The Journal of Sex Research

ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Relational Anxiety and Sexting

Robert S. Weisskirch, Michelle Drouin & Rakel Delevi

To cite this article: Robert S. Weisskirch, Michelle Drouin & Rakel Delevi (2017) Relational Anxiety
and Sexting, The Journal of Sex Research, 54:6, 685-693, DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1181147

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1181147

Published online: 31 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1461

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 54(6), 685–693, 2017
Copyright © The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
ISSN: 0022-4499 print/1559-8519 online
DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1181147

Relational Anxiety and Sexting

Robert S. Weisskirch
Liberal Studies Department, California State University, Monterey Bay

Michelle Drouin
Department of Psychology, Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne

Rakel Delevi
Department of Child and Family Studies, California State University, Los Angeles

Individuals in pursuit of, or currently in, a romantic relationship typically communicate via
technology, extending to sexting with one another. Sexting is commonly understood as the
sending and receiving of sexually suggestive or sexually explicit photos, video, or text via cell
phone or other technologies. The characteristics that fuel whether one engages in sexting are not
well understood. In this study, 459 unmarried, heterosexual undergraduate students
(female = 328; male = 131), aged 18 to 25 years, from three universities completed an online
questionnaire about their behaviors with technology and romantic relationships. In general, low
attachment avoidance and high fear of negative evaluation from the dating partner predicted
sending a sexually suggestive photo or video, sending a photo or video in one’s underwear or
lingerie, and sending a sexually suggestive text. High fear of negative evaluation predicted
sending a nude photo or video as well as sending a text message propositioning sex. Low
attachment avoidance, greater fear of negative evaluation, and greater social distress when
dating were associated with sexting behaviors.

