Seksting Kod Različitih Orijentacija

Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy
Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions
ISSN: 1533-2691 (Print) 1533-2683 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcrt20
Exploring Perceptions of Acceptability of Sexting

in Same-Sex, Bisexual, Heterosexual Relationships
and Communities
Katherine M. Hertlein, Carly Shadid & Sarah M. Steelman
To cite this article: Katherine M. Hertlein, Carly Shadid & Sarah M. Steelman (2015)
Exploring Perceptions of Acceptability of Sexting in Same-Sex, Bisexual, Heterosexual
Relationships and Communities, Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 14:4, 342-357, DOI:
10.1080/15332691.2014.960547
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2014.960547
Published online: 16 Jun 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 43
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcrt20
Download by: [University of Nevada Las Vegas] Date: 26 October 2015, At: 13:48
Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 14:342–357, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1533-2691 print / 1533-2683 online
DOI: 10.1080/15332691.2014.960547
Exploring Perceptions of Acceptability of

Sexting in Same-Sex, Bisexual, Heterosexual
Relationships and Communities
KATHERINE M. HERTLEIN and CARLY SHADID

Marriage and Family Therapy Program, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada,
Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 13:48 26 October 2015
USA
SARAH M. STEELMAN
Marriage and Family Therapy Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Communication over the Internet is helpful for marginalized indi-

viduals in their efforts to feel a part of the collective whole and gain
personal empowerment. For individuals who identify as part of the
LGB community, the Internet can be seen as a tool to take control
of their lives, may promote self-esteem, and foster a sense of belong-
ingness. The purpose of the study was about sexting practices on
college campuses in general. It builds on the existing body of knowl-
edge by attending specifically to sexting rather than the previous
literature about engagement in sexual behavior online. Partici-
pants responded to a survey on sexting and technology use as well
as questions from the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory–Revised
(SOI-R) and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Identity Scale (LGBIS).
Findings indicated that sexting is viewed as more acceptable in
same-sex relationships compared with heterosexual relationships.
Implications for future research include exploring how greater de-
grees of perceived acceptability manifests in both problematic and
advantageous ways in relationships. Implications for practice in-
clude being able to identify how same sex couples reporting higher
degrees of acceptability with sexting in their relationship can trans-
late to heterosexual relationships.
KEYWORDS texting, internet, gay and lesbian, sexting, couples
Address correspondence to Katherine M. Hertlein, PhD, Marriage and Family Therapy

Program, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Pkwy., Box 450345, Las Vegas, NV
89154-3045, USA. E-mail: Katherine.hertlein@unlv.edu
342
Acceptability of Sexting 343
INTRODUCTION
The increase in the development of various technologies in recent decades

has led to an increase in using such technologies for communication. De-
vices such as cell phones, tablets, and laptops enable users of these devices
to reach others in more ways than they previously could not, leading to the
formation and maintenance of relationships, both geographically proximal
and distant. The Internet allows for the expansion of intimacy outside the
traditional constructs of family and the home (Bacigalupe & Lambe, 2011;
Valentine, 2006). The Internet and other media may be used for partners and
family members to maintain their relational obligations. For example, tech-
nologies make it possible to shop, send e-cards, and otherwise communicate

love and support within an ever-expanding network of social and familial
relationships.
With the growth has come a certain level of acceptability of the use
of technology. In today’s climate, it is much more widely acceptable to use
technology. In fact, acceptability is one of the key characteristics identified
by King (1999) as a key factor influencing one’s participation in using the
Internet. The concept of acceptability has been shown to have some impact
on couple and family life. Empirical evidence related to the presence of ac-
ceptability in driving online behavior has historically been subsumed under
studies exploring perceptions of appropriate Internet behavior (Hertlein &
Stevenson, 2010). For example, some researchers have sought to understand
the prevalence of sexual behavior online (i.e., Boies, Cooper, & Osborne,
2004; Daneback, Cooper, & Månsson, 2005; Goodson, McCormick, & Evans,
2000) as well as investigating whether particular online behavior is consid-
ered problematic. Whitty (2003, 2004, 2005; Whitty & Quiqley, 2008) noted
differences in how people perceived online and offline infidelity—including
identifying what behaviors might be noted as more accepted (i.e., not consti-
tute infidelity) compared with other behaviors and found that women were
more likely to view a broader range of behaviors as constituting infidelity
(Whitty, 2003). The implication with acceptability is that men consider more
Internet-based behaviors as acceptable within the context of a relationship
than women. This is also the case in terms of partner violence facilitated
by the Internet, with women being more likely to believe that using the
computer to monitor their partner’s behavior was more acceptable to do in
a relationship than men (Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, & Knox, 2011).
Additionally, the concept of anonymity (Cooper, 2002) fuels other be-
havior that would not be condoned in the other contexts as acceptable, such
as misrepresenting age or other physical features (Hertlein & Stevenson,
2010). Online dating profiles, for example, allow for a broader representa-
tion of oneself. Due to the potentially large base of users and more readily
available people online, there is a sense of competition between users to cre-
ate an enticing description of who they are (Hall, Park, Song, & Cody, 2010).
344 K. M. Hertlein et al.
Thus, creating a profile that is more consistent with one’s idealized view
as opposed to one’s real attributes becomes a more acceptable practice. In
addition, couples begin to accept other behaviors into their life, such as log-
ging into their partner’s accounts without telling their partner and engaging
in spying practices.
The acceptance of technology use in relationships is not ascribed to
a certain generation. Although younger generations may be more likely to
utilize technology in order to maintain relationships, older individuals (ages
70 to 75) are also increasing their use of technology (Jones & Fox, 2009).
Motivations for technology use include financial reasons (less expensive
ways to conduct business or communicate with others), maintaining social
relationships, establishing romantic relationships, assisting with transition in

