Content uploaded by Brandon T McDaniel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brandon T McDaniel on Oct 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running Head: SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 1
FINAL AUTHOR COPY
CITATION:
McDaniel, B. T., & Drouin, M. (2015). Sexting among married couples: Who is doing it, and are they more
satisfied? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0334
Link to article online: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2015.0334
Sexting Among Married Couples: Who Is Doing It, and Are They More Satisfied?
Brandon T. McDaniel
The Pennsylvania State University
Michelle Drouin
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
*Corresponding Author: Brandon T. McDaniel, 314 Biobehavioral Health Bldg., University
Park, PA 16802. Email: btmcdaniel.phd@gmail.com.
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 2
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the families who participated in this research, as well as the research
assistants who made all of this recruitment and data collection possible. We would also like to
acknowledge the College of Health and Human Development, the Department of Human
Development and Family Studies, as well as the Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center at
The Pennsylvania State University which awarded research funds to the first author to complete
this research. The first author's time on this manuscript was also partially funded by the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (Award Number T32DA017629).
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 3
Abstract
In this study, we examined the prevalence and correlates of sexting (i.e., sending sexual
messages via mobile phones) within a sample of married/cohabiting couples (180 wives and 175
husbands). Married adults do sext each other, but it is much less common than within young
adult relationships, and consists mainly of sexy or intimate talk (29% reported engaging in sexy
talk with partners) rather than sexually-explicit photos or videos (12% reported sending nude or
nearly-nude photos). Sending sexy talk messages was positively related to relationship
satisfaction only among those with high levels of avoidance, and sending sexually-explicit
pictures was related to satisfaction for men, and for women with high levels of attachment
anxiety. Additionally, sending sexually-explicit pictures related to greater ambivalence among
both men and women. These findings support and extend previous research with young adults.
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 4
Sexting Among Married Couples: Who Is Doing It and Are They More Satisfied?
Introduction
In 2011, Brenda Wiederhold1 put forth a call in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social
Networking for more research on sexting among adults, as most sexting studies had focused on
teens and young adults. Fast forward four years, and little has changed with regard to the
populations targeted for sexting research: Researchers still focus on teens and young adults. In
fact, in their recent literature review, Klettke and colleagues2, found that of the 13 studies on
adult sexting that contained prevalence statistics, few included non-undergraduate adults outside
the 18-30 age range. At present, only two known studies have focused on sexting among married
individuals3,4. One3 focused on sexting with committed partners (including married partners) and
the other4 focused on extramarital sexting and cyber-infidelity. Thus, there is still a dearth of
research on sexting among married couples, and although some studies have included married
individuals, none have examined sexting behaviors within couples. In this study, we begin to fill
this gap by examining the prevalence and frequency of sexting within married couples as well as
the attachment patterns that moderate the associations between sexting and satisfaction in adult
married relationships.
According to recent statistics, over 97% of American adults ages 18-49 own a mobile
phone, and 64% own a smartphone5,6. This widespread mobile phone usage, and smartphone
usage in particular, has made it increasingly easy to connect with others instantaneously.
Consequently, researchers have begun to focus their attention on the ways in which mobile
phones affect dyadic relationships, including the ways individuals use mobile technology to
transmit sexual messages (i.e., sexting). In this area, a growing body of research has emerged,
focused on the definitions, prevalence, and risk factors associated with sexting2,7,8. Overall,
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 5
existing studies with adults have painted a relatively consistent picture of sexting—many young
adults (as many as 75% in some studies) are sexting, they send sexually-explicit texts more often
than pictures9,10, 11, they sext more often within longer-term relationships9,12, and sexting is
associated with a variety of risk factors, including unprotected sex13,14,15, alcohol use10,13,14, and
even attempted or contemplated suicide14.
