CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Volume 00, Number 00, 2019

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2018.0291

Sexting and Psychological Distress:

The Role of Unwanted and Coerced Sexts

Bianca Klettke, PhD, David J. Hallford, DPsych, Elizabeth Clancy, MPsych,

David J. Mellor, PhD, and John W. Toumbourou, PhD
Downloaded by SENCKENBERG/ZEITSCHRIFTEN from www.liebertpub.com at 03/16/19. For personal use only.

Abstract

Sexting (e.g., conveying nude electronic images) is now common among young adults. Despite leading to
negative consequences for some (e.g., harassment and unwanted dissemination), findings regarding sexting be-
haviors and mental health variables have been mixed. We recruited a convenience sample of young adults
(N = 444, M age = 20, SD = 1) to test the hypothesis that sexting might be associated with poorer mental health.
Our results showed no association between receiving or sending sexts overall. However, receiving unwanted sexts,
or sexting under coercion, was associated with higher depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms, and lower self-
esteem, and these two sexting experiences were independent predictors of psychological distress. The relationship
between these sexting behaviors with poor mental health was moderated by gender, with poorer outcomes for
males receiving unwanted sexts. These findings indicate a possible moderating factor in sexting and mental health.

Keywords: sexting, sexting coercion, unwanted but consensual, DASS, self-esteem, sexual violence

Introduction such as in the case of harassment. Several studies have found

‘‘
Sexting’’ is becoming one of the most common forms of
online sexual interactions1 and can be defined as the
sending, receiving, or forwarding of sexually explicit messages,
images, or photos to others through electronic means. A recent
systematic literature review2 indicated that sexting behavior is
highly prevalent in, predominantly, young adults (48.56 percent
for sending and 56.01 percent for receiving image-based sexts),
and more so than in adolescents (11.96 percent for sending and
11.85 percent for receiving image-based sexts).
These sexting behaviors might be regarded as a risk-taking
behavior in some contexts, given the possibility of adverse
outcomes when they involve bullying, nonconsensual dis-
semination, or take the form of violence against women.3
Given this, researchers have examined the link between
sexting behavior and a range of mental health variables;
however, findings have been largely mixed. In this article we
focus on four of these variables, namely depression, anxiety,
and stress symptoms, and self-esteem.
Depressive symptoms may be a risk factor associated with
sexting. Individuals reporting elevated depressive symptoms
may have an increased need to elicit validation or support
from others, and may feel compelled to send sexts or ac-
quiesce to the requests of others due to feelings of power-
lessness and low self-esteem. Depressive symptoms may
also be a consequence of negative outcomes from sexting,
a relationship between depression and sexting.4–7 However,
other studies reported no such association.8–10
Another mental health variable associated with sexting
behaviors is anxiety. Individuals with high anxiety may en-
gage in sexting as they anticipate that it will improve current
or potential relationships,11 or do so to avoid conflict.5 In-
dividuals may also feel anxious about receiving sexts, for
example, due to pressure to reciprocate, or concerns about
negative outcomes such as unwanted dissemination if they
reciprocate. Similar to the results observed with depression,
findings on anxiety symptoms have been equivocal, with
some studies reporting significant correlations,9,11,12 while
other studies have not.8,10
It might also be possible that stress is a factor associated
with sexting, given that higher stress levels are associated
with greater sexual risk-taking behaviors in general.13 Al-
though one study has linked economic stress with sexting
behaviors in adolescents,6 the role of stress in sexting be-
haviors is otherwise unknown.
Relatedly, of the few studies that have investigated self-
esteem and sexting, one study examining adolescents found
that low self-esteem was related to a high prevalence of
sexting,14 while another study found similar results among
adults.15 However, other studies based on young adult par-
ticipants8,16 have found no significant associations between
sexting and one’s general appraisal of their self-worth.