INTRODUCTION sexting may be a response to the perceived desires of the

In today’s romantic relationships, communication via digi-
tal technology has become integral. One emerging behavioral
pattern involving this technology is sexting. In common
terms, sexting is defined as the sending and receiving of
sexually suggestive or sexually explicit photographs, videos,
or texts, primarily through cellular phones but also through
other electronic means (Lenhart, 2009; National Campaign to
Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2008). Research on
sexting has indicated that individuals engage in sexting to
solicit a potential romantic partner (Lippman & Campbell,
2014), to interact with an extrarelational partner (Drouin,
Vogel, Surbey, & Stills, 2013; Wysocki & Childers, 2011),
to seek or interact with a short-term romantic partner (e.g., to
“hook up”; Dir, Cyders, & Coskunpinar, 2013; Drouin et al.,
2013; Perkins, Becker, Tehee, & Mackelprang, 2014), as well
as to escalate the sexual intimacy of their relationship (Drouin
& Tobin, 2014). For some, sexting may be in pursuit of a
particular relational outcome (e.g., sexual activity); for others,
Correspondence should be addressed to Robert S. Weisskirch, California
State University, Monterey Bay, Liberal Studies Department, 100 Campus
Center, Playa Hall, Seaside, CA 93955. E-mail: rweisskirch@csumb.edu
potential or current romantic partner. Given research support
that sexting has a strong association with having more sexual
partners, having unprotected sex, consuming alcohol and/or
drugs prior to sex, and greater likelihood of being diagnosed
with a sexually transmitted disease (STD), there may be risks
associated with sexting (Benotsch, Snipes, Martin, & Bull,
2013; Dake, Price, Maziarz, & Ward, 2012; Klettke, Hallford,
& Mellor, 2014). In addition, there may be internal emotional
processes that fuel one’s decision to engage in sexting.
Understanding what may motivate individuals to engage in
sexting may help provide support for prevention, interven-
tion, and relationship education.
RELATIONAL ANXIETY
Emerging adults (roughly ages 18 to 25; see Arnett,
2000), given their relative inexperience with romantic rela-
tionships, may feel anxiety about romantic relationships.
Some researchers have proposed that anxiety about roman-
tic relationships is a component of social anxiety (Chorney
& Morris, 2008). Porter and Chambless (2014) found that,
among heterosexual college undergraduates in romantic
relationships, greater social anxiety was associated with
 WEISSKIRCH, DROUIN, AND DELEVI
less relationship satisfaction and less intimacy. Thus, anxi-
ety about relationships may be detrimental to the successful
establishment and long-term maintenance of romantic
relationships.
Moreover, relational anxiety—defined as anxiety one feels
about romantic relationships—may include anxiety about
dating, fear of being single, and anxious attachment. Dating
anxiety may be understood as anxiety in dating situations
about one’s dating partner (i.e., fear of negative evaluation)
and social distress about dating, focused on individuals or
group social situations (Glickman & La Greca, 2004). There
is some evidence that dating anxiety may lead to risk-taking
behaviors. For example, several studies have shown that
dating anxiety prompted greater alcohol use among adoles-
cents as a means of coping with social interactions
(Blumenthal, Leen-Feldner, Frala, Badour, & Ham, 2010;
Boyle & O’Sullivan, 2013). Similarly, dating anxiety has
been associated with problematic Internet use (Odaci &
Kalkan, 2010). At present, there are no known empirical
studies that have examined the direct links between dating
anxiety and sexual risk taking. However, research has shown
that some young adults engage in sexting when they do not
want to because they are coerced (usually through repeated
asking) by a romantic partner (Drouin, Ross, & Tobin, 2015).
Others engage in unwanted sexting to please a dating partner
or avoid an argument (Drouin & Tobin, 2014). Pressures to
engage in sexting, then, could be external (e.g., explicit
coercion from a romantic partner) or internal (e.g., self-
devised means to keep a potential or current dating partner
interested). Thus, those individuals who are concerned about
how they are perceived by others, and especially dating
partners, might be predisposed to engage in sexting as a
means to manage the relationship.
For some individuals, anxiety about being without a
romantic partner—that is, being single—may also shape
their interactions with potential or current romantic partners.
They may fear losing or not having a romantic partner and
engage in behaviors that focus on having or maintaining a
romantic relationship rather than behaviors that enhance
relationship quality (Spielmann et al., 2013). Spielmann
et al. (2013) further asserted that those who fear being single
may pursue romantic relationships (i.e., initiating or main-
taining) at a significant personal, emotional cost. In addi-
tion, they found that those who feared being single were
more likely to pursue partners who were less attractive and
unresponsive to overtures. More recently, Spielmann,
MacDonald, Joel, and Impett (2015) found that those with
greater fears of being single have a more difficult time with
romantic detachment after a breakup. Combined, these stu-
dies show that fear of being single may be a significant
motivator of behaviors aimed at sustaining romantic rela-
tionships. When applied to sexting, it is likely that those
who fear being single would be more likely to engage in
sexting as a means to attract and/or to maintain a partner’s
interest. In addition, given their fear of being single, they
may also be willing to engage in sexting with lower levels
of relationship commitment.
686
Adult romantic attachment theory offers a theoretical
framework that may apply to relational anxiety and sexting.
Adult romantic attachment theory posits that the pattern of
interaction one has as an infant with caregivers shapes one’s
notion and expectations of relationships in the future (Hazan
& Shaver, 1987). Individuals develop “internal working
models” of the pattern of relating established as infants,
which serves as a template for future relationships. As
adults, this attachment pattern of interaction is imposed on
the romantic relationship, shaping how individuals relate to
one another. Generally, in adult romantic relationships, pat-
terns are comprised of two dimensions: attachment anxiety
and attachment avoidance, with the most secure attachment
relationships having low anxiety and low avoidance.
Anxious attachment has been linked to engaging in sex to
reduce feelings of insecurity about a relationship (Davis,
Shaver, & Vernon, 2004), deference to a romantic partner’s
needs and lack of sexual satisfaction (Davis et al., 2006),
poorer relationship communication and sexual satisfaction
(Khoury & Findlay, 2014), ambivalence toward the romantic
partner (Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Ein-Dor, 2010), and
hyperactivated distress responses to perceived cues of lack of
commitment by a romantic partner (Campbell & Marshall,
2011). Because of their insecure attachment, anxiously
attached individuals may choose relational strategies and beha-
viors that are detrimental to healthy, long-term romantic rela-
tionships, if that is their goal.
