95% CI: 2.57-10.16), using Instagram (OR:
4.34; 95% CI: 1.43-13.14), having a romantic/sexual partner (OR: 3.77; 95% CI: 2.49-5.72), sexting
normalisation (OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.13-2.33) and age (OR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.17-1.72) were significantly related
to receiving engagement. For boys, these were having a romantic/sexual partner (OR: 2.97; 95% CI: 2.08-
4.25), willingness to sext (OR: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.58-3.41), using Snapchat (OR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.38-2.91), sexting
normalisation (OR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.06-1.86) and age (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.04-1.38).
In the “third-party forwarding” model, for girls, willingness to sext (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.14-3.44), using
Facebook (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.01-3.91), having a romantic/sexual partner (OR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.02-3.55),
sexting normalisation (OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.06-2.86) and age (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.03-1.84) were significantly
related to engagement in third-party forwarding. For boys, these were using Instagram (OR: 3.08; 95% CI:
1.07-8.88), willingness to sext (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.42-3.03), having a romantic/sexual partner (OR: 1.79; 95%
CI: 1.13-2.83) and age (OR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.18-1.71).
In the “receiving via an intermediary” model, for girls, using Instagram (OR: 2.63; 95% CI: 1.39-4.95), sexting
normalisation (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.14-2.07), having a romantic/sexual partner (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.06-2.12)
and age (OR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.21-1.65) were significantly related to engagement in receiving via an
intermediary. For boys, these were sexting normalisation (OR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.66-2.83), using Instagram (OR:
1.88; 95% CI: 1.15-3.09), having a romantic/sexual partner (OR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.32-2.60), using Snapchat
(OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.11-2.24) and age (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.17-1.52).

4. Discussion and conclusions

This study advances knowledge of sexting, going beyond sending and receiving to also encompass the
forwarding of a personally received sext and the further transmission of a third-party sexting message.
According to previous research (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017), sexting behaviours that refer to passive attitudes
(receiving and receiving via an intermediary) are more frequent than active forms (sending and third-party
forwarding). Specifically, more than 2 in 25 teenagers send or forward sexual content, while more than 1 in 5
receive it directly from the creator, and more than 1 in 4 teenagers receive it via an intermediary. Although the
prevalence rates in this study for sending, receiving and third-party forwarding are slightly lower than the
average observed in Madigan et al.'s (2018) meta-analysis, the rate of receiving a forwarded sext is
considerably higher. In addition, typically non-consensual sexting behaviours are more frequent than typically
consensual ones. This coincides with Villacampa's (2017) study in which the third-party forwarding of sexual
content was more frequent than its production. Therefore, these results emphasise the need for educational
efforts to focus more on promoting respect for privacy, consent and the promotion of sexual ethics (Dobson &
Ringrose, 2016; Wurtele & Miller-Perrin, 2014). Educational programmes should seek to develop skills for
maintaining an ethically intimate relationship, such as preventing pressure in a sexual-affective relationship;
encouraging reflection on the importance of actual consent and respect for one’s partner; and maintaining a
critical attitude towards the exchange of non-consensual sexual content (Albury et al., 2017).
The relative importance attached to each analysed variable is shown to depend on the specific sexting
behaviour and the participants’ gender. Although boys engage more than girls across all sexting behaviours,
sending is the only behaviour not predicted by gender. These results coincide with studies that claim no gender
differences in sending (Beckmeyer et al., 2019; Campbell & Park, 2014). From this perspective, Symons et al.
(2018) highlight that whereas girls may perceive themselves as less likely to send sexual content than boys,
they generally seem to send content of this kind in a similar way. This suggests a conflict between the
expectations that girls hold about themselves and their actual behaviour. However, gender differences in
engagement are observed in all other behaviours (Madigan et al., 2018). For both boys and girls, sexting is an
invitation to participate in sexual activities (Wurtele & Miller-Perrin, 2014), but in general boys hold more
favourable attitudes towards sexting than girls (Gewirtz-Meydan et al., 2018). As such, the results support

