Journal of College Student Psychotherapy

ISSN: 8756-8225 (Print) 1540-4730 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcsp20

Sexting Behavior Among College Students:

Implications for College Clinicians

Katherine M. Hertlein & Markie L. C. Twist

To cite this article: Katherine M. Hertlein & Markie L. C. Twist (2017): Sexting Behavior Among
College Students: Implications for College Clinicians, Journal of College Student Psychotherapy,
DOI: 10.1080/87568225.2016.1277814

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2016.1277814

Published online: 14 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 51

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcsp20

Download by: [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] Date: 16 March 2017, At: 23:24
JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2016.1277814

Sexting Behavior Among College Students: Implications

for College Clinicians
Katherine M. Hertleina and Markie L. C. Twistb
a
Marriage and Family Therapy Program, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA;
b
Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin–Stout, Menomonie,
Wisconsin, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The practice of sexting is becoming increasingly common College students; Internet;
among college students but has the potential to both initiate psychotherapy; sexting
productive interactions with others and interfere with relation-
ship development. The purpose of this paper is to report on
the findings of a study on sexting among college students and
to provide a framework through which practitioners working
with this population would be able to effectively intervene.
Implications for clinical practice include more specific assess-
ment questions for practitioners, focus on better managing
riskier behavior, and guidance toward using technology in
relationally responsible and supportive ways.

The practice of sexting is becoming increasingly common among the general

population. Defined as “individuals sending explicit photographs or messages to
others” (Ferguson, 2011, p. 239), sexting has the potential to both initiate
productive interactions with others and interfere with relationship development.
The prevalence of sexting among youth has been explored by numerous studies
and ranges anywhere from just under 10% of youths participating in sexting to
as much as 49.7% (Dake, Price, Maziarz, & Ward, 2012; Ferguson, 2011;
Mitchell, Finkelhor, Jones, & Wolak, 2012; Peskin et al., 2013; Strassberg,
McKinnon, Sustaíta, & Rullo, 2013). The percentage of adolescents who parti-
cipate in the exchange of sexually explicit messages, or sext, to another in private
school settings was 49.7% (males) and 30.9% (females) as receivers and 18.3%
(males) and 17.3% (females) as senders (Strassberg et al., 2013). In addition,
34.5% of female participants of Hispanic descent aged 16 to 25 had received at
least one sexually explicit message and 20.5% of the sample of women reported
sending a sexually explicit text at least once (Ferguson, 2011). This is consistent
with Peskin et al. (2013), who reported that 20% of ethnic minority students had
sent a sexually suggestive message or photo and 30% had received one. In
another study, 48.2% of the participants reported sending a sexual message
and 63.8% indicated receiving one (Hudson, Fetro, & Ogletree, 2014).

CONTACT Katherine M. Hertlein, PhD katherine.hertlein@unlv.edu Marriage and Family Therapy Program,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 453045, Las Vegas, NV 89154-3045, USA.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 K. M. HERTLEIN AND M. L. C. TWIST

Sexting is a widely practiced phenomenon in college settings. Two studies

specifically focused on a college-aged population focused less on the fre-
quency and perceptions of sexting and instead conducted their research
through the lens of attachment theory. In a sample of predominately col-
lege-aged women, Weisskirch and Delevi (2011) found that invitations soli-
citing sexual activity were executed by people with higher levels of
attachment anxiety, but few other relationships were found between sexting
and attachment level. Drouin and Landgraff (2012) also investigated sexting
among college students with regard to attachment style with a larger sample
and more male participants. They discovered that attachment anxiety and
attachment avoidance predicted the likelihood of sexting and that attachment
avoidance predicted participation in sending sexual pictures.
Yet the frequency of sexting among other populations and in other
circumstances has been given less attention. Wysocki and Childers (2011)
explored the relationship between sexting and infidelity and found that
women are more likely to sext, but both men and women engage in online
and offline infidelity at about the same proportion. Other research has found
while men hold more favorable attitudes toward sexting, women are more
likely to perceive the behavior as more common (Hudson et al., 2014). At the
same time, while women are perceived as engaging in sexting more fre-
quently, men actually engage in sexting more often (Hudson et al., 2014).
The truth is that the actual prevalence of sexting is difficult to ascertain
because of advances in technology, issues regarding a respondent’s ability to
determine whether what they are doing is considered sexting, and the secrecy
with which one accomplishes these behaviors (Ahern & Mechling, 2013). In
addition, “prevalence estimates vary considerably, depending on the population
assessed, the manner in which sexting is defined, and the timing of the survey”
(Benotsch, Snipes, Martin, & Bull, 2013, p. 308). For example, Strassberg et al.
(2013) as well as Mitchell et al. (2012) primarily defined sexting as exchanging
photographs. This differs from the definition provided by Dake et al. (2012) as
well as Ferguson (2011), who instead defined sexting as explicit photos and/or
sexually explicit message content. We lean toward accepting the Weisskirch and
Delevi (2011) definition in which users create, send, and receive sexually sug-
gestive messages. In addition, the manner in which sexting affects adolescents is
associated with implications for their physical and emotional health, implying
that adolescents, because they have less experience identifying safety concerns,
might be more vulnerable to online threats than adults with presumably better
decision-making skills (Parker, Blackburn, Perry, & Hawks, 2013).

