See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264463517

Prevalence, correlates and attitudes towards sexting among young people in

Melbourne, Australia

Article  in  Sexual Health · August 2014

DOI: 10.1071/SH14032 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

63 29,370

5 authors, including:

Danielle Horyniak Alyce M. Vella

Burnet Institute Department of Health and Human Services (Victoria)
55 PUBLICATIONS   2,210 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   413 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Megan S C Lim
Burnet Institute
132 PUBLICATIONS   3,668 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluation of Victorian HIV Prevention Initiatives View project

Vanuatu IBBS 2011 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Megan S C Lim on 13 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CSIRO PUBLISHING
Sexual Health
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SH14032

Prevalence, correlates and attitudes towards sexting

among young people in Melbourne, Australia

Timothy H. Yeung A,B, Danielle R. Horyniak A,C, Alyce M. Vella A, Margaret E. Hellard A,C
and Megan S. C. Lim A,C,D
A
Burnet Institute, Centre for Population Health, 85 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia.
B
The University of Melbourne, Royal Melbourne Hospital Department of Medicine, Royal Parade, Parkville,
Vic. 3050, Australia.
C
Monash University, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne,
Vic. 3004, Australia.
D
Corresponding author. Email: lim@burnet.edu.au

Abstract. Background: ‘Sexting’ is the exchange of sexually explicit material via communication technologies. Despite
significant media attention, there has been little examination of sexting in the Australian setting. This study aimed to
provide insight into sexting behaviours and attitudes among young Australians. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was
conducted with a convenience sample of people aged 16–29 years attending a music festival (n = 1372). Correlates of
lifetime sexting were determined using multivariate logistic regression. Attitudes towards and perceived consequences of
sexting were explored in focus group discussions (FGDs) with 39 young people. Results: Forty percent of survey
participants reported that they had ever sent or received a sext (48% of males, 36% of females), most commonly with a
regular partner. Lower levels of education, greater recreational spending, greater number of sexual partners, inconsistent
condom use with a regular partner, identifying as being nonheterosexual and risky alcohol consumption were all
independent correlates of sexting. FGD participants made a clear distinction between consensual creating, sending
and possessing of sexts, and nonconsensual sharing of sexts. Positive outcomes of consensual sexting included flirting and
sexual experimentation, with sexting perceived as a normalised aspect of sexual interaction. Conclusions: Sexting is a
common and normalised practice among young Australians. Our findings highlight the distinction in young people’s minds
between consensual sexting and the nonconsensual sharing or circulation of sexts, which is not currently well recognised
in sexuality education, the media or the law.

Additional keywords: behaviours, communication, Internet, mobile phone, sexually explicit images, text messaging.

Received 13 February 2014, accepted 2 July 2014, published online 4 August 2014

Introduction social outcomes of sexting have been identified. Young people

‘Sexting’ is the transmission of sexually explicit material via
mobile phones or online, a practice that has attracted concern
from media and the public, due to the potentially severe legal
consequences. Australian law states that creating, possessing or
forwarding sexually explicit images of a person under the age
of 18 is illegal and a child pornography offence under the 1958
Crimes Act. As an unintentional consequence of this law,
sexting that involves an image of someone under the age of
18, whether or not the image is consensually produced,
possessed or shared, is a crime, and those participating can
be charged and registered as a sex offender. The legalities of
sexting have been previously examined by researchers and
policymakers, and legislative change has occurred in several
jurisdictions. In contrast, there has been limited exploration of
sexting as a social and health issue, although several notable
report that the most serious negative outcome of sexting is the
dissemination of images via mobile phones or online without
the consent of the person depicted.1–6 This exposure of sexts
to peers or the wider community can lead to social shame, stigma
and harassment, which have been associated with mental health
problems for young people, particularly in the high school
setting.1,6–10 Furthermore, sexting has been linked to suicide
in a small number of cases, which has been one of the main
drivers of media attention to the practice.11–14
Internationally, several studies have explored the prevalence
of sexting; however, most have been convenience studies
conducted by media companies rather than academic peer-
reviewed studies and almost all are from the United
States.4,5,8,15–19 Most have reported prevalences between 15%
and 30% for both sending and receiving sexts. A review of