life events, expressing affection, and, through the expansion of one’s social
network, reducing the likelihood of depression, helping people to manage
stress, and overall improving health outcomes (Brandtzæg & Heim, 2009;
Coyne, Stockdale, Busby, Iverson, & Grant, 2011; Hogeboom, McDermott,
Perrin, Osman, & Bell-Ellison, 2010; Noval, 2012; Roy, 2008).
Due to the increase of technology use, there have also been increases
in the types of messages that are sent and received between individuals.
Sexting is a behavior that is common in adults aged 18 to 24 (Gordon-Messer,
Bauermeister, Grodzinski, & Zimmerman, 2012). This may be attributed to
the technological advancement that has happened in this particular cohort.
Between the years of 2010 and 2011, there was a growth in the amount
of images that were sent (Gordon-Messer et al.). In addition, the use of
applications for romantic development has become more common. These
sites allow for a chance to meet others in a way that may be more useful than
offline alternatives due to the advertisement nature of these sites (Valentine,
2006). The Internet also provides a perceived sense of safety for individuals of
a minority group to engage with others within their group that they otherwise
would not be able to connect with (Valentine). Individuals who identify with
a minority group may not have the opportunity to seek out a relationship in
typical public places, or the venues to do this may not be existent or may be
very limited. With regard to online dating in a sample, Hertlein and Blumer
(2013) noted that same-sex couples, more so than opposite sex ones, meet
online perhaps due to the environment being perceived as a safer place to
initiate.
Additionally, increased technology and new media use translates into
another outlet for those who may not feel connected socially in person to
others. One study found that young adults who feel disconnected may turn
to electronics as a sense of companionship and connectedness, as those who
reported a higher degree of loneliness tended to utilize their computers more
than those who did not report a high degree of loneliness (Pearson, Carmon,
Tobola, & Fowler, 2009). This experience of feeling isolated is certainly not
exclusive to young adults. Specific marginalized groups such as those in
the LGB community may feel as though they are disconnected or have a
great sense of loneliness and a desire to belong (Detrie & Lease, 2007), and
communication over the Internet is helpful for disadvantaged individuals in
their efforts to feel a part of the collective whole and gain personal empow-
erment (Alexander, 2002). As a marginalized group, resources for the LGB
community may be more difficult to access (either due to shame or stigma
associated with connection with this community) or may be absent from
communities (Kinkler & Goldberg, 2011; Lasala, 2006; Robinson, 1991). The
Internet, however, can provide opportunities to seek out knowledge, help,
and relationships. For individuals who identify as part of the LGB commu-
nity, the Internet can be seen as a tool to take control of their lives (Mehra,
Merkel, & Bishop, 2004). Through the use of Internet and technology, there
is an increase in connectedness to similar people. This not only promotes
self-esteem but also a sense of belongingness to a group that some may not
feel outside of use of technology.
The concept of acceptability in technology use becomes critically im-
portant when one considers the risks and rewards related to technology en-
gagement. The Couple and Family Technology Framework (Hertlein, 2012;
Hertlein & Blumer, 2013) identify acceptability of technology use as a key ele-
ment in shaping the processes and structure of relationships. Relationships in
which technology use is perceived as more acceptable can experience shifts
in boundaries within their relationship (i.e., how acceptable it is to connect
with others outside one’s partnership, how acceptable it is to respond to
work emails while at home, etc.). In addition, congruent relationship rules
may be more difficult to establish if levels of acceptability of certain behav-
iors differ between the two partners. Perceived acceptability of technology
use in one’s relationship can have implications for process; for example,
acceptance of technology as the primary form of communication may limit
the times that individuals choose to spend together in person. In addition,
the expectations around communication may differ.
Another risk becoming more acceptable is cyberbullying, or behavior
“performed through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups
that repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressive messages intended to
inflict harm or discomfort on others” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 278), for example,
is becoming more common as an unintended consequence of technology
use (Ryan, Kariuki, & Yilmaz, 2011). Further, while cyberbullying is often
ascribed to only adolescent populations (Tokunaga), it exists within a wide
variety of age and cultural groups (Blumenfeld & Cooper, 2010; Finn, 2004;
Lindsay & Krysik, 2012; Mishna, Khory-Kassabri, Gadalla, & Daciuk, 2012).
According Hertlein and Blumer (2013) cyberbullying rates within schools
tends to be higher than their sexual orientation majority peers.
In addition to cyberbullying, members of the LGB community also ex-
perience a higher risk of depression, suicide, psychosocial stress, poten-
tial lack of support, legal restrictions, lack of access to health care, etc.
Victimization is something that occurs frequently within this community,