Benefits associated with sexting

As one form of sexual communication, sexting has the potential for
positive impacts for sexual and relational functioning as other forms of
 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY 3

sexual communication have shown to do (Montesi et al., 2013). Hertlein

and Ancheta (2014) cited such impacts as enhancing/spicing up sexual
relationships, contributing to the positive development of long-distance
relationships, and resolving conflict from a distance. It also can assist in
having people test or experiment with behaviors they would feel too
anxious or vulnerable to participate in in person.

Risks associated with sexting

Sexting also, however, has the potential to be associated with negative out-
comes. Since adolescents and young people are sexting at increasing rates,
they may potentially be putting themselves in harm’s way through unsafe
practices. Sexting can increase hooking-up behavior (Dir & Cyders, 2015;
Dir, Cyders, & Coskunpinar, 2013), particularly for women, which can
increase the likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted infections or
other negative outcomes. In a study assessing the linkage between sexting
and high-risk behavior, the negative outcomes from sexual interactions in
which sexting played a part were tied to indirect outcomes rather than direct.
Such indirect negative outcomes include sharing of sexts outside of the
intended party, which occurs to a small proportion of individuals (approxi-
mately 12%; Dir & Cyders, 2015). In a study conducted by Benotsch et al.
(2013), there was a positive correlation among sexting, sex with multiple
partners, other varieties of high-risk sexual behavior, and recent substance
use. Other studies have continued to find a positive association between
casual and multiple sex partners and sexting (Davis, Powell, Gordon, &
Kershaw, 2016). In addition, sexting has been associated with higher levels
of peer connection and lower levels of connection to family (Campbell &
Park, 2014). Other relational disadvantages include increased opportunities
for infidelity, interruptions to emotional intimacy, impaired trust, and lack of
clarity in communication (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014).
Youth who engage in sexting are also not often able to adequately recog-
nize the emotional and psychological consequences that result from sexting,
including increased opportunity for cyberbullying, depression, and riskier
sexual behavior (Ahern & Mechling, 2013; Van Ouytsel, Walrave, Ponnet, &
Heirman, 2015). A more recent study indicated that there are negative
implications such as lower overall relationship satisfaction for heterosexual
women who do not reciprocate texts, a fact not true for men or same sex–
oriented women (Currin, Jayne, Hammer, Brim, & Hubach, 2016). Girls also
have reported feeling more pressure to participate in sexting than boys
(Lippman & Campbell, 2014).
Because of the risks associated with sexting in adolescence, Renfrow and
Rollo (2014) elected to investigate the narratives about sexting in an under-
graduate college population. They found that participant motivations for
4 K. M. HERTLEIN AND M. L. C. TWIST

sexting fell into one of three categories: the sender wanted a little more
excitement, the sender was hoping for a similar message in return, or the
sender was hoping the acts discussed would play out in a physical encounter.
Female participants also noted a fourth motive: to keep a partner happy and
interested (Renfrow & Rollo, 2014). Participants were also able to identify
risks associated with sexting, such as someone receiving a message that was
not intended for them and “taking it too far” (Renfrow & Rollo, 2014, p.
911), which referenced the receiver taking comments too far and putting the
sender in a potentially unsafe position.

Purpose
Given the ever-increasing prevalence of sexting and the research tied to nega-
tive outcomes for those who participate in sexting, the purpose of this research
was to identify the frequency of sexting in a college sample as a way to (a)
inform college clinicians of the prevalence of these behaviors and (b) utilize the
specific detail about sexting practices to inform the practice of college clinicians.
This study builds upon previous research by asking more detailed questions
about participation in specific sexting behaviors as well as whether the sexting
occurred within the context of a relationship, the context of with whom the
sexually explicit texts are shared, and what type of information is shared.

Methods
Participants and procedures
Participants in the study were undergraduate students enrolled at a large,
highly diverse, metropolitan university in the southwestern United States.
Participants were 18 years or older and recruited through both lower division
and upper division undergraduate courses. Students to whom the study was
advertised were provided a link to the survey on QuestionPro.com, the
survey software website hosting the survey. This research project was
approved by the university’s institutional review board.