© COMUNICAR, 64 (2020-3); e-ISSN: 1988-3293; Preprint DOI: 10.3916/C64-2020-01

studies that suggest girls are more involved as victims in sexting, suffering the negative consequences of this
phenomenon (Dobson & Ringrose, 2016; Symons et al., 2018). This may be because boys are more likely to
practice sexting in ways that are deemed riskier for their partner than for themselves, that is, receiving and
forwarding to third parties. This supports previous literature that claims sexting is not a gender neutral activity
(Wood et al., 2015). Therefore, educational efforts should also focus on promoting gender equality and healthy
relationships (Dobson & Ringrose, 2016; Wurtele & Miller-Perrin, 2014). It is particularly important to discuss
with young people the sexual double standard and to avoid the use of gender stereotypes when devising and
implementing strategies to tackle sexting (Döring, 2014; Wood et al., 2015).
Age is related to all sexting behaviours, except sending in boys. This coincides with previous studies (Gámez-
Guadix et al., 2017; Madigan et al., 2018) and may be due to adolescents’ increasing social network usage
with age (Garmendia et al., 2016) and the emergence of their first romantic/sexual relationships as a natural
and normative development in adolescence (Lantagne & Furman, 2017). In the case of third-party forwarding
of sexts, this could also mean a greater risk of sexting messages being disseminated non-consensually over
the course of adolescence (Ringrose et al., 2013). Thus, educational efforts should be made to promote sexual
education early on (Ahern et al., 2016; Gámez-Guadix et al., 2017). Although sexting is less frequent among
very young or preteen boys and girls, negative outcomes are more common in these groups (Englander, 2019).
Sexual orientation predicts involvement in sending sexts. Specifically, adolescents who identify as non-
heterosexual participate more in this practice, but not in other behaviours. This coincides with previous
research reporting how young people from sexual minorities are more likely to engage in sending sexual
content (Gámez-Guadix et al., 2017; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2014). However, the aforementioned groups are not
significantly more likely to participate in other sexting behaviours more closely related to non-consensual forms
(Van-Ouytsel et al., 2019). The higher prevalence of sending sexts could potentially be explained by the fact
that the digital environment allows individuals, especially young people from sexual minorities, to connect with
potential dating partners without fear of negative social repercussions (Brown et al., 2005).
Having or having had a romantic/sexual partner in the last three months predicts involvement across all sexting
behaviours for both boys and girls. This coincides with previous studies reporting how sexting occurs more
often between desired and actual sexual and/or romantic partners (Wood et al., 2015). In Beckmeyer et al.'s
(2019) study, 84.1% of the adolescents participating in sexting were in a romantic relationship. Thus, sexting
can not only lead to negative outcomes, such as the future dissemination of non-consensual sexual content,
but it can also have a positive impact, such as strengthening a romantic relationship (Englander, 2019). In
general terms, the literature to date has focused more on the phenomenon’s negative consequences than on
accepting it as a new form of intimate online relationships and preventing its possible negative effects (Döring,
2014). Society must accept sexting as a new way of exploring one’s sexuality in keeping with contemporary
times, and educate so that those engaging in such behaviours practice "safe sexting", thus making them jointly
responsible for their safety and allowing them to take safe measures to protect themselves (Villacampa, 2017).
Incorporating sexting into sex education programmes is a key part of addressing this phenomenon (Van-
Ouytsel et al., 2014).
Regarding the use of SNS, Snapchat predicts the sending and receiving of sexts; Facebook predicts third-
party forwarding; and Instagram predicts third-party forwarding, receiving and receiving via an intermediary.
Snapchat seems to be the most commonly used SNS for sending and receiving sexts, while Instagram is used
for the other sexting behaviours more strongly. However, this varies by gender. In girls, sending is not predicted
by any SNS, whereas other behaviours are predicted by the use of Instagram. In boys, sending and both types
of receiving are predicted by the use of Snapchat, while Instagram is used for third-party forwarding and
receiving via an intermediary and Facebook also for receiving. In general terms, the Snapchat platform is used
more to exchange consensual sexual content between romantic/sexual partners, although a study of whether
factors including pressure and coercion exert an influence is needed. In contrast, Facebook and Instagram are
more frequently used for generally non-consensual forms of sexting. Specifically, the third-party forwarding of
sexual content can be classed as a form of sexting with the highest risk because the content can be spread
more easily and reach the target audience without consent (Madigan et al., 2018). When it comes to preventive
actions, attention needs to be paid to these platforms as channels for disseminating non-consensual sexual
content. Developing a safe and healthy use of the Internet and social networks is essential, highlighting, for
example, the control of personal information online (Patrick et al., 2015) as well as an understanding of the
rights and responsibilities surrounding digital technologies and virtual social networks (Gámez-Guadix et al.,
2017). The “Asegúrate” programme (Del-Rey et al., 2019) is an example of a psychoeducational programme
developed for this purpose and which comprehensively addresses phenomena such as sexting, cyberbullying
and bullying. Lastly, sexting normalisation increases the likelihood of practicing all sexting behaviours, except
sending. Furthermore, in boys, it does not predict third-party forwarding. This study reports considerable