School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

1
 2 KLETTKE ET AL.
One potential explanation for the discrepancies in findings
on sexting and mental health may be how willingly a person
receives or sends the sext. In one study, 52.3 percent of
young adults had consensually engaged in sexting behaviors,
despite reporting not wanting to do so.5 Motivations for this
behavior included flirtation, foreplay, to fulfill a partner’s
needs, or for intimacy reasons. Indeed, peer pressure seems
to be an important reason for sexting, with another study
reporting that 23 percent of teens felt pressured to sext, and
51 percent of teenage girls saying they felt pressure from a
boy to send sexually explicit messages.17 As already noted, it
could be that psychological distress impairs an individual’s
decision-making processes, and, therefore, they are more
inclined to send a sext when they do not want to. Further-
more, those receiving unwanted sexts may worry about re-
ceiving more subsequent sexts, or experience stress or low
Downloaded by SENCKENBERG/ZEITSCHRIFTEN from www.liebertpub.com at 03/16/19. For personal use only.
mood through the sense of harassment, or low self-esteem
about being objectified. In this study, we aimed to examine
whether sexting behavior might be associated with psycho-
logical distress in the context of the unwanted receipt of sexts
and coerced sending of sexts. Based on previous findings, it
was hypothesized that receiving and sending sexts would be
associated with higher (+) depression, anxiety, and stress
symptoms, and lower (-) self-esteem, but only in the context
of when sexts were unwanted or sent under coercion.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 444 young adults aged 18–21 years
(M = 20, SD = 1) of whom 219 were male (49.3 percent) and
225 were female (50.7 percent). Approximately 97 percent of
the participants were Australian, and 91 percent of the
sample identified as heterosexual, 4 percent homosexual, 3
percent bisexual, and 2 percent not wanting to say. Most of
the participants (86.5 percent) reported being currently sex-
ually active, and 16.4 years (SD = 2.1) was the average age of
first sexual intercourse.
Materials
Sexting behavior. Sexting behavior was assessed through
questions about participant engagement in and frequency of
receiving or sending text messages containing sexually ex-
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Study Variables
Variable Full sample
Have received sexts (%) 72.1
Have sent sexts (%) 56.5
Have received unwanted sexts (%) 35.6
Have sent sexts under coercion (%) 22.6
Mean no. of sexts received (SD) 3.1 (1.1)
Mean no. of sexts sent (SD) 2.8 (1.2)
Mean DASS-depression (SD) 4.8 (4.7)
Mean DASS-anxiety (SD) 4.1 (4.4)
Mean DASS-stress (SD) 6.0 (4.8)
Mean DASS-total (SD) 14.9 (12.4)
Mean self-esteem (SD) 16.6 (5.5)
Note: Differences between genders are indicated with asterisks, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Percentages refer to participants who
answered in the affirmative.
DASS, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale; SD, standard deviation.
plicit images. We chose this particular definition of sexting as
we were interested in focusing on message content that would
be generally considered highly sexualized and as having a
stronger potential for negative outcomes. Unwanted receipt
of sexts was assessed with the question, ‘‘Have you ever
received sexually explicit images of another person via text
message that were unwanted/unwelcome?’’ (Yes/No). Parti-
cipants were then asked what action they took if this occurred,
and could respond: ignored it (no action taken); told a friend;
told a parent; told a teacher; told the person directly to not do
it; reported it to the police. To assess the coerced, but con-
sensual, sending of sexts, we used the question, ‘‘Have you
ever consented to sexting when you actually did not want to
sext’’ (Yes/No).
Depression, anxiety, and stress. Depression, anxiety,
and stress symptoms were measured using the short form of
the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21).18 This
is a 21-item self-report instrument that includes three 7-item
subscales. Participants respond to the items in reference to
the past week using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (did
not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much, or most
of the time). Responses to items on each subscale are
summed, with higher scores indicating greater levels of
psychological distress. The DASS-21 has demonstrated
good psychometric properties,19 and internal reliability in
this sample was good (Cronbach’s a’s for the depression,
anxiety, and stress subscales were 0.91, 0.88, and 0.87,
respectively).
Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured using the Ro-
senberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES20), a brief self-report in-
ventory assessing global self-esteem. It consists of 10
statements, in response to which respondents indicate their
level of agreement using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from
0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). Once five
reverse-worded items are recoded, the total scale score is
produced from the sum of responses to the 10 items. Scale
scores can range from 0 to 30 with higher scores indicating
higher self-esteem. The RSES has been found to have high
internal reliability and good construct validity.21–23 Internal
reliability in this study was good (Cronbach’s a = 0.92).
Males Females
78.1** 66.2**
57.5 55.6
24.6*** 48.3***
22.7 22.4
3.2 (1.1)* 2.9 (1.1)*
2.9 (1.1) 2.7 (1.2)
5.0 (5.0)** 4.2 (4.3)**
4.3 (4.7) 3.9 (4.1)
5.6 (4.8)* 6.5 (4.8)*
15.3 (12.9) 14.5 (12.0)
16.7 (6.0) 16.5 (5.2)
 COERCION, SEXTING, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS 3