Some sexting research has focused on relationship quality, examining, for example, the
attachment patterns of those who send sexually-explicit messages to their partners. Again,
research in this area has been fairly consistent: Sending sexually-explicit messages and
propositioning sex via text message is more common among those who have insecure (i.e.,
anxious or avoidant) attachments with partners11,16. According to Drouin and Landgraff11 those
with insecure attachment patterns may engage in sexting more often because they are either
trying to use sexting as a hyperactivating strategy17,18 to draw partners nearer so that they will not
abandon them (anxious attachment), or they are using sexting as a deactivating strategy17,18 to
satisfy sexual needs while keeping their partners at a distance (avoidant attachment). Thus,
sexting has been linked to relationship insecurity rather than relationship well-being. However,
in the one study that focused on married individuals (51% were married or cohabiting), Parker et
al.3 found that those who reported greater consensus (marker of relationship satisfaction) with
partners were more likely to have sent some type of sexual message to that partner. That said,
there was a negative relationship between cohesion and sexting frequency that was almost
significant (p = .068), and the relationship between satisfaction and sexting frequency was
positive but not significant.
A major difference between the Parker et al.3 study and previous work on sexting and
relationship quality11,16 is the way in which sexting was measured. Drouin and Landgraff11
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 6
examined the frequency of sending sexually-explicit text or picture/video messages, and
Weisskirch and Delevi16 asked about sexual propositions via text message. Meanwhile, Parker et
al.3 had participants indicate the highest rated type of message they had sent partners from 1 =
“small talk” to 5 = “nude photos or videos, acts along with explicit language about sex acts or
intent to meet with person to engage in acts.” Moreover, they included in their analyses anyone
who considered their previous behavior(s) sexting. Consequently, double entendres or messages
implying sex, when classified as sexting by the sender, were included, and they were not
analyzed separately from nude photos or videos. This measurement issue limits the conclusions
one can draw from this study, as it is unclear whether sending sexually-explicit text or picture
messages (i.e., traditional definitions of sexting) among marrieds is related to relationship
satisfaction. Nonetheless, Parker et al.3 concluded that sexting can be considered a component of
a satisfying relationship and might be useful as a therapeutic strategy to increase intimacy and
connectedness in long-term relationships.
In this study, we sought to fill a gap in the sexting and relationship quality research by
exploring the associations between relationship well-being (satisfaction and ambivalence),
attachment characteristics, and sexting frequency among married couples. Based on the extant
literature, we predicted that:
H1: The prevalence of sending sexually-explicit texts and photos would be lower among older,
married couples than young adults.
Mobile phone usage overall is lower among older populations of adults as compared to
young adults5; thus, it is likely that older adults are using their mobile phones less often than
young adults to navigate sexual relationships. Moreover, although sexting is most common
among young adults in committed relationships9,10, Parker et al.3 found a negative association
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 7
between sexting and relationship length, and we expected average relationship length in our
sample to be greater than that of most young adult couples. Finally, sexting is associated with
sensation seeking10 and impulsivity19. As recent neuroscience-informed models of risk taking
suggest that adolescence is characterized by cognitive and neurological processes that heighten
risky behavior20, we expected sexting frequency to be lower in this older sample.
Additionally, with consideration for the previously-found links between attachment and
sexting11,16, and the non-significant correlations between sexting and relationship satisfaction in
the Parker et al.3 study, we expected that:
H2: Attachment avoidance would be related to sexting frequency (both words and pictures) and
attachment anxiety would be related to sending words-only sexts (i.e., sexy messages).
H3: Sexting (either with words or pictures) among married couples would not emerge as a
predictor of relationship satisfaction or ambivalence; however, attachment characteristics would
moderate the relationship between sexting frequency and relationship satisfaction and
ambivalence.
Finally, as previous research has shown that relationships between sexting and
attachment characteristics differ by gender11, we explored gender as a moderator.