Instrument
The survey related to sexting behavior was developed by a research team
composed of two faculty members and a team of master’s-level students. The
team generated the research questions through incorporating the previous
literature on sexting (relying on the Ferguson, 2011 study) as well as their
familiarity of sexting practices among their demographic. The finalized
survey distributed to participants consisted of 62 items assessing a wide
range of behaviors and perceptions regarding sexual behavior, mobile
 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY 5

phone use, and use of the Internet as well as basic demographic information.
The types of questions on the survey included 5-point Likert-scale items,
multiple-choice, and open-ended questions. For the purposes of this paper,
however, the findings are limited to those questions that directly assessed
frequency of sexting behavior. Specifically, we asked participants how fre-
quently they engaged in sexting using text, voice call, video chat, picture
messages, email through mobile phone, and other forms. In addition, we
asked several questions related to using texting for a variety of functions:
setting up dates, breaking up with someone, sexual purposes, sending or
receiving photos to people who are your partner, sending message to people
who are not your partner, and sending messages to more than one person to
increase chances of a sexual encounter.
The questions asked about sexting behavior were part of the Couple and
Family Technology Assessment tool (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013), which covers
the areas listed in the Couple and Family Technology (CFT) framework:
accessibility, affordability, anonymity, acceptability, approximation, ambigu-
ity, and accommodation. Items in the CFT assessment tool include items
inquiring about the general use of technology within a relationship (i.e., how
often one uses the Internet for enjoyable activities or for sexual fulfillment;
how often technology is used for initiating dates, hookups, and sexual
encounters). The items assessing affordability ask the respondent to identify
who pays the bills for the phone usage, the perception of how affordable the
technologies are, what types of technology are available in the households,
etc. Anonymity is measured through asking how many people one interacts
with online who are known to them in the offline world, the types of
photographs (if any) are posted and in what forums, and they type of
identifying information that is posted by the respondent on different forums.
Accessibility is assessed through the respondent’s perception of how acces-
sible they are via various technological devices. Accommodation was mea-
sured by asking participants to what degree respondents are able to express
themselves, the number of avatars they possess, to what extent the person
they put in a variety of contexts is similar to their offline selves, and their
awareness of discrepancy between their online and offline selves.
Approximation was assessed by asking respondents about instances in
which they use the computer or technology to approximate real-world
situations. Acceptability was measured by the respondents’ assessment of
how acceptable particular behaviors were in certain communities (i.e., the
acceptability of sexting within one’s relationship, peer group, local commu-
nity; the acceptability of interacting with one opposite of one’s gender via
phone in certain contexts). Finally, items assessing ambiguity included asses-
sing how clear the rules in one’s relationship were regarding phone, social
media, and Internet usage.
6 K. M. HERTLEIN AND M. L. C. TWIST

Results
Sample characteristics
A total of 762 viewed the study, with 53% (n = 410) of the individuals actually
participating (three of whom identified as transgender; their data were removed
from the analysis as the sample is too small to draw any reliable conclusions).
The participants ranged in age from 18 to 53 years old, with an average age of
23.06 years. Most of the participants were women, with men making up 18.4% of
the sample (n = 76) and women making up 80.8% (n = 331). Half of the sample
identified as White (n = 209, 51.4%). Fifty-nine respondents identified them-
selves as multiethnic (n = 59, 14.5%), with another smaller proportion identified
as Hispanic (n = 53, 13.0%). Nearly 10% of the sample identified as Black (n = 40,
9.8%). Twenty participants identified as Filipino (4.9%). The remaining partici-
pant identified as Indian (n = 1, 0.2%), Asian Indian (n = 1, 0.2%), Chinese
(n = 3, 0.7%), Japanese (n = 1, 0.2%), Pacific Islander (n = 1, 0.2%), Korean
(n = 2, 0.5%), Vietnamese (n = 2, 0.5%), and “other” (n = 17, 4.1%).
Half of the sample were in a committed relationship with one person
(n = 208, 51.1%). Just over one-third of the participants indicated that they
were not in a relationship (n = 147, 36.1%). The remainder of the participants
reported having a casual relationship with one person (n = 41, 10.1%), being in
casual relationships with more than one person (n = 10, 2.5%), and being in
committed relationships with more than one person (n = 1, 0.2%). A majority
of the participants reported that they were heterosexual (n = 356, 86.4%).
Those who were not heterosexual were divided nearly equally between respon-
dents who identified as bisexual (n = 27, 6.6%) and as same sex–oriented
(n = 26, 6.3%).

Frequency of specific sexting activities

One-quarter of participants (n = 113, 27.7%) indicated that they have never
used their mobile phone to initiate sexual activity. With this segment of the
sample, one of the ways frequency of sexting was assessed was inquiry
regarding how the participants use mobile phones to participate in sexual
interactions. While 87.4% (n = 356) of the sample reported they had never
sent a sexually suggestive text to more than one person to increase their
chances of a sexual encounter, the reminder of the sample had done so
(12.6%). In addition, 61.9% (n = 252) of participants indicated they had
sent a sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude photo or video of themselves
to someone else using their cell phone. Further, 69.5% (n = 283) reported
being the recipient of a nearly nude photo or video of someone on their cell
phone (see Table 1).
Participants noted that there were times in their relationships when they used
their phones to fulfill sexual requests with their partners. While 29% (n = 118) of
 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY 7