Journal compilation
CSIRO 2014 www.publish.csiro.au/journals/sh

B Sexual Health
sexting prevalence suggested that the wide range of results may
be a reflection of the definitions of sexting used across studies
and the varying age ranges of participants.19
There are only limited data on correlates of sexting, with most
being reported in the grey literature only. The association
between age and sexting is contentious, with some studies
suggesting that ‘older’ young people are more likely to sext
than ‘younger’ young people, but this association may be due to
measuring any sexting event in a lifetime, thus allowing older
people more time to sext.16,17,20 Females have been reported
to be more likely than males to create and send sexually explicit
material, and males are more likely to receive such
material.1,3–6,16,20,21 Research has suggested these findings
may reflect gender roles and expectations presented in public
discourse.22,23 Studies have also found that alcohol, other
recreational drugs and high-risk sexual behaviour are
associated with sexting.24–27
Studies of young people have identified a range of
motivations for engaging in sexting, including peer and
partner pressure, sexual experimentation and development,
revenge, attention seeking and humour.1,4,6,17,25
Despite growing public and legal attention, there have been
few research studies investigating sexting as a social and
health issue. To date, most studies have focussed on the
negative outcomes and legal aspects of the practice, and there
has been limited research into why young people sext and
what they perceive to be the positive outcomes of doing so.
Furthermore, no studies have examined sexting prevalence or
correlates in the Australian setting. The aims of the present study
were to measure the prevalence and correlates of sexting, and
to explore attitudes towards sexting among young people in
Australia.
Methods
Prevalence study
Data on the prevalence and correlates of sexting were obtained
from an annual cross-sectional study conducted at a music
festival in Melbourne (described previously by Lim et al.28).
In January 2013, festival attendees were recruited at a market
stall within the festival grounds, where they either approached
the stall themselves or were approached by researchers.
Participants self-completed a paper questionnaire containing
questions on sexual health, sexting behaviours (ever sexted,
sexting partner type (regular partner, casual partner, friend and/
or stranger), sext format (text and/or image), alcohol and drug
use, and sociodemographic information. As reimbursement,
participants received a showbag containing sexual health,
alcohol and drug information materials, condoms and snacks.
The primary outcome of interest, sexting, was defined as
having ever sent or received a sexually explicit picture or
text message online or by mobile phone. Text sexting was
included, as we believed it to be a potential avenue for
flirtation among young people. Potential correlates of sexting
included sociodemographic, sexual practices and risk
behaviours, and alcohol and drug use. Sexual identity was
dichotomised as heterosexual versus non-heterosexual (gay,
bisexual, questioning or queer). ‘Binge drinking’ was defined
as having consumed six or more alcoholic drinks in one session,
T. H. Yeung et al.
at least weekly. Partner types were defined on the questionnaire
as regular (boyfriend, girlfriend or in a relationship) or casual
(all other partners). Higher risk sexual behaviour included
inconsistent condom use with new or casual partners, or
reporting multiple sexual partners in the past year. Sexually
transmissible infection knowledge was assessed with a series
of statements that could be answered as ‘true,’ ‘false’ or ‘don’t
know’; ‘don’t know’ was considered incorrect. Univariate
logistic regressions were conducted for all potential
correlates. Variables significantly associated with sexting
(P < 0.05) were subsequently included in a multivariate
logistic regression model. Additionally, approximately half of
the questionnaires (n = 597) contained an additional mental
health module. This variable was added to a multivariate
model in a separate analysis so as not to reduce the sample
size of the overall model. Analysis was conducted using Stata
ver. 11 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).
Focus group discussions
Focus group discussions (FGDs) explored the attitudes and
opinions of sexting among young people. Participants were
aged between 16 and 25 years, and were recruited from the
prevalence survey participant pool, through advertising on social
media and university websites, and via purposive snowball
recruitment. In total, 39 participants (21 females, 18 males)
participated in FGDs, which were segregated by sex or age:
female only, all ages (FG1); mixed sex, all ages (FG2); male
only, all ages (FG3); and mixed sex, ages 16–18 years (FG4).
FGDs were semistructured and covered key topics including
what is considered a sext, how sexting is spoken about, gender
differences in sexting practices, and the positive and negative
outcomes of sexting. Key topics for inclusion were informed
by previous research and consultation with experts in the field.
FGDs lasted ~90 min and participants were reimbursed
$30 for their time. Discussions were audio recorded and
transcribed verbatim. FGD transcripts were managed using
Nvivo ver. 10 (QSR International, Doncaster, Vic., Australia)
and were analysed thematically. Both studies were approved
by the Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
Results
Prevalence and correlates of sexting
Of the 1403 participants who completed the questionnaire, 31
were excluded from the analysis because of missing data. In the
final sample (n = 1372), 65% were female and the median age
was 19 years. Characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1.
Overall, 552 (40%) reported ever sexting (48% of males,
36% of females). Of those who reported ever sexting, sexting
with a regular partner was the most common context (67%;
Table 2). Text sexting was found to be more common than image
sexting with all partner types, except strangers.
In multivariate regression, sexting was independently
associated with being male, having lower levels of education,
greater recreational spending, a greater lifetime number of
sexual partners, inconsistent condom use with a regular
partner, identifying as being nonheterosexual and excessive
alcohol consumption resulting in either injury to self or
others or regular memory loss (Table 3). Reporting having
Sexting: prevalence, correlates and attitudes Sexual Health C

