Body image self-consciousness and sexting among heterosexual and non-exclusively heterosexual individuals

Abstract

This study sought to explore whether body image self-consciousness during sexual relations predicts whether and for what reasons individuals send sexts. A series of ordinal and binary logistic regression analyses revealed that increased body image self-consciousness during sexual relations predicted consensual but unwanted instances of sexting for men and women, a lower frequency of sending sexts among heterosexual individuals, and a lesser likelihood of sending sexts in order to flirt. Body image self-consciousness, however, was not predictive of sending sexts in general or sending sexts in order to ‘feel sexy’. This research provides support for the negative relationship between body image self-consciousness and sexual agency across gender, and suggests that individuals affected by body image anxieties might be prone to technology-mediated abuse. Study limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Keywords

Sexting body image self-consciousness LGBTQI+pressure coercion sexual risk-taking sexual preoccupation

Advances in technology, such as personal computers, smartphones and the Internet, have changed the way individuals interact with one another (Hertlein and Ancheta, 2014; Raacke and Bonds-Raacke, 2008). Such advances mean that interactions are no longer limited to face-to-face encounters, and may now also include contact with people we engage with, in part or exclusively, online. This form of communication, therefore, provides means to engage through a new medium in variants of behaviour that were previously limited to in-person interactions. The potential anonymity or lack of geographic proximity to another person may embolden individuals to behave in ways they typically do not in person (Hudson et al., 2014). This study focuses on one such behaviour: sexting.

Sexting constitutes a form of digital communication characterised by the exchange of sexually suggestive messages or images between mobile phone users (Gordon-Messer et al., 2013). A systematic review by Klettke et al. (2014) indicated that sexting behaviours commence in adolescence, with approximately 10% of teenagers reporting having sent a sexually suggestive sext or photo and 17% admitting to receiving such content. The behaviour, however, is more common among young adults, with 53% of respondents reporting sending sexually suggestive texts or photos and 57% indicating receiving sexts (Klettke et al., 2014).

With regards to sexual orientation, some studies indicate that sexting is more frequent among non-exclusively heterosexual adolescents (Lee et al., 2015), men who have sex with men (Bauermeister et al., 2014), and that sexting, in general, is considered more acceptable in non-exclusively heterosexual communities (Hertlein et al., 2015). A number of reasons for the increased proclivity towards sexting within non-exclusively heterosexual orientation groups have been suggested. These include visibility management (Hertlein et al., 2015; Twist et al., 2017) whereby individuals can choose to whom they present their sexual orientation and preference, and can expand potential social and relationship circles beyond those personally known to them from face-to-face interactions. In addition, using orientation-specific relationship mobile applications to initiate contact can facilitate relationships and may be protective against stigma and discrimination (Chong et al., 2015; Hertlein et al., 2015). However, data regarding the frequency of sexting behaviours within non-exclusively heterosexual communities including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) is limited, and hence, requires further exploration.

Sexting motivations and context

While sexting is often used as a tool to develop new relationships or to support existing romantic relationships (Delevi and Weisskirch, 2013; Hertlein and Ancheta, 2014; Hudson and Marshall, 2016; Renfrow and Rollo, 2014; Weisskirch and Delevi, 2011), recent evidence suggests it can also be an unwanted experience, both in receipt of sexts or in pressure to send or reciprocate (Drouin et al., 2015; Englander, 2012; Krieger, 2017; Ringrose et al., 2012). A study by Kernsmith et al. (2018) revealed that coerced sexting is common among adolescents who are dating or have a sexual partner, with coerced sexting perpetration ranging from approximately 4% to 13.5% for boys and coerced sexting victimisation ranging from 6.5% to 21.5% for girls. Moreover, those who were victimised through sexting coercion were also found to be the victims of in-person sexual coercion as these individuals reported being threatened by their partners to have sex, pressured not to use a condom, or pressured to have sex when they did not want to (Kernsmith et al., 2018). Experiences of sexting coercion are even more prevalent among young adults, with 34% of women versus 25% of men reporting sexting coercion victimisation, and sexting coercion being strongly correlated with physical sexual coercion (Ross et al., 2019).

Studies indicate that the experiences of unwanted sexting or sexting under coercion are associated with poorer psychological functioning including lower self-esteem, elevated levels of depression, anxiety, stress, symptoms of trauma, as well as attachment dysfunction and sexual problems (Drouin et al., 2015; Klettke et al., 2019; Ross et al., 2019). Some researchers conceptualise these sexting behaviours as a form of violence, or image-based sexual abuse (IBSA; Powell et al., 2019), and note that IBSA is more common within the LGBT community (Powell et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the body of research regarding this topic is in its infancy and the causes and consequences of sexting remain poorly understood (Klettke et al., 2014).

If conceptualised as a form of sexual expression, engagement in sexting may be considered to be more or less frequent based on the characteristics of an individual. For example, sexters have been found to exhibit higher rates of sensation-seeking behaviours than non-sexters (Champion and Pedersen, 2015), and possess lower self-control (Reyns et al., 2014). Furthermore, for individuals who are more preoccupied by sexual relations and/or are adventurous and risk-taking in sexual behaviours, sexting may be a novel way to engage a current or a potential partner. A study conducted by Yeung et al. (2014) found that respondents viewed sexting as a fun alternative to in-person flirting, and conducive to developing intimacy with new, casual or committed partners. Sexual risk-taking was also observed to be particularly prominent among more explicit sexters as opposed to those who were less explicit or did not sext at all (Champion and Pedersen, 2015).