which leads to problematic outcomes (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012). These risks
have influenced how LGB individuals are able to interact with the world
and can lead to seeking out alternative ways of interacting. In some cases
where individuals may not be out in their family or friends, they are able
to be out by using online forums and applications with others who are
in their same community. For example, one specific risk of LGB individu-
als is being outed by another via technology (Varjas, Meyers, Kiperman, &
Howard, 2012). When these risks occur, the potential for consequences to
one’s mental health (i.e., depression, anxiety, withdrawal, etc.) increases.
A constructive use of technology is to create an opportunity to have a
face-to-face meeting with individuals with whom they would like to have a
significant relationship (Varjas et al., 2012). Commonly, LGB adolescents use
technology for social networking and text messaging (Varjas et al.). This can
be a way of gaining connection with like-minded people, who may not be
physically in their social circles. Though there are associated risks in utilizing
technology, the rewards are much greater for the LGB community.
The increase in acceptability of technology use in relationships is also
co-occurring with the increase of sexting both in and outside of relation-
ships. Sexting has been defined as the sending and/or receiving of sexually
explicit messages to others via technology (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013; Fer-
guson, 2011; Temple et al., 2014). The prevalence of sexting among youth
has been explored by numerous studies and ranges anywhere from just
under 10% of college-aged youth participating in sexting to as much as
80%, with most research indicating the percentage is close to 50% (Klettke,
Hallford, & Mellor, 2014). Sexting behaviors are associated with more per-
missive sexual values. The literature on sexting seems to be inconsistent in
some ways. Some research has found those who send/receive sexts experi-
ence no differences in their psychological well-being than others who do not
engage in sexting (Gordon-Messer et al., 2013). Other research, however, in-
dicates that those who sext also engage in high-risk sexual behavior as well
as use substances at a higher rate (Bentosch, Snipes, Martin, & Bull, 2013),
particularly if those individuals are predisposed personality-wise to engage-
ment in risky behaviors (Crimmins & Seigfried-Spellar, 2014; Delevi & Weis-
skirch, 2013). With regard to the role of sexting in couple relationships, those
who experience higher levels of attachment anxiety have been found to be
more likely to text (Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011), similar to another study that
found attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance predicted the sending of
sexually explicit pictures (Drouin & Landgraff, 2012). For women, consent-
ing to unwanted sexting occurs with anxious attachment styles (Drouin &
Tobin, 2014).
Due to acceptability’s relationship with altered relationship processes,
boundaries, increased risk for cyber bullying, and other unintended conse-
quences, we explored the differences in perceived acceptability of sexting
within same sex and heterosexual populations. The purpose of the study was
to identify whether LGB identified individuals perceive sexting as a more ac-
ceptable behavior than do heterosexual-identified individuals. It builds on
the existing body of knowledge by attending specifically to sexting rather
than the previous literature about engagement in sexual behavior online
(see, for example, Daneback et al., 2005).
METHOD
This study was conducted using undergraduate students at a university in

the southwestern United States. The rationale for using this population was
that we believed that this age group is the predominant age group to be
using sexting to communicate with their peers as compared with younger
and older adults who may be in longer-term relationships or for whom
sexting had not been in part of their relationship experiences. Within this
general purpose for the study, we suspected that there may be differences in
the perception of acceptability of sexting between heterosexual and same-
sex couples. The survey was advertised in undergraduate courses in the
family studies minor at this university during the fall 2012 and spring 2013
semesters. The students were given the option of completing the study for
extra credit. This study was approved by the university’s institutional review
board.
The survey was composed of a set of questions created by the research
team.1 Participants identified their sexual orientation through responding to
a survey question asking their orientation. We also used some existing inven-
tories. All respondents answered questions from the Sociosexual Orientation
Inventory–Revised (SOI-R) (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). The Sociosexual Ori-
entation Inventory–Revised (SOI-R) (2008) is a 9-item scale made of three
subscales: behavior, attitude, and desire. These scales demonstrate a correla-
tion with self-report sexual behaviors as well as being predictive of patterns
of relationship development (Penke & Asendorpf). Each component of so-
ciosexuality makes a unique contribution outside of the global construct of
sociosexuality, with a confirmatory factor analysis for these three constructs
significant at p < .001. Cronbach’s α estimates ranged from .75 to .86 for men
and from .79 to .86 for women, with the exception of the desire subscale for
women (α = .39). We used a MANOVA to analyze differences among the
groups with regard to perceptions of acceptability.
Sexting was defined as both sending and receiving of texts to fulfill a
sexual purpose. Questions about sexting included whether one has used
their mobile phone to initiate any sexual purpose or been the recipient
of this type of request, the extent to which such requests were success-
ful, the extent to which nude or nearly nude photos had been exchanged,
the frequency with which someone had send or received message from
someone other than their partner, and sending such message to more than
one person to increase chances of an encounter. Questions regarding per-
ceived acceptability included the region in which sexting would be accept-
able, the degree to which sending pictures, texts, or requesting intimate
encounters with another person (either in the relationship or outside of it)
was acceptable. We also inquired as to the differences, if any, in accept-
ability between regions, as the previous literature tied sexual permissiveness
to difference in sexting, which are sometimes observed through different
regions.
RESULTS
The demographics of this study have been written up in a previous publica-