Table 1. Sociodemographic, sexual behaviour, and alcohol and drug-related characteristics of study participants by sex
Data show the number of participants in each group, with percentages in parentheses. Percentage values for each variable do not always
add up to 100% because of a small number (<1%) of questionnaires that were excluded because of missing or inconsistent data. TAFE,
technical and further education; STI, sexually transmissible infection

Characteristic Male (n = 469) Female (n = 903) Total (n = 1372)

Age (years)
16–19 268 (57%) 580 (64%) 848 (62%)
20–29 201 (43%) 323 (36%) 524 (38%)
Country of birth
Australia 413 (88%) 780 (86%) 1193 (87%)
Other 55 (12%) 122 (14%) 177 (13%)
Education level
Still studying high school 124 (26%) 273 (30%) 397 (29%)
Still studying tertiary 78 (17%) 170 (19%) 248 (18%)
Did not complete high school 19 (4%) 20 (2%) 39 (3%)
Completed high school 124 (26%) 195 (22%) 319 (23%)
TAFE, diploma or certificate 60 (13%) 93 (10%) 153 (11%)
Bachelor degree or higher 64 (14%) 149 (17%) 213 (16%)
Lives with
Parents 318 (68%) 631 (70%) 949 (69%)
Partner 57 (12%) 103 (11%) 160 (12%)
Friends or housemate 77 (16%) 130 (14%) 207 (15%)
Alone 18 (4%) 34 (4%) 52 (4%)
Religion
Had religious affiliation 150 (32%) 315 (35%) 465 (34%)
No religious affiliation 297 (63%) 559 (62%) 856 (62%)
Did not answer 22 (5%) 29 (3%) 51 (4%)
Region of residenceA
Major city 313 (67%) 620 (69%) 933 (68%)
Regional
Remote 131 (28%) 244 (27%) 375 (27%)
Annual income 4 (1%) 3 (1%) 7 (1%)
<$13 000 252 (54%) 613 (68%) 865 (63%)
$13 000 213 (45%) 284 (31%) 497 (36%)
Sexual identity
Heterosexual 429 (91%) 786 (87%) 1215 (89%)
Nonheterosexual 35 (7%) 110 (12%) 145 (11%)
Risky sexual behaviourB
Lower risk 341 (73%) 654 (72%) 995 (73%)
Higher risk 124 (26%) 232 (26%) 356 (26%)
Ever had an STI test
No 267 (57%) 371 (41%) 638 (47%)
Yes 108 (23%) 297 (33%) 405 (30%)
Had never had sex 89 (19%) 232 (26%) 321 (23%)
Binge drinking (six or more drinks in one occasion)
Less than weekly 317 (68%) 719 (80%) 1036 (76%)
At least weekly 114 (24%) 116 (13%) 230 (17%)
Ever used drugs
No 209 (45%) 487 (54%) 696 (51%)
Yes 253 (54%) 409 (45%) 662 (48%)
A
Within Australia.
B
Higher risk sexual behaviour: not always using condoms with new or casual partners, or if participant had more than one sexual
partner in the past year and did not always use condoms with any partner.

experienced a mental health issue in the past 6 months was
positively associated with sexting (adjusted odds ratio: 1.69;
95% confidence interval: 1.07–2.68).
Sexting practices
FGD participants differentiated between consensual sending and
receiving sexts with a single person and nonconsensual sharing
of sexts with one or more people, and highlighted different
motivations and consequences associated with each practice.
Sending and receiving sexts
Participants believed that sexting was a method of flirting and
developing sexual intimacy, and was an exciting and fun
alternative to face-to-face flirtation, both with new or casual
D Sexual Health T. H. Yeung et al.