In terms of sexting, Weisskirch and Delevi (2011) found
that attachment anxiety was associated with expectations to
engage in sexting to please the romantic partner. Moreover,
they found that, for those in romantic relationships, attach-
ment anxiety was associated with sending a text message
propositioning sexual activity. Meanwhile, Drouin and
Landgraff (2012) found that anxious attachment was asso-
ciated with sending sexual pictures and sexual texts and that
both anxious and avoidant attachment predicted sending
sexual text messages. These researchers posited that sexting
may allow those with more insecure attachment patterns to
feel reassured of the partner’s romantic interests or to keep
the partner interested (i.e., in the case of attachment anxiety)
but at a distance from more intimate, face-to-face interaction
(i.e., in the case of attachment avoidance). These patterns of
high levels of anxious attachment may be a manifestation of
overconcern about one’s romantic relationship or a reflec-
tion of one’s standing in a romantic relationship and may
underlie choices to engage in sexting.
PRESSURE TO SEXT
Youth have indicated that it is sometimes the social pressure
they feel from significant others and peers that prompts them to
engage in sexting (Walrave, Heirman, & Hallam, 2014).
Perkins et al. (2014) found that senders and receivers of nude
and seminude sexts were requested to engage in sexting. More
recently, Drouin et al. (2015) found that many undergraduates
(approximately one-fifth of their sample) had been coerced
 RELATIONAL ANXIETY AND SEXTING
into sexting via a range of coercive tactics. In their sample,
men reported that their partners withheld resources, or threa-
tened to do so, to coerce them into sexting: whereas women
reported that their male partners coerced them into sexting by
threatening their relationship commitment (Drouin et al.,
2015). In addition, sexting coercion, but not the actual partici-
pation in unwanted but consensual sexting, was associated
with negative mental health symptoms. Therefore, a feeling
of pressure or obligation from the partner and from perceived
relational consequences may influence one’s participation in
sexting. However, explicit coercion or requests from others are
not the only pressures that may lead to sexting. Sexting might
also be motivated by internal pressures or psychological fac-
tors that increase risk-taking behaviors. For example, Dir et al.
(2013) found that negative urgency—the tendency to act
rashly in response to negative emotions in relationship—was
associated with both problematic alcohol use and sexting
behaviors. Meanwhile, Delevi and Weisskirch (2013) found
that low levels of agreeableness and high levels of neuroticism,
similar to anxiety, predicted sending sexually suggestive pic-
tures or video, sending a picture in underwear or lingerie, and
sending a nude or nearly nude picture.
Pressures to engage in sexting might also be dependent on
relationship type and/or duration. Past research has shown
consistently that sexting is more likely to occur within estab-
lished romantic relationships (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013;
Drouin & Tobin, 2014; Perkins et al., 2014; Weisskirch &
Delevi, 2011). However, individuals in short-term relation-
ships (i.e., hookups) also engage in sexting, perhaps to meet
their immediate relationship goals (Dir et al., 2013; Drouin
et al., 2013; Perkins et al., 2014). Accordingly, Delevi and
Weisskirch (2013) found there is great variability in level of
relationship commitment desired for individuals to engage in
sexting. Individuals who are single and men reported less
relationship commitment required to engage in sexting than
individuals in relationships and women, respectively.
Moreover, individuals who do not seek a short-term sexual
relationship but who find themselves in romantic relation-
ships that are not well established may feel relational anxiety,
which may prompt them to engage in sexting.
From an attachment perspective, individuals with anxious
attachment patterns also demonstrate a negative model of self
(Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). With a negative model of
self, they may feel as though they need reassurance from their
romantic partner of their worth and, specifically, in the rela-
tionship. As such, they may engage in behaviors early in a
relationship, like sexting, that provide reminders of their
value through responses from their partners. Given the
research on relational anxiety, it is likely that individuals
with high levels of relational anxiety may engage in sexting
with less relationship commitment from romantic partners.
THE PRESENT STUDY
In the literature on sexting, a relational anxiety theme
emerges across studies about individuals’ motivation to
engage in sexting. The present study attempted to investi-
gate how relational anxiety relates to sexting behaviors.
Specifically, we hypothesized that greater relational anxiety
(i.e., fear of being single, dating anxiety, and attachment
anxiety) would predict engagement in sexting behaviors
(hypothesis 1). Second, we hypothesized that greater rela-
tional anxiety (i.e., fear of being single, dating anxiety, and
attachment anxiety) would predict less commitment needed
in a romantic relationship to engage in sexting
(hypothesis 2).
METHOD
Procedure
We solicited undergraduate students to complete an
online questionnaire through their enrollment in human
development, child development and family studies, and
introductory psychology classes at three comprehensive,
public, U.S. universities (one large university in the
West, one medium-sized in the Midwest, and one small
in the West) during fall semester 2014. Some students
completed the questionnaire for research participation
credit; other students completed the questionnaire and
recruited another student to participate for extra credit.
The questionnaire took about 30 to 45 minutes to com-
plete. Institutional review boards (IRBs) at the respective
universities approved this protocol.
Sample
The sample included 459 unmarried, heterosexual
undergraduate students (female = 328, male = 131) who
were aged 18 to 25 years (M = 20.02 years, SD = 1.75).
Participants who were married (N = 40), nonheterosexual
(N = 29), and over age 25 (N = 54) were excluded from
this study. (Note that these three categories were not
mutually exclusive.) Married individuals may have a
greater degree of relationship commitment, may have less
anxiety about their relationships, and may use sexting
differently (Klettke et al., 2014) than nonmarried indivi-
duals do. There were too few nonheterosexuals for mean-
ingfully generalizable analyses, and gay, lesbian, and
bisexual (GLB) samples have demonstrated greater overall
acceptability of sexting (Hertlein, Shadid, & Steelman,
2015). Given the focus on emerging adults, those indivi-
duals older than 25 were excluded. The ethnic composition
was 59% White, 24% Latino, 6% Asian American, 5%
African American, and 6% mixed ethnicity/other. The eth-
nic composition of the sample is reflective of the ethnic
distribution across the three universities participating in the
study. In addition, 50% of the sample participants indicated
being single, 18% indicated being in a romantic relation-
ship of less than one year, and 32% were in a relationship
of more than one year.
687
 WEISSKIRCH, DROUIN, AND DELEVI