Conversely, for individuals who feel more inhibited, sexting may be another form of expression with which they are hesitant or uncomfortable. Evidence from qualitative studies examining adolescent views on sexting suggests that some teenage boys would not send naked images of their genitals because they feared their penises being exposed to potential ridicule (Ringrose and Harvey, 2015). This finding indicates that body image–related shame may be a core element in the likelihood of engaging in sexting. Quantitative research examining sexting among pre-adolescent and adolescent populations found that sexting was considered by 73% of respondents as risky and dangerous (Kopecký, 2012). Young people expressed concerns that sexting may lead to bullying and mockery of the person depicted in such material, dissemination on the Internet, or be viewed by unintended recipients including parents (Kopecký, 2012). In general, sexting is rarely associated with positive sexual self-representation among adolescents and hence is more likely to be stigmatised as being risky, gross and ‘not very smart’ (De Ridder, 2019). These findings suggest that some adolescents may be excessively aware of sexts attracting the ‘external gaze’, potential negative body image evaluation and stigma. However, the degree to which body image self-consciousness underpins such views and subsequent involvement in sexting among adolescents or young adults remains unexplored in quantitative research.

Sexting and body image

Drawing on the discussion above, it may be the case that sexting belongs to a suite of ‘risky’ sexual behaviours as sexts may be disseminated online and viewed by third parties. It is therefore possible that the degree to which individuals feel positive and confident about their body image during sexual activities may be associated with their likelihood of sending sexts. Specifically, individuals who experience heightened body image self-consciousness during sexual activities may find engagement in sexting as exposing and stress-provoking. As such, increased body image self-consciousness during sexual relations could potentially negatively impact one’s enjoyment of sexting and likelihood of sending nude images in future. According to objectification theory (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997), individuals with more negative views about their appearance tend to be anxious about how others perceive their bodies. As such, poor body image is associated with a diminished quality of sex life. It is possible that people’s experiences of self-consciousness regarding their appearance undermine their capacity to enjoy and fully engage in sexual activities. Consistent with this view, empirical evidence indicates that adolescent and adult individuals who exhibit greater satisfaction with their physical appearance tend to report better sexual functioning, more frequent sexual activity, a propensity to pursue novel sexual experiences, and greater sexual confidence (Merianos et al., 2013; Weaver and Byers, 2006; Woertman and Van Den Brink, 2012). Appearance-dissatisfied individuals and those who report greater body image self-consciousness during sexual relations, on the other hand, are more likely to report greater sexual anxiety, decreased desire to have sex, sexual avoidance and less enjoyment with their sex life (Cash et al., 2004; Wiederman, 2000). These individuals are also more prone to experience sexual coercion (Ramsey and Hoyt, 2015), lower sexual assertiveness and feel less confident to negotiate safe sex (Blashill and Safren, 2015; Parent and Moradi, 2015; Wiederman, 2000).

Researchers have proposed a number of conceptual explanations accounting for the relationship between body image dissatisfaction, lower sexual activity in general and lesser sexual agency, which resonate with objectification theory. It is argued that body-dissatisfied individuals may (1) have lower confidence in physical appearance and perceive to have limited opportunities to engage in sexual activities, (2) hold negative cognitions associated with their physical appearance preventing them from enjoying sexual acts, (3) experience body image insecurities during sexual acts which may negatively impact on their sexual assertiveness and (4) feel fear of rejection and abandonment by their romantic partner (Blashill and Safren, 2015; Merianos et al., 2013; Woertman and Van Den Brink, 2012).

While the relationship between body image and sexual behaviours in the offline world has been extensively studied, the literature on body image and online sexual behaviours such as sexting is limited. Initial research on body image and sexting revealed that some adolescents and young adults sent sexts in order to obtain feedback regarding their physical appearance (Bianchi et al., 2016, 2017, 2019). This finding suggests that some sexters may be preoccupied with their looks and perhaps use sexting as a tool to appease body image concerns. A study by Liong and Cheng (2018) conducted among college students found that some individuals who sent sexts reported elevated levels of body surveillance and shame, while others expressed greater comfort with nudity, with no gender differences across participants. With regards to sexual orientation, some research indicates that non-exclusively heterosexual individuals and sexual minority men are more likely to sext to check if their body is attractive enough than exclusively heterosexual men and heterosexual women (Bianchi et al., 2016, 2019; Currin and Hubach, 2019). This increased likelihood has been attributed to concerns about body image which appear to be more salient among sexual minority men (Currin and Hubach, 2019; Michaels et al., 2013).

Most recently, a study by Howard et al. (2019) investigated sexting behaviours among young women in relation to general (trait-level) and situational, context dependent (state-level) body dissatisfaction. While body dissatisfaction measured as a stable trait was not related to a general tendency towards sending sexts, it was associated with individuals’ greater propensity to sext for body image reinforcement purposes and feeling pressured to sext. Exploration of state-level body image dissatisfaction produced contrasting results, whereby heightened states of body dissatisfaction prevented individuals from sexting in general or when feeling pressured to do so (Howard et al., 2019). These results illustrate that sexting behaviours are related to body image, but require further investigation, especially in the contexts of harmful variants of sexting that are unwanted, pressured or coerced.

Gaps in existing literature

Research on sexting and body image to date has established that some individuals send sexts for appearance-related reasons (Bianchi et al., 2016, 2017, 2019; Liong and Cheng, 2018) and that levels of subjective body dissatisfaction are associated with varying sexting behaviours (Howard et al., 2019). However, sexting constitutes a form of sexual behaviour that requires ‘baring one’s body’. Therefore, body image insecurities may be exacerbated in specific contexts, for example, during sexual activities, and hence may influence one’s willingness and involvement in sending sexts. Furthermore, individuals with negative body image, who have been found to be less likely to engage in sexual activity and exhibit diminished sexual assertiveness (Blashill and Safren, 2015; Parent and Moradi, 2015; Ramsey and Hoyt, 2015), may also be more prone to sexting when they actually do not want to. Currently, there is limited research investigating body image and sexting among heterosexual and non-exclusively heterosexual orientation groups, especially in the context of consensual but unwanted or coerced sexting. Finally, in light of the established links between body image and sexual risk-taking and sexual preoccupation offline, it is important to ascertain whether any effects of body image on sexting exist independently of these constructs.