Methods
Participants & Procedure
Participants were part of the Daily Family Life Project (DFLP), an ongoing longitudinal
study of family life, who were recruited through three primary sources: (1) database of families
in Pennsylvania willing to be contacted by researchers, (2) announcements on parenting
websites, and (3) announcements in the local community. We utilized data from 355 individuals
(180 wives and 175 husbands) from 181 heterosexual families, currently living together in the
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 8
United States, with at least one child age 5 or younger. Participants lived in the following U.S.
regions: 52% Northeast, 17% West, 16% South, and 15% Midwest. Most were Caucasian (91%),
married (95%), had a college degree (72%), and were not currently attending school (84%); 58%
had more than one child. On average, wives were 31.52 years old (SD = 4.42; range 20 to 42),
husbands were 33.21 (SD = 4.98; range 22 to 52), and yearly household income was $73,900
(SD = $39,500). Participants’ relationship length ranged from 2 to 23 years, with 92% in a
relationship of 5 years or longer (M = 9.91 years, SD = 4.06).
Participants completed an online, ethics-board approved survey containing measures
described below.
Measures
Sexting. Sexting was measured via 3 items using a 9-point scale ranging from Never (0)
to Almost hourly (8). Participants were asked to indicate how often with their current relationship
partner they: (1) "Send sexy messages via mobile device," (2) "Talk about sex or intimacy via
mobile device," and (3) "Send nude or semi-nude photos via mobile device." Items 1 and 2
correlated highly (r = .85, p < .001) and were therefore averaged into a single send sexy
messages composite measure. Item 3 was analyzed separately as sending of nude/semi-nude
photos.
Relationship satisfaction. The Quality of Marriage Index21 includes five items assessing
satisfaction (e.g., “We have a good relationship”) on a 7-point scale (1 = very strongly disagree,
7 = very strongly agree) and one item assessing relationship happiness on 10-point scale (1 =
unhappy, 10 = perfectly happy). Wording was revised to “partner” and “relationship” for
inclusivity. Higher scores reflect greater relationship satisfaction (α = .96 for wives and .95 for
husbands).
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 9
Relationship ambivalence. Participants were asked to indicate their ambivalence with
their current partner across 3 items from Braiker and Kelley's22 ambivalence subscale. Items
included (1) “How ambivalent or unsure are you about continuing in the relationship with your
partner?”, (2) "To what extent do you feel "trapped" or pressured to continue in this
relationship?", and (3) "How confused are you about your feelings toward your partner?"
Participants responded on a 7-point scale (1 = not very much or just a little, 7 = very much or a
lot). Higher scores indicate greater ambivalence or uncertainty about the relationship (α = .85 for
wives and .88 for husbands).
Attachment in romantic relationships. Participants rated their agreement with 12
statements from the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale23 on a 7-point scale (1 = disagree
strongly, 7 = agree strongly). Six statements measured attachment anxiety (e.g., “I need a lot of
reassurance that I am loved by my partner”) and six measured attachment avoidance (e.g., ‘‘I try
to avoid getting too close to my partner’’). One anxiety item ("I do not often worry about being
abandoned") was dropped due to low correlation with the other anxiety items, as has occurred in
other research24. Higher scores indicate greater anxiety or avoidance (Anxiety α = .72 for wives
and .78 for husbands; Avoidant α = .83 for wives and .78 for husbands).
Control variables. Controls included depressive symptoms, coparenting quality,
frequency of texting, frequency of sex, age, income, race/ethnicity (not Caucasian = 1),
education (not college graduate = 1), number of children (more than 1 child = 1), marital status
(not married = 1), and relationship length in years. Frequency of sex was measured with one
item, "Thinking back about the last 12 months, in general how frequently do you and your
partner engage in sexual activity together?" Participants responded on an 8-point scale from 1
(less than once every few months) to 8 (multiple times a day). Frequency of texting was measured
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 10
with participants indicating how much time they spend texting on a cell phone on a typical day
on an 11-point scale from 1 (Never / None) to 10 (7 or more hours).