Table 1. Frequency of sending and receiving sexually suggestive texts

Men (n = 76) Women (n = 331)
How often have you … n % n % Total
Used your mobile phone to initiate any sexual purpose through phone calls, texts, Internet, or apps?
Never 18 23.7 95 28.7 113
Rarely 12 15.8 79 23.9 91
Sometimes 24 31.6 101 30.5 125
Often 15 19.7 46 13.9 61
Frequently 7 9.2 10 3.0 17
Been the recipient of this type of request?
Never 19 25.0 71 21.5 90
Rarely 15 19.7 70 21.1 85
Sometimes 25 32.9 116 35.0 141
Often 13 17.1 60 18.1 73
Frequently 4 5.3 14 4.2 18
Been successful in fulfilling a request for an intimate encounter, sexual relation, or hookup by using an
app on a smartphone?
Never 37 48.7 235 71.0 272
Rarely 9 11.8 31 9.4 40
Sometimes 19 25.0 47 14.2 66
Often 8 10.5 12 3.6 20
Frequently 3 3.9 6 1.8 9
Sent a sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude photo or video of yourself to someone else using your cell
phone?
Never 25 32.9 130 39.3 155
Rarely 18 23.7 74 22.4 92
Sometimes 21 27.6 70 21.1 91
Often 7 9.2 40 12.1 47
Frequently 5 6.6 17 5.1 22
Been the recipient of nude or nearly nude photo or video of someone on your cell phone?
Never 15 19.7 109 32.9 124
Rarely 17 22.4 73 22.1 90
Sometimes 24 31.6 86 26.0 110
Often 15 19.7 46 13.9 61
Frequently 5 6.6 17 5.1 22
Used your mobile phone to exchange text messages, picture messages, video messages, or voice calls to
fulfill a sexual purpose with your partner?
Never 21 27.6 97 29.3 118
Rarely 13 17.1 64 19.3 77
Sometimes 22 28.9 94 28.4 116
Often 14 18.4 53 16.0 67
Frequently 6 7.9 23 6.9 29
Used your mobile phone to exchange text messages, picture messages, video messages, or voice calls to
fulfill a sexual purpose with someone who is not your partner?
Never 33 43.4 222 67.1 255
Rarely 13 17.1 59 17.8 72
Sometimes 21 27.6 34 10.3 55
Often 6 7.9 12 3.6 18
Frequently 3 3.9 4 1.2 7

participants indicated that they never have used mobile phones for sexual purposes
with their partners, the remaining 71% did to varying degrees. Approximately one-
third of participants (n = 152, 37.3%) used their mobile phone to exchange text
messages, picture messages, video messages, or voice calls to fulfill a sexual purpose
with someone other than their partner (see Table 1).
8 K. M. HERTLEIN AND M. L. C. TWIST

Another contextual variable analyzed was the relationships in which sexually

explicit messages are exchanged. Nearly three-quarters of the sample (n = 295,
72.4%) noted that they exchange such communications within their relation-
ships. Exchanging explicit messages with ex-partners occurs less frequently
(n = 138, 33.9%). Rarer still are messages exchanged with friends and peers
(n = 91, 22.3%). The rarest relational context in which people text sexually
explicit messages is with acquaintances (n = 66, 16.21%; see Tables 2 and 3).
The participants reported on the extent to which they used different
modalities to sext. Text messaging was the most common modality used to
participate in sexting, with 75.1% of the participants reporting that have at
least once used texting as a way to participate in sexting. Approximately two-
thirds of the participants (n = 260, 63.8%) used picture messaging at least
once. Approximately one-fifth of the sample (n = 80, 19.65%) participated in
sexting via email while using their mobile phones (see Table 4).
Just over one-third of the sample (n = 151, 37.1%) reported they are more
likely to sext someone when they are sober; a few more participants (n = 163,
40.0%) reported they were more likely to send a sexually suggestive text after
three or more alcoholic drinks. The remaining participants (approximately

Table 2. Frequency of sexts with particular groups: Men

In a In a In a
relationship relationship relationship
Not in a with one with one with more
relationship person, person, than one
with anyone casual committed person, casual
Frequency with which you exchange
sexual texts/electronic interactions with: n % n % n % n %
Current partners
Never 10 13.16 0 0.00 2 2.63 0 0.00
Rarely 3 3.95 3 3.95 2 2.63 1 0.30
Sometimes 13 17.11 3 3.95 8 10.53 0 0.00
Often 7 9.21 1 1.32 8 10.53 0 0.00
Frequently 4 5.26 0 0.00 6 7.89 1 1.32
Ex-partner/s
Never 16 21.05 3 3.95 19 25.00 1 1.32
Rarely 10 13.16 3 3.95 4 5.26 1 1.32
Sometimes 7 9.21 1 1.32 3 3.95 0 0.00
Often 3 3.95 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Frequently 1 1.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Friends/peers
Never 22 28.95 4 5.26 21 27.63 1 1.32
Rarely 5 6.58 1 1.32 2 2.63 0 0.00
Sometimes 7 9.21 2 2.63 2 2.63 0 0.00
Often 2 2.63 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.32
Frequently 1 1.32 0 0.00 1 1.32 0 0.00
Acquaintances
Never 23 30.26 4 5.26 19 25.00 1 1.32
Rarely 6 7.89 1 1.32 4 5.26 0 0.00
Sometimes 6 7.89 2 2.63 1 1.32 0 0.00
Often 1 0.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.30
Frequently 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.60 0 0.00
 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY 9