tion (see Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014). in any sexting in any fashion (n = 107).
Of the 410 participants, 27 indicated that they were bisexual and 26 identi-
fied as same-sex oriented. The remainder of the sample (n = 357) identified
as heterosexual. To test for differences between same sex and heterosex-
ual participants among acceptability, we randomly selected 27 of the 357
participants who identified as heterosexual to function as the comparison
group. This was achieved through selecting the “select cases” function in
SPSS version 20.0. Therefore, our comparison group was composed of the
27 individuals who classified themselves as bisexual, the 26 individuals who
classified themselves as being same sex, and the 27 whom we identified as
heterosexual.
Within this sample of convenience, ages of the participants ranged
from 19 to 41, with a mean age of 22.77 and a standard deviation of 4.56.
Participants included 20 men, 59 women, and 2 transgender individuals. The
sample also included 45% of people who identify as Caucasian (n = 37),
18.5% who identified as multiethnic (n = 15), 14.8% (n = 12) who identified
as Hispanic, 7.4% (n = 6) who identified as Black, and 4.9% (n = 4) who
identified as Filipino. The remainder of the sample (8.64%, n = 7) identi-
fied as other, which included Chinese, Japanese, Other Asian, and other.
Fifty percent of the participants (n = 41) noted they were in a committed
relationship with one person. Nearly 30% of the sample (32.1%, n = 26)
reported they were not in a relationship with anyone. The remaining partic-
ipants were in a casual relationship with one person (11.1%, n = 9), or in a
casual relationship with more than one person (6.2%, n = 5).
In order to analyze whether there was a significant difference among
the three different groups with regard to the acceptability of texting within
one’s immediate relationship, local community, and broader community, we
conducted a MANOVA via SPSS 20.0 with a least significant difference (LSD)
post hoc test to identify differences between the three groups should a
difference emerge since we had three groups and desired to make pairwise
TABLE 1 Mean Values
Heterosexual Bisexual Same sex

N Mean N Mean N Mean
Please indicate to what degree: Is sexting 49 3.22 27 3.52 26 3.27

acceptable within college community
acceptable within our local community
acceptable within Southwest region
Please indicate to what degree: Is 49 3.12 27 3.29 26 3.15
sending nude or semi-nude photos via
phone, email, or other electronic
communication TO A PARTNER
acceptable?
sending nude or semi-nude photos via
phone, email, or other electronic
communication TO SOMEONE OTHER
THAN A PARTNER (friend, etc.)
acceptable?
displaying oneself as nude or
semi-nude photos in person to another
acceptable?
requesting an intimate encounter from
someone via text or web-based
communication acceptable?
requesting an intimate encounter from
someone via offline methods (in
person) acceptable?
comparisons among the groups. The MANOVA revealed differences between