Depressive symptoms were measured with the CES-D25, which asked participants to rate
how often they experienced 20 symptoms in the past week. Participants responded on a 4-point
scale, from 0 (rarely or none of the time, less than 1 day) to 3 (most or all of the time, 5 to 7
days). Higher scores indicate more depressive symptoms (α = .89 for both wives and husbands).
Coparenting quality was measured using the Coparenting Relationship Scale26, which
includes 35 items that measure how partners work together (or against one another) in their
parenting (e.g., support, undermining, etc.). Higher scores indicate better coparenting (α = .94 for
both wives and husbands). Coparenting quality was included as a control because the current
sample included families with children and researchers have shown that relationship satisfaction
and coparenting quality are intricately linked, with for example the quality of support parents
provide to one another while parenting their child together predicting feelings about the couple
relationship as a whole27; therefore, finding effects after controlling for coparenting would fortify
the link between sexting and relational well-being.
Results
Prevalence of Sexting
Sending sexually-explicit photos was rare among married couples: Only 12% of
participants reported ever sending photos to their partner. Among those who did send nude
photos to their partner, 9% of wives and 7% of husbands sent photos less than once a month, and
only 3% of wives and 5% of husbands sent photos once a month or more often. Meanwhile,
approximately 29% of participants reported sending sexy messages to their partners. About 12%
of wives and 11% of husbands sent sexy messages once a month, and another 16% of wives and
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 11
19% of husbands sent sexy messages once a week or more often. Paired sample t-tests revealed
that sending sexy text messages was more frequent than sending nude/semi-nude photos for both
wives (t (179) = 9.38, p < .001) and husbands (t (174) = 9.29, p < .001); however, wives and
husbands did not differ significantly from each other in their frequency of sending nude/semi-
nude photos (t (173) = 0.87, ns) or sexy text messages (t (173) = 1.49, ns).
Associations Between Sexting and Attachment
As shown in Table 1, more frequent sending of nude/semi-nude photos was significantly
related to greater attachment avoidance in wives (with a trend toward greater avoidance in
husbands); however, avoidance was unrelated to the frequency of sending sexy messages.
Meanwhile, frequency of sending nude/semi-nude photos was significantly related to attachment
anxiety for husbands; however, again, there were no significant relationships between sending
sexy text messages and attachment anxiety for husbands or wives.
Associations Between Sexting, Attachment, Relationship Satisfaction, and Ambivalence
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for our main study variables and controls
are displayed in Table 1. As shown, sending sexy messages was not significantly correlated with
relationship satisfaction or ambivalence for wives or husbands; however, sending nude/semi-
nude photos was related to greater relationship ambivalence in both wives and husbands.
A series of multilevel models in SAS Proc Mixed allowed us to examine our H3 in
greater depth. These models were similar to multiple regression models for cross-sectional data;
however, women's and men's data could not be treated as completely independent in the current
sample which violates the assumptions of simple regression. Therefore, multilevel modeling was
used to account for the nested nature of our data (wives and husbands within families). We ran
two models with sending sexy messages as the predictor and two models with sending
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 12
nude/semi-nude photos as the predictor for a total of four models (see unstandardized estimates
in Table 2). Within each of these models, we predicted relationship satisfaction or relationship
ambivalence, with attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety as moderators (by creating
interaction terms between the sexting predictors and the attachment variables). We tested
whether predictions were different for men and women by entering gender as a moderator (coded
1 = husband, 0 = wife), and we also included controls (e.g., age, income, ethnicity, relationship
length, depressive symptoms, etc.). All nonsignificant interactions were trimmed from the final
models.
Sending sexy messages. As shown in Table 2 (Model 1), attachment avoidance moderated
the relationship between sending sexy messages and relationship satisfaction (b = 0.31, p < .05),
with no significant differences by gender. In Figure 1, we can see that sending sexy messages
related positively to relationship satisfaction only for those high in avoidance. In terms of
relationship ambivalence (Model 2), sending sexy messages was not a significant predictor, and
neither attachment anxiety nor avoidance emerged as moderators.