Table 3. Frequency of sexts with particular groups: Women

In a In a
In a relationship relationship
Not in a relationship with one with more
relationship with one person, than one
with anyone person, casual committed person, casual
Frequency with which you exchange
sexual texts/electronic interactions with: n % n % n % n %
Current partners
Never 59 17.82 3 0.91 25 7.55 1 0.30
Rarely 7 2.11 7 2.11 29 8.76 1 0.30
Sometimes 20 6.04 10 3.02 49 14.80 1 0.30
Often 11 3.32 11 3.32 25 7.55 4 1.21
Frequently 8 2.42 2 0.60 49 14.80 1 0.30
Ex-partner/s
Never 66 19.94 18 5.44 141 42.60 1 0.30
Rarely 18 5.44 8 2.42 21 6.34 0 0.00
Sometimes 15 4.53 5 1.51 7 2.11 0 0.00
Often 3 0.91 2 0.60 3 0.91 0 0.00
Frequently 4 1.21 0 0.00 1 0.30 0 0.00
Friends/peers
Never 84 25.38 25 7.55 156 47.13 1 0.30
Rarely 12 3.63 6 1.81 10 3.02 0 0.00
Sometimes 7 2.11 2 0.60 4 1.21 0 0.00
Often 1 0.30 0 0.00 5 1.51 0 0.00
Frequently 2 0.60 0 0.00 1 0.30 0 0.00
Acquaintances
Never 94 28.40 28 8.46 168 50.76 4 1.21
Rarely 7 2.11 5 1.51 5 1.51 1 0.30
Sometimes 4 1.21 0 0.00 1 0.30 1 0.30
Often 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.60 2 0.60
Frequently 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.30 0 0.00

23.09%, n = 94) stated that they are more likely to send a sexually explicit text
after one to two drinks.

Discussion of frequency data and implications for college clinicians

The prevalence of specific forms of sexting
As noted in the results, three-quarters of the sample in this study participated
in sexting to some degree and primarily used text messages as an avenue for
this behavior. The data from the survey also demonstrate an increase in the
levels of sexting compared to the levels reported in 2008 (National
Campaign, 2008). In addition, the proportion of participants engaging in
sexting with their partners is higher than in previous studies. In Drouin and
Landgraff’s (2012) study, one-third of respondents engaged in sexting with
their partner; in the present study, three-quarters of the respondents engaged
in sexting with their partner.
Another finding is the extent to which individuals are sending sexually
suggestive texts to people other than their partners, such as ex-partners and
10 K. M. HERTLEIN AND M. L. C. TWIST

Table 4. Frequency of sexting with different modalities

Men (n = 76) Women (n = 331) Total
Self-report of participant engaging in
sexting using the following methods: n % n % n
Text messaging
Never 16 21.1 85 25.7 101
Rarely 10 13.2 71 21.5 81
Sometimes 23 30.3 80 24.2 103
Often 14 18.4 50 15.1 64
Frequently 13 17.1 44 13.3 57
Picture messaging
Never 17 22.4 132 39.9 149
Rarely 22 28.9 69 20.8 91
Sometimes 21 27.6 70 21.1 91
Often 13 17.1 37 11.2 50
Frequently 3 3.9 22 6.6 25
Email messages
Never 55 72.4 273 82.5 328
Rarely 9 11.8 26 7.9 35
Sometimes 5 6.6 19 5.7 24
Often 5 6.6 9 2.7 14
Frequently 2 2.6 3 .9 5
Other
Never 56 73.7 291 87.9 347
Rarely 7 9.2 14 4.2 21
Sometimes 10 13.2 14 4.2 24
Often 2 2.6 5 1.5 7
Frequently 1 1.3 6 1.8 7

peers. For example, while 42.6% of the female respondents and 25% of the
male respondents indicated they had not sent a sexually explicit text to an ex-
partner, the implication is that 57% of women and 75% of the respondents
had sent such messages to ex-partners. Certainly, this can have implications
for the maintenance of the current relationship. As Hertlein (2012) noted,
technology can introduce both people known and unknown into one’s
relationship, and the exchanges may be to someone known by the partner
participating in the interactions and potentially unknown to the other part-
ner. This underscores the point made by Cooper (2002) and others regarding
the affordability and accessibility of the Internet and its role in assisting
individuals in developing new relationships outside of the current
relationship.
There may be several potential explanations for the findings. First, the
sample of this study comprised college students with a higher than
average age compared to the normative college population: 23.06 years
old, which is in contrast with 20.7 years old in Ferguson’s (2011) study
and 20.5 years old in Drouin and Landgraff (2012) study. This would
only, however, explain these results if sexting behaviors increase with age,
which was not a focus of this study. Second, Strassberg et al. (2013)
explained their finding of a considerable difference between the
 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY 11