the groups with regard to acceptability of sexting within the college com-
munity (F = 5.87, df = 2, p = .004), local community (F = 3.647, df =
2, p = .031), and southwest region (F = 5.24, df = 2, p = .007) (Table 1).
The post hoc tests indicated that the bisexual and same-sex oriented sample
reported similarly in terms of acceptability and that this group significantly
differed at the p < .05 level from the heterosexual sample among the three
variables (Table 2). In addition, those participants identifying as same-sex
oriented (but not bisexual) perceived sending nude or semi-nude photos via
phone, e-mail, or other electronic communication to someone other than
one’s partner as more acceptable than heterosexual participants (F = 3.99,
df = 2, p = .012). Finally, requesting an intimate encounter from someone
via text or web-based communication was also viewed as more acceptable
in the same-sex sample than in the heterosexual sample (F = 2.20, df = 2,
p = .04).
TABLE 2 Post-hoc Comparisons
350
With which group With which group Mean
Dependent variable do you identify? do you identify? difference Std. Error p
Please indicate to what degree: Is sexting acceptable within college Heterosexual Bisexual −.852∗ .256 .001∗∗
community Heterosexual Same sex −.603∗ .258 .022∗
Bisexual Same sex .249 .258 .337
Please indicate to what degree: Is sexting acceptable within our Heterosexual Bisexual −.667∗ .249 .009∗∗
local community Heterosexual Same sex −.419 .252 .101
Please indicate to what degree: Is sexting acceptable within Heterosexual Bisexual −.778∗ .255 .003∗
Southwest region Heterosexual Same sex −.631∗ .257 .016∗
Please indicate to what degree: Is sending nude or semi-nude Heterosexual Bisexual −.308 .209 .142
photos via phone, email, or other electronic communication Heterosexual Same sex −.050 .213 .815
TO A PARTNER acceptable? Bisexual Same sex .258 .288 .370
Please indicate to what degree: Is sending nude or semi-nude Heterosexual Bisexual −.236 .163 .150
photos via phone, email, or other electronic communication TO Heterosexual Same sex −.419∗ .166 .012∗
SOMEONE OTHER THAN A PARTNER (friend, etc.) acceptable? Bisexual Same sex −.184 .225 .414
Please indicate to what degree: Is displaying oneself as nude or Heterosexual Bisexual −.042 .201 .834
semi-nude photos in person to another acceptable? Heterosexual Same sex −.234 .204 .252
Bisexual Same sex −.192 .276 .487
Please indicate to what degree: Is requesting an intimate Heterosexual Bisexual −.108 .204 .596
encounter from someone via text or web-based communication Heterosexual Same sex −.427∗ .207 .040∗
acceptable? Bisexual Same sex −.319 .280 .255
Please indicate to what degree: Is requesting an intimate Heterosexual Bisexual −.202 .225 .369
encounter from someone via offline methods (in person) Heterosexual Same sex −.311 .2291 .176
acceptable? Bisexual Same sex −.108 .309 .727
∗p ≤ .05,∗∗ p ≤ .01.
DISCUSSION
As mentioned, our findings indicated that there are times in which the ac-
ceptability of sexting in same-sex relationships is more acceptable compared
with heterosexual relationships. One piece of scholarly thought that might
explain this finding is the concept of invisibility management (Blumer &
Green, 2012). Invisibility management is the concept that people who iden-
tify as lesbian or gay have to manage with whom they come out and to what
groups. There are a certain proportion of members of the lesbian and gay
community who are not out. In this way, because some of the applications
are online and hidden from the eyes of the larger community, it may be the
case that this is something that the lesbian and gay community would favor
in terms of connecting with others, as it would not compromise one’s level of
outness. In other words, it would protect the identity of those who identity
as lesbian and gay internally but are not out. More research is needed to
determine whether invisibility management specifically contributes to using
technology in relationship initiation in nonheterosexual relationships.
Another possible explanation is that the online environment can mimic
offline environments (Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010). This concept, known as
approximation, may increase one’s likelihood of using internet technolo-
gies to facilitate relationship development, no matter one’s identified sexual
orientation. In the case of same-sex and bisexual relationships, however,
the quality of approximation may be amplified and increase acceptabil-
ity of technology use. Paired with the concept of invisibility management,
as a marginalized population, it is possible that the online environment
is an easier space to mimic inclusive territories (i.e., gay bars and clubs)
making it safer to use these means to secure romantic others. In addi-
tion, there may be a safety aspect that goes along with the idea of using
online and mobile apps for same-sex and bisexual relationship develop-
ment. It may be assumed those utilizing such sites are seeking same-sex
or bisexual relationships, thus reducing the need to hide one’s orientation.
More research is needed to confirm whether these hypotheses play a role
in the higher degree of perceived acceptability in technology use for this
population.
Another issue is the accessibility of the computer and Internet technolo-
gies with the LGB population. With the Internet accessible, you can find
people outside of your immediate community, which might lead to more
partnerships and increase one’s ability to be able to find another person. In
fact, some of the sites mentioned by the participants were ones designed
specifically for the lesbian and gay population. Therefore, the accessibil-
ity afforded by these sites would be limited by the others. In these cases,
there is an advantage to using the application if one is aware that the other
individuals using the application are also members of the same commu-
nity. The more opportunities (i.e., the greater the opportunities for access),
acceptability of use may increase. In addition, when categorizing the appli-

cations, we noticed that most of the sites deemed as being geared toward
“hooking up” were also geared toward the male members of the lesbian
and gay community. One potential reason for this could be because of the
gender differences when it comes to the act of hooking up versus dating or
other “acceptable” means of displaying sexuality. Evidence shows that men
tend to experience regret due to inaction—wishing they had engaged in sex-
ual behavior; while women due to action—wishing they had not (Dickson,
Paul, Herbison, & Silva, 1998; Eshbaugh & Gute, 2008; Klassen, Williams,
Levitt, O’Gorman, & Alfred, 1989; Oswalt, Cameron, & Koob, 2005; Roese
et al., 2008). This gendered double standard could lead to women consider-
ing hooking up as less of an option for them because of its association to