Sending nude/semi-nude photos. As shown in Table 2 (Model 3), attachment anxiety
moderated the relationship between sending nude/semi-nude photos and relationship satisfaction
(b = 1.46, p < .001), and this was further moderated by gender (b = -1.43, p < .01). Sending
nude/semi-nude photos related to better relationship satisfaction for husbands, regardless of
attachment anxiety; however, sending nude/semi-nude photos was related to better relationship
satisfaction only for wives high in anxiety, and to worse satisfaction for wives low in anxiety
(see Figure 2). Meanwhile, with regard to relationship ambivalence (Model 4), sending
nude/semi-nude photos significantly interacted with gender (b = -0.22, p < .05), with more
frequent sending of nude/semi-nude photos related to greater ambivalence for wives only (b =
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 13
0.27, p < .05). Avoidance and anxiety did not moderate the effects of sending nude/semi-nude
photos on ambivalence.
Discussion
Some relationship researchers have recently turned their attention to the prevalence and
correlates of sexting among teens and young adults, yet little is known about the prevalence of
sexting within older, married or cohabiting couples. Additionally, although one study3 addressed
the topic of sexting and relationship satisfaction among those in long-term relationships, it
remained unclear whether sexting among married couples is associated with relationship health
or relationship insecurity and dissatisfaction.
Older adults in established committed relationships do engage in sexting; however, in
support of H1, the prevalence of sexting (both sexy talk and sending sexually-explicit pictures) is
lower than has been reported among young adults. For example, approximately 12% of husbands
and wives sent nude or nearly nude photos to their partners versus approximately 20-30% of
young adults who have done so9,16,28. There are several potential explanations for these disparate
findings. First, it may be, as we hypothesized, that older individuals are less impulsive and less
prone to risk-taking than their younger counterparts and therefore more carefully evaluate the
risks of their sexual images being catapulted into cyberspace (or found on their phone by others).
Second, as the average age of the participants in this study was about ten years older than the
average age of the young adults in undergraduate sexting research, it is probable that some of
these older adults established their sexual relationships with their partners without the use of
technology and therefore bypassed the sexting trend. Perhaps, had cell phones been as prevalent
and advanced twenty years ago as they are now, these married couples would have established
sexual intimacy via nude cell phone photos, a practice they might still employ today. Finally,
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 14
according to the Kinsey Institute29, married individuals and older adults have sex less frequently
than singles and younger adults; thus, less sexting may just be reflective of overall less sexual
activity within this population. Each of these possibilities merits further investigation.
With regard to attachment characteristics, those who were more avoidant tended to send
more nude/nearly-nude photos; however, this relationship was significant for wives only.
Meanwhile, attachment anxiety was related to higher rates of sending nude/nearly nude photos
among husbands only. Thus, our H2 was partially supported. Small differences between the
current results and those found in Drouin and Landgraff11 could be attributed to several factors,
including generational differences between young and older adults and their uses of technology
in relationships, the stability of relationships examined in these different studies (non-marrieds
versus marrieds), or differences in technology use across time that influence perceptions of
sexting. Future work should explore this topic over time and across generations to examine
whether historical context or age influences these relationships.
In terms of relationship satisfaction, our hypothesis (H3) was partially supported. For the
most part, sexting did not contribute to greater relationship satisfaction, except for those with
insecure attachments and, in some cases, husbands. More specifically, our predictive models
showed among husbands, sending nude/nearly-nude photos was related to relationship
satisfaction; however, sending nude photos was related to greater satisfaction only among wives
with higher levels of attachment anxiety and to worse satisfaction among wives with low
anxiety. Moreover, sending nude/nearly-nude photos was related to relationship ambivalence
(i.e., uncertainty about the relationship) among wives. Meanwhile, sending sexy messages (i.e.,
flirtatious or suggestive texts that did not contain pictures) was related to satisfaction among
those with higher levels of attachment avoidance.