The current study addresses these gaps by (1) investigating the associations between a specific facet of body image, that is, body image self-consciousness during sexual relationships, sexting in general, and in instances where sending sexts is consensual but unwanted among heterosexual, lesbian, and gay respondents. The current study also focuses on an adult population, given sexting is most prevalent among young adults (Klettke et al., 2014). (2) We also control for sexual risk-taking and sexual preoccupation as these variables are associated with body image and sexting behaviours; therefore, this study will elucidate the relationship between body image and sexting with greater precision.

The present study

Based on prior findings, we propose the following hypotheses:

As participants with negative body image are less likely to engage in sexual activities (Woertman and Van Den Brink, 2012), it is predicted that individuals who are more self-conscious about their appearance during sexual activities would be likely to sext less frequently (Hypothesis 1).

Given the link between poorer body image and lower sexual agency (Blashill and Safren, 2015; Howard et al., 2019; Parent and Moradi, 2015), it is predicted that individuals who are more body image self-conscious during sexual activities will be more likely to report sexting that was consensual but unwanted (Hypothesis 2a), and less likely to report having done so to feel sexy (Hypothesis 2b) or to flirt (Hypothesis 2c).

That individuals of non-exclusively heterosexual orientations (lesbian/gay and bisexual) will be likely to sext more often than heterosexual participants (Hypothesis 3a), based on the greater acceptance of sexting in this population (Hertlein et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2015). It is anticipated that this relationship would be moderated by body image self-consciousness during sexual activities. Specifically, non-exclusively heterosexual participants would sext more frequently when body image self-consciousness is high, whereas heterosexual participants would sext less frequently when body image self-consciousness is high (Hypothesis 3b). This prediction is based on prior research whereby non-exclusively heterosexual were found to sext more often in general (Bauermeister et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2015), experience greater body image concerns (Currin and Hubach, 2019; Michaels et al., 2013), and be more likely to sext for body image verification purposes than exclusively heterosexual individuals (Bianchi et al., 2016, 2019). These findings suggest that non-exclusively heterosexual groups may be more inclined to sext more frequently, potentially in order to appease body image anxieties, and to feel more confident to do so since sexting is not stigmatised among sexual minority groups (Hertlein et al., 2015).

Method

Participants

This study comprised 598 young Australian adults (123 men, 475 women) aged 18 to 21 years (M = 19.47, SD = 1.12). Four hundred and forty-one participants identified as heterosexual (73.7%), 35 as lesbian or gay (5.9%), 114 as bisexual (19.1%), and eight participants did not disclose their sexual orientation (1.3%). In total, 320 participants (53.5%) reported currently being in a relationship and 477 (79.8%) of the overall sample reported being sexually active.

Measures

Body image self-consciousness during sexual activities

The 18-item Body Exposure during Sexual Activities Questionnaire Short Form (BESAQ; Cash, 2004) was used to evaluate body image self-consciousness and anxious attentional focus on physical appearance within the context of sexual relations. Items asked participants to rate frequency of a range of thoughts and behaviours in relation to body image during sex (e.g., ‘during sexual activity I am thinking that my partner will notice something about my body that is a turn-off’). Response options ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (always or almost always). Following reverse coding of several items, answers were summed to create a total, with higher scores reflecting greater preoccupation with body image during sexual relations. Previous psychometric studies revealed the BESAQ possesses high internal consistency and adequate convergent validity with measures of body dissatisfaction, weight preoccupation and dysfunctional investment in physical appearance (Cash et al., 2004). In this study, internal consistency was good (alpha = .87).

Sexual risk-taking

A subscale of the Adolescent Risk Inventory by Lescano et al. (2007) was used to measure participants’ engagement in sexually risky behaviours. Two questions asked the respondents about their sexual activity and the number of sexual partners they had in the past year with answers scored on ordinal scales from 0 (none) to 3 (six or more) and 0 (none) to 3 (two or more), respectively. Participants also answered five dichotomous questions (Yes vs No) pertaining to sexual risk such as an engagement in sexual activity without a condom or having a sexually transmitted infection. The overall score was derived by totalling all the responses, with higher values indicating greater sexual risk-taking. In this study, internal consistency was acceptable (alpha = .77).

Sexual preoccupation

The Sexual Preoccupation Subscale was utilised to measure participants’ proclivities to think about sex to an excessive degree. The subscale constitutes a part of The Sexuality Scale developed by Snell and Papini (1989) and consists of 10 questions, for example, ‘I think about sex more than anything else’, scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 2 (agree) to −2 (disagree). After reverse coding relevant items, total scores were derived by summing all the responses, with higher positive values representing greater agreement with the statements and negative values indicating lesser agreement, and hence lower sexual preoccupation. Previous psychometric studies revealed that the subscale possesses adequate internal consistency, moderate test–retest reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity (Snell et al., 1992). In this study, internal consistency was excellent (alpha = .91).

Sexting behaviour

The sexting questionnaire was designed for this study. Sexts were operationalised as sexually explicit, nude or semi-nude images and participants were asked a number of dichotomous Yes versus No questions pertaining to their sexting behaviours. For instance, respondents were asked to indicate whether they ‘have ever sent sexually explicit images of themselves via text message or mobile app’ or ‘received sexually explicit images via text message or mobile app’. Participants were also asked whether they have ever ‘consented to sexting when they actually did not want to’ (based on the concept of ‘consensual but unwanted’ sexting as per Drouin and Tobin, 2014), or received sexts that were ‘unwanted’. Respondents who selected ‘yes’ to having ever sent or received sexts were also asked about the frequency of having ever sent/received sexts, measured on a count scale with responses scored as follows: 1 = 1–2 times, 2 = 3–5 times, 3 = 6–10 times and 4 = 10 or more times. Total scores were obtained by calculating a mean score for each respondent with higher values indicating more frequent instances of sexting behaviours.