Measures (seven items), and social distress—group (four items). The

fear of negative evaluation subscale assesses the degree or
Demographics. Participants indicated their gender,
concern one may have over being judged by a date or
age, ethnicity, sexual identity, relationship status, and
member of the opposite sex (e.g., “I am afraid that the
duration of relationship.
person I am dating will find fault with me”). The social
distress—date subscale measures feelings of inhibition and
Sexting Measure. We used Weisskirch and Delevi’s
distress while interacting with a potential dating partner
(2011) frequency of sexting measure. Respondents rated five
(e.g., “I often feel nervous when talking to an attractive
items (using a scale of 1 = Never to 5 = Frequently) on how
member of the opposite sex”). The social distress—group
often they sent sexually suggestive photos or videos of
subscale includes items that assess feelings of distress in
themselves, photos or videos of themselves in underwear or
group situations (e.g., “It takes me a long time to feel
lingerie, a nude photo or video, a sexually suggestive text, or a
comfortable when I am in a group of both males and
text propositioning sexual activity via their cell phones. Because
females”). Participants used the following scale to evaluate
a large number of participants indicated never having engaged
each statement: 1 = Not at all like me to 5 = Extremely like
in these behaviors, the items were dichotomized to indicate
me. Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales, respectively, are
those who participated in the sexting behavior and those who
.94, .92, and .90.
did not (see Table 1 for details).
Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance. We used the
Sexting and Relationship Commitment. We used
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale–Short Form (Wei,
Delevi and Weisskirch’s (2013) measure of level of
Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007). Respondents rated 12
relationship commitment to engage in sexting behaviors.
items about attachment anxiety and avoidance in romantic
Participants rated the level of commitment required to
relationships, using a scale of 1 = Strongly agree to
engage in sexting using the response options that follow:
7 = Strongly agree. Six items compose the anxiety subscale
1 = I would never do this; 2 = Someone I recently met but
(e.g., “My desire to be very close sometimes scares people
want to know better; 3 = Someone I’ve known for
away”), and six items compose the avoidance subscale (e.g.,
24–72 hours; 4 = Someone I am dating regularly; and
“I try to avoid getting too close to my partner”). Using anxiety
5 = Someone with whom I am in a committed relationship.
and avoidance subscales allows for accurate dimensional
The items included the following sexting behaviors: sending
representation of attachment patterns rather than older
a sexually suggestive photo or video of themselves; sending
methods of categorization (Fraley & Waller, 1998).
a photo or video of themselves in underwear or lingerie;
Cronbach’s alphas for the two subscales were .71 for the
sending a nude photo or video; sending a sexually
anxiety subscale and .77 for the avoidance subscale.
suggestive text; and sending a text propositioning sexual
activity via their cell phones.
Analysis
Fear of Being Single Scale. Participants rated six
We conducted a missing value analysis on SPSS and found
items, using the scale of 1 = Not at all true to 5 = Very
that less than 3% of the data for any value was randomly
true, on their fear of being single, and not in a romantic
missing. We used estimation maximization to compensate for
relationship (Spielmann et al., 2013). An example of an item
missing data. We conducted analyses of variance (ANOVAs),
is “It scares me to think that there might not be anyone out
cross-tabs, and Pearson product correlations to explore demo-
there for me.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .86.
graphic differences among the measures, using SPSS, Version
23. To determine which aspects of relational anxiety predicted
Dating Anxiety. We used Glickman and La Greca’s
sexting (hypothesis 1), we conducted five separate logistic
21-item Dating Anxiety Scale (2004) to measure
regressions with participation in each of the sexting behaviors
participants’ anxiety about dating and romantic
as the outcome variable, respectively. To assess the associa-
relationships. The measure includes three subscales: fear
tion between the relational anxiety measures and the level of
of negative evaluation (10 items), social distress—date
relationship commitment needed to engage in sexting beha-
viors (hypothesis 2), we conducted zero-order correlations,
controlling for relationship status.
Table 1. Percentage of Participants Engaging in Sexting
Behaviors
RESULTS
Have you sent a … Yes (%) No (%)

Sexually suggestive photo or video? 55 45 First, we explored demographic differences among the
Photo or video in underwear or lingerie? 54 46 variables to identify any statistically significant associations.
Nude photo or video? 39 61
There were no statistically significant differences by gender
Sexually suggestive text? 80 20
Text propositioning sexual activity? 62 38 for any of the measures, except that females (M = 2.93,
SD = .90) scored higher than males (M = 2.64, SD = .89) on