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 15
Limitations and Conclusion
This study has limitations that need mentioned. First, this study included exclusively U.S.
and primarily married couples, with many participants from the Northeastern U.S.; thus, it is
unknown how well these results generalize to married couples in other countries or perhaps even
other parts of the U.S. (although 48% of our sample was from other parts of the U.S. which may
extend the generalizability). Second, we included only couples with at least one young child. The
prevalence and correlates of sexting among couples without a child may be different than what
was found here. Finally, our measures of sexting were limited to single items, although we
combined two of the items for our sexy talk measure. More detailed questions about sexting
within this population will help to extend our work and make comparisons with previous
findings from young adult samples. In sum, we recommend replication and expansion of this
research to create a more complete picture of sexting among committed couples worldwide.
Despite these limitations, our work gives insight into the sexting practices of adult
married couples. Married couples do not sext very often: Approximately one third had ever sent
sexy messages to their partners, and only about one in ten had ever sent nude or semi-nude
pictures. More importantly, sending these messages was not a predictor of relationship
satisfaction, except among those with insecure attachment patterns and, in the case of sexually-
explicit pictures, among men. These results are consistent with previous research that link
sexting behavior with insecure attachment patterns11,16, but they call into question suggestions
that sexting may be used as an intervention strategy to increase intimacy among couples3. In fact,
our results suggest that sexting may not play a positive role in most secure married or committed
cohabiting relationships.
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 16
References
1. Wiederhold BK. Should adult sexting be considered for the DSM? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking 2011; 14:481.
2. Klettke B, Hallford DJ, Mellor DJ. Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review.
Clinical Psychology Review 2014; 34:44-53. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.10.007
3. Parker TS, Blackburn KM, Perry MS, Hawks JM. Sexting as an intervention: Relationship
satisfaction and motivation considerations. American Journal of Family Therapy 2013;
41:1–12. doi:10.1080/01926187.2011.635134
4. Wysocki DK, Childers CD. 'Let my fingers do the talking': Sexting and infidelity in
cyberspace. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly 2011; 15:217–239.
doi:10.1007/s12119-011-9091-4
5. Pew Research Center. Mobile technology fact sheet. 2015. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/
6. Pew Research Center. The smartphone difference. 2105. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015
7. Döring N. Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk prevention through abstinence
education or safer sexting? Cyberpsychology 2014; 8:1-18. doi:10.5817/CP2014-1-9
8. Drouin M. (2015) Sexual communication in the digital age. In Rosen LD, Cheever N, Carrier
LM, eds. The Wiley Handbook of Psychology, Technology, and Society. 2015. New York,
NY: Wiley Blackwell.
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 17
9. Drouin M, Vogel KN, Surbey A, Stills, JR. Let’s talk about sexting, baby: Computer-mediated
sexual behaviors among young adults. Computers in Human Behavior 2013; 29:A25–A30.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.030
10. Dir AL, Cyders MA, Coskunpinar A. 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 2013; 29:1664–1670. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.039
11. Drouin M, Landgraff C. Texting, sexting, attachment, and intimacy in college students’
romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior 2012; 28:444–449.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.015
12. Samimi P, Alderson KG. Sexting among undergraduate students. Computers in Human Behavior
2014; 31:230–241. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.027
13. Benotsch EG, Snipes DJ, Martin AM, Bull SS. Sexting, substance use, and sexual risk
behavior in young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health 2013; 52:307–313.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.011.