a decrease in self-esteem due to the behavior violating societal expectations
of them (Herold & Mewhinney, 1993).
With understanding these societal constructions, it is also possible that
people are inclined to put this frame on any measure of sexuality involving
women, whether or not it is actually true. In the sexting study these appli-
cations were collected from, both men (39.5%) and women (32.1%) scored
highest in saying their perception of why they and others sext was for flirting
with sexual intention. Because the percentage of woman and men responses
is close, it may be that the double standard for women “hooking up” may
not be applied to sexting in regards to flirting with sexual intention, thus
making it more acceptable all around.
With regard to therapeutic application, therapists need to be aware of the
differences in acceptability in different relationships to refrain from inappro-
priately pathologizing (or potentially in appropriately diagnosing) a client’s
internet or phone behaviors based on personal expectations. In addition,
therapists can explore the utility of sexting and similar communications in a
couple’s life to increase the acceptability and, in turn, identify more ways to
help couples stay connected to each other. Finally, therapists can lead cou-
ples to have a conversation about the acceptability of communicating with
others via text in their own relationship and identify the degree to which
behavior would cross a line.
Limitations
This is the first study of its kind to examine the role of perceived accept-
ability of technology use in couple relationships. As the sample of same-sex
and bisexual individuals were only a subset of the total sample, sample
size is noted as a limitation. Our sample was also a sample of useclinical
college students and while this is the population using sexting most often, the
use of a college population should also be noted as a limitation. In addition,
the assessment tool used was developed by the authors and other members
of the research team and, therefore, the operational definition of accessibility
was constrained largely by these factors. Another limitation is the description

of the regions. On the survey, we asked about perceptions in acceptability
of sexting in one’s relationship, college community, local community, and
region. We did not, however, distinguish these regions for participants. Fur-
ther, there may be a vast difference between one’s relationship and one’s
broader community.
Future Research
Based on the higher level of perceived acceptability in same-sex relation-
ships, implications for clinical settings should be explored. Future research
might center around how greater degrees of perceived acceptability mani-
fests in both problematic and advantageous ways in relationships. This would

include research on why differences exist between same-sex and heterosex-
ual populations. Because we had 20 who identified as men and 59 who
identified as women, it would have been difficult with this same sample to
compare the difference between men and women with regard to accept-
ability. Additionally, future research can be conducted on the circumstances
in which sexting occurs in one’s primary relationship and outside of the
primary relationship.
NOTE
1. The students involved in the research team were seven master’s level marriage and family
therapy students (six women and one man) as well as one female undergraduate student. The team’s
involvement was to generate the research questions and met weekly to revise, add to, and combine
questions, both incorporating the previous literature on sexting (specifically citing the Ferguson, 2011
study) as well as their familiarity of sexting practices among their demographic.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are indebted to Dr. Erika Grafsky, who served in a peer review role on
this article prior to submission. We also thank Dr. Markie Blumer who served
as a consultant on the questionnaire.
REFERENCES
Alexander, J. (2002). Queer webs: Representations of lgbt people and communities

on the world wide web. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies,
7(2), 77–84. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6278-2_3
Bacigalupe, G., & Lambe, S. (2011). Virtualizing intimacy: Information communica-
tion technologies and transnational families in therapy. Family Process, 50(1),
12–26. doi:10.1111/j.1545–5300.2010.01343.x
Bentosch, 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(3), 307–313. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.011
Blumenfeld, W. J., & Cooper, R. M. (2010). LGBT and allied youth responses to
cyberbullying: Policy implications. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy,
3(1), 114–133.
Blumer, M. L. C., & Green, M. S. (2012, January). The role of same-sex couple
development in clinical practice. Nationally Broadcast Professional Continuing
Education Workshop, American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy,
Alexandria, VA.
Boies, S., Cooper, A., & Osborne, C. (2004). Variations in Internet-related problems
and psychosocial functioning in online sexual activities: Implications for social
and sexual development of young adults. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(2),