proportions of freshmen and seniors who shared explicit photos as being

due to seniors potentially having had their mobile phones for a longer
period of time, thus affording them more opportunity to become involved
in sexting. While we did not ask how long the participants had owned
their phone, it may be likely that our findings could be explained in the
same fashion.
In addition to the general frequency information, it is important to note
that two-thirds of the participants reported that they were more likely to
sext after consuming alcohol. This mirrors findings reporting that the
most common reason that young adults, specifically those in college
settings, participate in casual sex encounters (e.g., hooking up, Tinder
meet-ups, one-night stands) is that they were under the influence of
alcohol (Kelley, Borawski, Flocke, & Keen, 2003; Luquis, Garcia, &
Ashford, 2001). Given that college is a time in which many people
participate in drinking (especially underage drinking; Papalia, Olds, &
Feldman, 2008), people younger than 21 may expose themselves to
increased risks through sexting and drinking, just as occurs through
engaging in casual sex practices in the context of alcohol consumption
(Gordon, Carey, & Carey, 1997; Parkes, Wight, Henderson, & Hart, 2007;
Woodrome, Zimet, Orr, & Fortenberry, 2006). Therefore, campus pro-
gramming related to identifying how many students actually participate in
underage drinking, which may vary based on campus climate, could be
incorporated into understanding the context for texting and sexting beha-
viors, as well as the relationship between such behaviors and casual sex
practices (Hertlein, Shadid, & Steelman, 2015).

Application of findings in college psychotherapy

College students are using texting and instant messaging technologies as a
primary mode of communication. As their involvement in these technologies
persist, scholars, advisors, and instructors can integrate information as to the
risks and benefits of sexting into other material in college. For example, our
research demonstrated that many people in committed relationships are still
sexting with ex-partners. The discovery of this to the committed partner may
have significant implications for emotional and relational health, such as lack
of trust, which can persist longer when the communication with the ex-
partner is facilitated with a private, handheld device.

Treatment guidelines
The negative outcomes discussed above can be observed in the context of
clinical practice. Despite the vulnerability of the population and the fre-
quency of activities, there is no published treatment model to guide a college
12 K. M. HERTLEIN AND M. L. C. TWIST

clinician in addressing these issues. For example, when we conducted a

search on “sexting” in the Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, we
resulted in zero hits, indicating a significant paucity of published research
in this area. The published models to date emphasize the uses and gratifica-
tions of using technology (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000) and the sociological
context surrounding its usage (Lanigan, 2009). These models, do not, how-
ever, take into account the systemic nature of the issue (specifically, the
impact to the individual and relationships).
One particular approach developed to identify the vulnerabilities a couple
has to several conditions related to technology is the CFT framework. It has
previously been applied to the treatment of gaming issues (Hawkins & Hertlein,
2013), Internet infidelity (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013), and similar areas. Given its
application, it may provide a useful frame for providing some direction in the
appraisal and management of sexting problems. This framework helps a clin-
ician organize the relative risk and benefit of technology in one’s life. Clinicians
are to focus on the extent to which anonymity, acceptability, accessibility,
affordability, approximation, accommodation, and ambiguity in technology
and new media usage contribute to the problems one may experience.
From the data collected in the present study, we identified that students
are still engaging in sexting behaviors with previous partners. The likelihood
of this happening may be influenced by the accessibility of the technology
and be fueled by a young person’s ability to use technology to accommodate
their desires, the ability to anonymously use telephones (out of eyesight of
current partners), and the affordability of participating in these interactions
without alerting current partners.
With regard to accommodation, college students are developmentally
situated where they are trying on different hats and roles they will keep in
their identity as they develop into adulthood and find their own voice (Baxter
Magolda, 2008, 2014). According to Sanford’s model of development, college
students are at a place where they are attempting to both identify where they
are unique and where they have commonalities with others (Patton et al.,
2016). This developmental stage in college students connects with one of the
core concepts in the CFT framework: accommodation. Accommodation
refers to the use of technology and new media to do things one would not
normally do in offline life. Because it occurs in a developmental context,
accommodation may play a key role in risk taking in this age group,
especially when it intersects other elements such as ambiguity (being unclear
in interpreting a text or email message) and acceptability of such technolo-
gies and behaviors in this population.
Due to the intersection of this developmental stage and the elements of the
CFT framework, college clinicians can assess readiness of the student to
participate in sexting behavior, address specific challenges that may occur,
 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY 13

and evaluate support available for when the challenges, risks, or conse-
quences are heavy. Specific questions to address this include the following:

● Is the person others see in your classes the same person they would
know online? What are the differences? Similarities?
● Are there things you say you will do via text to someone that you have
not done before?
● Are there things you say via text that you do not want to do, but say it just
to please someone else or because you think someone else expects it?
● Do you think the person on the other end of receiving the texts might
feel some of the same ways?