© COMUNICAR, 64 (2020-3); e-ISSN: 1988-3293; Preprint DOI: 10.3916/C64-2020-01

prevalence rates across the different sexting behaviours; however, they do not allow them to be considered
as normative practices (Van-Ouytsel et al., 2015). Although sexting is becoming increasingly more normalised
(Stanley et al., 2018), this would support the theory that adolescents perceive certain norms of sexting but do
not necessarily apply them to themselves (Symons et al., 2018). These beliefs about how normalised sexting
is may influence willingness to participate (Lippman & Campbell, 2014). Specifically, the willingness to engage
in sexting is what best predicts sexting participation in most cases, except when it comes to receiving via an
intermediary in both boys and girls. Furthermore, the predictive value of girls’ willingness to participate in
sending and receiving is especially prominent. It may be that sexting normalisation is indirectly driving an
increased predisposition to participate in sexting, with the latter increasing the prevalence of sending, receiving
and forwarding sexual content. In fact, the subjective norm is the strongest predictor of young people's sexual
intention (Walrave et al., 2015). Although the sharing of sexual content is far from normative behaviour, it is
sufficiently widespread and standardised, meaning that education and prevention initiatives to combat its
potential consequences, especially non-consensual sharing, are strongly justified (Mitchell et al., 2012).
However, messages based on fear are not effective (Stanley et al., 2018). Many teenagers already have an
idea of the phenomenon’s negative effects, and a warning or ban alone would fail to prevent the possible
consequences (Lim et al., 2016). A better approach may be to focus on social norming approaches,
acknowledging that not all adolescents sext and, excluding non-consensual sexting behaviours, everyone is
free to decide whether to engage or not (Englander, 2019).
Some limitations should be borne in mind when interpreting the results. It is necessary to consider the use of
convenience sampling and the cross-sectional nature of our data. Similarly, self-report instruments carry the
risk of obtaining socially desirable or imprecise responses. However, this proves controversial given that
different variables and measures can impact on how much variance is actually shared (Richardson et al.,
2009), and independently recording and verifying sexting behaviours would be extremely challenging.
Furthermore, the normalisation dimension of sexting has acceptable yet not very high reliability, and it could
come into play with the cultural context, that is, a country’s culture and education system may impose fewer
or greater social penalisations for sharing sexual content. This study did not look at whether the sent sexual
content was later forwarded non-consensually or whether said content was forwarded between (ex)romantic
partners. Future lines of research could address these limitations and expanding on the factors that may
explain adolescent sexting involvement. Qualitative studies would be useful for gaining a more detailed
understanding of the characteristics associated with each sexting behaviour and gender-related differences.
Another necessary step would be to design, implement and evaluate educational school-based programmes
aimed at addressing the potential negative consequences of sexting, considering the different sexting
behaviours observed and their traits.