Table 2. Format of sext and relationship with sext partner, by sex, commodity value of female sexts, resulting in them being
among those reporting ever sexting circulated further than male sexts. Sexts featuring males were
Data show the number of participants in each group, with percentages in instead considered uninteresting or humorous, and were unlikely
parentheses
to be circulated.
Male Female Total
‘Guys will – when drunk – might whip out their
(n = 223) (n = 329) (n = 552)
dick for a laugh; girls aren’t apt to do the same.
Had sexted with a regular partner So when girls send a message and it gets
Text 149 (67%) 222 (68%) 371 (67%) distributed, there’s more of a social shame to
Picture 135 (61%) 213 (65%) 348 (63%) it because we still live in that kind of unequal
Had sexted with a casual partner society where. . . girls get a lot more shame
Text 88 (39%) 114 (35%) 202 (37%)
about their body than guys do.’ (male, FG3)
Picture 64 (28%) 84 (26%) 148 (27%)
Had sexted with a friend
Text 83 (37%) 65 (20%) 148 (27%) Sharing sexts
Picture 66 (30%) 65 (20%) 131 (24%) The nonconsensual sharing of sexts was considered by many
Had sexted with a stranger participants to be the problematic aspect of sexting.
Text 36 (16%) 29 (9%) 65 (12%)
It was believed that sext sharing is more common among
Picture 36 (16%) 35 (11%) 71 (13%)
males compared with females, with sexts from girls perceived as
‘trophies’ that could be shared in order to demonstrate their
partners as well as within a committed relationship. Many sexual success to other males. It was reported that young women
participants felt that sexting with a casual partner was mostly did not seek this form of affirmation and, for this reason, they do
through flirtatious text as opposed to images, as it was viewed as not share sexts as often as males or condone the action.
the less ‘risky’ behaviour with fewer negative consequences: Revenge (e.g. to ‘get back at’ their ex-partner following
‘I don’t really think there would be a lot of the end of a relationship) was identified as another potential
negatives towards word sexting. . . If it got motivation for sharing sexts. Participants described this
out, it’d be a small amount of social behaviour as being impulsive and reflective of a lack of
embarrassment. . . It’s not a big thing. . . It’s maturity, and felt it was something which occurred almost
not going to stay around for a long time. . . exclusively among people younger than themselves.
not like a naked photo.’ (male, FG4) Participants suggested that the social consequences for a
person who shared sexts depended on the relationship that a
Sexting was also viewed as a common and normalised aspect of person has with the person depicted in the sext. Many
sexual development for young people. As one young woman participants believed that peers considered sharing of sexts
explained, from a committed relationship partner a serious breach of
‘It’s become now like a normal thing. I feel like trust and felt the behaviour was viewed as socially
it’s a milestone for teenagers, you know: you unacceptable. Conversely, participants felt that sharing sexts
have sex, you get drunk, you go to a party, you from a casual partner was more socially acceptable, as there is
sext for the first time.’ (female, FG2) only a limited expectation of trust.

As a result of this normalisation, however, some participants
believed that young people felt pressure from their partner or
peers to engage in the behaviour. Seeking positive feedback
from the recipient in order to increase self-esteem was also
identified as a motivation to send sexts, with sexting for this
reason believed to be more common among females compared
with males.
FGD participants identified gender norms and expectations
as playing a key role in influencing the way in which males and
females who engaged in sexting were perceived by their peers,
noting that a male who has sexted is considered a ‘legend’,
whereas females who did so were considered ‘sluts’. One female
participant explained that,
‘Girls are supposed to be like much more. . .
demure and virgin and all that kind of stuff. . . So
when it comes out that they’re not, then they get
punished and judged a lot more severely than
men for doing the same thing.’ (female, FG2)
Furthermore, participants believed that there is a sense of shame
and stigma associated with the female body that increases the
Enabling and encouraging factors
Sexualised culture
Participants highlighted the influence of sexualised popular
culture and role models in motivating young women to send
sexts and encouraging young men to expect to receive sexts from
women. It was suggested that these messages were in conflict
with traditional societal values provided by the media and
parents, which instead promote modesty and purity for young
women. Those values were linked by several participants to the
shame and stigma that young women are subjected to when their
sexts are exposed to peers or the wider community.
Technology
Participants reported that the ubiquity of technology played
a significant role in sexting behaviours by allowing easier,
more convenient and seemingly safer sexting. One example
highlighted was the mobile phone application ‘Snapchat’, which
automatically erases a multimedia messaging service after a
maximum of 10 seconds. The automatic deletion of the image
was said to encourage sexting behaviours by eliminating the
Sexting: prevalence, correlates and attitudes Sexual Health E

Table 3. Sociodemographics, sexual behaviour, and alcohol- and drug-related correlates of sexting in logistic regression
Unless indicated otherwise, data show the number of participants in each group, with the percentage within that group who have sexted in parentheses.
Percentage values for each variable that do not add up to 100% are the due to the small number (<1%) of questionnaires that were excluded because of their
missing or inconsistent data. Bolded odds ratios (OR) were significant at P < 0.05. CI, confidence interval; STI, sexually transmissible infection