207–230. doi:10.1089/109493104323024474
Brandtzæg, P. B., & Heim, J. (2009). Why people use social networking sites. Online
Communities and Social Computing, II, 143–152. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02774-
1_16
Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to
control intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1162–1167. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.010
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., & Grant, D. M. (2011). “I luv U :)!”:
A descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships.
Family Relations, 60(2), 150–162. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00639.x
Cooper, A. (2002). Sex and the Internet: A guidebook for clinicians. New York, NY:
Brunner-Routledge. doi:10.1023/B:ASEB.0000037581.66990.0a
Crimmins, D. M., & Seigfried-Spellar, K. C. (2014). Peer attachment, sex-
ual experiences, and risky behavior as predictors of sexting behaviors
among undergraduate students. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 268–275.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.012
Daneback, K., Cooper, A., & Månsson, S. (2005). An Internet study of cybersex
participants. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(3), 321–328. doi:10.1007/s10508-
005-3120-z.
Delevi, R., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2013). Personality factors as predictors of sexting.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2589–2594. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.003
Detrie, P. M., & Lease, S. H. (2007). The relation of social support, connect-
edness, and collective self-esteem to the psychological well-being of les-
bian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Homosexuality, 53(4), 173–199.
doi:10.1080/00918360802103449
Dickson, N., Paul, C., Herbison, P., & Silva, P. (1998). First sexual intercourse: Age,
coercion, and later regrets reported by a birth cohort. British Medical Journal,
316, 29–33. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7124.29
Drouin, M., & Landgraff, C. (2012). Texting, sexting, and attachment in college stu-
dents’ romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 444–449.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.015
Drouin, M., & Tobin, E. (2014). Unwanted but consensual sexting among young
adults: Relations with attachment and sexual motivations. Computers in Human
Behavior, 31, 412–418. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.001
Eshbaugh, E. M., & Gute, G. (2008). Hookups and sexual regret among col-
lege women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(1), 77–90. doi:10.3200/
SOCP.148.1.
Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19(4), 468–483. doi:10.1177/0886260503262083
Ferguson, C. J. (2011). Sexting behaviors among young Hispanic women: Incidence
and association with other high-risk sexual behaviors. Psychiatric Quarterly,
82(3), 239–243. doi:10.1007/s11126-010-9165-8
Goodson, P., McCormick, D., & Evans, A. (2000). Sex and the Internet: A survey
instrument to assess college students’ behavior and attitudes. Cyberpsychology
& Behavior, 3(2), 129–149. doi:10.1089/109493100315987
Gordon-Messer, D., Bauermeister, J. A., Grodzinski, A., & Zimmerman, M.
(2012). Sexting among young adults. Journal of Young Adults, 52, 301–306.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.013
Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010). Strategic misrepresenta-
tion in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personal-
ity traits. The Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(1), 117–135.
doi:10.1177/0265407509349633
Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital dwelling: Technology in couple and family relation-
ships. Family Relations, 61(3), 374–387. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00702.x
Hertlein, K. M., & Ancheta, K. (2014). Clinical application of the pros and cons of
technology in couple and family therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy,
42(4), 313–324. doi:10.1080/01926187.2013.866511
Hertlein, K. M., & Blumer, M. L. C. (2013). The Couple and Family Technology
Framework: Intimate relationships in a digital age. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hertlein, K., & Stevenson, A. (2010). The seven “As” contributing to internet-
related intimacy problems: A literature review. Cyberpsychology: Journal
of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 4(1), article 1. Retrieved from
http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2010050202&article=1
Herold, E. S., & Mewhinney, D. K. (1993). Gender differences in casual sex in
AIDS prevention: A survey of dating bars. Journal of Sex Research, 15, 502–516.
doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0047-z
Hogeboom, D. L., McDermott, R. J., Perrin, K. M., Osman, H., & Bell-Ellison, B. A.
(2010). Internet use and social networking among middle aged and older adults.
Educational Gerontology, 36(2), 93–111. doi:10.1080/03601270903058507
Jones, S., & Fox, S. (2009). Generations online in 2009. Pew internet and American
life project. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/01/28/generations-
online-in-2009/
Katz-Wise, S.L., & Hyde, J.S. (2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and
Bisexual individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 142–167.
doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.637247
Kinkler, L. A., & Golderg, A. E. (2011). Working with what we’ve got: Perceptions of
barriers and supports among small-metropolitan-area same-sex adopting cou-
ples. Family Relations, 60(4), 387–404. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00654.x
Klassen, A. D., Williams, C. J., Levitt, E. E., O’Gorman, H. J., & Alfred C. Kinsey
Institute for Sex Research. (1989). Sex and morality in the U.S: An empirical
enquiry under the auspices of the Kinsey Institute. Middletown, CT: Westleyan
University Press. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77956-0_2
King, S. A. (1999). Internet gambling and pornography: Illustrative examples of