References
Ahern, N.R., Kemppainen, J., & Thacker, P. (2016). Awareness and knowledge of child and adolescent risky behaviors:
A parent’s perspective. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 29(1), 6-14.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcap.12129
Albury, K., Hasinoff, A.A., & Senft, T. (2017). From media abstinence to media production: Sexting, young people and
education. In L. Allen, & M. Rasmussen (Eds.),The palgrave handbook of sexuality education (pp. 527-545). Palgrave
Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40033-8_26
Barrense-Dias, Y., Berchtold, A., Suris, J.C., & Akre, C. (2017). Sexting and the definition issue. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 61(5), 544-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.05.009
Beckmeyer, J.J., Herbenick, D., Fu, T.C., Dodge, B., Reece, M., & Fortenberry, J.D. (2019). Characteristics of
adolescent sexting: Results from the 2015 national survey of sexual health and behavior. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 45(8), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1613463
Brown, G., Maycock, B., & Burns, S. (2005). Your picture is your bait: Use and meaning of cyberspace among gay men.
Journal of Sex Research, 42(1), 63-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490509552258
Campbell, S.W., & Park, Y.J. (2014). Predictors of mobile sexting among teens: Toward a new explanatory framework.
Mobile Media & Communication, 20(1), 20-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157913502645
Casas, J.A., Ojeda, M., Elipe, P., & Del-Rey, R. (2019). Exploring which factors contribute to teens’ participation in
sexting. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 60-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.010
Davidson, J. (2015). Sexting: gender and teens. Springer. https://bit.ly/3doq176
Del-Rey, R., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Casas, J. (2019). 'Asegúrate': An Intervention program against cyberbullying based on
teachers’ commitment and on design of its instructional materials. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 16(3), 434. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030434
Dobson, A.S., & Ringrose, J. (2016). Sext education: Pedagogies of sex, gender and shame in the schoolyards of
Tagged and exposed. Sex Education, 16(1), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1050486
Döring, N. (2014). Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk prevention through abstinence education or safer
sexting? Cyberpsychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2014-1-9