Participants were also asked to indicate the reasons for sending sexts. Response items were derived from existing research on most commonly cited motivations for sexting, and participants were able to select as many options as applicable. Examples encompassed ‘to be sexy’ or ‘to be flirtatious’.

Procedure

Following approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee, the study was advertised via online discussion boards, flyers and in-class presentations at Deakin University in Victoria, Australia, and on social media platforms such as Facebook and Reddit to sample more broadly than a university population. These advertisements contained a QR code and a weblink that directed individuals to an online statement about the purpose of the study. Participants who wished to proceed indicated their consent and were redirected to the survey. The survey took approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Participants were not remunerated for their time.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Dichotomous sexting behaviour prevalence rates by gender and sexual orientation are provided in Table 1, while frequencies of sexting behaviours are provided in Table 2. As indicated in Table 1, female participants were significantly more likely to have sent a sext when they did not want to, and to receive sexts that were unwanted, while non-exclusively heterosexual participants were significantly more likely than heterosexual individuals to send and receive sexts. Bivariate correlations between key study variables (see the Supplementary material) revealed that increased body image self-consciousness during sexual activities was negatively associated with the frequency of sending sexts, sending sexts in order to flirt or to be sexy. Yet, body image self-consciousness was positively correlated with sending consensual but unwanted sexts. Nonetheless, the effect sizes for the aforementioned correlations, following Cohen’s (1992) guidelines, were small.

Table 1.

Sexting frequencies based on dichotomous measures Yes versus No

Categorical variable	Male (n = 123)		Female (n = 475)		χ²	φ	Heterosexual (n = 441)		Non-exclusively heterosexual (n = 157)		χ²	φ
	Count	%	Count	%			Count	%	Count	%
Sent sext	84	68.3	348	73.3	1.20	.05	308	69.8	124	79.0	4.82*	.09
Sent sext, but did not want to	14	16.7	96	27.6	4.25*	.10	74	24.0	36	29.0	1.17	.05
Received sext	100	81.3	392	82.5	0.10	.01	353	80.0	139	88.5	5.72*	.10
Received unwanted sext	34	34.0	231	58.8	19.69***	.20	187	52.8	78	56.1	4.36	.03

p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Table 2.

Sexting (sending and receiving) as measured on a frequency scale.

Continuous variable	Male (n = 123)		Female (n = 475)		Heterosexual (n = 441)		Non-exclusively heterosexual (n = 157)
	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%
Frequency of sext sent
Never	39	31.7	127	26.7	133	30.2	33	21.0
1–2	7	5.7	47	9.9	45	10.2	9	5.7
3–5	15	12.2	59	12.4	54	12.2	20	12.7
6–10	9	7.3	58	12.2	40	9.1	27	17.2
10 or more	53	43.1	184	38.7	169	38.3	68	43.3
Frequency of sext received
Never	23	18.7	82	17.3	87	19.7	18	11.5
1–2	5	4.1	43	9.1	33	7.5	15	19.6
3–5	17	13.8	82	17.3	72	16.3	27	17.2
6–10	7	5.7	51	10.7	42	9.5	16	10.2
10 or more	71	57.7	217	45.7	207	46.9	81	51.6

Main analyses

Sexting frequency

An ordinal hierarchical regression was run to test whether individuals with greater body image self-consciousness during sexual activities would sext less frequently (Hypothesis 1), with results provided in Table 3. In Step 1, age, gender, sexual orientation, sexual preoccupation and sexual risk-taking were entered and this set of variables significantly predicted the frequency of sexting χ²(5) = 170.921, p < .001. In Step 2, body image self-consciousness during sexual relations was entered as an independent variable and together, the set of predictors significantly predicted frequency of sending sexts χ²(6) = 171.471, p < .001. However, the inclusion of body image self-consciousness did not significantly improve the model. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Table 3.

Regression analyses for the frequency of sending sexts, and body image self-consciousness.

Variable	B	SE	p	R ²	R ² _Change
Frequency of sending sexts
Step 1				.10***
Step 2				.10***	.00
Age	−.08	.07	.27
Gender	.06	.20	.75
NEH	.16	.18	.39
Sex preoccup	.05	.01	<.001***
Sex risk	.36	.04	<.001***
Body image	−.06	.09	.46
Frequency of sending sexts × NEH
Step 1				.10***
Step 2				.10***	.00
Step 3				.11***	.01**
Age	−.08	.07	.26
Gender	.15	.20	.44
NEH	−.75	.37	.04*
Sex preoccup	.06	.01	<.001***
Sex risk	.37	.04	<.001***
Body image	−.22	.10	.03*
Body image × NEH	.54	.19	.01**

Sex preoccup: The Sexual Preoccupation Subscale; Sex risk: Sexual Risk-Taking Scale; Body image: Body Exposure during Sexual Activities Questionnaire Short Form; NEH: non-exclusively heterosexual; For Step 1 and 2 data, contact the corresponding author.

p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Sexting motivation

To test whether individuals with greater body image self-consciousness were more likely to send sexts that were consensual but unwanted (Hypothesis 2a), a hierarchical logistical regression was run. Inclusion of age, gender, sexual orientation, sexual preoccupation and risk-taking at Step 1 did not significantly predict sending of consensual but unwanted sexts χ²(df = 5) = 9.603, p = .087. Inclusion of body image self-consciousness during sexual activities at Step 2 significantly improved the overall model fit, χ²(df = 6) = 36.905, p < .001. As per Table 4, body image self-consciousness constituted a significant predictor of sending consensual but unwanted sexts when controlling for other variables. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was supported.