psychological consequences of communication anarchy. Cyberpsychology & Be-
havior, 2, 175–193. doi:10.1089/109493199316311
Klettke, B., Hallford, D. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2014). Sexting prevalence and cor-
relates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 44–53.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.10.007
Lasala, M. C. (2006). Cognitive and environmental interventions for gay males:
Addressing stigma and its consequences. Families in Society, 87(2), 181–190.
doi:10.1080/10538720.2013.829394
Lindsay, M., & Krysik, J. (2012). Online harassment among college students: A repli-
cation incorporating new Internet trends. Information, Communication and
Society, 15(5), 703–719. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.674959
Mehra, B., Merkel, C., & Bishop, A. P. (2004). The internet for empowerment
of minority and marginalized users. New Media & Society, 6(6), 781–802.
doi:10.1177/146144804047513
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for
involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34(1), 63. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032
Mohr, J. J., & Kendra, M. S. (2011). Revision and extension of a multidimensional
measure of sexual minority identity: The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity
Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 234–245.
Noval, C. (2012). Understanding the incentives of older adults’ participation on social
networking sites. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 102, 25–29.
doi:10.1145/2140446.2140452
Oswalt, S. B., Cameron, K. A., & Koob, J. J. (2005). Sexual regret in college students.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 663–669.
Pearson, J. C., Carmon, A., Tobola, C., & Fowler, M. (2009). Motives for com-
munication: Why the millennial generation uses electronic devices. Journal of
the Communication, Speech & Theatre, 22, 45–55. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2012.
746998
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A
more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and ro-
mantic relationships. American Psychological Association, 95(5), 1113–1135.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
Robinson, K. E. (1991). Gay youth support groups: An opportunity for social work
intervention. Social Work, 36(5), 458–460. doi:10.1007/s10560-007-0091-z
Roese, N. J., Pennington, G. L., Coleman, J., Janicki, M., Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D.
(2006). Sex differences in regret: All for love or some for lust? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 770–780.
Roy, S. K. (2008). Determining the uses and gratifications for Indian users. CS-BIGS,
2(2), 78–91. Retrieved from http://www.bentley.edu/csbigs/vol2-1/roy.pdf
Ryan, T., Kariuki, M., & Yilmaz, H. (2011). A comparative analysis of cyberbullying
perceptions of preservice educators: Canada and Turkey. The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 1–12.
Temple, J. R., Le, V. D., van den Berg, P., Ling, Y., Paul, J. A., & Temple, B. W. (2014).
Brief report: Teen sexting and psychosocial health. Journal of Adolescence, 37,
33. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.10.008
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and
synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Be-
havior, 26(3), 277–287. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Valentine, G. (2006). Globalizing intimacy: The role of information and communi-
cation technologies in maintaining and creating relationships. Women Studies
Quarterly, 34(1), 365–393.
Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Kiperman, S., & Howard, A. (2012). Technology hurts? Lesbian,
gay, and bisexual youth perspectives of technology and cyberbullying. Journal
of School Violence, 12, 27–44. doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.731665
Weisskirch, R. S., & Delevi, R. (2011). “Sexting” and adult romantic attachment. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1697–1701. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.008
Whitty, M. T. (2003). Pushing the wrong buttons: Men’s and women’s attitudes
toward online and offline infidelity. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6(6), 569–579.
doi:10.1089/109493103322725342
Whitty, M. T. (2005). The ‘realness’ of cyber-cheating: Men and women’s representa-
tions of unfaithful Internet relationships. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1),
57–67. doi:10.1177/0894439304271536
Whitty, M. (2004). Cybercheating: What do people perceive to be infidelity in online
relationships? Counselling and Psychotherapy Journal, 15(8), 38–39.
Whitty, M. T., & Quigley, L. (2008). Emotional and sexual infidelity offline
and in cyberspace. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34(4), 461–468.
doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2008.00088.x

Seksting Kod Različitih Orijentacija

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seksting Kod Različitih Orijentacija

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy

Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions

ISSN: 1533-2691 (Print) 1533-2683 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcrt20

Exploring Perceptions of Acceptability of Sexting

Katherine M. Hertlein, Carly Shadid & Sarah M. Steelman

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2014.960547

Published online: 16 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Exploring Perceptions of Acceptability of

KATHERINE M. HERTLEIN and CARLY SHADID

Communication over the Internet is helpful for marginalized indi-

KEYWORDS texting, internet, gay and lesbian, sexting, couples

Address correspondence to Katherine M. Hertlein, PhD, Marriage and Family Therapy

The increase in the development of various technologies in recent decades

nologies make it possible to shop, send e-cards, and otherwise communicate

relationships, establishing romantic relationships, assisting with transition in

Victimization is something that occurs frequently within this community,

This study was conducted using undergraduate students at a university in

The demographics of this study have been written up in a previous publica-

TABLE 1 Mean Values

Heterosexual Bisexual Same sex

Please indicate to what degree: Is sexting 49 3.22 27 3.52 26 3.27

comparisons among the groups. The MANOVA revealed differences between

TABLE 2 Post-hoc Comparisons

acceptability of use may increase. In addition, when categorizing the appli-

ing hooking up as less of an option for them because of its association to

was constrained largely by these factors. Another limitation is the description

fests in both problematic and advantageous ways in relationships. This would

Alexander, J. (2002). Queer webs: Representations of lgbt people and communities

and sexual development of young adults. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(2),

King, S. A. (1999). Internet gambling and pornography: Illustrative examples of

You might also like