© COMUNICAR, 64 (2020-3); e-ISSN: 1988-3293; Preprint DOI: 10.3916/C64-2020-01

Englander, E. (2019). What do we know about sexting, and when did we know it? The Journal of Adolescent Health,
65(5), 577-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.08.004
Gámez-Guadix, M., de-Santisteban, P., & Resett, S. (2017). Sexting among Spanish adolescents: Prevalence and
personality profiles. Psicothema, 29(1), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.222
Garmendia, M., Jiménez, E., Casado, M.A., & Mascheroni, G. (2016). Net children go mobile: Riesgos y oportunidades
en Internet y el uso de dispositivos móviles entre menores españoles (2010-2015). Universidad del País Vasco/Red.es.
https://bit.ly/2viYYc2
Gewirtz-Meydan, A., Mitchell, K.J., & Rothman, E.F. (2018). What do kids think about sexting? Computers in Human
Behavior, 86, 256-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.007
Lantagne, A., & Furman, W. (2017). Romantic relationship development: The interplay between age and relationship
length. Developmental Psychology, 53(9), 1738-1749. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000363
Lim, M., Vella, A., Horyniak, D., & Hellard, M. (2016). Exploring attitudes towards sexting of young people: A cross-
sectional study. Sexual Health, 13(6), 530-535. https://doi.org/10.1071/sh16029
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
Madigan, S., Ly, A., Rash, C.L., Van-Ouytsel, J., & Temple, J.R. (2018). Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behavior
among youth. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(4), 327-335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5314
Marume, A., Maradzika, J., & January, J. (2018). Adolescent sexting and risky sexual behaviours in zimbabwe: A cross-
sectional study. Sexuality & Culture, 22(3), 931-941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9508-4
McEachern, A.G., McEachern-Ciattoni, R.T., & Martin, F. (2012). Sexting: New challenges for schools and professional
school counselors. Journal of School Counseling, 10(20), 1-28. https://bit.ly/2ZdoQk6
Medrano, J.L.J., Lopez Rosales, F., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2018). Assessing the links of sexting, cybervictimization,
depression, and suicidal ideation among university students. Archives of Suicide Research, 22(1), 153-164.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2017.1304304
Mitchell, K.J., Finkelhor, D., Jones, L.M., & Wolak, J. (2012). Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A national
study. Pediatrics, 129(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-1730
Montero, I., & León, O.G. (2007). A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. International Journal of Clinical and
Health Psychology, 7(3), 847-862. https://bit.ly/2wVCuhY
Olivari, M., & Confalonieri, E. (2017). Adolescenti e sexting: Una review della letteratura. Maltrattamento e Abuso
All’infanzia, 2, 119-140. https://doi.org/10.3280/mal2017-002007
Patrick, K., Heywood, W., Pitts, M., & Mitchell, A. (2015). Demographic and behavioural correlates of six sexting
behaviours among Australian secondary school students. Sexual Health, 12(6), 480-487.
https://doi.org/10.1071/sh15004
Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J., & Sturman, M.C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical
techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762-800.
https://doi.org//10.1177/1094428109332834
Ringrose, J., Harvey, L., Gill, R., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Teen girls, sexual double standards and ‘sexting’: Gendered
value in digital image exchange. Feminist Theory, 14(3), 305-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700113499853
Schmitz, S., & Siry, L. (2011). Teenage folly or child abuse? State responses to 'sexting' by minors in the U.S. and
Germany. Policy & Internet, 3(2), 25-50. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1127
Stanley, N., Barter, C., Wood, M., Aghtaie, N., Larkins, C., Lanau, A., & Överlien, C. (2018). Pornography, Sexual
coercion and abuse and sexting in young people’s intimate relationships: A European study. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 33(19), 2919-2944. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516633204
Strassberg, D.S., Cann, D., & Velarde, V. (2017). Sexting by High school students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(6),
1667-1672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0926-9
Symons, K., Ponnet, K., Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2018). Sexting scripts in adolescent relationships: Is sexting
becoming the norm? New Media & Society, 20(10), 3836-3857. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818761869
Van-Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Heirman, W. (2015). The Association between adolescent sexting,
psychosocial difficulties, and risk behavior. The Journal of School Nursing, 31(1), 54-69.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840514541964
Van-Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., & Van-Gool, E. (2014). Sexting: Between thrill and fear-how schools can respond. The
Clearing House, 87(5), 204-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2014.918532
Van-Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., & Ponnet, K. (2019). An exploratory study of sexting behaviors among heterosexual and
sexual minority early adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(5), 621-626.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.06.003
Villacampa, C. (2017). Teen sexting: Prevalence, characteristics and legal treatment. International Journal of Law, Crime
and Justice, 49, 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.01.002
Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., Van-Ouytsel, J., Van-Gool, E., Heirman, W., & Verbeek, A. (2015). Whether or not to engage in
sexting: Explaining adolescent sexting behaviour by applying the prototype willingness model. Telematics and
Informatics, 32(4), 796-808. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.tele.2015.03.008
West, J.H., Lister, C.E., Hall, P.C., Crookston, B.T., Snow, P.R., Zvietcovich, M.E., & West, R.P. (2014). Sexting among
peruvian adolescents. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 811. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-811
Wood, M., Barter, C., Stanley, N., Aghtaie, N., & Larkins, C. (2015). Images across Europe: The sending and receiving of

© COMUNICAR, 64 (2020-3); e-ISSN: 1988-3293; Preprint DOI: 10.3916/C64-2020-01

sexual images and associations with interpersonal violence in young people’s relationships. Children and Youth Services
Review, 59, 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.11.005
Wurtele, S., & Miller-Perrin, C. (2014). Preventing technology‐initiated sexual victimization of youth: A developmental
perspective. In M.C. Kenny (Ed.), Sex education: Attitude of adolescents, cultural differences and schools’ challenges
(pp. 147-175). Nova. https://bit.ly/2UItJjB
Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2014). 'Sexting' and its relation to sexual activity and sexual risk behavior in a national
survey of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(6), 757-764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.07.012

© COMUNICAR, 64 (2020-3); e-ISSN: 1988-3293; Preprint DOI: 10.3916/C64-2020-01