n Univariate Multivariate
(% sexted) OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Sex
Female 903 (36) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Male 469 (48) 1.58 1.26–1.98 1.60 1.23–2.10
Age group
16–19 years 848 (38) 1.00 – 1.00 –
20–29 years 524 (45) 1.32 1.06–1.66 1.04 0.72–1.49
Education
Bachelor degree or higher 213 (36) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Still studying high school 397 (36) 0.99 0.70–1.41 2.39 1.41–4.06
Still studying tertiary 248 (37) 1.04 0.71–1.52 1.38 0.88–2.19
Did not complete high school 39 (62) 2.83 1.40–5.71 2.21 1.00–4.89
Completed high school 319 (42) 1.26 0.88–1.81 1.60 1.00–2.55
Diploma or certificate 153 (54) 2.09 1.37–3.20 2.23 1.39–3.59
Lives with parent(s)
No 423 (46) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Yes 949 (38) 0.71 0.56–0.89 1.05 0.75–1.46
Lives with partner
No 1212 (39) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Yes 160 (49) 1.48 1.06–2.06 0.98 0.63–1.55
Weekly expenditure on recreational activities
<$80 842 (36) 1.00 – 1.00 –
$80 520 (48) 1.66 1.33–2.08 1.35 1.02–1.80
Annual income
<$13 000 865 (37) 1.00 – 1.00 –
$13 000 497 (46) 1.43 1.14–1.79 0.89 0.64–1.24
Ever had sex
No 321 (15) 1.00 – – –
Yes 1049 (48) 5.22 3.75–7.26 – –
Had more than five lifetime sexual partners
No 1045 (34) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Yes 313 (62) 3.25 2.50–4.23 1.87 1.32–2.65
Had more than one sexual partners in the past year
No 614 (43) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Yes 433 (55) 1.58 1.23–2.02 0.97 0.69–1.36
Always used condom with regular partner, past 12 months
No 526 (54) 1.52 1.16–2.00 1.50 1.07–2.08
Yes 349 (44) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Always used condom with casual partner, past 12 months
No 231 (62) 1.78 1.26–2.50 1.36 0.91–2.04
Yes 319 (47) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Sexual identity
Heterosexual 1215 (38) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Nonheterosexual 145 (57) 2.09 1.48–2.96 1.91 1.29–2.82
Risky sexual behaviour
Lower risk 995 (34) 1.00 – – –
Higher risk 356 (60) 2.96 2.30–3.80 – –
Ever had an STI test
No 638 (45) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Yes 405 (52) 1.34 1.05–1.72 1.13 0.83–1.55
Knowledge score on STI quiz
<50% correct 575 (37) 1.00 – 1.00 –
50% correct 797 (43) 1.31 1.05–1.63 1.17 0.91–1.52
Ever used illicit drugs
No 696 (32) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Yes 662 (49) 2.02 1.62–2.52 1.16 0.89–1.50
(continued next page)
F Sexual Health T. H. Yeung et al.

Table 3. (continued )
n Univariate Multivariate
(% sexted) OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Frequency of alcohol consumption, past 12 months
Monthly or less 377 (32) 1.00 – – –
More than once a month 979 (44) 1.65 1.28–2.12 – –
Highest number of alcoholic drinks consumed in one session, past 12 months
6 225 (32) 1.00 – – –
>6 1041 (43) 1.62 1.20–2.21 – –
Frequency of not remembering a night due to excessive alcohol consumption
Monthly or less 1069 (38) 1.00 – 1.00 –
More than once a month 214 (57) 2.10 1.55–2.81 1.49 1.05–2.10
Frequency of consuming six or more drinks in one session, past 12 months
Never 126 (28) 1.00 – – –
Less than monthly 441 (36) 1.44 0.93–2.22 – –
Monthly 469 (43) 1.93 1.26–2.97 – –
Weekly 215 (55) 3.22 2.01–5.18 – –
Daily or almost daily 15 (80) 10.4 2.77–39.1 – –
Injury to themselves or others due to their alcohol consumption
No, never 901 (35) 1.00 – 1.00 –
Yes, but not in the last year 144 (46) 1.57 1.10–2.25 1.00 0.67–1.49
Yes, in the last year 315 (53) 2.13 1.64–2.76 1.75 1.30–2.35
Binge drinking (six or more drinks in one occasion), past 12 months
Less than weekly 1036 (38) 1.00 – 1.00 –
At least weekly 230 (57) 2.17 1.63–2.90 1.05 0.75–1.49

