4.6 Article

Predicting type of sext message sent in adults 25 and older using motivations to sext and relational attachment

Journal

CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 1526-1533

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-020-00680-w

Keywords

Sexting; Relational attachment; Motivations to sext

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is limited research on sexting behaviors in adults aged 25 and older, with most studies focusing on young adults and adolescents. This study found that adult's relational anxiety and body image reinforcement were significant predictors of sending partially and/or nude images as sext messages. Surprisingly, gender was not a significant predictor for sexting behaviors.
There is a paucity of research analyzing sexting behaviors in adults aged 25 and older. The majority of research into sexting focuses on emerging adult populations and adolescents. While sexting has been studied in regard to relational attachment and motivations to sext, little is known about how these constructs are associated with older adults' sexting behaviors and how they relate to the type of sext message sent. To that end, the current study sought to predict the type of sext message (image or text only) sent based on relational attachment and sexting motivations. A significant logistic regression model was found (chi 2(6) = 51.97,p < .001), with relational anxiety and body image reinforcement being significant predictors of adults sending a partially and/or nude image in a sext message. Interestingly, gender was not a significant predictor. Gender not being a significant predictor differs from research into emerging adult relational attachment styles and sexting behaviors. Individuals who sexted for body image reinforcement were more likely to send an image as a sext message. Those who were higher on relational anxiety were less likely to send an image as a sext message.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available