14. Dake JA, Price JH, Maziarz L, Ward B. Prevalence and correlates of sexting behavior in
adolescents. American Journal of Sexuality Education 2012; 7:1–15
15. Ferguson CJ. Sexting behaviors among young Hispanic women: Incidence and association with
other high-risk sexual behaviors. Psychiatric Quarterly 2011; 82:239–243. doi:10.1007/s11126-
010-9165-8
16. Weisskirch RS, Delevi R. “Sexting” and adult romantic attachment. Computers in Human
Behavior 2011; 27:1697–1701. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.008
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 18
17. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. (2003) The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation,
psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In Zanna MP ed. Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 35). New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 53–152.
18. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. (2007) Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
19. Temple JR, Le VD, van den Berg P, Ling Y, Paul JA, Temple BW. Brief report: Teen
sexting and psychosocial health. Journal of Adolescence 2014; 37:33–36.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.10.008
20. Steinberg L. A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk taking. Developmental
Review 2008; 28:78–106
21. Norton R. Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage
and the Family 1983; 45:141–151.
22. Braiker HB, Kelley HH. (1979) Conflict in the development of close relationships. In Burgess RL,
Huston TL, eds. Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press, pp.
135–168.
23. Wei M, Russell DW, Mallinckrodt B, Vogel, DL. The experiences in close relationship scale
(ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality
Assessment 2007; 88:187-204. doi: 10.1080/00223890701268041
24. Ruppel EK, Curran MA. Relational sacrifices in romantic relationships: Satisfaction and the
moderating role of attachment. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 2012; 29:508–529.
doi:10.1177/0265407511431190
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 19
25. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population.
Applied Psychological Measurement 1977; 1:385–401.
26. Feinberg ME, Brown LD, Kan ML. A multi-domain self-report measure of coparenting. Parenting
2012; 12: 1–21.
27. Schoppe-Sullivan SJ, Mangelsdorf SC, Frosch CA, McHale JL. Associations between
coparenting and marital behavior from infancy to the preschool years. Journal of Family
Psychology 2004; 18:194–207.
28. Gordon-Messer D, Bauermeister J, Grodzinski A, Zimmerman M. Sexting among young adults.
Journal of Adolescent Health 2012; 52:301–306. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.013
29. National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB). Findings from the National Survey of
Sexual Health and Behavior, Centre for Sexual Health Promotion, Indiana University. Journal of
Sexual Medicine 2010; 7 (5). Retrieved from: http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 20
Table 1.
Descriptives and bivariate correlations between study variables
Variable
Sexy
texts
Nude
photos
Rel. Sat.
Rel.
Ambiv.
Avoidance
Anxiety
Dep.
Cop.
Freq. of
sex
Freq. of
texting
Frequency of Sexting (Predictors)
Sexy texts
.75***
.59***
.11
.14†
.01
.04
.02
-.05
.37***
.42***
Nude photos
.57***
.80***
.03
.27***
.14†
.17*
.19*
-.26**
.25**
.33***
Relationship Well-being (Outcomes)
Satisfaction
.12
-.06
.51***
-.57***
-.59***
-.17*
-.25**
.63***
.22**
.03
Ambivalence
.06
.31***
-.67***
.43***
.51***
.28***
.34***
-.66***
-.04
.16*
Attachment (Moderators)
Avoidance
-.04
.20**
-.64***
.50***
.36***
.29***
.42***
-.56***
-.24**
.01
Anxiety
.00
-.01
-.28***
.19*
.26***
-.03
.46***
-.34***
-.12
.11
Control variables
Depression
.00
.14†
-.49***
.44***
.47***
.49***
.27***
-.40***
-.17*
-.02
Coparenting
.03
-.21**
.76***
-.69***
-.59***
-.34***
-.44***
.43***
.14†
-.06
Freq. of sex
.23**
.05
.28***
-.11
-.26**
-.10
-.06
.25**
.72***
.06
Freq. of texting
.33***
.35***
-.02
.12
.11
-.12
.05
-.08
-.09
.34***
Women
Mean
1.00
0.19
38.04
1.56
1.93
3.16
11.21
4.98
4.58
1.81
SD
1.40
0.69
7.03
1.21
0.96
1.14
8.83
0.77
1.46
1.40
Men
Mean
1.11
0.23
37.96
1.46
2.27
3.07
10.47
4.98
4.34
1.76
SD
1.54
0.89
7.18
1.07
0.97
1.25
8.46
0.76
1.56
1.79
Note. †p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. N = 180 women and 175 men (from 181 families). Correlations for men are presented above the diagonal and for
women below the diagonal. Correlations between men and women are bolded, italicized, and on the diagonal.