major concern that young people have when sexting (exposure
of sexts to peers) and providing them with a sense of security.
The notion of a ‘cyberself’29,30, where a person alters their
personality while using technology to communicate, and doing
and saying things that they otherwise would not in face-to-face
communication, emerged throughout discussions. Participants
suggested that the technological barrier of a mobile phone or
computer enables males to explicitly request sexts and provides
females with the confidence and sense of privacy to take
photographs of themselves and send them to others.
Alcohol and drugs
Participants believed that alcohol and drugs played a role
in sexting by reducing inhibitions and increasing confidence,
resulting in less consideration being given to the potential
negative consequences of the practice. Several participants
also cited the role that alcohol played in creating an
environment where young people were more willing to
discuss and share their sexual experiences, and where the
sharing of sexts became more acceptable.
Discussion
Our study is the first mixed methods study of sexting behaviours
among young people in Australia, providing unique insights into
who is sexting and why they are doing so. Our study found that
sexting is a common and normalised practice among young
Australians. Young people in our FGDs considered sexting with
a regular or casual partner, and sharing sexts of a casual partner
to be socially acceptable and normalised. Sexual intimacy
and sexual development or experimentation were identified as
positive outcomes of sexting. However, the young people in our
study did consider the nonconsensual sharing of sexts to be
unacceptable.
Forty percent of participants reported having sent or received
sexually explicit material using a mobile phone or online. This
is a higher prevalence than found in most previous studies,
most probably because our study measured both sending and
receiving sexts as one variable, whereas most previous studies
have measured one or the other, or both separately.19
Sexting was most common with a regular partner: 65% of
those who had ever sexted had done so with a regular partner and
only 30% with a casual partner. These data are consistent with
FGD findings, where participants reported that sexting in the
context of a committed relationship was socially accepted and a
normalised behaviour. These findings are consistent with other
surveys that found that sexting with a regular partner was more
common with other partner types.4,5
Our analyses identified several notable correlates that may
have implications for future intervention.
Sexting was more common among males, possibly due to
differences in attitudes and practices around sexting for males
and females. This is supported by data from our FGD that found
that males perceived fewer negative social consequences of
sexting and were therefore more willing to engage in the
practice.
Participants who were still at high school had the greatest
adjusted odds of sexting. This finding supports the suggestion by
policy makers and community groups that sexting education
should be added into the high school curriculum.
Several studies have suggested that those who sext engage in
higher risk sexual behaviour compared with those who do not
sext.24–27 We found that those who did not always use a condom
during sexual intercourse with a regular partner were more likely
Sexting: prevalence, correlates and attitudes
to report having sexted. This finding is consistent with FGD
findings, where it was suggested that sexting is a normalised
aspect of long-term sexual relationship. Also, we found that
participants who had had more than five sexual partners in their
lifetime were significantly more likely to have sexted than those
who had fewer than five, and that sexting was much less
prevalent among those who had never had sex (but was still
seen in 15%). This may be an artefact of assessing sexting
prevalence ‘ever’ (those with more lifetime partners have had
more opportunity to sext) but from our data, we suggest that
sexting is associated with sexual intercourse. Further research is
needed in this area to develop a greater understanding of the
relationship between sexual risk and sexting.
We also found that those who reported a mental health issue
were more likely to have sexted. This finding is consistent
with previous studies as well as our FGDs, where participants
suggested that exposure of sexts to peers (and the resulting
emotional distress) is a realistic and serious concern for young
people.1–6 Mental health problems might also indicate a
vulnerability, leading to greater likelihood of sexting.
Sexualised culture was said to be an enabling factor in young
peoples’ sexting behaviours, and is an issue which has arisen
in several other studies.1,6,7 Popular culture and role models
encourage young people, particularly young women, to be
sexual and ‘sexy’, only to be confronted when they do so by
the traditional values of modesty imposed upon them by parents
and the wider community.31–33 It is possible that this conflict
contributes to the shame and stigma that females were said to
feel about their bodies, as was discussed in our FGDs. Male
sexts, on the other hand, were not considered valuable or sexy.
Alcohol was identified as a factor that encouraged the
sending of sexts as well as creating an environment where it
was more socially acceptable to share sexts. It was suggested that
when under the influence of alcohol, those sending or sharing
sexts (or those viewing the shared sexts) are more confident
and give less consideration to the negative outcomes of the
practice. There was some evidence in our survey data to support
this view, as both consuming alcohol to the point of memory
loss and having had an alcohol-related injury in the past year
were significantly associated with ever having sexted. Also,
these findings are consistent with a previous study that found