0.58

0.78
Procedure

—
d
After obtaining ethical approval for the study from the
Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee,

4.9*

5.2*
0.7

1.4
Self-esteem
t
participants were recruited through online Facebook adver-
tisements, e-mail distribution, advertisements posted on the

(5.6)

(6.1)

(5.5)
16.3

16.2

17.8

17.9
university campus, and through subsequent snowball re-

(5)
N
cruiting. Potential participants were invited to review a brief
description of the study online and, if interested in partici-

Table 2. Means (and Standard Deviations) and Results of T-Tests for Sexting and Mental Health Variables

(5.5)

(5.1)

(4.5)
16.7

16.9

14.7

14.1
pating, to indicate their consent by commencing the survey,

(5)
Y
which took around 15–20 minutes to complete. Participation
was voluntary and confidential, and no incentive was offered

0.69

0.68
for participants to partake in the study.

—
d
Results

5.4*

4.6*
0.1

0.6
t
DASS-total
Responses to the DASS variables were found to be posi-
Downloaded by SENCKENBERG/ZEITSCHRIFTEN from www.liebertpub.com at 03/16/19. For personal use only.

tively skewed. Logarithmic transformation for the depres-

(11.6)

(12.4)

(11.9)

(10.9)
14.9

14.5

12.2

12.8
sion and anxiety subscales, and square root transformation

N
for the stress subscale and total DASS scale, produced a
normal distribution for conducting parametric analyses.

(12.7)

(12.4)

(12.8)

(14.4)
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the study variables,

14.8

15.1

19.5

22.1
Y
for the total sample, and for males and females separately.
Three-quarters of the sample had received sexts, while
around half had sent them. Over a third of participants had

0.62

0.44
—

—
d
received unwanted sexts, and >10 percent had sent them
under coercion from someone else.

5.3*

2.9*
DASS-stress
A series of chi-square tests on the dichotomous sexting

0.1
t

1
variables indicated that more males than females endorsed
having ever received sexts, v2(1) = 7.8, p = 0.005. However,

(4.6)

(4.7)

(4.5)

(4.3)
6.1

5.7

5.5
almost twice as many females than males endorsed having N

5
ever received unwanted sexts, v2(1) = 19.6, p < 0.001. No
other differences were found ( p > 0.05). For the participants
(4.9)

(4.8)

(4.8)

(5.5)
6.2

7.8

8.3
who received unwanted sexts, 69 percent reported ignoring
Y
6

Note: Untransformed means and standard deviations for DASS variables reported here.
them and taking no action, 38 percent told the person directly
not to do it, 25 percent told a friend, 4 percent told a parent, 0.59

0.62
—

—
d

0.8 percent (one person) told the police, and none told a
teacher. There were no gender differences in these responses
DASS-anxiety

(all p > 0.05). 4.2*

0.5

1.7

5*
t

Independent samples t-tests indicated that males received

more sexts on average relative to females, t(322) = 2.26,
(4.3)

(4.2)

(3.9)

p = 0.024, d = 0.27, and reported higher levels of depressive

3.7

3.1

3.5
(4)
N
4

symptoms, t(422) = 2.8, p = 0.006, d = 0.17. Females reported

higher levels of stress symptoms, t(442) = 2.0, p = 0.046,
(4.1)

(4.5)

(4.8)

(5.5)
4.1

4.3

5.7

6.5

d = 0.19. No differences were found on the remaining vari-

Y

ables (all p > 0.31).

Table 2 shows the results of independent samples t-tests to
0.47

0.77
—

—
d

investigate differences on the mental health variables be-

tween those who had ever sexted or not sexted, and between
DASS-depression

those who had received sexts and those who had not. There
5.1*
0.1

4*
t

was no difference between those who had sent or received

sexts relative to those who had not. However, there were
(4.8)

(4.5)

(3.9)

moderate significant differences, on all the mental health

4.9

5.1

4.1

3.7
(5)
N

variables, between participants who had received unwanted

sexts or had sent sexts under coercion and those who had not.
(4.7)

(4.3)

(4.6)
4.7

4.5

7.2
(5)

This indicates that sexting behaviors per se were not asso-

Y

ciated with poorer mental health, but were associated when

they involved unsolicited receipt of sexts or pressure to send
sexts.
unwanted

*p < 0.001.
coercion
Sent sexts

Sent sexts

Hierarchical multiple regressions determined whether re-

Received

Received
Variable

under
sexts

sexts

ceiving and sending unwanted sexts might independently

predict variance in the mental health variables. As DASS
variables were highly correlated with one another (r = 0.66–
 4 KLETTKE ET AL.