688
 RELATIONAL ANXIETY AND SEXTING

the social distress—date subscale of the Dating Anxiety
Scale, F (1, 454) = 10.08, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .32.
To investigate whether there were differences between
those who engaged in sexting and those who did not, we
dichotomized the frequency of sexting items to create items
that indicate any participation or abstention from the beha-
vior (see Table 1). There were no gender differences for
having participated in any type of sexting, except for send-
ing a text message propositioning sex. Males were more
likely to have sent a text message propositioning sex than
were females, χ2 (1) = 7.91, p < .01, r = .13.
There was a statistically significant association between age
and score on the Fear of Being Single Scale, r (452) = −.09,
p < .05, and attachment avoidance, r (459) = −.09, p < .05. The
older the participants were, the less they demonstrated fear of
being single and attachment avoidance. There were no differ-
ences by age on engaging in sexting behaviors. There was one
ethnic difference on attachment anxiety, with Asian Americans
having the highest mean, M = 4.37, SD = 1.09, and White
Americans having the lowest, M = 3.81, SD = 1.21, F (4,
448) = 2.79, p < . 05, partial η2 = .025. There were no ethnic
differences in engaging in sexting behaviors.
There were statistically significant differences by relation-
ship status on several of the key variables. Those participants
who were single had statistically significant higher means on
attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, Fear of Being
Single, the fear of negative evaluation subscale, and the social
distress—date subscale than those in relationships of one year
or less and those in relationships of more than one year. (See
Table 2 for details.) In addition, there were statistically sig-
nificant differences in participation in types of sexting by
relationship status. Those in relationships of any duration
were more likely to have sent a sexually suggestive photo or
video, χ2 (2) = 7.65, p < .05; to have sent a picture or video in
underwear or lingerie, χ2 (2) = 11.21, p < .01; to have sent a
nude photo or video of themselves, χ2 (2) = 12.70, p < .01; and
to have sent a sexually suggestive text message, χ2 (2) = 7.29,
p < .05 than single individuals were. There were no statistically
significant differences by relationship status and duration for
sending a text message propositioning sex.
To determine if the various aspects of relational anxiety
predicted sexting behavior (hypothesis 1), we conducted a
series of logistic regression analyses. Attachment anxiety,
attachment avoidance, the dating anxiety subscales, and the
Fear of Being Single Scale were the predictor variables, and
participation or abstention in each of the sexting behaviors
the outcome variables. The combination of being low on
attachment avoidance, low on Fear of Being Single Scale,
and high on fear of negative evaluation predicted engaging
in sending a sexually suggestive photo or video. Similarly, a
low score on attachment anxiety and a high score on fear of
negative evaluation predicted sending a photo in one’s
underwear or lingerie and sending a sexually suggestive
text. Fear of negative evaluation predicted sending a nude
photo or video and sending a text propositioning sex.
Findings indicate that some aspects of relational anxiety
are predictive of engaging in sexting behaviors. Most nota-
bly, the inclusion of high scores on fear of negative evalua-
tion in the equations predicting all of the sexting behaviors
is a unique finding. (See Table 3 for details.)
To determine if relational anxiety was associated with
sexting behaviors and the amount of relationship commit-
ment needed to engage in sexting, we conducted zero-order
correlations, controlling for relationship status, given the
demographic differences of relationship status with several
of measures. Lower attachment avoidance, high fear of
negative evaluation, and high social distress—dating were
all significantly statistically associated with high level of
commitment needed to send a sexually suggestive photo
or video, sending a photo or video in underwear or lingerie,
sending a sexually suggestive text, and sending a text pro-
positioning sex. This finding means that, generally, more
commitment is needed to engage in these behaviors for
those low in avoidance, high in fear of negative evaluation,
and in social distress—dating, regardless of current relation-
ship status. Fear of negative evaluation was statistically
significantly associated with greater relationship commit-
ment for sending a nude photo or video. The findings
provide some specific support for hypothesis 2. (See
Table 4 for details.)

Table 2. Differences of Relationship Status and Duration by Variables of Interest

Single Less Than One Year More Than One Year

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) η2

Att-Anx 4.14 (1.00) 3.89 (1.21) 3.50 (1.07) F (2, 448) = 15.94*** .07
Att-Avoid 3.48 (.79) 2.47 (.96) 2.41 (1.05) F (2, 448) = 72.83*** .25
FOBSS 2.98 (1.05) 2.25 (1.03) 1.98 (.96) F (2, 451) = 47.06*** .17
DAS-FNE 3.18 (.88) 2.81 (.94) 2.63 (.94) F (2, 454) = 17.25*** .07
DAS-SDD 2.95 (.90) 2.78 (.93) 2.73 (.91) F (2, 454) = 2.96* .01
DAS-SDG 2.36 (1.02) 2.30 (.94) 2.30 (.98) F (2, 454) = .20 .00

Note. Att-Anx = attachment anxiety; Att-Avoid = attachment avoidance; FOBSS = Fear of Being Single Scale; DAS-FNE = Dating Anxiety Scale, fear of
negative evaluation subscale; DAS-SDD = Dating Anxiety Scale, social distress dating subscale; DAS-SDG = Dating Anxiety Scale, social distress group
subscale.
***p < .001; *p < .05.

689
 WEISSKIRCH, DROUIN, AND DELEVI

Table 3. Coefficients of the Model Predicting Engagement in Sexting Behaviors

Sending a Sexually Sending a Photo or Video in Sending a Nude Sending a Sexually Sending a Text
Suggestive Photo or Video Underwear/Lingerie Photo or Video Suggestive Text Propositioning Sex
β (SE) β (SE) β (SE) β (SE) β (SE)

Att-Anx .15 (−.07, .38) .11 (−.12, .34) .13 (−.11, .37) .14 (−.11, .41) .02 (−.21, .24)
Att-Avoid −.22* (−.44, −.02) −.29** (−.47, −.12) −.15 (−.33, .03) −.37** (−.61, −.13) −.14 (−.36, .06)
FOBSS −.22* (−.46, −.02) −.06 (−.27, .14) −.19 (−.43, .03) −.22 (−.50, .03) −.18 (−.41, .02)
DAS-FNE .50** (.19, .88) .33* (.02, .66) .35* (.03, .77) .65** (.24, 1.12) .50* (.15, .91)
DAS-SDD −.14 (−.46, .16) −.03 (−.33, .28) −.16 (−.48, .13) −.24 (−.66, .15) −.19 (−.56, .12)
DAS-SDG −.16 (−.43, .11) −.21 (−.64, 1.28) −.02 (.28, .24) −.21 (−.51, .10) −.19 (−.45, .08)
R2 (Cox & Snell) .05 .04 .02 .06 .03
R2 (Nagelkerke) .06 .05 .03 .09 .05
Model χ2 (6) 20.98 17.55 9.89 25.27 15.04
p < .01 < .01 > .05 < .001 < .05

Note. Att-Anx = attachment anxiety; Att-Avoid = attachment avoidance; FOBSS = Fear of Being Single Scale; DAS-FNE = Dating Anxiety Scale, fear of
negative evaluation subscale; DAS-SDD = Dating Anxiety Scale, social distress dating subscale; DAS-SDG = Dating Anxiety Scale, social distress group
subscale.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 4. Correlations of Relational Anxiety Measures and Sexting and Relationship Commitment Items

Sending a Sexually Sending a Photo or Video in Sending a Nude Sending a Sexually Sending a Text
Suggestive Photo or Video Underwear/Lingerie Photo or Video Suggestive Text Propositioning Sex

Att-Anx .08 .10* .08 .05 .02

Att-Avoid −.13** −.16*** −.09 −.17*** −.14**
FOBSS −.01 .06 −.01 −.01 .03
DAS-FNE .11* .14** .11* .12** .18***
DAS-SDD .10* .12** .07 .12* .12**
DAS-SDG .03 .03 .07 .06 .10*

Note. Att-Anx = attachment anxiety; Att-Avoid = attachment avoidance; FOBSS = Fear of Being Single Scale; DAS-FNE = Dating Anxiety Scale, fear of
negative evaluation subscale; DAS-SDD = Dating Anxiety Scale, social distress dating subscale; DAS-SDG = Dating Anxiety Scale, social distress group
subscale. Response choices were 1 = I would never do this, 2 = Someone I recently met but want to know better, 3 = Someone I’ve known for 24–72 hours,
4 = Someone I am dating regularly, and 5 = Someone with whom I am in a committed relationship.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

DISCUSSION strong association between fear of negative evaluation—

Given the advancement of technology in recent years,
sexting is part of the communication repertoire of many
young adults in romantic relationships. However, sexting
may also come with unintended consequences (e.g., mes-
sages may be forwarded), particularly for those in less
committed relationships (Drouin et al., 2013). There also
may be few consequences to sexting, or it may lead to
sexual activity that one or both parties may desire. Despite
these disparate potential outcomes, little is understood of
what motivates individuals to engage in sexting. Some pre-
vious research has indicated that individuals feel pressure
from their romantic partners to engage in sexting (e.g.,
Drouin & Tobin, 2014; Walrave et al., 2014). This study
was designed to investigate how aspects of relational anxi-
ety may relate to sexting behaviors and relationship com-
mitment needed to engage in sexting.
In general, sexting behaviors were predicted by low
levels of attachment avoidance and high levels of fear of
negative evaluation, a component of dating anxiety. The
worry or concern of being judged by a member of the
opposite sex—and engagement in sexting demonstrates
how individuals may believe that romantic partners may
perceive them negatively if they do not participate in sext-
ing. This finding is consistent with previous research on
pressure to engage in sexting from the current or potential
romantic partner (Drouin & Tobin, 2014; Drouin, Tobin, &
Wygant, 2014); however, while the Drouin et al. studies
focused on actual coercion and unwanted sexting, our find-
ings suggest that perceived pressure (stemming from fear of
negative evaluation) may also influence sexting behavior.
That is, individuals’ worry about being judged by the rela-
tionship partner motivates them to engage in sexting.
However, this worry may not be strong enough that sexting
becomes wholly undesirable. Meanwhile, in terms of attach-
ment avoidance, we found that low levels of attachment
avoidance related to engagement in sexting, which was
contrary to both the hypothesis and past research (e.g.,
Drouin & Landgraff, 2012; Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011).
Low levels of avoidance are typically associated with

690
 RELATIONAL ANXIETY AND SEXTING
greater relationship security and greater attunement between
partners. The disparate findings between our study and past
research could be a result of a cultural shift. More specifi-
cally, it could be that sexting has become more acceptable or
that previous experience with sexting has resulted in few
personal consequences, making sexting seem less risky. Or
past experience with sexting might have yielded positive
relational outcomes (e.g., intimacy or desired sexual activ-
ity). There is also empirical work that suggests that low
attachment avoidance is beneficial for various types of com-
munication in relationships. For example, Izhaki-Costi and
Schul (2011) found that those individuals low in attachment
avoidance were better able to interpret others’ emotional
states. Meanwhile, Garrison, Kahn, Miller, and Sauer
(2014) found that low attachment avoidance was associated
with greater emotional disclosure and less emotional avoid-
ance for those in romantic relationships. In the case of
sexting, the combination of low attachment avoidance and
fear of negative evaluation may be the outcome of an
individual being particularly attuned to the partner’s desire
and interests, wanting to please the partner, and avoiding
disappointing the partner.
Similarly, low avoidant attachment, high fear of negative
evaluation, and high social distress around dating, generally,
were associated with greater relationship commitment to
engage in sexting, when controlling for current relationship
status (i.e., single, in a relationship of less than one year, or
in a relationship of more than one year). These findings may
indicate that individuals believe that sexting, once a stable
level of relationship commitment is established, is part of a
modern, supportive romantic relationship. The fear of nega-
tive evaluation and social distress around dating stem from
the individual’s perception of interactions with the indivi-
dual dating partner and, given the low attachment avoidance
in the findings, may indicate that individuals feel comforta-
ble to engage in sexting, with more commitment from the
partner and in response to the partner’s actual desires or
perceived desires. Given that past research has indicated that
sexting often occurs within established relationships (Delevi
& Weisskirch, 2013; Drouin & Tobin, 2014; Perkins et al.,
2014; Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011), it could be these findings
indicate that individuals feel a sense of security in respond-
ing to the perceived partner’s receptivity to sexting.
Limitations
The findings in this study should be interpreted in light
of several limitations. First, the study design was cross-
sectional which limits explanations of causality or direc-
tionality. Longitudinal studies of sexting would help
address the directionality issue. Second, the measures of
sexting focused on sending sexts. There could be some
differences between those who send sexts and those who
respond to others’ sexts that have been received. Third,
the sample was skewed toward women (73%). It could be
that, although there were few gender differences, women’s
motivations to engage in sexting differ from men’s moti-
vations. Fourth, the overall variance predicted for the
sexting behaviors was relatively small, which may limit
the generalizability of the results. Fifth, the sample is a
convenience sample from three universities, which,
although ethnically diverse, may limit the generalizability
of the results. In addition, as a college-attending sample,
the findings should be cautiously applied to non-college-
attending samples, adolescents, or older individuals. Sixth,
although there were no ethnic differences in the sexting
behaviors, there could be unique aspects of sexting perti-
nent to a specific ethnic group, which have not been
addressed in this study. Finally, the analyses included
only heterosexual participants, which limits how the find-
ings might apply to nonheterosexual groups.
Conclusion
In modern-day romantic relationships, communication via
technology is nearly ubiquitous, and research has shown that
sexting is a common component of this technological com-
munication, particularly among young adult romantic partners
(for review, see Klettke et al., 2014). Our findings suggest that
sexting may emerge more often when one is more secure
within the relationship and concerned with how the relation-
ship partner evaluates the sexter. In fact, in a clinical setting,
Parker, Blackburn, Perry, and Hawks (2013) found that rela-
tionship satisfaction within couples was positively related to
amount of sexting. Further, in this study, greater commitment
in a sexting relationship was associated with low attachment
avoidance and greater fear of negative evaluation and greater
social distress with a dating partner. This finding may indicate
that sexting may be focused more on meeting the partner’s
desires and ensuring that one continues to be seen in a positive
light by the romantic partner.
Sexting among emerging adults may not be perceived to
be as risky as it has been in the past. Perkins et al. (2014)
found there was little association between sexting and sex-
ual aggression, coercion, threats, or retribution. Positive
attitudes toward sexting have been found among those indi-
viduals who were single and dating and in relationships, as
opposed to those who were single with no commitments
(Samimi & Alderson, 2014). Now, as supported in this
study, sexting may emerge in romantic relationships when
one individual feels comfortable in the romantic relation-
ship, perceives the partner as desiring or receptive to sext-
ing, and feels a degree of commitment.
For relationship educators and therapists, the findings
from this study indicate that it may be useful to query clients
and participants about their digital technology communica-
tion and, specifically, sexting. For those not in romantic
relationships, discussion of the function of sexting in a
691
 WEISSKIRCH, DROUIN, AND DELEVI
relationship and timing of engaging in sexting in pursuit of
a relationship may be instructional. For those in relation-
ships, discussion of sexting and the needed relationship
commitment to engage in sexting may be incorporated into
techniques for teaching relationship skills.
ORCID
Robert S. Weisskirch http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2629-
6711
References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the
late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
Benotsch, E. G., Snipes, D. J., Martin, A. M., & Bull, S. S. (2013). Sexting,
substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 52, 307–313. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.011
Blumenthal, H., Leen-Feldner, E. W., Frala, J. L., Badour, C. L., & Ham, L. S.
(2010). Social anxiety and motives for alcohol use among adolescents.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 529–534. doi:10.1037/a0019794
Boyle, A. M., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2013). The influence of dating anxiety
on normative experiences of dating, sexual interactions, and alcohol
consumption among Canadian middle adolescents. Journal of Youth
Studies, 16, 222–236. doi:10.1080/13676261.2012.704987
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measure-
ment of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A.
Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relation-
ships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Campbell, L., & Marshall, T. (2011). Anxious attachment and relationship
processes: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Personality, 79,
1219–1250. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00723.x
Chorney, D. B., & Morris, T. L. (2008). The changing face of dating
anxiety: Issues with assessment with special populations. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 15, 224–238. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2850.2008.00132.x
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, 1–15. doi:10.1080/15546128.2012.650959
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2004). Attachment style and
subjective motivations for sex. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30, 1076–1090. doi:10.1177/0146167204264794
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., Widaman, K. F., Vernon, M. L., Follette, W. C., &
Beitz, K. (2006). “I can’t get no satisfaction”: Insecure attachment,
inhibited sexual communication, and sexual dissatisfaction. Personal
Relationships, 13, 465–483. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00130.x
Delevi, R., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2013). Personality factors as predictors of
sexting. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2589–2594. doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2013.06.003
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, 444–449. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.015
Drouin, M., Ross, J., & Tobin, E. (2015). Sexting: A new digital vehicle for
intimate partner aggression? Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 197–
204. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.001
Drouin, M., & Tobin, E. (2014). Unwanted but consensual sexting among young
adults: Relations with attachment and sexual motivations. Computers in
Human Behavior, 31, 412–418. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.001
692
Drouin, M., Tobin, E., & Wygant, K. (2014). “Love the way you lie”:
Sexting deception in romantic relationships. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 542–547. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.047
Drouin, M., Vogel, K. N., Surbey, A., & Stills, J. R. (2013). Let’s talk about
sexting, baby: Computer-mediated sexual behaviors among young
adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, A25–A30. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2012.12.030
Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of
the typological model. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Garrison, A. M., Kahn, J. H., Miller, S. A., & Sauer, E. M. (2014).
Emotional avoidance and rumination as mediators of the relation
between adult attachment and emotional disclosure. Personality and
Individual Differences, 70, 239–245. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.006
Glickman, A. R., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). The Dating Anxiety Scale for
adolescents: Scale development and associations with adolescent func-
tioning. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33,
566–578. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3303_14
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 511–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Hertlein, K. M., Shadid, C., & Steelman, S. M. (2015). Exploring percep-
tions of acceptability of sexting in same-sex, bisexual, heterosexual
relationships, and communities. Journal of Couple and Relationship
Therapy, 14, 342–357. doi:10.1080/15332691.2014.960547
Izhaki-Costi, O., & Schul, Y. (2011). I do not know you and I am keeping it
that way: Attachment avoidance and empathic accuracy in the percep-
tion of strangers. Personal Relationships, 18, 321–340. doi:10.1111/
j.1475-6811.2010.01292.x
Khoury, C. B., & Findlay, B. M. (2014). What makes for good sex? The
associations among attachment style, inhibited communication, and
sexual satisfaction. Journal of Relationships Research, 5, e7.
doi:10.1017/jrr.2014.7
Klettke, B., Hallford, D. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2014). Sexting prevalence and
correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review,
34, 44–53. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.10.007
Lenhart, A. (2009, December 15). Teens and sexting: How and why minor
teens are sending sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images via
text messaging. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Teens-and-Sexting.aspx
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, 371–386. doi:10.1080/17482798.2014.923009
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Bar-On, N., & Ein-Dor, T. (2010). The
pushes and pulls of close relationships: Attachment insecurities and
relational ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98, 450–468. doi:10.1037/a0017366
Odaci, H., & Kalkan, M. (2010). Problematic Internet use, loneliness, and
dating anxiety among young adult university students. Computers and
Education, 55, 1091–1097. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.006
Parker, T. S., Blackburn, K. M., Perry, M. S., & Hawks, J. M. (2013).
Sexting as an intervention: Relationship satisfaction and motivation
considerations. American Journal of Family Therapy, 41, 1–12.
doi:10.1080/01926187.2011.635134
Perkins, A. B., Becker, J. V., Tehee, M., & Mackelprang, E. (2014). Sexting
behaviors among college students: Cause for concern? International
Journal of Sexual Health, 26, 79–92. doi:10.1080/19317611.2013.841792
Porter, E., & Chambless, D. L. (2014). Shying away from a good thing:
Social anxiety in romantic relationships. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 70, 546–561. doi:10.1002/jclp.22048
Samimi, P., & Alderson, K. G. (2014). Sexting among undergraduate
students. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 230–241. doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2013.10.027
Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Joel, S., & Impett, E. A. (2015). Longing
for ex‐partners out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/jopy.12222
 RELATIONAL ANXIETY AND SEXTING
Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Maxwell, J. A., Joel, S., Peragine, D.,
Muise, A., & Impett, E. A. (2013). Settling for less out of fear of being
single. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1049–
1073. doi:10.1037/a0034628
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. (2008).
Sex and tech: Results from a survey of teens and young adults.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://thenationalcampaign.
org/resource/sex-and-tech
Walrave, M., Heirman, W., & Hallam, L. (2014). Under pressure to sext?
Applying the theory of planned behaviour to adolescent sexting.
Behaviour and Information Technology, 33, 86–98. doi:10.1080/
0144929X.2013.837099
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The
Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)–Short Form:
Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 88, 187–204. doi:10.1080/00223890701268041
Weisskirch, R. S., & Delevi, R. (2011). “Sexting” and adult romantic attach-
ment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1697–1701. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2011.02.008
Wysocki, D. K., & Childers, C. D. (2011). “Let my fingers do the talking”:
Sexting and infidelity in cyberspace. Sexuality and Culture: An
Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 15, 217–239. doi:10.1007/s12119-011-
9091-4
693