that those who had sexted were more likely to report instances of
substance use, including alcohol.24
A key implication of our study is its value in informing
sexting education for young people. As with other health
promotion messages, abstinence-focussed approaches are
likely to be ineffective in sexting education.3,33–36 Given the
wide acceptance of sexting as a normalised aspect of
relationships, instructing teenagers that all sexting is wrong
and dangerous is unlikely to be taken as credible. Educational
interventions need to acknowledge the potential positive
outcomes of sexting while emphasising that sexting should
not be coercive, and that sharing and circulating sexts
without consent is unacceptable and, in some jurisdictions,
illegal. To inform education programs for young people about
the negative consequences of sext sharing, further information
is needed on the specific circumstance and context of sext
sharing and the peer acceptability (or lack of acceptability) of
this behaviour.
Sexual Health G
This study has some limitations. A self-selected convenience
sample was used; participants may have volunteered for the
study because they were more open to talking about sexual
topics, which would introduce self-selection bias into the
sample. The prevalence of sexting in this study may be
higher than in the general young adult population, as we
have shown previously that festival attendees engage in more
high-risk behaviours.28 Furthermore, the findings were based on
self-report data, which are limited by the potential recall bias, or
the potential to provide deliberately misleading answers.37
This study provides the first prevalence estimates of
sexting among young people in Australia. Further, we have
identified several potential behavioural and demographic
factors associated with sexting, including education level,
number of lifetime sexual partners and alcohol consumption.
The qualitative component of this study has strengthened the
understanding of sexting behaviours through key findings on
the nuances of peer perceptions of sext senders and sharers and
furthered insight into the positive outcomes of the practice. More
broadly, our study adds to the literature in that it has examined
sexting as a social and health issue, an approach that is lacking in
peer-reviewed literature on the practice.
Sexting is becoming a normalised part of sexual development
and sexual interaction among young people. As such, we need to
change the way in which sexting is spoken about and ensure
that young people are enabled to engage in consensual and
respectful sexting. Further research is needed to develop
effective education and interventions that recognise the
normalisation and benefits of safe sexting but protect young
people from the harmful outcomes of unsafe sexting.
Conflicts of interest
None declared.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank volunteers from the Burnet Institute, Monash University
and Youth Empowerment Against HIV/AIDS (YEAH) for conducting
recruitment; Chloe Robson for assisting with logistics; and Juliet
Summers and South Eastern Centre Against Sexual Assault (SECASA)
for providing advice and educational materials for the participants. The
authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution to this work of the Victorian
Operational Infrastructure Support Program received by the Burnet Institute.
References
1 Walker SJ. Sexting and young people: a qualitative study. Masters
thesis, University of Melbourne; 2012.
2 Gong L, Hoffman A. Sexting and slut-shaming: why prosecution of
teen self-sexters harms women. Georget J Gend Law 2012; 13:
577–89.
3 Albury K, Crawford K, Byron P, Mathews B. Young people and
sexting in Australia: ethics, representation and the law. Sydney: ARC
Centre for Creative Industries and Innovation/Journalism and
Media Research Centre, The University of New South Wales;
2013. Available online at: http://www.cci.edu.au/sites/default/files/
Young_People_And_Sexting_Final.pdf [verified 15 July 2014].
4 National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and
Cosmogirl.com. Sex and tech: results from a survey of teens and
young adults. Washington DC: The National Campaign; 2008.
Available online at: http://thenationalcampaign.org/sites/default/files/
H Sexual Health
resource-primary-download/sex_and_tech_summary.pdf [verified 21
July 2014].
5 Associated Press-MTV. Digital abuse survey. Menlo Park:
Knowledge Networks; 2009. Available online at: http://surveys.ap.
org/data/KnowledgeNetworks/AP_Digital_Abuse_Topline_092209.
pdf [verified 29 April 2013].
6 Ringrose J, Gill R, Livingstone S, Harvey L. A qualitative study of
children, young people and ‘sexting’. London: National Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; 2012. Available online
at: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexual
abuse/sexting-research-report_wdf89269.pdf [verified 27 May 2013].
7 Powell A. ‘Safe sext’? Young people, technology and sexual violence.
DVRCV Quarterly 2010; Winter 1–5.
8 Strassberg DS, McKinnon RK, Sustaíta MA, Rullo J. Sexting by high
school students: an exploratory and descriptive. Arch Sex Behav 2013;
42: 15–21. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9969-8
9 Fisher S, Sauter A, Slobodniuk L, Young C on behalf of Salvation
Army Oasis Hunter. Sexting in Australia: the legal and social
ramifications. Melbourne: Parliament of Victoria Law Reform
Committee Sexting Inquiry; 2012. Available online at: http://www.
parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/lawrefrom/isexting/
subs/S07_-_Salvation_Army_Oasis_Hunter.pdf [verified 15 March
2013].
10 Reyns BW, Burek MW, Henson B, Fisher BS. The unintended
consequences of digital technology: exploring the relationship
between sexting and cybervictimization. J Crim Justice 2013; 36:
1–17. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2011.641816
11 Celizic M. Her teen committed suicide over ‘sexting’. New York:
Today, NBC News; 2009. Available online at: http://www.today.com/
id/29546030#.UZBeV8qweHQ [verified 15 May 2013].
12 Inbar M. ‘Sexting’ bullying cited in teen’s suicide. New York: Today,
NBC News; 2009. Available online at: http://www.today.com/id/342
36377/ns/today-today_news/t/sexting-bullying-cited-teens-suicide/#.
UZBd5cqweHQ [verified 13 May 2013].
13 Meacham A. Sexting-related bullying cited in Hillsborough teen’s
suicide. Tampa Bay Times, 27 November 2009. Available online
at: http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/sexting-related-
bullying-cited-in-hillsborough-teens-suicide/1054895 [verified 26
May 2013].
14 Tomazin F. Children in crisis over ‘sexting’ rise. The Age, 30
September 2012. Available online at: http://www.theage.com.
au/victoria/children-in-crisis-over-sexting-rise-20120929-26sjk.html
[verified 14 March 2013].
15 Ferguson CJ. Sexting behaviors among young Hispanic women:
incidence and association with other high-risk sexual behaviors.
Psychiatr Q 2011; 82: 239–43. doi:10.1007/s11126-010-9165-8
16 Thomas K. Teen online & wireless safety survey. Atlanta: Cox
Communications; 2009. Available online at: http://ksdresources.
pbworks.com/f/2009_teen_survey_internet_and_wireless_safety%25
5B1%255D.pdf [verified 29 April 2013].
17 Lenhart A. Teens and sexting. Washington DC: Pew Internet; 2009.
Available online at: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Teens-
and-Sexting.aspx [verified 12 March 2013].
18 Dake JA, Price JH, Maziarz L, Ward B. Prevalence and correlates
of sexting behavior in adolescents. Am J Sex Educ 2012; 7: 1–15.
doi:10.1080/15546128.2012.650959
19 Klettke B, Hallford DJ, Mellor DJ. Sexting prevalence and correlates:
a systematic literature review. Clin Psychol Rev 2014; 34: 44–53.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.10.007
20 Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, Jones LM, Wolak J. Prevalence and
characteristics of youth sexting: a national study. Pediatrics 2012;
129: 13–20. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-1730
21 Walker S, Sanci L, Temple-Smith M. Sexting: young women’s and
men’s views on its nature and origins. J Adolesc Health 2013; 52:
697–701. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.01.026
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/sh
View publication stats
T. H. Yeung et al.
22 Farvid P, Braun V. ‘Most of us guys are raring to go anytime,
anyplace, anywhere’: male and female sexuality in Cleo and
Cosmo. Sex Roles 2006; 55: 295–310. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-
9084-1
23 Szymanski DM, Moffitt LB, Carr ER. Sexual objectification of
women: advances to theory and research. J Couns Psychol 2011;
39: 6–38. doi:10.1177/0011000010378402
24 Benotsch EG, Snipes DJ, Martin AM, Bull SS. Sexting, substance use,
and sexual risk behavior in young adults. J Adolesc Health 2013; 52:
307–13. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.011
25 Henderson L, Morgan E. Sexting and sexual relationships among
teens and young adults. McNair Scholars Res J 2011; 7: 9.
26 Rice E, Rhoades H, Winetrobe H, Sanchez M, Montoya J, Plant A,
et al. Sexually explicit cell phone messaging associated with sexual
risk among adolescents. Pediatrics 2012; 130: 667–73. doi:10.1542/
peds.2012-0021
27 Temple JR, Paul JA, van den Berg P, Le VD, McElhany A, Temple
BW. Teen sexting and its association with sexual behaviors. Arch
Pediatr Adolesc Med 2012; 166: 828–33. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.
2012.835
28 Lim MSC, Bowring AL, Gold J, Aitken C, Hellard ME. Trends in
sexual behavior, testing, and knowledge in young people; 2006–2011.
Sex Transm Dis 2012; 39: 831–4. doi:10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31826
63f27
29 Young G, Whitty M. Progressive embodiment within cyberspace:
considering the psychological impact of the supermorphic persona.
Philos Psychol 2011; 24: 537–60. doi:10.1080/09515089.2011.
556606
30 Doerr-Stevens C. Building fictional ethos: analysing the rhetorical
strategies of persona design for online role play. E-Learn Digital
Media 2011; 8: 327–42. doi:10.2304/elea.2011.8.4.327
31 Papadopoulos L. Sexualisation of young people: review. London:
Home Office; 2010. Available online at: http://collectiveshout.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/08/sexualisation-young-people-1.pdf [verified
30 September 2013].
32 Rush E, La Nauze A. Corporate paedophilia: sexualisation of children
in Australia. Discussion paper Australia Institute no. 90. Deakin, ACT:
Australia Institute; 2006.
33 Karaian L. Policing ‘sexting’: responsibilization, respectability and
sexual subjectivity in child protection/crime prevention responses
to teenagers’ digital sexual expression. Theor Criminol 2013.
doi:10.1177/1362480613504331
34 Chin HB, Sipe TA, Elder R, Mercer SL, Chattopadhyay SK,
Verughese J, et al. The effectiveness of group-based
comprehensive risk-reduction and abstinence education
interventions to prevent or reduce the risk of adolescent pregnancy,
human immunodeficiency virus, and sexually transmitted infections:
two systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive
services. Am J Prev Med 2012; 42: 272–94. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.
2011.11.006
35 Jones RK, Biddlecom AE. Exposure to and views of information
about sexual abstinence among older teens. Am J Sex Educ 2011; 6:
381–95. doi:10.1080/15546128.2011.624480
36 Stanger-Hall KF, Hall DW. Abstinence-only education and teen
pregnancy rates: why we need comprehensive sex education in the
U.S. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e24658. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024658
37 Bauhoff S. Systematic self-report bias in health data: impact on
estimating cross-sectional and treatment effects (report). Health
Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 2011; 11: 44–53. doi:10.1007/
s10742-011-0069-3