Table 3. Results of Moderation Analyses: Testing the Association Between Sexting and Depression,
Anxiety, and Stress Scale Total and Self-Esteem as Dependent Variables
Lower confidence Upper confidence
b SE t p interval interval
DASS-total
Constant 8.9 0.97 9.4 <0.001 7.1 10.9
Gender -2.3 0.61 -3.8 <0.001 -3.6 -1.1
Receiving unwanted sexts -3.1 0.58 -5.3 <0.001 -4.2 -1.9
Gender · receiving unwanted sexts 1.25 0.38 3.3 0.001 0.51 2
F (df) 18.9 (3, 316)
R2 0.17
Self-esteem
Constant 5.5 3.5 1.6 0.114 -1.4 12.5
Gender 3.7 2.1 1.8 0.076 -0.4 7.9
Receiving unwanted sexts 6.1 2 3 0.003 2.1 10.1
Gender · receiving unwanted sexts -1.8 1.2 -1.5 0.141 -4.3 0.61
Downloaded by SENCKENBERG/ZEITSCHRIFTEN from www.liebertpub.com at 03/16/19. For personal use only.

F (df) 9.7 (3, 316)

R2 0.08
DASS-total
Constant 7.7 1.6 4.9 <0.001 4.6 10.8
Gender -1.5 0.98 -1.5 0.129 -3.5 0.44
Sending sexts under coercion -2.4 0.85 -2.8 0.005 -4.1 -0.71
Gender · sending sexts under 0.84 0.53 1.6 0.115 -0.2 1.9
coercion
F (df) 6.6 (3, 253)
R2 0.09
Self-esteem
Constant 9.6 4.1 2.3 0.020 1.5 17.7
Gender 0.42 2.5 0.16 0.869 -4.6 5.4
Sending sexts under coercion 4.6 2.3 2 0.047 0.05 9
Gender · sending sexts under -0.49 1.4 -0.34 0.732 -3.3 2.3
coercion
F (df) 9.9 (3, 253)
R2 0.1