Table 4.

Logistic regression for sexting motivations.

	B	SE	OR	p	R ²	R ² _Change
Sending consensual but unwanted sexts
Step 1					.02
Step 2					.08***	.06***
Age	−.18	.11	0.84	.10
Gender	.52	.33	1.68	.16
NEH	.17	.25	1.18	.51
Sex preoccup	−.01	.01	0.99	.52
Sex risk	.02	.06	1.02	.77
Body image	.63	.12	1.87	<.001***
Sending sexts to flirt
Step 1					.01
Step 2					.03	.02**
Age	.05	.12	1.05	.65
Gender	.27	.32	1.30	.40
NEH	−.17	.28	0.85	.55
Sex preoccup	.00	.02	1.00	.81
Sex risk	.07	.06	1.07	.27
Body image	−.35	.13	0.71	.01*
Sending sexts to be sexy
Step 1					.04**
Step 2					.05**	.01
Age	.18	.12	1.19	.14
Gender	−.38	.37	0.69	.31
NEH	−.18	.28	0.84	.53
Sex preoccup	.05	.02	1.05	.002**
Sex risk	−.00	.07	1.00	.96
Body image	−.23	.14	0.80	.09

OR: odds ratio; Sex preoccup: The Sexual Preoccupation Subscale; Sex risk: Sexual Risk-Taking Scale; Body image: Body Exposure During Sexual Activities Questionnaire Short Form; NEH: non-exclusively heterosexual.

p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

We also conducted hierarchical logistical regressions to test whether individuals with greater body image self-consciousness during sexual activities would be less likely to send sexts to feel sexy (Hypothesis 2b) and to flirt (Hypothesis 2c). Inclusion of age, gender, sexual orientation, sexual preoccupation and risk-taking significantly predicted sending sexts to feel sexy, χ²(df = 5) = 15.295, p = .009. After adding body image self-consciousness in Step 2, the model also significantly predicted sending sexts to feel sexy, χ²(6) = 18.127, p = .006. However, as per Table 4, the addition of body image self-consciousness did not significantly improve the model, and this variable did not constitute a unique predictor of sending sexts to feel sexy after controlling for other variables. Therefore, Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

To test Hypothesis 2c, age, gender, sexual orientation, sexual preoccupation, and risk-taking were entered in Step 1 and the model did not significantly predict sending sexts to flirt, χ²(5) = 3.683, p = .596. After inclusion of body image self-consciousness during sexual relations in Step 2, the model also did not significantly predict sending sexts to flirt, χ²(6) = 10.402, p = .109. However, as indicated in Table 4, the improvement of the model was significant and body image self-consciousness during sexual activities constituted a unique predictor of sending sexts to flirt. Specifically, the likelihood of sending sexts to flirt decreased as body image self-consciousness increased, thereby supporting Hypothesis 2c.

Sexting among individuals with non-exclusively heterosexual orientations

To test Hypothesis 3a, that non-exclusively heterosexual individuals would be likely to send sexts more frequently than heterosexual participants, we compared the frequency of sending sexts for heterosexual versus non-heterosexual respondents, as shown in Table 2. There was a significant difference in the frequency of sending sexts between heterosexual and non-exclusively heterosexual individuals, χ²(4) = 13.62, p = .009, φ = .15, with heterosexual individuals reporting lower frequencies of sending sexts than non-exclusively heterosexual individuals, thus supporting Hypothesis 3a.

To test whether the relationship between sexual orientation and the frequency of sending sexts was moderated by body image self-consciousness (Hypothesis 3b), ordinal hierarchical regressions were run. Age, gender, sexual orientation, sexual preoccupation, and risk-taking were entered in Step 1, followed by body image self-consciousness in Step 2, and the interaction between body image self-consciousness and non-exclusively heterosexual orientation in Step 3. The set of predictors significantly predicted the frequency of sending sexts χ²(7) = 179.785, p < .001 and as indicated in Table 3, inclusion of body image in Step 2 did not significantly improve the model. In Step 3, the interaction between body image self-consciousness and sexual orientation was significant. Post hoc testing identified that heterosexual individuals were sending sexts less frequently when body image self-consciousness was high (b = −0.230, p = .024). Non-exclusively heterosexual tended to send sexts more frequently when body image self-consciousness was high, although this relationship was non-significant (b = 0.271, p = .103) . As such, Hypothesis 3b was partially supported.

Discussion

The objective of the current study was to explore body image self-consciousness in the context of online sexual relations and sexting, while controlling for body image-related variables such as sexual preoccupation and sexual risk-taking. With regards to Hypothesis 1, sexual preoccupation and sexual risk-taking were positively associated with sending sexts, and body image self-consciousness was negatively associated with sending sexts. However, when these factors were explored via a hierarchical regression, body image self-consciousness during sexual activities did not predict sending of sexts. It is noted that in this study, men and women who reported higher sexual preoccupation and sexual risk-taking behaviour were significantly more likely to send a sext. These results suggest that variables directly related to sexual behaviours may take precedence over body image self-consciousness, insofar as their predictive value of sending sexts is concerned. These findings are also consistent with Howard et al. (2019), who found that general trait body dissatisfaction was not associated with sexting tendencies in women.

With regards to reasons for sending sexts, respondents who reported higher levels of body image self-consciousness were also more likely to send sexts that were ‘consensual but unwanted’, which provides support for Hypothesis 2a. These findings can be considered in line with prior research that body image self-consciousness can reduce sexual agency, not only in the offline world (e.g. Blashill and Safren, 2015) but also online. Our results are also consistent with Howard et al. (2019), who reported that trait body dissatisfaction was associated with sexting under pressure for women. It is noted that the current study used a more specific measure of body image self-consciousness during sexual activities, and included men and women, whereas Howard et al. (2019) used a measure of body image across all contexts.