The CFT approach may also connect with the transitional models of college
development (Patton et al., 2016). For example, college clinicians may work with
students to determine the situation that prompted the individual to begin sexting
in the first place and evaluate the timing of sexting within one’s relationship or
social group, how it affects or changes one’s role, and the perspective of other
people the sexting behavior might affect. Because the student may be defensive if
asked about the sexting behavior initially, the college clinician can use the model to
inform the questions they ask related to development. Key questions leaving into
this discussion may be those that assess accommodation:

● What type of things do you do online that you do not participate in

offline and why?
● If I asked people who knew you online and people who knew you offline
to describe you, what would be the differences? Similarities?
● How does your use of your phone in general affect your roles in your
relationships? What is your role in your relationship with regard to the
phone? Specifically, who is the person who holds the role of initiator in
the interactions?
● What are the perceived consequences of not responding to sexually
explicit texts?

Limitations
One of the primary limitations of this study was the number of women as
compared to men in the sample. While the study was advertised widely to both
men and women and the recruitment procedures specifically targeted men, the
sample was not equal in terms of men and women. One reason for this may be that
the courses in which the survey was advertised were family studies and commu-
nication studies, and more women than men are generally enrolled in these
courses. Another limitation is that the survey did not ask participants to report
14 K. M. HERTLEIN AND M. L. C. TWIST

whether their current relationship was long-distance. Such relationships may be

more common among a college sample and could affect the results, in that sexting
may give these couples the opportunity to maintain some sexual connection when
there is geographical distance between them. A final limitation has to do with the
wording on the scales: Where there is a difference between “frequency” and
“often,” the difference may not have been clear to respondents and they may
have seen these words as synonyms. Respondents may not have understood this
difference and just responded to where they fell on the scale rather than using the
description to inform their answer. Finally, 46 of our respondents who indicated
they were not in a relationship with anyone responded to some of the items about
how often they exchanged sexts with current partners. It is our guess that these
respondents are referencing a time when they had a partner.

Future directions
Thus far, there are discrepancies in the ways in which sexting has been operation-
ally defined across investigations—some limit to text only, some include shared
photos, etc. This research broadens the scope of what constitutes sexting behaviors.
This can benefit counseling practices and potentially provide more opportunities
for intervention. To better understand the frequency of sexting, future research
should work to develop agreed-upon operational definitions of engagement in
participation in the exchange of sexually themed information. In addition, college
clinicians can begin to work with young clients to help them to identify the various
forms of sexting so they have a better appraisal of when interactions with peers
become problematic and be able to implement strategies for implementing bound-
aries for increased safety.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the work of Katrina Ancheta, Mackenzie Clark, Jennalyn Eigner,
Christine Morehead, Sarah Steelman, Sam Tielemans, and Michael Thomas, who assisted in
this research as part of their culminating experience for their master’s degree in the Marriage
and Family Therapy Program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. We also thank Akeylah
Drake for her volunteerism on this project.

References
Ahern, N. R., & Mechling, B. (2013). Sexting: Serious problems for youth. Journal of Psychosocial
Nursing and Mental Health Services, 51(7), 22. doi:10.3928/02793695-20130503-02
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College Student
Development, 49(4), 269–284. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0016
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2014). Self-authorship. New Directions for Higher Education, 2014
(166), 25–33. doi:10.1002/he.20092
 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY 15