0.71) and did not differ in their association with the sexting The first model significantly predicted scores on the DASS
variables, the DASS total score comprised the dependent total scale, and receiving unwanted sexts and gender were
variable (note: analyses for each DASS subscale showed both unique predictors. Importantly, the interaction term was
the same results). For the regression on the DASS total score, also a significant predictor, indicating that receiving un-
the model was significant, F(2, 243) = 18.8, R2 = 0.13, ad- wanted sexts was more strongly related to psychological
justed R2 = 0.13, p < 0.001. Both receiving unwanted sexts,
b = -0.86, SE = 0.22, b = -0.24, t = -3.9, p < 0.001, and
sending sexts under coercion, b = -0.89, SE = 0.24, b = -0.22,
t = -3.6, p < 0.001, were found to be independent predictors.
Similar results were found for the multiple regression
on self-esteem, with a significant overall model, F(2, 243) =
18.9, R2 = 0.14, adjusted R2 = 0.13, p < 0.001, and both vari-
ables uniquely predicting lower self-esteem: receiving un-
wanted sexts, b = 2.1, SE = 0.68, b = 0.19, t = 3.2, p = 0.002,
and sending sexts under coercion, b = 3.2, SE = 0.76, b = 0.27,
t = 4.3, p < 0.001.
To examine whether the relationship between unwanted or
coerced sexting and poorer mental health differs dependent
on gender, moderated regression models using an SPSS
macro by Hayes (PROCESS24) were used. A bootstrapping
approach was used, which is a nonparametric approach to
estimating effect sizes and testing hypotheses. Bootstrapping
was conducted with 5,000 samples, and bias-corrected 95
percent confidence intervals were generated. The results are FIG. 1. Graph showing the moderating effect of gender on
reported for the DASS total scale only for receiving and the association between receiving unwanted sexts and psy-
sending as the results did not differ across the subscales. The chological distress (shown as square root-transformed total
full regression results are reported in Table 3. DASS score). DASS, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale.
 COERCION, SEXTING, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS
distress for males, relative to females (Fig. 1). For self-
esteem, the model was again significant; however, only re-
ceiving unwanted sexts was a unique predictor of the DASS
total scale, while gender and the interaction term were not.
For sending sexts under coercion, the overall model was
significant for the DASS total scale, but the gender and in-
teraction term were not significant predictors. This pattern
was also found for self-esteem, with a significant overall
model, but no significant interaction.
Discussion
In this study, we explored the relationships between
sending and receiving sexts and mental health, and whether
these might differ dependent on the context of sexting, that
is, whether they were unwanted or coercive in nature. Con-
sistent with some previous studies, males were more likely to
Downloaded by SENCKENBERG/ZEITSCHRIFTEN from www.liebertpub.com at 03/16/19. For personal use only.
have received sexts than females. However, females were
more likely than males to have received unwanted sexts. As
the source of these sexts is unknown, it is unclear whether the
sexts originated from same or other-sex senders. There was
no difference between males and females with regard to the
sending of sexts; similar proportions of each gender had sent
sexts, and with similar frequency.
Overall, having sent or received sexts was not associated
with any of the psychological variables, which supports pre-
vious research that has found no difference.8–10,16 However, as
predicted, receiving unwanted sexts and sending sexts under
coercion were associated with poorer mental health. Specifi-
cally, when receiving or sending unwanted but consensual
sexts, respondents reported higher depression, anxiety, and
stress, and lower self-esteem. Another significant finding was
that receiving unwanted sexts and sending sexts under pres-
sure were independent predictors of poorer mental health. This
suggests that they affect mental health in unique ways, and
that there is an additive impact for these two sexting phe-
nomena on mental health. Moreover, this finding is important
as the nature of this sexting behavior has been likened to
intimate partner violence. That is, the findings of our study
may shed light on why some researchers conceptualize sexting
as simply a normative sexual behavior,25 while others see it as
a potential risk behavior, including for sexual violence.26 In-
deed, our findings indicate that both can be true. Sexting be-
haviors can range from consensual sexting as a normative
behavior exploring one’s sexuality to non-consensual sexting
which is associated with negative mental health outcomes and
more closely resembles a form of intimate partner violence.
Interestingly, the analyses testing whether gender mod-
erated the relationship between receiving sexts and psycho-
logical functioning indicated that receiving unwanted sexts
was more strongly related to psychological distress for males
than for females. This is contrary to popular belief that fe-
males are more adversely impacted than males by sexting
activity. However, it is important to note that both genders
were adversely affected with regard to depression, anxiety,
stress, and self-esteem when sending a sext under coercion.
Limitations
While our study produced some important findings, our
data were obtained via convenience sampling. The sample
size is moderate and has good gender balance; however,
higher rates of depression observed in males suggest it is
5
unlikely to be representative of the general population of
young adults. As such, small subgroup populations present
challenges in data analysis, particularly with reference to less
common behaviors such as sexting under coercion.
The limited nature of the questions asked reduced the
detail of our findings. For example, participants did not
specify the source of sexts received, or the recipients of sexts
sent. These factors may moderate the relationships investi-
gated, especially those related to coercion and unwanted
sexts. This may be particularly relevant in the case of the