Although the current study revealed that there is a correlation between body image self-consciousness and having consented to sext despite not wanting to (‘consensual but unwanted sexting’), it is still possible that some respondents sent sexts against their will while others did not. As such, little is known what may predispose some individuals who are more body self-conscious to engage in online sexual behaviours that may be against their will. It is possible that people who are more self-conscious about their physical appearance may experience lower sexual assertiveness and go ahead with sexting, which would be consistent with previous literature on decreased body image and sexual agency in the offline world (Blashill and Safren, 2015; Parent and Moradi, 2015; Wiederman, 2000).

It is also important to examine the circumstances of consensual but unwanted sexting. It is possible that body self-conscious individuals may be exposed to sexting practices to an equal degree or nature as individuals who are overall content with their appearance. Yet, people highly self-conscious about their physical appearance may fear exposing their bodies and, as such, may perceive the culture of sexting in general or a direct request for a nude image as anxiety-provoking and hence pressuring. Therefore, it would be useful to examine the nature of such potential pressures and whether they are applied externally or are experienced internally, as in self-objectification theory (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997). If the former is the case, investigation of the intensity and/or frequency of requests for sexts and by whom they are expressed (a partner, a friend, or a stranger) may also be relevant in this context.

Body image self-consciousness did not constitute a significant predictor of sending sexts in order to feel sexy when controlling for other factors, thus not supporting Hypothesis 2b. In fact, the only significant predictor for this outcome was sexual preoccupation. However, body image self-consciousness did independently predict sending sexts to flirt, in that increased body image self-consciousness was associated with a lesser likelihood of sending sexts in order to flirt, providing support for Hypothesis 2c. It is possible that these findings suggest that sending sexts to flirt may be considered a more proximal behaviour related to anticipated in-person sexual behaviours and, as such, the salience of body image self-consciousness is increased as in-person engagement is anticipated.

Exploration of Hypotheses 3a and 3b provided predominantly significant results, with non-exclusively heterosexual respondents having sent more sexts overall, thereby confirming Hypothesis 3a, and consistent with prior findings from Bianchi et al. (2016, 2019) and Currin and Hubach (2019). These results are in line with the concept of visibility management (Chong et al., 2015; Hertlein et al., 2015; Twist et al., 2017), which proposes that non-exclusively heterosexual individuals would be more comfortable initiating contact online within self-selected and perceived safe communities. Furthermore, the relationship between sexual orientation and the frequency of sending sexts was moderated by body image self-consciousness, as suggested by Hypothesis 3b. Heterosexual respondents sent sexts less frequently when body image self-consciousness was high. The opposite trend was found, in terms of the direction of the relationship, for non-exclusively heterosexual respondents who were more likely to sext with increasing body image self-consciousness. However, this association was not significant, potentially due to the small sample size. In considering these results, it is noted that the sample was predominantly female, and hence the increased salience of body image self-consciousness for heterosexual respondents may relate to gendered norms and pressure to conform to expected standards of physical appearance, which are stronger for females (Knauss et al., 2007). These results may also suggest that sending sexts among non-exclusively heterosexual respondents serves as a coping mechanism aimed at addressing potential feelings of body inadequacies.

Our findings illustrate various patterns of association between body image self-consciousness and sexting behaviours across gender, sexual orientations, and contexts. Perhaps the greatest area of concern is the result pertaining to the positive relationship between body image self-consciousness and consensual but unwanted sexting, which is in line with previous research on the relationship between negative body image and compromised sexual agency in the offline world (Blashill and Safren, 2015; Parent and Moradi, 2015). The current study illustrates that body image self-consciousness may affect individuals’ sexual assertiveness in the online world as well. Specifically, individuals who feel less confident about their physical appearance may be also less likely to engage in ‘healthy’ instances of sexting whereby the behaviour is voluntary, consensual and wanted. This is concerning as unwanted and coerced sexting has been linked to negative mental health functioning such as increased depression, anxiety, stress and lower self-esteem (Klettke et al., 2019). Given these findings, further research is required into the motivations for sending nude images among those individuals who feel less satisfied with their physical appearance, and among those who engage in the behaviour despite not wanting to. Specifically, some of the conceptual explanations for the association between body image dissatisfaction and lower sexual agency in the offline world should be put to empirical evaluation in the context of sexting. That is, future research should address whether the perception of having decreased chances for attracting a partner, lower sexual assertiveness or fear of rejection/abandonment by a current or a prospective partner mediate the relationship between body dissatisfaction and instances of consensual but unwanted sexting.

Study implications

The current study illustrates that body image self-consciousness, along with sexual preoccupation and sexual risk-taking are implicated, to a certain degree, in sexting behaviours. It appears that variables directly connected with sexual behaviours, such as sexual preoccupation and sexual risk-taking, have a greater predictive value as far as the likelihood of sending sexts is concerned or the reasons sexts are sent for. Nonetheless, increased body image self-consciousness during sexual relations was found to be related to an increased propensity to send consensual but unwanted sexts, and a reduced proclivity to send sexts in order to flirt. These findings suggest an overall diminished agency on the part of sexters who experience body image anxieties, and also indicate that these individuals may be more susceptible to ‘aggravated’ types of sexting resulting from abusive or even criminal intentions (Wolak and Finkelhor, 2011). Future sexting prevention and sexual education campaigns would benefit from addressing body image self-consciousness among teenagers and young adults specifically by illustrating how negative thoughts and feelings about one’s body could influence their sexual assertiveness in both online and offline contexts.