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 21
Table 2. Multilevel models of relationship satisfaction and ambivalence predicted by sexting (sending
sexy messages vs. sending photos) and attachment avoidance and anxiety
Send sexy messages
Send nude or semi-nude
photos
Fixed effects
Model 1
Relationship
Satisfaction
Model 2
Relationship
Ambivalence
Model 3
Relationship
Satisfaction
Model 4
Relationship
Ambivalence
Intercept
37.61***
1.59***
37.56***
1.58***
Gender
0.65
-0.15
0.65
-0.15
Control Variables
Age
0.002
0.003
0.02
0.005
Family income
0.004
0.001
0.0005
0.001
Not Caucasian
0.40
0.28
0.58
0.29
Not college graduate
-0.36
0.05
-0.39
0.06
Multiple children
0.37
-0.09
0.43
-0.07
Marital status
-1.81
0.31
-1.47
0.25
Relationship length
-0.05
0.005
-0.05
0.004
Depressive symptoms
-0.03
0.02**
-0.03
0.02**
Coparenting quality
4.71***
-0.79***
4.98***
-0.77***
Texting frequency
0.14
0.0005
0.04
-0.002
Frequency of sex
0.22
0.05
0.25
0.06
Sexting, attachment avoidance and anxiety, and interactions with gender
Sexting
0.39
0.04
0.56
0.27*
Avoidance
-2.08***
0.18**
-2.15***
0.18**
Anxiety
0.20
-0.03
0.06
-0.02
Sexting X Gender
--
--
1.09
-0.22*
Avoidance X Gender
--
--
--
--
Anxiety X Gender
--
--
0.43
--
Sexting X Avoidance
0.31*
--
--
--
Sexting X Anxiety
--
--
1.46***
--
Sexting X Avoidance X Gender
--
--
--
--
Sexting X Anxiety X Gender
--
--
-1.43**
--
Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05. Gender is coded 0 = female and 1 = male; for interactions, the main effect is for
women, and the interaction is the value to add to the main effect in order to get the effect for men. Non-significant
interactions were trimmed and are marked with a "--". Control variables were coded as follows: Gender (1 = male, 0 =
female), Not Caucasian (0 = Caucasian, 1 = other race), Not college graduate (1 = college grad., 0 = less education than
college grad.), Multiple children (1 = multiple children, 0 = only one child in family), and marital status (1 = living together,
not married, 0 = married). Except for the above mentioned controls, all other variables were grand mean centered. Family
income was in $10,000 units.
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 22
Figure 1. Predicted values of relationship satisfaction at high and low (1 SD above and 1 SD
below mean) values of sending sexy messages, moderated by attachment avoidance. High
avoidance is 1 SD above mean (black line) and low anxiety is 1 SD below mean (gray dashed
line).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Low Sexting (sexy msg) High Sexting (sexy msg)
Low Avoidance
High Avoidance
SEXTING AMONG MARRIED COUPLES 23
Figure 2. Predicted values of relationship satisfaction at high and low (1 SD above and 1 SD
below mean) values of sending photos, moderated by attachment anxiety. High anxiety is 1 SD
above mean (black line) and low anxiety is 1 SD below mean (gray dashed line).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Low Sexting (photos) High Sexting (photos)
Men
Low Anxiety
High Anxiety
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Low Sexting (photos) High Sexting (photos)
Women
Low Anxiety
High Anxiety