moderating factor of gender in receiving unwanted sexts,
whereby some characteristics of the sext content or sender
may explain this finding (e.g., a male sending an explicit
photo of themselves to a heterosexual male).
Despite these limitations, we have identified a possible
moderating factor linking sexting behaviors to psychological
distress. Indeed, sexting is not an inherently pernicious be-
havior; however, our findings highlight particular circum-
stances where it may be. Importantly, we focused on sexts
with sexually explicit sexual photos. It may be that in the
context of unsolicited or coerced sexting, such content is
more strongly related to mental health. Future research may
clarify whether content moderates these associations.
Conclusion
As previous research has indicated mixed findings with
regard to sexting behaviors and mental health, this study may
offer a potential explanation for this discrepancy in the
context of young adults. Specifically, while there was no
links between sexting and psychological well-being or self-
esteem, this was the case when there was receipt of unwanted
sexts or coercive sending of sexts. While these associations
hold for both males and females, psychological distress is
more likely to be associated with the receiving of unwanted
sexts among males than among females. Further research
to explore the moderating role of consent in sexting is
warranted.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Law Council of Australia. (2013) Senate Select Committee
on Cyber-Safety. Canberra, Australia.
2. Klettke B, Hallford DJ, Mellor DJ. Sexting prevalence and
correlates: a systematic literature review. Clinical Psy-
chology Review 2014; 34:44–53.
3. Krieger MA. Unpacking ‘‘sexting’’: a systematic review of
non-consensual sexting in legal, educational, and psycho-
logical literatures. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 2017; 18:
593–601.
4. Dake JA, Price H, Maziarz L, et al. Prevalence and corre-
lates of sexting behaviours in adolescents. American Jour-
nal of Sexuality Education 2012; 7:1–15.
5. Drouin M, Tobin, E. Unwanted but consensual sexting among
young adults: relations with attachment and sexual motiva-
tions. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 31: 412–418.
6. Van Ouytsel J, Van Gool E, Ponnet K, et al. Brief report:
the association between adolescents’ characteristics and
engagement in sexting. Journal of Adolescence 2014; 37:
1387–1391.
 6 KLETTKE ET AL.
7. Walker J, Moak S. Child’s play or child pornography: the
need for better laws regarding sexting. ACJS Today 2014;
35:3–9.
8. Gordon-Messer D, Bauermeister JA, Grodzinski A, et al.
Sexting among adults. Journal of Adolescent Health 2013;
52:301–306.
9. Englander E. Low risk associated with most teenage sext-
ing: a study of 617 18-year-olds. Marc Research Reports
2012; Paper 6:1–12.
10. Temple JR, Le VD, Van Den Berg P, et al. Brief report:
teen sexting and psychosocial health. Journal of Adoles-
cence 2014; 37:33–36.
11. Weisskirch RS, Delevi R. ‘‘Sexting’’ and adult romantic
relationships. Computers in Human Behavior 2011; 27:
1697–1701.
12. Drouin M, Ross J, Tobin E. Sexting: a new digital vehicle
for intimate partner aggression? Computers in Human Be-
Downloaded by SENCKENBERG/ZEITSCHRIFTEN from www.liebertpub.com at 03/16/19. For personal use only.
havior 2015; 50:197–204.
13. Hulland EN, Brown JL, Swartzendruber AL, et al. The
association between stress, coping, and sexual risk be-
haviors over 24 months among African-Amerivan female
adolescents. Psychology, Health & Medicine 2015; 20:
443–456.
14. Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ. ‘‘Sexting’’ and its relation to
sexual activity and sexual risk behavior in a National
Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 2014;
55:757–764.
15. Scholes-Balog K, Francke N, Hemphill S. Relationships
between sexting, self-esteem, and sensation seeking among
Australian young adults. Sexualisation, Media & Society
2016; 2:1–8.
16. Hudson HK, Fetro JV. Sexual activity: predictor of sexting
behaviors and intentions to sext among selected under-
gradute students. Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 49:
615–622.
17. Power to Decide (formerly The National Campaign to
Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy) (2008). Sex and
tech: results from a survey of teens and young adults.
Washington, DC. https://powertodecide.org/what-we-do/
information/resource-library/sex-and-tech-results-survey-
teens-and-young-adults (accessed December 12, 2012).
18. Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF. (1995) Manual for the de-
pression anxiety stress scales. 2nd ed. Sydney, Australia:
Psychology Foundation.
19. Henry JD, Crawford JR. The short-form version of the
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): construct
validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology 2005; 44:227–239.
20. Rosenberg M. (1965) Society and adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: University Press.
21. Fleming JS, Courtney BE. The dimensionality of self-es-
teem: II. Hierarchical facet model for revised measurement
scales. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1984;
46: 404–421.
22. Robins RW, Hendin HM, Trzesniewski KH. Measuring
global self-esteem: constrct validation of a single-item
measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 2001; 27:151–161.
23. Silber E, Tippett JS. Self-esteem: clinical assessment and
measurement validation. Psychological Reports 1965; 16:
1017–1071.
24. Hayes AF. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation,
and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based
Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
25. Levine D. Sexting: a terrifying health risk . or the new
normal for young adults? Journal of Adolescent Health
2013; 52:257–258.
26. Henry N, Powell A. Beyond the ‘sext’: technology-
facilitated sexual violence and harassment against adult
women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology
2015; 48:104–118.
Address correspondence to:
Dr. Bianca Klettke
School of Psychology
Deakin University
221 Burwood Highway
Burwood
Victoria 3125
Australia
E-mail: bianca.klettke@deakin.edu.au