Study limitations and considerations for future research

Several limitations warrant consideration. First, our sample was predominantly female and although body image self-consciousness was positively associated with consensual but unwanted sexting across gender, only 14 men identified as engaging in those instances of sexting. Hence, the generalisability of these results across gender should be considered with caution. Second, the study implemented a cross-sectional design; therefore, causality between body image self-consciousness, sexual preoccupation, risk-taking, and sexting cannot be inferred. Furthermore, although it was found that increased body image self-consciousness is associated with instances of consensual but unwanted sexting, little is known about what motivates individuals with body image concerns to send sexually explicit pictures of themselves. Future research should examine whether some of the conceptual explanations for the relationships between decreased body image and sexual agency in the offline world would also explain consensual but unwanted sexting. Also, future studies should investigate what makes the digital world and sexting more ‘attractive’ to people with a non-exclusively heterosexual orientation and what positive versus negative effect sexting has on their body image confidence.

These limitations could be addressed in future research by advertising the study more broadly, including through online male forums, in order to attract more male participants and obtain a more balanced sample. Implementing alternative study designs, such as qualitative research, could contribute a more nuanced understanding of the potential relationships between negative body image and experiences of online sexual victimisation. Future research could focus on identifying what motivations drive individuals with compromised body image to send naked images potentially against their will. Qualitative and longitudinal research designs could also provide valuable insights into the reasons for the greater preference of sexting among non-heterosexual individuals and how it affects one’s body image confidence long-term.

Conclusion

Overall, the current study illustrates that body image and sexual preoccupation, as well as sexual risk-taking are related to sexting behaviours, yet individually these variables have a varying degree and direction of potential influence. Specifically, increased body image self-consciousness is related to a greater likelihood of consensual but unwanted sexting, and a lower frequency of sexting among heterosexual individuals. It is also associated with a lesser degree of sexting motivated by flirting. Increasing young people’s awareness of how body image self-consciousness may negatively impact their sexual assertiveness may prove valuable in the prevention of sexual behaviours resulting from pressure or coercion.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary_Table – Supplemental material for Body image self-consciousness and sexting among heterosexual and non-exclusively heterosexual individuals

Supplemental material, Supplementary_Table for Body image self-consciousness and sexting among heterosexual and non-exclusively heterosexual individuals by Dominika Howard, Bianca Klettke, Elizabeth Clancy, Ian Fuelscher and Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz in New Media & Society

Footnotes

Authors’ note

All authors have agreed to the submission of this article which is not currently being considered for publication by any other print or electronic journal.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Dominika Howard

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Dominika Howard is a PhD student in the School of Psychology at Deakin University.

Bianca Klettke is a lecturer at Deakin University and member of the SEED consultancy group.

Elizabeth Clancy is a research fellow at Deakin University and member of the SEED consultancy group.

Ian Fuelscher is a research fellow in the School of Psychology at Deakin University.

Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz is an associate professor and director of Data Science in the School of Psychology at Deakin University.

References

Bauermeister

Yeagley

Meanley

, et al. (2014) Sexting among young men who have sex with men: results from a national survey. Journal of Adolescent Health 54(5): 606–611.

Bianchi

Morelli

Baiocco

, et al. (2016) Psychometric properties of the Sexting Motivations Questionnaire for adolescents and young adults. Rassegna Di Psicologia 35(3): 5–18.

Bianchi

Morelli

Baiocco

, et al. (2017) Sexting as the mirror on the wall: body-esteem attribution, media models, and objectified-body consciousness. Journal of Adolescence 61: 164–172.

Bianchi

Morelli

Baiocco

, et al. (2019) Individual differences and developmental trends in sexting motivations. Current Psychology.

Blashill

Safren

(2015) Body dissatisfaction and condom use self-efficacy: a meta-analysis. Body Image 12: 73–33.

Cash

(2004) The body exposure during Sexual Activities Questionnaire (Measurement instrument). Available at: http://www.body-images.com/assessments/besaq.html

Cash

Maikkula

Yamamiya

(2004) ‘Baring the body in the bedroom’: body image, sexual self-schemas, and sexual functioning among college women and men. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality 7. Available at: http://mail.ejhs.org/volume7/bodyimage.html

Champion

Pedersen

(2015) Investigating differences between sexters and non-sexters on attitudes, subjective norms, and risky sexual behaviours. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 24(3): 205–214.

Chong

Zhang

Mak

, et al. (2015) Social media as social capital of LGB individuals in Hong Kong: its relations with group membership, stigma, and mental well-being. American Journal of Community Psychology 55(1–2): 228–238.

10.

Cohen

(1992.) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112(1): 155–159. Available at: https://www.ime.usp.br/~abe/lista/pdfn45sGokvRe.pdf

11.

Currin

Hubach

(2019) Motivations for non university-based adults who sext their relationship partners. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 45(4): 317–327.

12.

De Ridder

(2019) Sexting as sexual stigma: the paradox of sexual self- representation in digital youth cultures. European Journal of Cultural Studies 22(5–6): 563–578.

13.

Delevi

Weisskirch

(2013) Personality factors as predictors of sexting. Computers in Human Behavior 29(6): 2589–2594.

14.

Drouin

Tobin

(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.

15.

Drouin

Ross

Tobin

(2015) Sexting: a new, digital vehicle for intimate partner aggression? Computers in Human Behavior 50: 197–204.

16.

Englander

(2012) Low risk associated with most teenage sexting: a study of 617 18-year-olds. Available at: https://vc.bridgew.edu/marc_reports/6/

17.

Fredrickson

Roberts

T-A

(1997) Objectification theory: toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly 21: 173–206.

18.

Gordon-Messer

Bauermeister

Grodzinski

, et al. (2013) Sexting among young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health 52(3): 301–306.

19.

Hertlein

Ancheta

(2014) Advantages and disadvantages of technology in relationships: findings from an open-ended survey. The Qualitative Reports 19(22): 1–11. Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss11/2

20.