Benotsch, E. G., Snipes, D. J., Martin, A. M., & Bull, S. S. (2013). Sexting, substance use, and
sexual risk behavior in young adults. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication
of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 52(3), 307–313. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.011
Campbell, S. W., & Park, Y. J. (2014). Predictors of mobile sexting among teens: Toward a
new explanatory framework. Mobile Media & Communication, 2(1), 20–39. doi:10.1177/
2050157913502645
Cooper, A. (2002). Sex and the Internet: A guidebook for clinicians. New York, NY: Brunner-
Routledge.
Currin, J. M., Jayne, C. N., Hammer, T. R., Brim, T., & Hubach, R. D. (2016). Explicitly
pressing send: Impact of sexting on relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 44(3), 143–154. doi:10.1080/01926187.2016.1145086
Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Maziarz, L., & Ward, B. (2012). Prevalence and correlates of sexting
behavior in adolescents. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 7(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/
15546128.2012.650959
Davis, M. J., Powell, A., Gordon, D., & Kershaw, T. (2016). I want your sext: Sexting and
sexual risk in emerging adult minority men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 28(2), 138–
152. doi:10.1521/aeap.2016.28.2.138
Dir, A. L., & Cyders, M. A. (2015). Risks, risk factors, and outcomes associated with phone
and internet sexting among university students in the United States. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 44(6), 1675–1684. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0370-7
Dir, A. L., Cyders, M. A., & Coskunpinar, A. (2013). From the bar to the bed via mobile phone: A
first test of the role of problematic alcohol use, sexting, and impulsivity-related traits in sexual
hookups. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1664–1670. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.039
Drouin, M., & Landgraff, C. (2012). Texting, sexting, and attachment in college students’
romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 444–449. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2011.10.015
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
Gordon, C. M., Carey, M. P., & Carey, K. B. (1997). Effects of a drinking event on behavioral
skills and condom attitudes in men: Implications for HIV risk from a controlled experi-
ment. Health Psychology, 16, 490–495. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.16.5.490
Hawkins, B. P., & Hertlein, K. M. (2013). Treatment strategies for online role-playing gaming
problems in couples. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 12(2), 150–167.
doi:10.1080/15332691.2013.779100
Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital dwelling: Technology in couple and family relationships.
Family Relations, 61(3), 374–387. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00702.x
Hertlein, K. M., & Ancheta, K. (2014). Advantages and disadvantages of technology in relation-
ships: Findings from an open-ended survey. The Qualitative Report, 19(article 22), 1–11.
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. M., Shadid, C., & Steelman, S. (2015). Exploring perceptions of acceptability of
sexting in same-sex relationships. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 14(4), 342–
357. doi:10.1080/15332691.2014.96054
Hudson, H. K., Fetro, J. V., & Ogletree, R. (2014). Behavioral indicators and behaviors related
to sexting among undergraduate students. American Journal of Health Education, 45(3),
183–195. doi:10.1080/19325037.2014.901113
Kelley, S. S., Borawski, E. A., Flocke, S. A., & Keen, K. J. (2003). The role of sequential and
concurrent sexual relationships in the risk of sexually transmitted diseases among adoles-
cents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 296–305. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00710-3
16 K. M. HERTLEIN AND M. L. C. TWIST

Lanigan, J. D. (2009). A sociotechnological model for family research and intervention: How
information and communication technologies affect family life. Marriage & Family Review,
45(6–8), 587–609. doi:10.1080/01494920903224194
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. doi:10.1080/17482798.2014.923009
Luquis, R. R., Garcia, E., & Ashford, D. (2001, March). College students’ perceptions of
substance use and sexual behaviors. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, p. A-33.
Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., Jones, L. M., & Wolak, J. (2012). Prevalence and character-
istics of youth sexting: A national study. Pediatrics, 129(1), 13–20. doi:10.1542/
peds.2011-1730
Montesi, J. L., Conner, B. T., Gordon, E. A., Fauber, R. L., Kim, K. H., & Heimberg, R. G.
(2013). On the relationship among social anxiety, intimacy, sexual communication, and
sexual satisfaction in young couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(1), 81–91.
doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9929-3
Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 44(2), 175–196. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_2
Papalia, D., Olds, S., & Feldman, R. (2008). Human development (11th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Parker, T. S., Blackburn, K. M., Perry, M. S., & Hawks, J. M. (2013). Sexting as an interven-
tion: Relationship satisfaction and motivation considerations. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 41(1), 1–12. doi:10.1080/01926187.2011.635134
Parkes, A., Wight, D., Henderson, M., & Hart, G. (2007). Explaining associations between
adolescent substance use and condom use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 1–18.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.09.012
Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido-DiBrito, F., Quaye, S. J., Forney, D. S., & Evans, N. J. (2016).
Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer.
Peskin, M. F., Markham, C. M., Addy, R. C., Shegog, R., Thiel, M., & Tortolero, S. R. (2013).
Prevalence and patterns of sexting among ethnic minority urban high school students.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 16(6), 454–459. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0452
Renfrow, D. G., & Rollo, E. A. (2014). Sexting on campus: Minimizing perceived risks and
neutralizing behaviors. Deviant Behavior, 35(11), 903–920. doi:10.1080/
01639625.2014.897122
Strassberg, D., McKinnon, R., Sustaíta, M., & Rullo, J. (2013). Sexting by high school students:
An exploratory and descriptive study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(1), 15–21.
doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9969-8
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (2008). Sex and tech
survey. Retrieved March 23, 2013, from http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/PDF/
SexTech_Summary.pdf
Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Heirman, W. (2015). The association between
adolescent sexting, psychosocial difficulties, and risk behavior: Integrative review. The
Journal of School Nursing, 31(1), 54–69. doi:10.1177/1059840514541964
Weisskirch, R. S., & Delevi, R. (2011). “Sexting” and adult romantic attachment. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27(5), 1697–1701. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.008
Woodrome, S. E., Zimet, G. D., Orr, D. P., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2006). Dyadic alcohol use
and relationship quality as predictors of condom non-use among adolescent females.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 305–306. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.03.018
Wysocki, D. K., & Childers, C. D. (2011). “Let my fingers do the talking”: Sexting and infidelity
in cyberspace. Sexuality & Culture, 15(3), 217–239. doi:10.1007/s12119-011-9091-4