Hertlein

Shadid

Steelman

(2015) Exploring perceptions of acceptability of sexting in same-sex, bisexual, heterosexual relationships and communities. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy 14(4): 342–357.

21.

Howard

Klettke

Ling

, et al. (2019) Does body image dissatisfaction influence sexting behaviors in daily life? Computers in Human Behavior 101: 320–326.

22.

Hudson

Marshall

(2016) Sexty southerners: sexting content and behaviors among selected Southern graduates. The Health Educator 48(1): 34–43. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1153622

23.

Hudson

Fetro

Ogletree

(2014) Behavioral indicators and behaviors related among undergraduate students. American Journal of Health Promotion 45(3): 183–195.

24.

Kernsmith

Bryan

Smith-Darden

(2018) Online, offline, and over the line: coercive sexting among adolescent dating partners. Youth and Society 50(7): 891–904.

25.

Klettke

Hallford

Mellor

(2014) Sexting prevalence and correlates: a systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review 34: 44–53.

26.

Klettke

Hallford

Clancy

, et al. (2019) Sexting and psychological distress: the role of unwanted and coerced sexts. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 22(4): 237–242.

27.

Knauss

Paxton

Alsaker

(2007) Relationships amongst body dissatisfaction, internalisation of the media body ideal and perceived pressure from media in adolescent girls and boys. Body Image 4(4): 353–360.

28.

Kopecký

(2012) Sexting among Czech preadolescents and adolescents. The New Educational Review 28(2): 39–48. Available at: https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Kopeck%C3%BD%2C+K.+%282012%29.+Sexting+among+Czech+preadolescents+and+adolescents.+The+New+Educational+Review%2C+28%282%29%2C+&btnG

29.

Krieger

(2017) Unpacking ‘sexting’: a systematic review of nonconsensual sexting in legal, educational, and psychological literatures. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 18(5): 593–601.

30.

Lee

Crofts

McGovern

, et al. (2015) Sexting among young people: perceptions and practices. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 508: 1–9. Available at: https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=720615660389696;res=IELAPA

31.

Lescano

Hadley

Beausoleil

, et al. (2007) A brief screening measure of adolescent risk behavior. Child Psychiatry and Human Development 37(4): 325–336.

32.

Liong

Cheng

GH-L

(2018) Objectifying or liberating? Investigation of the effects of sexting on body image. The Journal of Sex Research 56: 337–344.

33.

Merianos

King

Vidourek

(2013) Body image satisfaction and involvement in risky sexual behaviours among university students. Sexuality and Culture 17(4): 617–630.

34.

Michaels

Parent

Moradi

(2013) Does exposure to muscularity-idealizing images have self-objectification consequences for heterosexual and sexual minority men? Psychology of Men & Masculinity 14(2): 175–183.

35.

Parent

Moradi

(2015) Self-objectification and condom use self-efficacy in women university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior 44(4): 971–981.

36.

Powell

Henry

Flynn

, et al. (2019) Image-based sexual abuse: the extent, nature, and predictors of perpetration in a community sample of Australian residents. Computers in Human Behavior 92: 393–402.

37.

Raacke

Bonds-Raacke

(2008) MySpace and Facebook: applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior 11(2): 169–174.

38.

Ramsey

Hoyt

(2015) The object of desire: how being objectified creates sexual pressure for women in heterosexual relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly 39(2): 151–170.

39.

Renfrow

Rollo

(2014) Sexting on campus: minimizing perceived risks and neutralizing behaviors. Deviant Behavior 35(11): 903–920.

40.

Reyns

Henson

Fisher

(2014) Digital deviance: low self-control and opportunity as explanations of sexting among college students. Sociological Spectrum 34(3): 273–292.

41.

Ringrose

Harvey

(2015) Boobs, back-off, six packs and bits: mediated body parts, gendered reward, and sexual shame in teens’ sexting images. Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 29(2): 205–217.

42.

Ringrose

Gill

Livingstone

, et al. (2012) A qualitative study of children, young people and ‘sexting’: a report prepared for the NSPCC. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/44216/

43.

Ross

Drouin

Coupe

(2019) Sexting coercion as a component of intimate partner polyvictimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 34(11): 2269–2291.

44.

Snell

Papini

(1989) The sexuality scale: an instrument to measure sexual-esteem, sexual-depression, and sexual-preoccupation. The Journal of Sex Research 26(2): 256–263.

45.

Snell

Fisher

Schuh

(1992) Reliability and validity of the sexuality scale: a measure of sexual-esteem, sexual-depression, and sexual-preoccupation. The Journal of Sex Research 29(2): 261–273.

46.

Twist

MCL

Bergdall

Belous

, et al. (2017) Electronic visibility management of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy 16(4): 271–285.

47.

Weaver

Byers

(2006) The relationships among body image, body mass index, and sexual functioning in heterosexual women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 30: 333–339.

48.

Weisskirch

Delevi

(2011) ‘Sexting’ and adult romantic attachment. Computers in Human Behavior 27(5): 1697–1701.

49.

Wiederman

(2000) Women’s body image self-consciousness during physical intimacy with a partner. Journal of Sex Research 37(1): 60–68. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Wiederman/publication/247525435_Women%27s_body_image_self-consciousness_during_physical_intimacy_with_a_partner/links/5693a99308ae425c6895f24a/Womens-body-image-self-consciousness-during-physical-intimacy-with-a-partner.pdf

50.

Woertman

Van Den Brink

(2012) Body image and female sexual functioning and behavior: a review. Journal of Sex Research 49(2–3): 184–211.

51.

Wolak

Finkelhor

(2011) Sexting: A Typology. Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center. Available at: https://scholars.unh.edu/ccrc/48/

52.

Yeung

Horyniak

Vella

, et al. (2014) Prevalence, correlates and attitudes towards sexting among young people in Melbourne, Australia. Sexual Health 11: 332–339.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB